"Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence."

I am seeing a strong movement to demand that accusations be enough to get people suspended, expelled and fired though. The Canadian Federation of Students has been pushing a campaign to improve campus sexual assault policies. Their plan specifically includes things they don't want any policy to have, including any " SANCTIONS FOR VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS OR FALSE COMPLAINTS". They sigh an example section from Dalhousie University's sexual assault policy that they believe is wrong and should be removed:
"A complaint made in bad faith shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the complainant, which shall be commenced in accordance with applicable disciplinary processes. A bad faith complaint is a complaint that is made with a conscious design to mislead or deceive, or with a malicious or fraudulent intent. "

More insidiously, strong movements across Canada are training the workplace on what sexual violence is. The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. When people are manipulating language to make actions seem worse than they are, you are acting in bad faith and I think it should be called out.

" If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously."

Agreed, but lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there, just to be safe and/or to balance things out finally so men can be victimized too so they know how it feels. We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies
No disagreement there. I both vehemently disagree with virtually everything Trump says or does. At the same time, still don't like how far the condemn the accused pushes are looking to go.

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

Lol.....so you now admit he's Putin's bitch mumbling around Putin's cock that's firmly in his mouth....you just don't care? And you wonder why we think you're a ridiculous Russian troll? Sad.

I'd rather have a reasonably intelligent and rational person who reverses a depression we should have avoided than an infantile blowhard that bankrupted the treasury like he does with so many of his businesses who's under the thumb of our enemies.

Yep, he's blown far more money in 500 days than Obama did in 8 years, golfed way more, fired more of his own people for cause, fired more of his own people without legitimate cause, had infinitely more convictions and charges brought, been immersed in scandal since before taking the oath, plead guilty to massive frauds against students, defrauded multiple charities, and destroyed our international standings (except with dictators who are warming to us)....what you call winning.
If a sex tape of him with his daughter came out, you would congratulate him on winning by fucking a hot blond and dismiss the complaints of infidelity and incest as pure liberal Trump hating, and probably accuse Obama of the same crimes...rationality about Trump is not one of your traits.

Really, delusional much? You were probably just as certain the Republicans were going to take California....where they aren't even on the ballot. I can absolutely argue the point that the midterms look good for democrats and horrible for Republicans, especially since your ilk now calls the majority of them rinos they won't vote for. Time will tell, but right now it sure looks like a blue wave, but maybe not a tsunami.
Thinking Republicans are poised to do well in this election is irrational thinking that ignores the primaries.

I don't really disagree with that.

The mistake I think you made was assuming that just because it's over the top and somewhat ridiculous, it's a comedy or fantasy (especially when it's allegedly based on a true story), and attacking it on that basis.
These new complaints have more merit.

My gut instinct is to say "how dare you? you're getting free food!"

However, just because someone is living in poverty or is disabled doesn't mean they should have to live on what appears to be among the lowest quality microwave meals.

My daughter is likely going to be wheelchair bound for the rest of her life; and while I have high hopes of her becoming the next Steven Hawking, it's probable that she'll need some gov assistance at some point. I cringe at the thought of her being unable to raise complaints loud enough as this angry black lady. That said, this woman is obviously actually living in poverty, look at the wall socket at around the 2min mark.

It's not the most articulate way to put it, but poor communities will understand "Trump ain't playin shitttttttt --fuck this shit... look at this shit yall... I wanna say Trump fuck you and I am not eatin' yo food!......AND!--- LOOK A'DIS BISCUIT!!! Mm! Done fucked up now. Fuck!" And hopefully not fall for the same 'Man of the people' rhetoric in the future.

Sorry, bud, but black people (and other minorities, and women) have often complained, rightly so, about under representation and total exclusion from movies, tv shows, availability of positive rolls, etc.
Saying he's never heard that complaint is 100% unbelievable, and I call b.s.....he's doing it himself to an extent in this video. I was ready to upvote until he spouted that nonsense.

White people complaining about that is patently ridiculous.

Standard load for the US military is 7 thirty round mags. You can carry more or less, but that is the general amount.

My biggest complaint would be that if we are assuming these to be WW2 Marines, there is no way a force of 300 would all be carrying Thompsons. In general, they would be using BARs or M1 Garands. If they were Korean era, M14s. These would have used a much more deadly projectile that easily could penetrate multiple targets packed close together.


Could a force armed correctly for the time period indicated actually kill that many targets? Numbers would suggest they would run out of ammo with some Romans still alive. However, we then run into some intangibles.

One must factor the sheer shock value of a force literally laying your fellow soldiers out in windrows. I would suspect that even highly disciplined Roman soldiers would begin to break and flee at some point.

Assuming they did not break ranks, the soldiers would still have bayonets, grenades, and personal sidearms. The Romans would still also be attacking an elevated position. As the Korean war showed us, it could go either way, but the likelihood is that the elevated position would eventually triumph in hand to hand combat. Not to mention that the Romans would be dealing with typically healthier, larger, and better trained soldiers.

Now if this was 300 current era Marines, it would be a slaughter. They would be using highly accurate 5.56 weapons with around 63000 rounds of ammo.

@bareboards2, I get where you're coming from.

I think one would have to be naive in the extreme not to admit that women especially are discriminated on based on their looks (both positively and negatively).

That said, I do find it uncomfortable judging people on their looks. Neither you nor I know these women; some of them might be there purely as eye candy, but they could equally just be really good at what they do.

As a straight white male, this is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Comment on their looks, and I'm either objectifying them or assuming competency based on their looks. Don't say anything and I'm giving tacit approval to employers deliberately choosing women based on their looks ("hey man, you hire *whoever* you want.... nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

note: this is not a complaint... straight males are in this situation because we put ourselves here.

Now... all that said: I think you're almost certainly right about THIS company. Their instagram is pretty damning in that respect.

@newtboy

I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints

Gonna stop you there, I never said anything about validity or number of complaints or grievances anyone had. In a better world things like that would matter, in a military conflict though they don't change the outcome.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state...

You misunderstand me. I said nothing about the chances of those outcomes working for Palestinians or even being better for them. I stated that whether we like it or not, Israel has more than the required military might to do so and whichever moment they decide the cost of implementing one of those options is better than the status quo they are gonna do it. Do you really see 'no chance' of that happening?

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed.

Then on this we vehemently disagree. Israel wasn't the only one that expanded their borders in the war in 1948. The Arab Palestinians allies snatched up parcels of land as well. They haven't even considered ceding that land back to facilitate a Palestinian state. In fact, Israel's very existence is pretty widely accepted as being due to the fact that each neighbouring Arab state went to war with the intent of securing sections of Palestine fro themselves and thus each fought independently giving Israel a chance to survive facing off against each of them rather than facing a united coalition in a co-ordinated strike. That they all mobilized their forces and sent them in the second they could to try and get the most land allowed Israel to fight them, with the exception of Jordan whom Israel cut a deal with by agreeing to not fight for the land Jordan wanted so jordan just silently took that part of Palestine for themselves.

In short, the neighbouring Arab states are not true allies to Arab Palestinians.

I doubt that. ;-)

Except for territory they hold, I agree, Palestinian suffering is their only influence, and that's not much.

I agree, because we back them, Israel does as it pleases. I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints beyond Palestinian suffering, like constantly expanding borders and expulsion from historical holy sites.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state (where only barren desert is Palestinian with all water and access controlled by Israel, shut off at any hint of complaint).

The Palestinians do want a two state solution, just not one where any land worth having is Israel and the leftovers are Palestine.

Israel gains nothing from negotiating when they can get what they want, like recognition of another land grab (Jerusalem) without negotiating. That's why this move is horrendous, it gives them incentives to not negotiate and just act unilaterally.

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed. Given that, what's the option? Outright war? With us backing Israel, that's a no go.

I think, if given a solution that didn't give everything to Israel, the Palestinians would jump at it (maybe not Hamas, but the people). Being offered second class citizenship after having all their land and possessions taken is not workable, and it's what they seem to get.

If N Korea sells Iran a nuke, I hope we can we go back to negotiations instead of genocidal one sided dictations.

Thanks, I had missed that. I retract my complaint about the presenter's tact/training.
Edit:but it did present a missed opportunity to teach how to properly reply to either of them being improper and defuse the situation respectfully.

It's no shock, but it's horrifically destructive and a devastatingly sad state of affairs.
Statutes of limitations means no criminal complaints are possible on 30+ year old crimes, but he's been accused of having sex with 14 year olds when in his 30's, a moral crime without time limitations, and there's good evidence he's also a bold faced liar currently.

Party affiliation is A#1!! We've been at 90-95% for quite a while now, so 100% doesn't come as a huge shock to me.

Age of consent is 16 in Alabama(and Canada eh), anybody come forward with a criminal complaint yet?

Was just watching the old Mythbusters where they took an actual driving road test while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. But, being actual driving, they legally had to stay under the .08 BAC limit even though it was on a closed course.

Really cool to see this place, where they can test things at mild/moderate/high levels of impairment, other types of intoxication, etc.

However, I did have one minor complaint, sort of the same as in the Mythbusters episode: it would be nice to see additional tests where the driver isn't ever expected to look at a video camera and/or respond correctly to questions. Ie., what if you're talking to somebody on the phone hands free, or talking to a passenger in the car, but you're not expected to devote a lot of attention to that ALL the time. In a real scenario, you can keep your eyes on the road and pay attention to driving while also listening to someone or even talking to them a little bit. If you see something in the road that requires your full attention, it seems like your brain should be able to do a reasonable job of prioritizing the driving (more important) over paying attention to the conversation (less important).

I'd wager that on average, people in that sort of scenario are slightly impaired compared to drivers putting 100% of their attention on driving, but not by a big margin. Probably lower than a lot of other distractions, some of which we deem acceptable (hard to legislate things like "driving while preoccupied" angry/sad/whatever).

I've been on the musical road many times since my wife is from Lancaster. It sounds terrible, just like the video. I always wondered what could have gone wrong and if there was something preventing the engineers from building it with the right pitches. I knew they had rebuilt it because of complaints but that's crazy that nobody thought to correct it. Thanks for the video!