TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

There's no need for 'proof'

Bumpunisher

May 17, 2017
5761 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://i.redd.it/sdhl2c8mf0yy.jpg
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title There's no need for 'proof'
Author

Bumpunisher

Upvotes 5761
Comments 192
Date May 17, 2017 7:08 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6bn6gp/theres_no_need_for_proof/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/theres-no-need-for-proof.922510
https://theredarchive.com/post/922510
Top posts by Bumpunisher

There's no counselling services for men who have been sexually assaulted

223 upvotes
May 10, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]SirSkeptic 840 points841 points842 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Nicole raped me. Somebody get a rope.

[–][deleted] 397 points398 points399 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

idiot women can't rape.

/s

[–][deleted] 290 points291 points292 points 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Did you just assume Nicole's Gender ?!?!?

Shit-lord !

EDIT : Adding '/Sarcasm'

[–]Avocadosareawesome 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

A guy did this is my class yesterday. Thing is she actually is a girl and when introducing her she was like "I'm a he" it got very awkward.

[–]Mr_REVolUTE 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I always get the urge to say 'what a waste of boobs' whenever I hear someone is ftm.

[+]b0x0fawes0me points 9 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

you can have mine if you want!

[–]SchrodingersRapist 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

and my axe

[–]simplyshaun 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No thanks, just a pair of beautiful breasts for me

[–]phantom_phallus 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Do they come with the box?

[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What's in the box?

[–]phantom_phallus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NSFW?

[–]nforne 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a carrot

[–]Code347 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you invite "he" to urinate in the men's room? It's all the rage.

[–]Rethgil 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some feminists so crazy I actually had to think for a second whether you were being sarcastic or not without the /s

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Better ?

[–]SovietWaldo 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ever hear of strap-ons?

[–]NoxiousPluK 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice, whats her number?

[–]NatWutz 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Men can't control their erections. If a woman touches it a certain way then he can get an erection. If is stronger than the man then she can indeed rape him. If he is bound or tied up, she can rape him.

[–]AFantasticName 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't forget about blackmail!

[–]NatWutz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That too. Thanks.

[–]Armigedon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Federal laws that require penetration of a sexual organ is why people say that.

[–]NatWutz 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Then the federal laws are wrong

[–]Armigedon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And most on this sub would agree with you.

[–]LandMineHare 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, are we saying that women who are idiots are incapable of rape? But smart women can; they just get away with it?

[–]I_love_black_girls 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense

[–]cortex112 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

idiot women can't rape.

/s

Did you just assumed? How transphobic

[–]ENTP 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nicole's husband raped me.

[–]Blutarg 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Me too 😭

[–]BoogTKE 189 points190 points191 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

I agree that proof shouldn't be needed in order to provide medical examinations or police protection. However, proof is definitely needed before arresting, convicting, jailing, and ruining someone's life.

[–]LaterGatorPlayer 63 points64 points65 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Proof should definitely be needed before arresting, convincing, jailing, and ruining someone's life. But isn't always.

[–]mudra311 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Proof is needed for charging. The police can arrest and hold you without charging.

[–]Meyright 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The police can arrest and hold you without charging.

Under which circumstances is this necessary?

[–]Adrewmc 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Depends.

Okay imagine your a cop and you come to scene of a crime let's say some guy is bloody on the ground has to go to the hospital.

There are a dozen people there.

At that point the cop may wish to arrest all of them and question them in order to figure out what happened. At that point is would be illegal for you to leave, your not necessarily going to jail but you are still detained and under arrest.

You are in that group but really are just a passerby wasn't there when it happened but saw the commotion wanted to find out what happened. You attempt to leave the cop stops you and you say I wasn't even here. Around then you are resisting your arrest, and no other crime.

Let's say you have a plausible threat to a VIP like a Governor at some rally. You have a brief description of the person but by a full picture. At that point you are seriously thinking about arresting anyone similar until the rally has ended, maybe out can't determine who it would have been but you have stopped the plot.

There are many scenarios in which a cop may arrest someone even if they have not committed a crime. And there are many points where a cop is fairly certain you have but needs to find the evidence. (As cops put it, I don't interrogate people I walk in and tell them a story, a story that is very close to the truth and they just start talking after that.)

[–]Revoran 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Police can ask you questions normally like anyone can. This is not the same as being detained.

Police can arrest you if they have a good reason think you've broken the law. You are not free to leave, and can be forced into custody. Attempting to leave at this point is resisting arrest, a serious crime.

Some places (eg: the USA) also draw a distinction between detaining and arresting. When detained in the USA you are not free to leave, but the police also can't force you into custody as if you were under arrest. The USA also has different standards of evidence (reasonable suspicion vs probable cause) required to detain vs. arrest.

[–]Adrewmc 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was stating it as arrest being a deprived of liberty specifically the freedom of movement. Once detained you are under arrest, there is a distinction between an simply arrested person and one in custody (physically restrained or within a prison type dwelling. I considered a detainment to be an arrest.

The police can arrest you for a lot of things but can't bring you into custody for everything they can arrest you for. In America there is leeway for the cops to accomplish their job.

This is why some people say "Am I under arrest?" "Am I free to leave?" Because in realty they are asking the same question. While an officer may consider custody to be an official arrest the act of detainment is technically an arrest also. At least how I was using the term. There is of course nuances to these terms and can change country to country.

[–]mudra311 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You know, I'm not 100% sure.

Actually, I found this.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/07/how-long-can-you-be-held-without-charges.html

[–]scsimodem 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They have to have probable cause to arrest you. They get 48-72 hours to actually charge you with a crime, but as soon as you're under arrest, your sixth amendment right to an attorney kicks in, and your 5th amendment right against self-incrimination is always in effect (as well any privilege you might have, like spousal or doctor/patient).

Said right to an attorney is the key to getting released ASAP. The lawyer will invoke your 6th amendment right to know the charges against you as well as any evidence they have against you. The police will be forthright, as withholding at this point is seen as evidence that they know they have no case, in which case they can be disciplined and sued for false arrest. Once the lawyer has the evidence, he/she will argue that it's not probable cause and argue for your release, speeding up the prosecutor with formal charges.

Once charges are filed, you have a Constitutional right to know the charges against you and the evidence for them, at which point you are entitled to a bail hearing, where the lawyer can argue for an immediate dismissal of the charges.

Long story short, if you're arrested or even detained, say nothing but the word 'lawyer' until you get one.

[–]Daemonicus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You need evidence before arresting, not proof. There's a difference. But proof is absolutely needed before conviction.

[–]scsimodem 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a motte and bailey strategy. The motte is the very reasonable position that people claiming to be rape victims should be comforted and sheltered while the investigation is underway. The bailey is that the person they accuse should be automatically convicted without trial.

[–]GeektimusPrime 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

This right here. What women are asking for is the presumption that when they come forward with rape accusations, that it not be immediately dismissed as their fault, or making up a story, or punishing them first. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

[–]Mr_Civil 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Except that's not what is being asked for these days. They'd prefer to have anyone accused sentenced and put in prison within an hour if possible.

[+]GeektimusPrime -16 points-15 points-14 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Except that's exactly what is being asked for. It's literally defined in the image. Believing a woman who reports she is a victim of rape, is not the same as convicting someone in a court of law.

[–]derpylord143 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No that's not how it works... If the police believe the victim is telling the truth and are the victim of rape by X person, the police then due to logic, must believe X person is a rapist... otherwise they are being wholely inconsistent, this isn't so much the case where they don't make an allegation by name, but where they do it certainly holds up.

No, what they should do is treat all individuals as having a 50% chance of telling the truth, that warrants a degree of protection, but also warrants an investigation, anything higher damages justice. If there is a lack of evidence, there is no need to remove "protection" because they still may be telling the truth, the police wouldn't know. Which im pretty sure is how the current system works. if they "believe the victim" they are predisposed to one outcome over the other.

No what feminists mean by "believe the victim" is that even when there is no evidence, individuals ought be locked up, what they mean is that you simply believe them to be telling the truth, its why they advocate "special courts" for sex based crimes... because juries dont believe the "her" in he said she said situations enough.

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I answered you and others under my original comment.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

What women are asking for is the presumption that when they come forward with rape accusations, that it not be immediately dismissed as their fault, or making up a story, or punishing them first. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

Is not the same as

Believing a woman who reports she is a victim of rape

I was responding to the second, not the first...

The first is completely fine. The second completely undermines a fair investigation and if it's expected of the court, a fair trial... the two are completely different things. The police ought not to revictimize someone who goes to them, trust me the MRM gets that, we have serious issues with that ourselves, due to how they treat male domestic violence victims. Thus they ought not assume they are lying, or brought it on themselves, or anything of that nature. We have no issue with that view. What we have issue with though is automatically assuming them to be telling the truth. We don't want them disbelieved anymore than you, but we also don't want the other side, where it is assumed they are telling the truth, that is just as disadvantageous... there is a middle ground, that's what we here seek.

[–]Mr_Civil 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's a very ambiguous statement but the fact that she uses the word proof leads me to believe that she's referring to the police and criminal proceedings.

In any case, as other posters are mentioning, it's a common goal in feminist communities to reduce the burden of proof in sex crime cases.

[–]crimsonkodiak 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In any case, as other posters are mentioning, it's a common goal in feminist communities to reduce the burden of proof in sex crime cases.

It's not even an amorphous "goal". It's being implemented on a wide scale on college campuses by federal decree. Anyone who wants to know what it means for a woman to have the right to be believed need look no further than the kangaroo courts being implemented on their nearest college campus.

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I answered you and others under my original comment.

[–]Oompa-Loompa-Do 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

the fact that she uses the word proof leads me to believe that she's referring to the police and criminal proceedings.

Out of curiosity, what other word choice is there to mean "proof" in this context that wouldn't sound related to criminal proceedings?

I tried Thesaurus but none describe it as accurately and all encompassing as the word "proof" does.

(Some would even sound outright infuriating/laughable to replace it with. Like the words "demonstration", "facts", "validation" and "documents", but that's more of a side observation here and not part of my question.)

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I answered you and others under my original comment.

[–]Stripes1974 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Except that's exactly not what is being asked for.

What you're doing- which is commendable- is using logic and common sense, in explaining that what should be being asked for is for a victim to have their story believed, without the need for them to prove that the story is genuine, end, stop.
What exactly is happening, is that a significant number of "so-called" feminists who say that they want a rape victim to be believed, and that "You shouldn't ever need proof to believe a rape victim- no matter the circumstances", actually want the accused to be put in jail and tried as if they were already guilty. They want the accused to have to prove that the rape did not happen-- that is, they want the burden of responsibility to be placed on the defendant, not on the prosecution. They want to place the memory of the person who is the victim as unassailable, and force the defendant of the accusation to provide proof, which often does not exist, that a rape did not occur.
With no evidence to disprove the rape, and the victim given the benefit of unchallenged belief, how then can a defendant of a rape accusation prove that they are not guilty?

And it doesn't matter if an actual conviction is obtained, though that is the ultimate goal; with the popularity of social media and of sensationalism with regards to the media and how the public has been primed to automatically villify rapists (and those accused of the crime of rape), just having the name of the defendant-- which at this time, is always made public (at least in the United States, with the exception of the defendant being, and being charged as, a minor) associated with the perception of having committed the crime of rape is virtually a guarantee that the defendant will for years be looked at as having committed the act, even if they did not in actuality do the crime, even if it is later learned that the victim in fact lied about who committed the crime, or even if the crime was actually committed.

You say:

Believing a woman who reports she is a victim of rape, is not the same as convicting someone in a court of law

but the actuality is that this is what is happening, with greater frequency. Accused persons are increasingly being prosecuted and convicted in a court of law on almost no real evidence, on questionable circumstantial evidence, or even on fabricated evidence, due to the ideology of "believe the victim", which sabotages the law from a proper investigation into proving if the crime actually happened, presents the accused as if already guilty of the crime (which has not been proven to have occurred) by the presumption of "believe the victim", and creates the circumstance of attempting to prove a negative.

I'm sure you're going to want to refute this- so let me break it down for you.

sabotages the law from a proper investigation into proving if the crime actually happened

By the assertion of "believe the victim", especially with the added caveat of "no matter the circumstances", the law is pre-placed, and prejudiced towards the perception that the story of the "victim" is true, and that any and all investigation that occurs is directed towards discovering any shred or hint of evidence that corroborates the story; unless contradictory evidence is both obvious AND overwhelming, any evidence that does not support the corroboration of the story of the victim is disregarded.

presents the accused as if already guilty of the crime (which has not been proven to have occurred)

By the assertion of "believe the victim", especially with the added caveat of "no matter the circumstances", the law is pre-placed, and prejudiced towards the perception that the accused has committed a crime, specifically the crime of rape. Why would the "victim" make an untrue statement, and why would the "victim" make an accusation of someone who was not guilty of that accusation? Further, any and all discussions with/interrogations of the accused evolve from the assertion that the accused is guilty, with nearly all statements provided by the accused used towards corroborating the story of the "victim".
- "Oh, so you say that sex did occur? Well, the victim says that it wasn't sex, it was rape; so in admitting that sex did occur, you are corroborating that you were with the victim in circumstances which could be construed as rape."

creates the circumstance of attempting to prove a negative.

By the assertion of "believe the victim", especially with the added caveat of "no matter the circumstances", the law is pre-placed, and prejudiced towards the perception that the story of the "victim" is true, that the story of the accused is not true--
--and the difference between "not true" and "false" is the equivalent of the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent"- which I will discuss shortly--
-- and that the burden of proof of which story will be believed is placed on the defendant of the accusation, that they must prove that the "truth" presented by the "victim" is not true, prove that the "victim" has presented a story that is not true, in a way that offers no other conclusion than that of the "victim" giving a story that is not true, AND that they- the accused- can NOT be perpetrator of the crime for which they are accused.

If these things do not happen, then what does happen is that asserting "You shouldn't ever need proof to believe a rape victim- no matter the circumstances" leads towards the increased conclusion of accused persons being legally detained by law enforcement and prosecuted and (in many cases, increasingly) convicted in a court of law.

You may not wish to believe this.
But it is true. It is becoming true.
Look it up. You'll see.

P.S.:
Oh yes- I mentioned that I would discuss the thoughts of "not true" vs. "false" and "not guilty" vs "innocent".

  • "Not true/Not guilty" - Means that one cannot prove that a statement is not true, or that one cannot prove that guilt can be or has been established. It also means, among those who are skeptical, that though truth/guilt cannot be proven, that only means that truth/guilt cannot be proven, not that the opposite ("false/innocent") is proven/true.
  • "False/Innocent" - Means that one has proof or proven that a statement is true, or that one has proof or proven as an established fact that there is no guilt.

By the assertion of "believe the victim", especially with the added caveat of "no matter the circumstances", what happens is that, unless the accused is found to be "innocent", and/or the "victim is found to be "false" in the telling of their story, that the accused will be treated as if guilty at all steps of any investigation/detainment/persecution/conviction.

So... to sum up all of what I just said:
How you said it- that's how you would wish for it to work... but that's NOT how it actually works....

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I answered you and others under my original comment.

[–]Stripes1974 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see that you did.
Your answer does not truthfully address the problem; you express what (you believe) the statement of "Always believe the victim" is supposed to mean-- and what myself and others are expressing is what the statement of "Always believe the victim" is actually causing to happen.

So your answer is not our answer.
We're speaking in different languages, then.

But I'll leave you to your original comment.
Because it doesn't change what is happening.

[–]jgzman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What women are asking for is the presumption that when they come forward with rape accusations, that it not be immediately dismissed as their fault, or making up a story, or punishing them first.

No, that's what they want. It's not what they are asking for. Words actually have meanings.

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I answered you and others under my original comment.

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm getting replies that boil down to the same thing; there seems to be a large number of men out there who adamantly believe that there are swaths of women getting together to discuss how they want men to suffer and they can use the system to claim rape when they weren't...as opposed to large swaths of women who have come together over their shared experiences of being ignored, shunned and guilted when they come forward with rape allegations.

I did a couple quick searches to see what I could find regarding the "rising number of false rape convictions"...and guess what...it's a myth. The numbers of rape convictions compared to allegations is below 10%. If you take a minute to think about it, the reason we know about the few cases of women actually falsely accusing men of rape, is because they were discovered via investigation and inconsistent testimony. In the worst case scenario where there is zero evidence, zero witnesses, and it's just one person's word against the other; even then, it's not easy to keep up a consistent lie. And then there is still credibility, which can be evaluated at trial. There are so many ways to discover a false claim before a innocent victim can end up convicted. Is the system perfect? Of course not. There are innocent victims of every crime imaginable. But the assumption that there are thousands/millions of women out there, willing to undertake the embarrassment, the shaming, the months of trial prep, the cost of lawyers, etc, etc, etc...all just so they can get revenge on men... Well, it says a lot more about how you think about/look down on women, than it does about the women in question.

You may need some evidence and some testimony to believe a rape victim, but you don't need proof. What these women are asking for, is what they need most; understanding and empathy.

[–]EochuBres 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Look at this bozo! He's using sanity. Get 'im

/s for the ingrates who don't understand I'm supporting his position

[–]fengpi 254 points255 points256 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I concur. You should be able to make such accusations anonymously via postcard.

And then Nicole would complain about needing a pen, a stamp and walking all the way down the street to the letter-box.

[–]kaliwraith 141 points142 points143 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

"not all women have equal access to stationary or mailboxes"

[–]fengpi 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

See, the only way to solve that problem is to have free brainwave sensors embedded into the walls of every house so that when a woman thinks "I've been raped" then a helicopter-borne assault team of paramilitaries from Special Activities Division will rappel down on ropes and smash through the windows of the evildoer's house. Each unit will be equipped with a car-battery and jumper-cables to hook to the miscreant's nuts to secure his confession.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

SAD?

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was gonna suggest GSG-9 or Interpol, but I'm more of a strategic thinker than a tactical one.

[–]Ah2k15 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you postshaming?!?

Can't say mail because that would be interpreted as misogyny.

[–]thebodymullet 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Stationery = paper (specifically for writing)

Stationary = not moving

[–]kaliwraith 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow really? I never ever noticed an e in stationery!

[–]BigAbbott 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. I had no idea this was a thing--and I do plenty of words good!

[–]thebodymullet 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I do what I can.

It's an easy mistake. As I like to say, dew knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl you're mistakes.

[–]nforne 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a really nice complement!

[–]TeamDisrespect 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mailbox... MALEbox..triggered.

[–]hmasing 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you just assume a delivery method?!

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Not all women speak every language a potential judge, forensic examiner, or police officer could speak to report their crime."

[–]Lostyogi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps a system where women can prereport a rape before they leave the house with man. Then if, somehow, the man does not rape her she can cancel the report.....or not??

[–]feedmecarrots 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Whatever you do, don't do women any favors like breaking down their chiffarobe.

Was this woman stupid enough to link her statement with To Kill a Mockingbird?

[–]Smallzfry 76 points77 points78 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

No, OP added the TKaM picture to show why her statement is stupid.

[–]notacrackheadofficer 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I cannot imagine the restraint used in picking that photo, over any actual lynching photos of men accused of winking or glancing at white women in the 40s, 50s, 60s.
''But when 21-year-old Bryant testified under oath in court less than a month later, she said that Till had not only verbally insulted her but also grabbed her around the waist and attempted to rape her.''
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/04/26/emmett-till-lynching-shook-conscience-world
''Timothy Tyson, the author of The Blood of Emmett Till, spoke with Carolyn in 2007,.... Regarding her statement that Emmett grabbed and verbally abused her, she simply said, 'that part's not true,' according to Tyson.''
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4165404/Woman-accused-Emmett-Till-admits-lied.html
''In “Writing to Save a Life” award-winning author John Edgar Wideman calls attention to Louis Till, Emmett’s father, a father the boy never knew. The book was 10 years in the making. A recent portrait of Wideman in The New York Times Magazine states: “It is the late-phase masterwork of a man still trying desperately to figure out how America works at a time when his perennial concerns — freedom and confinement, policing, fatherhood, the inheritance of trauma and ontological stigma — feel as pertinent as ever.”
''Months after they had been acquitted of killing Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and Milam would publicly admit in a magazine article that they had committed the murder. ''
http://news.streetroots.org/2017/04/20/writing-save-life-louis-till-file
We may as well use a real story for things like this. Fuck Hollywood.

[–]Smallzfry 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think To Kill a Mockingbird is a common book in high school curriculums, so the effect is more prominent. A lot of the cases you mentioned are unfortunately not taught well, or at least I haven't heard of half of them. To many, it would be a random black man hanging from a tree rather than something that has context. A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's worth more if it is placed properly.

[–]notacrackheadofficer 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Emmett Till was a required subject back in the day.
We are talking about the front page of every newspaper, when it happened.
Then you have this extremely defining event in black civil rights history, more publicized than anything MLK ever did, and it is hushed up forever.
This was as well known as coca cola back when it happened.....
''In 1958 Williams as head of the NAACP chapter defended two young black boys, ages nine and seven, who were jailed in Monroe after a white girl kissed one of them.[22] The incident was covered internationally and Williams became known around the world. His publicity campaign, inviting a barrage of headlines castigating Monroe and the US in the global press, was instrumental in shaming the officials involved.[23] They eventually released the boys. The governor of North Carolina pardoned the boys, but the state never apologized for its treatment of them. The controversy was known as the "Kissing Case." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams
That man was no doubt as famous and influential as MLK, but the mass media & public schooling do not want anyone to know that.
Rosa Parks did the eulogy at his funeral.
Fuck Hollywood. It obscures history, decade after decade.
Edit: http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/the_social_organization_of_nonviolence.1.html

[–]I_love_black_girls 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I graduated in 2011 and he was not once mentioned in school. Black history wasn't really a thing in my 500 student farm town high school. Sadly enough I didn't learn about him until Lil Wayne mentioned him in his insensitive, controversial line and had to research him myself.

[–]notacrackheadofficer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They have been tricking people into the idea that peaceful protest is useful for anything at all. Emma Goldman is another person who was , like RFW, one of the most important people of the 20th century.
Public school teaching gets worse all the time. Imagine discussing RFW in a class today? Everyone would be expelled and the teacher would be lynched.

[–]mudra311 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is an aspect I've completely forgotten about when it comes to rape accusations.

We're ruining lives now, even if they are acquitted.

50 years ago people were being murdered and lynched (let's not forget that lynching usually involved castration while they were still alive) with even less evidence.

It's truly horrifying that women still have this power even after we "learned our lesson."

[–]notacrackheadofficer 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Imagine how the large extended families of these folks feel when feminists trumpet the old ''rape victims don't lie'' bullshit.
The feminists end up looking like subhuman filth to all descendants and loved ones and friends of the actual lynching victim. This is an aspect the feminists with 6 year sociology degrees know full and well. But they do it anyway, with no regard for human decency at all whatsoever.
It's like taunting the family, in a purposefully mocking and sadistic manner over their loved one's brutal torture and murder.
Drinking the dead man's tears.

[–]mudra311 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even men were doing it to women during the Salem witch trials.

All you needed to do was say the other person put a spell on you, even though you just couldn't keep your cock in your pants. With women, they just needed to say the other person overpowered them. Now, they're "too drunk" to have conscious consent. It's the same story just a different time.

[–]notacrackheadofficer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. Witch hunt is a useful phrase for showing the irony of modern suppression.

[–]feedmecarrots 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thank you.

[–]Moto_Vagabond 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah. Was wondering the same thing.

[–]mrwhibbley 70 points71 points72 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never ever ever blame the victim. Ever. Unfortunately, too often, the victim is the falsely accused male and not the horrible lying female.

[–][deleted] 203 points204 points205 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What might shock you is he would have had less chance of a fair trial today.

Hope to be able to interrogate a rape accuser in front of a jury to prove she's lying? Forget about it.

Feminism would have hung that man.

[–]Blutarg 57 points58 points59 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If he were a college student, a trial of any kind would be a luxury.

[–]captshady 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Everyone involved in that trial knew the outcome before it ever started. I'd go with same chance.

[–]HyperCubed4 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He would have less of a chance at a fair trial in 2017 than he would have as a black man, facing an all-white jury, in 1930s Alabama?

Are you fucking serious?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did they have "rape accuser shield laws" in 1930s Alabama?

[–]HyperCubed4 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, they had Jim Crow laws.

[–]nocivo 80 points81 points82 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

And for murders also. This way we could jail all feminists without any effort.

What happen to the innocent until proven?

I prefer 2 criminals outside prison than 1 innocent inside. If you aren't 100 sure someone did a crime do not send him to jail and destroy his life.

What feminism want is a new weapon against people with different opinion.

You don't agree with me or do what i want? Ok, you just rape me so go to jail. Feminists are trying to create a dictatorship where female rules.

This is the same thing NK and china do with spies. I don't like you ao you are a spy so we jail you.

[–]bosticetudis 33 points34 points35 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I prefer 10 criminals outside prison to 1 innocent inside.

A 33% fail rate is harder for me to stomach than a %10 failure rate.

Let's aim for an A- rather than a D.

[–]steagles1 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Any innocent person incarcerated is a 100% failure.

[–]iushciuweiush 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea I saw someone once reply to this kind of comment saying that everyone has to have a number and that 'none' isn't a reasonable answer. I asked him what his number would be if he was the innocent person. It's easy to throw out a number like 1000 criminals for every innocent person and feel like you're being logical until you consider yourself as the innocent person. If someone approached you and said that they could guarantee X number of actual criminals will be caught and jailed as long as you agree to spend the next 30 years of your life in prison, giving up everything you own and everyone you love and even after being released, never holding a real job and struggling for the rest of your days, what would your number X be? I never did get an answer.

[–]Armigedon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All would be my number.

[–]Scolopendra_Heros 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is why the police kill the innocent beforehand. No trial, no incarceration. The system works!

[–]TheLizardKing89 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation


HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 69269

[–]Epicdudelol 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same thing in France during the Reign of Terror.

[–]rebuildingMyself 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your constitutional rights end where my feelings begin, shitlord!

/s

[–]BlossomingWomanhood 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Considering I had 2 friends spend 6+ years in Leavenworth prison I disagree. The fourth year she got pregnant and got out fifth year she admitted she lied the other year was a process of getting them out. Oh and also they're still considered sex offenders and felons even after doing nothing wrong.

[–]BunnyOppai 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That last part is what gets to me the most. The fact that people still have all that on their history and are still considered felons when the accuser admits to lying is fucking absurd.

[+]Gingerchaun -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well cmon bud they were in jail those places are basically rape factories.

[–]AttilaTheBuns 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So because they were victims of rape they should be on a sex offender's registry? Where is the logic in that?

[–]Scolopendra_Heros 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

logic

the legal system

There's your problem bud, those two don't mix.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is my new favorite response to feminists

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39705424

[–]HoundDogs 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Let's just give females the ultimate power to lock up anyone they don't like. That should go well.

[+]Xeno87 -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Ban everything I don't like"

There's even a sub for that.

[–]JackBond1234 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why stop at rape? Why not apply the death penalty immediately to anyone suspected of murder?

[–]Electroverted 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That subliminal racism that most white western feminists have.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What a moron

[–]Tmomp 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would bet more intoxicated with the privilege of seeing the legal system and public opinion as benign forces that slap wrists, not destroy lives.

So more lacking empathy and ignorant than moronic, though in this case the result may be the same.

[–]TheUser421 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What a dumbass statement. Looks like the Education system had failed us once again.

[–]Lethn 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think one of the greatest mistakes the public education system in particular has made is in not telling students what their rights are and about the local laws of their particular country.

For instance, I know in the U.S they make a big deal about the constitution quite rightly, but now I think back to my own education not once was the Magna Carta for example ever mentioned. That's pretty much our version of the constitution and what helped form the parliamentary system in the first place.

[–]TheUser421 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's true.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Education is too important to leave in the hands of a government monopoly.

[–]3rdLevelRogue 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When the image has been reposted so many times that the quality of the Facebook post is lower than the movie

[+]aaronk19 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know what movie that bottom pic is from but I'm guessing to kill a mockingbird ?

[–]AttilaTheBuns 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it is, i'd recommend it.

[–]Imnotmrabut 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Carceral Feminism
This carceral variant of feminism continues to be the predominant form. While its adherents would likely reject the descriptor, carceral feminism describes an approach that sees increased policing, prosecution, and imprisonment as the primary solution to violence against women.
Law, Victoria. "Against carceral feminism." Jacobin Magazine (2014).

[–]Epicdudelol 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What. The. Hell.

[–]supremeleaderjarjar 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Gregory peck is a dad

[–]allevana 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wish he was my dad I love him

[–]Nemodin 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nicole should now shut up for a year or so, and reflect on what goes out the hole under her nose.

[–]TigPlaze 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the hateful and psychopathic mentality of feminists. They truly are a hate movement.

[–]MadTrini 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is so powerful. This fully encompasses how far the left's value structure has degraded.

[–]pimpsandpopes 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I suppose she might be talking about personally believing someone not necessarily in a legal sense though.

[–]BunnyOppai 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't know why someone downvoted this. Proof shouldn't be on your mind the moment someone tells you they were raped. I'm not saying that chasing someone down because they were accused without proof is okay, just that it would be better to doubt someone later in-case they were actually raped.

[–]JakeDC 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

A good distinction, but feminists tend to blur the two.

On the one hand, they worry about police "by default" disbelieving or being very skeptical of rape accusations when they are reported. This kind of concern can be legitimate - police should approach rape reports just like any other crime report - listen, investigate, establish facts, proceed etc. as usual. Many people agree that police conduct in this regard has been a significant problem in the past. I don't know if it remains a significant problem, but it should not be happening.

But feminists also put forth the "listen and believe" point as a reason for courts/adjudicative bodies to subject rape accusations to less scrutiny. If a woman says she was raped, that means she was raped (or at least that the chances of her not having been raped are really low). This mentality is part of the justification for lower burdens of proof and fewer due process protections in campus kangaroo courts, efforts in some jurisdictions to deny accused parties to cross-examine their accusers, etc. And that is problematic for all sorts of obvious reasons.

Which one of these things did the commenter mean? I don't know. I lean towards the latter due to her use of the word "proof," which is relevant at the adjudicatory stage, but not at the time of initial reporting to law enforcement. But I could be wrong.

[–]BunnyOppai 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah, of course. I'm a firm believer that rape accusations should be treated like any other crime in terms of proof and evidence; nobody deserves the fucked up stuff that comes after going through that process.

I'm just saying that, if a friend comes to you for support, you should probably give them the benefit of the doubt in that moment. I don't know what exactly the commenter was referring to, but that's what I think in terms of a non-legal context.

[–]pimpsandpopes 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Right.

But I don't think you will find many people who really want the legal burden of proof to be reduced.

I'm sure you could find someone, but I don't think that's what the original picture was discussing.

When it comes to civil matters it's a bit more difficult because all instances have a lower burden of proof. You can be kicked out of university in many circumstances, sexual or otherwise, for something without the proof needed to prosecute someone, since civil organisations generally can't adhere to legal standards.

[–]JakeDC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

When it comes to civil matters it's a bit more difficult because all instances have a lower burden of proof. You can be kicked out of university in many circumstances, sexual or otherwise, for something without the proof needed to prosecute someone,

Yep, I get this. That is why I said court/adjudicatory bodies - to cover both. So far, specific burden of proof lowering has only occurred on campus AFAIK. Some folks want even more (and crazier) burden of proof changes there.

since civil organisations generally can't adhere to legal standards.

It isn't that they can't. They can. They just are not required to do so, they don't want to, and they don't. I believe there is a case against JMU, (a Virginia state school), however, in which a judge said a college could be on the hook for due process violations on the theory that a state is not allowed to deprive someone of a property right without due process of law. More generally, a state school is an arm of the state and can be required to comply with Constitutional requirements.

But I don't think you will find many people who really want the legal burden of proof to be reduced

I wish you were right! Unfortunately, many feminist critics seek additional "reform" of the criminal law in many areas, with some advocating for burden shifting, which is even worse than burden lowering. Here too. Certainly folks who think shifting is OK would not balk at lowering. But why lower burdens if you can just eliminate them, and shift them on defendants?

Moreover, in the legal context, there are issues that are not strictly burdrn of proof shifting but which, nonetheless, do or woud have the effect of making it easier to convict. Some propose applying the affirmative consent standard in courts, not just colleges. There is debate as to whether or not this amounts to burden lowering in a strict sense, but it absolutely makes it easier to convict defendants on lesser showings. Under the FRE, prosecutors can introduce evidence of prior sexually criminal acts against the defendant. This is prohibited in other criminal contexts because it is prejudicial and increases the likelihood of conviction with insufficient relevant evidence. Outside of a couple jurisrictions, this rule is the judicial norm in the US. If improperly (too broadly) used/applied, rape shield laws can limit he ability of a defendant to introduce relevant evidence - again rendering convictions easier. In the UK, rape dendants may not cross-examine their accussers. (I seem to remember a recent story about similar legislation having been introduced/considered in the US, but I can't find it now and therfore can't be sure if my memory is correct). Whatever the policy merits of these laws and proposals, they have costs in terms of fairness to, and increased likely hood of baseless convictions of, rape defendants. That balancing act goes awry when people believe that all, or the overwhelming majority of, men accused of rape are rapists.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the context. If they are directly accusing another person while talking about it... Believing them is believing the other specific person is guilty without any evidence at all, which is kind of the crux of the issue isn't it?

After my grandfather died from his battle with prostate cancer, my grandmother -- who hadn't been with him for decades, who was always friendly with him during holidays, who went to his second wife's funeral -- started accusing him of abusing her when they were together, how he was a horrible misogynist asshole and that being around him for holidays was horrible.

She said all this shit to my sister and my grandfather hadn't even been buried yet.

So we should just believe her because she says she was a victim of something? Because it's the nice thing to for her feelings? Even though doing so is believing someone else is an abuser [rapist in this topic's context]? No thanks.

If she had just said she was abused in her lifetime, I wouldn't think anything of it and would believe her. But she directly accused our grandfather, after he died and can't speak for himself.

There's a huge difference from "I was a victim of rape" and "Specific Person raped me, and I am a rape survivor". Even if it's from someone that's in your family. But it's more understandable to have that bias if you're at least related to them, but again that's the crux of the issue. And tends to lead to lynching, and mob justice against the accused by family/friends. I personally never want to be judge, jury and executioner.

[–]Max_TwoSteppen 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Should you, as a friend, believe a person when they tell you they were raped? Yes. Be supportive and caring and believe that what they told you was the truth.

But somehow these people believe that requiring proof to ruin someone's life in court is victim blaming. It absolutely is not.

[–]EdwardBil 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boom!

[–]Baconbitsthrowaway 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If this woman actually believes this she is dangerous to the point where she needs to be completely ostracized from society. Anyone who has even a passing relationship with her is at grave risk.

[–]Stunner900 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women have used the rape accusation to ruin all kinds of lives.

[–]AnthonyfromPhoenix 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My response: "Does your asshole ever get jealous of all the shit that comes out of your mouth?"

[–]TacosRAFoodGroup 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so, what are the 4 comments on her shitpost? I hope some people are telling her she's an idiot.

[–]Arty2party 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ATTICUS!

[–]BillyFromOregon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nicole _____ raped me

[–]Molsenator 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I understood that reference.

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ummm...this is not knew information. Women have been trying to explain to people coming to the conclusion you're all coming to for decades. DECADES. Don't take "my answer". Take it from they're lips and writings. Their out there telling you all what they're experiencing, what they mean and need; and you're all concerned with how some male ally is parsing one more tweet. Someone making false accusations is bad. Someone being falsely imprisoned is bad. But those are not rampant problems in rape cases. What we have, what the statistics and claims and complaints of women everywhere bear out, is a huge problem with how women are treated when the report rape. So yes, we are speaking in different languages; but you're also refusing to listen to interpreters.

[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can't tell if she's a dumb feminist, a racist feminist, or both.

[–]rubixd 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just gonna go ahead and say it. This seems a little extreme even for a feminist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We just got done with this in school. The one quote that stuck out to me was towards the end of the trial. When Atticus was delivering his closing remark he said "this case should have never come to trial. It's as simple as black and white". That seems to be the case now a days too.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In light of this; New hash tag suggestion for twitter...#

NicoleRapedMe

[–]Hibria 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bitch, are you retarded?

[–]Kalcipher 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Taking the statement entirely literally, I agree, we should use evidence and not proof. Proof is used in deductive reasoning and relies on assuming premises that can be essentially arbitrary.

Interpreting the sentiment realistically, but charitably, I think a lot of women who make this kind of statement are thinking of somebody who has been raped and is immediately, upon opening up, met by people who say they don't believe her. Ideally, I say we should be supportive immediately to somebody who opens up about rape, expect the courts to examine the evidence, and for ourselves make our best assessment if we know both involved parties and are wondering who to side with.

Also we need utilitarian courts.

[–]miroku000 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do we need utilitarian courts? Shouldn't courts seek to punish guilty people and avoid punishing people who are not guilty? A utilitarian court might very well punish people who would make the best examples to deter others whether or not they were actually criminals.

[–]_grain_of_salt -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I think this is actually important. Obviously this shouldn't be applied in the court but it's important outside of that. If someone tells you they were raped it should be taken seriously. The last thing a rape victim wants to hear is "prove it".

[–]roharareddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The last thing a rape victim wants to hear is "prove it".

When they report it to the police and press charges it is the very first thing they need to hear.

[–]_grain_of_salt 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As someone else already said: belief and accepting testimony as truth are two very different things. You can believe someone without accepting it as truth. You can listen to the person and say I believe you. You can't use that in court obviously. It's just important to be supportive.

Imagine you just got raped and you go to the police station and the officer says we don't believe you. The officer can believe that person. His belief isnt a solid piece of evidence. They'll hire a lawyer to take on the case and they'll gather the evidence.

If your friend came to you and said they just got raped what would you say to them? Prove it? Telling someone that you got raped is already difficult enough. Someone would have to have a huge motive to lie about getting raped.

[–]gmcalabr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Came here to say this. Believe and accept testimony as proof are two very different things. If someone comes to you and tells you that you've been raped, there's zero problem and tons of benefit to believing them. There's a lot of harm in not believing them.

[–]roharareddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If someone comes to you and tells you that you've been raped, there's zero problem and tons of benefit to believing them.

Benefit for who? The accuser? Well of course they would benefit from being believed.

The accused? No, you are assuming that they are guilty, not even until proven guilty, but just guilty period. Entire lives are destroyed all the time simply because someone levels an accusation. There is indeed a lot of harm in believing them simply because they claim to be raped.

[–]gmcalabr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you're taking what I'm saying and adding to it. Yes, simply believing and consoling the supposed victim is all helpful. Immediately leading a witchhunt is obviously potentially damaging. Those two things are very separate things. And it's not individual's jobs to lead investigations, so it's best to get whoever's claimed to be raped into professional hands (therepist, police, doctor) and step back. I'd never encourage anyone to take up the vigilante cause.

[–]_grain_of_salt 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's called being supportive. By listening to the person claiming they were raped and saying that you believe them, you are being compassionate.

If the accused says that he or she didn't do it and it's totally wrong I would hope that his or her friends and family would believe them too. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are right or wrong. It's just being there and being supportive.

No one's assuming anyone is guilty. Telling a friend that you believe them shouldn't cause any harm. Actually using that belief as evidence to send some to jail will cause harm. There's a difference.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unless they are accusing someone in the same breath. In which case, there is a problem with believing them at face value. That you are believing someone is a rapist with zero evidence.

I don't really think someone who says, "I was raped" and isn't accusing someone specific, gets the "prove it" line at all. I feel like this is an invented "issue". Or is conflating situations where there's an actual accused person, and then people ask for evidence. Which is perfectly reasonable. But even then, a lot of people just believe the "victim" [accuser] anyway.

So even including that, I don't see how it's the big issue that feminists love to claim. Unless they also include police wanting you to prove it, which it seems some do. In which case, that's just outright dumb.

[–]gmcalabr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you, the damage that can be done by flatly believing a victim is reason enough to take issue with the post. Maybe they should have been kore specific. Still, many (probably most) claims of rape are legit, and the mental issues associated are severe. The best thing to do is comfort the person, whether you think it's bullshit or not, get them to a doctor, and get them to the police. All the rest of the issues should be sorted out there. Your suspicions of foul play just dont justify potentially harming someone in that bad of a situation.

[–]Chair001 -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Ok I saw the same picture in some other subreddit. As a society we should always take rape accusation seriously no matter what. However, the accused is not immediately guilty. But, if someone is saying that they have been raped then yes, we should believe them.

Also To kill a mocking bird and this honestly don't feel related. He wasn't sentenced because it was purely a woman saying she was raped with no evidence it was from racism and the fact he was black and the court discriminated against him. It doesn't make sense to pair these images at all and takes away from To Kill a Mocking bird.

She probably doesn't mean what I am saying but we should be above this. Men's Rights is an important issue and this diminishes our message.

Edit: Also this goes for Male or Female or whatever someone feels they are. If they feel like their rights have been infringed on, sexually, politically, or basic human rights it is our job as a society to protect them. To believe them but to also protect the accused rights of innocent until proven guilty. This post is just meandering for upvotes and not forwarding the discussion of equal rights or Men's rights.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But, if someone is saying that they have been raped then yes, we should believe them.

So you believe Bill Clinton was a serial rapist?

How about Brian Banks? The woman who accused him of rape admitted she lied about it. How do you reconcile the need to believe her with the fact that she was lying?

[–]Chair001 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You didn't read the rest of what I said. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. I'm not saying it's perfect but the system "should" determine wether the accusation was correct or not. Sure if the person has called rape a million times and each time was proven to be lying we should stop listening. But, I will always say that if someone (not just women) says they have been raped then us we should believe them and take the accusation seriously.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"believe them" and "take the accusation seriously" are not synonymous.

You can't perform an impartial investigation or prosecution of a crime by automatically assuming one party is telling the truth, and by extension the other is lying.

You can take an accusation seriously while maintaining an open mind about the facts.

[–]Chair001 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What would be your alternative? Take every other rape accusation seriously? Of course there are some instances where the accused was no where near the other person but that isn't really what we are talking about here.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My alternative would be exactly what I said: "You can take an accusation seriously while maintaining an open mind about the facts"

does that seem outrageous to you?

[–]WildTurkey81 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Could she mean that, in an ideal world, there'd never be any false rape allegations? So she may be saying that we ought to live in a world where actual rape victims dont even need to be held under scrutiny. If that's the case then even so, it's still pretty meaningless idealism. But I suppose it's better than what it's coming across as here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, she thinks we already live in a world with no false rape accusations, and so any failures to convict are a miscarriage of justice.

[–]WildTurkey81 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dont get how a person could rationalise that. That's deluded.

[+]Liu_Xuande points 9 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

TIL there is a sub called mensrights. Gotta be the biggest loser subreddit ever. Blowing something completely out of proportion and trying to delegitimize feminism.

Couldnt you guys just have stayed on r/incels? Why split the community?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have sex pretty often with my antifeminst girlfriend.

Feminism delegitimized itself thanks

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

antifeminist girlfriend

lmfao. Must have been raised by pure ideology.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No that would be feminist women

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

9 more

[+]mwobuddy -31 points-30 points-29 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In the ideal world, where a real victim, yes.

In the real world no.

[–]Not_Just_Any_Lurker 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An ideal world would never circumvent justice. In an idea world, people don't rape, nor are there people who are this dumb.

[–]TBoneTheOriginal 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What kind of ideal world have you cooked up in your head where rape is still a thing?

[–]mwobuddy -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nice straw

[–]TBoneTheOriginal 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What? I think you missed the joke.

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I certainly must have

[–]nocivo 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In ideal world there is no need for justice and tribunals.

[+]GeektimusPrime -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So, yes, like all crimes, suspects are treated as such while investigated. That's how this is supposed to work. However, that's not what most women are referring to...while there are issues of men not being appropriately sentenced after convictions, the issue at hand is how women who report this type of crime are perceived before any of the investigating happens. Instead of believing the victim, the victim is treated as if they are lying and/or that they probably brought this on themselves, and/or wore the wrong outfit, and/or was in the wrong side of town, and/or was sending out the wrong signals, etc ad nauseam, BY DEFAULT.

In any type of crime you can think of, there are going to be rare cases of false accusations. But rape is the only crime where often the victim is presumed not "really" a victim by default. THAT is what women are fighting to change (among many other things).

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're horribly confused and have it backwards. The very SECOND a man is accused of rape he is immediately arrested and held until he might be able to bail himself out- if he doesn't have $10,000 he just sits in jail until his trial which could take a year or more. It's all due to the complexities of rape shield laws and all this crazy 'cracking down' on 'rapes' that don't really happen.

No other crime is treated like that. If some accuses someone of stealing their car, the accused isn't just 'automatically' arrested! That would be insane! Imagine a world like that! Where if you just had a beef with someone or a boss you didn't like, just accuse them of stealing your wallet or purse and boom! INSTANTLY gone arrested by police and the accused loses their job and life. OH, that's right! Women already can do that and do every single day with false accusations of rape. "Boyfriend dump you? Get revenge! Falsely accuse him of RAPE! Got a boss threatening to fire you because you're a lazy do nothing? Falsely accuse him of RAPE! And presto! That son of a bitch is gone! Don't want to pay cab fare, get out of a traffic ticket or DWI? Just falsely accuse the driver or cop of RAPE!" And on and on and on. There is an epidemic of false rape accusations because they are now popular for women to use as a weapon because today's women were mostly raised without fathers by their single mother by choice and so were never taught real social skills and how to cope with life.

And the only reason most people are extremely suspicious of a woman making an accusation of rape is because of the MILLIONS of false rape accusations made by women every year! And scores of HUGE cases in the news constantly! The college false rape accusation epidemic and on and on and on.

And what are feminists doing to combat the problem of false rape accusations women make? Nothing. In fact, feminists and women in general have tripled down and like sociopaths pretend and contend that false accusations of rape are extremely 'rare,' meanwhile most accusations of rape turn out to be false or consensual sex, false rape accusation stories in the news EVERYDAY.

So who's to blame? Look in the mirror. WOMEN.

[+]GeektimusPrime -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Millions of false rape cases" LMAO You just lost all credibility son. Tell you what, you go find the hard data that backs up your millions of false rape cases and then we'll continue this conversation. Till then; peace.

[–]Swordfish101101[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Worldwide there are millions of claims of 'rape' and most of them are fraud. Learn how to use Google.

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

G o o g le

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because rape is a crime that is often without physical evidence of victimization. Since rape is a thought away from a completely legal, and normal act; sex.

The only difference between most rape situations and sex is consent. Something very hard to prove. Since it's just frame of mind at the time of intercourse.

Rape boils down to just; "He raped me." vs "It was consensual sex."

If you believe the woman, then you have to believe the accused is a rapist. You can't have a victim of rape, without a rapist. All you really know is some form of sex happened. Whether consent was there or not, is what is trying to be argued. Which is where a defense comes in. Which seems to be conflated with society's views.

Which kind of contradicts society; one where people will murder men on accusations alone. I can think of a few stories that were proven false or the woman later admitted she lied. Like a woman caught cheating on her boyfriend, but accused the guy of raping her to avoid responsibility for cheating, and then her boyfriend beat him to death... while she held her hands over the actual victim's mouth to muffle the screams.

You can't just believe someone is a victim without believing the person they accuse of victimizing them are guilty.

If I accuse you of stealing $100 from me, and people just believe that I'm a victim... that means they believe you stole my money. Otherwise, I wouldn't be a victim at all.

[–]GeektimusPrime 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. Even in your poor analogy; everyone can understand, sympathize and appropriately treat you as a victim of theft, before having proven who did the stealing.

[–]SpeedDart1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being accused of rape is already enough to ruin a mans life.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter