Starker on 23/12/2017 at 02:40
Then I'm at a loss why you are so vehemently arguing with us when you in fact fully agree with and support our position.
It's not like the accusations against Weinstein and many others have been unsubstantiated.
catbarf on 23/12/2017 at 03:02
Quote Posted by Starker
when you in fact fully agree with and support our position.
Heywood and faetal are saying that the accused shouldn't receive the benefit of the doubt, so, uh, no? Substantiating accusations with overwhelming evidence is one thing. Assuming all accusations are true unless proven otherwise, using that assumption to justify extrajudicial punishment when the situation is he-said-she-said, and justifying the inevitable false positives by appealing to their lower frequency is another thing entirely.
Starker on 23/12/2017 at 03:07
Um, I don't think that's what they've been saying at all.
SubJeff on 23/12/2017 at 07:44
Quote Posted by Starker
We are not saying that every accuser should be blindly believed
Who is this "we"?
catbarf on 23/12/2017 at 13:10
Quote Posted by Starker
Um, I don't think that's what they've been saying at all.
If I'm misunderstanding something, please set me straight:
Quote Posted by faetal
Giving every guy benefit of the doubt on innocence is fucking over the 88-98% of assaulted women in order to protect 2-12% of men (...) Favouring the putative victims is the right call, in probabilistic terms.
Quote Posted by faetal
There are going to be false positives (2-12%), there are a huge amount of false negatives (rape conviction rates are extremely low, as it is incredibly difficult to prove). Hiding behind the rhetorical barrier of comparing phrases ignores the real life numbers.
Quote Posted by heywood
You said it's better to let a guilty person go free than to punish an innocent person. It's easy to agree with that when it's somebody who stole a 12-pack from a convenience store, because nobody really got harmed. If we're talking sexual assault, I would still agree with that up to a point. But what happens if there are 10 instances of sexual harassment or assault that go unpunished for every wrongful accusation? What if it's 100 to 1, and "he said, she said" and "innocent until proven guilty" become tag lines for men in power to just sweep it under the rug? At some point, it becomes absurd to call this justice.
Quote Posted by heywood
Presuming a person is innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not a law of physics or one of the ten commandments. It's a legal standard we adopted for criminal prosecutions because it produces more just outcomes. Just outcomes are what we should be interested in here, not blind adherence to a principle.
Obviously, when a person is falsely accused of sexual harassment or abuse, and they suffer as a result of the accusation, that's not a just outcome. But when an act of sexual harassment or abuse goes unreported, or reported and unpunished, or when reporting it leads to shaming or further hurting the victim, that is not a just outcome either.
Both appear to have been consistently saying that the comparative rarity of false positives justifies presuming guilt, and inevitably harming a non-negligible number of innocents is justified by the greater number of guilty who will receive punishment for their crimes. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
SubJeff on 23/12/2017 at 13:13
That's how I interpret it too.
Correct us if we're wrong guys.
icemann on 23/12/2017 at 16:24
That's been the theme consistently throughout the thread, so I'd definitely interpret it (and have been throughout) as that.
Starker on 23/12/2017 at 19:04
Quote Posted by catbarf
If I'm misunderstanding something, please set me straight:
Both appear to have been consistently saying that the comparative rarity of false positives justifies presuming guilt, and inevitably harming a non-negligible number of innocents is justified by the greater number of guilty who will receive punishment for their crimes. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
You are failing to take into account the context in which those statements were made and you're leaping to conclusions.
They are not talking about punishment. They are arguing against the idea that all accused should be presumed innocent in the court of public opinion, as is the standard for criminal prosecution. Faetal is saying that if it comes to whether to believe one or the other, purely in probabilistic terms, the victims are vastly more likely to be right, therefore a system that, in an effort to eliminate all false positives, presumes that men are innocent until a court verdict is going to disproportionately hurt women.
Here's what you're missing:
Quote:
I think anyone would need to be stupid too, to not see this as the fine tip of a very large iceberg, and yet the biggest problem that some people are seeing, is that maybe some men somewhere have been falsely accused and it has ruined their lives.
Of course that is an issue, it's just a much smaller one.
I don't think calling out for even more scrutiny and "believe the man first" tactics is a benign move here, I think it originates in misogyny. Like making a public statement about being raped or assaulted is somehow trivial.
Of course I don't think that all accusations should result in conviction, but I also think that saying "shut up unless you have proof" hurts 88-98% of the abused, to protect 2%-12% of the accused. If women are worth less than men, this might make sense, but it doesn't.
This doesn't mean that all men should be presumed guilty, it means all men shouldn't be presumed innocent no matter how much evidence there is stacked against them.
And Heywood says:
Quote:
If you guys insist on applying the standards of criminal prosecution and presume the allegations aren't true unless there's a conviction, you're working to keep it that way.
and
Quote:
Nobody stated outright that it's better to harm innocent people than allow some wrongdoers to go free, as you put it.
Isn't this the complete opposite of what you're accusing them of saying?
Kolya on 23/12/2017 at 19:25
Well I guess we can all go home then. I made cookies by the way, they're by the door. Go get some on your way out. And kiss your families! Good bye! See you next year!
Whew. What a mess. I think I'll clean that up tomorrow. Some channel's got to have Die Hard on right now. Let's see...ah, there you go. Yippie ki yay, motherfucker, yippee ki yay.
SubJeff on 23/12/2017 at 19:33
Quote Posted by Starker
They are arguing against the idea that all accused should be presumed innocent in the court of public opinion, as is the standard for criminal prosecution.
And I'm saying this is rubbish.
Someone mentioned misogyny. Isn't this pure misandry?
Quote:
Faetal is saying that if it comes to whether to believe one or the other, purely in probabilistic terms, the victims are vastly more likely to be right, therefore a system that, in an effort to eliminate all false positives, presumes that men are innocent until a court verdict is going to disproportionately hurt women.
Is he?
My argument is no one has to be "believed". Thats the equitable way, the fair way and the compassionate way.
This idea that one side or the other has to be believed over the other is narrow minded and ridiculous. Stupid even. Painting everything as black and white is the preserve of the foolish.
