EPTI'm a little less sure about the accusation but the poor woman who came forward has been getting alot of shit from his fans and its awful.
Harassment/Abuse in StarCraft 2 - Page 29
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
We understand that this topic evokes strong feelings. In the interest of maintaining a necessary and productive discussion, we will be taking a strong stance against posters that clearly do not contribute to this aim. Dishonest and bad faith arguments, victim blaming, and attacks on other users, will be strictly moderated. A post which only serves to muddy the waters and dishonestly portray the nature of assault and harassment (and corresponding accusations) is also unwelcome. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9651 Posts
I'm a little less sure about the accusation but the poor woman who came forward has been getting alot of shit from his fans and its awful. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44347 Posts
On June 25 2020 12:37 Pangpootata wrote: Similarly if your family member whom you knew to be of outstanding character was accused of rape by a partner whom you knew to be untrustworthy, you would side with your family member. People will tend to believe those they know personally and have guaranteed character. But this is besides the point as the frame of reference of this discussion is that of bystanders who know neither party personally. I actually think that this may be a bit of a false equivalence, but let me speak in broader terms that aren't just about family members. My response below is also in reference to a few posts I had read earlier from people who felt they were being helpful to the overall narrative by stating that they, personally, had never experienced any abuse from some of the accused people (presumably to present a more balanced perspective). I'm not accusing you of doing this; your conversation with rwala merely reminded me that I wanted to share my thoughts about this issue. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it. Also, when I'm referring to "you" over the next few paragraphs, I don't mean you, personally (Pangpootata); I'm using "you" in the impersonal sense of the word. Suppose multiple people start lining up and corroborating stories about Person X being abusive. Suppose you know X in some capacity (ranging from limited interactions as an acquaintance to literally being a close friend or family member), and you're surprised at these accusations, as you had never noticed any indication of X being capable of, or even joking about, doing that kind of abuse. If so many people are attacking X, it may seem reasonable for you to stand on the "side" of defending X. While these self-proclaimed victims are accusing X of doing something bad, you feel it's sensible to point out that you know X to be a really good person (or, at least, not the kind of person who would be abusive). There is a difference, however, between attesting to someone's "outstanding character" in the broader sense, and being able to refute a specific assertion from a specific person at a specific time and place. Unless your defense is specifically providing an alibi or fact that directly dismantles the assertion ("X couldn't have done that over there because they were with me over here", "X is accused of something non-consensual but I have evidence that it was consensual", etc.), you're inadvertently muddying the waters. This isn't about having a character witness step forward and say X is generally a good person, in the same way it's not about having a character witness pile on against X by saying they're generally a bad person. Most people don't live their lives assuming that everyone they pass by or meet or get to know has the worst intentions, which is why we have the stereotypical interviews of "Oh my gosh, I would have never guessed that my acquaintance / friend / family member could have done that terrible thing... they seemed so normal." Even if you have a strong rapport with the individual and really feel like you know them well, that may make it more likely for you to overlook and excuse signs that third parties might see as alarming. Bias can be especially prevalent when we're discussing those we care about, and your relationship with them really doesn't imply that you understand the relationship between them and the victims. The victims aren't making the broad statement that X couldn't possibly be seen as a good person or have any meaningful relationships. If those were the accusations, then stepping forward and explaining how you actually have a good rapport with X would be a great counterexample. But a specific crime can still be committed by a person, regardless of how many hundreds of neutral or positive experiences they've had with other people. Just because you haven't experienced abuse from X doesn't mean they haven't abused others; that would be like Shopkeeper A accusing a person of robbing Store A, but Shopkeeper B saying that simply couldn't have happened because the alleged thief had never also robbed Store B. Thoughts? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25372 Posts
On June 25 2020 10:17 EsportsJohn wrote: You missed the point of the post then. If your immediate response to multiple women speaking up about sexual harassment and assault is to immediately think, "Well, she might be lying," you are a part of the problem because you are defending the status quo and contributing to an environment where it's unsafe for women to speak out in fear of retaliation. This is not a court of law, this is a systemic social problem in which women are told that it's their fault they got raped and are questioned on every detail regarding their trauma and discomfort because we're more concerned with ruining the reputation of men than preserving the wellbeing of women who might potentially be scarred for life because of a violent encounter with someone who betrayed their trust. So when I say, "fuck you" to people who hide behind praise of objectivity to mask their unwillingness to believe (specifically) women and continue to foster a hostile environment toward them, I mean it because it's clear that you have no regard for the wellbeing of women. I have so much respect for the patience that DarkPlasmaBall and Wombat have shown in this thread while continuing to engage and educate people—it's really important to have those voices in this discussion—but I think it's also important to call out bullshit for what it is, and since no one else was doing it and because (understandably) the mods were unable to enforce things properly, I took it into my own hands to highlight the egregious faults of the noble anti-accusation white knights. Did I make you feel uncomfortable? Good. Why thank you. It wasn’t a crazy amount of time ago where I myself would have insisted on proof and given a staunch defence of the accused. Aside from reading, joining the online dating world was a big eye opener. Just little things like people insisting on meeting in public places. Bit over the top no? I’m a nice guy after all. Asked some of my existing female friends about their experiences and how I felt people were being overly cautious. All of them disagreed with me and told me they’d had extremely uncomfortable experiences. They have a friend who knows where they’re going and can extricate them if needs be. All these kind of steps because they have to worry about their personal safety all the time in ways I simply do not have to countenance. All of my friends, without exception (and without detail as I didn’t want to distress them) have experienced harassment to outright assault and haven’t said anything. Either because of the power structures in their place of employment, social group and a fear they wouldn’t be believed or be seen to be a killjoy. Accusations are so hard to make in and around the time they happen for these reasons, so they tend to be historic and lacking proof through the mists of time. And then the retort is ‘why didn’t they come forward sooner? Where’s the proof?’ which sidesteps the aforementioned problems entirely. As someone who does amateur Starcraft events that are very jocky and risqué I worried that perhaps we’d overstepped some lines with the rare female attendee. Thankfully what feedback I got said this wasn’t the case, but it is worth asking sometimes. As an aside, perhaps it’s the older user base but TL’s sensibilities have come a rather long way. I frequently reread the classic ‘Nada’s body’ thread as it’s the greatest forum thread ever, but there’s a lot said there that really wouldn’t fly today. Often by the same posters who are still around and who don’t say such things now. | ||
|
rwala
297 Posts
On June 25 2020 12:37 Pangpootata wrote: Similarly if your family member whom you knew to be of outstanding character was accused of rape by a partner whom you knew to be untrustworthy, you would side with your family member. People will tend to believe those they know personally and have guaranteed character. But this is besides the point as the frame of reference of this discussion is that of bystanders who know neither party personally. The analogy about a stolen car is non-sequitur as there is no directly accused person in the example. The crux here is the balance between 'possible harm of real crime going unpunished' vs 'possible harm of false accusation ruining someone's lives'. The analogy of witchhunt / lynching is not meant to discourage people from speaking up. In fact, we all encourage people to report crimes. Rather, it is a caution to the internet mob regarding jumping to conclusions too early before listening to all sides of the story, and being overzealous in exacting 'justice', running the risk of ruining the lives of people who may be falsely accused. Nobody in this thread is calling out those coming forward. Some of us are just encouraging the community to reserve judgement first until there are further developments and the other side has a chance to respond. Lastly this has nothing to do with misogyny or masculinity. Women can rape men too (and in fact a man accusing a woman of rape is less likely to be believed than a woman accusing a man). All arguments here apply regardless of gender or sexual orientation. First, I'll take your non-response to my calling out your inaccurate and misleading armchair lawyering as a concession on that point. If so, best to admit it publicly so you can play your part in hopefully ridding the world of that once and for all (it's very tiring to have to correct this all the time, and it really confuses things). Second, no, I would not side with my family or friends if multiple people accused them of harassment. More importantly, I have a family history and several lost or challenged friendships to prove it. I have had to have incredibly difficult--but necessary--conversations with some close male friends, all in a context in which people like you have enabled an environment in which those conversations are all but impossible. Your response to this point is actually quite telling though, so I'm glad we got to the crux of it: what you and others are saying is that women are not to be believed. Given that "proof" almost never exists in these harassment situations, one of the main reasons women do no come forward is because they fear no one will believe them. And unfortunately you and others on this thread are demonstrating why their fears are legitimate. Think about this practically. A number of women say Reid said and did inappropriate, many of which constitute harassment. You are saying do not believe them, do not say you believe them, do not render any judgment, and wait to hear the other side of the story. Well the other side of the story often never comes, and when it does it's often a blanket denial. Hell no, I'm not waiting to hear the other side when there are multiple, credible allegations. I believe the women. Third, fair enough re: the stolen car example, but easy enough to amend that to say "hey! I saw our other neighbor from down the street stole my car!!!!" Again, you would believe them. It would be bizarre not to. People do not often make up stuff like this. Except men seem to think women do all the time when it comes to harassment, abuse, or sexual crimes. So they must not be believed until physical proof is presented and guilt is rendered in a court of law? That's insane. I get that harassment and abuse can happen to anyone regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation, but it's telling that no one seems to be questioning TLO's story. Do you feel we should wait and hear from the other side on that one? I think we all know what's going on here. The push (from men) to question women's stories and not believe them, assert due process constitutional rights on behalf of the perpetrator in a context in which they don't apply, and dismiss those who support and and believe women who come forward is 100% a product of toxic masculinity and misogyny. I've had enough conversations with men about this to know that this culture of toxic masculinity is significantly motivated by genuinely feeling that this kind of harassment is okay and should be allowed or--to the extent there is introspection--guilt from the inappropriate ways in which they've treated women...and fear that those actions might come out some day. Bottom line: believe women (and anyone) when they say that have been harassed or abused. If you don't, you're part of the problem. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25372 Posts
On June 25 2020 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I actually think that this may be a bit of a false equivalence, but let me speak in broader terms that aren't just about family members. My response below is also in reference to a few posts I had read earlier from people who felt they were being helpful to the overall narrative by stating that they, personally, had never experienced any abuse from some of the accused people (presumably to present a more balanced perspective). I'm not accusing you of doing this; your conversation with rwala merely reminded me that I wanted to share my thoughts about this issue. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it. Also, when I'm referring to "you" over the next few paragraphs, I don't mean you, personally (Pangpootata); I'm using "you" in the impersonal sense of the word. Suppose multiple people start lining up and corroborating stories about Person X being abusive. Suppose you know X in some capacity (ranging from limited interactions as an acquaintance to literally being a close friend or family member), and you're surprised at these accusations, as you had never noticed any indication of X being capable of, or even joking about, doing that kind of abuse. If so many people are attacking X, it may seem reasonable for you to stand on the "side" of defending X. While these self-proclaimed victims are accusing X of doing something bad, you feel it's sensible to point out that you know X to be a really good person (or, at least, not the kind of person who would be abusive). There is a difference, however, between attesting to someone's "outstanding character" in the broader sense, and being able to refute a specific assertion from a specific person at a specific time and place. Unless your defense is specifically providing an alibi or fact that directly dismantles the assertion ("X couldn't have done that over there because they were with me over here", "X is accused of something non-consensual but I have evidence that it was consensual", etc.), you're inadvertently muddying the waters. This isn't about having a character witness step forward and say X is generally a good person, in the same way it's not about having a character witness pile on against X by saying they're generally a bad person. Most people don't live their lives assuming that everyone they pass by or meet or get to know has the worst intentions, which is why we have the stereotypical interviews of "Oh my gosh, I would have never guessed that my acquaintance / friend / family member could have done that terrible thing... they seemed so normal." Even if you have a strong rapport with the individual and really feel like you know them well, that may make it more likely for you to overlook and excuse signs that third parties might see as alarming. Bias can be especially prevalent when we're discussing those we care about, and your relationship with them really doesn't imply that you understand the relationship between them and the victims. The victims aren't making the broad statement that X couldn't possibly be seen as a good person or have any meaningful relationships. If those were the accusations, then stepping forward and explaining how you actually have a good rapport with X would be a great counterexample. But a specific crime can still be committed by a person, regardless of how many hundreds of neutral or positive experiences they've had with other people. Just because you haven't experienced abuse from X doesn't mean they haven't abused others; that would be like Shopkeeper A accusing a person of robbing Store A, but Shopkeeper B saying that simply couldn't have happened because the alleged thief had never also robbed Store B. Thoughts? It may be a trite observation but how many interviews with workmates and neighbours of absolute monsters like serial killers feature variants of ‘I had no idea, they seemed such a nice person.’? I have frequently uncomfortable interactions with a former work colleague at my local bar. As we both have kids and are separated from our partners he wants to strike a rapport on how unfair women can be in terms of access. They can be absolutely, but I don’t call my ex a bitch or a cunt like he liberally does. He says she’s falsely claiming he was violent. He was fired for gathering a couple of guys and breaking into a house and assaulting a gay colleague who made a pass at him. Between the language he uses and his prior behaviour lets just say I heavily doubt his ex is making these things up. The uncomfortable part is being in a scenario where I can’t exactly point this out. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44347 Posts
On June 25 2020 21:40 Wombat_NI wrote: It may be a trite observation but how many interviews with workmates and neighbours of absolute monsters like serial killers feature variants of ‘I had no idea, they seemed such a nice person.’? I have frequently uncomfortable interactions with a former work colleague at my local bar. As we both have kids and are separated from our partners he wants to strike a rapport on how unfair women can be in terms of access. They can be absolutely, but I don’t call my ex a bitch or a cunt like he liberally does. He says she’s falsely claiming he was violent. He was fired for gathering a couple of guys and breaking into a house and assaulting a gay colleague who made a pass at him. Between the language he uses and his prior behaviour lets just say I heavily doubt his ex is making these things up. The uncomfortable part is being in a scenario where I can’t exactly point this out. There are actually quite a few, the most famous of which is Ted Bundy. There are many others who came off as completely normal with regular day jobs and plenty of neutral/positive interactions with people (H. H. Holmes, John Wayne Gacy, Andrew Cunanan, etc.). A good number of serial killers have been charismatic and friendly; they're not all super-sketchy looking or super-sketchy acting when it comes to regular interactions. But anyways, on the topic of harassment: I think your example of your former colleague is more relevant to this specific thread (especially regarding language). Other people who knew Rapid have said that although they didn't also receive dick pics, he would still talk about his penis to them. I think that nicely parallels what you're saying, although I'd also suggest that having a more... conventional... conversation with an alleged abuser doesn't disprove the possibility that abuse could happen. That's merely the point I'm making. | ||
|
darklycid
3511 Posts
And if in the end it comes out that the accuser was wrongly accusing, or even worse, was the predatory one him or herself i think that the accuser should also suffer the consequences (think of johnny depp/amber heard). If i am part of the problem feel free to tell me where i'm going wrong always open to become a better person  | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44347 Posts
On June 25 2020 22:05 darklycid wrote: Just wanna give my 2 cents: If a person has the courage to speak up about what happened to them you should absolutely believe them and show support, but i also believe that the accused should be given the opportunity to defend himself (after which you for yourself have to judge what you believe). And if in the end it comes out that the accuser was wrongly accusing, or even worse, was the predatory one him or herself i think that the accuser should also suffer the consequences (think of johnny depp/amber heard). If i am part of the problem feel free to tell me where i'm going wrong always open to become a better person Hey darklycid, I think most of us would be interested in hearing responses from the alleged offenders, just as how most of us would also be interested in hearing additional corroborating stories. And certainly people shouldn't lie about being abused; that not only destroys their own reputation, but can undermine the important movement to feel more comfortable coming forward with legitimate complaints. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9651 Posts
On June 25 2020 22:05 darklycid wrote: Just wanna give my 2 cents: If a person has the courage to speak up about what happened to them you should absolutely believe them and show support, but i also believe that the accused should be given the opportunity to defend himself (after which you for yourself have to judge what you believe). And if in the end it comes out that the accuser was wrongly accusing, or even worse, was the predatory one him or herself i think that the accuser should also suffer the consequences (think of johnny depp/amber heard). If i am part of the problem feel free to tell me where i'm going wrong always open to become a better person I don't think you're a part of the problem. I think, though, that its important to realise that in the vast majority of cases there just isn't evidence to prove the allegations one way or another. That's why its a difficult subject to discuss. If proof turned up in most cases we wouldn't need to worry about whether or not to believe people. I think defaulting to believing the victim makes sense to me, because all of the statistics i've seen show that its rare for people to just invent things, and also because often the victim is already struggling with the effects of whatever happened, and adding disbelief to that as a policy is just harmful. However, the language is important, because I'm defaulting to believing the victim, not condemning the accused, even though that seems like a contradictory thing to say, but the focus on supporting the victim should come from the community, and I believe the focus on the attacker should be the responsibility of the employers, and that as a community the best thing we can do is pressure employers in gaming to have robust sexual harassment policies. | ||
|
Byproduct
4 Posts
On June 25 2020 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote: I think defaulting to believing the victim makes sense to me, because all of the statistics i've seen show that its rare for people to just invent things It's also rare for people to be rapists, but both of these things happen. Completely made-up accusations can also do terrible things to peoples' lives, and a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" mindset has been emerging lately, which unfortunately enables that. While we must not discourage victims from speaking up, I'd rather people at least hear both sides' story fully before jumping to conclusions. | ||
|
linestein
United States210 Posts
Like, in many ways penis size and talking about penis size constitutes humor. If they really felt threatened, why did literally ALL of the accusers spend so much time talking about endowment? Serious allegations of sexual misconduct (probably??) wouldn't spend a lot of time joking around about male endowment. I mean obviously this isn't a joke, and I'm not trying to construe it as a joke, but some of the allegations just seem so silly. Rapid feels uncomfortable about his endowment ?? Come on! I just wish the accusers were acting with more dignity and sincerity. The consequences are severe for Rapid who has lost his job. If you're really serious and want to argue a serious offense please don't joke about endowment! User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
dbRic1203
Germany2655 Posts
On June 25 2020 23:11 Byproduct wrote: It's also rare for people to be rapists, but both of these things happen. Completely made-up accusations can also do terrible things to peoples' lives, and a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" mindset has been emerging lately, which unfortunately enables that, and encourages this type of people. While I understand evidence can be difficult to come by, there are often at least some witnesses in public events, so it doesn't have to be only the victim's word alone. While we must not discourage victims from speaking, I'd rather people at least hear both sides' story fully before jumping to conclusions. There have been several posts in this thread citeing studys that only about 10% of sexual harassment is reportet and only 3% of reportet cases are not true. So defaulting in beliveing the victim until proven otherwise is right way here. As there would be very little to gain from false accusations anyways. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9651 Posts
On June 25 2020 23:11 Byproduct wrote: It's also rare for people to be rapists, but both of these things happen. Completely made-up accusations can also do terrible things to peoples' lives, and a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" mindset has been emerging lately, which unfortunately enables that. While we must not discourage victims from speaking up, I'd rather people at least hear both sides' story fully before jumping to conclusions. That's exactly why i said the focus on the accused should come from their employer, who can investigate according to their policies. That way as a community we can pressure companies to have better policies, which should work much better than hating people on twitter when it comes to actually reducing the problem. | ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3022 Posts
On June 25 2020 15:55 serendipitous wrote: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/660234345?t=03h23m00s Beastyqt and Ykie talking about rapid on stream Ok that is pretty messed up | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
dbRic1203
Germany2655 Posts
On June 25 2020 23:14 linestein wrote: I'm not trying to make light of the situation in anyway. So please don't get me wrong or find this upsetting. But does no one else find it absurd that ALL of rapid's accusers so far have talked about penis size? Like, in many ways penis size and talking about penis size constitutes humor. If they really felt threatened, why did literally ALL of the accusers spend so much time talking about endowment? Serious allegations of sexual misconduct (probably??) wouldn't spend a lot of time joking around about male endowment. I mean obviously this isn't a joke, and I'm not trying to construe it as a joke, but some of the allegations just seem so silly. Rapid feels uncomfortable about his endowment ?? Come on! I just wish the accusers were acting with more dignity and sincerity. The consequences are severe for Rapid who has lost his job. If you're really serious and want to argue a serious offense please don't joke about endowment! I don t have enough english skills to express my thought about this more acuratly. But the women didn t joke about his penis size or make fun of it. It was Rapid, who brought their conversations to that topic. And that alone allready is sexual harassment. E: JimmiC has the message but better expressed | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
On June 25 2020 23:14 linestein wrote: I'm not trying to make light of the situation in anyway. So please don't get me wrong or find this upsetting. But does no one else find it absurd that ALL of rapid's accusers so far have talked about penis size? Like, in many ways penis size and talking about penis size constitutes humor. If they really felt threatened, why did literally ALL of the accusers spend so much time talking about endowment? Serious allegations of sexual misconduct (probably??) wouldn't spend a lot of time joking around about male endowment. I mean obviously this isn't a joke, and I'm not trying to construe it as a joke, but some of the allegations just seem so silly. Rapid feels uncomfortable about his endowment ?? Come on! I just wish the accusers were acting with more dignity and sincerity. The consequences are severe for Rapid who has lost his job. If you're really serious and want to argue a serious offense please don't joke about endowment! Ehh this is a weird request. Different people deal with awkward situations in different ways. I wouldn't be surprised if they also were just making fun of him as a way to get back at him for harassing them. I'd rather more dignity and sincerity from the harassers/assaults, and you should too. | ||
|
linestein
United States210 Posts
On June 25 2020 23:27 WarSame wrote: Ehh this is a weird request. Different people deal with awkward situations in different ways. I wouldn't be surprised if they also were just making fun of him as a way to get back at him for harassing them. I'd rather more dignity and sincerity from the harassers/assaults, and you should too. Yes, maybe. But it is all very serious! I just want them to behave that way too! Please don't just make fun of him when he will lose his job! Actually, I am glad it is not really that severe! At least not any real sexual misconduct occurred. They are just words exchanged. | ||
|
dbRic1203
Germany2655 Posts
TL:DR: apparently the CEO of that company, Lowko was partnered with harrassed several women, when he was manager at Sony. I understand that not everyone is in a position like Lowko, where he can react in such a way and want to express, how thankfull I am, that he s leading as a good example. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
I've been sexually assaulted before, and dealing with it with humor was pretty effective. I had texted my coworker about a guy grabbing my dick and the first day back at work after she was like "so were there any lacerations?" and I was like "no, just some light bruising I guess" and she said "so I guess you're not too torn up about it?" Maybe for other people that would have been a fucked up thing to say but I found it hilarious and it helped me deal with the situation a lot better. Would you have preferred I be a wounded victim without a sense of humor? | ||
| ||
