[skinster]

I don't give a shit about the Democrats or Republicans or this skateboarder you are all sadface about.

[Crantag]

I don't give a shit about the Democrats or Republicans or this skateboarder you are all sadface about.

I figured that you don't, but the two major political parties mostly control the politics in the US, and this consequentially presents essential context.

[snapdragon]

Let me get this clear, crantag.

You admire this guy's prowess on the skateboard. so he therefore anything he chooses to do is a good thing in your eyes?

Even if it was wrong to send pics of other men's willies to women, the Democrats are to blame and not him?

[Crantag]

Again. Ideological purity=bad.

Ideological purity by Democrats/Liberals=joke politics (but even dangerous).

I think he's spark innocent honestly but he was also never charged with any crime anyway.

That's beside the point. There is enough nuance extant to knock over ideological purity.

The denseness of some people is palpable.

In truth standing up for the criminalized in America is the most urgent task for workers, in the broadest of possible respects. Demonization and ideological purity are purely bad.

[Pants-of-dog]

When it comes to ideological purity and accusations of sexual assault or harassment, I think that ideological purity actually hurts the accusers.

We do not live in a society where everyone immediately believes the accusers. The campaign to get people to believe women who come forth with allegations is new, as in within the few years, and even women who are predisposed to believing other women do not believe 100% of the accuations.

On the other hand, we have a widespread societal belief that people are innocent until proven guilty. And this belief has its adherents who demand ideological purity. I myself have been accused of attempting to undermine the basic foundations of western civilisation when I pointed out that this tenet only applies to legal situations.

When it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault, this presumption of innocence translates to a willingness to accuse the woman of making it up. This is one of the rationales for bringing up the whole “false claims” issue every time this debate occurs, or for ascribing ulterior motives to the accusing woman.

And women know they will have to run this gauntlet every time they accuse someone of sexual assault or sexual harassment. This, in turn, means that women will be less likely to come forth when they have been attacked. And if they do come forth and are brave enough to have their reputations publicly attacked, then they still stand a very good chance of watching their attacker get off scot free because of a lack of evidence and the aforementioned presumption of innocence.

This is how I see ideological purity working in these cases, and it helps the attacker get away with it.

[Drlee]

I don't think it is either extreme. Nobody wins. Some (very few of you will be able to understand the first word of this sentence) men have their reputations unfairly tarnished or destroyed and some women will suffer unfair consequences as well.

I see this issue a little like free speech. You have to suffer greatly from it but the alternative is unthinkable.

I reject PODs notion that there are no standards for determining the truth outside of court. There are for each of us and we apply them every day of our lives. I do believe when it is an issue of real import (like trashing someones reputation or destroying their career...on either side) that the bar for proof ought to be very high.

I think the solution should come from education and a proactive effort on the part of industry. I think that the dragging up of decade old problems is unfair and damaging to the very cause they are trying to support.

I am glad I am not playing the dating game these days. More importantly, I am glad I am not running a large company right now. Mediating these disputes offers no good solution. There is no acceptable course of action after the fact, in the face of no actual evidence.

[Rich]

The problem is we find it difficult to deal with uncertainty. People instinctively want to be able to know who to believe. A lot of the justice system deals with the criminal classes. They might not have done the crime they're accused of but they've certainly got away with a load of other crimes. We know they're guilty even we don't know for certain they are guilty of this particular crime. But with sex crime accusations its not like that.

This is why so many people veer to one of the extremes (and even veer back and forth between the extremes). Either the traditional culture where women (and children) are shamed into silence, or feminist fascism where every women (or almost every woman) is automatically believed.

[Drlee]

That is true Rich.

I fear there is no solution to this problem until we can educate a generation or two.

The irony is, of course, that this ought not be a political issue. It should be a matter of law. It actually is, as sexual harassment is already illegal but, as you point out, devilishly hard to enforce.

I think the solution lies in teaching a generation of girls that it is not only OK to say no to unwanted advances but that it is right.

[AFAIK]

If we treat people as innocent until proven guilty we can apply the same standard to accusers. It's a crime to lie to the police and a crime to lie in a court of law so if someone wasn't charged, put on trial, or convicted of filling a false report, perverting the course of justice, etc. we can assume that they are innocent by the same standard that we hold those they accused.

[colliric]

Proof that wisdom comes with age....

[QatzelOk]

I think the solution lies in teaching a generation of girls that it is not only OK to say no to unwanted advances but that it is right.

Why not teach them that it's okay to have sex with whoever they want, instead?

Why not teach boys the same thing?

This would end all sexual violence.

Instead, you propose a re-education campaign aimed at further regulating instinctive behavior. As if we haven't already sublimated ourselves to the edge of collective suicide.

[Negotiator]

I'm confused now ... how exactly would that end all sexual violence ?

The case that A wants B but B doesnt want A will still remain.

[foxdemon]

I'm confused now ... how exactly would that end all sexual violence ?

The case that A wants B but B doesnt want A will still remain.

It won’t. But then how will feminism end all sexual violence? It is like claiming to be able to end all theft. It is an impossible objective.

But campaigning for an impossible objective sure is a good way to justify an eternal campaign. Those who control the campaign’s agenda are guaranteed a position of power and influence in a society that accepts that objective pretty much indefinitely.

Small wonder political agitators of left and right are trying to jump on the band wagon. Maybe people need to give up on impossible objectives?

[One Degree]

Skimming through months of this thread to catch up. Way back, I believe it was @colliric brought up testosterone and no one seemed to take it seriously. I find it curious most think we should simply ignore our biology as a factor. Testosterone fueled by alcohol/drugs is a dangerous combination. No, it does not excuse anything but it is real. This is why almost all violent crime is committed by young men.
Telling them they must control themselves is an oversimplification.

[Zamuel]

Skimming through months of this thread to catch up. Way back, I believe it was @colliric brought up testosterone and no one seemed to take it seriously. I find it curious most think we should simply ignore our biology as a factor. Testosterone fueled by alcohol/drugs is a dangerous combination. No, it does not excuse anything but it is real. This is why almost all violent crime is committed by young men. Telling them they must control themselves is an oversimplification.

Exactly - Basic biological instinct needs to be understood, in both sexes. The girls are even less controlled than the men. Society has traditionally rejected reality in favor of the notion that "we are not animals," when indeed that's all we are.

I find it quite amusing that these "ladies" lining up to stick it to Cosby all took his little pills willingly after in most cases presenting and maneuvering themselves into his "nasty clutches."

Zam

[Godstud]

I find it quite amusing that these "ladies" lining up to stick it to Cosby all took his little pills willingly after in most cases presenting and maneuvering themselves into his "nasty clutches."

Willingly? Are you taking a piss? He lied to them about what the pills would do. You're a misogynist, aren't you?

[Zamuel]

You're a misogynist, aren't you?

Misogynist? No, I enjoy women a lot, they may be challenging but aren't generally competitive. Manipulative as hell though, you have to watch that, but watching them is fun too.

Zam.

[Godstud]

"Enjoying" them, doesn't mean you aren't a misogynist. Strong prejudice against women is also misogyny.

[One Degree]

"Enjoying" them, doesn't mean you aren't a misogynist. Strong prejudice against women is also misogyny.

Calling people misogynistic or racist simply because they point out ‘flaws’ is hilarious. You currently use the terms to ostracize anyone who dares deny the perfection of the group. True equality is accepting others despite their flaws, not pretending they don’t exist.

[Godstud]

Flaws based on opinion, and idiotic fallacies, not facts.