Michael

https://www.newsweek.com/sam-altman-openai-sister-annie-sexual-abuse-allegation-lawsuit-missouri-federal-court-2011468

Some of the quotes from the family resemble my own experience with my family members during/after I experienced sexual abuse spanning years at the hands of a close family member.

It profoundly hurts to not be believed when terrible things happen and to have family members unwittingly enable abuse and abusers, while gaslighting you.

I hope the truth is revealed.

The intent was clarified within minutes of me responding (and ignored) - and if you look deep, a commenter still asserts that I’m suggesting licenses for all adults.

See: https://lemmy.world/comment/20879263

Can you not see the disconnect and the spin the person is continuing to push? They are suggesting an entirely new system (licenses for all adults) and applying that to me, while I’m over here pointing to something that already exists as a likely implementation: probation terms (which they refuse to address).

I never suggested “offender lists”. I’m not saying probation terms retroactively apply to past offenders, either.

You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation

I clarified that I did mean that umpteen times if you cared to look (including in the edit to the comment you just responded to), but the other commenter refused to listen to the nuance and called it “rhetorical flourishing”.

People have terms for probation. I said that if you are violent and reoffending (domestic abuser) that there should be restrictions for you entering into a new or existing relationship. Which is a viable term for probation to prevent abuse.

The system for probation already exists, I said nothing about licenses or licenses affecting all adults - which the other commenter repeatedly asserts I’m suggesting. It is twisting and it is likely in bad faith.

Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.

You are saying I’m suggesting it affect “all adults”. That’s false, I gave a very specific example and circumstance for which this could be applied. Probation officers manage almost all aspects of those they are monitoring that are on probation and all adults don’t need to abide by that system.

You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

Are you seriously suggesting I am a right-wing libertarian for suggesting that there be terms for probation after somebody domestically abuses somebody, especially repeat offenders? Have you ever known somebody on probation or a violent offender and have experience with the systems they go through to reenter society?

The restrictions can be quite harsh and I don’t agree with all of them, but therapy and preventing abuse is desirable after somebody is released from incarceration (and during) for domestic violence.

The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

They saw your spin and took you at face-value. I’m not hurt.

You replied to yourself and meant to reply to this comment:

Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.

Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That’s the nuance and it’s not “rhetorical flair”. You misread or you are in bad faith.

Such a system already exists in some individual people’s terms for probation and adults don’t need to get a license.

Probation is an established system. You suggested licensing I’m not engaging with you anymore because that’s not my argument. It’s your spin.

Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.

Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That’s the nuance and it’s not “rhetorical flair”. You misread or you are in bad faith.

Such a system already exists in some individual people’s terms for probation and adults don’t need to get a license.

You are completely removing the agency of adults to make their own choices

Violent, reoffending adults who specifically engage in domestic violence - and I clarified that it should be as part of their incarceration/probation. Such restrictions already exist in certain cases as terms for probation and it doesn’t always revolve around protecting children.

Probation officers handle this just fine, there is no need for licenses affecting all adults. You twisted what I said, just admit it.

Why couldn’t you just respond like that to me?

The legal mechanisms required to enforce that would be some form of government permission and approval structure, such as licensing.

False.

For example, if one is a sex offender/domestic violence perpetrator in the US, they can be disallowed to have a relationship as part of their probation. Therapy can also be a requirement for probation.

How would the government track an individuals approval for personal private relationships?

How would the government enforce penalties on private citizens who engaged in an unauthorized private relationships?

There are probation officers who handle these cases and violating the terms of probation usually results in a loss of freedom/punishment of the person serving probation.

Never heard of this person, but given that there are accusations against them that are at the forefront of search results I’m unsure if I feel it prudent to expose myself to their works.

Nope. I’m suggesting that people who offend (especially reoffenders) should go to therapy (locked ward) instead of prison and be taught how to be functioning human beings who don’t hurt others, especially those close to them. The sentence would be similar to their incarceration.

What I’m suggesting is akin to a prison sentence and probation (which may have terms and conditions).

You are acting like I’m talking about all people, but I’m limiting this to people who commit violent, domestic crime against others, especially repeatedly.

Just untrue. Your twisting is not reflective of what I was saying at all.

The current system punishes people who commit domestic violence, and chances are, they go straight back to relationships and are incentivized to scare their partner to not report further abuse because they have been taught nothing through their punishment.

You can see my reply to limonfiesta, there is a profound misunderstanding y’all are having. I’m addressing our failing systems, like “criminal justice”, which is a total and complete farce.

Keywords are: violent and reoffending.

I’m suggesting that we actually rehabilitate offenders after they offend to give them better tools to deal with their emotions and relationships to prevent more hurt from happening.

Plenty of people that commit certain crimes have conditions for re-entering society in whole and I don’t think what I’m suggesting is unreasonable.

I’m a firm believer in rehabilitative and restorative justice, not criminal justice/punitive punishment (which is a far cry from justice and punitive justice doesn’t properly disincentivize crime).

Maybe if they are violent and reoffending they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship until they receive intensive therapy, which may include medication?

This is just masking a problem that is multi-faceted and the results aren’t really that impressive.

Edit: I am not suggesting a license for private interpersonal relationships, I’m suggesting that we actually rehabilitate prisoners/offenders and give them therapy/mental health treatment. Commenters below are twisting my words and saying I’m suggesting things that are not in the above text, not even a little bit. I quickly stated that I meant this to be a term for probation (which is conditional freedom), not something retroactively applied to past offenders or applied to all adults in the form of a license.

Respectfully, saying, “what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda.” is what makes this denial. It’s fine if you disagree.

Hillary is free to acknowledge what’s happened from a neutral perspective and prove me wrong. But thus far, has she?

I suggest you re-read the article/listen to her speak because she is clearly taking a side. What she’s speaking to is not limited to that day, to the best of my knowledge. If you disagree with the coverage or find it inaccurate, feel free to point out the inconsistencies or distortions.

It’s pretty clear that this is a denial, I suggest you listen to her speak.

From the article:

“It’s not just the usual suspects. It’s a lot of young Jewish Americans who don’t know the history and don’t understand,” she claimed, adding, “A lot of the challenge is with younger people. More than 50% of young people in America get their news from social media.”

Clinton complained that when she tried to talk to young people “to engage in some kind of reasonable discussion, it was very difficult because they did not know history, they had very little context, and what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda.”

The former first lady concluded, “So just pause on that for a second. They are seeing short-form videos, some of them totally made up, some of them not at all representing what they claim to be showing, and that’s where they get their information.”

If that’s not a denial, what is? Even if there is some amount of propaganda, it’s undeniable the horrors that have occurred. It’s not pure propaganda and she failed to speak to what actually has occurred.

This is literally the same thing as holocaust denial. She’s claiming to be an authority of the history of the region, when in reality the history doesn’t invalidate or excuse what has occurred for over two years against an occupied people.

If somebody was denying the holocaust and making this point in the context of that denial, would you respond the same way and say it’s a totally fair point?

I am not doxxing myself because the paranoia will likely continue in such a scenario.

And what’s next? Suspecting US citizens of being foreign agents and then sicking the FBI on them?

Unlike you, I’m not going to be cheerleading the return of McCarthyism.

WTF?