Erm, the study no-cheese linked to is the source data for the study Muppet linked to.
Wild first guess: categorization of the sex offenders exclusively is higher than the average of all groups, but there are various comparable sub groups with similar recidivism rates.
Sex offender registries are mostly a bullshit extension of tough on crime policies, and they usually don't help anyone. If a person is such a danger that you have to keep them on a registry, they should probably still be in prison. Of course you'd need to have a prison system focused on rehabilitation rather than stacking ever-greater punishment on people to get votes by being "tough on crime"...
Sex offenders 4 times as likely to be rearrested for similar crimes as non sex offenders.
That statistic shows that released sex offenders are 4 times as likely to be rearrested for a sex offense than released non sex offenders are to be rearrested for a sex offense, which is nowhere near what you set out to show.
Your statistic says nothing about the rates of recidivism involving other offenses, and more importantly, "non sex offenders" includes every single person imprisoned for anything that isn't a sex offense.
Erm, the study no-cheese linked to is the source data for the study Muppet linked to.
Wild first guess: categorization of the sex offenders exclusively is higher than the average of all groups, but there are various comparable sub groups with similar recidivism rates.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are groups with similar or higher recidivism rates, but the nature of the crime is important, too, and not solely for emotional reasons.
Sex offender registries are mostly a bullshit extension of tough on crime policies, and they usually don't help anyone. If a person is such a danger that you have to keep them on a registry, they should probably still be in prison. Of course you'd need to have a prison system focused on rehabilitation rather than stacking ever-greater punishment on people to get votes by being "tough on crime"...
But.. you're for doxxing? Do I have that right?
I just don't really understand why it's okay to reveal acts performed by an entity whose identity we know (ie: investigative journalist revealing politician runs baby fighting ring) but not revealing the identity of an entity whose acts we know (ie: investigative journalist revealing the announcer for the baby fighting ring was This Guy), and I don't see how anyone can claim that press needs to be held to a certain standard when, as far as I can tell, the press has never held that standard except when legally obligated, especially modern corporate press which exists to create scandal for ratings rather than actually report.
Basically, claims that the press is not supposed to be a weapon doesn't make sense to me. Corporate news is welded as a weapon every day to far more dramatic results in order to enforce the status quo, we've just gotten used to it so we no longer see it as such.
I'm not saying this Gawker guy is awesome. Indeed, as more stories come out about it I'm increasingly of the opinion that they can both get fucked. But that's exactly what I'm talking about; the revealing of truth is dangerous when people don't want that truth to be known. If everyone is constantly digging up dirt on everyone, maybe people will be more truthful.
Sweet fuck. Jack, you really are voting against your own self interest in exchange for being able to vote on your principles. I was going to vote for Jill Stein because of my principles, but sometimes it's just more important to vote for something that might protect people.
So, I'm gonna vote for Obama. Know that I'm doing this because I want you to be protected and taken care of so that you can become rich if you want. You may not, because of innumerable reasons, but I want you to at least have a chance.
I changed my opinions several times just to fuel the fire, called Jack a "1% asshole," and literally used the phrase, "My friends didn't die on Iraqi soil for this bullshit."
Not sure how much more obvious the trolling can be, bro.
I changed my opinions several times just to fuel the fire, called Jack a "1% asshole," and literally used the phrase, "My friends didn't die on Iraqi soil for this bullshit."
Not sure how much more obvious the trolling can be, bro.
It was good work, I salute you.
I started in on the communist rhetoric to similar effect.
This stuff isn't really a flamewar. A flamewar would be if I started calling Muppet a communist fuck who wants to take my freedom, and then just increased the level of shrill screeching every time he posted. What we are having here is an unmoderated discussion.
I changed my opinions several times just to fuel the fire, called Jack a "1% asshole," and literally used the phrase, "My friends didn't die on Iraqi soil for this bullshit."
Not sure how much more obvious the trolling can be, bro.
Honestly I just thought you were high, but that's still not much for flaming in my book.
This stuff isn't really a flamewar. A flamewar would be if I started calling Muppet a communist fuck who wants to take my freedom, and then just increased the level of shrill screeching every time he posted. What we are having here is an unmoderated discussion.
Well, I did compare Muppet directly to Violentacrez.
This stuff isn't really a flamewar. A flamewar would be if I started calling Muppet a communist fuck who wants to take my freedom, and then just increased the level of shrill screeching every time he posted. What we are having here is an unmoderated discussion.
A flamewar would be when I take all of the middling personal details you've revealed on the forum over the past several years and cobble them together into a crushing and soul-shatteringly accurate analysis of your innermost thought processes and secret desires, so utterly and thoroughly humiliating you that your only options are to either respond in kind or go the nuclear route of spouting false but plausible horrible things about me and as many other people in the thread as possible in an attempt to deflect.
It's not a real flamewar until somebody at least cries, and even then that's just kids' stuff. An authentic, genuine flamewar results in somebody shutting their computer off, possibly for weeks, and taking years to return to the forum, if ever.
Not that I'm advocating for one, just, wow, I think it's kind of cute when people call a thread like this a flamewar.
This stuff isn't really a flamewar. A flamewar would be if I started calling Muppet a communist fuck who wants to take my freedom, and then just increased the level of shrill screeching every time he posted. What we are having here is an unmoderated discussion.
Well, I did compare Muppet directly to Violentacrez.
Yeah that one actually annoyed me for almost 15 whole minutes as I was going to bed. I actually considered responding more thoroughly but figured you were either trolling or just having a REALLY bad day.
\Anyway, I have a serious question stemming from the flamewar before the current healthcare one... What do you guys think about the sex offender registry? You know, whenever someone commits a sex crime, they have to be a registered sex offender, mainly to alert communities when they move there so parents can be aware, etc. etc. I am really curious what muppet thinks of this.
I think it is a poorly utilized tool. Like Scrym discussed in one geeknights episode, you get situations where towns pass so many ordinances about where a sex offender can't live that there is literally no place they can have a permanent address there, so they have to move, defeating the whole purpose of the registry (which is to keep track of them and keep the public informed). Like Muppet said, its is unnecessary, but useful.
This forum has flame wars ALL the time. I find it incredibly... interesting... that people here (who often participate in the forum flame wars) are suddenly acting like they never happen, and those of us arguing are stupid or something. (The regular popcorn gif people like Rym are okay and provide comical relief, not complaining about you :-P). Anyway I've been quietly observing conversations of this forum for years now, and trust me, the past week or so is nothing new. I feel a little insulted actually, because this is the first time I've participated in any flame wars (like I mentioned in previous post, election stuff making me all argumentative) and I feel like I'm being regarded as an idiot or something. Maybe you guys are acting this way because the latest flame wars have involved the uncomfortable topic of sex crimes? Whatever, why am I even pointing this out, you'll just argue with me. :-P
Muppet is right. A mere heated argument is not generally called a "flamewar" by the standards of the Internet at large. A true flamewar has to involve a large quantity of personal insults and a considerable level of anger, which is atypical of the FRCF.
Although we have a "flamewars" section in this forum, it's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek usage of the term.
Comments
Wild first guess: categorization of the sex offenders exclusively is higher than the average of all groups, but there are various comparable sub groups with similar recidivism rates.
Your statistic says nothing about the rates of recidivism involving other offenses, and more importantly, "non sex offenders" includes every single person imprisoned for anything that isn't a sex offense.
Basically, claims that the press is not supposed to be a weapon doesn't make sense to me. Corporate news is welded as a weapon every day to far more dramatic results in order to enforce the status quo, we've just gotten used to it so we no longer see it as such.
I'm not saying this Gawker guy is awesome. Indeed, as more stories come out about it I'm increasingly of the opinion that they can both get fucked. But that's exactly what I'm talking about; the revealing of truth is dangerous when people don't want that truth to be known. If everyone is constantly digging up dirt on everyone, maybe people will be more truthful.
So, I'm gonna vote for Obama. Know that I'm doing this because I want you to be protected and taken care of so that you can become rich if you want. You may not, because of innumerable reasons, but I want you to at least have a chance.
Wouldn't you agree?
In general, though, we're too far up in our ivory tower for the real flames to ever reach us.
Not sure how much more obvious the trolling can be, bro.
That isn't to say I actually read through it, I just skipped to the end and posted a comment.
I started in on the communist rhetoric to similar effect.
It's not a real flamewar until somebody at least cries, and even then that's just kids' stuff. An authentic, genuine flamewar results in somebody shutting their computer off, possibly for weeks, and taking years to return to the forum, if ever.
Not that I'm advocating for one, just, wow, I think it's kind of cute when people call a thread like this a flamewar.
...nevermind.
Seriously, though: this thread? Not a flamewar.
Although we have a "flamewars" section in this forum, it's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek usage of the term.