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
-
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.
See, all things considered, I think this thread has been amazingly open to all points of view and rather civil considering how deeply personal this subject is to some people. We've been arguing, but no one has been told their viewpoint was unwelcome. Your post was the first to come out of nowhere and make that the focus.
We are talking about Aragon and whether this situation devalues his possible future contributions to the field of health and fitness. And it's meandered a bit into whether the court of public opinion should even be involved. Do you have a position on that?3 -
@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
We have a judicial system...circumventing it and I inacting mob justice is just not okay in my book.3 -
Are you seriously comparing sexual harassment to someone telling you that you are derailing an online thread on a forum??
Did I say that?
If you read that into what I said, then your biases are impeding your ability to read the actual words and think critically.
I clearly said that some people are not welcome in conversations for superficial reasons.
I also clearly said that someone who has never been a victim cannot speak to the victim experience.
But if you get out of those statements a sort of equality relationship, I cannot help you to understand what I really said.
The first can and is a true statement without equating the experience to sexual assault.
The topic touched on the idea false accusations. It can do that without suggesting that the Aragon was a victim of such. I commented on that from my experience.
The biases of some (not all) are that they are willing to give the false accuser a pass because their metric is that the assault victim is the greater victim relative to the falsely accused.
The very same people who suggest that one cannot comment on the assault victim's state feel perfectly comfortable dismissing or discounting the experience of the falsely accused.
I really don't know which is worse. And frankly, it probably depends on the person who is the victim. None of us can really put ourselves in the shoes of another. The best we can do is to be understanding that they are going through something.
It reminds me of the story of Job in the Bible. His friends were great when they simply sat with him and mourned with him over the multitude of losses he experienced.
Where it when off the rails was when they started diagnosing why the things happened to him. Suggesting he had sinned, or something.
Yet we humans haven't learned thousands of years later. We still want to blame the victim, no matter how great or small we might think the problem is.
I'm not saying I'm a victim either, lest you think I'm saying that.
I'm just asking the question, do people consistently live their values. If they claim a group is marginalized, so they avoid marginalization of others, or do they excuse their actions that marginalize?5 -
See, all things considered, I think this thread has been amazingly open to all points of view and rather civil considering how deeply personal this subject is to some people. We've been arguing, but no one has been told their viewpoint was unwelcome. Your post was the first to come out of nowhere and make that the focus.
We are talking about Aragon and whether this situation devalues his possible future contributions to the field of health and fitness. And it's meandered a bit into whether the court of public opinion should even be involved. Do you have a position on that?
OK, assuming what you assert is true, and my point really comes out of no-where, does it matter?
Or, did you ask the clarifying question, how does your point relate to the conversation?
You see, you assumed that my point came out of no-where. In no way did I see you consider the possibility that you simply didn't understand or see how my point was related. Now you may have. But I don't recall the question or asking for help in understanding what I had said and how it related.
Instead, how it came across to me was you (or others, it's not really important who suggested I go elsewhere, it's the suggestion that was troubling and hypocritical) didn't see how it related, so I should go off and start my own topic.
The reality is the topic had, several paged back, asked about the falsely accused. It touched on the notion that there are those who do not welcome some speakers from privileged circumstances.
Now, I may be BEHIND the topic, as I believe I was responding to something several pages back. And people are certainly free to ignore that.
However, one must understand that this isn't real-time communication. So people are going to chime in on things stated days, maybe even weeks ago. That's the nature of forum communications.
Even that doesn't make such contributions less valuable. Maybe less timely. Maybe redundant.
But not really less valuable nor less valid.5 -
A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
See, all things considered, I think this thread has been amazingly open to all points of view and rather civil considering how deeply personal this subject is to some people. We've been arguing, but no one has been told their viewpoint was unwelcome. Your post was the first to come out of nowhere and make that the focus.
We are talking about Aragon and whether this situation devalues his possible future contributions to the field of health and fitness. And it's meandered a bit into whether the court of public opinion should even be involved. Do you have a position on that?
OK, assuming what you assert is true, and my point really comes out of no-where, does it matter?
Or, did you ask the clarifying question, how does your point relate to the conversation?
You see, you assumed that my point came out of no-where. In no way did I see you consider the possibility that you simply didn't understand or see how my point was related. Now you may have. But I don't recall the question or asking for help in understanding what I had said and how it related.
Instead, how it came across to me was you (or others, it's not really important who suggested I go elsewhere, it's the suggestion that was troubling and hypocritical) didn't see how it related, so I should go off and start my own topic.
The reality is the topic had, several paged back, asked about the falsely accused. It touched on the notion that there are those who do not welcome some speakers from privileged circumstances.
Now, I may be BEHIND the topic, as I believe I was responding to something several pages back. And people are certainly free to ignore that.
However, one must understand that this isn't real-time communication. So people are going to chime in on things stated days, maybe even weeks ago. That's the nature of forum communications.
Even that doesn't make such contributions less valuable. Maybe less timely. Maybe redundant.
But not really less valuable nor less valid.
Would you mind quoting where someone in this thread said that only some classes of people are allowed to voice their opinions on this topic? I am well aware that people have said similar things in other places, I've heard it with my own ears.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
See, all things considered, I think this thread has been amazingly open to all points of view and rather civil considering how deeply personal this subject is to some people. We've been arguing, but no one has been told their viewpoint was unwelcome. Your post was the first to come out of nowhere and make that the focus.
We are talking about Aragon and whether this situation devalues his possible future contributions to the field of health and fitness. And it's meandered a bit into whether the court of public opinion should even be involved. Do you have a position on that?
OK, assuming what you assert is true, and my point really comes out of no-where, does it matter?
Or, did you ask the clarifying question, how does your point relate to the conversation?
You see, you assumed that my point came out of no-where. In no way did I see you consider the possibility that you simply didn't understand or see how my point was related. Now you may have. But I don't recall the question or asking for help in understanding what I had said and how it related.
Instead, how it came across to me was you (or others, it's not really important who suggested I go elsewhere, it's the suggestion that was troubling and hypocritical) didn't see how it related, so I should go off and start my own topic.
The reality is the topic had, several paged back, asked about the falsely accused. It touched on the notion that there are those who do not welcome some speakers from privileged circumstances.
Now, I may be BEHIND the topic, as I believe I was responding to something several pages back. And people are certainly free to ignore that.
However, one must understand that this isn't real-time communication. So people are going to chime in on things stated days, maybe even weeks ago. That's the nature of forum communications.
Even that doesn't make such contributions less valuable. Maybe less timely. Maybe redundant.
But not really less valuable nor less valid.
So I still have no idea what you think about what we are actually discussing. The very first post, the OP, as far back as you can go in this thread, you could not be far enough behind to not have read it, was about how this scandal will affect Aragon and whether it should. I get that false accusations came up, but considering Aragon has acknowledged the accusations are true, I'm merely asking you if you have any interest in connecting your now several posts to the debate at hand, that's it. It seems like you came in here to argue with people somewhere else.2 -
A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?
When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?
Also I'm not referring only to criminal court but also civil court. In court there is transperancy on decisions through documentation, a chance for arbitration and appeal and severity of punishment is tied to severity of crime. In social media the only transparency is what people choose to claim, there is no documentation of proceedings because there is no process, no arbitration no chance for appeal and the severity of punishment is not tied to severity of the crime it is tied to the game or social media presence of the accused and or accuser.
Yeah it is harder to file in court than it is to accuse someone of a misdeed on social media....I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.3 -
Did I say it was ok to ignore due process and somehow for someone to have XYZ legal consequences without going to trial? What I'm saying is that we should believe someone when they say they've assaulted someone. Why shouldn't we? Why is someone admitting out right that they committed a crime - let's say, running a red light (and not hitting anyone), any different than saying that they cheated on a test (which is not a crime in the US at least but is subject to some pretty serious disciplinary action depending on the level of education).Aaron_K123 wrote: »
A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?
When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?
What I, and other people, are also saying is that there are a lot of barriers to actually reporting a crime. You seem to have completely ignored that part though.
And with that I'm off for likely the afternoon into the evening.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?
When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?
Also I'm not referring only to criminal court but also civil court. In court there is transperancy on decisions through documentation, a chance for arbitration and appeal and severity of punishment is tied to severity of crime. In social media the only transparency is what people choose to claim, there is no documentation of proceedings because there is no process, no arbitration no chance for appeal and the severity of punishment is not tied to severity of the crime it is tied to the game or social media presence of the accused and or accuser.
Yeah it is harder to file in court than it is to accuse someone of a misdeed on social media....I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.
When one's livelihood and reputation is built via social media, it can be lost the same way.
What the interwebs giveth, the interwebs taketh away.9 -
Did I say it was ok to ignore due process and somehow for someone to have XYZ legal consequences without going to trial? What I'm saying is that we should believe someone when they say they've assaulted someone. Why shouldn't we? Why is someone admitting out right that they committed a crime - let's say, running a red light (and not hitting anyone), any different than saying that they cheated on a test (which is not a crime in the US at least but is subject to some pretty serious disciplinary action depending on the level of education).Aaron_K123 wrote: »
A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?
When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?
What I, and other people, are also saying is that there are a lot of barriers to actually reporting a crime. You seem to have completely ignored that part though.
And with that I'm off for likely the afternoon into the evening.
Yeah I think I should step away as well if for no other reason than to let the conversation move on. Have a good rest of your day, no hard feelings thank you for the discussion.5 -
johnslater461 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?
When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?
Also I'm not referring only to criminal court but also civil court. In court there is transperancy on decisions through documentation, a chance for arbitration and appeal and severity of punishment is tied to severity of crime. In social media the only transparency is what people choose to claim, there is no documentation of proceedings because there is no process, no arbitration no chance for appeal and the severity of punishment is not tied to severity of the crime it is tied to the game or social media presence of the accused and or accuser.
Yeah it is harder to file in court than it is to accuse someone of a misdeed on social media....I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.
When one's livelihood and reputation is built via social media, it can be lost the same way.
What the interwebs giveth, the interwebs taketh away.
This^^^ AA built his reputation and fame via internet, I think it's fair that internet takes it away. Internet has changed things for women. Before, you had no choice but to go to the police, and through the court system with all the horrors that entailed. The majority of women just had to suck it up or be humiliated. Internet has given them power--like it or not. That's not going to go away either. Internet is considered progress by many, but we're finding it impossible to harness. Interesting, all you can do is pull the plug--there is still that option.2 -
I think that once three different women bring their concerns to the event coordinators, that they are well within their rights to protect other conference goers from being exposed to this type of inappropriate behaviour. Removing him from speaking at the conference was appropriate and protective.
The fact that Aragon allowed the public explosion on his own social media is on him. The fact that he handled it poorly is on him. I view this situation differently from general accusations of misbehaviour because he has admitted to being inappropriate. This is not a case of false accusations.
There should be real and harsh consequences for making false accusations, particularly when lives are destroyed by those accusations. However, there needs to also be a shift away from victims feeling unsafe in bringing forward their concerns with violations against them. Victim blaming and the guilt, shame, and doubt that victims face makes it incredibly painful for them to come forward. Enough so that it's like being victimized again.
Should his career be in ruins? Until he has made appropriate reparations to those wronged, I think it's appropriate and acceptable that people chose to not support him, if that's what they want. Can he bounce back? That will depend on him and how he navigates this moving forward. There are plenty of people in the public eye who fall from grace and are able to rebound.11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?
Also I'm not referring only to criminal court but also civil court. In court there is transperancy on decisions through documentation, a chance for arbitration and appeal and severity of punishment is tied to severity of crime. In social media the only transparency is what people choose to claim, there is no documentation of proceedings because there is no process, no arbitration no chance for appeal and the severity of punishment is not tied to severity of the crime it is tied to the game or social media presence of the accused and or accuser.
Yeah it is harder to file in court than it is to accuse someone of a misdeed on social media....I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.
It is not a bad thing for the perpetrators. Most likely nothing will ever come of their misdeeds. People will continue to be victimized and nothing will change.
This is OUR society and this is how OUR society works. You can stand out on your lawn and shake your fist over it but public justice is a component of society just like it has always been. Freedom of speech can be used as a weapon.
Unless you have been living under a rock it is common knowledge that you can be obliterated in the public. Social media makes it easier but it has always been possible. If I put my hand in fire it can be burned. We have to live with the consequences of our actions. It is stupid for me to put my hand in fire. While very wrong it is also stupid for a person with so much to lose to take their chances on victimizing another. This is a KNOWN consequence.
The public is also underestimated here I think. If AA had come out and been genuinely contrite. If he pledged to get counseling and perhaps made a sizeable donation to a women's charity he might have dulled the anger.
12 -
@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?
If the argument is that we shouldn't allow what we know of someone's behavior to possibly act as a guide when we're deciding who to associate with or support with our money and attention . . . I don't get that.
Most of us can think of behavior that isn't necessarily illegal, but that we don't wish to condone. There is nothing wrong with deciding what types of behavior we don't wish to condone either personally or professionally.
We're not talking about sending people to jail. As members of the general public, we don't even have the authority to do that. I don't understand when people make the leap from "As an private individual, I no longer wish to support this person" to "This is an official assessment of legal guilt."3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If the argument is that we shouldn't allow what we know of someone's behavior to possibly act as a guide when we're deciding who to associate with or support with our money and attention . . . I don't get that.
Most of us can think of behavior that isn't necessarily illegal, but that we don't wish to condone. There is nothing wrong with deciding what types of behavior we don't wish to condone either personally or professionally.
We're not talking about sending people to jail. As members of the general public, we don't even have the authority to do that. I don't understand when people make the leap from "As an private individual, I no longer wish to support this person" to "This is an official assessment of legal guilt."
The other question is should we get rid of the reverse? Should we be allowed to pass personal judgment that a person or organization is very good and worthy of social media praise and financial support? You can't say there is no potential downside because if you pick Company A for their charitable work or other criteria over Company B that may not even be profitable at the moment you could be furthering Company B's problems and their failure.
It has been my experience in life that most things that are considered blessings also can be a curse in some situations. Freedom of speech is one of those things. With that said, I do not see a problem with how the AA situation has unfolded.4 -
I guess, at least for me, the only "right" answer in all of this is that people can and will do what's right for them. Where you draw the line on morality, ethics, science, professionalism, etc is up to you. Where I draw that line is up to me. If you choose to subscribe to his newsletter, fine. If you choose to start a FB group dedicated to drawing attention to what's happened and preventing him from being booked for seminars, coaching, etc, then that's also fine.
Because there is no clear absolute in this discussion, how does someone prove/persuade that their position is more right than someone else's? I don't think they do/can... they can only decide what's right for them and explain why it's right for them. It's then up to everyone else to decide to what extent, if at all, they agree.4 -
johnslater461 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
A criminal conviction, as in one made by a legal system, is completely different to what you seem to be thinking is or might end up happening here. You also keep ignoring the fact that for various reasons not everyone has the resources to go to the police (money, time, knowledge of how the system works, etc), that the police won't always actually work with the alleged victim of a crime, or that there are often statutes of limitations.Aaron_K123 wrote: »@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?
I do understand the bolded part here. However if a person goes to the police and confesses to a crime they aren't just assumed to be guilty and immediately punished their claims are investigated, evidence collected and then they are brought to a court and tried. How would you feel if confession to police resulted in just immediate punishment skipping all due process? Why does it being in the public make due process jo longer important or necessary?
Why shouldn't I believe that the person I know who raped someone but wasn't convicted raped her. He said it on camera. Heck what if there was a video of someone raping or otherwise assaulting someone? Should we just not believe it because there hasn't been a criminal conviction?
When is it okay to ignore due process. Can you give a straight answer to that?
Also I'm not referring only to criminal court but also civil court. In court there is transperancy on decisions through documentation, a chance for arbitration and appeal and severity of punishment is tied to severity of crime. In social media the only transparency is what people choose to claim, there is no documentation of proceedings because there is no process, no arbitration no chance for appeal and the severity of punishment is not tied to severity of the crime it is tied to the game or social media presence of the accused and or accuser.
Yeah it is harder to file in court than it is to accuse someone of a misdeed on social media....I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.
When one's livelihood and reputation is built via social media, it can be lost the same way.
What the interwebs giveth, the interwebs taketh away.
As theoretical as this thread has gotten, I think this is the best argument of all. If you make your living through social media, public interest, and a bit of celebrity, there is a downside - you can lose it that way too. And public opinion is fickle. Regardless of his policy of not "selling" stuff, I'm sure he's made more money and been invited to be a paid speaker far more due to his social media presence and lower level "celebrity" status. So now he'll have to go back to being low profile. <shrug> I'll go out on a limb and predict that 5 years from now, he will be supporting himself just fine and probably still occasionally getting plastered and handsy.4 -
There's been a bit of a subcurrent hinting that this situation is some kind of new thing. But it's as old as human culture: Be a big enough jerk, and you'll be penalized socially in some way. It may not be fair, but it's how we enforce decent behavior, and these mechanisms exist alongside the legal system; they aren't trying to do the same cultural job.
Back to hunter/gatherer days, if Qaug acted like a big jerk, outside the norms of his band, people would minimize problematic interactions with him. If he were a big enough jerk, he'd be shunned generally, maybe kicked out altogether. If he was a really, really good hunter, people would put up with more cr*p from him, but there have always been lines no one could cross without social penalties, including penalties that affected wealth, well-being, and even life.
Most of the mechanisms that historically helped this happen were back-channel: Gossiping with friends, one-on-one conversations, letters, work-group networks, etc. And they've always been able to be unfairly exploited by people making false claims.
Am I saying these social mechanisms are an unequivocal good thing? No. But, if you wanna have a nice civilization, they've been a pretty essential thing, until someone comes up with a good alternative. I don't have one.
IMO, what's new here - in this general type of situation, as instantiated by the AA case - is two things:
1. The internet spreads the word about jerks really fast, to lots of people. (If you read all of the AA links, you'll see that there were a lot of one-on-one conversations and private emails behind the scenes, leading up to and surrounding the more public communications that spread the word widely.) Spread of salacious false reports is equally fast, of course.
2. Sexual harassment, once perceived as pretty close to an expected perk of power, one that would be tittered about and excused, has begun to move beyond the pale. It's becoming the expectation that decent powerful people don't behave like that. More victims are being believed, more often. Accusations are taken seriously (sometimes) until disproved.
There have long been kinds of social misbehavior that would have had consequences to the jerk-perpetrator, without legal-system action. Academic dishonesty, temper tantrum childish demands by celebrities, various types of unethical behavior. Sexual harassment is becoming one of them. Do we really want the legal system invoked every time some jerk gets over-handsy? Do we really want ill-behaved jerks to suffer zero consequences because they haven't been convicted in a court of law?
Yes, I think accused people ideally would have some recourse . . . but let's not pretend that claims of sexually inappropriate behavior are somehow special cases in that regard. Social opprobrium over social transgressions is a time-honored feature of culture.
Speaking subjectively, I think it's about time that victims of sexual harassment get more sympathy, and perpetrators less. AA may've broken his rice bowl, but he did the breaking. In the relatively recent past (and sometimes now), the accuser has routinely suffered more than the perpetrator.
Is it morally OK to buy stuff (research, services) from AA? Maybe. Personally, I'd hesitate to do anything that would enable him, going forward, to be in a situation where he could potentially abuse research associates, research subjects, other colleagues, students, etc. I wouldn't like to be complicit. Is he guilty? I don't know for sure. But risk management is in my best interest, for a variety of reasons.
There's no need to discard his past research from the canon, though.
10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions