Ya know i wanna try sardines

Sardines actually sounds like a better topic to discuss.

Too salty

Generally I prefer salmon, but you gotta be more careful about the source of them. Sardines not near as much.

Is discord used for other groups other than pangburn? I ask because I thought I heard matt d say go to the discord.

I don't know how to tweet or twit or shit.

Oh yeah, it's a hige platform

Loads of stuff

What's some good servers?

What's an ape need to do around here for a damn bannana?

Nevermind, I found some.

Fuck yo banana.

Yo

Be gentle

How does one play another a game of chess online?

I figured it out

@Shem the Penman I would agree with you that before completely dismissing the testimony of these women, we would need evidence that they are lying ( not a criminal courtroom ). It seems coincidental, and I tend to try to stray away from looking through a conspiratorial lens as its extremely low-resolution and appeals to our biases. I understand where @m.miller and @T2the2ndpowr are coming from, but i feel your standards for evidence are a bit too high; this is not some extraordinary claim, and altogether rejecting the testimonies smells of epistemological dogma (something held as an established opinion).

I can see that what I have typed can be taken as insulting, but it is all in good faith.

I am moving the conversation here bc im unsure where to have it.

I'm all for talking about it but we don't allow defamation here.

This is exaclty what we are arguing, defamation is defined as " The act of defaming; the wrong of injuring another's reputation without good reason or justification; aspersion."

we are disscusing what we can concider good reason/justification

And coming on and saying someone is a sexual predator without evidence falls into that category.

but im not saying he is a sexual predator

No but that's what the original claim was.

Ok. but this is something else now no?

I'm not sure.

Haa..

is discussing our standards of evidance about a defamation and where it should lie socialy vs judicially, using specific cases that were contrevertial defamation ?

I just wasn't sure if the guy who made the original claim had shifted gears, that's all.

we dont know that yet lol I just really want to know what you and @T2the2ndpowr think about what i said

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/lawrence-krauss-arizona-state.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations#.txmVvGYJP

He claims they had a discussion about it beforehand. I tend to doubt that, but I still don't think it's predatory. It sounds like it's part of the awkward interactions that humans have when trying to navigate the sexual landscape

You see but its a he said she said. and we both cannot know what happened there.

From my social experiance

Yes, but even if I were to go with what she said, it still doesn't sound predatory

predatory =\= rapey

It sounds like he was misreading body language and other social cues, so he took the first step, and then she left.

=///=

but at the same time i dont think its that clear. we dont know what he as understading and its completely within the relm of reason that just like in countless other examples people in power behave in ways that excerise that power

we cannot simply dissmiss it in my estimation

I think we pretty much can, unless more evidence comes out. There's a thousand things that get lost in translation when trying to speak about an event like this a year later, or even an hour later. The most important part of this is that as soon as she said she needed to go, she did. She didn't say he protested or stood in front of the door, or anything like that