Kinda like the race statistics in the US can result in racism as a by-product. If the majority of your crime comes from a neighborhood of people who all look similar, people profile everyone who looks like that to be from there.

Bit of perspective off of Tim's video today, '[Woman] is going to prison for False Accusations against Men'

As far as 'Listen and Believe' goes, I think it can better phrase the argument.

'Innocent until proven guilty' should apply to both the accuser AND the accused.

Lying about rape is, in fact, a crime, and thus Innocent until proven guilty applies to the accuser as well.

Socially I think there's a healthy dose of *within reason* that needs to be applied

Like some of the accusations people make are absurd, and there's never any proof

Rolling Stone article comes to mind

But that's just it, innit?

The Rolling Stone article took the accuser's side.

Which implicitly presumes the guilt of the accused.

The Rolling Stone article wouldn't have had any apologizing to do if they were merely spotlighting the situation objectively.

Even if they didn't assume the accused was guilty, the notion we should be looking for an evil sex cult who would shove a woman through a glass table and assault her while she was covered in blood with no evidence is a bit much

But that statement, absent the context, implies guilt.

Not to mention the fact that the primary "accused" wasn't a real person anyway

That's literally the problem with news today.

Magazines and outlets want to give their stories that 'Human touch'

Well if we believe someone when they say they've been assaulted, someone does have to be guilty of having assaulted them, unless we are to assume delusion

We just can't assume it's the person they point out

That means they have to get really close with the subject.

And that means taking a side.

The standards of 'Good Journalism' to the mainstream today requires taking the risk of being dramatically wrong.

And actual good journalism comes across as boring.

well, no.

I'd say Tim does good journalism

But that's largely because he has a bias that he 1. doesn't hide, but 2. keeps on a leash.

The only true objective way to cover it is by accepting a 'Schrodinger's Cat' paradox state.

Jesus christ. Sargonites already saw this shit, but holy shit...

Okay. I'm going to add a detail with every iteration of this. Let me know when it sounds insane.

A NASCAR driver lost a sponsorship.

A NASCAR driver lost a sponsorship over a comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ko2hmjLsmo

eff you lago.

I was building up.

sorry

im watching now

Absolutely fucking maddening.

yea

A NASCAR driver lost a sponsorship over a comment from 30 years ago MADE BY HIS FATHER. AND THE DRIVER IS 26 YEARS OLD.

It doesnt even matter no more what you are saying, if your great grandfather said smth stupid in 1921, you are screwed

its the same argument made for reparations