▲ 214 ▼ Here's the plan. (New video from LTT) (www.youtube.com) submitted 2 years ago by octalfudge@lemmy.world to c/linustechtips@lemmy.ml 191 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] net00@lemm.ee 174 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] h3rm17@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] net00@lemm.ee 50 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Stumblinbear@pawb.social -6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This isn't a court trial tbh So just because it's not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren't a purely legal framework. what has come forth from Madison's side Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn't evidence. It's just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone. At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 16 points 2 years ago So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework. I'm under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn't harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc. That's the difference. permalink fedilink source parent [+] h3rm17@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 years ago Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone! permalink fedilink source parent [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de -9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good thing that person's personal "court system" has no bearing on LMG's ability to do or not do anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] glibg10b@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children) How do you present evidence that it didn't happen without uploading months of continuous security camera footage? I think we should first wait for Madison to provide evidence that it did happen permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) At least there was other ex-employees who did show support to some of the stuff Madison said permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) ehhh, no; Colin and Taran repeatedly stated they never witnessed sexual abuse or harassment, and they can only confirm current claims are consistent with what she told them before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I said "show support to some stuff", not that they confirmed any of it as witnesses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think we're saying the same thing but I don't like the way you phrased it. They didn't support any part of her story, except that it didn't change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Yeah I guess the wording in internet is difficult. What I meant is that they stood up for her, even if they can't confirm the things happened. permalink fedilink source parent [+] glibg10b@lemmy.ml -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) If, hypothetically, Madison made this whole thing up due to some ulterior motive, don't you think there would be other ex-exployees with mutual interests? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* Just out of spite? Nah that's not normal. If we were talking about some megacorp like amazon or blizzard I'm sure there were ex employees piling in with some lies too but it's way less likely in a smaller company when we're talking about just 2 other people known by the community chipping in. permalink fedilink source parent [+] V0lD@programming.dev -2 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h3rm17@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] net00@lemm.ee 50 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Stumblinbear@pawb.social -6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This isn't a court trial tbh So just because it's not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren't a purely legal framework. what has come forth from Madison's side Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn't evidence. It's just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone. At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 16 points 2 years ago So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework. I'm under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn't harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc. That's the difference. permalink fedilink source parent [+] h3rm17@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 years ago Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone! permalink fedilink source parent [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de -9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good thing that person's personal "court system" has no bearing on LMG's ability to do or not do anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] net00@lemm.ee 50 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Stumblinbear@pawb.social -6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This isn't a court trial tbh So just because it's not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren't a purely legal framework. what has come forth from Madison's side Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn't evidence. It's just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone. At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 16 points 2 years ago So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework. I'm under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn't harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc. That's the difference. permalink fedilink source parent [+] h3rm17@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 years ago Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone! permalink fedilink source parent [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de -9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good thing that person's personal "court system" has no bearing on LMG's ability to do or not do anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Stumblinbear@pawb.social -6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) This isn't a court trial tbh So just because it's not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren't a purely legal framework. what has come forth from Madison's side Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn't evidence. It's just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone. At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 16 points 2 years ago So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework. I'm under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn't harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc. That's the difference. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 16 points 2 years ago So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework. I'm under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn't harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc. That's the difference. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] h3rm17@sh.itjust.works -6 points 2 years ago Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone! permalink fedilink source parent
[+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de -9 points 2 years ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good thing that person's personal "court system" has no bearing on LMG's ability to do or not do anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good thing that person's personal "court system" has no bearing on LMG's ability to do or not do anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] FunkyMonkey@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] glibg10b@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children) How do you present evidence that it didn't happen without uploading months of continuous security camera footage? I think we should first wait for Madison to provide evidence that it did happen permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) At least there was other ex-employees who did show support to some of the stuff Madison said permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) ehhh, no; Colin and Taran repeatedly stated they never witnessed sexual abuse or harassment, and they can only confirm current claims are consistent with what she told them before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I said "show support to some stuff", not that they confirmed any of it as witnesses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think we're saying the same thing but I don't like the way you phrased it. They didn't support any part of her story, except that it didn't change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Yeah I guess the wording in internet is difficult. What I meant is that they stood up for her, even if they can't confirm the things happened. permalink fedilink source parent [+] glibg10b@lemmy.ml -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) If, hypothetically, Madison made this whole thing up due to some ulterior motive, don't you think there would be other ex-exployees with mutual interests? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* Just out of spite? Nah that's not normal. If we were talking about some megacorp like amazon or blizzard I'm sure there were ex employees piling in with some lies too but it's way less likely in a smaller company when we're talking about just 2 other people known by the community chipping in. permalink fedilink source parent [+] V0lD@programming.dev -2 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) At least there was other ex-employees who did show support to some of the stuff Madison said permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) ehhh, no; Colin and Taran repeatedly stated they never witnessed sexual abuse or harassment, and they can only confirm current claims are consistent with what she told them before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I said "show support to some stuff", not that they confirmed any of it as witnesses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think we're saying the same thing but I don't like the way you phrased it. They didn't support any part of her story, except that it didn't change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Yeah I guess the wording in internet is difficult. What I meant is that they stood up for her, even if they can't confirm the things happened. permalink fedilink source parent [+] glibg10b@lemmy.ml -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) If, hypothetically, Madison made this whole thing up due to some ulterior motive, don't you think there would be other ex-exployees with mutual interests? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* Just out of spite? Nah that's not normal. If we were talking about some megacorp like amazon or blizzard I'm sure there were ex employees piling in with some lies too but it's way less likely in a smaller company when we're talking about just 2 other people known by the community chipping in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) ehhh, no; Colin and Taran repeatedly stated they never witnessed sexual abuse or harassment, and they can only confirm current claims are consistent with what she told them before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I said "show support to some stuff", not that they confirmed any of it as witnesses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think we're saying the same thing but I don't like the way you phrased it. They didn't support any part of her story, except that it didn't change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Yeah I guess the wording in internet is difficult. What I meant is that they stood up for her, even if they can't confirm the things happened. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I said "show support to some stuff", not that they confirmed any of it as witnesses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think we're saying the same thing but I don't like the way you phrased it. They didn't support any part of her story, except that it didn't change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Yeah I guess the wording in internet is difficult. What I meant is that they stood up for her, even if they can't confirm the things happened. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think we're saying the same thing but I don't like the way you phrased it. They didn't support any part of her story, except that it didn't change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Yeah I guess the wording in internet is difficult. What I meant is that they stood up for her, even if they can't confirm the things happened. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Yeah I guess the wording in internet is difficult. What I meant is that they stood up for her, even if they can't confirm the things happened. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] glibg10b@lemmy.ml -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) If, hypothetically, Madison made this whole thing up due to some ulterior motive, don't you think there would be other ex-exployees with mutual interests? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* Just out of spite? Nah that's not normal. If we were talking about some megacorp like amazon or blizzard I'm sure there were ex employees piling in with some lies too but it's way less likely in a smaller company when we're talking about just 2 other people known by the community chipping in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* Just out of spite? Nah that's not normal. If we were talking about some megacorp like amazon or blizzard I'm sure there were ex employees piling in with some lies too but it's way less likely in a smaller company when we're talking about just 2 other people known by the community chipping in. permalink fedilink source parent