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: »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.
100%. ^^^4 -
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.
Was that impression derived from things you read online?
When I say I am uncomfortable about the public (including myself) coming to conclusions about guilt based off of online media and discussing what consequences that person should then suffer and then working to enact those consequences through social pressure I mean exactly that.
That is not a good precedent to set...it gives the media (both mainstream and social) a power they really shouldn't have...the power to destroy someone.
If media was always 100% objectively true and the general public had some standards by which they assessed the level of punishment and some control to ensure that was the level that occurred then fine. But none of that is the case....and not even close really.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Was that impression derived from things you read online?
When I say I am uncomfortable about the public (including myself) coming to conclusions about guilt based off of online media and discussing what consequences that person should then suffer and then working to enact those consequences through social pressure I mean exactly that.
That is not a good precedent to set...it gives the media (both mainstream and social) a power they really shouldn't have...the power to destroy someone
It is from screenshots of his posts before he killed his social media accounts.3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »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.
I can't speak for everyone but for myself it really isnt that I dont take Male harrassment of women seriously enough. I would be saying the same thing about how it is inappropriate to seek punishment through social media about a murder case too and that isnt because I dont take murder seriously it's because I dont think it the role of the media and the public to assess guilt and give punishment for anything period universally.
Honestly I feel I can only say that so many times in so many different ways I am just repeating myself and I really dont know how to phrase it differently. If people wish to percieve my perspective as a factor of my gender and skin color I'm not going to be able to convince them otherwise. It is just tiring...I could potentially through discussion change my opinion or view about something and that can be worthwhile, but I can't change the fact that I'm male so it it ever just comes down to then there isnt anything I can change or do.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I keep coming back to this thread to post, then I keep deleting my post and leaving... rinse and repeat.
There seems to be a lot of emotion involved in this topic which is making it hard for people to read/listen to what others are saying. Yes, this includes me. There are a lot of layers to this topic...
Agreed. As a white male I especially feel squeamish about giving my opinion on these sorts of things. But justice really shouldn't be about gender or skin-color and so the very fact that I am made to feel hesitant about it also bothers me.
Social media has changed our world. It has made it so it is possible for someone who gets enough notice via social media to literally destroy someones life not through pressing charges through the criminal justice system but rather by appealing to the public's emotions. That should bother people shouldn't it? The whole reason we have a justice system is to prevent that sort of thing from happening by providing a means for punishment to be enacted that is transparent and predicated on evidence. If a crime was committed, charges should be filed. The fact that you can get punishment met out by instead going to the public directly through social media is not really a good thing in my opinion.
I do not know enough about this specific case to comment. Clearly if this guy groped or otherwise violated women (or anyone really) then that should be looked into and punished. The problem with doing it via public action is there is no way to fit the punishment to the crime. If you think it is okay to do that then I'd be curious to ask what crimes you think that is appropriate to do in and what crimes you do not, or is public action always a legitimate way to handle punishment?
Question: are we talking about this as a literal crime or are we talking about this as a breach of decent behavior?
Because I think a fair bit of the "me too" stuff less as literal crimes (although many of them are and should be handled appropriately), I think of them as breaches of decent behavior. And I'm perfectly fine with breaches of decent behavior being handled publicly, with people deciding for themselves how much they want to associate with and support someone who is actively engaging in it or has engaged in it and not constructively addressed what it has done to others.
I'm less interested in whether or not Aragon committed an actual violation of the law and more in whether or not he's a person who is contributing to a culture in his profession where women can't fully participate as equals.
Edit: And I'm obviously not the gatekeeper, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation. I just think that anyone who hasn't personally been on the "receiving end" of this behavior or doesn't understand how it can impact one's professional and social life should be aware of that and be receptive to hearing from those who have felt the impact.
I'm talking actual crimes. I can sort-of get the idea of a public wanting to punish someone for a crime they feel they committed that the criminal justice system hasn't punished them for...it just makes me uncomfortable that punishment be doled out by a riled up public rather than a court. If it is just "Breach of decent behavior", like telling a really insensitive joke or being lewd, I'm not sure destroying someones career over that is really an appropriate response.
What you say about needing to be receptive and recognizing that my experience may not be the same as someone else is totally fair and I accept that.
If the punishment in question is something like "You know what, I'm not comfortable with the behavior that I legitimately believe you engaged in and at this point I am choosing not to engage with you professionally/socially," I think it's okay.
Because the alternative -- that we're somehow obligated to continue to give someone money or attention until they're convicted in a court of law, that just doesn't make sense.
If I see a comedian I used to love is no longer funny to me, I change the channel and make a note not to buy tickets to their next live show in my town. There's no enhanced burden to just not dig someone anymore. Why should there be a higher standard when I legitimately believe that the comedian has a history of subjecting women to unwanted sexual behavior?
It's less a "punishment" than a redirection of our time and energy. I'm not interested in having people like Louis C.K. and Aragon walk the streets in sackcloth and ashes, it's more like . . . a natural rebalancing of money and energy on the part of people who find their behavior objectionable.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Edit: And I'm obviously not the gatekeeper, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation. I just think that anyone who hasn't personally been on the "receiving end" of this behavior or doesn't understand how it can impact one's professional and social life should be aware of that and be receptive to hearing from those who have felt the impact.
So is that the metric, if you haven't been harassed or received unwanted attention, you are not allowed to speak on it? Is there a threshold when one is authorized to speak?
If that is the case, then how do those who have been falsely accused enter the conversation?
In my time in the Army, I had soldiers who, during various incidents, were either guilty of rape, or victims of false accusations because the accuser was not getting what she wanted and sought revenge.
Is the latter soldier not qualified to speak on the topic simply because he had not sexually assaulted a woman?
While the person who has not been harassed cannot speak to the impact of the harassment, that doesn't mean they cannot have salient points to bring to the discussion.
What social media justice misses is that here in the US anyway, our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
Social media justice is the opposite. An accusation is made and the person is guilty until they prove they are innocent.
Just look at the Duke Lacrosse team. A woman accused them of sexually assaulting her, and suffered the consequences of her allegations.
Emotion seems impervious to facts and reason. So I am concerned about social media justice, as it can be very damaging without regard to guilt or innocence.
I'm not commenting or suggesting that this particular individual is innocent. My concern is more a general concern. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it is false either.
What it does mean is that it merits investigation to see if the allegation is supported by available facts. The facts will tell us about either the accused, the accuser or even both.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Was that impression derived from things you read online?
Full description of the events here (including screenshots of his admission of guilt and half hearted nonapology)
https://amp.reddit.com/r/leangains/comments/9b1n54/alan_aragon_turns_out_to_be_a_serial_sexual/
4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Edit: And I'm obviously not the gatekeeper, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation. I just think that anyone who hasn't personally been on the "receiving end" of this behavior or doesn't understand how it can impact one's professional and social life should be aware of that and be receptive to hearing from those who have felt the impact.
So is that the metric, if you haven't been harassed or received unwanted attention, you are not allowed to speak on it? Is there a threshold when one is authorized to speak?
If that is the case, then how do those who have been falsely accused enter the conversation?
In my time in the Army, I had soldiers who, during various incidents, were either guilty of rape, or victims of false accusations because the accuser was not getting what she wanted and sought revenge.
Is the latter soldier not qualified to speak on the topic simply because he had not sexually assaulted a woman?
While the person who has not been harassed cannot speak to the impact of the harassment, that doesn't mean they cannot have salient points to bring to the discussion.
What social media justice misses is that here in the US anyway, our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
Social media justice is the opposite. An accusation is made and the person is guilty until they prove they are innocent.
Just look at the Duke La Cross team. A woman accused them of sexually assaulting her, and suffered the consequences of her allegations.
Emotion seems impervious to facts and reason. So I am concerned about social media justice, as it can be very damaging without regard to guilt or innocence.
I'm not commenting or suggesting that this particular individual is innocent. My concern is more a general concern. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it is false either.
What it does mean is that it merits investigation to see if the allegation is supported by available facts. The facts will tell us about either the accused, the accuser or even both.
I literally wrote "I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation."
Everyone, as in nobody (IMO) is classified as "not allowed" to talk. I don't know how I could make it clearer that I don't think anyone should be excluded from this conversation on the basis of their identity or their history with unwanted sexual behavior.
6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »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.
I can't speak for everyone but for myself it really isnt that I dont take Male harrassment of women seriously enough. I would be saying the same thing about how it is inappropriate to seek punishment through social media about a murder case too and that isnt because I dont take murder seriously it's because I dont think it the role of the media and the public to assess guilt and give punishment for anything period universally.
Honestly I feel I can only say that so many times in so many different ways I am just repeating myself and I really dont know how to phrase it differently. If people wish to percieve my perspective as a factor of my gender and skin color I'm not going to be able to convince them otherwise.
You really need to learn about privilege and implicit bias. Here are some resources for you. Three about implicit bias and a few about privilege.
Edit: Also if you don't think how you view the world is based off of a number of factors, like gender, race, where you grew up, and where you currently live then I don't know what to say. Well no, I do - I'd say that you need to read some sociology texts as well as some intercultural relations texts.6 -
I would add that just because white hetero males have done this does not disqualify that class of people from speaking on topics.
That makes about as much sense as saying because someone is a women, they shouldn't vote, or have a career, or...
To say that someone is not welcome in a discussion because they come from a place of power or privilege makes as much sense as those who formerly suggested those who didn't have power or privilege were not welcome in a discussion.
You cannot just reverse the marginalization and say now it's all better. The sin was, and still is marginalization. Just as the rape or other transgression is not any well worse in your example, the same is true for marginalization.
Those who suggest that some are not welcome to participate in a conversation because they come from a place of power are just taking on the bad habits of those they criticize. Trading one group of sinners for another.
Zero progress.Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
1 -
johnslater461 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Was that impression derived from things you read online?
Full description of the events here (including screenshots of his admission of guilt and half hearted nonapology)
https://amp.reddit.com/r/leangains/comments/9b1n54/alan_aragon_turns_out_to_be_a_serial_sexual/
I think this just underlines how much we are speaking past one another.
I am only saying this one more time just as I have said it many times before then I am going to leave.
My issue is I dont think it is appropriate for the public to assess guilt on the basis of media. Your response to this is to send me, a member of the public, media and then ask me to assess guilt. I really think you aren't hearing what I am saying. You come back at me by requesting that I do exactly what I said I dont think is appropriate. I am not going to judge someone's guilt or innocence by reading online media....that was my entire point.
Determination of guilt or innocence is the domain of the courts....not the media and the general public.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Was that impression derived from things you read online?
Full description of the events here (including screenshots of his admission of guilt and half hearted nonapology)
https://amp.reddit.com/r/leangains/comments/9b1n54/alan_aragon_turns_out_to_be_a_serial_sexual/
I think this just underlines how much we are speaking past one another.
I am only saying this one more time just as I have said it many times before then I am going to leave.
My issue is I dont think it is appropriate for the public to assess guilt on the basis of media. Your response to this is to send me, a member of the public, media and then ask me to assess guilt. I really think you aren't hearing what I am saying.
I am not going to judge someone's guilt or innocence by reading online media....that was my entire point.
So an admission of guilt isn't sufficient because it was posted online?7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I would add that just because white hetero males have done this does not disqualify that class of people from speaking on topics.
That makes about as much sense as saying because someone is a women, they shouldn't vote, or have a career, or...
To say that someone is not welcome in a discussion because they come from a place of power or privilege makes as much sense as those who formerly suggested those who didn't have power or privilege were not welcome in a discussion.
You cannot just reverse the marginalization and say now it's all better. The sin was, and still is marginalization. Just as the rape or other transgression is not any well worse in your example, the same is true for marginalization.
Those who suggest that some are not welcome to participate in a conversation because they come from a place of power are just taking on the bad habits of those they criticize. Trading one group of sinners for another.
Zero progress.Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Is anyone here actually saying that just because someone has privilege that they can't talk about or have an opinion XYZ topic?5 -
But there are those who do not welcome such participation.
I recall a recent incident at the University of Missouri where a White Male Student Journalist was asked to leave an event by a faculty member because she felt it was not appropriate for the White (Asian, IIRC) male journalist to cover an event or protest of racist graffiti that was painted on campus.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article62459717.html
Of course, her case may be an example of Internet Lynch Mobs going the other way, as there was a collective outrage from the right, asking why she was still on the faculty, until she was finally terminated from her positions.
So my point wasn't about you, but about the idea that SOME people have that some, based on superficial criteria, may not be welcome in a conversation, or to even cover the news in the case of the student journalist.
Hopefully my point is clear. Sorry I was not clear before.janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Edit: And I'm obviously not the gatekeeper, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation. I just think that anyone who hasn't personally been on the "receiving end" of this behavior or doesn't understand how it can impact one's professional and social life should be aware of that and be receptive to hearing from those who have felt the impact.
So is that the metric, if you haven't been harassed or received unwanted attention, you are not allowed to speak on it? Is there a threshold when one is authorized to speak?
If that is the case, then how do those who have been falsely accused enter the conversation?
In my time in the Army, I had soldiers who, during various incidents, were either guilty of rape, or victims of false accusations because the accuser was not getting what she wanted and sought revenge.
Is the latter soldier not qualified to speak on the topic simply because he had not sexually assaulted a woman?
While the person who has not been harassed cannot speak to the impact of the harassment, that doesn't mean they cannot have salient points to bring to the discussion.
What social media justice misses is that here in the US anyway, our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
Social media justice is the opposite. An accusation is made and the person is guilty until they prove they are innocent.
Just look at the Duke La Cross team. A woman accused them of sexually assaulting her, and suffered the consequences of her allegations.
Emotion seems impervious to facts and reason. So I am concerned about social media justice, as it can be very damaging without regard to guilt or innocence.
I'm not commenting or suggesting that this particular individual is innocent. My concern is more a general concern. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it is false either.
What it does mean is that it merits investigation to see if the allegation is supported by available facts. The facts will tell us about either the accused, the accuser or even both.
I literally wrote "I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation."
Everyone, as in nobody (IMO) is classified as "not allowed" to talk. I don't know how I could make it clearer that I don't think anyone should be excluded from this conversation on the basis of their identity or their history with unwanted sexual behavior.
6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I would add that just because white hetero males have done this does not disqualify that class of people from speaking on topics.
That makes about as much sense as saying because someone is a women, they shouldn't vote, or have a career, or...
To say that someone is not welcome in a discussion because they come from a place of power or privilege makes as much sense as those who formerly suggested those who didn't have power or privilege were not welcome in a discussion.
You cannot just reverse the marginalization and say now it's all better. The sin was, and still is marginalization. Just as the rape or other transgression is not any well worse in your example, the same is true for marginalization.
Those who suggest that some are not welcome to participate in a conversation because they come from a place of power are just taking on the bad habits of those they criticize. Trading one group of sinners for another.
Zero progress.Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Is anyone here actually saying that just because someone has privilege that they can't talk about or have an opinion XYZ topic?
No. No one has said that at all. No sure what the issue is with this poster.7 -
To all people sending me (a member of the public) online media sources and asking me judge guilt on the basis of that....are you just ignoring what I am saying or dismissing it or have I somehow not made it clear or what?1
-
tbright1965 wrote: »But there are those who do not welcome such participation.
I recall a recent incident at the University of Missouri where a White Male Student Journalist was asked to leave an event by a faculty member because she felt it was not appropriate for the White (Asian, IIRC) male journalist to cover an event or protest of racist graffiti that was painted on campus.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article62459717.html
Of course, her case may be an example of Internet Lynch Mobs going the other way, as there was a collective outrage from the right, asking why she was still on the faculty, until she was finally terminated from her positions.
So my point wasn't about you, but about the idea that SOME people have that some, based on superficial criteria, may not be welcome in a conversation, or to even cover the news in the case of the student journalist.
Hopefully my point is clear. Sorry I was not clear before.janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Edit: And I'm obviously not the gatekeeper, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation. I just think that anyone who hasn't personally been on the "receiving end" of this behavior or doesn't understand how it can impact one's professional and social life should be aware of that and be receptive to hearing from those who have felt the impact.
So is that the metric, if you haven't been harassed or received unwanted attention, you are not allowed to speak on it? Is there a threshold when one is authorized to speak?
If that is the case, then how do those who have been falsely accused enter the conversation?
In my time in the Army, I had soldiers who, during various incidents, were either guilty of rape, or victims of false accusations because the accuser was not getting what she wanted and sought revenge.
Is the latter soldier not qualified to speak on the topic simply because he had not sexually assaulted a woman?
While the person who has not been harassed cannot speak to the impact of the harassment, that doesn't mean they cannot have salient points to bring to the discussion.
What social media justice misses is that here in the US anyway, our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
Social media justice is the opposite. An accusation is made and the person is guilty until they prove they are innocent.
Just look at the Duke La Cross team. A woman accused them of sexually assaulting her, and suffered the consequences of her allegations.
Emotion seems impervious to facts and reason. So I am concerned about social media justice, as it can be very damaging without regard to guilt or innocence.
I'm not commenting or suggesting that this particular individual is innocent. My concern is more a general concern. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it is false either.
What it does mean is that it merits investigation to see if the allegation is supported by available facts. The facts will tell us about either the accused, the accuser or even both.
I literally wrote "I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation."
Everyone, as in nobody (IMO) is classified as "not allowed" to talk. I don't know how I could make it clearer that I don't think anyone should be excluded from this conversation on the basis of their identity or their history with unwanted sexual behavior.
Your post is clear but it has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. It's a derail. If you feel strongly about this issue, start your own thread about it.6 -
@tbright1965 The post you quoted said everyone should be involved in the conversation, but those who haven't experienced sexual harassment should be receptive to listening to those who have. And your response was to accuse her of saying those who weren't harassed aren't allowed to speak. Of course you can find examples of false accusations and incidents where certain people unfairly declared the subject off limits for some. As we could find a history books worth of women whose lives have been destroyed, whose careers have been burned to the ground, who have ended up mentally ill or committing suicide due to sexual harassment and assault. That's not what we are talking about.
What I find fascinating about the turn this thread is taking is that those concerned about the public condemnation seem to be replying without actually responding to what is being written. It's as if men's emotions have taken over.
Aragon isn't being drawn and quartered in the town square, his public career is taking a hit because of something he made public himself.Aaron_K123 wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Was that impression derived from things you read online?
Full description of the events here (including screenshots of his admission of guilt and half hearted nonapology)
https://amp.reddit.com/r/leangains/comments/9b1n54/alan_aragon_turns_out_to_be_a_serial_sexual/
I think this just underlines how much we are speaking past one another.
I am only saying this one more time just as I have said it many times before then I am going to leave.
My issue is I dont think it is appropriate for the public to assess guilt on the basis of media. Your response to this is to send me, a member of the public, media and then ask me to assess guilt. I really think you aren't hearing what I am saying. You come back at me by requesting that I do exactly what I said I dont think is appropriate. I am not going to judge someone's guilt or innocence by reading online media....that was my entire point.
Yes, we clearly are all talking past each other, because Aragon admitted he did this himself. It wasn't just reported, it wasn't someone else saying he did something. He posted online that he did this. Alan Aragon publicly stated that he did what he is accused of. Are we not allowed to make decisions about what he said he did unless a judge and jury rubber stamps it because he chose social media to announce his guilt and then try to make excuses for it? Seriously?9 -
So your form of marginalization is to claim I'm derailing the conversation?
You are free to rebut or ignore what I have to say. But I don't think you get to be the arbiter of where and what I speak or write.
You are engaged in exactly what you suggest is wrong, marginalizing people in conversations.
We are not talking past one another. You are simply proving my point.
Some speech is more welcome than others in conversations. Some biases are "acceptable" and others are not.
It appears you want me to understand your perspective, but somehow, my perspective is off topic and therefore unworthy of being included in the conversation.
Thanks for proving my point.tbright1965 wrote: »But there are those who do not welcome such participation.
I recall a recent incident at the University of Missouri where a White Male Student Journalist was asked to leave an event by a faculty member because she felt it was not appropriate for the White (Asian, IIRC) male journalist to cover an event or protest of racist graffiti that was painted on campus.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article62459717.html
Of course, her case may be an example of Internet Lynch Mobs going the other way, as there was a collective outrage from the right, asking why she was still on the faculty, until she was finally terminated from her positions.
So my point wasn't about you, but about the idea that SOME people have that some, based on superficial criteria, may not be welcome in a conversation, or to even cover the news in the case of the student journalist.
Hopefully my point is clear. Sorry I was not clear before.janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Edit: And I'm obviously not the gatekeeper, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation. I just think that anyone who hasn't personally been on the "receiving end" of this behavior or doesn't understand how it can impact one's professional and social life should be aware of that and be receptive to hearing from those who have felt the impact.
So is that the metric, if you haven't been harassed or received unwanted attention, you are not allowed to speak on it? Is there a threshold when one is authorized to speak?
If that is the case, then how do those who have been falsely accused enter the conversation?
In my time in the Army, I had soldiers who, during various incidents, were either guilty of rape, or victims of false accusations because the accuser was not getting what she wanted and sought revenge.
Is the latter soldier not qualified to speak on the topic simply because he had not sexually assaulted a woman?
While the person who has not been harassed cannot speak to the impact of the harassment, that doesn't mean they cannot have salient points to bring to the discussion.
What social media justice misses is that here in the US anyway, our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
Social media justice is the opposite. An accusation is made and the person is guilty until they prove they are innocent.
Just look at the Duke La Cross team. A woman accused them of sexually assaulting her, and suffered the consequences of her allegations.
Emotion seems impervious to facts and reason. So I am concerned about social media justice, as it can be very damaging without regard to guilt or innocence.
I'm not commenting or suggesting that this particular individual is innocent. My concern is more a general concern. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it is false either.
What it does mean is that it merits investigation to see if the allegation is supported by available facts. The facts will tell us about either the accused, the accuser or even both.
I literally wrote "I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation."
Everyone, as in nobody (IMO) is classified as "not allowed" to talk. I don't know how I could make it clearer that I don't think anyone should be excluded from this conversation on the basis of their identity or their history with unwanted sexual behavior.
Your post is clear but it has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. It's a derail. If you feel strongly about this issue, start your own thread about it.
6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »So your form of marginalization is to claim I'm derailing the conversation?
You are free to rebut or ignore what I have to say. But I don't think you get to be the arbiter of where and what I speak or write.
You are engaged in exactly what you suggest is wrong, marginalizing people in conversations.
We are not talking past one another. You are simply proving my point.
Some speech is more welcome than others in conversations. Some biases are "acceptable" and others are not.
It appears you want me to understand your perspective, but somehow, my perspective is off topic and therefore unworthy of being included in the conversation.
Thanks for proving my point.tbright1965 wrote: »But there are those who do not welcome such participation.
I recall a recent incident at the University of Missouri where a White Male Student Journalist was asked to leave an event by a faculty member because she felt it was not appropriate for the White (Asian, IIRC) male journalist to cover an event or protest of racist graffiti that was painted on campus.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article62459717.html
Of course, her case may be an example of Internet Lynch Mobs going the other way, as there was a collective outrage from the right, asking why she was still on the faculty, until she was finally terminated from her positions.
So my point wasn't about you, but about the idea that SOME people have that some, based on superficial criteria, may not be welcome in a conversation, or to even cover the news in the case of the student journalist.
Hopefully my point is clear. Sorry I was not clear before.janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Edit: And I'm obviously not the gatekeeper, but I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation. I just think that anyone who hasn't personally been on the "receiving end" of this behavior or doesn't understand how it can impact one's professional and social life should be aware of that and be receptive to hearing from those who have felt the impact.
So is that the metric, if you haven't been harassed or received unwanted attention, you are not allowed to speak on it? Is there a threshold when one is authorized to speak?
If that is the case, then how do those who have been falsely accused enter the conversation?
In my time in the Army, I had soldiers who, during various incidents, were either guilty of rape, or victims of false accusations because the accuser was not getting what she wanted and sought revenge.
Is the latter soldier not qualified to speak on the topic simply because he had not sexually assaulted a woman?
While the person who has not been harassed cannot speak to the impact of the harassment, that doesn't mean they cannot have salient points to bring to the discussion.
What social media justice misses is that here in the US anyway, our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
Social media justice is the opposite. An accusation is made and the person is guilty until they prove they are innocent.
Just look at the Duke La Cross team. A woman accused them of sexually assaulting her, and suffered the consequences of her allegations.
Emotion seems impervious to facts and reason. So I am concerned about social media justice, as it can be very damaging without regard to guilt or innocence.
I'm not commenting or suggesting that this particular individual is innocent. My concern is more a general concern. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it is false either.
What it does mean is that it merits investigation to see if the allegation is supported by available facts. The facts will tell us about either the accused, the accuser or even both.
I literally wrote "I think it's perfectly appropriate for everyone -- including white men -- to be involved in that conversation."
Everyone, as in nobody (IMO) is classified as "not allowed" to talk. I don't know how I could make it clearer that I don't think anyone should be excluded from this conversation on the basis of their identity or their history with unwanted sexual behavior.
Your post is clear but it has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. It's a derail. If you feel strongly about this issue, start your own thread about it.
Are you seriously comparing sexual harassment to someone telling you that you are derailing an online thread on a forum??9
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