froghawk on 7/7/2020 at 14:53
Oh, wow! An alarmist bit of propaganda from a Murdoch tabloid! I'm sold, you guys were right.
froghawk on 7/7/2020 at 15:15
No, but that's an opinion piece? You guys really seem to have a tough time with this whole evidence thing. The onus isn't on us to prove your argument.
Quote Posted by icemann
Go back to my response to Starker. Has examples with articles. If your of too low intelligence to click a page button to do this thing called reading which is required on a forum, then I can't help you. Perhaps it's time to go back to kindergarten.
Oh, we're above the personal attacks now, are we? No hypocrisy here whatsoever. You mean the post in which Starker thoroughly refuted every example? Yeah, I read that. By the way, if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, at least try using the correct form of 'you're' in the process.
Note that the only thing I've said which could be construed as a personal attack against you was when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were simply ignorant rather than acting in bad faith. You've made it abundantly clear that I was being far too generous. I won't make that mistake again. You've now demonstrated that you're nothing but a troll, and thus there is no reason to further waste time engaging with you under the pretext of real discourse.
froghawk on 7/7/2020 at 15:58
No, I meant Starker had already refuted them and I didn't see a need to do it again. As already pointed out, the courts ruled in their favor and Wilson's career has gotten on just fine. Jarrett's will probably bounce back, just like countless others (Cee-lo, Louis CK, etc. - and both of them even admitted their guilt). If your whole argument is about the dangers of one-sided anonymity and the way it ruins people's lives, you might want to produce some cases where this so-called cancel culture actually ended people's careers (without merit - obviously guilty examples like Cosby and Weinstein notwithstanding). Meanwhile, the vast majority of sexual assault cases have not managed to make any legal progress. It wouldn't be difficult for you to engage with this argument if you were actually aiming for real discourse, but you keep either misunderstanding it or willfully ignoring it.
Now, you said in the OP that you were going to quit posting and not engage in this debate - but you did anyway.
You said you want to avoid personal attacks, but you stooped to those.
You said you want a real discourse, but you've effectively ignored every point we've brought up and made no attempt to engage with them, instead just reiterating the same stuff over and over again after it's already been refuted, as if our counterarguments are magically going to change.
And you expect us to keep taking you at your word?
Starker on 7/7/2020 at 16:14
Quote Posted by icemann
In hindsight, I shouldn't have put the "rise of false claims" in the other title. At the time, after watching the video I linked in the OP, I meant by "rise" about how it now is a thing that I hear about on the news and online sources, where as before I practically never heard about it. Not a "rise" meaning massive increase like a daily occurrence. I put in the strong disclaimer about it not being leveled at the cases where a crime occurred. Purely at the times where it was a false claim, and that only.
It's not just the title, it's also the post itself that was both inflammatory and accusatory, but okay, whatever. The salient point is that you are not a neutral observer in this. You are throwing out a mix of very different things that happened over the years, blaming them on some nebulous cancel culture, and in none of the cases have the accusers been proven to have knowingly made false claims. And in James Gunn's case the accused person himself admitted to doing what he was accused of and apologised for it. And was consequently rehired by a corporation who is extremely prissy about their image.
Furthermore, you have also not shown that these people's lives "have been destroyed". In fact, as I said, all of them have won and won big and received a massive amount of support in the process. I'm sure being accused of doing something bad, especially when there is proof of wrongdoing, is very stressful, but, frankly, none of them seem to have had "their lives destroyed". Cliff Richard is still able to go on tours and release albums, James Gunn is still able to direct movies, Mr Angry still does Youtube videos and has millions of people in his "Angry Army" of subscribers, John Jarratt and Rebel Wilson are still getting roles, lead roles even.
Finally, you ask whether there should be punishment for people making false claims of serious crimes as if they are getting off scot-free. People go to jail over false claims or have to pay damages for defamation or face other kinds of legal repercussions. And if the accused are wealthy celebrities, they have more than enough means to fight back against any accusation, true or not. In fact, you don't have to be a celebrity at all to receive a mountain of support in this. Just look at the uphill struggle ordinary everyday victims of sexual assault face in every step of the way, the blame and hate thrown their way for trying to "ruin a man's life for 20 minutes of action". Rape is by far the easiest violent crime to get away with, (
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/an-epidemic-of-disbelief/592807/) because there is an epidemic of disbelief. And yet here you are to muddle the issue and cast doubt on people coming forward and their motivations, lamenting the small possibility of men's lives being destroyed over the vast number of women's lives definitely getting destroyed.
Thirith on 7/7/2020 at 16:20
Quote Posted by SubJeff
This is the law, isn't it?
Innocent until proven guilty. Or don't you believe that?
It sounds nice, but it's a motivational poster. It's a movie of the week. It is *not* a law. At best, it's a legal principle that isn't adhered to with any consistency for a number of reasons.
1) If you're accused of a violent crime, you may be put into prison anyway, perhaps with the possibility of bail. You may end up being in jail for months or longer before your trial. Is that what you'd consider "innocent until proven guilty"? As someone accused of a number of crimes, you will be treated like a criminal. This may actually make sense, if you're considered a clear security risk, though let's not assume that this is applied with any sense of justice or fairness, by and large.
2) There are situations where it makes sense to treat someone accused of a crime as not innocent, but very often whether you are or not is entirely down to things such as how rich or poor you are, whether you're white or black, whether you're any other kind of minority, whether you have a police record or not (which you may have without ever having committed a crime). If you're poor, you may not be able to afford the legal process that, if it were fair, would decide that you're innocent, so you may go for a plea deal, and hey presto, you're a criminal, although you didn't do anything. Whereas, if you're privileged, your chances of getting off scot-free are much, much higher.
3) So, innocent until proven guilty. Let's look at a concrete example. O.J. Simpson was pronounced 'not guilty'. Was he therefore innocent? If so, why the civil trial? When a civil suit was filed against Simpson for wrongful death, was that a case of hounding an innocent man? Is it perhaps the case that being pronounced not guilty in court isn't the be-all and end-all of justice, or even of the law? And why did the jury find Simpson responsible for the murders? Where does 'innocent until proven guilty' come into it? What would it even mean? Was the civil trial an injustice? Or can the outcomes of criminal trials have very little to do with actual justice? Is 'innocent until proven guilty' a neato slogan but one that in practice quickly begins to crumble?
4) So, in practice the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is often meaningless in the legal domain, but it may still sound like a nice principle. A legal principle, that is. (I'd go for 'equality before the law' before 'innocent until proven guilty'. Once we've got the former, I'm happy to talk about the latter.) It is not a law, and it is most definitely not a social principle that I adhere to, not as the absolute it is phrased as. If I hear from someone I trust that person X is a creep, that he doesn't respect personal boundaries, I will be wary. If I hear this from several people, I will be *very* wary. I will definitely not presume them innocent. I will try to be civil and fair, but I will treat them with suspicion, and I think that is not unwarranted. Let's say that a close friend of mine says they were sexually abused by that person. Do I still treat them as innocent? Should I do so? Do I go to my friend and say, "Sorry, until you present me with evidence, I will have to assume they're innocent." Much more so if you look at #metoo and so many cases, where the person who is accused of abuse, coercion etc. is often the person who has most of the institutional power. They have the money, they can give or take away jobs, they can ruin a person's career. The law often doesn't work in such a situation, because of the things I've already mentioned. So, if you're going to be serious about innocent until proven guilty, if you're going to be consistent, you will always decide in favour of the powerful, of the status quo, of the people who can afford to be assholes and against those who sometimes can't even afford to be model citizens.
5) And what does any of this have to do with icemann's statements? In particular when he continues to point to his list of supposed gotcha! examples as if they were proof of anything, and when he continues to do so after Starker has presented him with pretty convincing rebuttals? And, quite honestly, do I have much cause to assume you're doing any of this in good faith when so many of your posts change the goalposts and provide little in the way of actual *response* to what's been said?
june gloom on 7/7/2020 at 17:56
Quote Posted by SD
No, you're still missing the point. As I say, it's not really about genuine trans people. Allowing "cis" men to self-ID as trans, no questions asked, is where the potential problems lie.
who the fuck are you, a straight dude who has no respect for trans people, to declare who is or is not trans? it's clear your whole argument is basically "men = rapists, trans women = men, therefore trans women = rapists" so what reason has anyone, really, to give you the time of day? i promise you, cis men have never needed a dress to violate a woman's private space or commit sexual assault
it's really telling that you put cis in quotes like you don't think it's a real word, even though it's simply a latin root word that means "on this side of," i.e. it's the opposite meaning of trans ("on the other side of") which itself is a latin root word
this thread sucks
SubJeff on 7/7/2020 at 18:25
Dude, do you even know who SD is?
You've completely misinterpreted everything he's said and made up so many strawmen Nic Cage is crapping himself.
Jason Moyer on 7/7/2020 at 19:02
This thread has more bathroom raping than a party in the executive suite at Trump Tower.
Renzatic on 7/7/2020 at 19:39
The whole "trans laws will make restroom rapes easier to commit" argument has always been so lame to me. If a bunch of rando dudes can manage to convincingly disguise themselves to the point that they can sneak into a women's restroom without anyone taking a second glance, then the pro-trans restroom laws wouldn't make any difference, since they could've done it just as easily before their implementation as after. And it's not like any potential rapist could cite the law to excuse their actions after the fact.
...so why the overt concern?
