How do you know that she is a victim? Because she says so? That cannot ever be enough. There are evil people in this world. Maybe she’s one of them. Maybe she’s one of God’s true angels on the earth. Who knows? I don’t and you don’t. We cannot be calling her a victim based upon her own word.
As others have said, why do we not equally take Hardwick’s word when he said he did not do it?
None of this has anything to do with anything I’ve said, and doesn’t conflict with anything I said (feel free to substitute “alleged victim” or “accuser”), except that you continue to imply possible dishonesty based on nothing at all.
If it actually happened, that would certainly significantly reduce abuse at first. But false accusations would become totally commonplace. Every woman without too strong morals would accuse anybody of abuse at the drop of a hat. And repeatedly so. You hate you ex : accuse him of sexual assault. You’ve been pissed off by the a sale person? Accuse him of sexual assault. You’re irritated that you got a speeding ticket? Accuse the cop of sexual asault. Someone is more likely to be promoted than you at work? Accuse him of sexual assault. You need money? Threaten someone with an accusation of sexual assault unless he signs you a check.
And that’s assuming that you want victims to be believed only if they’re women complaining about men. Since you probably will say that no, that applies to any supposed victim, we end up with the absurd situation where an accusation of sexual assault would become the solution to all problems, all the time, for everybody. Your ex says that you sexually assaulted her (and everybody believes her)? Accuse her of even more numerous and more serious sexual assaults (and everybody will believe you). You’re pissed at a number of posters on the SDMB? Accuse all of them of sexual assault, and now the rest of us, believing you, will shun them.
What you apparently wish for not only can’t possibly happen, but if it did, the situation would become absurd in quick order.
But generally speaking, do you seriously think that if there were a surefire and consequence-free way to at least seriously tarnish someone’s reputation and at best to completely ruin their their life (which is exactly what you’re wishing for), this wouldn’t be massively abused?
How do you feel about the fact that the basic prerequisite for the accuser making the accusation is:
[ul]
[li]having an Internet account and a blog[/li][/ul]
While the basic prerequisite for the accused to accept your kind indulgence of allowing it to be scrutinized is:
[ul]
[li]$xx,000 in legal fees while his reputation is being flushed down the toilet[/li][/ul]
This sounds like a power imbalance to me. It doesn’t to you?
I don’t accept the assumptions. The power imbalance is overwhelming on the side of abusers. This is only just starting to change, and only in a relatively small amount, but the imbalance is still huge.
I can’t help but think that part of the disconnect in this thread is the persistent belief that being raped and being falsely accused of rape are somehow equivalent experiences. Guess what? They’re not. And for all of the fanfare of #metoo, I read more stories of actresses (and some actors) being blacklisted for speaking out than I do people being punished.
If you are a male and you live in fear of a false accusation…you might want to alter your approach. It’s not that difficult to avoid, I swear.
For the record, I find Dykstra’s story credible. I also don’t find it rises to the level of a criminal infraction. I think that he did engage in abusive behavior. I also think that this behavior falls within the fairly broad guidelines of ‘normal, if unhealthy.’ I do think the story was released in order to spoke his wheel (though it’s also likely that it’s part of some sort of therapy for her). I also think that he, following the breakup, did his best to spoke hers. AMC suspending him was the right call. We will see if having him back is also the right call.
The NY Times has an article on a former graduate student who accused an NYU professor of sexual harassment. A Title IX investigation concluded that the former adviser had indeed committed sexual harassment. Difficulty: The graduate student is male and the professor female. The professor was defended by other academics with language similar to that which would get immediate anger if the roles were reversed.
And also, apparently men aren’t supposed to be protected under Title IX according to some of these people.
Funnily enough, I don’t see any support for that interpretation of Title IX in the statute.
Why should we listen to the opinions of anyone who signed the letter in support of this abuser?
Chloe’s cry wolf routine will be the thing that prevents others from coming forth with abuse allegations moreso than any other aspect of this case. She has done nothing to help the cause you seem to believe in (even though you protest quite a lot about how beliefs don’t matter, though they certainly govern your own actions).
…I think your actions in this particular thread have done more to prevent others from coming forth with abuse allegations more than anything Chloe has done or will do in the future.
Hmmm…no. For instance, under French law, rape can occur as a result of coercion, surprise or deception. So, it matters very much why exactly you consented.
Not even that. Stating that you aren’t going to stay in a sexless relationship is perfectly reasonable, not assholish. And would absolutely fit “veiled threats of leaving her”.
In fact, recently, I read a couple times people arguing that it’s morally unacceptable to condition the pursuit of a relationship to the existence of a sex life, because it constitutes a pressure to accept sex unwillingly. Hence that mentioning that the lack of a sex life might result in the end of the relationship is a form of blackmail and sexual abuse, and possibly even actually leaving one’s partner for this reason is morally bankrupt.
Neither of these statements were made in a particularly militant context (raging ultra-radical feminist blog or somesuch) but rather as a random relationship advice from a random poster to another random poster (like : my husband wants to divorce because we don’t have sex, please advice"). And it’s not terribly surprising, being just an extension of the now relatively commonplace idea that insisting too much on having sex is an unacceptable pressure bordering abuse.
Now you’re denigrating her again, with no evidence of dishonesty.
I’m not really interested in continuing on this with someone who has no problem denigrating accusers based on nothing but their own feelings about how the accuser chose to come forward. I’ve made my point, and you have no problem with continuing this status quo of denigrating accusers.
You give up because you can’t come up with a satisfactory answer? Very well; I accept.
And being sent to jail by decision of a court of justice isn’t the only bad consequence of an accusation. Merely public shame and disrespute is already pretty bad. How highly do you value people you believe are rapists? How much would you like to be considered a rapist by the public at large? And of course, losing one’s job and being unable to find another is a pretty common consequence of public shaming by internet. In fact, some people (amongst the public, I’m not even talking of the accuser) actively try to make the publically shamed person (not only in cases of sexual assault accusations) lose his job and generally speaking to make his life as miserable as possible.
These are very real consequences, that can easily be life changing. You can’t tolerate any random unsubstanciated accusation to have this kind of consequence. Especially since it’s generally going to be impossible for the person accused to demonstrate his innocence. The fact that a court system isn’t considered fair without a presumption of innocence isn’t random. It’s because it’s inherently unfair to suffer bad consequences on the basis of an always extremely easy to make and extremely difficult to disprove accusation (because since a false accuser can pick any accusation he wants, he will pick one he knows you’ll be hard pressed to disprove). The court system has to be more rigid about it, but the idea that doubt must benefit the accused is a general principle of fairness that applies also in ordinary life. And the more important the potential consequences, the more strictly it must be applied.
In the idea that the doubt must benefit the accuser lies madness. If we were usually following this idea, the less scrupulous would always have the upper hand, and would abuse the situation as much as they could : “he kicked me while you were looking away” “my coworker stole my things” “the saleperson insulted me” and yes also “he grabbed my ass”. As soon as you allow bad consequences to result from an unsubstantiated accusation, you have a broken, and unjust, system.
What approach exactly makes you 100% certain that you’ll always avoid pissing off someone who is vindicative and dishonest? You’re under the delusion that such people don’t exist? You have an absolute certainty that all your break-ups will always be perfectly amicable? That you will never misjudge a person? That all the people you will interact with in your life, from sexual partners to mere coworkers wil always be perfectly honest people?
There’s no way to avoid that apart from living as an hermit, in the same way that there’s no way to avoid road accidents apart from not driving. You thinking that you’re a very nice person with the “right approach” doesn’t protect you from people who aren’t.
There’s no way to stop false accusations. Presumably there has always been false accusations. The best way to deal with them is FIRST take the victim seriously, and then SECOND investigate it thoroughly using that as your default position.
It should not be FIRST assume the victim is lying and then SECOND fail to investigate because obviously she’s lying.
And again, what’s funny is that every woman alive could make the same statements, except with actual sexual assault/abuse being the thing to be feared, and not false accusations. And they’d be more right than you. Sucks, eh?
It also means that nothing the accuser alleges is proven to have happened.
And sometimes it means that nothing actually happened. You cannot give more weight to one possibility over the other.
As a completely uninvolved, unaffected party you are not owed information about the findings. AMC isn’t the government, they don’t owe you transparency. They did their part, even tried to enlist the cooperation of the accuser (to no avail) and absent of any evidence that their investigation was tainted by bias, that should be considered sufficient.
You are aware that laws aren’t created in a vacuum, right? Laws are almost always a reflection of societal mores. The concept of innocent until proven guilty cannot be feasible in a society that doesn’t put it into practice in all facets of life. People who rationalize condemning a person accused of wrongdoing without meaningful evidence because they believe giving the accused the benefit of the doubt is something that shouldn’t happen outside a courtroom ignore the fact that the courtroom and real life are not divorced from one another.
Besides, isn’t the common argument your side makes is that rape victims don’t receive the justice they deserve due to society’s ignorant attitudes towards sexual assault impacting how seriously they are taken within the legal system? So why doesn’t the same logic apply when you say it’s fair to assume guilt until innocence is proven?
So let’s say you have a chronic medical condition that although does not shorten your lifespan still seriously impacts your quality of life. You’re offered this miracle drug that has a 51% chance of curing you but a 49% chance of significantly worsening your condition. Is 51% enough to mitigate the risk of getting sicker according to you? Is this how you apply the metric of probability?
Shocking.
What message does this send? That without due process, allegations of misconduct can be weaponized like accusations of witchcraft or ties to communism? That if you’re going to publicly accuse someone of abusing or assaulting you and claim you have evidence to fortify your accusations, withholding that evidence when asked to provide it in a formal investigation severely hampers your credibility in the eyes of the public?
Once again, I am shocked. I was under the impression that you could be totally neutral about the subject.
Warm Blood, your post was incorrect on pretty much every point, and it would be exhausting to go through it and rebut them all. But I will say this:
AMC’s findings have no bearing on whether Hardwick did the acts he is accused of or not. They are not a disinterested party. Their sole concern is what would lose or make money. They found it expedient to suspend him, and then to bring him back later. That says more about whether they think he is still bankable than anything else, and to mistake it for either a factual or moral position is a mistake.
Also, the standard set in a criminal court of law exists because they involve the ultimate concern of freedom/imprisonment, and in some cases life and death. Civil courts have a significantly lower burden, especially when we are only talking money and reputation. So to pretend like we do, or should, always use the 99% sure standard to form opinions is either madness or disingenuousness.
Of course you can. Having two sides to something doesn’t mean they should be treated as equally likely. There are mitigating factors, like evidence and instinct and statistical likelihoods, that will weigh one side more favourably. You’d be a fool to think otherwise.
Which is exactly what I say in the bits of my post you snipped. I talk about when consent would get vitiated and what level coercion would have to rise to, to be so.
Agreed, absolutely. The clinic I mentioned earlier would regularly posit “advice” like this and also that there was no consent if a person was drunk. They would persist even when we told them “no, not the case at all, has to be incapacitated, not just drunk”. I still vividly remember one email exchange in which they defended their work by saying “they were interested in the law, not technicalities”.:smack: