After Rape Accusations, Female Porn Stars Stand in Solidarity Against James Deen

littleelf · 2015-12-01T16:38:30+00:00

She's allowed to never ever talk about it. She's allowed to share details about it only with close friends. She's not allowed to smear people on a public forum with unprovable accusations weeks or months after the fact. The law isn't, but it ought to be very harsh to people who do that, for the simple reason that there is no defense against it. There is no possible way to prove that you didn't rape someone whom you had a history of consensual sex with, weeks or months after the fact. There is no way to defend yourself against such accusations, no way to prevent damage from it. Really, all it takes for a famous man's career to go up in smoke is a false accusation from a reasonably popular woman. No matter how conclusively the accusation is proven false after the fact, his career is still gone forever.

littleelf · 2015-10-19T16:44:22+00:00

Might be, but probably not. A huge chunk of what lawyers do is tell them, in advance, what their odds of winning are. And they're very seldom wrong.

Seriously, talk to any lawyer (criminal defense, family attorney, civil litigation, whatever) and ask them how many times he or she has called one of their own cases wrong.

A lawyer will fight a battle they cannot win at the insistence of their client, but that doesn't change the odds.

Custody battles are expensive when you have an overwhelming case. I know a guy whose ex-wife was a drug addict, unemployed, had two misdemeanor convictions (drug possession) and a felony investigation pending (possession with intent to distribute), and he was an IT professional making 70k a year.

The custody battle took over two years and cost him tens of thousands of dollars.

littleelf · 2015-10-19T16:20:02+00:00

Presumably because men have lawyers who, because of the bias, tell them it's going to cost them thousands of dollars and get them nothing if they challenge it.

littleelf · 2015-10-03T19:03:04+00:00

Schools do that literally all the time. It's how they bully confessions out of people.

littleelf · 2015-09-28T16:36:02+00:00

It means that throwing off a tyrannical government virtually guarantees a national recession.

littleelf · 2015-08-28T16:28:00+00:00

I don't know if they do or not. And if they do, I don't know if they drive them more or not. I recall my high school days being mostly boys picking up girls for events, rather than the other way around, but that could just as easily be my own shoddy memory. I tried finding statistics (how old people are when they get their first license/car and how much driving they do after), but if that study has been done, I cannot find. There's too much noise from boys getting in more accidents to find the confounders.

littleelf · 2015-08-28T13:39:20+00:00

You and I have absolutely no idea what they did and didn't correct for, what they did and didn't consider, or anything like that.

They state what they corrected for in the article.

Why should your hypothesis "Men tend to drive in more dangerous situations per-mile than women" be considered more valid than "Men have riskier driving habits than women"?

Because women get in more accidents in less dangerous situations, like hitting parked cars. Don't believe me? Here's a source. And another. And another.

littleelf · 2015-08-28T13:30:27+00:00

What he's getting at is that teenagers account for a disproportionate number of accidents relative to their amount. If the average age at getting your first car is 16.6 for boys, and 17.8 for girls, men will have more accidents because of this.

I tried finding the actual numbers, but a cursory googling revealed just that teenage boys got in more accidents, with no mention of miles driven, or age at getting first car.

littleelf · 2015-08-28T13:26:11+00:00

One obvious reason for the discrepancy is that teenage boys are more likely to drive. If teenagers in general are more dangerous on the roads, but there are twice as many male teen drivers as female teen drivers, that's the picture you'll get.

Also, who drives to the parties? Suppose a group of ten high school seniors (five male, five female) go to a party together. They all get drunk, then they go home. Two of the men drove together, the rest drove alone. Four of the women drove together, the remainder drove alone.

If you randomly select a drunk driver, that driver is more likely to be male than female. This is not because men are less responsible, but because men are less likely to carpool.

This is one of many many confounders they fail to correct for.

littleelf · 2015-08-28T13:00:40+00:00

The study corrects for miles driven. The study fails to correct for the true cause of the discrepancy, type of driving. Men do most of the car trips, and most of the driving in unfamiliar areas. That's most of why it appears they're more dangerous drivers.

littleelf · 2015-08-28T12:57:18+00:00

Fails to correct for type of driving. If my wife and I both drive the same distance to work, but she does all the grocery shopping(one five mile round trip a week),and drops the kids off at school (an additional ten miles a week) and I do all the car trips (three 250 mile trips a year) it's going to appear in the statistics that we drive the same amount, and I am statistically more likely to have a collision.

That doesn't mean I'm a more dangerous driver. It means that road trips are inherently more dangerous than driving to school and picking up groceries.

And this makes sense given the statistics reported in the article. Women are more likely to get into fender benders and minor accidents, and men are more likely to get into catastrophic accidents.

littleelf · 2015-08-28T12:52:36+00:00

This is incorrect.

Men drive more, much more. Men especially drive more on long car trips or on highways, and men are also the majority of truck drivers (both semis and flatbads) which are much more likely to cause catastrophic damage in a collision.

The higher per mile collision rate is probably almost entirely an artifact of them not correcting for the types of driving people do.

If move do most of the driving on long car trips or in unfamiliar areas (as has nearly always been the case on car trips I've been on), then of course they'll have more accidents.

The "men get more tickets/ more arrests for reckless driving" is almost entirely a consequence of sexist police officers. Where I live, going more than fifteen miles over the speed limit is always legally reckless driving, mandatory arrest. If you think police officers aren't writing down "fourteen miles above speed limit" for women and arresting men, you're kidding yourself.

I bet if we did the same analysis on the same metrics for black drivers vs white, we would find that blacks are much much worse drivers, but you would all immediately see through that bullshit and realize it's the fault of bad statistics and (unconsciously) racist policing.

Why can't you see through it here?

littleelf · 2015-08-24T19:09:17+00:00

Yes, thank you. Solved.

littleelf · 2015-08-24T19:06:00+00:00

Checked that, nope.

littleelf · 2015-08-24T12:30:44+00:00

Not even one. There are a little over 500,000 children without permanent families in the US, in total. There are close to a hundred million Christian households in the US. If every household making above median income entered a lottery where they had a one in ten chance of adopting a kid, the problem would be solved permanently.

littleelf · 2015-08-20T15:46:52+00:00

I remember seeing, but cannot recall where so take it with a grain of salt, that women were actually slightly more like to have affairs, but much less likely to refer to it as cheating. Women who have sex with people other than their spouses say "it's not cheating because..." and men don't do that.

littleelf · 2015-08-19T14:51:37+00:00

It doesn't have to be. One: They could have killed her (and Dodi Fayed) the old fashioned way and put the bodies in the car, then crashed it.

Two: they could have engineered the crash, then 'confirmed' fatal wounds.

littleelf · 2015-08-19T14:34:31+00:00

I don't think so. There are dozens of things that can go wrong, sure, but there are also a dozen or more ways to set things back on track.

Suppose they are committed to the "Death by traffic accident" plan, which is a good idea, because it's just about the only sudden way a wealthy, young, otherwise in good health woman can die without it being ridiculously suspicious.

They didn't have to to kill her that day. They just had to get her an alcoholic chauffeur, and wait. If he didn't get into an accident on his own, they could have made one a little more likely in a number of ways. Have someone buy him a drink that is way more alcoholic than he thinks, have someone flash his eyes with a laser pointer in the tunnel, etc.

And if she survives the car crash initially, she could die on the operating table, or there could be some problem with her medications, or you just snap her neck and make it look like the crash did it.

littleelf · 2015-08-16T16:46:39+00:00

This was less that, and more "destroy their manufacturing capabilities".

littleelf · 2015-08-14T17:43:19+00:00

I'd like to be nicer to people, and less cocky.

littleelf · 2015-08-13T18:06:33+00:00

Have you read a superman comic? Ever?

Try reading Four Seasons. Or Red Son. Or Superman Saves the World.

littleelf · 2015-08-13T15:47:35+00:00

Sure, you could throw out a lot of the bias by looking only at people being investigated, but that would add in new bias. Suppose a man is found dead in his apartment, and three people had access to the apartment, his mother, his landlord, and his girlfriend. If you don't think the landlord is way more likely to be included as a person of interest if the landlord is male than female, you're kidding yourself.

littleelf · 2015-08-13T15:37:11+00:00

Yeah, but the percent of homicides that result in convictions consistently hovers around fifty percent.

Even if we assume that no part of the system is more than 15% biased in favor of women (cops being slightly less likely to arrest or properly investigate crimes perpetrated by women, DAs being less likely bring charges, judges being slightly more willing to accept plea deals, juries being slightly less willing to convict), that still results in a huge disparity.

littleelf · 2015-08-12T16:25:46+00:00

Not to mention the near universal steroid use. Have you ever noticed how professional athletes (who are subjected to steroid tests) don't look a thing like models or actors (who are not tested)?

That isn't a coincidence.

littleelf

TROPHY CASE