|
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 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not.
When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad.
then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know?
What I did was use the police statistics to INFER something about how people tend to act. Sure its not 100% but its better than your solution of finding an arena where the statistics don't exist and saying something like 'oh look the statistics don't exist i guess all these women should just stfu'.
Anyway in my time on this site my opinions have changed from being closer to yours, to what mine are now. I know I sound hostile, but I'm not, I'm just trying to make you see the other side of this argument. Both sides are compelling to whoever is taking whichever opinion and there aren't any easy solutions, but imo the major problem that we are trying to deal with as a society (and in micro as a community here) is not false accusations, but misogyny and the consequences of that.
imo we try and deal with the misogyny and sexual crime that results, and if that throws up a huge problem of false accusations, rather than just a few cases, then we can try and deal with that later.
|
On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad.
Well written!
|
On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad.
let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that.
We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright.
|
On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright.
What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted.
The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise.
|
On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise.
Its an unsolvable problem though, isn't it?
I mean, when you say 'channels', what exactly do you mean? Its either legal, and evidence is required, or it isn't, and no evidence is required.
Most of these crimes leave no evidence.
So we just have to decide on priorities. Which is more important, guarding against false accusations or letting people say what they choose to say on social media?
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 24 2020 18:35 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise. Its an unsolvable problem though, isn't it? I mean, when you say 'channels', what exactly do you mean? Its either legal, and evidence is required, or it isn't, and no evidence is required. Most of these crimes leave no evidence. So we just have to decide on priorities. Which is more important, guarding against false accusations or letting people say what they choose to say on social media?
Well, I mean there should be a way to solve this privately with the streaming platform or the current employer. e.g. at our work you can report anonymously to a third party firm which holds all the information and forms then formal complaint on your behalf while keeping you anonymous, or go to your manager(and above) or HR or some council thingy. I have 4 ways to report an issue and these people don't have even 1? This is huge, this should be fixed right away. Until this is fixed we're just pretending there's any proper pro scene.
|
On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise.
That's what people are telling you. The "right" channels to do this consistently fail to the point that this is a pervasive problem affecting people in every part of the industry and society at large. Social media is an avenue of last resort either literally because the other avenues (like the community and the individuals professional peers/administrators/bosses/etc) have failed the specific person or for very valid reasons they had little faith had they tried them personally, they wouldn't have also failed them (whether the specifics involved [like how much 'evidence' they had] would have borne that out or not).
Social media exposes the problems to people that take the deeper issues seriously beyond the specific community that it happened in and are able to marshal resources and attention to aid in just resolutions where the communities involved have failed to foster them.
|
Well if there are multiple accusers talking about separate incidents then in my opinion this drastically increases the probability of at least one of them being right.
Also i would like to point out that those things have levels of severity. The online abusers/creepers needs just to be shun out/banned and forgoten while the heavier stuff with physical harrasment or the attempted rape need to be investigated by proper authorities.
And digital abuse/creeping is really easy to prove. Everything leaves digital trail. If someone is really crossing the line useing internet then i refuse to believe there is no proof.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 24 2020 18:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise. That's what people are telling you. The "right" channels to do this consistently fail to the point that this is a pervasive problem affecting people in every part of the industry and society at large. Social media is an avenue of last resort either literally because the other avenues (like the community and the individuals professional peers/administrators/bosses/etc) have failed the specific person or for very valid reasons they had little faith had they tried them personally, they wouldn't have also failed them (whether the specifics involved [like how much 'evidence' they had] would have borne that out or not). Social media exposes the problems to people that take the deeper issues seriously beyond the specific community that it happened in and are able to marshal resources and attention to aid in just resolutions where the communities involved have failed to foster them.
But then they should mostly name the channels as unresponsive and not focus on the accused people. I get why they name the other, but the lynching mob should be turn against the proper channels not working. Which is not happening. If people in general would be more patient and cautious, it wouldn't be a bad thing to post. But we're in an age where posts on social media end careers!
(I mean the people reading should be cautious and patient, not the victims)
|
So fucked up over this when thinking about the Korean pro houses, or any of the sketchy dynamics between live-in players and teams. There have to be so many instances that we will likely never hear about, unfortunately.
|
On June 24 2020 18:53 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise. That's what people are telling you. The "right" channels to do this consistently fail to the point that this is a pervasive problem affecting people in every part of the industry and society at large. Social media is an avenue of last resort either literally because the other avenues (like the community and the individuals professional peers/administrators/bosses/etc) have failed the specific person or for very valid reasons they had little faith had they tried them personally, they wouldn't have also failed them (whether the specifics involved [like how much 'evidence' they had] would have borne that out or not). Social media exposes the problems to people that take the deeper issues seriously beyond the specific community that it happened in and are able to marshal resources and attention to aid in just resolutions where the communities involved have failed to foster them. But then they should mostly name the channels as unresponsive and not focus on the accused people. I get why they name the other, but the lynching mob should be turn against the proper channels not working. Which is not happening. If people in general would be more patient and cautious, it wouldn't be a bad thing to post. But we're in an age where posts on social media end careers! (I mean the people reading should be cautious and patient, not the victims)
It's not a lynch mob. None of these people are going to be murdered in the streets for their actions (nor would I approve of such actions).
I've already addressed the balance of individual stories of harm and abuse and the systemic, twice, so I'm not going to do it again here.
I will say that your posting is reflective of the kind of behavior that encourages victims to remain silent and should be discouraged if not ultimately not tolerated in spaces that wish to end this type of terrible stuff imo.
|
On June 24 2020 18:53 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
It should be common knowledge. Are you suggesting that more people make up stories of sexual crime than perpetrate the crimes and get away with it?
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources. On June 24 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdfThe closest I can get to a source is the FBI, who talk about 1996 'unfounded' rape allegations, which they put at 8% (compared to 2% with other crimes). So unfounded allegations are 4 times more common with rape than any other case and they are still less than 10%. And that ignores rapes that were committed and never reported, and the same document suggests that only 35% of rapes are reported, so if you include all rapes, the number that were investigated and found to be unfounded would be about 2.7%. the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise. That's what people are telling you. The "right" channels to do this consistently fail to the point that this is a pervasive problem affecting people in every part of the industry and society at large. Social media is an avenue of last resort either literally because the other avenues (like the community and the individuals professional peers/administrators/bosses/etc) have failed the specific person or for very valid reasons they had little faith had they tried them personally, they wouldn't have also failed them (whether the specifics involved [like how much 'evidence' they had] would have borne that out or not). Social media exposes the problems to people that take the deeper issues seriously beyond the specific community that it happened in and are able to marshal resources and attention to aid in just resolutions where the communities involved have failed to foster them. But then they should mostly name the channels as unresponsive and not focus on the accused people. I get why they name the other, but the lynching mob should be turn against the proper channels not working. Which is not happening. If people in general would be more patient and cautious, it wouldn't be a bad thing to post. But we're in an age where posts on social media end careers! (I mean the people reading should be cautious and patient, not the victims)
I get where you're coming from. I totally agree that looking at systems is much, much better than trying to deal with individual cases, and I think you're right that people should be more focused on improving the 'official' response to accusations.
But then you have situations like rapid, where one person speaking out gets other people to speak out and a pattern emerges, and you see the extra benefit of social media compared to other channels.
Alas we have to work within the society that we live in, and social media is here to stay no matter what we do.
I do think the pitchfork wielding social media mobs are out of control, but what can we even do about that? Its the times we live in.
The issue I have is the message that is being sent to victims by this discussion.
The message seems to ignore that the victim can be 100% sure whether or not they are telling the truth. So anger ends up getting directed at the victim because the readers can't be sure that they are telling the truth. Logically its just all in knots. The victim is 100% sure that they are telling the truth, but are being told not to say anything because WE don't know whether they are or not.
|
While I completely support speaking up by anyone and I seriously doubt any of the shared stories are completely made up they have to be taken as what they are. Stories written by someone on the internet.
Unless you have serious, serious proof you should not make the names of the involved people public.. I mean you can.. but I think it is a very bad thing to do. And make it feels more like revenge than justice.
If there is a crime it should be prosecuted in the court.
If you know that someone is an asshole by your own experience, do your choice, exclude him/her from your life or don't if you choose so.
If you think the legal system does not work properly or does not cover certain behaviors properly then you should ask/discuss/protest do whatever to change that.
This is not a problem without solution, the solution is to provide people with channels to denounce improper behavior, change the legal system to make it easier for victims to denounce those behaviors or make them illegal or punishable.
The solution is not to use twitter as a public court.
The solution is not to drop the "presumption of innocence" principle.
At least that is what I think.
Also I want to add that these stories, even anonymous ones, have a lot of intrinsic value and we should use them to correct and adjust our behaviors rather than use them to judge and punish the involved people, especially when little to no evidence is provided.
Hell! This should be the final objective, to reduce this kind of behavior, not to have retribution.
Sorry for my english.
|
No doubt real abuse is terrifying, but so is how easy it is to destroy someone's reputation on the internet without providing any proof.
If you want to publicly call out bad behaviour, that's OK. If you're going to do it without an inch of proof, then I'm not cool with that.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 24 2020 19:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 18:53 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:10 juvenal wrote:
[quote]
wtf? No it absolutely shouldn't. I'm not suggesting anything, it's you who is suggesting the false accusations make up a negligible amount. Which is why I'm asking for some sources.
[quote]
the FBI data has nothing to do with issue at hand. They look at crimes "reported to law enforcement". You falsely report a rape, you can do jail time. What we here discuss is damn posts on social media. No one is going to jail for that, the reputational damage however can be huge. How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise. That's what people are telling you. The "right" channels to do this consistently fail to the point that this is a pervasive problem affecting people in every part of the industry and society at large. Social media is an avenue of last resort either literally because the other avenues (like the community and the individuals professional peers/administrators/bosses/etc) have failed the specific person or for very valid reasons they had little faith had they tried them personally, they wouldn't have also failed them (whether the specifics involved [like how much 'evidence' they had] would have borne that out or not). Social media exposes the problems to people that take the deeper issues seriously beyond the specific community that it happened in and are able to marshal resources and attention to aid in just resolutions where the communities involved have failed to foster them. But then they should mostly name the channels as unresponsive and not focus on the accused people. I get why they name the other, but the lynching mob should be turn against the proper channels not working. Which is not happening. If people in general would be more patient and cautious, it wouldn't be a bad thing to post. But we're in an age where posts on social media end careers! (I mean the people reading should be cautious and patient, not the victims) It's not a lynch mob. None of these people are going to be murdered in the streets for their actions (nor would I approve of such actions). I've already addressed the balance of individual stories of harm and abuse and the systemic, twice, so I'm not going to do it again here. I will say that your posting is reflective of the kind of behavior that encourages victims to remain silent and should be discouraged if not ultimately not tolerated in spaces that wish to end this type of terrible stuff imo.
e-lynch would be a better term, unless some psycho arrises
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On June 24 2020 19:17 col_jung wrote:
No doubt real abuse is terrifying, but so is how easy it is to destroy someone's reputation on the internet without providing any proof.
If you want to publicly call out bad behaviour, that's OK. If you're going to do it without an inch of proof, then I'm not cool with that.
What are you going to do if you've remained silent for years our of fear but decide to come forward now because you feel empowered by others doing the same? Suggesting people should remain silent because they cannot provide forensic evidence (the only kind of proof many people will accept) is directly harmful and maintains the culture of silence that rape/harassment victims often feel choked out by.
I also have a hard time with the disturbingly common notion that someone's reputation is important than someone else's safety (from sexual harassment/abuse, for example) in a clash between the two of them.
|
On June 24 2020 19:21 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 19:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 18:53 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:13 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
How do you expect me to have statistics about sexual crime reported on social media but not to the police? then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise. That's what people are telling you. The "right" channels to do this consistently fail to the point that this is a pervasive problem affecting people in every part of the industry and society at large. Social media is an avenue of last resort either literally because the other avenues (like the community and the individuals professional peers/administrators/bosses/etc) have failed the specific person or for very valid reasons they had little faith had they tried them personally, they wouldn't have also failed them (whether the specifics involved [like how much 'evidence' they had] would have borne that out or not). Social media exposes the problems to people that take the deeper issues seriously beyond the specific community that it happened in and are able to marshal resources and attention to aid in just resolutions where the communities involved have failed to foster them. But then they should mostly name the channels as unresponsive and not focus on the accused people. I get why they name the other, but the lynching mob should be turn against the proper channels not working. Which is not happening. If people in general would be more patient and cautious, it wouldn't be a bad thing to post. But we're in an age where posts on social media end careers! (I mean the people reading should be cautious and patient, not the victims) It's not a lynch mob. None of these people are going to be murdered in the streets for their actions (nor would I approve of such actions). I've already addressed the balance of individual stories of harm and abuse and the systemic, twice, so I'm not going to do it again here. I will say that your posting is reflective of the kind of behavior that encourages victims to remain silent and should be discouraged if not ultimately not tolerated in spaces that wish to end this type of terrible stuff imo. e-lynch would be a better term, unless some psycho arrises
Not using "lynch" would be better because it has a racially charged meaning in the US and is wholly inappropriate and again reflective of the overlapping communities I mentioned in 9-bit and another poster's rhetoric.
If you have to use the sort of pejorative rhetoric you're going with there, I'd suggest the more current option of "cancel culture" or whatever. Granted this community has some racial issues to work out so I can't really force you not to use "lynch" as you are.
|
On June 24 2020 18:02 Heartland wrote:
This is awful, but as GreenHorizon said, it's a systematic issue in our community (and the world at large) and we need to see the context in which this can happen.
Obviously that is a world scale problem due to a twisted/wicked society we have built through ages. Such agressive behaviour is in our ape DNA, and it will be almost impossible to eliminate within single generation. It's been like this for centuries, just we didn't had an opportunity to share with the public back in days, and people overall became more sensitive, sometimes even oversensitive.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 24 2020 19:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 19:21 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 19:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 18:53 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 18:31 deacon.frost wrote:On June 24 2020 18:29 Heartland wrote:On June 24 2020 18:25 juvenal wrote:On June 24 2020 18:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 24 2020 18:16 juvenal wrote:
[quote]
then why do you say it's common knowledge? How can you know? You're assuming a hell lot when you say the stories must be true because why not. When did I say the stories must be true? I never said anything about the truth of any story, i'm saying we should hear victims out because otherwise we are doing a disservice to future victims of the same crimes, as well as telling a victim that they should just deal with it themselves and keep it 'our little secret', which is clearly bad. let everyone tell their stories. Just don't name people when you don't have any proof. It's as simple as that. We're repeating ourselves, I've already said all I wanted to say. Rapid's been accused of harassing a bunch of girls. His reputation has already been destroyed. This has been done by "hearing victims out", like you suggest, without requiring any proof. That's not alright. What you're suggesting has meant that people haven't spoken out and the problems have persisted. The current option is treated as a public lynch though. People do search other people before employment and any public stain is a big issue. There has to be channels to do this and social media isn't the right place. Which is the prime issue. Currently Rapid is in serious shit business wise. That's what people are telling you. The "right" channels to do this consistently fail to the point that this is a pervasive problem affecting people in every part of the industry and society at large. Social media is an avenue of last resort either literally because the other avenues (like the community and the individuals professional peers/administrators/bosses/etc) have failed the specific person or for very valid reasons they had little faith had they tried them personally, they wouldn't have also failed them (whether the specifics involved [like how much 'evidence' they had] would have borne that out or not). Social media exposes the problems to people that take the deeper issues seriously beyond the specific community that it happened in and are able to marshal resources and attention to aid in just resolutions where the communities involved have failed to foster them. But then they should mostly name the channels as unresponsive and not focus on the accused people. I get why they name the other, but the lynching mob should be turn against the proper channels not working. Which is not happening. If people in general would be more patient and cautious, it wouldn't be a bad thing to post. But we're in an age where posts on social media end careers! (I mean the people reading should be cautious and patient, not the victims) It's not a lynch mob. None of these people are going to be murdered in the streets for their actions (nor would I approve of such actions). I've already addressed the balance of individual stories of harm and abuse and the systemic, twice, so I'm not going to do it again here. I will say that your posting is reflective of the kind of behavior that encourages victims to remain silent and should be discouraged if not ultimately not tolerated in spaces that wish to end this type of terrible stuff imo. e-lynch would be a better term, unless some psycho arrises Not using "lynch" would be better because it has a racially charged meaning in the US and is wholly inappropriate and again reflective of the overlapping communities I mentioned in 9-bit and another poster's rhetoric. If you have to use the sort of pejorative rhetoric you're going with there, I'd suggest the more current option of "cancel culture" or whatever. Granted this community has some racial issues to work out so I can't really force you not to use "lynch" as you are.
I don't have a better term as I am not a native English speaker, would use better if known better. Pitchforking seems to me ... wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
