SubJeff on 18/12/2017 at 18:56
Quote Posted by dethtoll
That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me and so I immediately distrust it.
Lol.
Trust, brother. I mean it.
catbarf on 18/12/2017 at 18:57
Quote Posted by Starker
The babysitter example is just to show that we don't live our lives by the principles that courts follow. You can make up your own mind about someone without relying on a court decision. I wasn't making the example as an analogy of the situation.
I think the problem with the example is that it's implicitly leaning on other factors, like the perceived trustworthiness of the accuser and the gravity of the claim. We're considering the prior accusations to be credible (ie we trust those parents to tell the truth, because babysitter behavior is not an area generally subject to false accusations), and choosing not to hire a babysitter isn't ruining their career.
The less trustworthy the allegations are, and the more impactful a false accusation could be, the more I'd expect a reasonable person to give benefit of the doubt. If a single ex-partner accuses someone of sexual assault, with the result that now they can't get hired in their profession, without the matter ever being determined by a court, is that really fair?
I think the phrase 'trust, but verify' applies to both the accusers and the accused. Accusers should be taken seriously, but the accused shouldn't be treated like they're already guilty. As a society we place value on the idea of giving someone a chance to prove their honesty, so I don't think it's as different from normal as you seem to imply.
june gloom on 18/12/2017 at 20:59
Quote Posted by Brethren
I thought both you guys quit this place. I should have known you were just a bunch of drama queens.
Said the pot to the kettle.
Starker on 19/12/2017 at 00:23
Quote Posted by catbarf
I think the problem with the example is that it's implicitly leaning on other factors, like the perceived trustworthiness of the accuser and the gravity of the claim. We're considering the prior accusations to be credible (ie we trust those parents to tell the truth, because babysitter behavior is not an area generally subject to false accusations), and choosing not to hire a babysitter isn't ruining their career.
Again, it was not meant to be an analogy for the situation. It was just to illustrate how we don't carry legal principles over to our private lives.
Quote Posted by catbarf
The less trustworthy the allegations are, and the more impactful a false accusation could be, the more I'd expect a reasonable person to give benefit of the doubt. If a single ex-partner accuses someone of sexual assault, with the result that now they can't get hired in their profession, without the matter ever being determined by a court, is that really fair?
So, if you can't prove it in court, you should shut up about it? And if people do speak up without being able to prove it in court, everyone has to behave as if nothing has happened? If someone is allowed to ruin people's lives with sexual assault because everyone kept quiet about it or ignored it, is that really fair?
Quote Posted by catbarf
I think the phrase 'trust, but verify' applies to both the accusers and the accused. Accusers should be taken seriously, but the accused shouldn't be treated like they're already guilty. As a society we place value on the idea of giving someone a chance to prove their honesty, so I don't think it's as different from normal as you seem to imply.
So why is there this double standard for sexual assault? Why aren't the victims of sexual assault given the same chance, but doubted and berated and discouraged every step of the way?
And to put things in context a bit, the stories about Weinstein et al are far from just one disgruntled ex making an accusation. These are stories where multiple witnesses have come forward and in some cases the accused person has admitted to the wrongdoings. One accusation is far from making an impact in the life of someone like Harvey Weinstein, but if multiple people come forward and have witnesses and in some case even physical evidence, I don't think you need to wait for a court decision to form an opinion of the person and I don't think companies are in the wrong either when they don't want to hire them or cancel the contract with them after multiple credible stories. Not to mention the possibility that the companies themselves might have been aware of the person's behaviour or might have received complaints about them before.
And it's not like the celebrities are without recourse. They can put out their own statement at the very least and sue for defamation. And let's face it, people like Kevin Spacey will still keep getting roles. That's the way it works in Hollywood. They'll go in sex addiction rehab or just lay low for a while and everything will be forgotten.
Finally, it seems to me there's an assumption that it's always the accused who has their life ruined. That is not always the case. A lot of the times, it's the accuser who is branded as a malicious liar and the accused is seen as the innocent victim. People who make these accusations also put their reputation on the line.
SubJeff on 19/12/2017 at 06:45
Quote:
So why is there this double standard for sexual assault? Why aren't the victims of sexual assault given the same chance, but doubted and berated and discouraged every step of the way?
They aren't.
They are always taken seriously, as it should be. This is different to being believed though.
Furthermore, victims are kept anonymous but the accused aren't. You want to talk double standards? That's it right there. I'm saying this should be rebalanced, not that any party should be disbelieved.
Kolya on 19/12/2017 at 07:54
Newspapers have a thing where they always write about "the alleged attacker" until sometime is actually sentenced.
If you're publishing your opinion on the internet the same standard should apply. Because that's not private talk. And no one's trying to shut you up. Merely to act responsibly.
Starker on 19/12/2017 at 08:25
I'm not sure if this was aimed at me, but where was I talking about anyone wanting to shut me up? I was asking about victims of sexual abuse. What should they do if the justice system cannot help them? Shut up about it? Not warn people of a sexual predator?
And now we're apparently applying strict journalistic standards to talking about things in the forums? Nah, I'm not going to talk about Weinstein as "the alleged attacker" here, even if I'm "publishing my opinion on the internet", because based on the presented evidence I'm convinced that he's a real attacker.
Kolya on 19/12/2017 at 13:04
Quote Posted by Starker
I'm not sure if this was aimed at me, but where was I talking about anyone wanting to shut me up? I was asking about victims of sexual abuse.
catbarf was suggesting for "a reasonable person to give benefit of the doubt". You replied: "So, if you can't prove it in court, you should shut up about it?"
If you were referring to victims you could have made that more clear.
What you did make abundantly clear is that you are willing to ignore the role people like you play in this, when they value their right to publicly prejudge higher than the lives of the accused.
Starker on 19/12/2017 at 16:22
What's wrong with forming an opinion about a person based on evidence? And you are right, I don't value Weinstein's livelihood, but it's not like I prejudge him just based on rumors. I'm quite certain that he really did do the things he's accused of. Why should I give him the benefit of the doubt?
And yes, I could have been clearer. I was asking whether people should not talk about sexual assault, if they can't prove it happened to them. Which, you know, is sometimes next to impossible to prove.
AluminumHaste on 19/12/2017 at 16:42
One thing to keep in mind, is that most of the people being have gone on to admit their behaviour.
Louis CK, Mario Batali and several others. While no charges have been laid, they've apologized for their behaviour.
