well said my friend!

there are multiple senior sources (who spoke under the condition on anonymity) that are familiar with that user’s thinking who all suggest that said accusation very well can certainly be true

This post was edited by excellence on Apr 28 2020 11:52am

Sources check out, let's run the story!

Oh, how convenient, turns out we can spread this story exponentially faster utilizing high-speed internet and social media than we would have been able to a mere decade ago!

Don't forget to thumbs up, comment, follow, subscribe, become a patron, and disable adblock btw

Yep. Besides MSM accountability, we need some serious accountability for social media as well.


/e And no. As of yet I can't think of a workable solution that wouldn't infringe on the first amendment. But the problem DOES exist and needs to be dealt with very soon, or YOUR future selves will be suffering because of it.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 28 2020 11:57am

Ah the repercussions of calling everyone “fake news” and enemy of the people. Now what? Your right here goes the reeling in of the first amendment

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Apr 28 2020 12:05pm

And here is a perfect example. None of what this _ _ _ _ _ _ has said, has anything at all to do with what I said.
He is purposely misconstruing what I have said and attempting to use it as a weapon.



/e Not coming up with a way to hold MSM and SM accountable will lead to loss of one of our dearest tenets: Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

/ee And another thing... this anonymous source crap, has to go. Within a chain of command, yes, the higher up should be able to keep a source anonymous, right up until it goes public.Once it goes public, the source should be required to come forward.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 28 2020 12:14pm

Not really analagous because

1. I'm not a public person (celebrity, politician, etc.)
2. You aren't attesting to a personal experience.
3. The people making the accusation have some evidence that makes the case possible, i.e. at minimum being in the same place at the same time as the accused and often working directly under them. Whereas you can't even substantiate that we've ever been within 500 miles of each other.
4. Nobody is calling the accused family, friends, or employer.


Really there's a ton of reasons why your comparison doesn't hold water, and if you had bothered to think on it for 5 seconds you would have realized that.

You should argue his point... not his argument.


These accusations w/o proof, can damage a person's life, irrespective of whether the law chooses to convict.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 28 2020 12:24pm

And just like any damaging speech you can sue if you can show they are malicious and untrue.

I mean, you can sue regardless, you just won't win without showing it's malicious and untrue.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 28 2020 12:24pm

What I think you need to ponder is... w/e loopholes in the law we might choose to wallow in, CAN one day become a fad, like the #metoo crap. And if/when it does, it can also come back to bite YOU on the ass one day.

For example, the Dems probably thought that they were justified in trying to harm Roy Moore's reputation and thereby cost him a win. Whether he actually was guilty or not, it cost him his livelihood.
MY point is, that once spurious accusations become a thing, then one day, some one who thinks your bills for medical attention are too high, might decide to use the same or similar method to ruin YOUR livelihood.

Karma is a bitch.



/e Anything we choose to consider permissible for our friends, can also be considered permissible by our enemies.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 28 2020 12:34pm

A pencil and a knife both have a point, but only one cuts steak. just a bit of wisdom from my grandpa.

i dont have a magical solution either, sadly. and any good processes tend to involve looking at the lifestyle and history of the accuser, which is considered sexist and wrong by many people. whereas, of course, doing the same to the accused is considered fair play. if i point out a woman was into hard drugs around the time she alleges rape and claim it may be a false memory of rape im a victim blamer, but somehow the number of wives a man has is relevant to whether or not he raped someone.

#metoo has many challenges, compounded by the court of public opinion being a massive entity compared to eras past due to social media's amplification. i'd just never get to the point where i'd say old allegations should be immediate grounds for libel/slander suits on their own.



crimes of a sexual nature have always as far as i know carried a "premium" in punishment. even if it was in eras past aimed at preservation of a woman' virtue. most people would gladly let a cow go rather than be violently buggered, and among women even moreso.

and in any case reparations always come with interest, and men as a group have crimes to pay for from eras past that we're now paying for in an exaggerated way. this isn't strictly subject to sex either, look at how woke whiteys bend over backwards to over-correct for racism their great great great grandfathers may have committed. Look how soft people like Fenderp are to pay for the unimaginable crimes of their grandfathers. etc.