![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/68aeba4c-6942-45d7-9959-583bb3ed7fbd.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
It was basically locked and merged into [email protected]
It was basically locked and merged into [email protected]
I can see the headlines about the first time it’s rolled out… all the headlines are short people being mad that they were flagged as kids
Cool. Wait until you realize some of those garbage headlines represent great articles though. Obviously not all of them, but it seems very weird to filter out so many words
This sounds like progress to me though. Each side is slowly coming around the the reality that they can’t dictate the terms to the other side
We had a shooting in the USA in the last 24 hours, how insensitive of you to raise the topic
We’ve had 2 articles, yes, but what about 3rd exit poll article?
So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!
How is that neutrality? If you’re going to troll, do better dude
So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!
This doesn’t insinuate it’s a lie? You’re being disingenuous now lol.
Look who’s excited for a center left party!
I’m going to copy and paste my reply from elsewhere:
Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.
Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.
Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?
Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?
Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.
Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.
Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?
Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?
Executive actions and orders are not laws.
And any law is subject to the constitution. If I write a law that says “all Japanese people must be sent to internment camps,” a court should intervene and say “no, that’s not legal.”
How dare you insult the greatest American tradition?!
Yes, it’s a conspiracy! That’s a great first assumption. Classic misogyny
The list repeats until a name is “retired,” as this one probably will be
Except the whole “women coming after him” is steeped in misogyny and not reality. How many people get accused by multiple victims of the same thing, with evidence and witnesses? I’m not clear about the 2005 case, but the more recent one has physical evidence and witnesses. Gaiman’s evidence is an already disproven claim. One side has physical evidence while one is lying.
To be fair, I think there’s only one person who can’t put that down
I rely on 30+ sources. I do not work for any of them, although I (edit: pay to) subscribe to 3 or 4 (edit: NyTimes, WaPo, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Wired, if anyone cares). Every weekday, I ensure ProPublica’s work gets posted somewhere on Lemmy, that’s probably the only one I never skip.
I don’t alter site headlines and can’t force any outlet to write a better article. The news here is that Boebert said a racist thing. The low-quality journalism thing where they do the “what does twitter have to say about this?” isn’t really important.
Did you just falsely equate Hamas and Palestine?