:rolleyes:
Is that fact that none of the countless loonies who went out of their way to insult, shame, harass, doxx, and threaten Anita Sarkeesian actually managed to kill her enough of a reason to treat the harms as “ineffective”?
Wait, hang on, let me double-check - did you just say
Wow. Jesus, dude, what the fuck?
UltraVires, would you be interested in distancing yourself from someone on your side of this issue a little bit? It might do your reputation a bit of good.
I don’t think Ford is a suitable example of profiteering from being an accuser for several reasons:
She was and is already fairly wealthy from her income (and her husband’s) before the Kavanaugh hearings, and the added wealth from the GoFundMe isn’t significant compared to it.
She didn’t voluntarily want to come forward at first, it was Feinstein and the others who “volunteered” her.
She had no way of knowing that she was going to get money in a GoFundMe; it’s not like there was a contract of “Go accuse Kav and you’ll get $600k.”
It depends how you define “harm”, I suppose, and what sort of “harm” you think is appropriate as retaliation for merely making some public observations about cultural phenomena manifested in video games.
If your point is that Sarkeesian has managed to avoid direct physical attack from any of the people who hysterically urge attacks on her, you are correct. But if you think that being threatened itself is an absolutely harm-free experience, I encourage you to read even a little of the massive amounts of hate-filled shit that Sarkeesian has been bombarded with daily. Moreover, as you may not be aware, sending a threatening communication to anyone is a federal crime, not just a “harmless” prank.
And if you believe that personally-directed online threats and hatred are the only harm that’s been inflicted on Sarkeesian—in retaliation for, I repeat, nothing more than stating some rational and moderately-expressed opinions about video games—then you haven’t been paying attention to, e.g., the mass shooting threat that resulted in the cancellation of one of her speaking engagements, as well as a bomb threat against an awards ceremony that led to a police investigation of the site:
To claim that a bunch of vicious and malevolent online bullies aren’t actually “harming” a person when their credible threats have driven her out of her home, required heightened security arrangements for her personal and professional life, caused lockdowns at the venues that the threats are directed against, and led to FBI investigations, is nothing but misogynistic bullshit.
It’s also quite disparaging to the law enforcement personnel and event organizers whose time and resources are constantly wasted by these so-called “harmless” assholes doing their utmost to make other people believe that they are about to physically harm their victim and the people around her.
They are ineffective in that they have not had effect. Saying no-one has “managed” to kill her implies some have tried, this is not the case. None have tried to kill her, none have tried to injure her, none have tried to damage her property.
Your cite there where she claims to be driven from her house by trolls is a claim, she may or may not have left her house, and the tweets she gives as the reason for fleeing her home are from someone claiming to love her, to want to drink in her smile, and to want to kill her. Standard celebrity stalker shit, in other words, although she felt the need to blame her political opponents.
I’m not sure what you’re so shocked about. The plausibility of claims of this nature is the issue at hand, is it not? So try not to be surprised when people doubt your idol.
I don’t particularly believe that Ford herself is acting for personal gain, my position it that we currently have no sufficient evidence to know if she is telling the truth or lying, but I don’t think these arguments militate against the idea that she is lying for personal gain.
Many people wrongly idolise the rich. The prospect of hundreds of thousands of dollars for nothing is no less alluring to the rich than the poor, if anything their richness implies that they have a history of being willing to compromise their principles for cash. Add in the prospect of personal fame and political advancement and you have a variety of motives which would be unaffected by wealth.
For volunteering, she volunteered to Feinstein. Feinstein didn’t find out independently and then out her.
As for not knowing there would be an income, that is a firmly predictable outcome.
I believe you are mischaracterising the activities of both Anita and her opponents.
Regarding her own activities, she doesn’t simply review games, rather she has a political agenda which involves trying to limit expression in the media she has targetted and she has pursued that agenda in a way which is dishonest and insulting and which misrepresents her targets. This doesn’t justify any form of harassment, but she is knowingly and intentionally making imflammatory statements, and profiting from the predictable results. And she’s done so very well. Meeting Joss Whedon, appearing on the old Colbert Report, being taken seriously while giving testimony to the UN, and of course making rather large sums of money.
As to her oppenents and their conduct, I don’t believe there have been credible threats. The article you cite gives examples of the supposed threats against her, and none are threats. One wants her to be raped, one wants to beat her in a video game, one says “shut the fuck up bitch”, all through twitter. None of these are threats, credible or otherwise. The bomb threat and shooting threat were determined not to be credible by police investigation, and are properly categorised as prank calls.
So to me this seems to be whatever the opposite of misogyny is. It is special pleading for women. Public figures receive attacks on twitter. Public venues receive bomb threats and in America also threats of mass shootings. But when it happens to women it becomes something to complain about. When Anita gets standard creepy stalker messages it is assumed to be because of her politics and her womanhood, and when she goes on a stage and denounces people in the audience and has them hassled by security it is written off, not similarly claimed as an act of political violence and “harm”.
That is, she simply reviews games. But her reviews happen to include, as I said, her rational and moderately-expressed opinions about cultural phenomena manifested in video games. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a game reviewer/critic having a “political agenda”, or with expressing negative opinions about video games on ideological/political grounds.
You don’t have to agree with their opinons, but you don’t get to try to shut them up by committing the federal crime of sending them threatening communications to make them afraid for their physical safety.
And the claim that Sarkeesian is somehow culpable for “trying to limit expression in the media she has targetted” is laughably disingenuous. Yes, she thinks some video game designers ought not to do things in their games that she considers sexist and/or misogynistic. That’s her opinion, which she’s fully entitled to have and to express. You are allowed to disagree with her about that opinion. She’s not in any way censoring or suppressing anybody else’s views or forcing game designers to “limit their expression”.
The problem is that a bunch of misogynistic fragile-snowflake gamerbabies got all upset that somebody—and worse, a woman—was daring to express opinions suggesting that something about their beloved games might be considered bad. And they responded not by rational disagreement and counter-criticism, but by vile hate-speech and threats of sexual violence and mass murder. Trying to normalize that pathological behavior by calling it “standard” and dismissing it as “harmless” is not okay.
As already mentioned, it is documented that Sarkeesian alerted the San Francisco Police Department to these threats and that the FBI was called in and opened an investigation on them. The FBI doesn’t open investigations just for shits and giggles.
:dubious: You don’t think, e.g., “I’ll drink your blood out of your cunt after I rip it open” is a threat?
The threats were considered sufficiently credible to warrant police investigation, which as I said costs time and money. The fact that they were subsequently found not to involve any concrete plans to commit violence doesn’t mean that it was okay to make those threats.
If you believe that making a “prank call” threatening to kill people counts as “harmless” just because you don’t have any sincere intention or plans to follow through on your threat, then I urge you to test that belief by making a similar threatening call yourself to some venue planning to host some controversial speaker viciously targeted by asshole threat-spewers. Give them your contact info so they know where to find you, and see for yourself what the cops and/or the FBI think about such “harmless” “pranks”.
It is something to complain about, no matter who the target is. Law-abiding people and institutions should not be threatened with illegal violence or harassed with hateful obscenities. And it’s not just women who complain about such things.
The fact that you think it’s “standard” or unremarkable for women in the public eye to constantly receive “creepy stalker messages” threatening them with sexual violence is part of the problem, not part of any reasonable critique of public reaction to the problem.
Y i k e s.
Just yikes.
blindboyard, how many people in your twitter inbox telling you they want to kill you woukd be enough to make you worry? How many saying that and telling you yiur home address?
Jesus, dude, I respect Kimtsu’s patience but that shit is fucking gross.
Any reasonable person would consider death threats by default to be credible. People with the morality not to kill people don’t make death threats. The only thing stopping them is a fear of getting caught. And that carries the unfortunate implication that, if they ever thought there was a way they could pull it off without getting caught, they would. And all it takes is one.
Death threats are not casual. They are terrorist threats. These people deserve jail time, and it is largely the thing keeping me from backing full online anonymity. Threats of physical harm are assault–they are violence.
They are harm.
Yes. blindboyard’s attempt to normalize or downplay death threats as nothing worse than “prank calls” is disgusting.
A prank call is something like calling the supermarket to say “Excuse me, do you have Mr. Clean in a spray bottle? You do? Well, better let him out!”
Sending people a message saying
is not a prank call. It is terrorism.
It is a shame and my fault that the thread took on this little side diversion, but I think it is fair to say that ever poster in this thread opposes death threats made against any person. It is horrific that Ford or anyone else should have to endure those threats.
However, I believe that blindboyard’s point is that anyone with a national presence who speaks on any controversial topic receives these types of threats. I am only a middle sized fish in a small pond, and I occasionally get them. I just put a security system in my house and keep a gun at the ready.
But as wrong as these threats are, with the advent of the internet, they are going to be inevitable, and most of them are just drunken boasts by people with no intention of doing anything and have already won when the receipient of the threat gets all upset.
Yes, they are terrible. Yes, they are wrong. But they are a known fact of life when you enter the national arena. That doesn’t make a sexual assault claim more believable when we had a pre-existing system that was awash in death threats already.
For purposes of debate, I withdraw my Ford example. I was merely trying to rebut the point that there are no benefits to making false allegations. For this thread so as not to further hijack it, I am not expressing an opinion on Ford’s veracity.
This isn’t emotional. This is about principles. People shouldn’t have to suffer bad consequences from unproven accusations regardless how noble you think the cause you’re supporting is.
And these bad consequences aren’t imaginary. A person who believes (as you say they should when an accusation is made) that someone is rapist won’t associate with him, hire him or date him, as I repeatedly stated. So, if your advice is followed people will suffer very significant bad consequences on the basis of mere accusations. And of course, the more this will happen, the greater the incentive will be to bring false accusations.
Finally you keep insisting about the rarity of such false accusations. But any figure I’ve ever seen about false rape accusations are based on the determination or demonstration by the police that the accusation is false, which will necessarily result in an underestimation by the police of false accusations, because in most cases, it will be impossible to demonstrate it was false. I don’t think for an instant that you would state that only the accusations of rape that are demonstrated to be true are actually true, but you have no issue with assuming that only the accusations that are demonstrated to be false are false. This approach is obviously ideologically based, because the same rules aren’t applied to each side of the equation, in order to get the figures that will fit the best the preferred narrative.
On top of it, it’s quite obvious that it’s pretty much impossible to actually determine the rate of false accusations, because it’s pretty much impossible to determine whether or not a rape took place. While people rarely end up willingly with a knife planted between their shoulders, they have sex willingly all the time and “it was consensual” is a perfectly credible explanation most of the time outside of violent rapes, assuming that you can even prove that there was a sexual contact, which isn’t a given. You might deplore that a large part of the victims won’t ever see justice, but this is an unavoidable consequence of rape being inherently difficult to prove. That victims of rape are in a hard place doesn’t mean that it should be compensated by putting people accused of rape in an equally hard place. Basically, two wrongs don’t make a right.
But then you advise them about how they should make up their mind. And your advice is “believe the accuser”. Which I think is inherently wrong. Even though it’s not a court of law, when the benefit of the doubt is (in theory) required to benefit to the accused, the principle is sound. You can’t help having your own opinion, but the default stance should still be to give the benefit of the doubt. Not to assume that any accusation by some random stranger against some other random stranger is true, because you have no way to know.
But this not what is done with every other situation out there. If, say, some neighbor you aren’t particularly friendly with tells you that another neighbor you aren’t particularly friendly with is a thief would you believe him just on the basis of his statement? Then why would you do so if instead of “thief”, he said “groper”? You are the one pleading for a special case, not me.
Besides, not believing the accuser doesn’t mean that you believe the accusation is false, either. You have no way to know, why would you pick a side? You’re arguing that, from a position of admitted ignorance, you should still believe one of the two contradictory narratives. Advocating for this isn’t a rational position.
Sorry, but that’s exactly what is argued. That the accuser should be believed by default. That’s what we’re told to do. If you don’t think that in the case of an accusation of rape/sexual assault/groping/whatever, the accuser should be believed by default, then this exchange is pointless because we aren’t in disagreement.
And of course if your friend Bob tells you he has been raped, you’re going to believe him, even though maybe you could be wrong. You trust Bob. Except what if your friend Bob tells you he has been raped by your friend Johnny, whom you also trust?
Trusting someone isn’t an objective evidence that he isn’t liar, or worst, as demonstrated on a regular basis when they interview people who knew the last serial killer arrested. However, I don’t expect people to be unfeeling machines. Presumably, if your daughter tells you that she has been raped, you’ll believe her, even if it seems implausible. And if your son tells you that he’s falsely accused of rape, you’ll believe him, even if it seems implausible.
The problem isn’t there. The problem is the advice given to believe the accuser when for instance they’re two strangers, or two employees reporting to you. And when you begin to argue, as you seem to have done, that by “believe” you don’t really mean “believe” but something that rather looks like “take seriously”, then you should really not use this word. Because even if it was honestly what you meant, it’s not what people will hear. They will hear that the proper conduct is to believe the accuser as in “assume that the accusation is true”. And I’m pretty convinced that this is exactly the message that most people making this statement want to convey. They do want people to assume that the accusations are true by default.
I mostly answered this above. This is neither the meaning that people will hear, nor, I’m pretty sure, the meaning most people making this statement want to convey.
Besides, even the way you word it, you’re still stating that 1) it is most likely that the accusation is true. Even though you have no way to know 2) more evidence will be required to make you think that it isn’t true, which means that you place the burden of proof on the accused. That’s not a neutral position at all. Neither in a court of law, nor as an employer, nor as random person who reads about the last high-profile scandal in the papers. Even formulated this way, you’re still stating that the accusation should be assumed true by default.
No, I’m not accusing you of of continuing to believe an accusation that does not seem credible. I never stated such a thing. I’m accusing you of telling us to believe an accusation even if there’s no particular reason to believe it is true. Pretty much all such accusations are going to be credible. It could be true that employee A groped employee B. But it could also be false. And you have no way to know.
Where has it been applied? How is it applied? And how is it working? Because, for instance, if you apply it in the workplace, it should result in immediate firing of any person accused. Otherwise, you aren’t believing the accuser, you’re just listening to her with a compassionate smile. Because companies aren’t going to keep employees they actually believe are sexually assaulting their coworkers.
[quote]
No. He avoided your question because your premise was faulty. We have shown that your claim about the “social death of the accused” is false. The “believe the accusers” standard already exists, and yet your doomsday scenario has not happened.
My statement has absolutely nothing to do with “will you stop beating your wife”. It’s the simple idea that if a concept is good (say, “you shouldn’t randomly kill people”) then in the hypothetical situation where everybody follow it (nobody randomly kills anybody anymore) the situation is improved. It’s very obviously a purely intellectual argument, and contrarily to your statement has absolutely nothing to do with an appeal to emotion, either.
You said that you have shown that my assumption (“if everybody was believing the accusers, then it would be the social death of the accused”) is false. No, you didn’t show such a thing. And unless you’re absolutely ignorant about how rapists are perceived on this planet, and/or are yourself totally fine with associating with rapists, hiring rapists, marrying rapists and so on, you can’t seriously argue that someone who is universally believed to be a rapist will enjoy a perfectly normal life.
I’m not answering the part about the judge, because indeed i’m not aware, having only read diagonally the thread about this issue.
There’s still however a point I would make. I don’t in fact agree that someone should be barred from even the highest functions on the mere basis of an accusation. That’s a principle that has often been invoked over here (except when it wasn’t), in particular to demand the resignation of ministers that are being investigated. I disagree with this concept. You can’t deny someone a deserved high office when you have no serious evidence that he did anything wrong.
No, it’s not based on statistics, as I pointed out above. There are no statistics available because nobody knows which accusations are false and which are true, and if you want to go with the number of accusation shown to be false, you should only compare them to the number of accusation shown to be true. Which is in fact exactly what I read the first time I saw such (US) figures quoted in France. The statement was more or less “don’t use this 2% figure (I’m pretty sure it was 2%) because by applying the same logic in reverse to this study, one can state that only 12% (or whatever the low figure was) of rape accusations are truthful.”
I didn’t see these proofs that people who have (provably) been falsely accused of rape have suffered no consequences. Maybe you’ve mentioned an anecdote about someone who was rich and famous and was still rich and famous after such a false accusation? To begin with, the period before the accusation has been proven false is unlikely to not have been extremely unpleasant. And besides, personally, every time I’ve read an account about a man who had been falsely accused, the described consequences were pretty terrible. I’m sure that if you google it and read the first article about such an event, it won’t say that it the accusation has been consequence-free. Anyway, once again unless you aren’t from this planet, you can’t pretend to believe that a rape accusation is consequence free.
Totally irrelevant. The consequences of murder are devastating too, and we still should make sure that people who aren’t actually shown to be murderers will suffer as little negative consequences as possible from a possible accusation of murder. Once again, two wrongs don’t make a right.
I never counter-proposed anything. I just stated that, no, we shouldn’t assume that an accusation is true just because it has been made.
And indeed, many rapists won’t be stopped, and I provide nothing to fix this problem because there’s no way to fix this problem, since, as I already said, rape is crime that is inherently difficult to prove. I also have no proposal to fix the issue of people dying from cancer in case you would wonder.
But I definitely oppose the idea that the bar of evidence should be lowered in the case of rape or sexual assault. Be it in a court of law, in the court of public opinion or in the workplace. It sure would result in more rapist being punished, bit it would result also in more innocent being punished as well. And I still stick to the principle that it’s better to have ten guilty men walk free than one innocent man being punished.
You’re assuming rarity, and saying that the likelihood of significant consequences is low in the case of an accusation of rape is plainly laughable, unless, again, you aren’t from this planet. On top of it, I would point out that in most cases, we won’t ever know if an accusation was true or false, but this accusation, in this day and age, will follow the accused his whole life. Everybody googling his name will find out about the accusation, and don’t pretend that this won’t have any consequence. Unless it has been proven to be false, which is unlikely, his future potential employers, neighbors, dates, friends will think “do I really want to hire/invite over/marry/go out with this guy who is accused of being a rapist?”. How do you think this will turn out for him? Great career, a lot of enthusiastic lovers, and many friends is what you expect? But still it doesn’t seem enough for you and you would want these people to “believe” (whatever meaning you give to this word) the accuser, as if the mere suspicion of being a rapist for the rest of one’s life wasn’t enough.
And yes, I care more about the falsely accused. That’s one of our fundamental principles of justice. Once again, rather “ten guilty men walking free…” or in this case ten guilty men finding jobs, having dates, and being respected rather than one innocent man not having any of these things.
I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t follow the same kind of reasoning if we were talking about other crimes. That you wouldn’t want any bar to be lowered. That you wouldn’t say to people cautioning against hasty accusations “why don’t you think about the victims of murder? Why do you care so much about a guy who’s probably a murderer? Isn’t it important that we stop more murderers? All you care about are the people accused” I’m pretty sure in fact that you’d take pretty much the opposite stance.
And by the way, since you mentioned it earlier in your post, this statement you made “what don’t you think about the victims?” is an appeal to emotion.
No, it doesn’t. You don’t need to believe someone to investigate. In fact, you shouldn’t. You can’t investigate impartially if you start with a preconceived opinion. I guess you can understand why nobody who says “I believe this guy’s stance” from the get go should be allowed to investigate or assess a case. There can be no justice when guilt is assumed.
You can’t believe at the same time two contradictory things, like “he groped me” and “I didn’t grope her”.
I never made this argument. It’s entirely born in your imagination.
I’m not a native speaker. However, I checked the dictionary for the definition of “believe”. It agreed with me.
No. This isn’t “believing”. It’s “giving her story a fair shake”.
That would be a sound argument if I had ever stated that I opposed believing women. Unfortunately, I never said that, so what you wrote is totally irrelevant.
Of course, your nice story about me calling a woman a liar to her face is also totally born in your imagination.
You think I also live on a secret island from where I plot to take over the world?
The entirety of your argument is that you said that I was opposed to believing men. I never said that, so every single thing that you have said in this thread is not just irrelevant, it is fundamentally wrong in every conceivable way.
The fire marshal just stopped by, and is threatening to fine me if I don’t haul away some of this straw you’ve plopped down here.