Feminism and history

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

How about this? A RadFem believes every rape accusation, man on woman, no matter how flimsy. While I've had cases before I haven't believed and have gone on record saying so. As for Kavanaugh, while I'm inclined to lean towards "probably" (with a possibility for "probably not"), it's that I divide him into the anti-choice camp that makes me suspect he'd be anti-woman. Of course, what his GOP buddies have said over the years haven't helped. And I'm not naive enough to think there can't be cases where men can't organize trains on a single woman to abuse her that way. History is full of such cases. With that said, though, this is all meaningless outside a courtroom, and if he is guilty, he should be tried. Wouldn't his DNA be on the victim? I know rape kits get thrown out, but you'd think somebody would have tried. All in all, I lean towards, 55% probably, 45% probably not. A RadFem would be 100% "He did it, castrate him!" Then again, I followed that case only from secondhand reports, which can be faulty.

The wiki for radical feminism doesn't say anything about believing every accusation.

A RadFem also thinks men can't be abused by women that way, a "man is always eager" bullshit. And will always sneer at men accusing women that way.

Also not sure about this per the wiki.

Wiki's can be written by anyone. Come on, you're better than this (usually).

They're not just written by anybody. That's not quite how wikipedia works.

I could go there right now and write on it.

So you're suspecting that's what somebody did when I was talking to Yuka?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Wikipedia isn't credible in itself. That's a fact, but there isn't much more beyond that as far as reliability. It's possible to be juked or pranked, in that someone arguing with someone that relies on it all the time can change it, bait the person into arguing with false information before it gets reverted back to the proper dissertation, but that's very circumstantial.

Wikipedia has never had a problem of providing particularly false information. It's understandably more reliable than most any news sources, especially if you proof the sources if available that are in the article's own bibliography/reference sheet. It's also non-profit compared to most news outlets, so it's not particularly subject to bias. I think for all the information it gives, it's probably the most non-bias thing on the planet, though I can start to digress on that. Point being that I've never really ever heard about its information being unreliable, except for when something is stated as a historically accountable fact without citation, and it's pretty good at noting that there's a citation needed (it's established as a fun little meme in discourse on the internet).

I mean, it's very possible to get a good grade on a university level essay with information exclusively out of wikipedia articles if you follow rules of academic credibility. You just can't use the article itself as the reference; you will get an F. And just not to mention that while credibility isn't for nothing on internet banter, referring to a Wikipedia article isn't outright offensive, and I'm kinda surprised that you're citing me on the basis of it being open source.

And believe me, back in the day, juking or pranking someone with a little bit of harmless Wikipedia altering would definitely be my style if the given circumstance above arose. And I would laugh all the way to the bank and back. Of course I believe that some sort of digital signature accounts for every alteration to an article, in which case if the information is ostensibly fraudulent then you might get barred from making changes overall.

[Yukaphile]

I can name an example.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I can name an example.

Oh hai Yuka.

Just what are you referring to?

[Yukaphile]

They named a last episode of a series... when it wasn't. The Animorphs TV show. At least according to poparena.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

okay

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Given that several state governments are actively seeking to get Roe v Wade thrown out, I'd say there is strong evidence for it being needed if only to stop some people from turning back the clock.

The clock should be turmned back on some things, not all , but some.

This approach is reductive.

"Women have too many rights already! I'm angry at some of the things feminism achieved in the past!"

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

...this thread has taken a weirdly personal turn.

[Yukaphile]

I mean, rape culture, victim-blaming, patriarchy, historical revision, and group hatred is still part of our genetic makeup. Those make for a baaaad combination for today's society.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yes, primates for a long time, not to mention early homo sapien and neanderthals were real big on historical revision.