TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 266

Thread: Exposing Sexual Harassment...

  1. #176
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    I'm just impressed at the range of people Kolya has managed to align against him in this thread.
    When Koyla first came back again recently it was like the good old days for a second there, but for some reason, ITT, he has displayed an alarming lack of empathy, disturbing, and surprising. I do understand where he is coming from, not very compassionate though.


  2. #177
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    What I don't get is how many people in this thread have been placing the giving of sexual favours and asking for sexual favours into the same category. Their not AT ALL. They are completely different.

    And Kolya's completely right. We can't and should never attempt to pass judgement on people using the PC rules of today vs the un-PC rules of back then.

    If something happened that was fine by the rules of a point in time when it occured then that is all that matters. It matters not what we deem to be acceptable now, as now has different rules.

    It's like making smoking illegal and then retro-actively arresting people for smoking before it was made so. You can't. And so its stupid to even think you can do so about this.
    Last edited by icemann; 14th Nov 2017 at 20:16.

  3. #178
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    It's constitutionally illegal to apply a law retroactively. It is entirely possible to retroactively condemn despicable behavior that may have been legal at the time (e.g. slavery). And in this case, neither is necessary because none of this behavior was in any way acceptable at the time! The change is that we now allow victims to speak of it.

  4. #179
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Im far from being without compassion, GMD. But in this matter compassion is being occupied and used to silence any word of moderation.
    I'm also not sympathising with harassers, especially if the victim is alone against a crowd. Then I'll be the first to take their side. Because going against any kind of mob is kinda my thing, sometimes to a fault.

  5. #180
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    The stories I read about Kevin Spacey, George Takei and Dustin Hoffman all sound ridiculous to me. Happened decades ago, even then relatively light weight cases (no rape, no coercion), they now make headlines. If you want more, knock yourself out: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeinsteinEffect/
    Alright, let's take Kevin Spacey. Tons of separate accusers over many decades, claiming everything from grabbing crotches to attempted rape. His assaults were repeated, obviously unwelcome to any normal person, and done from a position of power. Any two of those three would be enough to inspire outrage IMO, but Kevin did all three. Allegedly.

    You say it's not fair to get outraged about this when society turned a blind eye in the past, and perhaps that's true in some respects ... but it was a great deal less fair to turn a blind eye in the first place! This is precisely what is changing now: a bunch of women (and some men) have spoken out and for the first time are finding that society at large doesn't want to pretend this isn't happening any more.

    We could sling all sorts of accusations back and forth about motivations and who genuinely "cares" and so forth ... or we could take a step back and look at the effects of this change: less women getting assaulted, and women getting judged less on their looks and more on their merits. Well, hopefully. I don't know how you can look at this and see it as anything other than a positive change.

    Finally, I know this last point is a bit of a broken record by now, but you and Icemann are really whitewashing the actions of Weinstein, Kevin, etc to an extraordinary degree, and I don't understand why. No, attempted rape was never at any stage considered acceptable. Forcing someone to remain in the room while you masturbate in front of them was not at any stage acceptable. Repeatedly grabbing someone's crotch after being asked to stop was not condoned last time I checked. There might have been a culture of hushing bad behaviour up, but there was never a culture of considering that sort of behaviour to be "ok". That's why the "fairness" argument doesn't resonate with me.

  6. #181
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Nice post Chade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chade View Post
    or we could take a step back and look at the effects of this change:
    And lets not forget that even though current "coverage" of this issue is focusing on "decades past" claims, I do believe that the worst is most certainly yet to come. To suggest that the worst of these claims have occured in the "distant past" is not a safe outlook. The evil of this form of abuse is widespread up to sections of the top levels of government and beyond, alive and well, and *most of the population* doesnt even know how bad it really is.

    I am waiting for the real evil to end up oozing out, because as terrible as all these recent claims are, trust me, they are only scratching the surface of this thing. These evil people are actively doing everything in their power, right now, plotting and planning and scheming, finding any way they can to shrink back and not let everything come spilling out. This is an interesting war, and we have only just begun.

  7. #182
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Well, obviously it's in the top levels of government when your current president assaults women by his own admission.

  8. #183
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Another thing that bothers me Kolya is when you insinuate that we're all a bunch of prudes, as if this were just some people's private bedroom antics that we have no business caring about. What Weinstein did was not casual sex between consenting adults, it was bribery.

    It's just not acceptable to require women to be sex workers on the side as a written or implied job requirement in The Weinstein Company or Fox News. And it's not acceptable to go around groping and flashing and whatever just because your fame makes people afraid to accuse you. As Vas said, I expect this to be obvious to everyone, and it's sad that it's not.

    And icemann, calling it political correctness is nonsense. Abuse of power has never been OK. Just because people were afraid to come out with their stories before doesn't mean it was OK when it happened. Also, seconding what Pyrian said, and what Chade said.

  9. #184
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Weinstein is a different kettle of fish to the rest. His was wide spread, and has a very large amount of accusations done across the board over a large span of time. His actions after this started to come up have been questionable also. I'm not speaking in defense of him.

    Spacey and the others on though, I'm more for innocent before being proven guilty as I've stated earlier in the thread. Much of it at the moment feels more like a witch hunt rather than a search for truth. If later proven guilty without a shadow of doubt then no worries, but until proven guilty these people (not including Weinstein) should be treated fairly. Have any of them actually been charged by the police? Or is this all just heresay at this point?

    If I remember right Weinstein has been. But I've heard nothing on the others, and rather instead them being judged guilty by the industry and fired from their shows, taken out and replaced in movies to be released featuring them (Spacey). Its all going to be lovely if one of them turns out to be innocent later. But bah who cares burn em at the stake.

  10. #185
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Oh, poor Spacey getting millions of dollars from Netflix for the canceling of his contract.

    Innocent before proven guilty doesn't mean that a person is innocent, only that in a court it is up to the prosecution to gather evidence that shows the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt rather than up to the person to prove his innocence. It doesn't mean that someone like SD has an obligation to wait for a guilty verdict to have an opinion about someone and it doesn't mean that a company is obligated to hire someone accused of misconduct or keep them on their payroll. If Netflix wanted to breach the contract and get rid of him, it's up to them.

    On the other hand, I don't believe this will change a lot in the Hollywood either. People like Spacey will still be in demand. They'll go to sex addiction rehab as a modern way of putting on sackcloth and ashes and they'll lay low for a while and everybody will forget about it. And for every person speaking out, there are many more who are keeping quiet out of fear.
    Last edited by Starker; 16th Nov 2017 at 02:42.

  11. #186
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Also, these economic decisions are either zero-sum or very little sum. Almost every person who loses their job due to alleged misconduct creates a job opening for someone who presumably didn't. And heck, harassment-prevention training is a sector now, so that's more jobs.

  12. #187
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Fwiw I've no problem with someone like SD saying "This is just my opinion, please disregard if you're better informed/more reasonable/compassionate."

    The reason we have "innocent until proven guilty" is because of the terrible injustice of the alternative. It's a cornerstone of civilisation and anywhere without this written into law will have some other system that, when presented to most of us here, will seem pretty barbaric.

    Everyone itt would cry "innocent until proven guilty" if they were accused of something they didn't do, and be counting on the law to treat them that way. That some people aren't prepared to view others the same way says a lot about them.

  13. #188
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Too true.

  14. #189
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    If you followed Starker, "innocent until proven guilty" is just a thing we still have to do in court. Outside of court, we progressed to "fail on the victim's side".

  15. #190
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    I don't think that's what he's saying at all Kolya.

  16. #191
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
    I have more sympathy for the innocent until proven guilty argument. That said ...

    "Without a shadow of doubt" is not required by law: I've done a half a minute of googling which I believe makes me an expert, and the absolute highest required standard of evidence in the US and UK is "beyond reasonable doubt". Now I don't know what constitutes reasonable doubt, but wikipedia tells me that between 2-10% of rape claims are believed to be fake, depending on what country and study you are talking about. I'm going to baselessly pretend that figure holds for all accusations of sexual assault.

    Now the first google hit I got for Kevin Spacey's accusations was The Sun, for which I apologise, but it looks like a pretty straight forward factual accounting of the accusations that have been made. There are 8 accusers in total. If we assume they are all acting independently the chance of all accusations being false is one in ten billion or even smaller. 'Course the accusations probably aren't independent, still, I reckon you'd be hard pressed to justify anything greater than a one in thousand chance that all accusations are false.

    Unfortunately the reality of sexual assault is that it usually doesn't leave any evidence: it's naturally a high stakes she said / he said situation. What's more, a wrong judgement will hurt people either way: the lives of both the accused and any future victims are at stake. Innocent until guilty coupled with an unrealistic burden of proof can just be a tool for doing nothing and consigning women to a non-trivial amount of risk down the line. On the other hand, I do sympathise about the dangers of mob justice. In my ideal world we would have ways to avoid people like Weinstein when the risk becomes non-trivial, without actually destroying their careers until we had more evidence.

  17. #192
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Afaik, 'innocent until proven guilty' applies only in a court of law; it's not really applicable to people's opinions in that we are not judges and juries, we are just voicing our opinions ('o·pin·ion /əˈpinyən/ noun 1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge'). Spacey was fired but not because of public opinion. Were the allegations alone (made by his victims, not by public opinion) enough that his employers wanted to distance themselves and their production from his rapidly deteriorating reputation, or did his employers already know of his dubious behavior (as in it was a 'well known secret') and decide he was not the kind of employee they want representing their company? I'd say it was a combination of both. Funny, isn't it, how so many people suddenly grow a conscience when their (or their employee's) transgressions are made public? However, public opinion has nothing to do with a court case; last time I checked, courts still relied on facts and evidence.

    Weinstein is a slimy douchebag, a piece of dogshit and I won't even bother addressing his situation except to say that some people will never understand what it's like to be in a position where someone else with power and authority uses that power and authority to force, coerce, and extort you into doing something you wouldn't have otherwise done. Armchair quarterbacking is easy ('Well, I would have punched him in the face', or 'I would have told him to go fuck himself and walked out and pressed charges', etc.), experiencing the reality is quite different. Especially when you know that other person has the power and authority to totally ruin your life and nobody will believe what you say anyhow (or your allegations will just get swept under the rug and ignored).

    It's my opinion that automatically suspecting the victim of lying is outright victim blaming. A suspect is under suspicion of committing that crime; a victim is just that ... a victim and should not be treated as the criminal. Unfortunately, for too many decades (or centuries?) the truth is that women have been raked over the coals and had their reputations and even lives ruined when they've made allegations of sexual assault or even sexual harassment, especially in court. It looks as though that's changing now and I applaud that change wholeheartedly. Btw, the percentage of 'false claims' of sexual assault are in the single digits, so please don't start going off the rails and frothing at the mouth spewing bullshit like, 'but, but my next door neighbor claimed her ex-boyfriend's best friend's uncle's buddy raped her and it turned out to be a lie' . (https://academicmatters.ca/2011/10/f...and-realities/). I have to wonder why those people are so quick to voice their outrage on behalf of the suspect and at the same time question the integrity of the victim? It's almost as though the defenders of the suspect are personalizing the suspect's situation, ya know? I mean, I can identify with the victims so it's easy for me to defend them and want them to have a voice that will be listened to, but what about those who defend the suspects (not talking about lawyers here), where are they coming from? At least, that's my opinion. I read a one-line response by a woman to a male who was vehemently defending Weinstein and Spacey (in a Facebook thread about sexual assault): 'This isn't about your dick'.


    Nailed it.


    Imo.


  18. #193
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    People are, of course, entitled to their opinions. I just find it slightly concerning that people are so quick to condemn someone simply because they've been accused (Especially in the case of Carl Sargeant where nothing was known other than he had been accused). In some cases it is pretty obvious that they're guilty (Weinstein and Spacey barely bothered to defend themselves), but the fact remains that false accusations do occur (Whether they're outright lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings, whatever) so automatically assuming guilt is as bad as automatically assuming the accuser is lying.

    That said, one of the things that's really bothering me about this situation is the apparent lack of support for people who've been harassed from a legal point of view. Many of the people coming forward said they didn't know who to turn to, or that when they went to the police, they were dismissed or discouraged from filing a charge. Some didn't even get as far as that and were allegedly dissuaded, threatened or bought off by people working for the person who assaulted them. If it turns out that there are people complicit in covering up or preventing victims from pressing charges, then I'd like to see them charged as well.

  19. #194
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    We do not live our lives as if we were in a courtroom. If you are hiring a babysitter and 8 people independently come forward and say that that person molested them when they were children, you are perfectly justified in not hiring that person, even if a guilty verdict hasn't been handed down by a court.

    Also, nobody here advocates for vigilantism or anything like that and nobody here says that victims should be automatically believed. The only thing that has been said is that victims should be taken seriously and that you don't have to wait for a verdict to form an opinion on someone. If the facts presented convince you that someone is quite likely to be a sleazy scumbag, you are perfectly justified in not doing business with them.

  20. #195
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    Afaik, 'innocent until proven guilty' applies only in a court of law; it's not really applicable to people's opinions in that we are not judges and juries, we are just voicing our opinions
    If you voice your opinion publicly and it happens to include allegations of a legal crime against someone, then you should be ready to back them up. Because otherwise you can get sued. Is this really news to you?
    Would it be okay with you if hundreds or thousands of people online were thinking you did something horrible that you never did, because someone said so on Twitter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    Spacey was fired but not because of public opinion.
    Do you really believe that? In the "bad old times" no actor would have been dropped from a hit series because of some unproven allegations. And isn't that exactly the cultural change that some people are so proud of, that this is happening now? Isn't that the whole point of going public instead of going to court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    A suspect is under suspicion of committing that crime; a victim is just that ... a victim
    You're not a victim until a court has established that there was a crime and you were the victim. Until then you're an accusant, if you go to court.

  21. #196
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    Just to throw in something I read from a feminist site - this account of a woman's actual rape and following trial that failed to lead to a conviction. What's bothering me is the anecdotal comments about girls saying they give in to having sex because it's easier than trying to rebuff a man when he's bothering them so much. I don't think that's something most men, including me, find easy to understand. It's a fuzzy area of consent, but there is obviously a place where it turns into genuine violation. It seems when it comes to prosecution it gets framed as a binary thing, where in hindsight people are looking at how the woman should have avoided getting into a vulnerable place. I find the whole thing very sad...

  22. #197
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    I think the thread would benefit from this video. I dont exactly subscribe to everything in it, but there are many good points relevant to this discussion.


  23. #198
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    Funny, isn't it, how so many people suddenly grow a conscience when their (or their employee's) transgressions are made public?
    Eh, if a company has evidence of the behavior and retains the alleged offender, they can be raked over in civil court. No company wants that. And keep in mind that the standard of evidence in civil court is merely preponderance of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by driver View Post
    I just find it slightly concerning that people are so quick to condemn someone simply because they've been accused (Especially in the case of Carl Sargeant where nothing was known other than he had been accused). In some cases it is pretty obvious that they're guilty (Weinstein and Spacey barely bothered to defend themselves)...
    Again, I feel constantly bringing up this line of discussion is strawmanning. Who is Carl Sargeant? We're talking about cases like Spacey and Weinstein (and Roy Moore and Louis C.K. and on and on...).

  24. #199
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    Blame SD, he brought him up about 5 pages back.

  25. #200
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    That's obviously a terrible video. While he makes somewhat relevant points in the end, I do not subscribe to the view at all that this was somehow a concerted action by "SJWs", Marxists and Feminists. That's just his right-wing ideology and misogyny speaking.

    There is no previous leftist ideology necessary for #metoo. The required self-revelation, followed by instant, indiscriminate public absolution and praise is cathartic and empowering. You start to believe that slandering people you never met from behind your screen was a solidary act of ever more empowerment. Now you're part of a "movement" of revolutionary infallible underdogs by virtue of owning a vagina. Without ever leaving your chair, you've become unstoppable, untouchable, victory is just around the corner...

    Well, until it isn't. After a while the ecstatic wave blows over, you still have to go to your job to be in a position where someone else with power and authority uses that power and authority to force, coerce, and extort you into doing something you wouldn't have otherwise done. And although you felt excited and proud when you called Paul from accounting a "sexist pig", the movement somehow didn't change anything in your life and then sort of fizzled out.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •