no homo (nh)

[mu-rara]

6 pages.  Really?

Which one of you is Mike Lovell?

[JoeSmith1721]

6 pages.  Really?

Which one of you is Mike Lovell?

7*

[brewcity77]

4 pages. Why would anyone not max their ppp?

[Benny B]

I'm impressed.

[🏀]

I get the Schmitt's Gay, but why would Herman Cain's avatar need to go?

Ha.

[mu03eng]

I'm impressed.

Oh, I've missed that stamp of approval.

[MU82]

Benny, my friend, you have a very very large brain!

[Benny B]

Benny, my friend, you have a very very large brain!

Listen... a good troll job deserves to be recognized, period.  It's not ego, it just happens to be the case that I'm the only self-aware troll on Scoop.  If anything, maybe my ego is a little inflated by my mad MS-Paint skillz which need to be shown off from time to time.

I consider myself the Deadpool of Scoop... not a hero, don't want to be, never going to be... I'm just doing my part to expose the greater injustices of vendettas and retaliation by, and while, dropping nuggets of humor and adult-references along the way.

Or maybe I'm the Dopinder of Scoop?  So hard to keep track of who's who.

[MU82]

Listen... a good troll job deserves to be recognized, period.  It's not ego, it just happens to be the case that I'm the only self-aware troll on Scoop.  If anything, maybe my ego is a little inflated by my mad MS-Paint skillz which need to be shown off from time to time.

I consider myself the Deadpool of Scoop... not a hero, don't want to be, never going to be... I'm just doing my part to expose the greater injustices of vendettas and retaliation by, and while, dropping nuggets of humor and adult-references along the way.

Or maybe I'm the Dopinder of Scoop?  So hard to keep track of who's who.

I know absolutely nothing about Benny B, so I'll have to take your word on all of that.

But I do know a couple of things about the guy pretending to be Benny B. I know that he is a good guy with a big heart, and I know he has two really nice kids. I also know he's fun to sit next to at a Marquette game, even one that turns out to not have the result we wanted.

[Benny B]

I know absolutely nothing about Benny B, so I'll have to take your word on all of that.

But I do know a couple of things about the guy pretending to be Benny B. I know that he is a good guy with a big heart, and I know he has two really nice kids. I also know he's fun to sit next to at a Marquette game, even one that turns out to not have the result we wanted.

You'd be singing a different tune had those kids slept through the 2nd half as well as the team did.

[WarriorDad]

I get the Schmitt's Gay, but why would Herman Cain's avatar need to go?

Because he ran for President and represents a side.  If people had orange cheeto here, they would be upset. Some would be upset if Ted Kennedy was an avatar.

Honestly, I come from an entirely different era where this stuff doesn't bother me, but it is remarkable to me in today's age what has people losing their marbles.

[WarriorDad]

You do know that I was using it to mock BJ, right? And you do know that when a couple of our fellow Scoopers told me it was out of bounds, I owned up to it and said I would try to be better, right?

I mean, chicos always claimed he was the smartest man in the room, so if you didn't get the above maybe you really aren't chicos after all.

Did not know that, but why does it make it right?  Could he not claim he (JB) is mocking people, too?   

[dgies9156]

I'm impressed.

That explains the bridge that goes nowhere.

[Jay Bee]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Because he ran for President and represents a side.  If people had orange cheeto here, they would be upset. Some would be upset if Ted Kennedy was an avatar.

Honestly, I come from an entirely different era where this stuff doesn't bother me, but it is remarkable to me in today's age what has people losing their marbles.

There's nothing wrong with being a republican (or a democrat). I guess you could say it violates the no politics rule but thats the mods decision. I don't have any problem with Herman's avatar or a theoretical Trump or Kennedy avatar.

There's a difference between a difference if opinion and use of a slur.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow

Dear god,  that was the biggest load of horseshiiit that I have ever read. And I've read some doozies in my time

[forgetful]

Dear god,  that was the biggest load of horseshiiit that I have ever read. And I've read some doozies in my time

+1

[TSmith34, Inc.]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow

https://betches.com/8-telltale-signs-youre-an-pretty boy/

[tower912]

You be you, bro-flake. 

[Jay Bee]

https://betches.com/8-telltale-signs-youre-an-pretty boy/

Need halp, bud?

[g0lden3agle]

Dear god,  that was the biggest load of horseshiiit that I have ever read. And I've read some doozies in my time

Care to elaborate? We're there specific signs you did not agree with?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Care to elaborate? We're there specific signs you did not agree with?

Sure, I disagree with all of them. I work in Title IX compliance in case you didn't know.

1) Not one thing has changed about due process in the legal system. On campus, those accused of title IX violations have more due process than students accused of any other violation. Or at least they did until the current administration removed all guidance from Title IX.

2) Believe the victim has nothing to do with due process. Not one person has insisted that an accusation is enough evidence to convict someone. No one has been convicted on accusation alone. Believe the victim is a reminder to support survivors who come forward, which as the friends/family/acquaintances of survivors is our role. The expectation of peace officers and investigators is different. They need to take accusations seriously but remain impartial and objective.

3) The original study that the 1 in 5 statistic came from has been proven to be based on a questionable method. Since then dozens of more reputable studies have been done that have found the similar results. Usually between 15 and 30% for undergraduate women depending on if they are measuring sexual assault, harassment, violence, or a combination. Also depends on whether or not they are looking at completed assaults or completed and attempted.

4) I would love for them to give a single example of a court case where exculpatory evidence was denied. They won't find any. I also don't know of any university cases where that has happened. University investigators are charged with documenting any and all evidence that is provided. Leaving out evidence would be a huge violation of Title IX. What the author seems to be upset about is that cases aren't dismissed outright when a complainant admits (or is found out) to have been friendly with the accused after the alleged assault. That evidence would absolutely be included and considered....along with all the other evidence. Also, they use the "mattress girl" case as an example....except the university sided against her. Doesn't that go against the author's argument?

5) There was psuedo science during the satanic scare in the 80s (which resulted in 0 convictions). Now we have a much better understanding of how memory works and how traumatic events impact the brain. Part of my job is to train other employees on the neurobiology of trauma. Later in this section she is correct about memory being flawed...which is why no university would find a student responsible for sexual assault just based on the witness's testimony. Or if they do, someone should be fired.

Overall, this article is full of fear mongering and spouting off myths with no basis in fact. The fact that they compare it to the Satanic Panic in the 80s is hilarious considering that those were very isolated incidents and that resulted in zero convictions (to clarify there were convictions for child abuse but those are regarded as legitimate. There were zero convictions for anything having to do with satanic rituals). It is also rife with misinformation. I am always amazed that these articles always fail to interview someone who actually works in the field. They just repeat the same tired lines that aren't based in fact but in fear.

Also, for every person who says "believe the survivors" there is at least one  saying that most survivors are liars.

[Jay Bee]

TAMU is delusional.

[g0lden3agle]

Sure, I disagree with all of them. I work in Title IX compliance in case you didn't know.

1) Not one thing has changed about due process in the legal system. On campus, those accused of title IX violations have more due process than students accused of any other violation. Or at least they did until the current administration removed all guidance from Title IX.

2) Believe the victim has nothing to do with due process. Not one person has insisted that an accusation is enough evidence to convict someone. No one has been convicted on accusation alone. Believe the victim is a reminder to support survivors who come forward, which as the friends/family/acquaintances of survivors is our role. The expectation of peace officers and investigators is different. They need to take accusations seriously but remain impartial and objective.

3) The original study that the 1 in 5 statistic came from has been proven to be based on a questionable method. Since then dozens of more reputable studies have been done that have found the similar results. Usually between 15 and 30% for undergraduate women depending on if they are measuring sexual assault, harassment, violence, or a combination. Also depends on whether or not they are looking at completed assaults or completed and attempted.

4) I would love for them to give a single example of a court case where exculpatory evidence was denied. They won't find any. I also don't know of any university cases where that has happened. University investigators are charged with documenting any and all evidence that is provided. Leaving out evidence would be a huge violation of Title IX. What the author seems to be upset about is that cases aren't dismissed outright when a complainant admits (or is found out) to have been friendly with the accused after the alleged assault. That evidence would absolutely be included and considered....along with all the other evidence. Also, they use the "mattress girl" case as an example....except the university sided against her. Doesn't that go against the author's argument?

5) There was psuedo science during the satanic scare in the 80s (which resulted in 0 convictions). Now we have a much better understanding of how memory works and how traumatic events impact the brain. Part of my job is to train other employees on the neurobiology of trauma. Later in this section she is correct about memory being flawed...which is why no university would find a student responsible for sexual assault just based on the witness's testimony. Or if they do, someone should be fired.

Overall, this article is full of fear mongering and spouting off myths with no basis in fact. The fact that they compare it to the Satanic Panic in the 80s is hilarious considering that those were very isolated incidents and that resulted in zero convictions (to clarify there were convictions for child abuse but those are regarded as legitimate. There were zero convictions for anything having to do with satanic rituals). It is also rife with misinformation. I am always amazed that these articles always fail to interview someone who actually works in the field. They just repeat the same tired lines that aren't based in fact but in fear.

Also, for every person who says "believe the survivors" there is at least one  saying that most survivors are liars.

TAMU,

Thanks for the incredibly thorough response.  You've successfully shed a light on what's really happening in the legal system vs. what I'm most exposed to: what people want to happen based on what I see in various social media echo chambers that are becoming louder and louder by the day.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

One more thing I forgot to mention. They author says universities don't record investigative interviews. Universities are required to allow the complainant, the accused, and witnesses to review investigation notes at any time so they can dispute the investigators interpretation. While not a requirement, it is considered best practice to allow students to make corrections to the investigation notes if they think something was miscategorized or was misinformation. Panels then receive both what the investigators wrote as well as how the student edited. This is a protection against possible bias or misunderstanding.