Jeez, what happened to the presumption of innocence for the accuser? I swear you just mentioned that a few posts ago.
Anyway, I learned from one of the trans athletes threads that you and I just talk past each other. I’m happy to take that blame – I’m not communicating well with you or not understanding what you’re saying. So, rather than just go around and around with you again, I’ll just bow out.
There’s nothing more for me to add than what puzzlegal and LHoD have posted.
In what way does my approach not presume the innocence of the accuser?
“presumption of innocence” does not mean that you automatically assume that an accusation is valid. That is where perhaps you are misunderstanding the concept.
Presumption of innocence of the accuser means you assume the person who claims to have been offended actually was offended, and is speaking up in good faith.
Okay, I give up. I made it 19 posts into the thread, and I don’t think I have it in me to read the whole thing. So I give up. I just want to know one thing:
How can an EMAIL be nine pages long? Emails don’t have page breaks.
Correct, If you think they are lying about being offended then you’d best be able to back it up. It doesn’t mean that their accusation of racism should be assumed as true.
They can be offended, sincere and wrong, all at the same time
Sure, if you are speaking Chinese, and say something like, <Go get that ball!> and someone overheard what they thought was the N-word, then a quick explanation as to what was actually said is warranted.
If you are a professor who says, <that, that, that> specifically because you know what that word sounds like, and want to get a reaction out of your class, then maybe it is you that should apologize.
Sometimes everyone is wrong, sometimes no one is wrong. As you are not actually being attacked, strongly defending yourself is most likely the worst action you can take. By seeing anyone making a complaint as an attacker who is wrong and needs to be put down, you compound the error, and prevent any possibility of coming to a mutual understanding.
But at least you get to claim that you were right. Well, to anyone who can stand to listen to you.
Oof–you’re right, I totally missed his “automatically” business. Yeah, when a person’s racism is egregious, it’s time to stop business as usual and address it fully.
Assuming Jennifer isn’t Black, you’re right–and I was trying to write it to make it as clear an example of assholery as I could. But even if Jennifer is Black (as was, I’m pretty sure, the author of the actual article I read and which I can’t find now), and even if she believed the Land Back movement was an anti-Black movement that marginalized the experiences of Black Americans like herself, it could be a misplaced accusation of racism.
Even if she was Black, it’s not the same - the example I was addressing was someone experiencing racism/microagression right there at the party.
When printed out?
OK. So I went down that rabbit hole and a couple of links in found myself reading this sentence:
Pam is NOT to apply margarine to any of her coworkers.
which caused me to laugh so hard that the orange cat who’s a member of this household (and who seems to be of normal feline intelligence) came over to find out what was going on.
What, the ones about checking to make sure you understand why the accusation’s being made and considering whether it might or might not be true, as part of deciding on a response?
Those “rituals” most certainly are intended to figure out truth vs. falsehood; as well as to sort out the many cases that fall somewhere in the middle. And they’ve been recommended, over and over, in this discussion.
There is no such resistance, and there is no such insistence. People are saying the exact opposite. – I quoted myself above, saying the exact opposite, four times over. Post #102, which you appear to be ignoring.
No, it has repeatedly been said above that people accused of racism should consider why the accusation was made and should apologize if whatever they said/did could have reasonably seemed to be racist, even if that wasn’t their intent. Which is not at all the same thing.
And see immediately above in this post.
And if that scenario the detective then proceeds to plant unpurchased razors on you and insist you be arrested, even though there’s no evidence, then they would indeed be utterly in the wrong.
But in that scenario the store detective is not at fault for checking whether you stole any razors; because on their video you sure looked like you were stealing some razors.
You appear to be claiming that because it’s not possible to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt at the moment the incident occurs that somebody’s not innocent, nobody should ever investigate to find out whether there is indeed evidence. Which would be the equivalent of saying that police can never investigate a case, because the potential suspects haven’t already been convicted in court after a proper trial.
You can’t possibly judge each case on its merits unless you investigate each case. Many such cases can’t be properly investigated without discussing them with the parties concerned.
Also QFT. Exactly.
It’s quite possible that neither of them is in the wrong. But I don’t think @RitterSport was necessarily saying otherwise.
If it were my house, I’d be disturbing the peace by throwing the Nazi-saluter out of the house.
If it weren’t my house, and whoever did live there didn’t throw him out, I’d be leaving that party, and I’d never go to another one there. And I’d make damn sure that everybody knew why. Some peaces need to be disturbed.
Very well said. Weaponizing the accusations of some horrific so-called transgression so it can be abused has been a tactic used throughout history. Religious inquisitions, witch trials, enemies of the revolution etc are all examples where it’s beneficial to make false accusations. It’s weird that the motives of the accuser are rarely considered.
The only way to deal with this is by not accepting the flawed premise that an accuser is somehow more virtuous than anyone else.
I would clarify, ruining the party for everyone (or disturbing the peace) by demanding an apology. Taking a person aside and demanding an apology does not necessarily make you an asshole. Making an episode that interferes with uninvolved people, for a mere apology, does.
I see our disagreement as similar to the trolley problem. I would judge a person standing up for their personal dignity, if it inconveniences uninvolved people.
Re: safety v. fun, I would not demand an apology from a drunk person following me around and making Hitler salutes. I don’t know what your experience is with the equivalent for you, but without further information this person’s continued presence is an immediate threat to my safety. Disturbing people to get a drunk man off my back is reasonable. Confronting a drunk Hitlerite after he backs off is asking for trouble. Unless I have a mob of people at my back ready to beat him up for not apologizing, which is unlikely if they let him follow me around to begin with, trying to coerce an apology (because dignity?) goes against my interests in personal safety.
ETA: I mean, are you going to tell women to loudly demand apologies from drunk-ass men propositioning at parties, who have already backed off? Because that’s what you think a person should do in the interest of safety? If not, why would that hold for a minority person and a racist?
~Max
So, those are mostly examples of political movements to remove an enemy. The inquisition was the Christian Spaniards asserting their control over Spain, and removing the remnants of Islamic rule, including those who were sympathetic to the Muslims, for instance.
And in those cases, fighting the accusation was definitely the losing move. I mean, maybe you’d prefer to be killed without confessing than to return to your regular life, but a lot of people don’t.
Back in our world, where I don’t believe there is a political movement to kill all the infidels…
I’ve admitted to having been accused of bigotry. And you know what? I wasn’t “punished” for it. I was accused in part because my audience recognized that it was not my intention to demean anyone. So they called me out. I learned something. I apologized. I moved on. This is a more realistic scenario for most people who aren’t actually bigots, I believe.
Yeah, this drunk Hitlerite example is pretty extreme. If it were my party, I would remove him. Involving the police if necessary. If it were not my party, I’d alert the host. If the host didn’t take effective steps to protect me I would leave the party. I wouldn’t be looking for an apology because I’d be avoiding that person, not engaging with him. You seek an apology from someone you want to have ongoing social interactions with.
Exactly, it makes much more sense to either leave or alert the host (if available). If this is a person I interact with in other situations, I ask for the apology when he is not drunk, in a more safe environment. And it will likely be a non-apology or an apology for being drunk in the first place (both of which I would probably accept).
~Max
Exactly, and reserve judgement until that is done. It really doesn’t sound like you disagree with my basic point.
The equivalent for me is someone cracking racist jokes under the mistaken impression everyone in earshot was equally White and equally racist. And defenestration (or rather, deportation) did, in fact, ensue. Because I raised it with the host as a safety issue.
I’m not going to tell women to do anything.
But if they did it, I wouldn’t call them assholes.
You seem to think “backing off” makes everything OK. I don’t.
I am going on the assumption that the rest of the party are not sexual perverts/racists, so actual assault is not an issue.
Bodily safety was not the kind of safety I was talking about.
And in this world there is political utility in making those accusations as well. Now death isn’t the penalty here but the consequences can be quite damaging. Furthermore, and just as importantly, the chilling effect of the fear of accusation is quite real. That’s why you see pushback against so-called cancel culture. Folks from classical liberals to conservatives understand the history of this ongoing tactic and rightfully are concerned.
Now of course there are real instances of bigotry. No one is denying that. What I am saying is that in an environment where accusations can be tactical one shouldn’t reflexively defer to and beg forgiveness from any random accuser.
Especially since the accusations and reactions of the accused are not just directed at individuals at a party behaving boorishly. We have corporations, universities, police forces, municipal and state governments, etc accused of bigotry and making efforts to placate such accusers instead of rationally realizing that there is no placation possible.
If actual assault weren’t in the cards, there wouldn’t be a drunk man following me around room to room making Hitler salutes. Or a drunk man following and harassing a woman at a party. The same cannot be said of a person cracking racist jokes for laughs. In that case I can just walk away without escalating.
~Max
You appear to be responding not to what’s actually been said in this thread, but to the Spanish Inquisition.
I wish I could say that I had not been expecting that.