First link on a Google Search suggests no more than 6% of accusations of domestic assault or rape are deliberately false, but even those are ambiguous. I am no statistician, I’m not going to compile these myself, but they have been done by others who know their onions. Even if you include a generous margin of error, over 90% of reported assaults are genuine. I’ll take those odds anytime.
…this is a message board. The conventions of legal language and protocols don’t need to apply.
Are you sure?
Well lets find out.
Do you want us to take your position seriously?
Then yes, I would expect you to be able to back your position up.
Where do you get the idea that the “accused sometimes doesn’t have this power?”
You concede that the cases in the “public eye” this imbalance in power exists.
But if that imbalance doesn’t exist in cases that aren’t in the public eye then its over to you to prove that this is true.
It isn’t a problem.
“Yes, that happened to me.”
What exactly are you struggling to understand?
No it doesn’t.
It simply means you haven’t been paying close enough attention.
#Metoo is nearly always used in context. Seek out the hashtag on twitter, on facebook, ignoring the trolls if you can. You will see how the hashtag has been used. And it isn’t used in the way that you describe it at all.
Nonsense. Rubbish. Hogwash.
You’ve thrown a whole lot of words together. But they don’t have anything to do with #Metoo. Alyssa Milano didn’t commit the fallacy of false equivalence, also known as the fallacy of association and the bumper-sticker fallacy when she use the hashtag #Metoo. Neither did Tarana Burke. Or Anna Faris. Or Brendan Fraser. Or Ilana Glazer. Or Marne Levine. Or Amber Liu. Or Ashley Judd. Or Jenny Slate. Or Amber Tamblyn. Or Uma Thurman. Or Gabrielle Union. Or Hilarie Burton. Or Terry Crews. Or the hundreds of thousands of other people who have used the hashtag.
Hardwick was exonerated because of the result of the investigation. Not because of anything “trendy.”
Well you really fucking should.
Not my point.
“Falsely” is not a neutral word. There isn’t enough information in the public domain for the average person to be able to determine whether or not the allegations were or were not false.
Two things.
Firstly: I asked you first. So surely you don’t expect me to do this work for you when you have chosen to ignore my request to you do do likewise.
Secondly: you misunderstand my point. It isn’t about “being falsely accused but then getting exonerated”. Because how are you determining if an accusation is indeed false?
Naaaaah.
Its a pretty lousy link. The 2-8% comes form a 1996 FBI study. Its for deliberatley false accusations. (The false rate was much higher). of course keep in mind the purposely false rate for other crimes was less than 1%.
So rape totally absolutley has a higher false allegation rate and a significant one at that.
Of course MRA also love to tout the fact that in something like half the tested rape cases; the person convicted was excluded by DNA, which is again misleading, since that is cases where a test was ordered, not all convictions, meaning a cohort where doubts as to the conviction already existed.
The upshot is, statistics are irrelevant to the veracity of a particular allegation.
Dykstra wasn’t exactly concealing the details of the breakup in her original posting, was she?
But they are relevant if you claim false accusations are going to increase and more people are going to have their lives ruined. That’s directly implying a statistic in itself. They are definitely relevant when you are choosing who to believe when there is very little evidence being put forward from either side.
Well then Chris’s side has presented at least four times as much evidence as Chloe’s side has. In fact, as far as the investigation is concerned, Chloe’s side presented zero evidence because she chose not to participate. A blog about an anonymous ex-boyfriend does not make for very reliable testimony.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
6% is THREE TIMES as much as the previously stated amount (may have been a different thread, but 2% was cited), which leads me to conclude that somebody’s been talking out of their ass.
My oh my, that was persuasive.
…more persuasive than this?
I would agree.
Care to address the rest of the post?
To answer that snark, no, your point was not persuasive at all.
Let’s review.
Chloe Dysktra made a series of accusations against Hardwick in an essay penned by her alone, with no support or corroboration of any kind. In response, AMC, NBC, and the website he founded all immediately suspended him, with the website removing all mention of him.
An investigation followed. As a result of the investigation, AMC and NBC restored him to his former positions, and the website restored his name. The inference one can draw here is clear; irrespective of the veracity of any individual claims, the totality of the picture Dykstra tried to draw of Hardwick, and which resulted in the initial actions against him, was concluded to be false.
My hypothetical question is what would likely have happened to a lesser individual in their employ faced with the same accusations, say a technician or the mailroom boy. And if anyone believes that the network would have invested a similar level of effort and expense to ascertain the facts in such a case, I have a bridge I want to sell you. The guy would have been out on the street, a victim of the convergence of social media with this new movement that, while initially well-intentioned, has become a potent weapon with the potential for victimization and vengeance in its own right. And I’m going to get dumped on just for saying that because even suggesting that there could be injustices here will be interpreted as siding with the likes of Weinstein and against the women he victimized, and therefore heretical, whereas it’s simply a dispassionate observation that injustices can happen in both directions, especially in the current climate of highly elevated sensitivities.
Do you not see the contradiction in these two statements? If you acknowledge that false accusations are going to happen regardless of their paucity, then how can you say believing accusers outweigh the negatives? Where’s the negative in maintaining a neutral stance until the facts are known so that no one’s life is prematurely ruined? Why risk someone being fired, expelled or deprived of a scholarship solely on the strength of an accusation and nothing else?
And what about when the accuser wields a greater privilege over the accused, like in the story I linked to? Does it lower your propensity to automatically believe them?
But by believing the alleged victim, are you not in fact condemning the accused by default? If a woman says “So-and-so raped me”, do you really think “Well I believe her, but I can’t assume that he actually raped her just yet”?
This is the part the #metoo advocates don’t get: by believing the accuser, of course you’re doubting the accused. You can’t have it both ways! The moment you show bias toward one side or the other, you can’t be objective. Sympathizing with someone is one thing, but believing them takes it to a whole new level.
…argument from incredulity, even when wrapped up in a lot of words, is a fallacy.
Your fallacy is not more persuasive than my naaaaah.
That’s fantastic, thanks! I like thinking of these sorts of things in terms of novels and scripts, so I appreciate that the following scenario for a musical comedy comes to mind:
Scene: A tense murder trial. The defense lawyer rises to present his summation. He walks across to the judge’s bench, faces the jury, and eloquently presents the facts of the case. Looking at each jury member in turn, he fires off fact after fact, ticking them off on his fingers, one by one.
When he is done, a silence falls on the courtroom. You could hear a pin drop, but all you hear is the footsteps as he returns to his chair, and the creak of the chair as he settles into it.
The prosecutor rises.
The anticipation in the courtroom is palpable as the prosecutor, apparently an octogenerian, hobbles over with the aid of his cane. He, too, looks at the judge and then at each jury member in turn, and addresses them as follows:
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that was just a lot of words.” Then he hobbles back to his chair, apparently exhausted by the effort.
The jury, thoroughly persuaded, stands in unison, marches out of the jury box to form a conga line, and sings “Oh Hang the Guy” to the tune of “Oh Happy Day,” by The Edwin Hawkins Singers.
^^^^ +1 
…your previous argument from incredulity continues to be an argument from incredulity even with the addition of many more irrelevant words.
Who is doing this hypothetical life-ruining? It’s not me or you. The conclusions I draw by initially favouring the victim means I am taking the crime seriously, and not being so “neutral” as to be a useless observer.
Probably. There are many factors. If there are obvious holes in either side’s story, that will reduce my likelihood of supporting them. I’ve repeatedly said “until I have reason not to believe them” and this kind of information is part of that decision.
When I say I don’t condemn, I mean I’m not calling for them to be fired or locked up or “have their life ruined”. I just want the first step to be to trust the victim, until there is good evidence presented to disbelieve.
And what do you make of it when an alleged victim says, “I let my ex-boyfriend sexually assault me over four years ago”? Does the word “let” mean consent or not? What are we supposed to believe?
Taking the crime seriously / = / initially believing the alleged (you forgot that word) victim.
I think murder, robbery, and mayhem are all serious crimes, and I take those accusations seriously, but if I start from a position of believing that the accused is guilty, then I’ve put him in an untenable position.
As I said above, these things take place behind closed doors with no physical evidence. You are asking the accused to prove a negative and placed him in an impossible position, save for the limited times where the accuser makes an allegation so outrageous that the extraneous details show her story to be a lie (and even then, her defenders will claim that she was so traumatized by the abuse that she didn’t remember whether it was night or day).
Your position gives license for every evil or crazed person to destroy the life of another person that scorned them. I’m not saying all accusers are doing this, or even a majority, but your position will allow them to do it.
How does that promote justice for anyone?
I am not a lawyer, I don’t have to say “alleged”.
You misunderstand. Trusting the victim is telling the truth is not the same thing as believing the accused is guilty of specific crimes.
The picture you paint with your examples is extreme and unlikely. All crimes have false positives sometimes, and it sucks for all involved, but it’s the price we pay for justice.