#NotMe hashtag kicks off backlash to rash of sexual harassment claims

originally posted by: Painterz
What an utterly wretched idea.

And what a disgusting society we live in where these 'people', and I use the term loosely, feel that a backlash against the victims of sexual assault is a great idea.

Utterly gross. They should be ashamed of themselves.

False characterization of what this is all about. Do you think that accused people should have a fair hearing, and be able to defend themselves, before facing social, reputation, educational, or occupational consequences?

Should those falsely accused be able to defend themselves (of any crime accusation) and address the accusers? Or no?

a reply to: JBurns
Currently a civil rights movement is under way. What side of history will you be on?
Time: Person of the Year 2017, The Silence Breakers

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
]Again, even if you sue for libel or slander you can already have your career ruined, or face sanctions on college campuses.

And if it turns out you were innocent you can then collect for wrongful termination and/or get your job back and then sue the accuser for damages.

Also, I wasn't referring to that case you mention but a seemingly general point you made.

I didn't make a general point, I specifically mentioned the politician soliciting babies from his employees.

I think you are being a bit naive here. First, slander or defamation trials are hard to win in the US. Secondly, often the public damage is done by such accusations regardless of a later suit outcome or reinstatement of employment. Thirdly, plenty of normal citizens cannot afford the legal fees for such law suits.

This issue is mostly being hashed out in the court of media and public discourse, not
actual trials. People are being called on either not to run for office or resign extra judicially. Therefore, the debate can't be limited to courts of law...

a reply to: JBurns

I've known many people who have had their lives completely ruined by the court of public opinion when in reality they were innocent- and I have also known many who have done extremely horrifying things and gotten away with it, their public personas untarnished. Life isn't fair and people can be extremely cruel, especially when ignorant of the facts and swayed by majority sentiment. Just a hard fact of life that teaches us how herd mentality runs amok in society.

a reply to: JBurns

Of course there have been people wrongfully accused, sure. But this particular "hey let's make a baby" politician has, apparently, propositioned at least two of his staffers about it and one of them says it happened multiple times, both in and out of the office. She says that she told him no every time, and was not ambiguous about it, and that he finally offered her money.

Is her story true? Obviously we don't know that, but it's apparently credible enough that the Ethics committee opened an investigation into it.

I'm all for dropping the hammer on somebody who makes an unfounded allegation out of spite or malice or whatever you want to call it. There's a reason filing a false report is a crime.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Name calling solves so much. As someone who would probably be considered a beta, I can tell you that I find the backlash against the accusers horrible. Although I believe the VAST majority are telling the truth, I also believe there are a few who would take advantage to smear someone.

I don’t know why you’d be considered a beta...
I’d go as far as saying that being against this so-called “backlash” precludes you from being a beta male.

a reply to: SallieSunshine


This exactly.

There are plenty of legit cases in the hear and now. No need to rehash an ambiguous incident from years or decades earlier.

Just wait and see how bad the smears and false accusations are during the next election (regardless of which election it is, the GOP candidate will be labeled as "racist, sexist, a sex offender, etc" and all sorts of dubious statements and poor quality evidence will emerge out of the woodwork. Oh, and don't forget that Gloria Allred will also be involved (she's involved with all the smear campaigns/false accusations).

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
At the same time, women are often believed automatically, and not a few feminists claim they should be. Many feminists appear to want it to be guilty until proven innocent.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
The point is not to have a discourse that privileges female accusers as automatically right, and male defendents as guilty until proven innocent.

You've got it backwards. Historically it has been those being accused as being automatically believed to be innocent and the accusers, i.e. the victims, that have been dismissed and have almost no recourse for justice. Read the Time article I just linked to about the person of the year and see what you think.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
At the same time, women are often believed automatically

hm. are you from one of those mandela effect universe thingys? because to my recollection that hasn't been the case at all until fairly recently, and even now, not quite so much.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: JBurns
Currently a civil rights movement is under way. What side of history will you be on?
Time: Person of the Year 2017, The Silence Breakers

I'm all for sexual assault being addressed at all levels. And I fully recognize both that a large proportion of women have experienced it and that because of historical culture issues women were afraid to report it in the past. On that note, generally the women coming forward is a good thing.

However, your post implies that wanting due process and a fair hearing for the accused too is somehow not only mutually exclusive with being against sexual assault but also on "the wrong side of history." It's exactly these kinds of extreme views that make people concerned that this will turn into a witch hunt with innocent casualties.

a reply to: Shamrock6


Ah, my apologies then it appears I was grossly misinformed on this guy. I have no reason to doubt her claims at all, I am ashamed to admit I was poorly informed by the source I read (Breitbart OP/ED, I believe). Sounds like his resignation/accusations were legitimate and justified

I'm all for dropping the hammer on somebody who makes an unfounded allegation out of spite or malice or whatever you want to call it. There's a reason filing a false report is a crime.

This is also a good point, but how many of these cases (recently anyhow) involved criminal charges? I would feel a lot better about all of this if some sort of legitimate due process was applied. Instead it seems like these have all been "tried and convicted" by public opinion. I realize this is not a violation of anyone's rights by the government, I am just pretty uncomfortable seeing people's lives ruined without getting their day in court (so to speak).

I would love to see the legitimate cases pursued relentlessly. I just worry that this may be a slippery slope, and lead to a lot of good people's lives or careers being ruined without ever having a chance to defend themself from the charges

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Meh, not physically strong or confident. Thank you for the compliment though I understand now that you meant it as a way of thinking rather than physical traits, and I totally agree with you.

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
At the same time, women are often believed automatically, and not a few feminists claim they should be. Many feminists appear to want it to be guilty until proven innocent.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
The point is not to have a discourse that privileges female accusers as automatically right, and male defendents as guilty until proven innocent.

You've got it backwards. Historically it has been those being accused as being automatically believed to be innocent and the accusers, i.e. the victims, that have been dismissed and have almost no recourse for justice. Read the Time article I just linked to about the person of the year and see what you think.

I get your point historically. I know that for example many rapes go under reported, many never go to trial or are hard to prove, and that false accusations according to police are rare. I'm using rape as a good example for this discussion.

However, that is different from the emergent media and political discourse, where much of this is being hashed out.

This is precisely why we still need to retain principles of innocent until proven guilt and the right to address one's accusers. This is true for all crimes or accusations. It's a slippery slope and historically dangerous to do otherwise.

Also, can you recognize that many feminists do say that sexual assault accusers should just always be believed?

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
My only issue is that if harassment happens, deal with it then and there. Don't wait 15 years and then say something. When years pass the facts of what happened can become clouded. Also, if you wait until someone runs for office then it looks like there is a political motive behind the accusation.

Sal

a reply to: JBurns

Historically filing sexual harassment charges have not bode well for the accuser. In many cases there seems to have been no recourse.

Perhaps you should ask the opinion of a victim why they did not report the harassment at the time. Did they have children depending on an income to feed them? What were their options at the time?

a reply to: Devino

What he said isn't backwards what both of you said is equally true. Its hard to prove rape without verifiable evidence. It's also hard to prove defamation or libel lawsuits without proving the assault maliciously fabricated.

a reply to: Devino


Dev, this is how our justice system is supposed to work. You're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Just because one type of crime is particularly difficult to prosecute (much like organized crime of the 20th century) doesn't mean we throw out every standard of evidence of due process and move the venue to the media and public opinion sphere. Using media and public information to ruin someone without any standards is a dangerous prospect.

What is to stop false accusations from ruining your career or life, Devino?

I will be on the side of history that defends due process and judicious handling of accusations. Accusations are for court. Not for parading to the media in hopes of utilizing the zero-standard of proof that is required to defame someone. In fact, it is only a civil liability when you publish or speak "knowingly false" information.

a reply to: JBurns

No need to rehash an ambiguous incident from years or decades earlier.

That’s nothing more than a generalisation.

I was abused as a child, I’ve only ever told one person (in real life away from the anonymity of the web), and that was a good 25 years later...
Now me personally, I don’t feel the need to bring this to the attention of the authorities or anyone else in my life, because I learned to cope with it my way... & the likelihood of a conviction is nil.

So what you’re saying above, that I quoted, is already a common thing...

What you don’t seem to understand is that not everyone can hold it in forever, and will either let it all out for their own peace of mind and closure, or to warn others of the predator they faced...


It takes a hell of a lot to admit to such a thing (I say that as a man who fears nothing but God), and in turn, for people to expect every victim to come forward the instant it happens, is just absolute folly.

Basically your generalisation not only already occurs (ie people not bothering decades down the line), it also isn’t a one-size-fits-all.

a reply to: Hazardous1408


You are right that it is a generalization. I know you aren't looking for this, but I am truly sorry to hear what happened to you as a child. It is wrong, and kudos to you for having the attitude you do. I sincerely mean that, Hazardous.

The difference is that coming forward with the accusations now (even 25 years later) is different than coming forward with the accusations while the accused is running a tight political race. Why would someone wait until that time? I realize there is no way to say precisely when the right time is, but I can say for sure that doing so during a heated political race would be the wrong time. Not only would your allegations not recieve the attention and investigation they deserve, but supporters of the accused will attack your credibility due to timing.

I apologize to you personally if my reply appears insensitive. I assure you that isn't my intention. I have nothing but good intentions, and wish only to see those accused of wrong-doing have a chance to defend themselves. Not everyone accused of something is guilty (and not everyone who isn't accused is innocent, of course)

Since you have managed to cope with what happened, I hope it isn't imposing when I ask what your recommendation would be? How can these be handled while affording the accused (in public opinion 'court', not criminal court) some semblance of due process while also preserving the dignity and respect of the accusers? I sincerely ask this question, because clearly neither extreme will work. We can't dismiss all allegations, nor can we believe every accuser. How can a happy-medium be found? What would it look like?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I get your point historically. I know that for example many rapes go under reported, many never go to trial or are hard to prove. and that false accusations according to police are rare. I'm using rape as a good example.

Using rape as a good example, is that like seeing good in something bad?

However, that is different from the emergent media and political discourse, where much of this is being hashed out.

This is precisely why we still need to retain principles of innocent until proven guilt abd the right to address one's accusers. This is true for all crimes or accusations. It's a slippery slope and historically dangerous to do otherwise.

People still are innocent until proven guilty and have the right to address their accuser, in a court of law.

I think it might feel a bit overwhelming because we are seeing so many people coming out and not just in the US. This has been a huge problem for far too long. Diversity and sensitivity training that has been going on in many work places for decades has not worked. This is a consequence to all of this dismissal, denial and lack of action. Women are sick of it! Perhaps this will set precedence and make people think twice before harassing an employee.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Devino
Dev, this is how our justice system is supposed to work. You're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Just because one type of crime is particularly difficult to prosecute (much like organized crime of the 20th century) doesn't mean we throw out every standard of evidence of due process and move the venue to the media and public opinion sphere. Using media and public information to ruin someone without any standards is a dangerous prospect

Should we censor the media now?