Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You Know What I Hate MK I

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Second Chances View Post
    I am rapidly tiring of dudes (and it is pretty much always dudes) who proclaim "innocent until proven guilty" when a company decides to cut with someone awful. That is particularly heightened today (obviously) but it has been coming out of the woodwork all week in the RPG community.
    Given the increasing number of exaggerations, false allegations, hoaxes, and smear jobs that are proliferating, I would suggest that "innocent until proven guilty" is the last vestige of a civil society that we have left. If a person's reputation, career, and even life can be ruined just because someone makes a claim, then we can throw out even the pretense of justice.

    It has been said above that knowing the accused doesn't mean they didn't do it, as you may only know one face that they portray. And I think this is correct. But take a look at the other side of that coin. How well do you "know" the accuser? If we cannot know what motivates the monster, can you say for certain what motivates an accuser sans evidence? Not all of the bad guys are on just one side of the table.

    It probably feels good to yell "burn them!" at every accused bad guy. At least until it happens to #YouToo, or someone you care about.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Azenogoth View Post
      Given the increasing number of exaggerations, false allegations, hoaxes, and smear jobs that are proliferating,...
      Citation needed.

      I live in a country with a long history of framing minorities for the crimes of white men, and using actual death sentences to make sure the truth was sufficiently covered up and minorities were too scared to fight back. Active attempts to ruin reputations look like a step up, rather than a step away, from a more civil society in comparison.

      And this isn't ancient history. See: the current president of the USA and the "Central Park Five."

      I would suggest that "innocent until proven guilty" is the last vestige of a civil society that we have left.
      Then you severely misunderstand the nature of the legal principle. Consider that "innocent until proven guilty," doesn't even apply in civil court cases. If I want to sue a food company for failing to label their products as having peanuts in it and sending my friend into anaphylactic shock, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to that case. Why should it apply to everyday life?

      If a person's reputation, career, and even life can be ruined just because someone makes a claim, then we can throw out even the pretense of justice.
      The ability to ruin people with smear campaigns is nothing new. Humans have been doing this for at least all of recorded history, and a according to oral history even longer.

      What should be of concern is what is still poorly defined as a credible accusation: which is a far more functional concept for society to operate with. That is, believing the victim as long as the circumstances of their story make sense. Believing Jussie Smollett while his story had credibility is a good reaction, as is being open to changing that belief after the credibility of his story tanked.

      For all the talk about false accusations... they tend to go down very quickly if the people being accused are the one's with societal privilege.

      I worked with a man that was accused of sexual misconduct at work by three teenage girls. It was fabricated. We knew it was fabricated because there was literal video evidence that the claims could not have happened as described... and when it was clear that the story wasn't going to hold up... all three recanted pretty quickly. He still got suspended from work, and even after being cleared of the accusation ended up moving and finding a new job to get away from what happened. But you know what? He has no problem with the community taking the accusation seriously because three girls getting molested and someone getting away with it because of whatever bullshit people would use to silence them instead of just waiting for the facts to come out.

      How well do you "know" the accuser? If we cannot know what motivates the monster, can you say for certain what motivates an accuser sans evidence?
      We can't say for certain. We can say that all evidence points to the vast majority of them doing it because it's true though.

      You also have to take into consideration that things like "believe the victims," is not a legal principle. It's a social heuristic to navigate complex situations where black and white fact based conclusions are unlikely to ever come around. It isn't perfect, it's just better than the alternatives, since the alternatives consistently shield abusers from consequences for their actions.

      Not all of the bad guys are on just one side of the table.
      And? While I'm not a fan of the circular firing squad that's come up recently in the RPG community with the most recent accusations, a lot of that is because people are getting more focused on undercutting each other by pointing out that so and so has/had a bad person on their side of the table "too" instead of focusing on the specific victims and how to help them.

      It probably feels good to yell "burn them!" at every accused bad guy.
      Don't conflate people that are tired of applying the strict legal principle of assumption of innocence that only applies to criminal cases being something people try to apply to everyday life (it doesn't work), and people that are hypocritically calling to burn people out of public life even if doing so a bit hypocritically.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Azenogoth View Post

        Given the increasing number of exaggerations, false allegations, hoaxes, and smear jobs that are proliferating, I would suggest that "innocent until proven guilty" is the last vestige of a civil society that we have left. If a person's reputation, career, and even life can be ruined just because someone makes a claim, then we can throw out even the pretense of justice.

        It has been said above that knowing the accused doesn't mean they didn't do it, as you may only know one face that they portray. And I think this is correct. But take a look at the other side of that coin. How well do you "know" the accuser? If we cannot know what motivates the monster, can you say for certain what motivates an accuser sans evidence? Not all of the bad guys are on just one side of the table.

        It probably feels good to yell "burn them!" at every accused bad guy. At least until it happens to #YouToo, or someone you care about.
        I'm going to keep reposting this until it sets in why "but the LAW!" isn't people's first choice:

        Originally posted by tasti man LH View Post
        Ok, let me be even more direct in what other people have already said:

        The reason victims aren't going to the law first is because the law is a dead end.

        The justice system as is wasn't really built to accommodate the unique circumstances that comes from sexual assault crimes that most other crimes don't account for, and not even necessarily because the court gives the accused a pass:
        • Testimonies can't be given by victims due to how traumatic incidents can affect memory, fear of societal shaming for testifying, AND be retraumatizing for the victim to recall the events...while doing it in front of several strangers (police officers, judges, jury, etc)
        • The statue of limitations being a thing where, even if the victim IS ready to testify, too much time has past and the court legally cannot reopen the case.
        • Gathering of evidence could be considered invasive if it involves gather body samples and thus not wanting to go through with giving their permission on their end.

        Calling out on social media is the only space that people feel comfortable with doing this sort of thing due to the Internet providing a...better...barrier of anonymity to at least slow down any potential harassment. And instead relying on the companies that hire the accused to make the final decision themselves instead of the law institutions. Which even then, it doesn't guarantee results that people want.

        The "trust victims" mantra and people favoring "the court of public opinion" over the "court of law" isn't JUST a sign of solidarity. It's the only thing they have.

        It's not that the law won't help them. It's because they CAN'T help them.

        Comment


        • I worked with a man that was accused of sexual misconduct at work by three teenage girls. It was fabricated. We knew it was fabricated because there was literal video evidence that the claims could not have happened as described... and when it was clear that the story wasn't going to hold up... all three recanted pretty quickly. He still got suspended from work, and even after being cleared of the accusation ended up moving and finding a new job to get away from what happened.
          Being hounded out of your job and home is not an acceptable outcome to the situation you described, no matter how the man involved publicly claims to feel about it. (I'm sure he's under no pressure at all to say the "correct" things there, as well.)

          Your story also illustrates another point. We're often told that we should believe accusers because they have no reason to lie, that there's nothing to gain and much to lose, and that there is no excuse for skepticism when multiple accusers come forward. In fact, we're also often told that since trauma can affect memory, we should overlook any inconsistencies or clear impossibilities in sexual assault claims. The situation you described ticks all those boxes, but it was still not true. What makes you believe that other people can't act like the girls in your story did?

          I'm not telling you to reflexively disbelieve anybody. But I'm not going to be a stranger's instrument of punishment. I've been fooled too many times before.
          Last edited by Cielle; 02-21-2019, 05:04 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cielle View Post
            Being hounded out of your job and home is not an acceptable outcome to the situation you described, no matter how the man involved publicly claims to feel about it. (I'm sure he's under no pressure at all to say the "correct" things there, as well.)
            Adding falsehoods to my point doesn't show anything. I never said he was hounded out of his job or home. He was offered his position back with compensation, and chose not to take it. Do not imply his feelings aren't being accurately communicated because you are adding the idea that this was a public statement he was pressured to make instead, of, say, a conversation between him and people that helped support him through his suspension.

            We're often told that we should believe accusers because they have no reason to lie, that there's nothing to gain and much to lose, and that there is no excuse for skepticism when multiple accusers come forward.
            No. We're told to believe the accusers because not believing them enables abusers. Because things like 'skepticism' are used as thinly veiled harassment campaigns to intimidate accusers for not having perfect evidence for for not being perfect saintly people. There's a reason why "credible accusation" is a phrase that - while lacking in a good formulation of how to classify - is taking hold because we all acknowledge that there are people that will falsely accuse; but those are rarely very credible under rudimentary scrutiny.

            Of course, that scrutiny isn't the public's business to be doing. We believe the accusers to, among other goals, pressure those in power to ensure that scrutiny is applied properly. Unlike, as pointed out above, it is currently handled.

            What makes you believe that other people can't act like the girls in your story did?
            Actually, I'm fairly confident that most false accusers act exactly like that, or what happened with Smollet: in ways that don't hold up to facts. Their stories unravel extremely quickly, and without the general public insisting on being skeptical, and instead believing the accusers until something demonstrates a credibly reason not to. Like evidence of faking things.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post





              Then you severely misunderstand the nature of the legal principle. Consider that "innocent until proven guilty," doesn't even apply in civil court cases. If I want to sue a food company for failing to label their products as having peanuts in it and sending my friend into anaphylactic shock, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to that case. Why should it apply to everyday life?


              No thats not how the law works even in civil cases. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, same as in a criminal trial. You have to prove that that company mislabeled thee products in a court before a judge. That is how the law works. If I accuse you of defamation, then I have to prove that words that you said or wrote caused either financial or reputational loss, I can't sue you and then you have to give me money without proving it.

              Comment


              • In civil law it seems like the burden is on both parties.

                Regardless, as much as people would like to make this about the law, it isn't. No one's on trial.

                Comment


                • And there you go with the snide personal implications, as usual.

                  I'm a stranger. It's not my role to scrutinize accusations, but neither is it my role to hand out punishment for them. If you don't already see why someone would be cautious about that, there's no point talking to you.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Grimmi05 View Post
                    No thats not how the law works even in civil cases.
                    Yes, it is. Burden of proof, and the standards of proof are not the same thing. In a criminal case, should a defendant make an affirmative defense (such as self-defense for homicide), it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense to prove the defendant had a need to defend themselves. The standards on the prosecution's making their case don't change though: they have to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

                    In a civil case, even if the burden of proof is primarily on the plaintiff, but the standard of proof is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; rather there are a number of standards by jurisdiction and type of case. Generally, civil cases are determined by a perponderance of evidence, rather than a proof of guilt.

                    This is the problem with trying to apply legal concepts to social/community decision making. These terms have specific meanings in a legal context that are not necessarily the same as the common understanding of them. "Innocent until proven guilty," is not some vague philosophic concept. It is a phrase that references a strongly codified set of legal standards and procedures.

                    Originally posted by nofather View Post
                    Regardless, as much as people would like to make this about the law, it isn't. No one's on trial.
                    Also this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

                      Citation needed.
                      I will operate under the assumption that this is mere laziness and not a type of "pics or it didn't happen" dismissal. So off the top of my head....

                      Jesse Smollet

                      At the University of Michigan, a woman claimed that a man threatened to burn her if she didn't remove her hijab. Police investigation showed this to be a false claim. Her name was not reported in the article.

                      Taylor Volk

                      Ahley Boyer

                      Tawana Brawley

                      Judy Munro-Leighton

                      Mattress Girl, I think her name was Sulkowitz?

                      Julie Swetnick

                      Christine Blasely Ford


                      And these are just the ones that I can easily recall. If you actually have an interest in the myriad examples of false allegations, hoaxes, and the like, Google, Bing, Web Crawler (if that's still a thing), etc. are your friends.


                      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

                      I live in a country with a long history of framing minorities for the crimes of white men, and using actual death sentences to make sure the truth was sufficiently covered up and minorities were too scared to fight back. Active attempts to ruin reputations look like a step up, rather than a step away, from a more civil society in comparison.

                      And this isn't ancient history. See: the current president of the USA and the "Central Park Five."


                      And how does this long history justify framing the current targets of hatred for the new hate mobs? If it was wrong then, it is equally wrong now, even when the targets and tormentors have changed. If it was bad, wrong, and evil to lynch a person 50+ years ago based solely on the identities (using the current vogue of identity being a preferred category of people) of the accuser and the accused, then it is just as bad, wrong, and evil to lynch someone today based solely on the identities of the accuser and the accused. And for the same reasons.

                      Just to pick a particular nit, when, where and how did the current President of the USA engage in "framing minorities for the crimes of white men, and using actual death sentences to make sure the truth was sufficiently covered up and minorities were too scared to fight back"?


                      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

                      Then you severely misunderstand the nature of the legal principle. Consider that "innocent until proven guilty," doesn't even apply in civil court cases. If I want to sue a food company for failing to label their products as having peanuts in it and sending my friend into anaphylactic shock, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to that case. Why should it apply to everyday life?
                      Or perhaps maybe, just maybe, you severely misunderstand (intentionally or not) my use of the term Civil Society. I make no reference to court proceedings or law. I refer to that thin and fragile veneer that prevents our slipping into outright tribalism and barbarity. I endorse restraint and holding off on joining the mob until a reasoned examination of the evidence (or lack thereof) is made. If you (the aggregate and rhetorical you) think that the evidence justifies it, then by all means, mob away. Just be warned, the mob does not care about guilt, innocence, right, or wrong. It just wants to burn. And it is not that particular on who or what it burns, even when it is former members of the same mob. See Robespierre, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. After all, somebody has to get that five minutes of hate.


                      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

                      The ability to ruin people with smear campaigns is nothing new. Humans have been doing this for at least all of recorded history, and a according to oral history even longer.
                      Query: What does the antiquity of a behavior have to do with its rightness or acceptability?


                      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

                      What should be of concern is what is still poorly defined as a credible accusation: which is a far more functional concept for society to operate with. That is, believing the victim as long as the circumstances of their story make sense.
                      I would say that you are correct in the first half of this idea. However, should we automatically believe an accuser simply because they can spin a good tale? How did that work out for the victims of the Salem hysteria? I do not use this example lightly as I believe there to be chilling parallels between then and now. Which brings me to your next contention, and I believe the crux of the matter that currently ails us as a society...


                      Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                      Believing Jussie Smollett while his story had credibility is a good reaction, as is being open to changing that belief after the credibility of his story tanked.
                      Here is the rub. What defines an accuser's credibility. Is it whether or not they are of the currently preferred identity, and the accused is not? Is it when it supports a particular narrative such as ORANGEMANBAD? Is it credible because of the evidence, or because we want it to be so? When did the Smollett story become credible, and what exactly made it so?

                      I make no claims on the legality, civil or criminal, nor of the accuracy of the claims of either the alleged behavior of any of the accused, nor the accusers. I just wish (in vain) to see restraint in the absence of supporting evidence. I don't want to be ruled by a thoughtless mob. Because that leads to ruin. We developed our legal system(s) in order that we not have to fear the mercurial nature of the mob. I guess it comes down to a conflict between imperfect order, and perfect chaos.


                      Comment


                      • Just covering the easy bits cuz I know you're talking to Heavy.

                        Originally posted by Azenogoth View Post
                        And these are just the ones that I can easily recall. If you actually have an interest in the myriad examples of false allegations, hoaxes, and the like, Google, Bing, Web Crawler (if that's still a thing), etc. are your friends.
                        This still isn't proof of any 'increasing numbers' of false allegations, especially given these have occurred over a course of decades, rather than all suddenly, say, this month or even the last two years. And some of them haven't been proved as false allegations.

                        And how does this long history justify framing the current targets of hatred for the new hate mobs? If it was wrong then, it is equally wrong now, even when the targets and tormentors have changed. If it was bad, wrong, and evil to lynch a person 50+ years ago based solely on the identities (using the current vogue of identity being a preferred category of people) of the accuser and the accused, then it is just as bad, wrong, and evil to lynch someone today based solely on the identities of the accuser and the accused. And for the same reasons.
                        I appreciate you're trying to link these things, but when someone's lynched, they're dragged out into a public spot and hanged from the neck until they're dead, usually being beaten while it occurs. As yet this hasn't happened to anyone in the RPG industry accused of sexual harassment or assault.

                        Just to pick a particular nit, when, where and how did the current President of the USA engage in "framing minorities for the crimes of white men, and using actual death sentences to make sure the truth was sufficiently covered up and minorities were too scared to fight back"?
                        That was the Central Park Five Heavy Arms mentioned.
                        Last edited by nofather; 02-21-2019, 08:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Azenogoth View Post
                          I will operate under the assumption that this is mere laziness....
                          I will operate on the assumption that you don't like that men are allow to be accused of sexual misconduct at all then.

                          You made a specific claim: "Given the increasing number of exaggerations, false allegations, hoaxes, and smear jobs that are proliferating,..." and have yet to back it up. Examples (some of which seem fairly questionable as such) do not demonstrate an increase.

                          And how does this long history justify framing the current targets of hatred for the new hate mobs?
                          How does calling people angry at the continual systemic abuse of women 'hate mobs' not do anything but say, "for the sake of civil society, victims need to shut up and accept their abuse so I don't have to acknowledge it exists?"

                          Your bad faith bullshit is noted and dismissed. None of the men having their sexual misconduct aired to the public are getting lynched.

                          Just to pick a particular nit, when, where and how did the current President of the USA engage in "framing minorities for the crimes of white men, and using actual death sentences to make sure the truth was sufficiently covered up and minorities were too scared to fight back"?
                          Google is your friend.

                          Trump took out a full page ad in multiple papers calling for the death penalty to be reinstated specifically to influence the punishment of five minors of color to death for a series of rapes they didn't commit, despite at the time there already being serious issues with how the case was being handled.

                          The improprieties of the police that handled the case were covered up, minorities were framed, and death was called for to kill five innocent (at the time boys) men. He cites (as of 2016) their forced confessions as proof he was right to call for their deaths.

                          If you want to nit pick this as an imperfect example, fine, but you're not doing yourself any good by trying to defend this as not part of the US's legacy of lethal mistreatment of minorities.

                          I refer to that thin and fragile veneer that prevents our slipping into outright tribalism and barbarity.
                          That's what I thought you meant. Applying "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't maintain this... it just lets the rich and power tribe enact barbarity on those with less social power without consequence.

                          It's as I said above: calling for victims to be silent because 'making waves' is worse than getting justice.

                          Query: What does the antiquity of a behavior have to do with its rightness or acceptability?
                          Nothing, it just counters your narrative that this is a new/more prevalent thing and that justice is somehow being made less accessible in the current state of things.

                          I would say that you are correct in the first half of this idea.
                          Given the second half is, "credibility and being open to changing your mind as credibility is reassessed," your disagreement seems pretty questionable.

                          I believe there to be chilling parallels between then and now.
                          The only parallel I see that's worth noting is how people in power will do almost anything to try to contain women asserting themselves if it disrupts things too much for the establishment.

                          It's worth noting that the vast majority of those accused during the Salem trials were found innocent by the inane standards of those times. It was also, for the times, a legal proceeding, not a 'mob' executing justice on its own.

                          What defines an accuser's credibility.
                          It's a good question that deserves a serious discussion I don't think you really care to have.

                          I just wish (in vain) to see restraint in the absence of supporting evidence.
                          My people have an old saying. "The sword comes into this world because of justice delay, and justice denied."

                          If you want restraint? Fight the system that tasti man LH is talking about. Restraint is a luxury of those that aren't facing abuse and violence. When victims feel the legal system will actually support them and treat them fairly, they can seek out justice in a timely fashion and be restrained. While the system is stacked against victims, and they cannot get justice, restraint is a vain call, because it is a call for victims to continue to be victims.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Azenogoth View Post

                            Given the increasing number of exaggerations, false allegations, hoaxes, and smear jobs that are proliferating, I would suggest that "innocent until proven guilty" is the last vestige of a civil society that we have left. If a person's reputation, career, and even life can be ruined just because someone makes a claim, then we can throw out even the pretense of justice.

                            It has been said above that knowing the accused doesn't mean they didn't do it, as you may only know one face that they portray. And I think this is correct. But take a look at the other side of that coin. How well do you "know" the accuser? If we cannot know what motivates the monster, can you say for certain what motivates an accuser sans evidence? Not all of the bad guys are on just one side of the table.

                            It probably feels good to yell "burn them!" at every accused bad guy. At least until it happens to #YouToo, or someone you care about.
                            I mean, this did happen to people I care about. Matt MacFarland is a friend and a role model, and Vic Mignogna was a family friend.

                            I'm still calling bullshit on this attitude.


                            Sean K.I.W./Kelly R.A. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Sean, Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                            The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                            Male/neutral pronouns accepted, female pronouns enjoyed.
                            Currently Working On: The Noble and the Sovereign, Blog

                            Comment


                            • I don't know what I hate more: The idea that being a good person requires constant exhausting energy and vigilance and a good deal of using that info to constantly balance stuff so I'm not hurting one group or another through my ignorance and sloth or that I want to give up on that because my response to hating to see people in pain is to ignore and forget rather than stop and help and doing good requires constantly seeing pain everywhere and because I know that I will mess up a million times even at my best and being a good dude means making amends for each time and accepting that i won't always get forgiveness anyway and I don't know if I can emotionally deal with that

                              Also, I hate that happiness is relative, both in that it seems to psychologically require things to have improved from sad times and that it needs a person in worse shape as a point of comparison.


                              A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"

                              Comment


                              • I hate that being vegetarian means I can't eat all the foods that were my biggest remaining emotional link to Jewish Culture. Not to mention that meat and fish are delicious and filling


                                A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X