Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Science vs. Scruples
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Bolding mine. For various reasons this isn't always possible. Be it statute of limitations, police not being willing to work with the person who was assaulted, rape kits not being done, children not being believed, and the various ways that society has socialized women and girls into not reporting assault.Aaron_K123 wrote: »To sum up I think the #metoo movement has a legitamate complaint about how women are treated in society and what they often have to put up with. I also think it is important to deal with any cases where (regardless of gender) someone in a position of power uses that power to sexually assault someone who is within their authority.
That said I think it needs to be handled with filing police reports and pursing criminal charges. Appealing to the public to shame or destroy someone on the basis of a story you have told is inappropriate, even if that story happens to be true. I get that perhaps the issues in society have meant that trying to file criminal charges is not met with true justice or gets you in additional trouble and we have to deal with that as well....but that doesn't justify using a mob...two wrongs don't make a right.
(again, I am speaking in general terms not necessarily about this specific case which I don't know anything about the details)
I also think there's something really wrong with comparing rape, sexual assault, molestation, etc with a victim telling someone other than law enforcement about it and the potential "mob" (which is really inaccurate on a number of levels - if he was being dox'd then I'd be more willing to agree that this was a mob like mentality) that may possibly come from that.
Never mind too that some people, for various reasons, choose not to press charges. I personally know someone who raped someone, admitted to it (ABC in the US did an hour long story on it and included audio of him admitting to it - it's one of the more disturbing things I've heard someone I know say), and didn't end up with any legal repercussions because the woman he raped didn't press charges. Sure you could say, "well the woman who was raped should have pressed charges" but there are so many reasons that I can think of why someone would choose not to and none of them include the idea that the person who raped, molested, assaulted, etc them doesn't "deserve" the legal consequences.
Honestly I get that you're trying hard to be civil and I appreciate it. I also think that there's a lot of reading and listening that you need to do surrounding systemic sexism and the effects that has people, both men and women.
Yeah I get that the criminal justice system is flawed. But the response to that should be trying to make changes to the criminal justice system to address the problems, not mob justice.
Can you define what you mean by "mob justice"? Also I really hope that you you realize that people are trying to change the criminal justice system and society in general but that change isn't some sort of quick thing. What you're saying is coming out in a way that makes it appear that you really don't understand the gravity of the situation surrounding, in this case, sexual assault. It reminds me of people who say "well you shouldn't have a demonstration about racism" (any demonstration), you should just work within the system. What those people don't realize is that what's going on is systemic and the system is organized in such a way to maintain privilege. Sexism is a systemic issue. Change is slow, especially when you're working against a system that is steeped in white male privilege and sexism.
Your words are also coming across as saying "people shouldn't talk about someone assaulting or raping them" because I mean, that's essentially what you're saying here. That no one should have spoken in public about Aragon assaulting them. Why shouldn't they? Why should someone be allowed to continue to speak at a conference when three people have come out saying that they assaulted them at that conference?
Mob justice would be the general public trying and convicting someone in basically what amounts to a court of public opinion and then deciding to enact some sort of punishment on whomever they decide is guilty without any actual criminal proceedings or standards.
I am not defending anyone, I have no stake in this particular case as I have said repeatedly I don't know enough about the specifics to comment. I am saying I am uncomfortable with guilt being assessed by the public rather than by the courts...that is all I am saying.
I am not saying that people shouldn't speak out about rape, I'm saying if they are raped they should file criminal charges in addition to speaking out and that the punishment should come from the court system not from the public. I am also saying it is inappropriate of the general public to decide guilt on the basis of what they have read online and then attempt to dole out justice themselves by attempting to punish whomever they feel is guilty based again on what they have read online.1 -
Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Bolding mine. For various reasons this isn't always possible. Be it statute of limitations, police not being willing to work with the person who was assaulted, rape kits not being done, children not being believed, and the various ways that society has socialized women and girls into not reporting assault.Aaron_K123 wrote: »To sum up I think the #metoo movement has a legitamate complaint about how women are treated in society and what they often have to put up with. I also think it is important to deal with any cases where (regardless of gender) someone in a position of power uses that power to sexually assault someone who is within their authority.
That said I think it needs to be handled with filing police reports and pursing criminal charges. Appealing to the public to shame or destroy someone on the basis of a story you have told is inappropriate, even if that story happens to be true. I get that perhaps the issues in society have meant that trying to file criminal charges is not met with true justice or gets you in additional trouble and we have to deal with that as well....but that doesn't justify using a mob...two wrongs don't make a right.
(again, I am speaking in general terms not necessarily about this specific case which I don't know anything about the details)
I also think there's something really wrong with comparing rape, sexual assault, molestation, etc with a victim telling someone other than law enforcement about it and the potential "mob" (which is really inaccurate on a number of levels - if he was being dox'd then I'd be more willing to agree that this was a mob like mentality) that may possibly come from that.
Never mind too that some people, for various reasons, choose not to press charges. I personally know someone who raped someone, admitted to it (ABC in the US did an hour long story on it and included audio of him admitting to it - it's one of the more disturbing things I've heard someone I know say), and didn't end up with any legal repercussions because the woman he raped didn't press charges. Sure you could say, "well the woman who was raped should have pressed charges" but there are so many reasons that I can think of why someone would choose not to and none of them include the idea that the person who raped, molested, assaulted, etc them doesn't "deserve" the legal consequences.
Honestly I get that you're trying hard to be civil and I appreciate it. I also think that there's a lot of reading and listening that you need to do surrounding systemic sexism and the effects that has people, both men and women.
Yeah I get that the criminal justice system is flawed. But the response to that should be trying to make changes to the criminal justice system to address the problems, not mob justice.
Can you define what you mean by "mob justice"? Also I really hope that you you realize that people are trying to change the criminal justice system and society in general but that change isn't some sort of quick thing. What you're saying is coming out in a way that makes it appear that you really don't understand the gravity of the situation surrounding, in this case, sexual assault. It reminds me of people who say "well you shouldn't have a demonstration about racism" (any demonstration), you should just work within the system. What those people don't realize is that what's going on is systemic and the system is organized in such a way to maintain privilege. Sexism is a systemic issue. Change is slow, especially when you're working against a system that is steeped in white male privilege and sexism.
Your words are also coming across as saying "people shouldn't talk about someone assaulting or raping them" because I mean, that's essentially what you're saying here. That no one should have spoken in public about Aragon assaulting them. Why shouldn't they? Why should someone be allowed to continue to speak at a conference when three people have come out saying that they assaulted them at that conference?
Mob justice would be the general public trying and convicting someone in basically what amounts to a court of public opinion and then deciding to enact some sort of punishment on whomever they decide is guilty without any actual criminal proceedings or standards.
I am not defending anyone, I have no stake in this particular case as I have said repeatedly I don't know enough about the specifics to comment. I am saying I am uncomfortable with guilt being assessed by the public rather than by the courts...that is all I am saying.
I am not saying that people shouldn't speak out about rape, I'm saying if they are raped they should file criminal charges in addition to speaking out and that the punishment should come from the court system not from the public. I am also saying it is inappropriate of the general public to decide guilt on the basis of what they have read online and then attempt to dole out justice themselves by attempting to punish whomever they feel is guilty based again on what they have read online.
When does that actually happen though? That is to say, when is someone, especially a public figure, actually punished by the public for assaulting or raping someone? Heck even after someone has been convicted by an actual court, people are still celebrated for their brilliance and defended by the public. And again, what happens when they flat out can't be convicted because of things like a statute of limitations. In that case, if they were to use your guidelines they just shouldn't talk about it publicly because they can't file charges.
Again, I think you need to step back and do a lot of reading and listening. You might not like what you read, but I think you need to do so. I also think you have the ability to actually digest what is being said even if you don't like it at first (trust me, if I didn't think that I wouldn't be having this dialogue with you).3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
It is wrong whomever it happens to...the point is that it is the wrong way of handling things. Doesn't matter gender or skin color. Trying to "get" at someone via the internet rather than criminal proceedings is inappropriate regardless of context. Gender and skin color really shouldn't be factored into whether it is okay to do or not. If it happens to Group B 10 times more often than it happens to Group A that doesn't mean that it is okay to do to Group A....it is just wrong, period.
If you want to make this about men vs women or straights vs LGBTQ or whites vs non-whites then you go ahead and do that but I'm out at that point because you are making an issue that should be universal (what is justice and what isn't) into something divisive along the lines of something as unchosen as skin color or gender or sexuality.2 -
When does that actually happen though?
When does the general public sit around and arm-chair judge someone based on what they read about them on the internet, determine whether they think they are guilty or not and then try to discuss what an appropriate punishment would be?
Well...this thread for one. Again, it doesn't matter if the person being judged is guilty or not...the idea that this sort of "justice" is an okay thing is a problem for me. There is a reason we have courts and don't just rely on the general public to deal with wrong-doers.
2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »When does that actually happen though?
When does the general public sit around and arm-chair judge someone based on what they read about them on the internet, determine whether they think they are guilty or not and then try to discuss what an appropriate punishment would be?
Well...this thread for one. Again, it doesn't matter if the person being judged is guilty or not...the idea that this sort of "justice" is an okay thing is a problem for me. There is a reason we have courts and don't just rely on the general public to deal with wrong-doers.
No, when does it happen that the public's judging of someone results in financial or social consequences? I can say, "oh I think think X person should be fired because they did Y awful thing" but the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
If you want to make this about men vs women or straights vs LGBTQ or whites vs non-whites then you go ahead and do that but I'm out at that point because you are making an issue that should be universal (what is justice and what isn't) into something divisive along the lines of something as unchosen as skin color or gender or sexuality.
You do understand that male privilege plays a really big role in this whole situation that Aragon has placed himself and his victims in right? It also played a huge role in why it took so long for conference organizers to say, "no this person needs to not speak." I realize that I'm taking your quote a bit out of context, but male privilege, white privilege, cis privilege, etc exists. It is related to systemic racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.
That said, I'm likely done for the evening.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »When does that actually happen though?
When does the general public sit around and arm-chair judge someone based on what they read about them on the internet, determine whether they think they are guilty or not and then try to discuss what an appropriate punishment would be?
Well...this thread for one. Again, it doesn't matter if the person being judged is guilty or not...the idea that this sort of "justice" is an okay thing is a problem for me. There is a reason we have courts and don't just rely on the general public to deal with wrong-doers.
No, when does it happen that the public's judging of someone results in financial or social consequences? I can say, "oh I think think X person should be fired because they did Y awful thing" but the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim.
Really? You think it is extremely rare to have someone suffer financially and socially due to claims made online? I'm not sure what to say to that.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a punishment? If it does then why not sue...it doesn't have to be a crime to file suit against someone in civil court.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
If you want to make this about men vs women or straights vs LGBTQ or whites vs non-whites then you go ahead and do that but I'm out at that point because you are making an issue that should be universal (what is justice and what isn't) into something divisive along the lines of something as unchosen as skin color or gender or sexuality.
You do understand that male privilege plays a really big role in this whole situation that Aragon has placed himself and his victims in right? It also played a huge role in why it took so long for conference organizers to say, "no this person needs to not speak." I realize that I'm taking your quote a bit out of context, but male privilege, white privilege, cis privilege, etc exists. It is related to systemic racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.
That said, I'm likely done for the evening.
I'm not saying that white male privelage or other privelage doesn't exist...I'm saying that has nothing to do about whether or not a particular behavior or a particular punishment is just or not.
If person A sexually harasses person B that is unjust. If the general public reads about it online and decides that person A or person B deserves to be punished and works to get them fired that is also unjust. In a just world what gender, sexuality or skin color person A and person B are shouldn't factor into that statement. Does person A being a white male make it worse? Better? Does person B being a white male make it worse or better? Is there a gender, skin color or sexuality where it is acceptable to sexually harrass someone or enact punishment via social media harrassment campaigns?
I get that in at least the society I am in white men have traditionally been the ones in position of power and authority and that therefore means it is more likely that someone using their authority to take sexual advantage of another person it is most likely a white male. That doesn't make it okay, that doesn't make it worse...that is just the current society. That doesn't mean that if it was instead a minority woman in a position of power using that to sexually abuse a white man that that is somehow better. They are both wrong. Deciding that one is somehow not as bad as the other isn't going to help...you don't get justice by doing unjust things.
Using social media to met out punishment is wrong, doesn't matter if it is the person being accused who suffers consequences or the accuser suffering consequences like in your example...both are wrong. It is mob justice, it is playground highschool tactics. If an injustice has been done that is criminal, file charges...if an injustice has been done that is civil, then sue them. If attempting to do so backfires because the justice system is flawed, then call out the justice system (not the person you are trying to file legitimate grievances against). Running to the public to get some individual citizen punished is not good, it is asking for what amounts to vigilantism.
Work with the system or change the system....don't attempt to just circumvent the system.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a
She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.
But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...7 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a
She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.
But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...
Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.
My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.
I have sat here thinking about it and I cannot think of a scenario or example where I would think it would be okay to have the general public decide someone is guilty based on publically made accusations and then decide to conduct "justice" by encouraging the accused social humiliation, ostracism or financial loss. I am never going to cheer for that. Embracing that sort of "justice" is really dangerous.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a
She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.
But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...
Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.
My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.
Nope, I was actually talking about situations where the person in question is guilty, as is the case here.3 -
I guess the reactions to this whole Aragon mess, for the most part, can stem from whether you are filtering it from a male or female perspective. I do not intend this to be a guy-bashing post - far from it! But in all candor, it can be difficult for men to understand how devastating this kind of 'encounter' can still be for a woman, even in this age of supposed increased sensitivity and the proclivity for more women to actually speak up about it.
I know there are men who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse, too, but for the most part, it isn't an expected or oft-repeated reality. Contrary to that, of all the women I know or have known, I can't think of a single one who hasn't had this happen to them in - one sense or another - on more than one occasion, or for many, with alarming frequency.
Granted, I grew up in a social culture and in a time when women had literally no power or voice. And, thankfully, that has changed to some degree, but still has a long way to go. The whole "Me, too" movement didn't surprise me one bit. I think you'd be very hard pressed to find any woman on the planet who doesn't have at least a story or three to tell, just that they've chosen not to tell them.
And therein lies the problem. These negative experiences are still just a consequence of having been born female. And that needs to change.9 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a
She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.
But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...
Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.
My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.
Nope, I was actually talking about situations where the person in question is guilty, as is the case here.
Oh I hadn't realized he was tried and convicted...I mean if someone is found guilty of a crime and then suffers additional social consequences as a result that is life. I just dont like the idea that one is assessing guilt of a person solely based on what they read about them online. Online accounts are not reliable and I would never assume guilt of someone solely based on what was reported by media.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a
She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.
But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...
Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.
My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.
Nope, I was actually talking about situations where the person in question is guilty, as is the case here.
Oh I hadn't realized he was tried and convicted...I mean if someone is found guilty of a crime and then suffers additional social consequences as a result that is life. I just dont like the idea that one is assessing guilt of a person solely based on what they read about them online. Online accounts are not reliable and I would never assume guilt of someone solely based on what was reported by media.
I was under the impression he admitted to it.11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a
She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.
But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...
Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.
My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.
I have sat here thinking about it and I cannot think of a scenario or example where I would think it would be okay to have the general public decide someone is guilty based on publically made accusations and then decide to conduct "justice" by encouraging the accused social humiliation, ostracism or financial loss. I am never going to cheer for that. Embracing that sort of "justice" is really dangerous.
Perhaps it's easier to embrace that sort of justice when the "acceptable" sort has so consistently and tragically let you down.
You haven't responded to my point about practicality, and the legal systems history of failure dealing with other pervasive crimes that disproportionately target women, like stalking and domestic abuse, so I'm going to bow out. I guess women just need to continue to quietly bear the consequences of this issue until we can change the criminal justice system, corporate culture, and societal norms.
I know you said you didn't read the article, but it's been stated several times here - Aragon publicly admitted he did this. There is no conjecture here. The reason his fate may be decided by the public is because he is a public figure, he behaved badly publicly, and he admitted it publicly.
And I say "may" because we don't know if he actually will lose much of anything. The mob also has a short memory. Heck, Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer are already pitching their next projects, and Louis CK did an impromptu set and got an ovation. It's possible for all the MeToo "victims" the only ones that will experience more than a speed bump in their careers are the ones that do get charged with rape, like Cosby and Weinstein.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put it this way. With the internet and social media and aggregation sites and things like wiki's we really would if we wanted to be able to enact a criminal system whereby cases were brought to the public's attention and then the general public could decide whether someone was guilty or not based on what was entered into the Wiki page about that particular case and then after assessing guilt they could decide how to punish that person, be it a shame campaign or getting them fired or just generally harassing them for what they had done. It could be run like wikipedia or 4chan or something.
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
Ironically, what you're talking about primarily happens to people who try to do things like report harassment. Think gamergate and the doxing that occured and continues to occur. The primary targets of said doxing are women. This crap doesn't typically happen to cis men. Especially cis white men.
I was thinking the same thing, that this often happens to women who speak up, on a smaller scale. They are blacklisted and ostracized from a community or company. Not to mention, revenge porn is a thing.Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Would that be a good system? Is that a system we prefer over the flawed criminal justice system? In my opinion no, that is far far worse than the flawed criminal justice system. So why are we accepting of it when someone gets their life destroyed with zero actual criminal proceedings or court assessment of guilt?
I think part of the problem is that it isn't practical to say all sexual harassment/intimidation/assault is illegal and should be prosecuted by the law. There are degrees involved. What officers, courts, and juries are going to handle all the incidents that sit at the level of this situation with AA? When we are talking about inappropriate remarks and touching, workplace propositioning with the threat of repercussions, subtle shaming of women to make them fear for their jobs or status centered around their appearance and what they are willing to put up with. If this behavior is pervasive, what part of the legal system is equipped to deal with that kind of volume?
Society and public opinion has always dealt with behavior that is inappropriate but does not rise to the level of taking up the time/space of the justice system. The process is often messy and wrongheaded, but honestly so is the justice system. There are people sitting in jail right now who will spend the rest of their lives as an ex-con with a scarlet letter on their record and credit who were wrongly convicted. There are many instances where the justice system is heavily weighted against the poor and minorities. There are women serving time for killing their abusers who never spent a day in jail for habitually attacking them. In criminal and civil litigation, your ability to pay a lawyer can have a profound affect on how your case goes. Prosecutors and police chiefs are often motivated to charge and build a case against the first schmuck they can so they look tough on crime, railroading that individual into a conviction to close the case. Corporations threaten to financially destroy individuals who dare to take them to court and waste their time and money to head that sort of thing off before it starts. I don't think it's cut and dry that the legal system is more fair than society, just more fair to certain individuals.
I don't think it's as simple as you are making it out to be. Do you know how long it takes to get a court date? How hard it is to get the authorities to intervene already in cases of stalking or domestic abuse? How expensive legal representation is, especially if a big company is supporting the harasser with a fancy legal team and you could end up losing? It's just not practical. So what's the alternative?
So you feel like there is a level of misbehavior that is not deserving of being called a crime but is deserving of social media based punishment that really has no standards or control over how damaging the effect is on that persons life? I'd argue if the offense is not criminal does it really deserve a
She didn't say it wasn't deserving, she said it wasn't practical. And the reason it isn't practical is because it's so *kitten* pervasive. And if the men (mostly) doing the harassing and assaulting aren't happy about the damage to their lives from THEIR choice, then maybe they might want to think about not doing it in the first place.
But I guess it's okay if women (and sometimes men) suffer often quite traumatic and damaging effects on their lives as a result of sexual harassment while the perpetrator carries on with no consequences...
Again, my issue isn't with punishment of the guilty...it is with guilt being assessed by the general public rather than a court and punishment not having a set standard that is connected to the nature of the crime. Your statement suggests that anyone who is accused is guilty...that is clearly not going to be true 100% of the time, which is why we have courts and why the public trying to exact punishment on anyone who is accused is dangerous.
My feeling applies to any situation, not just male sexual harassment of women. I would say the same thing about someone being accused of vandalism and rather than being charged with a crime the story being passed around on social media until the person loses their job. There is no situation where I feel that publicly decided guilt and punishment is appropriate regardless of the type of crime or wrongdoing and regardless of guilt. I'd make the same statement about literally anything. It is unjust to assume guilt from accusation without trial.
Nope, I was actually talking about situations where the person in question is guilty, as is the case here.
Oh I hadn't realized he was tried and convicted...I mean if someone is found guilty of a crime and then suffers additional social consequences as a result that is life. I just dont like the idea that one is assessing guilt of a person solely based on what they read about them online. Online accounts are not reliable and I would never assume guilt of someone solely based on what was reported by media.
I get that you are arguing against destroying a person's life or career on allegations made in social media, but that is not the case in this situation. If you are really asserting that a person such as Aragon has to be convicted of a criminal act before their employer or the event organizers that contract him for speaking engagements can take any action against him, that is precisely the attitude that has allowed guys to get away with predatory behavior for years without any sanction.
Again, Aragon admitted he acted inappropriately online but then still took swipes at one of the women he harassed, before they even named him publicly. He cut his accounts off after he started getting blowback. The fact that he was dropped from a speaking engagement was what drew attention to how he acted at that conference and what has lead the media to uncover and report that he has allegedly engaged in this behavior for a long time.
Aragon, by his own actions and statements, made it so that the event organizers should think twice about inviting him for future speaking engagements for the protection of the participants. Aragon's employer would be remiss if they were not examining the situation against their policies for public conduct of employees. They should do their due diligence in assessing the information, but no criminal conviction should be required for them to do that. Public opinion, actually, is quite irrelevant.
Lastly, a person like Aragon who has a modicum of celebrity and a social media following, has a tremendous amount of leverage. Even if the police had been called at the time, he had been arrested, and charges filed, there would be a huge amount of blowback on the women he harassed. That's not to mention the MRA/redpill/incel cadre that would pile on. There is no way in hell this would not have become a social media morass, no matter how the allegations got started.
10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions