Much like the other poster, you're essentially claiming that all responses posted in this thread can be legitimately reduced to a binary state: either siding with Formerly Employed At Sceenjunkies Creeper, or siding with the accused, and that any posts failing to unequivocally condemn the former and unequivocally believe and support the latter -- at any stage of the story -- fall under siding with Formerly Employed At Screenjunkies Creeper, undermine the voices of victims, harm society, and are morally reprehensible.
Based on this argument there should just be one official righteous response auto-posted by a bot and then the thread should be locked. Why have a discussion thread? Why have a message board?
No.
What? Excuse me? Guys, Cat Party sexually assaulted me. Get them please.
I don't want to live in a world where innocent people can be convicted of crimes with no proof. Yes sometimes bad people will get away with bad things but the alternative is far scarier.
A thread on NEOGAF is not a courtroom. Why are people talking about the burden of proof under our legal system? No one is talking about that, so let's not create these strawmen to distract from the discussion at hand.
There is, literally, NO ONE who is saying that a person should be convicted of a crime without proof.
The same way that being agnostic doesn't automatically mean you believe that there is no God.Personally I dont see how come back later is any different than an automatic assumption that the man did nothing wrong.
What? Excuse me? Guys, Cat Party sexually assaulted me. Get them please.
I don't want to live in a world where innocent people can be convicted of crimes with no proof. Yes sometimes bad people will get away with bad things but the alternative is far scarier.
People are arguing - with a straight face - that assumed guilt should be the default state or there's something wrong with your morals. That shit is absurd. Taking issue with that is distinctly not the same as trying to paint the accuser as a liar.
Yeah the history of PoC in America and false accusations of rape is a long and sad tale.This is especially scary for minorities or poc. Most of the time we don't even get the luxury of due process.
The practical judgments we live by are not the U.S. criminal justice system. if my friend says their boss is an asshole, I don't respond with "Do you have any documented evidence of them being an asshole? I can't take your claims seriously until I hear a statement from the accused." We act in a way far more like the U.S. civil justice system, where preponderance of evidence is the standard.
People lunging to act like these sexual harassment claims need to get beyond a reasonable doubt to be taken seriously are not acting neutral or impartial. They are acting like defense lawyers.
This is the exact kind of thinking that makes it so fucking hard for women to come forward with these things though.
When we value "vague pragmatism" (whatever the fuck that means) over "believing women", when we equate "believing women" with "witch hunts", when we consider a man's reputation more important than a woman's safety; that's when we become complicit in the toxic boy's club that "nerd culture" has become.
I think Inferno got banned for three months for that post btw
I'm surprised Junkies suspended him, I wonder how this situation ends
Really? Wow.
All banned.No one said anything about toxic masculinity
People are arguing - with a straight face - that assumed guilt should be the default state or there's something wrong with your morals. That shit is absurd. Taking issue with that is distinctly not the same as trying to paint the accuser as a liar.
The practical judgments we live by are not the U.S. criminal justice system. if my friend says their boss is an asshole, I don't respond with "Do you have any documented evidence of them being an asshole? I can't take your claims seriously until I hear a statement from the accused." We act in a way far more like the U.S. civil justice system, where preponderance of evidence is the standard.
assumed innocence in cases like this also assumes the accuser is lying, which is, as has been pointed out, or as people have been trying to point out, a big issue.
All banned.
This is bullshit.
And if screen caps are not available? Does that mean they made it up?
People are arguing - with a straight face - that assumed guilt should be the default state or there's something wrong with your morals. That shit is absurd. Taking issue with that is distinctly not the same as trying to paint the accuser as a liar.
I dont think thats really a fair way to look at it. We can condemn something while still discussing aspects of it. We have a very long thread about the Las Vegas shooting and its not because people are discussing whether or not the shooter actually did it, or whether he was right or wrong. They are discussing aspects around the event, implications to our society, and what we can do about it going forward. We dont need a back-and-forth about what constitutes proof in threads about sexual assault accusations in order to have a healthy discussion.Based on this argument there should just be one official righteous response auto-posted by a bot and then the thread should be locked. Why have a discussion thread? Why have a message board?
No.
assumed innocence in cases like this also assumes the accuser is lying, which is, as has been pointed out, or as people have been trying to point out, a big issue.
assumed innocence in cases like this also assumes the accuser is lying, which is, as has been pointed out, or has been tried to get pointed out, a big issue.
i don't know why we're getting caught up in guilty or innocent
when someone tells me they were sexually harassed, my default state is to say 'i believe you.' of course, you can infer from that that i think they guy is guilty...that's not what i'm trying to convey though.
The tower is crumbling. Everyone has receipts and isn't afraid to show them now.
All banned.
This is bullshit.
i don't know why we're getting caught up in guilty or innocent
when someone tells me they were sexually harassed, my default state is to say 'i believe you.' of course, you can infer from that that i think they guy is guilty...that's not what i'm trying to convey though.
One accusation with no evidence beyond a personal statement wouldn't fly in civil court either. The more appropriate analogy would be a coworker (wrongly) accusing you of harassment with nothing more than a personal statement. What then? Are the people around you supposed to presume you are guilty less they be labeled as toxic or protectors of the established norms?
The state of saying nothing is not assuming innocence nor assuming guilt. Ive seen too many lives destroyed because of both. Sometimes its okay to chill out and wait.
i don't know why we're getting caught up in guilty or innocent
Taking an accusation and immediately calling for the guy's head is indeed jumping to conclusions, but taking the accusation seriously and saying that it needs to be investigated immediately is not. The crime is of course serious if true, but the accusation itself should be taken seriously as well. And in this case, the person making the accusation comes with a testimony of her experience as well, which should itself be considered evidence.There are three possible states:
- Not enough evidence to go either way. Come back later.
- A lack of evidence, innocence presumed
- Plenty of evidence, guilt presumed
Jumping automatically to guilty in the absence of evidence makes you look like a reactive moron. When did we lose the ability to understand that? How would you personally want to be treated in a situation where there is an accusation (of any sort) leveled against you?
The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.
I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste
I have certainly seen discussions occur in topics like this without having to resort to questioning the validity of the victim's claim.
All banned.
This is bullshit.
The practical judgments we live by are not the U.S. criminal justice system. if my friend says their boss is an asshole, I don't respond with "Do you have any documented evidence of them being an asshole? I can't take your claims seriously until I hear a statement from the accused." We act in a way far more like the U.S. civil justice system, where preponderance of evidence is the standard.
People lunging to act like these sexual harassment claims need to get beyond a reasonable doubt to be taken seriously are not acting neutral or impartial. They are acting like defense lawyers.
No, the analogy I used was appropriate, because the point is that almost no other issue is perceived this way. if you don't have any investment in defending someone (your friend's boss), you tend to believe what people say about them. If you are invested (your friend), you will require lots of voices in agreement, or evidence, before you believe anything negative.
Which sounds more like the way people act about sexual harassment allegations?
👍🏼saying nothing, and saying "there isn't any/enough evidence" as many did early is not the same thing. "saying nothing" is not posting. One could argue though, that saying nothing in such a situation is also wrong. People that have been victims of harassment need support firstly. And as someone else pointed out, we're not jury, and we have no power to fire someone. Saying "I believe you" to someone doesn't cost a thing.
I can still say to that person "I'm sorry *blank* was an asshole to you" but I'm not about to go on facebook, twitter or whenever and start demanding they fess up for being an asshole while telling everyone I know to not ever associate with that person because of that.
saying nothing, and saying "there isn't any/enough evidence" as many did early is not the same thing. "saying nothing" is not posting. One could argue though, that saying nothing in such a situation is also wrong. People that have been victims of harassment need support firstly. And as someone else pointed out, we're not jury, and we have no power to fire someone. Saying "I believe you" to someone doesn't cost a thing.
Can someone explain what's happening with the bans? I feel a bit out of the loop
On the friend situation that got thrown out randomly as an analogy? Yes it is. Seriously.Are those the only options to you? Ignore until more proof, or believe wholeheartedly and shout from the Twitter rooftops? Seriously?
saying nothing, and saying "there isn't any/enough evidence" as many did early is not the same thing. "saying nothing" is not posting. One could argue though, that saying nothing in such a situation is also wrong. People that have been victims of harassment need support firstly. And as someone else pointed out, we're not jury, and we have no power to fire someone. Saying "I believe you" to someone doesn't cost a thing.
One person's testimony is, literally, proof. The fact that people keep saying otherwise screams that there is still a problem with how we approach reports of sexual misconduct.
saying nothing, and saying "there isn't any/enough evidence" as many did early is not the same thing. "saying nothing" is not posting. One could argue though, that saying nothing in such a situation is also wrong. People that have been victims of harassment need support firstly. And as someone else pointed out, we're not jury, and we have no power to fire someone. Saying "I believe you" to someone doesn't cost a thing.
All banned.
This is bullshit.
I'm less shocked by the bans so much as EvilLore telling Inferno to "Fuck off, Dipshit".
Like, seriously?
lol I just got off a ban today for the same thing.I'm less shocked by the bans so much as EvilLore telling Inferno to "Fuck off, Dipshit".
Like, seriously?
👍🏼
But assuming guilt and immediately turning on the accuser can also be wrong, Personally in this case I really didnt form an opinion until more evidence and accusers poured in, but I wasnt going to join an internet lynch mob if I had literally no idea one way or the other. If a victim of sexual assault came to me of course Id believe them and do everything I could, but this isnt one of those cases, its two people miles away that Ill never meet.
Your analogy isn't appropriate because you're obviously going to be biased towards believing a personal friends accusations over a strangers. They're people you have more experience being around, and understand their mindset, emotions, and sense of logic.No, the analogy I used was appropriate, because the point is that almost no other issue is perceived this way. if you don't have any investment in defending someone (your friend's boss), you tend to believe what people say about them. If you are invested (your friend), you will require lots of voices in agreement, or evidence, before you believe anything negative.
Which sounds more like the way people act about sexual harassment allegations?
Much like the other poster, you're essentially claiming that all responses posted in this thread can be legitimately reduced to a binary state: either siding with Formerly Employed At Sceenjunkies Creeper, or siding with the accused, and that any posts failing to unequivocally condemn the former and unequivocally believe and support the latter -- at any stage of the story -- fall under siding with Formerly Employed At Screenjunkies Creeper, undermine the voices of victims, harm society, and are morally reprehensible.
Based on this argument there should just be one official righteous response auto-posted by a bot and then the thread should be locked. Why have a discussion thread? Why have a message board?
No.
This is especially scary for minorities or poc. Most of the time we don't even get the luxury of due process.
Unfortunately, I start to see this happening more and more online - due to the nature of trying to score points with an internet in-group more than have an actual discussion.
Whereas in cases like this, most people know nothing about neither the accused or the victim. You're right in thinking that if the conflict was between my friend and someone I don't know, I would believe my friend, but if it's two people I don't know I'm not going to automatically believe what either of them are saying without something more than their word.
I feel this is important as well. Like... Uh.
lol I just got off a ban today for the same thing.
This week has been a hell of a mess with controversy all over. I've never watched any of the content made by this individual, but damn if those DMs aren't sketchy AF. Why can't peeps get power and not abuse it immediately by disrespecting others? Especially with sexual harassment.
It's a shame.
Okay, and that's fine.
But is it wrong if someone does choose to believe her?
This is what I don't understand. If you don't believe her and need more evidence, okay. But if someone else does believe her, then why is that wrong?
Again, I am not talking about what happens in a jury room.
Okay, and that's fine.
But is it wrong if someone does choose to believe her?
This is what I don't understand. If you don't believe her and need more evidence, okay. But if someone else does believe her, then why is that wrong?
Again, I am not talking about what happens in a jury room.
Saying it to a victim, yes. That would be the right thing to do.
But the person isn't here. We're like people sitting at a table, discussing the news.
Don't you see that saying "I believe her" has vastly different connotations in this space?
It implies that you see guilt.