pwny Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 28 minutes ago, cddolphin said: Yeah guys. Remember to not make assumptions based on limited information, unless it's an assumption of guilt. That's the kind thing to do, and kindness is the supreme virtue after all. Not understanding the difference between empowering victims through trust and understanding and assuming full guilt of the accused/10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, iPwn said: assaulted Off-topic, but English is silly sometimes. Getting beaten bloody with a baseball bat to within an inch of your life = assault Groping someone's twigs and berries in passing = assault Choice of language is important. I get that it meets the legal definition of assault as it should. But some people who are bemoaning certain types reactions to these stories are partially responsibly for bandying about phrases that used to be high-impact but have been so diluted some of the immediate responses turn from shock and horror to doubt or disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 1 minute ago, iPwn said: empowering victims through trust and understanding It needs to be proven they are victims first, no? Fairly basic principle of 'assumed innocent until proven guilty' and all that. Of course you should take testimony with an open-mind and not actively doubt traumatized individuals. But, an investigator's primary obligation is to truth, not going above and beyond that principle to ensure comfort and understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mossburg said: I just don't agree that we can easily assume his accusations would be treated the same way as a random secretary's. I mean maybe it would be different. But I think it’s pretty safe to assume that’s how he felt, especially given the fact that’s what he said he felt. Should we really be criticizing his feeling of being alone and that he wouldn’t be believed as wrong when that’s what he lived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossburg Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 It needs to be proven they are victims first, no? Fairly basic principle of 'assumed innocent until proven guilty' and all that. Of course you should take testimony with an open-mind and not actively doubt traumatized individuals. But, an investigator's primary obligation is to truth, not going above and beyond that principle to ensure comfort and understanding. It's basically an over correction of men being able to silence their victims and get away with it (happens to this day, no doubt). Too many people see the accused as guilty until proven innocent. That's not fair, but neither is the thing that's being over corrected. I dunno if that strikes some kind of weird balance or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossburg Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 I mean maybe it would be different. But I think it’s pretty safe to assume that’s how he felt, especially given the fact that’s what he said he felt. Should we really be criticizing his feeling of being alone and that he wouldn’t be believed as wrong when that’s what he lived? Sure, which is why I'm not gonna accuse him of anything or tell him what he should have done. I imagine the vast majority of people would do the same thing, including myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, cddolphin said: But, an investigator's primary obligation is to truth, not going above and beyond that principle to ensure comfort and understanding. Didn’t realize that the public was expected to play the role of criminal investigator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Indians > Astos tbh Barely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, iPwn said: Didn’t realize that the public was expected to play the role of criminal investigator. The same principle applies. Our collective priority should be getting the truth of the matter. Or would you suggest otherwise? Edited October 11, 2017 by cddolphin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, Mossburg said: It's basically an over correction of men being able to silence their victims and get away with it (happens to this day, no doubt). Too many people see the accused as guilty until proven innocent. That's not fair, but neither is the thing that's being over corrected. I dunno if that strikes some kind of weird balance or not. Even moving more generally than a court, the scrutiny which you apply a burden of proof should be correlated with the consequences for believing that thing. If my friend Johnny says he bowled a 220 the other day, I don't need to apply much scrutiny to it. Johnny's bowling ability doesn't affect my everyday life. If my friend Dave is passionately arguing with Johnny about who the better bowler is, and now my social life might be affected by whether Johnny bowled this 220 or not, I'd have a few more questions for Johnny. What are some other of his recent scores? Who'd he bowl with? etc. If I was setting up a big money bowling league and trying to divide teams, I'd probably want to watch Johnny bowl for myself to make sure we were dividing teams up fairly. If I was a judge who lived in a country where bowling over 219 resulted in sticking Johnny in prison for a while, I would need some real proof. The public, civil courts, and criminal courts are different things and can set standards for burden of proof accordingly. I have no reason to doubt Terry's accusations, and given that they are unnamed, I'm not doing anyone any harm by taking him at his word. It's example 1 above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Small Town Values Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 The problem with the Terry Crews accusation is he won’t name names, or seek any further action. It’s similar to a few years back when Elijah Wood suggested child abuse was rife in Hollywood, but didn’t take it any further. Corey Feldman has also made claims about rampant paedophilia It’s great that they spoke up, but by not seeking to hold the person / people accountable, it allows them to continue to threaten others. By Ashley Judd actually having the courage to come forward & call out Weinstein, it has created a powerful chain reaction of women telling their accounts of abuse. The strongest of those claims being rape. Clearly this is heading for the courts, & considerable gaol time is a possible outcome. I applaud all the women that came forward, they rightfully deserve the wave of support behind them. Weinstein should be locked up, not doing rehab as if this is nothing more than sex addiction. That’s why the Crews story bothers me, it’s not that I don’t believe him; I do. The problem lies with not putting himself out there, as Judd did, & bringing this abuser to answer for what they’ve done. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 26 minutes ago, cddolphin said: The same principle applies. Our collective priority should be getting the truth of the matter. Or would you suggest otherwise? Sure, collectively our end obligation is to get to the truth. To do so, however, there needs to be an environment in which the victim feels empowered to step forward and share their story. They need to not feel ashamed and scared to come forward for fear of not being believed. These type of acts are done so in a way that takes power from the victim and leaves them feeling alone and helpless. A society that does not actively act in order to offer means to defend against those feelings is one that will always have a large portion of people who have been wronged too scared to come forward. The public should empower those who feel wronged to have a voice, while the process that follows and the legal system decides whether that voice has merit. This is not the same as assuming guilt out of the box. Doveryai, no proveryai. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Marc MacGyver said: The problem with the Terry Crews accusation is he won’t name names, or seek any further action. It’s similar to a few years back when Elijah Wood suggested child abuse was rife in Hollywood, but didn’t take it any further. Corey Feldman has also made claims about rampant paedophilia It’s great that they spoke up, but by not seeking to hold the person / people accountable, it allows them to continue to threaten others. By Ashley Judd actually having the courage to come forward & call out Weinstein, it has created a powerful chain reaction of women telling their accounts of abuse. The strongest of those claims being rape. Clearly this is heading for the courts, & considerable gaol time is a possible outcome. I applaud all the women that came forward, they rightfully deserve the wave of support behind them. Weinstein should be locked up, not doing rehab as if this is nothing more than sex addiction. That’s why the Crews story bothers me, it’s not that I don’t believe him; I do. The problem lies with not putting himself out there, as Judd did, & bringing this abuser to answer for what they’ve done. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossburg Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) I heard on an entertainment industry podcast that people knew about this for years, to the point that when someone was meeting him alone they were either warned if someone thought they didn't know, or if they knew, asked people to go to this meeting with them so they wouldn't be alone. I guess that part pisses me off the most. All of these people (non alleged victims) who are condemning it were cool with it and are just doing it for PR now that the poop met the fan. Apparently Angelina Jolie claimed after the encounter she ceased all work with him, which I respect a ton. Others seemed to be ok because he made them money. Edited October 11, 2017 by Mossburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, iPwn said: They need to not feel ashamed and scared to come forward for fear of not being believed. Fear of being doubted shouldn't be an excuse to not come forward. A reasonable amount of doubt should be expected at the outset of any accusation, and it would be a failure if it were otherwise. I also disagree fundamentally about removing the feeling of shame from the victim. Sorry but that's not how societal norms work. You can be involved in shameful acts (I'm not talking about any cases specifically) but also be a victim within those 'shameful' circumstances. The two aren't mutually exclusive, nor does it lessen how 'much of a victim' you are, and I think that misunderstanding is the crux of the blowback against "victim-shaming". Shaming someone for the circumstances they put themselves into is not the same as shaming them for reporting or experiencing a legitimate crime, but they are often convoluted in very public cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts