Actually, a lot of white men were edited out, according to the director, because the situations happened off-camera, or there was other noise, etc., etc., and so forth.

Non sequitur much?

The fact is, it proves that women get harassed on the street — and the fact that a bunch of white harassers was edited out proves that it’s not just one race that “women aren’t safe” around.

If you think it proves women aren’t safe around black people, then the additional evidence I provided should convince you that women just aren’t safe. Do you need a link to the director’s comments?

I am stunned with the wit, relevance, and originality of your reply.

Adding in a Jewish joke? Very classy. So, what part of what I said do you find so hard to believe, and yet so hard to actually counter?

” How does it prove anything, when there’s no proof they were even edited out?”

Well, we have testimony from the people involved in making it; do you need them to release the original video before you’d believe it?

“Of course she’s going to say, “oh well we had white people too.”

She’s not the one who said it; director Rob Bliss said it, and the nonprofit Bliss worked with said it.

“sharp’s right, you’re a real putz. You are correct though, it’s not just one race that “women aren’t safe” around: blacks, mexicans, puerto ricans, and dominicans are all dangerous.”

As are white men, asian men…you name it. And I’ve seen and heard enough to believe it, even if you want to go to whatever extreme you require for denial.

Heck — look at this site, where we’re told ” forget about the agenda the video is trying to push and let yourself be mesmerized by what really matters.”

What matters is how hot someone is, not what the document they were part of is saying?

That’s the same kind of mindset that generates the “[guy] who harangues her, “Somebody’s acknowledging you for being beautiful! You should say thank you more,””

“This isn’t evidence, you clown.”

Yes, it is. It may not be *proof*, but it is evidence; people have been willing to put their credibility on the line to back it.

“jews control the media, global finance, and all institutions of higher learning.”

And we’ve seen what happens when people believe that testimony.

” But surely you agree.”

With your assertion? Not a whit. With the idea that you believe you’ve seen and heard enough? It’s possible, but of course there are people who have seen and heard enough to believe the earth is flat.

“Seriously, are you a JIDF shill or are you just stupid?”

Welcome to the joys of the false binary. Neither of the above.

And I hope Jeffs, Bills, and the other commenters here look at who’s rallying to their defense, and consider the implications of that fact.

“So which one is it?”

Oh, for goodness’ sake — if you’re going to play “let’s paste a couple of posts together and dig for potential contradictions”, go for it.

If the statement “white men were edited out” is true, and the original commenter in this thread believes the video shows that women aren’t safe around black men, then the demonstration is extended to white men.

So the “prove” there was not in reference to the implicit claim that you are making that the director was lying — but to the larger claim that the video made.

The director saying “We had this footage, but didn’t use it” is not proof that he had it. It is, however, evidence that he had it, because most people tend not to lie on something they could so easily be caught out at, when credibility is important to what they do. It’s not proof, as I said, but it is evidence.

Most people, also, would expect different levels of evidence for the claim “some white men harass women on the street” or “a video director has the footage he claims he does” and “Jews secretly run large portions of the world” — they’re on rather different scales, don’t you think?

And sorry, I’m not at the beck and call of anti-Semites.

Heh. Considering you don’t put your name to your claim, we have no reason to believe you. Welcome to how credibility works.

Short form: Unlikely claim by anonymous source? Very low credibility.

Wow. Rarely have I seen quite so much rhetorical mess in such a short paragraph.

We’ll start with what I presume is supposed to be another ethnic slur/joke. Then we get you making a claim that I never made, combining it with scoff quotes, the invocation of the political correctness bugaboo (combined with useful idiots — I find it amusing you’re quite willing to adapt ideas from leftists when they suit you). Add to that the fact that it’s an issue where he’s getting flak from both sides, and, well, that’s just the cherry on top.

Oh — and then we have the flounce, along with a parting non-evidence-based insult.

I leave it to the reader to judge the tactics and evidence on display here.

“I will attempt to pick my words as carefully as I can.”

Thank you; this will make it clearer where you are mistaken.

“n this thread, you’ve attempted to argue – or at least strongly implied – that street harassment of women is a significant problem among white men, and that white men are as guilty of it as men of other races/cultures, despite the lack of evidence corroborating this claim in the video footage that was released.”

I have argued that it is a significant problem — I did not speak to exact prevalence.

The fact that people chose to take what they saw as evidence of a problem among black men suggests that they would find similar data on white men also evidence of a problem.

“you attempted to sidetrack us from the main point by making a
distinction between “proof” and “evidence” (there is no “proof”, but there is “evidence” – OK)”

Thank you for ascribing motive to me. I was attempting to, as you also claim to, be more precise in my speech.

I also come from a background of formal logic & science — where the distinction between “proof” and “evidence” is very large.

“despite what is colloquially understood as “evidence” by people attempting to argue in good faith,”

What is your colloquial understanding? I would say “facts that increase the likelihood of a statement being true” count as “evidence” for that statement being true. That someone asserts it is true, staking their credibility on it, is a piece of evidence — whether in a courtroom or the court of public opinion.

“(that street harassment of women is without a doubt as much a problem among white men as it is a problem among men of any other race).”

Again — not “as much a problem” as “also a problem”. The distinction is a simple one — do please try and follow it.

“Lastly, you attempted to lend further credence to the idea that the creator of the video could not possibly be lying/spinning the truth,”

No — I said that his saying “I have this footage, it was edited out” is evidence towards the statement that the footage exists.

“either because the fact that he attached his name to his claim
inherently makes his claim sufficiently credible to somehow shift the burden of proof on his detractors”

It makes it more credible than random anonymous people on the internet who have nothing to lose in saying that it’s untrue.

“, or because he wouldn’t risk damaging his reputation by getting caught lying about something he could so easily be caught out at (how and by who?)”

No one of sufficient stature has, as far as I know, asked to see the footage. If someone does, then he’ll have to show it, or risk his credibility.

And no, J. Random Anonymous on the Internet does not qualify as someone of sufficient stature.

“And I repeat, one more time, that the above is supposed to conclusively support the assertion that white men are as guilty of harassing women on the street as men of any other race.”

I will repeat, for the (I believe) third time — the assertion was that “If you claim the footage says “women aren’t safe around blacks”, then the footage that was edited out supports the statement “women aren’t safe around white men” as well.”

I believe this qualifies as #2 of your three-fold list.

I will note, BTW, that you have no evidence beyond a desire that it be true for any statement like “The director lied about having footage of white men as well” which is what you need to have be true in order for my original assertion to be untrue.

“How about approximate prevalence? Relative prevalence? Anything? Is it
still a white male problem if one white male made one harassing comment
one time to one woman on the street?”

Why don’t you ask the original poster what “not safe around black men” means — any black man? Or just some? What’s the prevalence there? I simply said that if you believe that women aren’t safe around black men from that video, given what was cut out from it, you would have to make the same statement about white men.

Oh: And in regards to your complaint about “if one guy did it once” — do you need your ‘not all white men’ disclaimer to make you feel better?

“Make one or concede that you have none, coward.”

Out of idle curiosity, what do you expect to gain out of dropping insults throughout your post? Does it make you feel better? Are you expecting to get a rise out of me?

“Except that we currently have no proof that that data actually exists.
Apparently there is “evidence” that it does, but then again, I’ve heard
that just about anything qualifies as “evidence” these days.”

Hey, guess what? The world is not required to provide you what you consider “proof” at your demand. Unless you have good reason to suspect that the people being cited as saying the footage exist are lying — reasons beyond your prejudice — then their assertion taht it does is more credible than the assumption that it does not.

I am reminded of the people who clamor for “proof” of rape or harassment, but presume that any statement made by the alleged assailant is true until proven otherwise — while statements made by the victim are false until proven otherwise.

“then what you communicate conveys no useful information and has no predictive power. You make no point.”

I make as much, and as strong, a point as the person I originally responded to. If you accept, based on that video, that “women aren’t safe around black men”, and things were cut out of that video that included white men, we can draw the conclusion that women aren’t safe around white men, either.

“Ask for a refund.”

You should do the same to the person who taught you to read, given the number of times you’ve managed to mis-state my position in this thread.

“You’re arguing from authority again, oh officially designated arbiter of stature. You tell on yourself.”

Oh, I’m sorry — I forgot that you are the Arbiter of Sufficient Evidence, and until you are satisfied, no one else can reach a conclusion. At least, that’s the position you’ve been presenting here. Proof is what you claim it to be, nothing more, nothing less.

“No conclusive evidence for that footage’s existence. You lose, try again.”

Heh. Considering that you are arguing with me simply correcting your misstatement of my point, this bears little weight. You wish to declare “until it’s proven, we must assume that footage does not exist, therefore anything pointing to it is bogus.” At the very least, were you being honest, you would accept “We do not know if that footage exists”. Since my entire point hangs on a conditional, it is not true or false (by the standards you’re using) until that conditional is resolved.

“Until he or you can substantiate his claim with tangible PROOF, your position is the weaker one.”

Actually, no. For a very simple reason, though I doubt one you’d be able to follow.

There is a tremendous amount of documentation of street harassment of women by white men (as there is of women by men of any particular ethnic group) The fact that it didn’t appear here, in fact, was the *anomaly* that caught many people’s attention.

So, the presumption based on prior probability is that the footage does exist, and the director did a bad job — because it is much more likely that a director did a bad job of something (that he has a history of doing) than that a well-documented phenomenon didn’t occur.

“No – until it’s proven, we must not assume that the footage does exist.”

Actually, until it’s proven or disproven, we are allowed to make our own judgment based on the preponderance of evidence.

Evidence that it does exist: testimony from the director and from the non-profit organizers.

Evidence that it does not exist: Wishful thinking on the part of people who don’t want to accept that white men are also street harassers.

Hm. I know on which side *I* feel the preponderance of evidence lies.

(Here’s a hint: when dealing with a complex subject, simplistic notions of “proof” are not helpful.)

“For the Nth time, in this instance, the burden of proof is on you to resolve the conditional your point hangs on.”

Well, given that I also have no say with the director in question, I can’t resolve it to your satisfaction. That does not mean that my statement is wrong — it means it’s indeterminate, and people can (as I said above) judge based on the *available* evidence.

You appear to be taking the position that “Any statement that I disagree with is wrong until proven right, and any statement I agree with is right until proven wrong.” You will understand why this draws little respect.

“Based on the observable data we have here” — as if this was the entirety of the data available to us.

“what you describe is no less reasonable than trusting the alleged victim but not the alleged assailant, trusting neither, or trusting both.”

And here we get to the crux of the matter. It is less reasonable, for a very simple reason: false accusations are much rarer than actual crimes.

What the legal system is required to accept, in order to avoid false conviction, and what people are allowed to use as their own judgment, are different things.

For example, the anti-semitic theories you appear to believe certainly wouldn’t hold up to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a courtroom — and almost certainly not to a “preponderance of evidence” standard. Yet you still believe them.

Why, then, is it that when the issue becomes one like this, suddenly we must all adhere to the strictest possible standards of evidence before thinking someone might be guilty?

The answer, of course, is that that’s the way that provides the most protection for people like you, so that’s the way you would prefer everyone else to judge.

“Citation required.”

Something tells me — see above — that the thousands of accounts by women wouldn’t count to you as “evidence”, since you refuse to accept victim testimony.

So, a statistic showing, for example, that 85% of women reported behing harassed in public by men in Poland wouldn’t move you — or are you goign to assert that Poland is not vastly majority white?

Or how about this: http://gawker.com/texas-tech-frat-bros-booted-for-no-means-yes-yes-mean-1644435854

(Or the previous Yale incident)

Or do you want to excuse those on the grounds of “Boys will be boys” or somesuch nonsense?

White men do engage in street harassment. Trying to argue the negative of that position puts you up against huge amounts of testimony from women who have experienced it. Go look some of it up, if you care.

Of course, if you require “PROOF” in video form, then no, none of this will matter to you. But then you should examine your own positions, and see which of them could stand the level of support you demand from others.

“Given how trivial it would be for the director of the video to settle this debate, if his word alone is admissible as evidence that the footage vindicating your view exists, then the fact that he cannot/will not release said footage is equally strong (and I would argue, stronger) evidence in the opposite direction.”

Your previous citation, BTW, was to someone arguing that it should not have been edited out — not someone demanding that it be shown, or doubting its existence.

Really, there isn’t much “debate” about whether or not the footage exists, except (from what I have seen) from a few people who desperately want to deny the possibility. Most people’s concern has been *why* he did it, not *whether or not* he did it.

A word of advice: If you want people to take you at your word when you say your views are “more nuanced”, perhaps you shouldn’t start out the conversation with anti-Semitic remarks; it tends to create that as a first impression.

Go well.

No proof other than the editor saying he edited them out.

” After all, being offended was her goal.”

Funny, I thought documenting what happened was her goal — if you don’t find what happened offensive, then you don’t — but all that the makers of the film did was document what happened.

And we’ll have to see if someone else does the same experiment in other cities — I suspect your broad generalizations are false, but neither of us have much data in that regard.