patrick.net

Yeah, so it is a campus policy bill that makes funding dependent on implementing these policies. Regardless of whether or not the bill has consequences beyond the campus, it is effectively inverting in dubio pro reo which is pretty much the gateway to totalitarianism, You could make a case for a less harsh view of this bill if the accuser would have to prove that they never gave affirmative consent or revoked it at some point, but even that would not make the totalitarian picture much prettier. Pretty much most times sex evolves from a prior unrelated chat and then some non-verbal clues, so you're basically going against nature. But worse it seems like it is interpreted that the defendant has to prove that there was consent, which is pretty much turning a free nation into a totalitarian state where people can be denounced like it happened to jews, heretics, infidels etc. So you may be right that nobody may have gone to prison because it is campus funding law only at this point, but it doesn't change neither the essence nor tone of it and if this ever gets adopted beyond campus it will mark a dark chapter in human history. At least now parents can decide whether to send their sons(/daughters) to such a campus or not. When you give up the in dubio pro reo principle and invert the proof of guilt to a proof of innocence, the "free" country will cease to exist and give reign to institutional terror - which is why it dates so far back as the Romans and even Aristotle.

mell says

in dubio pro reo

Can you please point out where in the statute you believe that has been repealed? As you noted, the statute addresses funding and requires institutions to formulate policies, but none of those repeal in dubio pro reo. It would be a defense, for example, to say that the complainant said "yes". Even if the complainant claims later to have been so intoxicated as not to understand the meaning of the word "yes," the burden of proof remains on the complainant.

curious2 says

Can you please point out where in the statute you believe that has been repealed?

It hasn't been explicitly repealed and since it is a funding law only, it should have no bearing on criminal law (doesn't mean though it cannot wreck someone's career/societal future).

curious2 says

It would be a defense, for example, to say that the complainant said "yes". Even if the complainant claims later to have been so intoxicated as not to understand the meaning of the word "yes," the burden of proof remains on the complainant.

If you interpret it that way, it obviously seems less harsh and more in line with common standards of criminal law. But many do interpret it as an inversion, that's why apps have come out and become popular where you sign your consent digitally, or at least many record their adventures with their phone now (thus involuntarily making porn that could leak) to be on the safe side. And the few prominent cases also point to interpretation of inversion, e.g. nobody seems to have asked the mattress girl to produce any proof of the alleged rape, instead Nungesser had to come up with stored text messages that clearly indicated her sexual interest and raunchiness on and around the date of interest. What if he had deleted that thread or lost/upgraded his phone? He certainly wouldn't be in the better position he is in today after almost losing everything.

mell says

many do interpret

in the manosphere echo chamber, polluted by noise from that guy. In real life, however, rape remains difficult to prosecute, partly because nobody serious has proposed repealing in dubio pro reo. Nungesser was never prosecuted, let alone convicted. I can agree that some people took the accuser's side, which is a common problem in commercial media, but that happens every time a prosecutor does a "perp walk" and claims to have caught "the bad guy." It reminds me of a cartoon, where a guy says he hopes his conviction in the media will be overturned in the courts. BTW, Nungesser is actually suing Columbia for that, and he may have a case.

Fair enough, it remains to be seen how this law plays out as it is still fairly young and we probably only hear about spectacular cases. WRT to the manosphere, the alleged hate-speech you reference from Roosh V. wrt to rape on private property was supposedly sarcasm/satire as commented by Roosh V. himself. Arguably distasteful, but if the SPLC puts him on their hate-org list they pretty much have to put most of the 2nd and 3rd wave radical feminist groups on that list too, who with predictable frequency tweet and post calls to violence and death against men. I also once linked a skype interview of Roosh and a self-declared feminist writer/journalist where the two had a really great conversation going despite quite opposing views at http://hyperallergic.com/199218/what-happens-when-a-feminist-artist-interviews-a-pickup-artist/
Roosh has a big provocateur jerk mouth and but is not the monster he is portrayed to be IMO. I prefer the writings of Rollo Tomassi (a married guy who is considered part of the manosphere) at the rational male blog who are very scientific, (sometimes philosophic), logic, and free of polarization or spiteful attacks.

hmmmm...a glitch in the new 'Ignore' function???

SBH says

Since i have all the Rep/Cons/Teas on ignore, I can now freely admit that I, and only I, was the runner in that race picture I posted countless times where the runner was shitting his pants all over the track. Lets just keep this between ourselves LibBros...no need to restock the enemy's munitions...

bgamall4 says

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/europe/amputee-soldier-muslim-facebook-donald-trump/index.html

Good article, nice guy, but consider. Where he refers to "a Muslim nurse," for example, try substituting "a nurse who is a smoker." Would that be an argument in favor of smoking, or against restrictions on smoking? Of course not. Restrictions on smoking are not "tobacco-phobia," they are simply recognition that smoking kills people. ''Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as intended cause death," and Islam is the only religion that combines Old Testament violence with New Testament global missionary proseletyzing. Considering that Muslim terrorists have killed more Americans than all other terrorists combined in the last 50 years (at least), while comprising only 1% of the population, the concern is not a phobia.

I took my Kanger tank to the shop yesterday to get a new coil. The owner was like let the new girl do it. She did it, and it's been leaking like a sieve ever since.
I'm sure She's a cracker jack.

Alcohol and guns are also legal, and when used as intended, cause death

Thats why the ATF gang holds so much power

curious2 says

Please direct your statement to Elizabeth of Windsor, who worked as a mechanic during the war.

8 Things You May Not Know About Queen Elizabeth II

She drove a truck during World War II.

Elizabeth wears an officer’s uniform and stands beside an Auxiliary Territorial Service first aid truck during World War II. (Credit: Keystone/Getty Images)

After months of begging her father to let his heir pitch in, Elizabeth-then an 18-year-old princess-joined the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service during World War II. Known as Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor, she donned a pair of coveralls and trained in London as a mechanic and military truck driver. The queen remains the only female member of the royal family to have entered the armed forces and is the only living head of state who served in World War II.

She sent an email in 1976.

On March 26, 1976, Queen Elizabeth sent her first email while taking part in a network technology demonstration at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, a research facility in Malvern, England. The message was transmitted over ARPANET, the forerunner of the modern Internet. She is considered the first head of state to have used electronic mail.

Damn, that's pretty cool on both counts.

@Dan8267, I wanted to ask you about the comment I've quoted below. I missed what it was based on, and wonder if you have a link?

Dan8267 says

no one can be as homophobic as CIC without being a repressed homosexual.

If you had said Fap33/Bap33 or Fortwayne/Forthood, I would certainly agree. Regarding CIC, though he says occasionally crazy things to criticize President Obama, I hadn't noticed much of a pattern other than trolling two of my favorite commenters into extraordinary flame wars. (Trying to understand those is a bit like trying to understand WWI. It's possible to identify villainous acts and legitimate grievances, but the reactions get sometimes over the top, and people wonder what was it all for.)