omnislayer
Member
Must of thought the world needed more of the Man Show or something, christ.Schindler's List with HOT CHICKS!
Awesome.
Top of the page has me name dropping misogynism the show.
Must of thought the world needed more of the Man Show or something, christ.Schindler's List with HOT CHICKS!
Not anymore and not on the internet. People are so quick to demonise these days it's disgusting.This was my reaction reading this. I mean, if it's true i hope he gets what he deserves but... people are innocent until proven otherwise.
In fairness, for all you know she might've tried other avenues. It's not like there's a lot of impetus out there to handle cases of sexual harassment once employment has been terminated, and accusers are typically doubted first. It's only on social media where the reverse is true, you can say it's an overcorrection but it is a correction of a prior imbalance.I don't get why people resort to social media to air things like this either. If I or my partner were sexually or otherwise harassed, the last place I'd go would be social fucking media.
Not anymore and not on the internet. People are so quick to demonise these days it's disgusting.
I don't get why people resort to social media to air things like this either. If I or my partner were sexually or otherwise harassed, the last place I'd go would be social fucking media. But I guess I never understood why people dragged their familys and friends on Dr. Phil / judge judy either.
Are you for real?
Black people do have a shitty situation with the law where they get sentenced for shit they didn't do far more easily than white people do, but don't forget that a big portion (perhaps a majority, even) of sexual harassment & assault cases go unreported and from cases that do get reported, another big portion of them do not result in anything happening against the harasser/assaulter, and from the ones that do result in something, the results/sentences are often too light for the crime commited (a slap on the wrist, perhaps only months in jail).Yea I wonder what all the " just believe her without proof" guys think about this? Literally hundreds of ppl have been killed because of Lying ass women. I think a little skepticism is warranted in these situations.
Because otherwise they wouldn't be heard, especially when they try to go up against popular public personas on their own. It can also be enough to encourage others to come forward who have suffered the same shitty behaviour from the same person. Because "don't tell me about your sexual harassment publicly" is an attitude that shuts up people who have gone through it, makes being a victim something shameful that needs to be hidden while the harassers possibly, probably continue being the awful people they are.Not anymore and not on the internet. People are so quick to demonise these days it's disgusting.
I don't get why people resort to social media to air things like this either. If I or my partner were sexually or otherwise harassed, the last place I'd go would be social fucking media. But I guess I never understood why people dragged their familys and friends on Dr. Phil / judge judy either.
It sounds like you didn't read the story and how multiple women went to HR and were railroaded.Not anymore and not on the internet. People are so quick to demonise these days it's disgusting.
I don't get why people resort to social media to air things like this either. If I or my partner were sexually or otherwise harassed, the last place I'd go would be social fucking media. But I guess I never understood why people dragged their familys and friends on Dr. Phil / judge judy either.
Speaking of reddit (and not sure whether it's been posted here already), someone found this old channel of his (nsfw): https://www.youtube.com/user/secretsaucetv/videos
"The [presumption of innocence] has nothing whatever to do with you and me. We can talk, write, broadcast and even put up a billboard (if so foolish) stating that the accused is the one who did it. It has to do with our system. If you find yourself accused of a crime, you do not have to prove your innocence. The burden is on the other side. The prosecution has to prove your guilt. Thats about it. And it is not even a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence, relevant only to the judge and the jury.
I once heard an exasperated Dan Abrams, the MSNBC legal correspondent, state it simply and best: Ive had to say it before and I say it again. The presumption of innocence has no relevance outside the courtroom."
More like why shitty people have access to YouTube. I mean, I get your point but sadly there is no rule that says that in order to upload to YouTube you must be a well behaving citizen.Why so many YouTubers turn out to be shitty people
Not anymore and not on the internet. People are so quick to demonise these days it's disgusting.
I don't get why people resort to social media to air things like this either. If I or my partner were sexually or otherwise harassed, the last place I'd go would be social fucking media. But I guess I never understood why people dragged their familys and friends on Dr. Phil / judge judy either.
Why you folks talking innocence and waiting for facts with this out in the open?Sure, but the moral principles behind the presumption of innocence can apply on a personal and societal level, outside of the court of law. Which is to say that punishing an innocent person for a crime they did not commit is deeply abhorrent, and should be avoided at all costs.
Considering someone guilty and society treating them in such a way - as a sexual harasser etc - can amount to a de facto punishment in and of itself involving social ostracisation, loss of job, development of mental health issues etc, and therefore it's best if we don't so judge people unless we have some form of evidence - so as to avoid meting out that treatment to innocent people.
Where our personal standard differs from a criminal court is a court they must judge guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in most cases, whereas the average person will use the civil case standard of 'balance of probabilities' in their personal life. But even on the balance of probabilities I'm inclined to give the accused the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence beyond a single accuser, and the suggestion that all accusations of harassment must be believed or one is party to the oppression of women is ridiculous to me.
On the other hand, I do understand the argument that the statistical facts surrounding rape / assault / harassment accusations make them more likely than not to be true. That satisfies the 'balance of probabilities' test for some people, and I certainly won't judge those people for that. For me, just the fact that false or misremembered or exaggerated accusations are possible is enough for me to wait for more facts before I offer my judgment as part of the public chorus and perhaps become part of the wrongful vilification of an innocent person.
Why you folks talking innocence and waiting for facts with this out in the open?
Snip snop
Which is irrelevant at this point.Because the thread has gone a tiny bit off the rails and the stuff you quoted is not about Andy, but about initial presumptions of guilt/innocence, I'd say
Which is irrelevant at this point.
Irrelevant for this case, you mean.
It's not irrelevant in general as long as the world keeps turning. It's not an irrelevant talking point.
The question how far presumptions of innocence/guilt should go will always be relevant.
Brianmcdoogle's post is clearly not about Andy either.
It is weird to STILL be going on about "but hypothetically, you don't want to presume guilt too early" in a thread about someone that's guilty as fuck.
Not to mention several of us have clarified the difference between "believing the victim" and "automatically condemning the accused", which AGAIN, none of us were doing.
I feel for people who have been falsely accused, but given that the majority of posters in here are men, it's much easier for you to imagine yourselves in that scenario than to imagine yourself as victim trying to get their story out.
Then post about it the next time we have a thread about false accusations (which are statistically over-represented on this forum), not in the thread about the guy who was a creep and receipts have been well and truly brought.
Keanu Reeves
Tom Hanks
Idris Elba
George Takei
Jeff Goldblum
Chris Evans
Ed Sheeran
What do you have against the Lannisters?Ed Sheeran is a Lannister soldier tho. Fuck him.
Chris Evans
Then post about it the next time we have a thread about false accusations (which are statistically over-represented on this forum), not in the thread about the guy who was a creep and receipts have been well and truly brought.
No, but it will any time now!Who even talks like that, 'I thought you wanted to have sex with me is that true'?
Does that ever work for these guys?
Keanu Reeves
Tom Hanks
Idris Elba
George Takei
Jeff Goldblum
Chris Evans
Ed Sheeran
Why you folks talking innocence and waiting for facts with this out in the open?
Who knew that inferring that his statements on neutrality put him on the side of a sexual harrasser and against the victims of sexual harrassment would be one of his buttons?
Statistically speaking, false accusations of sexual assault & such are, like, pretty close to a 1 or 2 out of 100 thing (and even then, those statistics might be biased in favor of false accusations because it doesn't necessarily make a difference between actual false accusations and accusations that are true but due to lack of evidence or bad handling of the case, no one was convicted). So let's not act as if this destroys countless lives all the time & crow is constantly being served in cases like this. We live in a world where the victims of sexual harassment, assault & rape are too often shunned, not believed in and ultimately do not get justice, so stop making this seem like it's the other way around. Victims of sexual abuse & harassment who don't get justice is far more common than falsely accused getting wrongly convicted.Seriously. It is amazing how the needle has swung so far, so quickly, that anything other than a willingness to immediately treat accused persons as guilty - which, hello, if it were to be the social standard, would basically mean an accusation of sexual malfeasance would result in an instant shunning of the accused person, unless we also change the compartment that is perceived as necessary toward such individuals - is seen as an unacceptable siding with essentially evil behavior.
Off-topic is becoming every bit the intolerant echo chamber it's always been accused of being.
Statistically speaking, false accusations of sexual assault & such are, like, pretty close to a 1 or 2 out of 100 thing (and even then, those statistics might be biased in favor of false accusations because it doesn't necessarily make a difference between actual false accusations and accusations that are true but due to lack of evidence or bad handling of the case, no one was convicted). So let's not act as if this destroys countless lives all the time & crow is being constantly being served in cases like this.
And most people here were like "if this is true, fuck this guy, actions need to be taken". Keyword "if". No one was immediately demanding him jail for life. People like you don't seem to understand how hard it is to come forward and accuse someone of something like this publicly, doubly so when it's a public figure who is more or less liked and has the support of whatever institution they are working for who have possibly already stonewalled the accuser when she/he tried to do something behind the scenes. It's not that no one ever falsely does so, but this was someone who doesn't hide behind Internet anonymity. If this was just some random reddit user comment, I don't think people would believe it as easily.
If you haven't noticed, the accusations against the the epic voice guy of haven't gained traction at all or nearly as much because no one or very few people are willing to believe just any random reddit poster. But this is someone with a face & a name we can confirm has been in business with Andy blaming him of such actions. It's much more believable, because such a person doesn't necessarily have much to gain from accusing him and a woman accusing a public figure of such a thing becomes a target to the MRA & rabid fanboy/girl types who cannot accept any wrongdoings from their dear targets of fandom.
People who constantly use lol are terrible and this guy is proof of that.
I'm well familiar with sexual assault statistics, but the jankiness extends both ways. Acts that take place in private, leave little evidence, and are contingent at least somewhat on the subjective perceptions of the participants (moreso in the case of harassment) are difficult to collate statistics for.
I'm not suggesting we call anybody a liar, I am saying that agnosticism (i.e. the "if") is both the de facto and the morally correct stance. Posters in here are basically arguing that the victim has to be assumed to be telling the truth, which is different than saying they could be telling the truth (i.e. "if") and necessarily entails action against the accused and would very easily be abused and become a form of extralegal punishment were this the behavior of wider society and not a conscious overcorrection on the part of select "woke" individuals.
People tend to examine what universal application of a behavior would look like when it is suggested as being morally superior to the behavior they are currently engaged in.
Edit: Jesus, this dude has the least amount of smoothness he could possibly have.
Statistically speaking, false accusations of sexual assault & such are, like, pretty close to a 1 or 2 out of 100 thing (and even then, those statistics might be biased in favor of false accusations because it doesn't necessarily make a difference between actual false accusations and accusations that are true but due to lack of evidence or bad handling of the case, no one was convicted). So let's not act as if this destroys countless lives all the time & crow is constantly being served in cases like this. We live in a world where the victims of sexual harassment, assault & rape are too often shunned, not believed in and ultimately do not get justice, so stop making this seem like it's the other way around. Victims of sexual abuse & harassment who don't get justice is far more common than falsely accused getting wrongly convicted.
And most people here were like "if this is true, fuck this guy, actions need to be taken". Keyword "if". No one was immediately demanding him jail for life. People like you don't seem to understand how hard it is to come forward and accuse someone of something like this publicly, doubly so when it's a public figure who is more or less liked and has the support of whatever institution they are working for who have possibly already stonewalled the accuser when she/he tried to do something behind the scenes. It's not that no one ever falsely does so, but this was someone who doesn't hide behind Internet anonymity. If this was just some random reddit user comment, I don't think people would believe it as easily.
If you haven't noticed, the accusations against the the epic voice guy of haven't gained traction at all or nearly as much because no one or very few people are willing to believe just any random reddit poster. But this is someone with a face & a name we can confirm has been in business with Andy blaming him of such actions. It's much more believable, because such a person doesn't necessarily have much to gain from accusing him and a woman accusing a public figure of such a thing becomes a target to the MRA & rabid fanboy/girl types who cannot accept any wrongdoings from their dear targets of fandom.
Okay, that is good.It's funny if you go to their most recent video people in the comments are asking them to do things like "Andy Signore is a sexual harrasser" in the movie guy voice. For once it's okay to look at youtube comments.
Not even sure that I would put Chris Evans. That Age of Ultron press tour was a doozy.
"most older guys only hang out with younger girls" eh?
You realize you're not their lawyer, right?
Replace "children" with "accused" and that's all I'm getting from your post.
An accusation is made, we take the statement (which in this case is from a first party), we look to the accused, we investigate, we find proof, a call is made based on what was found.
That's what should happen. Of course, that didn't happen here. Several accusations were made and were ignored for months.
Concern for the accused is literally one of the bedrocks of Western justice. No, this isn't a courtroom, but that doesn't mean "I won't treat somebody as guilty if I have no evidence they did the thing they are accused of" is a bad philosophy. Indeed, as I stated, I think pairing that with a willingness for accusers to make their case and to see how things shake out once the dust settles is, in fact, both the de facto and the morally correct stance!
Yeah, but you've got to understand that for many, this isn't the first rodeo in town. Do note that I'm mostly talking about accusations towards more public people and ones that are more than random forum posts. The "let's wait for more information" train for public figures accused of these types of things has long since gone when time after time again, these accusations are proven to be true. I don't even remember when was the last time a public figure was accused of these types of things (in more than just some random reddit post with no name or affiliation attached to the accuser) that turned out to be total BS.I'm well familiar with sexual assault statistics, but the jankiness extends both ways. Acts that take place in private, leave little evidence, and are contingent at least somewhat on the subjective perceptions of the participants (moreso in the case of harassment) are difficult to collate statistics for.
I'm not suggesting we call anybody a liar, I am saying that agnosticism (i.e. the "if") is both the de facto and the morally correct stance. Posters in here are basically arguing that the victim has to be assumed to be telling the truth, which is different than saying they could be telling the truth (i.e. "if") and necessarily entails action against the accused and would very easily be abused and become a form of extralegal punishment were this the behavior of wider society and not a conscious overcorrection on the part of select "woke" individuals.
People tend to examine what universal application of a behavior would look like when it is suggested as being morally superior to the behavior they are currently engaged in.
Edit: Jesus, this dude has the least amount of smoothness he could possibly have.