If as few as 2% of reported rapes are false accusations but as recently as 2018, it was estimated that only 25% of rapes were reported to police, I think the argument that stuff like this “should be said” falls apart. When looking at false reports, you’re looking at essentially a statistical anomaly when looking at the total number of incidents of rape. Yes, it can be said to happen, but focusing on false reports actively discourages both men and women from reporting acts of sexual violence. The problem of people not feeling safe to report or that they wouldn’t be believed is a problem orders of magnitude greater in size than false reports.

I think it says a lot that some folks downvoted this despite it just being sourced stats of the level of sexual violence experienced by both men and women and the rarity of false reports. OP chose to post info about a case from more than 15yrs ago and didn’t even bother posting sources (probably because the age of the case would have tipped off how rare these types of situations are). Yes, these types of false reports are awful but the sheer number of incidents of rape against both men and women are staggering.

https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/

“One in five women in the United States experienced completed or attempted rape during their lifetime”

“Nearly a quarter (24.8%) of men in the U.S. experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime.”

“Nationwide, 81% of women and 43% of men reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment and/or assault in their lifetime.”

“One in three female victims of completed or attempted rape experienced it for the first time between the ages of 11 and 17”

And

“The prevalence of false reporting for sexual assault crimes is low — between two percent and 10 percent.”

Sources for all this are linked in the site above.

You know… for kids!

OP definitely sounds like someone who is doing “research” by posting questions to an LLM and thinking they’re discovering something new.

Yeah, it’s not perfect, but I’ve taken to using https://noai.duckduckgo.com/ - it’s not as good as Google used to be, but it’s pretty functional for most things

Using AI. Aside from all its ethical, environmental, and legal issues, I’ve been shocked to see the cognitive decline in folks using AI regularly. Not only do they forget how to do things like write on their own or do Internet searches by themselves, they even lose higher skills they’ve spent years acquiring.

Was talking with a developer the other day, and he said he’d almost had a panic attack recently when trying to do something during a recent outage when he was trying to code something relatively simple and couldn’t even think about where to begin. He said he’d cut back after that, but honestly not sure he will. Every frequent AI user I know seems to be on a junkie trajectory and unable to cope when their supply gets interrupted.

Saw the best line somewhere today “Anti-trans Dems should be called ‘Biological Republicans’” and that definitely seems apt here.

You do understand that people die in ways that don’t involve murder, right?

No one said anything about him being killed. The comment talked about him dying in a comedic way. Not the same thing.

Visual perspective is a new thing for you I guess?

Nixon was not fully prosecuted or even investigated because it was a “time for healing” by Carter.

Ford took over from Nixon as his VP and pardoned him - Carter was just a Governor at the time. The “time for healing” was from Ford’s speech after he took office.

It’s frustrating I know, but I truly think it’s less culture and more just hairless ape brain stuff. Our brains are lazy by evolutionary design and in terms of social communication, it’s sadly more effective to aim straight for the emotional limbic system. We should be creatures capable of sustained rational thought, but… <gestures broadly> that obviously isn’t the case and never has been. It’s all much worse when you’re someone not as prone to emotional appeals, but the trick is to appeal to the emotion and then follow it up with a little bit of the objective reality.

But like calling the Meta glasses “Pervert Glasses” it’s not about being technically accurate in your description of the scope of surveillance, it’s about making it socially unacceptable. It’s why using “weird” worked so well for Waltz - it didn’t provide an all encompassing description of why Trump and his ilk were dangerous and bad for the country, it just nailed how to shine a light on how they’re socially unacceptable (to rational and sane ppl obvs.)

So just replying with meaningless and unrelated word salad now? Got it.

Go slop, stock drops?

or pervPods?

There is always going to be more art produced than people want to buy - nothing Valve can do to change that. Hell, it doesn’t even require capitalism - a similar ratio was seen when most art was produced via patronage half a millennia ago. If anything, Steam with whatever faults it has, democratizes it more by making it easier to discover niche stuff with limited appeal.

That’s basically how art and media have always worked. This isn’t a function of Steam, or even the modern economy.

Would love to see someone in Congress introduce legislation that forbids anything with attached federal dollars be named after or reference by name any individual found guilty of rape in a criminal or civil court case. That would of course take care of Trump getting anything with his name on it, but just actually also makes sense.

It wouldn’t pass currently of course, but I want them to have to explain why they voted to stick a rapist’s name on things that belong to the public.