|
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. |
|
|
On June 27 2020 05:26 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 05:14 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 04:58 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:52 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 04:26 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:
[quote]
It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Unsollicited is not harassment. I haven't twisted your words. I have read and responded to them. You said it isn't harassment unless a justice system says so. Some say so. You said unsolicited is not harassment, some places consider it harassment and a crime. You claim things shouldn't be spoken about in public unless the justice system would agree, some justice system do agree. I have not twisted your words. They are you words, viewable to all. To make it very clear - YOU ARE WRONG, unsolicited dick pictures are a crime. You draw the line with the justice system until the moment you find out the justice system doesn't agree with you. Find me a single text of law about sexual harassment with the word ''unsollicited''. Unwelcome is the s. " Indian Penal Code a) For women Section 509 of the IPC deals with words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. As per the section, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, shall be liable for punishment. Acts such as cyber flashing of genitalia, pornography and sexual sounds fall primarily under this section of the law. This is the section which has been previously applied by the police in instances of cyber flashing along with Section 67 of the IT Act. Section 354A(iii) on the other hand provides that a man who shows pornography against the will of a woman, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment and shall be punished. Cyber flashing pertaining specifically to pornography, including pornographic content hidden in videos, links or files appearing to deal with some other subject matter on the surface, or in cases where the sender convinces the receiver to open a file or media, misleading them to believe that it contains something other rather than the pornographic content hidden in it, is most likely to be held liable under this Section of the IPC. Exposing a woman to pornography against her will over video call should also technically fall under the ambit of this section. b) For children In the case of children, Section 293 of the IPC provides punishment for whoever distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any obscene object, or attempts to do so. This section should reasonably apply to cyber flashing of pornography, genitalia and other such obscene objects to children. c) For Men The IPC seems to be lacking any provisions for crimes in which the victim of cyber flashing or sexual harassment may be a man. The Information Technology Act, 2000 Most of the provisions of the IT Act are largely gender-neutral. Thus, the sections mentioned below apply equally in the cases of men, women and children. Section 67 of the Act prescribes punitive action for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. Cyber flashing of genitalia or other similar obscene or repulsive items shall fall under this section. This section has been previously used by the police to book offenders of cyber flashing. Similarly, Section 67A deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. Cyber flashing of pornography shall attract this Section of the IT Act. In the special circumstance where one gets cyber flashed with child pornography, Section 67B, which provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form, along with Section 13 read with Section 14 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which pertain to the issue of usage of children for pornographic purposes, shall also apply. " They don't use unsolicited in there laws - they call them cyber flashers. So Rapid would be classified as a cyber flasher under the Indian penal system, section 509 and would also, potentially qualify for another section, whether or not his victims felt they had been duped or tricked into viewing his pictures. The link you provided covers it too. But you aren't worried about what the law says, that was just what you were saying to prove a point, until it didn't work anymore. Source www.barandbench.com Ok so we've got one line in her story where we've established that she would have been sexually harassed by her ex-boyfriend if they had been in India
You argued that your viewpoint was based upon this not been a crime and that you side with "the justice system", by your own admission, he committed a crime under at least one justice system, so now you should be glad that this conversation is happening publicly. Right? Or do you still want to sweep this crime of cyber-flashing under the rug?
Unless I am mistaken, all of your points have been addressed, isn't this the part where someone who is acting in good faith goes ... "shit, that is a crime, my bad?"
|
On June 27 2020 05:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 05:36 Cele wrote:
Eh i cannot agree here as much as i dislike guys who just send dick picks to women who didnt ask for them and didnt want em.
But if you engage in a romantic relation shortly after and stay in it, you validate that you wanted those picks. Because it would be pretty gross to get the picks unwanted and thus you'd never start a relationship with such a person.
If my wife of 14 years marriage sends me nudes without me explicitly asking for it, we divorce tomorrow, then i get to say she sexually harassed me just because there is no explicit permission from my side in the chat?
Sounds hillarious no?
My example is more extreme then reality here, but i hope you get my argument. I do, a judge would take into account the 14 years of marriage as compared to a 1 wk long interent relationship. She could also show texts of you enjoying and likely asking for them.
We also talk offline, so perhaps she couldnt. But no 14 years is very different from a week, sure.
|
What Melanie describes as her and rapid's relationship is a textbook case of sexual grooming and various other kinds of abuse. Yes most of what she wrote doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It rises to the level of being a scumbag though. The other accounts regarding his behavior fit that same pattern of manipulation for the purpose of getting sexual gratification from another. 'Oh I'm so bothered about my penis size it's too big but also my fetish is being told I have a big dick.' This is the kinda stuff my female roommates would laugh over when we were hanging out bullshitting in our early 20s because it was so hilariously obvious to them what the guy was trying to do. Not so obvious to everyone and it isn't these womens' fault it wasn't obvious to them (although of course they all intuitively felt something was weird and wrong).
Enough of rapid he isn't worth dominating this thread.
|
On June 27 2020 05:39 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 05:26 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 05:14 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 04:58 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:52 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 04:26 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:
[quote]
This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.
The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job.
This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past?
You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Unsollicited is not harassment. I haven't twisted your words. I have read and responded to them. You said it isn't harassment unless a justice system says so. Some say so. You said unsolicited is not harassment, some places consider it harassment and a crime. You claim things shouldn't be spoken about in public unless the justice system would agree, some justice system do agree. I have not twisted your words. They are you words, viewable to all. To make it very clear - YOU ARE WRONG, unsolicited dick pictures are a crime. You draw the line with the justice system until the moment you find out the justice system doesn't agree with you. Find me a single text of law about sexual harassment with the word ''unsollicited''. Unwelcome is the s. " Indian Penal Code a) For women Section 509 of the IPC deals with words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. As per the section, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, shall be liable for punishment. Acts such as cyber flashing of genitalia, pornography and sexual sounds fall primarily under this section of the law. This is the section which has been previously applied by the police in instances of cyber flashing along with Section 67 of the IT Act. Section 354A(iii) on the other hand provides that a man who shows pornography against the will of a woman, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment and shall be punished. Cyber flashing pertaining specifically to pornography, including pornographic content hidden in videos, links or files appearing to deal with some other subject matter on the surface, or in cases where the sender convinces the receiver to open a file or media, misleading them to believe that it contains something other rather than the pornographic content hidden in it, is most likely to be held liable under this Section of the IPC. Exposing a woman to pornography against her will over video call should also technically fall under the ambit of this section. b) For children In the case of children, Section 293 of the IPC provides punishment for whoever distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any obscene object, or attempts to do so. This section should reasonably apply to cyber flashing of pornography, genitalia and other such obscene objects to children. c) For Men The IPC seems to be lacking any provisions for crimes in which the victim of cyber flashing or sexual harassment may be a man. The Information Technology Act, 2000 Most of the provisions of the IT Act are largely gender-neutral. Thus, the sections mentioned below apply equally in the cases of men, women and children. Section 67 of the Act prescribes punitive action for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. Cyber flashing of genitalia or other similar obscene or repulsive items shall fall under this section. This section has been previously used by the police to book offenders of cyber flashing. Similarly, Section 67A deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. Cyber flashing of pornography shall attract this Section of the IT Act. In the special circumstance where one gets cyber flashed with child pornography, Section 67B, which provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form, along with Section 13 read with Section 14 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which pertain to the issue of usage of children for pornographic purposes, shall also apply. " They don't use unsolicited in there laws - they call them cyber flashers. So Rapid would be classified as a cyber flasher under the Indian penal system, section 509 and would also, potentially qualify for another section, whether or not his victims felt they had been duped or tricked into viewing his pictures. The link you provided covers it too. But you aren't worried about what the law says, that was just what you were saying to prove a point, until it didn't work anymore. Source www.barandbench.com Ok so we've got one line in her story where we've established that she would have been sexually harassed by her ex-boyfriend if they had been in India You argued that your viewpoint was based upon this not been a crime and that you side with "the justice system", by your own admission, he committed a crime under at least one justice system, so now you should be glad that this conversation is happening publicly. Right? Or do you still want to sweep this crime of cyber-flashing under the rug? Unless I am mistaken, all of your points have been addressed, isn't this the part where someone who is acting in good faith goes ... "shit, that is a crime, my bad?"
I'd be ok if she only said ''Yeah I've been with Rapid for years, he sent me a dick pic after one week. That's his thing''.
It's still very hard to claim it was sexual harassment in this case, but it gives even more credibility to the other stories.
The rest has no business being revealed and debated on a public forum.
|
|
|
In other news, a CSGO caster was falsely accused.
twitter.com
Not sure it matters for him, since he was already canceled and twitter is the newest form of court of law. Guilty until proven innocent online and all that.
|
Personally I cannot help but feel the most interesting part of the recent story is that she decided to step forward after a conversation with Rapid " On Tuesday 06/23/2020". So instead of explaining himself, confessing and/or apologizing, he is busy hiding and appears to be doing damage control by manipulating with other females that he would not want to step forward with more stories.
To me, that is not only the move of a guilty person, but an absolute scumbag move.
|
On June 27 2020 05:52 Avi-Love wrote:
Personally I cannot help but feel the most interesting part of the recent story is that she decided to step forward after a conversation with Rapid " On Tuesday 06/23/2020". So instead of explaining himself, confessing and/or apologizing, he is busy hiding and appears to be doing damage control by manipulating with other females that he would not want to step forward with more stories.
To me, that is not only the move of a guilty person, but an absolute scumbag move.
That kind of desperate attempt at further manipulation to avoid the incoming consequences is very common. The proper response is to do what she did, what atira did, what others are doing. Put it out in the open.
|
On June 27 2020 05:52 Avi-Love wrote:
Personally I cannot help but feel the most interesting part of the recent story is that she decided to step forward after a conversation with Rapid " On Tuesday 06/23/2020". So instead of explaining himself, confessing and/or apologizing, he is busy hiding and appears to be doing damage control by manipulating with other females that he would not want to step forward with more stories.
To me, that is not only the move of a guilty person, but an absolute scumbag move.
I'd like to mention that as far as i know, most women prefer to be called "women" instead of "females", which can easily be viewed as dehumanizing. ("female" is also one of the favorite terms for women used by incels)
This was not meant as an attack, but i thought it worth a mention.
|
On June 27 2020 05:49 JimmiC wrote:
Why not.
Nothing illegal in that story, and a normal person doesn't get fired for having an unhealthy intimate relationship.
We get it, he's acted creepy many times with strangers, now he's rightfully off the Starcraft scene. His name in Google might be associated with these stories for years, which is worse punishment than a normal person would get for talking about his dick to strangers.
And now we need to condemn him for his being an asshole in his private love life too?
That's enough with the public trial, man.
What's next? A girl he insulted when he was in high school will come out? Maybe he maphacked too in Starcraft once?
|
|
|
On June 27 2020 06:02 mcgormack wrote:Nothing illegal in that story
Here we go again. Remember that 3 page conversation that just happened where it was clearly defined that in justice systems around the world cyber-flashing and unsolicitied dick pictures are illegal?
You are posting on the same page that you admitted, under certain jurisdictions his actions are considered criminal.
You pretend to be open to think about things logically, but then immediately lump in something criminal with other info and call it a nothing-burger.
|
On June 27 2020 05:51 franzji wrote:In other news, a CSGO caster was falsely accused. twitter.comNot sure it matters for him, since he was already canceled and twitter is the newest form of court of law. Guilty until proven innocent online and all that.
What a mess.
|
On June 27 2020 05:52 Avi-Love wrote:
Personally I cannot help but feel the most interesting part of the recent story is that she decided to step forward after a conversation with Rapid " On Tuesday 06/23/2020". So instead of explaining himself, confessing and/or apologizing, he is busy hiding and appears to be doing damage control by manipulating with other females that he would not want to step forward with more stories.
To me, that is not only the move of a guilty person, but an absolute scumbag move.
With the amount of girls complaining about this ILL conduct of acting like a victim and sending dick picks. Are you really telling me he is an scumbag for controlling damage 3 days ago ?
What this guy is doing is extremely ill and psycho and could be just the begin to do something really really dangerous. In the country i born you getting your legs broken and everyone will shame you for such act.U will not be able to walk on the street.
Im honestly shocked he made it that far after the player room incident where he called himself Bob. Like how he made that far to cast Starcraft 2 Broodwar and multiple events around the world.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140408050135/http://www.esportsheaven.com/articles/view/5189
this is extremely creepy.
I honestly come to this thread like a dumbass thinking there was a girl complaining about rapid doing a dick joke in real life.(i thought this cuz ykie first story gave me this feeling.) (she made a part 2 later that actually answer all my questions.) and the others started to copy paste this story and started this thing going.
I will never support such thing. How can u trust someone like that ?even if he comes with some bullshit that he is going therapy or some crap i dont believe in that. thats a psycho problem.
|
On June 27 2020 06:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 06:02 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 05:49 JimmiC wrote:
Why not. Nothing illegal in that story, and a normal person doesn't get fired for having an unhealthy intimate relationship. We get it, he's acted creepy many times with strangers, now he's rightfully off the Starcraft scene. His name in Google might be associated with these stories for years, which is worse punishment than a normal person would get for talking about his dick to strangers. And now we need to condemn him for his being an asshole in his private love life too? That's enough with the public trial, man. What's next? A girl he insulted when he was in high school will come out? Maybe he maphacked too in Starcraft once? I mean people 2 days were complaining that 4 people with screenshots was not proof enough of the not unsolicited dick pic. Now that number is 5. This is not unfair to Rapid, in the court of public opinion or law because they often bring evidence of situations that do not rise to the level of criminality to show the pattern of behavior that did. The only way this would be inappropriate is if the Girl didn't want it discussed, but that is not the case. The whole "doth protest too much" comes to mind, because as time goes further the original arguments seem to be forgotten. If she was the first one to come forward you might have a point, she is the at least 5th, to further show the pattern it is completely relevant and helpful to anyone not completely biased. And to be completely honest I wish people were taking this as serious as they would Map hacking, because this is a much bigger problem.
Everyone has an ex that can talk shit about her or him, and everyone can talk shit about an ex. When we can into the ex-shit-talking territory, we've often gone too far.
His alleged emotionally abusive love life is not relevant to the other events at all.
|
|
|
On June 27 2020 06:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 06:19 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 06:02 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 05:49 JimmiC wrote:
Why not. Nothing illegal in that story, and a normal person doesn't get fired for having an unhealthy intimate relationship. We get it, he's acted creepy many times with strangers, now he's rightfully off the Starcraft scene. His name in Google might be associated with these stories for years, which is worse punishment than a normal person would get for talking about his dick to strangers. And now we need to condemn him for his being an asshole in his private love life too? That's enough with the public trial, man. What's next? A girl he insulted when he was in high school will come out? Maybe he maphacked too in Starcraft once? I mean people 2 days were complaining that 4 people with screenshots was not proof enough of the not unsolicited dick pic. Now that number is 5. This is not unfair to Rapid, in the court of public opinion or law because they often bring evidence of situations that do not rise to the level of criminality to show the pattern of behavior that did. The only way this would be inappropriate is if the Girl didn't want it discussed, but that is not the case. The whole "doth protest too much" comes to mind, because as time goes further the original arguments seem to be forgotten. If she was the first one to come forward you might have a point, she is the at least 5th, to further show the pattern it is completely relevant and helpful to anyone not completely biased. And to be completely honest I wish people were taking this as serious as they would Map hacking, because this is a much bigger problem. Everyone has an ex that can talk shit about her or him, and everyone can talk shit about an ex. When we can into the ex-shit-talking territory, we've often gone too far. (See what happened to Chris Hardwick.) His alleged abusive love life is not relevant to the other events at all. You are just completely wrong, wrong in terms of legality and ethics. And now 70% of your posts are being wrong and defending someone who has basically a mountain of actual evidence against them. It is probably time to reflect on not only this but your life choices in general.
He's not Bill Crosby, he's a guy who casted some tournaments of a 20 year old games a few times and sexually harassed some women.
Maybe we should slow down on the whole public humiliation treatment before talking about his private love life, where nothing illegal happened. That's all I'm saying.
|
On June 27 2020 06:23 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 06:21 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 06:19 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 06:02 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 05:49 JimmiC wrote:
Why not. Nothing illegal in that story, and a normal person doesn't get fired for having an unhealthy intimate relationship. We get it, he's acted creepy many times with strangers, now he's rightfully off the Starcraft scene. His name in Google might be associated with these stories for years, which is worse punishment than a normal person would get for talking about his dick to strangers. And now we need to condemn him for his being an asshole in his private love life too? That's enough with the public trial, man. What's next? A girl he insulted when he was in high school will come out? Maybe he maphacked too in Starcraft once? I mean people 2 days were complaining that 4 people with screenshots was not proof enough of the not unsolicited dick pic. Now that number is 5. This is not unfair to Rapid, in the court of public opinion or law because they often bring evidence of situations that do not rise to the level of criminality to show the pattern of behavior that did. The only way this would be inappropriate is if the Girl didn't want it discussed, but that is not the case. The whole "doth protest too much" comes to mind, because as time goes further the original arguments seem to be forgotten. If she was the first one to come forward you might have a point, she is the at least 5th, to further show the pattern it is completely relevant and helpful to anyone not completely biased. And to be completely honest I wish people were taking this as serious as they would Map hacking, because this is a much bigger problem. Everyone has an ex that can talk shit about her or him, and everyone can talk shit about an ex. When we can into the ex-shit-talking territory, we've often gone too far. (See what happened to Chris Hardwick.) His alleged abusive love life is not relevant to the other events at all. You are just completely wrong, wrong in terms of legality and ethics. And now 70% of your posts are being wrong and defending someone who has basically a mountain of actual evidence against them. It is probably time to reflect on not only this but your life choices in general. He's not Bill Crosby, he's a guy who casted some tournaments of a 20 year old games a few times and sexually harassed some women. Maybe we should slow down on the whole public humiliation treatment before talking about his private love life, where nothing illegal happened. That's all I'm saying.
I think people have, at least by now, completely understood you and the answer is "no."
|
On June 27 2020 06:25 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 06:23 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:21 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 06:19 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On June 27 2020 06:02 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 05:49 JimmiC wrote:
Why not. Nothing illegal in that story, and a normal person doesn't get fired for having an unhealthy intimate relationship. We get it, he's acted creepy many times with strangers, now he's rightfully off the Starcraft scene. His name in Google might be associated with these stories for years, which is worse punishment than a normal person would get for talking about his dick to strangers. And now we need to condemn him for his being an asshole in his private love life too? That's enough with the public trial, man. What's next? A girl he insulted when he was in high school will come out? Maybe he maphacked too in Starcraft once? I mean people 2 days were complaining that 4 people with screenshots was not proof enough of the not unsolicited dick pic. Now that number is 5. This is not unfair to Rapid, in the court of public opinion or law because they often bring evidence of situations that do not rise to the level of criminality to show the pattern of behavior that did. The only way this would be inappropriate is if the Girl didn't want it discussed, but that is not the case. The whole "doth protest too much" comes to mind, because as time goes further the original arguments seem to be forgotten. If she was the first one to come forward you might have a point, she is the at least 5th, to further show the pattern it is completely relevant and helpful to anyone not completely biased. And to be completely honest I wish people were taking this as serious as they would Map hacking, because this is a much bigger problem. Everyone has an ex that can talk shit about her or him, and everyone can talk shit about an ex. When we can into the ex-shit-talking territory, we've often gone too far. (See what happened to Chris Hardwick.) His alleged abusive love life is not relevant to the other events at all. You are just completely wrong, wrong in terms of legality and ethics. And now 70% of your posts are being wrong and defending someone who has basically a mountain of actual evidence against them. It is probably time to reflect on not only this but your life choices in general. He's not Bill Crosby, he's a guy who casted some tournaments of a 20 year old games a few times and sexually harassed some women. Maybe we should slow down on the whole public humiliation treatment before talking about his private love life, where nothing illegal happened. That's all I'm saying. I think people have, at least by now, completely understood you and the answer is "no."
I think the popular answer is much closer to yes.
See the same topic on r/starcraft.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/hga77m/another_accusation_against_rapid/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
