Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:57 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not even remotely. The Benjamin Franklin quote is all about the rate of "false positives" we ought to consider acceptable in our enforcement efforts.
So, you mean that your post was not relevant to the thread. Odd that you made it.
  #52  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:58 PM
enalzi enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,304
This topic was about workplaces hiring less women because of a fear of false accusations. Are you agreeing that is the correct course of action?
  #53  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:00 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So we can put you down as preferring that 100 guilty sexual harassers go free rather than one innocent one be wrongly punished?
How is #MeToo in any way affecting or undermining the legal presumption of innocence or the legal rights of the accused?

As a long-time ACLU member, I'm very adamant about the importance of civil liberties, the rights of the accused, etc. But I don't see any conflict between those concerns and exposing/condemning sexual harassment in the workplace.
  #54  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think it's a "ridiculous game" at all. How do you think the #MeToo movement should handle false accusations like those of Crystal Mangum? Should they be brushed aside? 'BFD! It's only 8%! That's almost as rare as cannibalism!'?

Should people like her be excoriated by the movement? Ostracized from polite society? Coddled? Prosecuted? What?

If you can't see how this issue relates very directly to your quest to get women's accusations treated more seriously, I think you're purposely blinding yourself.
No idea what the fuck you're trying to say (Crystal Mangum? Who's in jail right now, and was excoriated by pretty much everyone?). If you want to talk about the nonexistent problem of false accusers being defended or praised, feel free, but I'm not going to join with you in wasting time talking about pointless bullshit. Not surprising, though, that someone who has continually excused and defended and celebrated a powerful admitted sexual abuser continues to try to steer any discussion away from how to protect women from sexual assault, to how to protect those who are accused of sexual assault.
  #55  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
How is #MeToo in any way affecting or undermining the legal presumption of innocence or the legal rights of the accused?
It's not. It's utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.
  #56  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
False accusers are universally condemned and excoriated. We can long move past the worries about false accusations -- they're very rare, and when discovered, universally excoriated. Let's talk about the actual, real problem of sexual abuse and assault and harassment in society being tolerated and excused.
  #57  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:21 PM
Two Many Cats Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree. The fundamental problem here is sexism and that's what needs to be addressed.
Except that every time a woman addresses sexism, she's labeled as a feminazi SJW harpy.
  #58  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:29 PM
Strassia Strassia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Are you trying to say that a woman in the workplace who endures sexual harassment doesn't suffer, but men who are no longer allowed to sexual harras a woman in the workplace do?

If not, then you post here means nothing.
Franklin was talking about using the power of the state to send people to prison or execute them. This thread is about people being fired or disciplined at work. How do you stand on this statement

Better a 100 innocent people suffer continued harassment and/or assault than one innocent person have to find a new job.

Or the more accurate: Better 1000 innocent people suffer continued harassment and/or assault than one innocent person have to find a new job.

Neither of these takes into account that even with #MeToo, it is still a long a grueling process to attempt to report sexual misconduct.


Despite all the concerns about how unproven accusations destroy the accused, that is not usually what happens. The last high profile accusation, despite credible evidence, which was probably not sufficient for a prosecution but still enough to cast doubt on a job applicant, ended with accused being elevated to one of the most powerful positions in the country, and the accuser having to flee her home for the safety of her family.
  #59  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:36 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
False accusers are universally condemned and excoriated. We can long move past the worries about false accusations -- they're very rare, and when discovered, universally excoriated. Let's talk about the actual, real problem of sexual abuse and assault and harassment in society being tolerated and excused.
The problem, I think, is that #METOO encompasses more than just false accusations.

- A guy can get in trouble for something he did years, even decades ago. There is no time limit.

- All bad behavior is treated as equally vile and worthy of the full measure of punishment available. (E.G. There is a big difference between Al Franken and Matt Lauer but they both lost their jobs).

- The accusation is all it takes. No prosecution. No finding of facts. This has been of particular issue on college campuses (where often the accused is not even allowed representation and law enforcement is kept out of it).

That's a little scary.

And can we stop with the "very few people are affected by false accusations" bit? Comparatively speaking very few Catholic children have been raped by priests but no one says to let it be because it is only a small percent of the whole.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #60  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The problem, I think, is that #METOO encompasses more than just false accusations.

- A guy can get in trouble for something he did years, even decades ago. There is no time limit.

- All bad behavior is treated as equally vile and worthy of the full measure of punishment available. (E.G. There is a big difference between Al Franken and Matt Lauer but they both lost their jobs).

- The accusation is all it takes. No prosecution. No finding of facts. This has been of particular issue on college campuses (where often the accused is not even allowed representation and law enforcement is kept out of it).

That's a little scary.

And can we stop with the "very few people are affected by false accusations" bit? Comparatively speaking very few Catholic children have been raped by priests but no one says to let it be because it is only a small percent of the whole.
I don't think the three assertions above are accurate at all.
  #61  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:56 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strassia View Post
Franklin was talking about using the power of the state to send people to prison or execute them. This thread is about people being fired or disciplined at work. How do you stand on this statement

Better a 100 innocent people suffer continued harassment and/or assault than one innocent person have to find a new job.

Or the more accurate: Better 1000 innocent people suffer continued harassment and/or assault than one innocent person have to find a new job.

Neither of these takes into account that even with #MeToo, it is still a long a grueling process to attempt to report sexual misconduct.


Despite all the concerns about how unproven accusations destroy the accused, that is not usually what happens. The last high profile accusation, despite credible evidence, which was probably not sufficient for a prosecution but still enough to cast doubt on a job applicant, ended with accused being elevated to one of the most powerful positions in the country, and the accuser having to flee her home for the safety of her family.
I hope you are not thinking that I am defending the use of Franklin's statement in this thread. My next point, which has now already been made by others in this thread, was that the OP is describing men who are discriminating against women based on the fear that they may cuase "problems". The way I see it, they are being accused of being potential problems through no fault of their own except for daring to be a woman wishing to enjoy the same work privileges as a man, and to not hire them is to effectively accuse them of being false accusers, with no evidence whatsoever.

This makes the woman in this scenario the innocent who is being made to suffer, multiplied by thousands, so that the single guilty man can go free.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
The problem, I think, is that #METOO encompasses more than just false accusations.

- A guy can get in trouble for something he did years, even decades ago. There is no time limit.
What do you mean by trouble? Dirty looks and social ostracization?

If it is beyond the statue of limitations,t hen there is no legal trouble to get into. If the complaint is that your peers think poorly of you when they find out what you have done in your past, that's not really the fault of those who point out what you did in your past, it is your fault for having done that stuff, and assuming that it would never come back to hurt you.
Quote:
- All bad behavior is treated as equally vile and worthy of the full measure of punishment available. (E.G. There is a big difference between Al Franken and Matt Lauer but they both lost their jobs).
And the follow up is the same too? If Franken seeing the same penalties as Lauer?

It is a problem that if you are in public, then your job depends on you being above reproach, and seeming above reproach. Being a public figure is a privilege, one that can be lost due to poor judgment as much as maliciousness.
Quote:
- The accusation is all it takes. No prosecution. No finding of facts. This has been of particular issue on college campuses (where often the accused is not even allowed representation and law enforcement is kept out of it).
I disagree. Yeah, an accusation is all it takes to maybe make some people look at you funny, but it does take more than that to get you fired, far more than that to get you into legal jeopardy.
Quote:
That's a little scary.
Only if you have something to be scared of.
Quote:
And can we stop with the "very few people are affected by false accusations" bit? Comparatively speaking very few Catholic children have been raped by priests but no one says to let it be because it is only a small percent of the whole.
And more people have been harassed and have been discriminated against than children molested by Catholic priests, and yet here you are, saying to let it be.

The reason that the catholic church is in trouble is not because people believe that the priests are inherently pedaphiles, or that being catholic somehow makes you complicit in their activities. The reason that people think poorly of the Catholic church is because they didn't address the abuse, and covered it up instead. Your analogy is poorly chosen, as it only demonstrates exactly why people should think poorly of men, if men plan to cover up accounts of abuse, rather than investigate them.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 12-05-2018 at 07:58 PM. Reason: formatting
  #62  
Old 12-05-2018, 08:01 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
And can we stop with the "very few people are affected by false accusations" bit? Comparatively speaking very few Catholic children have been raped by priests but no one says to let it be because it is only a small percent of the whole.
Sure, as soon as "but, false accusations" stops being raised immediately when someone being harassed brings a claim forward. Until then it's valid to bring up the reality of false accusations whenever the handwaving and dismissal starts following an allegation.
  #63  
Old 12-05-2018, 08:05 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The problem, I think, is that #METOO encompasses more than just false accusations.
Not seeing why you consider this a "problem"? The thing about #MeToo is that it is overwhelmingly, AFAICT, about true accusations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
A guy can get in trouble for something he did years, even decades ago. There is no time limit.
So? Again, we're not talking about the rules of the criminal justice system here, AFAICT (and if we are, to the best of my knowledge the #MeToo movement is not trying to change criminal law or the legal rights of the defendant).

Why should somebody who did something wrong automatically be held immune from any kind of "trouble" for it after a certain period of time? If, say, you screwed your wife's bridesmaid on your wedding day and she didn't find out about it for twenty years, do you think that would or should keep you from getting in any "trouble" with her when she finally did find out about it? Or if you belonged to the KKK in your youth, do you think everybody else would be obligated to just ignore that if they found out about it decades later?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
All bad behavior is treated as equally vile and worthy of the full measure of punishment available. (E.G. There is a big difference between Al Franken and Matt Lauer but they both lost their jobs).
More vague fearmongering waffle conflating different types of "punishment". The Democratic Party felt that association with Al Franken after the negative public reaction to his misconduct was bad PR for them, so Franken resigned. Matt Lauer was fired from NBC on the basis of accusations that he admitted were substantially true.

Which of those, if either, are you trying to claim was an unjust outcome?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
The accusation is all it takes. No prosecution. No finding of facts. This has been of particular issue on college campuses (where often the accused is not even allowed representation and law enforcement is kept out of it).
"All it takes" to do what, exactly? Did you miss the part where both the men you mentioned confirmed that the allegations against them, at least in large part, were true?

Again, you are going to have to provide some specific examples of something you think was a genuinely unjust outcome of a #MeToo accusation if you want anybody to be alarmed about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
That's a little scary.
What is it exactly that scares you about the fact that admitted sexual harassers lost jobs and reputations when knowledge of their harassing behavior became public?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
And can we stop with the "very few people are affected by false accusations" bit? Comparatively speaking very few Catholic children have been raped by priests but no one says to let it be because it is only a small percent of the whole.
As iiandyiiii has repeatedly noted, nobody at all is saying that false accusations are okay or that we should overlook false accusations. And certainly if we found any kind of high-level cover-up of false accusation scandals, as with the Catholic clergy sex-abuse scandals, we should denounce and expose it.

But all the current evidence suggests that there is no such cover-up and that the likelihood of a woman falsely accusing a man is extremely small. It would be horrifically unjust and stupid to decide that women in general are dangerously untrustworthy because of the very small chance that a woman might falsely accuse a man of harassing her. And that's the kind of unjust stupidity that you seem to be arguing for here.
  #64  
Old 12-05-2018, 08:16 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,529
If there is a backlash, the blame and shame goes to the ones who are "backlashing." Not to the ones who say "hey, stop doing wrong things".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Stephen Zweig has got it in one:
“If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If you have a workplace policy of never being alone with any employee regardless of gender, then I don't see anything discriminatory about that.

The problem is not men "protecting themselves" by maintaining gender-neutral high standards of dignified professionalism in their workplace behavior: the problem is men "protecting themselves" by discriminating against women.
Right. A uniform policy by which all interactions among members of the work team are carried out on clear sensible professional terms and nobody risks a compromising situation or the appearance thereof is advantageous, it is not that absurdly complicated to establish, and FWIW non-fraternization policies between higher and lower echelons have existed for lifetimes even before there were that many women in some workplaces.

What the OP article describes is a reactive(reactionary?) defensive-flailing response, not duly pondered, whereby the workplace leaders, rather than think it through and face the challenge of change, take the path of least resistance in running away from it. They suffer from a Failure of Imagination. Instead of coming up with a new better way to engage with a part of the workforce in everyday personal interaction, in a way that makes that part of the population more confident to contribute to the business, they'd rather not even try. And there you get into what Zweig points out, and as has been mentioned...
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, then you may find yourself in a situation where it is believed that you have terminated someone due to their demographics, rather than their performance or discipline, and you may find it difficult to prove that you didn't. However, if you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, you may actually be acting on prejudice, and not even realize it.

Essentially, your complaint is only something that would be feared by poorly run or ignorant management or owners. Unfortunately, such people are not all that rare. Even your cavalier admission that you expect that people are terminated based on ease of termination due to their demographic status, rather than based on their performance and disciplinary history, shows that that attitude is very dangerously rampant.
...the attempt at not risking an accusation of discrimination on the job, will result in you being nailed for discriminating before the job.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 12-05-2018 at 08:18 PM.
  #65  
Old 12-05-2018, 08:57 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,699
Sounds like conditions are perfect for a corporation to hire these women who are already working at a ~27% discount and with the savings in labor crush their competitors.

I’m not surprised by any of this. People have to take every cost into account when hiring and working with people. What is there to be gained and what is there to be lost? These are questions that must be answered in business even if it leads to outcomes that are unpredicted by zealots. Now, I’m not saying wanting equality and respect is problematic. What is problematic is when due process is tossed out the window and decisions are made to appease the loudest mob. France is about to learn how counterproductive that is.
  #66  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:12 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Now, I’m not saying wanting equality and respect is problematic. What is problematic is when due process is tossed out the window and decisions are made to appease the loudest mob.
I repeat to you the question I asked Whack-A-Mole: Exactly what outcome(s) of the #MeToo campaign for increased equality and respect are you claiming have been unjust? In what specific case(s) are you claiming that "due process" has been "tossed out the window"?

A lot of the #MeToo-deploring head-shakers here are heavy on the vague foreboding pontifications but awfully light on any specific details of alleged injustices towards the accused, or alleged popular sympathy for false accusations.
  #67  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:33 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
We should probably start to teach dating in schools, with a specific set of steps outlined, that allows for proper consent, no mixed signals, and starts from the position of shared world outlook and interests rather than physical appearance and "chemistry" (aka, the mutual desire to start boning). Once that standard is set, I would expect it to migrate up into the adult world.
I see no point in reducing the importance of physical attraction and desire in dating. I think it can't be done, and that even if it could it would be a net negative. The reason why we're dating is that we're seeking sexual partners. If it weren't about sex, we would just seek friends. Attraction and chemistry are fundamental. If you were actually raising people to date on the basis of mutual interests rather than chemistry, the result would be a massive level of hypocrisy from people who wouldn't conform to the model, and a lot of misery and insatisfaction from people who would.

Desire isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing, a great thing. I worries me a lot how it currently tends to be demonized. Being attracted by someone's, say, IQ or social status isn't in any way nobler than being attracted by his body or face. And "chemistry", which isn't only (or even mainly) about physical appearance, is fundamental if you want to have a remote chance of being happy in your couple. Having "common interests" isn't in any way a guarantee that your couple will successful and long lasting. I would even say that it's barely relevant. Not having "chemistry", on the other hand, is a recipe for disaster.

And finally, not everybody is in for a long relationship based on shared interests/world outlook or whatever else. Plenty of people just want to fuck, and for this pretty much the only thing that matter is chemistry.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 12-05-2018 at 09:33 PM.
  #68  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:39 PM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Men who believe this are delusional and so indoctrinated by the patriarchal bent of society at large (and especially the most powerful and wealthy institutions and organizations) that they are incapable of seeing such things accurately.
Or they're Republican, where the idea that most--probably all--of these accusations are false is basically canon.
  #69  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:49 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Only if you have something to be scared of.
Everyone should be scared of your and others here contempt and dismissal of due process in favor of the court of public opinion (because when has that ever gone wrong?).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #70  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:52 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So we can put you down as preferring that 100 guilty sexual harassers go free rather than one innocent one be wrongly punished?
Wasn't that (better to have 100 guilty men free than one innocent man unjustly punished) a common adage until very recently?
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #71  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:55 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Everyone should be scared of your and others here contempt and dismissal of due process in favor of the court of public opinion
Once again:

In exactly what case(s) of #MeToo accusations are you claiming that due process has been violated in any way? And exactly where are posters here expressing "contempt and dismissal" of due process?

I'm starting to wonder if you're one of the many people who erroneously conflate "contempt of due process" with "other people expressing an opinion that I'm not sure I agree with".
  #72  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:09 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Once again:

In exactly what case(s) of #MeToo accusations are you claiming that due process has been violated in any way? And exactly where are posters here expressing "contempt and dismissal" of due process?

I'm starting to wonder if you're one of the many people who erroneously conflate "contempt of due process" with "other people expressing an opinion that I'm not sure I agree with".
Here's a start:

Quote:
Due process is the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law and fundamental fairness in legal proceedings. The late Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas wrote in 1967 that it is “the primary and indispensable foundation of individual freedom,” and the high court has ruled that due process requires that laws not be “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” But many campus proceedings seem to fit that description. For example, it is not unusual for a male student to be investigated and adjudicated for sexual assault, yet to never receive specific, written notice of the allegations against him. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a civil-liberties group, found in a report released on September 5 analyzing due-process procedures at the country’s top-ranked colleges and universities that about half fail to offer this minimal protection.

<snip>

In a 2014 Yale Law & Policy Review article, Janet Napolitano asked, “Should there be any recognition of an accused student’s rights against self-incrimination in the administrative investigation?” The answer has been no in recent years. If the accused declines to answer questions, he can be expelled. But whatever he says in an administrative hearing can be turned over to law-enforcement authorities and used against him in a criminal proceeding.

SOURCE: https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...policy/538974/
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #73  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:14 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
False accusers are universally condemned and excoriated. We can long move past the worries about false accusations -- they're very rare...
How do you know?

Quote:
A central tenet of advocates seeking greater accountability for sexual assault is that the complainant is virtually always the one telling the truth. As a 2014 White House report, “Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action,” stated, “Only 2–10 percent of reported rapes are false.” Campus materials aimed at students make similar assertions.

But as Michelle J. Anderson, the president of Brooklyn College and a scholar of rape law, acknowledged in a 2004 paper in the Boston University Law Review, “There is no good empirical data on false rape complaints either historically or currently.” The data have not improved since that time. In a 2015 working paper, Lieutenant Colonel Reggie Yager, a U.S. Air Force judge advocate who has defended men accused of sexual assault, took a comprehensive look at the research on the incidence of false rape reports, and concluded that the studies confirming the overwhelming veracity of accusers are methodologically unsound.

For instance, consider Yager’s analysis of a 2010 study titled “False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases.” The study is one of the few to examine false reports with specific reference to campus allegations, and is frequently cited by government officials and activists. David Lisak, a former associate professor of psychology at UMass Boston and a prominent consultant on campus sexual assault, is the lead author; when he and his co-authors reviewed the reports of sexual assault at one northeastern university to determine what percentage were false, they concluded that the figure was not quite 6 percent. “Over 90 percent of reports of rape are not fabrications. They’re not false allegations,” he said in a videotaped interview describing the research.

Yager writes, however, that about 45 percent of the cases Lisak reviewed did not proceed, because there was insufficient evidence, or the complainant withdrew from the process or couldn’t identify the perpetrator, or the allegation did not rise to the level of a sexual assault. In other words, no one could possibly determine whether these claims were true or false.

SOURCE: https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...policy/538974/
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #74  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:23 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Here's a start:
In your attempt to find something to blame on the #MeToo movement (which went viral in 2017), you don't seem to have read the part of your own cite that clearly attributes these problematic campus sexual-assault rules to federal regulations promulgated well before #MeToo:
Quote:
[...] many of the university’s actions—the interim restrictions, the full-bore investigation and adjudication even though R.M.’s own statement does not describe a sexual assault—were mandated or strongly encouraged by federal rules that govern the handling of sexual-assault allegations on campus today. These rules proliferated during Barack Obama’s administration, as did threats of sanctions if schools didn’t follow them precisely. The impulse behind them was noble and necessary—sexual assault is a scourge that should not be tolerated in any society, much less by institutions of higher learning. But taken in sum, these directives have left a mess of a system, and many unintended consequences. [...]

On April 4, 2011, the country’s more than 4,600 institutions of higher education received an unexpected letter from the Obama administration’s Department of Education [...] The letter, and other guidance that followed, laid out a series of steps that all schools would be required to take to correct what the administration described as a collective failure to address sexual assault.
Nor have you provided cites of any posters here expressing "contempt and dismissal of due process".
  #75  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
In your attempt to find something to blame on the #MeToo movement (which went viral in 2017), you don't seem to have read the part of your own cite that clearly attributes these problematic campus sexual-assault rules to federal regulations promulgated well before #MeToo:


Nor have you provided cites of any posters here expressing "contempt and dismissal of due process".
Where do you think #METOO arose from? You think it just sprang out of nowhere with everyone behind it in 2017? Such things just don't spring whole cloth out of nothing and besides...it is over 11 years old.

Quote:
A black woman named Tarana Burke is the original creator of the #MeToo campaign that has recently taken over social media.

Burke, founder of youth organization Just Be Inc., created the “Me Too” campaign in 2007 long before hashtags even existed. The 44-year-old told Ebony Magazine that she created the campaign as a grass-roots movement to reach sexual assault survivors in underprivileged communities.

SOURCE: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02a215b336fee
And as for the contempt for due process here it is exhibited that few are arguing for its necessity and are content to let the accusation be sufficient (is it not a central tenet of #METOO that the woman is always to be believed?). I just cited a long article for you (which is one of a three part series I think) showing that this is not a tiny issue. It is something that affects many thousands on campuses across the US and can affect many more in their jobs.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #76  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:50 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Where do you think #METOO arose from? You think it just sprang out of nowhere with everyone behind it in 2017?
Yes, that recent development, beginning with a viral tweet in October 2017, is what is generally known as #MeToo, and that's how the OP of this thread refers to it. If you mean some related phenomenon such as the Obama-era campus sexual-assault crackdown or just the current zeitgeist in general, you should say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
And as for the contempt for due process here it is exhibited that few are arguing for its necessity and are content to let the accusation be sufficient
As I've asked you before: sufficient for what? It is not an infringement of due process, or any kind of "dismissal and contempt for due process", for people to form a personal opinion about an accusation.

Nobody here is arguing that any accused person should be denied any of their rights, so your claim that they are expressing "dismissal and contempt for due process" is nonsense.

Last edited by Kimstu; 12-05-2018 at 10:51 PM.
  #77  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:57 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Benjamin Franklin is said to have written "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". I wonder if many (or any) posters in this thread would agree with this.
So better that 100 false accusers should escape than one innocent accuser should suffer?
  #78  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:05 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So we can put you down as preferring that 100 guilty sexual harassers go free rather than one innocent one be wrongly punished?
I'm not sure about today, but in the past this was probably pretty close to what happened. Is this good in your book?
  #79  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:15 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Exactly. What the #MeToo movement is about, AFAICT and insofar as such a diffuse popular movement can be "about" any one thing, is simply rejecting and condemning the normalization of sexual assault and harassment.

I'm not seeing anybody saying that legal rights or due process don't matter. I'm not seeing anybody arguing that false accusations are okay or shouldn't be punished. What I'm seeing instead is millions of women insisting that sexual harassment and assault are not acceptable, not normal, not "just the way men are", not something that women should have to put up with. Fundamentally, it's sexist attitudes that #MeToo is attempting to change, not the legal system.

And the reason a lot of people are howling so hard in response is because they're used to not having to take sexual assault and harassment seriously as a form of intolerable misconduct. They are so desperately worried about the possibility of the one innocent man suffering partly because they don't really think what the hundred guilty men did, or whether they get away with it, is such a big deal.

Last edited by Kimstu; 12-05-2018 at 11:19 PM.
  #80  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:05 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No idea what the fuck you're trying to say (Crystal Mangum? Who's in jail right now, and was excoriated by pretty much everyone?). ...
She's in jail for murdering someone. AFAICT, she received no criminal punishment for her false accusation. Perhaps if she had, her murder victim would still be alive.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 12:05 AM.
  #81  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:22 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
See, this is how it works.

Rather than talking about sexual harassment, we need to talk about the real victims: men, who might be falsely accused of sexual harassment.

Subject changed. No interest in actually stopping harassment, no need to discus harassment, no need to discus sexism, because we're on to the really important topic, which is how to protect men.
  #82  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:45 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yes, that recent development, beginning with a viral tweet in October 2017, is what is generally known as #MeToo, and that's how the OP of this thread refers to it. If you mean some related phenomenon such as the Obama-era campus sexual-assault crackdown or just the current zeitgeist in general, you should say so.
I did say so. #METOO did not magically spring fully formed and roaring out of the gate because of one tweet as if till that point it had never occurred to anyone. And besides...I showed you...it is 11 years old so it really did not just appear a year ago, it just got a lot more attention a year ago.


Quote:
As I've asked you before: sufficient for what? It is not an infringement of due process, or any kind of "dismissal and contempt for due process", for people to form a personal opinion about an accusation.

Nobody here is arguing that any accused person should be denied any of their rights, so your claim that they are expressing "dismissal and contempt for due process" is nonsense.
Sufficient to lose your job, your reputation, get kicked out of school, quite possibly ruin a life.

If the central tenet of #MeToo is "believe women" then, by default, you are not believing the men if they deny the accusation.

On what basis have you formed that conclusion? Apparently no reason whatsoever other than because a woman told you so. Why? Because women do not lie about this in your worldview. Nevermind you have precious little evidence for that assertion. It is a lousy line of reasoning.

Are you arguing there should be some process by which we determine the truth? Nope. In your view it's just what your gut tells you that decides it.

This is not a good form of justice. It never worked well in the past and there is no reason to think it will work well now.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 12-06-2018 at 12:47 AM.
  #83  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:58 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
She's in jail for murdering someone. AFAICT, she received no criminal punishment for her false accusation. Perhaps if she had, her murder victim would still be alive.
You think so? Really? When the false accusation was made in 2006 and the murder was committed in 2011? Sheesh, a lot of people don't serve that much time even for committing rape, much less falsely accusing someone else of committing it.
  #84  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:58 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,296
False accusations are not a significant problem. They don't happen all that often, and we all agree they are despicable and should be punished.

There is also no one arguing for doing away with due process. The instances when such are alleged are generally about public opinion--which has never had due process. Sometimes it's even used to mean "if they've not been proven guilty in court, you can't think they are guilty." But tons of criminals are never convicted, but we still think they did it.

Neither of these are problems with #MeToo. They are arguments created by those who don't want to have to stop harassing women. They use these arguments to try and convince others. They prey on the current culture of disbelief of women to get people who are otherwise good to go along with them.

Then there's the "dating has been upended" argument. This is repeatedly asserted, but I've not seen any indication of what's no longer allowed that was before. The common protocol for dating for guys, as I understand it, is as follows:

Guy has friendly chat with girl. Guy asks for a number or tries to set up a date. The girl accepts or declines. If needed, guy calls to set up date. They go on the date, and flirt. Either on this date, or subsequent dates, you gradually increase intimacy, while watching to see if she reciprocates. If so, great. If not, you pull back. Eventually you either stay dating and become a couple, or go your separate ways. At any point in there, you may increase to the point of actual sex, assuming she reciprocates along the way.

Nothing in there requires going up to someone at work and making a sexually suggestive comment. None of it requires harassing someone or asking them more than once. None of it requires grabbing them or groping them. None of it involve catcalls.

But it sure seems to me like a lot of guys think that is normal. That this is what you do. That you start out pushing for sexual contact before you've gauged interest and given her a chance to back down. They you keep pushing after she has indicated a lack of interest.

So maybe you can't do that anymore. But it's not like the other method is new. I've seen it in books and on TV for decades. The basic idea is even in those PUA books, even thought they throw in some nasty stuff, too. It sure doesn't seem to me that things have been upended. It seems like the things you were getting away with before aren't going well.

It seems more to me that there are people for whom making #MeToo into a bad thing is useful to them, and that is why they push this narrative. Instead, we should be pushing a narrative of "It's all right. It's not all that different."

And I say this as someone who had my own shares of missteps along the way growing up.
  #85  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:59 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If the central tenet of #MeToo is "believe women" then, by default, you are not believing the men if they deny the accusation.
Well then we can easily fix your concerns if we don't just blindly and always believe what a woman says and blindly and always disbelieve what a man says.

And since this is something that makes sense, you might be relieved to know that your standard is in widespread use! So your concerns having been addressed, what else can we help you with?
  #86  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:08 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
False accusations are not a significant problem. They don't happen all that often, and we all agree they are despicable and should be punished.

There is also no one arguing for doing away with due process. The instances when such are alleged are generally about public opinion--which has never had due process. Sometimes it's even used to mean "if they've not been proven guilty in court, you can't think they are guilty." But tons of criminals are never convicted, but we still think they did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Well then we can easily fix your concerns if we don't just blindly and always believe what a woman says and blindly and always disbelieve what a man says.

And since this is something that makes sense, you might be relieved to know that your standard is in widespread use! So your concerns having been addressed, what else can we help you with?
Post #72 and #73.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 12-06-2018 at 01:12 AM.
  #87  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:15 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Post #72 and #73.
  #88  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:24 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Sufficient to lose your job, your reputation, get kicked out of school, quite possibly ruin a life.
You guys keep saying that. But I've asked and never gotten a proper answer for this: when? Where is this big group of falsely accused who have had all this happen to them?

As far as I know, when an accusation is made, someone is generally put on leave of suspension, and the job or school does their own investigation. So you don't lose that.

And I've never seen someone's reputation destroyed by a false accusation. If we find out it's false, then everything is forgiven. And if the accusation doesn't sound perfect, then the majority of people ignore it.

This idea is trotted out a lot, but it doesn't seem to have much behind it. Just a lot of repetition, and repetition leads people to believe there is a big problem. When, in fact, the problem goes the other way, of rapists getting off scot-free.

Quote:
If the central tenet of #MeToo is "believe women" then, by default, you are not believing the men if they deny the accusation.

On what basis have you formed that conclusion? Apparently no reason whatsoever other than because a woman told you so. Why? Because women do not lie about this in your worldview. Nevermind you have precious little evidence for that assertion. It is a lousy line of reasoning.
We have a very good reason. The fact that most rape accusations are not false. You are the one with very little reason, since you have little to no evidence of significant harm of false accusations.

Plus, even your worst-case scenario is not nearly as bad as the consequences of rape. It's nowhere near. Rape victims experience everything you mentioned, and then tons of stuff on top of that.

So you have something that rarely happens versus something that happens to 80% of women. And your worse consequences with false accusations is nowhere near as bad as just a normal rape or sexual assault situation.

Any rational risk scenario would tell you that believing women is the better option.

Quote:
Are you arguing there should be some process by which we determine the truth? Nope. In your view it's just what your gut tells you that decides it.

This is not a good form of justice. It never worked well in the past and there is no reason to think it will work well now.
WTF are you talking about? We all still 100% support investigations and trials. We regularly advocate for investigations rather than something being swept under the rug. So we do in fact have a process for determining the truth.

The things you are saying do not resemble the #MeToo movement. They resemble the strawman version created to attack it. The actual concept--that you shouldn't sexually harass, assault, or rape people--is so unassailable that people have to attack positions we don't hold.

And you are using statements of supposed problems without proof. It's just accepted that false accusations are a huge problem. But that doesn't work.

Edit: and your cites do not contradict anything I've said so far. The last one, at least, actually supports it, since you cite campus investigations, and that there wasn't enough evidence to move forward, meaning nothing happened to those people.

Last edited by BigT; 12-06-2018 at 01:28 AM.
  #89  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:25 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Benjamin Franklin is said to have written "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". I wonder if many (or any) posters in this thread would agree with this.
Well hey - as long as the main concern is not the 81% of women who suffer from sexual harassment or the 25% of women who suffer from rape, but rather the X% of men (no number has actually been given, which I personally find not the least bit surprising) who suffer from being falsely accused of rape.

Benjamin Franklin was talking about the legal system. The legal system has the power of the state behind it, and as such requires a very stringent standard of evidence. Jobs don't work like that. If you get accused of doing something wrong on the job, the standard of evidence required by your boss is not and never has been "proven to a jury of your peers beyond all reasonable doubt". Rather, it varies greatly, depending on who your boss is, and, interestingly enough, whether they like you. In some states, the legal standard is "by the boss's whim" - if you don't like that, HurricaneDitka, I'd be surprised, as I have never seen you complaining about "Right To Work" statutes.

It's a common tactic to demand a legalistic burden of proof in non-legalistic settings to try to discredit victims of sexual harassment. It's totally nonsensical - if a friend confided in you that they were raped by another friend, if you would respond by saying, "Can you prove this to me beyond all reasonable doubt?" then I shouldn't have to explain how backwards or tactless that is. But the tactic sounds convincing to many, and as jobs or friendships often tend to lack things like subpoena power or the ability to test rape kits, the result is that we, collectively, in every context, do absolutely nothing about rape, harassment, and assault.
  #90  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:26 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
And besides...I showed you...it is 11 years old so it really did not just appear a year ago, it just got a lot more attention a year ago.
No, you didn't. I'm not contradicting you about the existence of Burke's campaign with that phrase starting in 2007, but it's absurd to think that the 2017 #MeToo viral phenomenon is simply the same movement that "just got a lot more attention", when most of the recent #MeToo participants were never even aware of Burke or her work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
As I've asked you before: sufficient for what? It is not an infringement of due process, or any kind of "dismissal and contempt for due process", for people to form a personal opinion about an accusation.

Nobody here is arguing that any accused person should be denied any of their rights, so your claim that they are expressing "dismissal and contempt for due process" is nonsense.
Sufficient to lose your job, your reputation, get kicked out of school, quite possibly ruin a life.
Again the same melodramatic but vague and unsubstantiated whining. Who here is saying that a mere unsupported accusation should be "sufficient" to inflict any of those things upon the accused? Do you believe that what happened to Franken and Lauer, for instance, was due to nothing but an unsupported accusation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
If the central tenet of #MeToo is "believe women" then, by default, you are not believing the men if they deny the accusation.
I think maybe you're finding that maxim a little too subtle for you. It's simply an exhortation not to automatically suspect, dismiss or ignore a woman who says she's been sexually assaulted or harassed.

As I've pointed out before, it would blow people's minds if the level of disbelief commonly applied to women's complaints of assault or harassment were routinely applied to people complaining about, e.g., being robbed or pickpocketed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
"Were you not being alert about the possibility that somebody might try to rob you?"

"Were you wearing a type of clothing that made you look easy to pickpocket or otherwise drew the robber's attention to you?"

"Were you being financially generous or careless in a way that might have caused somebody to believe that you wanted them to have your money?"

"Have you ever lent somebody your ID before? Do you have the reputation of somebody who is willing to share their ID?"

"Were you walking alone somewhere with a high incidence of pickpocketing/robbery, or after dark when pickpockets and robbers are more likely to operate?"

"Did you get drunk and fail to exercise due caution in looking after your wallet?"

"Why didn't you leave your valuables under lock and key in a secure place, carrying only the bare minimum of items you might need securely attached to your body?"

"Why did you choose to engage in this activity when you knew it carried an increased risk of being robbed or pickpocketed?"
"Believe women" ultimately just means "stop subjecting women to this automatic systemic disbelief".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
Are you arguing there should be some process by which we determine the truth?
Of course. For the nth time, nobody here is saying that we should abandon the legal process by which we determine the truth or abrogate the legal rights of the accused. That is why you haven't been able to cite any specific examples here of posters saying that, despite being repeatedly asked for such cites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
Nope. In your view it's just what your gut tells you that decides it.

This is not a good form of justice. It never worked well in the past and there is no reason to think it will work well now.
It's a good thing that nowhere except in your resentful imagination is anybody in fact advocating that "what your gut tells you" should actually replace due process as a "form of justice".

Again, the reason you keep on repeating these vague dolorous whines about unspecified posters expressing "dismissal and contempt of due process" in some unspecified way is that you can't find any specific post here where a specific poster is in fact arguing against due process, because there aren't any.
  #91  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:28 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Well there you go...thread winner! So succinct, so incisive. So utterly lacking in content it really says it all about the poster's quality of thought.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #92  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:35 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,296
As for the actual topic of this thread: the problem is not #MeToo, but these boneheaded reactions. Discriminating against women over this is not an acceptable reaction. The solution is for these people who will now cost the company due to lawsuits for unequal treatment of women to be disciplined or let go.

The solution is not to stop #MeToo or in any way pretend like it is the cause of the problem. It is their reaction to the problem.

And since nothing has changed legally, anything they reasonably do is something they should have been doing anyways, and #MeToo changes nothing about that. It just means they're more likely to get caught. That's like having sympathy for people when we decide to crack down on corruption.

If you were trying to do what's right from the beginning, this wouldn't be a huge change.
  #93  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:37 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Well there you go...thread winner! So succinct, so incisive. So utterly lacking in content it really says it all about the poster's quality of thought.
No, you got that because you chose to bring up quotes from before whose problems had already been shown.

And now you are using it to avoid dealing with what people already said. We've all said words, not just emoticons. Address our words.
  #94  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:52 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
No, you didn't. I'm not contradicting you about the existence of Burke's campaign with that phrase starting in 2007, but it's absurd to think that the 2017 #MeToo viral phenomenon is simply the same movement that "just got a lot more attention", when most of the recent #MeToo participants were never even aware of Burke or her work.
It remains it is disingenuous to suppose #MeToo is merely the result of the zeitgeist crystallizing into a snappy slogan. It was building to it long before that as the 2007 woman who actually coined the term proves so pointing out what is happening on campuses is relevant.

It is also curious why you will not address what is considered by many legal experts to be a real problem and a serious abrogation of due process as regards men and accusations of sexual harassment?

You claim I am "whining" and "melodramatic" with "vague and unsubstantiated" fears of men yet I show you it is a rampant problem at US colleges and...crickets. Doesn't count because it started before #MeToo. Why does that matter even if true is beyond me.

Not melodrama. Vague only inasmuch as universities are very tight-lipped about it all. Certainly not unsubstantiated. You're like an anti-vaxxer who manages to avoid any evidence that does not fit your dogma.

Quote:
I think maybe you're finding that maxim a little too subtle for you. It's simply an exhortation not to automatically suspect, dismiss or ignore a woman who says she's been sexually assaulted or harassed.
That is not what it says. If that is what they meant they should say so. Why should the mantra be subtle? Why not just say that? Something like, "Take all accusations seriously!" Still pithy.

I 100% agree if an accusation is made it should be taken seriously and investigated.


Quote:
Of course. For the nth time, nobody here is saying that we should abandon the legal process by which we determine the truth or abrogate the legal rights of the accused. That is why you haven't been able to cite any specific examples here of posters saying that, despite being repeatedly asked for such cites.
Because we both know no one here would actually say, "I think due process is dumb and we should not do it," and we both know that.

But people here are content with #MeToo as it is which, I have already showed, runs roughshod over due process.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #95  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:55 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
No, you got that because you chose to bring up quotes from before whose problems had already been shown.

And now you are using it to avoid dealing with what people already said. We've all said words, not just emoticons. Address our words.
I did. Before you even posted. Your post ignored what I already said so I just pointed you what I wrote that contradicted your post.

To which you have both replied with...nothing (although you did at least use words).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #96  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:55 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,224
Whack-A-Mole, name one time that someone was convicted of a crime in the legal system without a trial showing guilt beyond reasonable doubt as a result of #MeToo.

You are again trying to apply a legal standard in a non-legal context.
  #97  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:07 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Whack-A-Mole, name one time that someone was convicted of a crime in the legal system without a trial showing guilt beyond reasonable doubt as a result of #MeToo.

You are again trying to apply a legal standard in a non-legal context.
Ah...tricksy (but not tricky).

My issue here is the person is having extrajudicial punishment imposed on them. At the behest of the government no less.

So, instead of the government having to deal with messy sexual harassment cases it writes a "Dear Colleague" letter which foists the problem onto universities. The universities, not beholden to any pesky legal rules, just runs roughshod over any sense of justice. No rules really...they can do what they want and the damage inflicted can be severe and lifelong.

As my cite above showed legal scholars are questioning this process. As noted in one cite you have no right against self incrimination so if you keep your mouth shut they can expel you. If you try to defend yourself they can turn that over to law enforcement.

Even if not in a court why should we not try to apply legal rules which were devised specifically to try and see justice was done?

But hey...they are not actual real courts so are not subject to due process rules which I am sure you know full well in an effort to win an internet point with your hyper-specific parameters.

No cookie for you.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 12-06-2018 at 02:08 AM.
  #98  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:13 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Again, anything to distract us from talking about sexual harassment, and get us talking about the real problem which is the epidemic of false harassment accusations sweeping America.
  #99  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:49 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What is problematic is when due process is tossed out the window and decisions are made to appease the loudest mob.
Good thought. Let's tell the MRA snowflakes to stop whining because the rest of us don't want to hear their bullshit.
  #100  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Ah...tricksy (but not tricky).

My issue here is the person is having extrajudicial punishment imposed on them. At the behest of the government no less.

So, instead of the government having to deal with messy sexual harassment cases it writes a "Dear Colleague" letter which foists the problem onto universities. The universities, not beholden to any pesky legal rules, just runs roughshod over any sense of justice. No rules really...they can do what they want and the damage inflicted can be severe and lifelong.

As my cite above showed legal scholars are questioning this process. As noted in one cite you have no right against self incrimination so if you keep your mouth shut they can expel you. If you try to defend yourself they can turn that over to law enforcement.
There are reasonable concerns about due process in sexual abuse allegations in the context of universities. If that's what you're talking about, you probably have some kind of point. It's not really what this thread was talking about, though, and I guess I missed the context clues. In the context of business or private life, applying the legal standard to such allegations would be fairly unique.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017