#MeToo Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money Away From Men - Page 80 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15031603
Godstud wrote:Wait a minute, @Pants-of-dog, don't you go bringing the harsh reality into this!

Man hurts woman. Woman calls him on it. Man kills himself because he feels some guilt or so he can avoid proper punishment. That's really all this story is about.


Yes, let's not have any forgiveness in this world.... Eye For An Eye Tooth For A Tooth...

Let's hound him to death then celebrate it, even during his families grief too if we can. Fuck them for supporting him, loving him and missing him.

Yet another male victim of suicide.
#15031606
    Following Eileen Holowka’s tweet about her brother’s death, she offered a response to those who had come out to point fingers and cast blame. “And in case it’s not already fucking obvious, Alec *specifically said* he wished the best for Zoë and everyone else, so don’t use our grief as an excuse to harass people,” she wrote. “Go outside, take care of someone, and work towards preventing these kinds of things in the first place.”

https://kotaku.com/night-in-the-woods-d ... 1837783073
#15031619
maz wrote:she was allegedly sleeping with game journalists
You're pretty quick to condemn the original victim, and not the rapist. You believe that, but not that she was raped. Yep. :roll:

colliric wrote:Yes, let's not have any forgiveness in this world.... Eye For An Eye Tooth For A Tooth...
That's how much of the world works. Reality.

Many times forgiveness is about a person asking for it, and making amends.
#15031946
Twitter is not the place to announce a real rape allegation as we all know. It's just a place to make an rape accusation when you want to take down someone who is prominent and just be a shit-stirrer in general.

Losing his job and ability to make money, plus destroy his family was the punishment because #MeToo is a pretext for women to take power and money away from men.


Regretfully I agree with this. If we are to be a nation of laws we have to start using them properly. Rape is perhaps the second most serious offense save murder. That is not something to be dealt with through social media via unproven allegations.

If this guy was guilty of rape then she should have gone to the police and had him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there was not enough evidence to convict (beyond a reasonable doubt) then she could sue him in civil court where the burden of proof is less. Then, at least, both of them would have their day in court.

The idea that one could be accused of a crime on social media and face consequences of that crime without the possibility of exoneration is frightening. All too often we are seeing the internet used to publish outrageously untrue allegations (on a wide variety of subjects) leaving its victims devastated.

And no POD. I am not going to cut and paste dozens of them for you just after we had extensive congressional hearings on this very subject.
#15031963
Drlee wrote:Regretfully I agree with this. If we are to be a nation of laws we have to start using them properly. Rape is perhaps the second most serious offense save murder. That is not something to be dealt with through social media via unproven allegations.

If this guy was guilty of rape then she should have gone to the police and had him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there was not enough evidence to convict (beyond a reasonable doubt) then she could sue him in civil court where the burden of proof is less. Then, at least, both of them would have their day in court.


Which police force should she have contacted?

And why does this mean that people should not be allowed to talk about these things? I think freedom of speech protects this too.

The idea that one could be accused of a crime on social media and face consequences of that crime without the possibility of exoneration is frightening. All too often we are seeing the internet used to publish outrageously untrue allegations (on a wide variety of subjects) leaving its victims devastated.


So, people who have been targets of abuse should just keep quiet, and the perpetrators should be allowed to live their lives consequence free?

What about in situations where the person is actually guilty, such as in this scenario?

Should the people who have been abused be forced not to mention anything on social media?
#15031982
Which police force should she have contacted?


Her local police, of course.

And why does this mean that people should not be allowed to talk about these things? I think freedom of speech protects this too.


There are such things as liable and slander laws. If she is willing to risk having her ass sued off then I suppose she could speak out. But, she had better be able to prove her allegations. One is not free to slander another person. Political speech is one thing and personal character assassination is another.

I would also hold the social media responsible for publishing libelous information unless they prohibit unfounded allegations on their TOS.

What about in situations where the person is actually guilty, such as in this scenario?


Are you prepared to prove that he is guilty? The law is clear. The truth is an absolute defense. If I know someone is a thief and I can prove it then I can exercise my free speech rights with confidence. If I can't prove it, I make allegations at my own peril. That is and always had been the nature of US free speech laws.

Should the people who have been abused be forced not to mention anything on social media?


If I ran the social media I would prohibit it in the TOS. Why? Because I do not wish to be sued. Hypothetically speaking, the onus is on the abused person to determine whether it is wise... Because POD. accusing a person of abuse, absent the ability to prove the allegations, would be unwise to say the least.

You like to use the word "force" a lot regarding laws. You fail to take into account that Twitter, Facebook and the like are private property. One uses them at the pleasure of the owners and on their terms. If you wish to impose government into these media then that is another thing altogether. Do you want to do that? Do you want the government to require the same free speech rights on social media as one has in the park? Be careful how you answer this. Kids look at Twitter and Facebook all of the time.
#15031984
Drlee wrote:Her local police, of course.


You mean, where she lives now?

There are such things as liable and slander laws. If she is willing to risk having her ass sued off then I suppose she could speak out. But, she had better be able to prove her allegations. One is not free to slander another person. Political speech is one thing and personal character assassination is another.

I would also hold the social media responsible for publishing libelous information unless they prohibit unfounded allegations on their TOS.


So, you think anyone who cannot prove in a court of law that sexual abuse occurred should be banned from discussing it in social media.

Are you prepared to prove that he is guilty? The law is clear. The truth is an absolute defense. If I know someone is a thief and I can prove it then I can exercise my free speech rights with confidence. If I can't prove it, I make allegations at my own peril. That is and always had been the nature of US free speech laws.


US free speech laws are not relevant in this situation.

And you seem to have ignored the words of the abuser’s sister.

If I ran the social media I would prohibit it in the TOS. Why? Because I do not wish to be sued. Hypothetically speaking, the onus is on the abused person to determine whether it is wise... Because POD. accusing a person of abuse, absent the ability to prove the allegations, would be unwise to say the least.

You like to use the word "force" a lot regarding laws. You fail to take into account that Twitter, Facebook and the like are private property. One uses them at the pleasure of the owners and on their terms. If you wish to impose government into these media then that is another thing altogether. Do you want to do that? Do you want the government to require the same free speech rights on social media as one has in the park? Be careful how you answer this. Kids look at Twitter and Facebook all of the time.


I am not saying anything about government being involved in this.

In fact, the idea that people who have lived through abuse can and should be allowed to discuss it, including names, is entirely consistent with having no government regulation on free speech in social media.

You, on the other hand, are arguing that the government should enforce a company’s right to forbid such speech.

And you seem to be saying that the company should limit the freedom of speech of abused people so that they cannot discuss it on social media.
#15032007
You mean, where she lives now?


No. Where the alleged crime occurred.

So, you think anyone who cannot prove in a court of law that sexual abuse occurred should be banned from discussing it in social media.


Reread my response. I was clear as a bell on this. You understand exactly what I posted. I will not play your silly games. Don't bother posting your usual "So no argument". My answer was unambiguous and clear. And, oh by the way, my opinions on this are as irrelevant as yours.

US free speech laws are not relevant in this situation.


Not so. Twitter and Facebook, among others, are US companies doing business in the US and overseas. Foreigners are not prohibited from bringing action in US courts.

I will also note, that the answer to your question (above) is in your quote of me below it. Do try not to waste our time.

In fact, the idea that people who have lived through abuse can and should be allowed to discuss it, including names, is entirely consistent with having no government regulation on free speech in social media.


No its not. Government has no role other than to fund the courts which will hear the libel actions.

You, on the other hand, are arguing that the government should enforce a company’s right to forbid such speech.


Where did I say that? I didn't. They are private companies operating their private property for profit. They can do whatever they like. If you do not like their terms of service you may choose to go elsewhere to post your opinions or read those of others.

And you seem to be saying that the company should limit the freedom of speech of abused people so that they cannot discuss it on social media.


I am not saying what they "should" do at all. I am pointing out the consequences that may occur if they make the wrong decision.

Because others are reading this, and I wish to be kind to them, I will answer this one:

You, on the other hand, are arguing that the government should enforce a company’s right to forbid such speech.


The government does not "enforce" something by doing nothing. As a conservative I believe that the government ought to have a dog in the fight before it acts. Providing courts to handle this sort of thing should be enough.

Companies already have the right to regulate behavior on their own property. At least in the US they do. Other more repressive regimes may choose to force companies to accept a standard that is against their principles but they ought to do this only when there is a compelling reason to do so. The rule of thumb is "make laws when nothing less will prevent considerable harm".
#15032091
Drlee wrote:And no POD. I am not going to cut and paste dozens of them for you just after we had extensive congressional hearings on this very subject.

Could you post a link for me? All my searches turn up articles more than a year old.
#15032160
No. Where the alleged crime occurred.


So, not her local police.

And how would contacting the police in another country somehow impact her decision to also discuss it on social media?

Reread my response. I was clear as a bell on this. You understand exactly what I posted. I will not play your silly games. Don't bother posting your usual "So no argument". My answer was unambiguous and clear. And, oh by the way, my opinions on this are as irrelevant as yours.


As far as I can tell, you are proposing that corporations (working with government) should prohibit people from naming names on social media or otherwise discussing sexual assault.

Not so. Twitter and Facebook, among others, are US companies doing business in the US and overseas. Foreigners are not prohibited from bringing action in US courts.

I will also note, that the answer to your question (above) is in your quote of me below it. Do try not to waste our time.


I doubt US free speech laws are applicable for actions that did not occur in the USA.

No its not. Government has no role other than to fund the courts which will hear the libel actions.


Regardless, the idea that people who have lived through abuse can and should be allowed to discuss it, including names, is entirely consistent with having no government regulation on free speech in social media.

Where did I say that? I didn't. They are private companies operating their private property for profit. They can do whatever they like. If you do not like their terms of service you may choose to go elsewhere to post your opinions or read those of others.

The government does not "enforce" something by doing nothing. As a conservative I believe that the government ought to have a dog in the fight before it acts. Providing courts to handle this sort of thing should be enough.

Companies already have the right to regulate behavior on their own property. At least in the US they do. Other more repressive regimes may choose to force companies to accept a standard that is against their principles but they ought to do this only when there is a compelling reason to do so. The rule of thumb is "make laws when nothing less will prevent considerable harm".


Who else will enforce the company’s rights? Who else will fund the courts in which the company will see its policies enforced?

I am not saying what they "should" do at all. I am pointing out the consequences that may occur if they make the wrong decision.

Because others are reading this, and I wish to be kind to them, I will answer this one:


This is an irrelevant distinction.

I can tell my teenagers that if they do not wash the dishes when I tell them to that they will lose their phone for a day. And this is functionally equivalent to me telling them they “should” wash the dishes.

Most importantly, did you read Eileen Holowka’s words? They are already posted in this thread.
#15032172
I can't seem to figure out when the alleged incidents occurred but they don't appear recent.

Its' worth noting that there doesn't appear to be a statute of limitations on sex assaults in Canada where the incidents are said to have taken place.

The feminist media mafia is rising up to protect a fellow feminist with a very questionable history at best, who many people see as a liar and a scam artist who raised $85000 for a gaming product on Kickstarter campaign and has not delivered on the game.

Gaming's #MeToo Moment and the Tyranny of Male Fragility

By now, women and queer people know how much it costs to confront male violence. The developer Zoe Quinn, who has already faced some of the most poisonous online harassment as enemy number one of Gamergate, went public last week about the extensive emotional and sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of their former partner, developer Alec Holowka. (Quinn uses they/them pronouns.) Others, including Albertine Watson, also came forward about Holowka’s behavior. Like Quinn, and like most people who have been subject to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, they had thought they were the only ones—until someone broke their silence.

Holowka’s colleagues on the popular game Night in the Woods were quick to cut ties with him. “Enough of the allegations are extremely plausible and just about all of it we've corroborated with other sources,” wrote Scott Benson on the game’s Kickstarter page. “I'm not going to list those out here, this isn't a trial, and we don't /owe/ the internet a comprehensive accounting of why so many people who have known Alec for years have looked at the accusations and believed them.”

Then, on Saturday, August 31, Holowka took his own life. This is a tragic story for everyone involved: for Holowka’s family, for his coworkers, and for the women he allegedly victimized over the years. Nothing has been proved in a court of law, but Holowka’s colleagues were quite clear that they find the allegations credible. “Those who know me will know that I believe survivors and I have always done everything I can to support survivors, those suffering from mental illnesses, and those with chronic illnesses,” wrote Eileen Holowka, Alec’s sister, in a post announcing the death of her brother and “best friend.” “Alec was a victim of abuse and he also spent a lifetime battling mood and personality disorders. I will not pretend that he was not also responsible for causing harm.” Eileen Holowka added that “in case it’s not already f****** obvious, Alec *specifically said* he wished the best for Zoë and everyone else, so don’t use our grief as an excuse to harass people.”

The family’s wishes have been ignored; the backlash against Quinn and others has been relentless. According to the logic of an army of concern-trolls, Quinn has blood on their hands. They should have taken Holowka’s fragility into account before “ruining his life.” They are worse than a murderer. Quinn deleted their Twitter account after a barrage of harassment and threats, many of them from people who consider Quinn’s chief crime “inciting harassment.”

The scale of hypocrisy here is so staggering it's almost impressive. People, often young women, who dare to speak up can expect to face public harassment and private retribution. Young women can expect to be punished for the crimes men commit against them—but if they dare to speak up, they are the ones who are “ruining lives.”

The response to the death of Alec Holowka throws this double standard into razor-sharp relief. The harassment of Quinn and others has nothing to do with concern for Holowka and his family and everything to do with making examples of women and queer people who dare to speak out. The message is clear: Men’s mental health matters more than women’s. Men’s suffering and self-loathing is treated as a public concern, because men are permitted to be real people whose inner lives and dreams matter. Who cares, then, how many women they destroy along the way?


The only reason to go on Twitter to claim that someone committed a crime against you instead of going to the police is to attempt to ruin that person's life.
#15032189
So, not her local police.


Duh. So if your car was stolen in Phoenix would you call the Mexican Policia Nacional?

And how would contacting the police in another country somehow impact her decision to also discuss it on social media?


:?: Dumb question. Why would it have anything to do with her decision to post unless the investigators asked her not to for some reason?


As far as I can tell, you are proposing that corporations (working with government) should prohibit people from naming names on social media or otherwise discussing sexual assault.


No. Listen POD. You are dealing with me and not someone else. Here is your answer to another dumb question:

As far as I can tell, you are proposing that corporations (working with government) should prohibit people from naming names on social media...


I am proposing nothing as I have repeatedly said. (Why is this hard for you to understand? I will go forward now assuming that you finally understand that.) I pointed out that corporations MAY want to prohibit naming names because they might be held liable in a libel suit. Full stop. (Of course they may want to do it for other reasons but I have no notion about that.) Are you following me so far?

...(working with the government)....


This has nothing to do with the government. If the government wants to get involved that is its own concern. If corporations want to go to the government for shelter from libel and slander laws as they did with copyright infringement that is their concern.

I doubt US free speech laws are applicable for actions that did not occur in the USA.


What free speech laws? Free speech in the US is a constitutional right and it applies to anyone here. As for what may be the prevailing law elsewhere, I have no idea.


Regardless, the idea that people who have lived through abuse can and should be allowed to discuss it, including names, is entirely consistent with having no government regulation on free speech in social media.


Who is maintaining otherwise? Certainly not me. She is free to post that I am a bank robber. I will, of course, sue the shit out of her for it if she can't prove I am a bank robber so her friends or any other concerned person might advise her not to. And I may sue Facebook (for example) for letting her post it. Only a court can decide then how it comes out. And this is the key POD. Pay attention"

The truth is an absolute defense. If she can prove he did what she says he did then she can post it on every street corner in America. But if she can't prove it she could be subject to a devastating law suit or, in some limited circumstances, criminal penalties.

Who else will enforce the company’s rights? Who else will fund the courts in which the company will see its policies enforced?


The company enforces its own rights. Take POFO for example. If you call me a disparaging name they will simply delete your post. If you persist they will increase the penalty. If you will not stop they will simply cancel your account. There is no government involvement. Nor is there the slightest need for any.

I can tell my teenagers that if they do not wash the dishes when I tell them to that they will lose their phone for a day. And this is functionally equivalent to me telling them they “should” wash the dishes.


You have authority over your children and can sanction them if they refuse as you said. I have no control over Twitter or Facebook. I am not advising the either way. I am not talking to them at all. I am telling you what might happen under certain rare circumstances.

Most importantly, did you read Eileen Holowka’s words? They are already posted in this thread.


Yes But what was said is irrelevant. I really don't care. My point is more general. I am pointing out the nature of the services on which one might wish to air his/her grievances. And I am pointing out that there could be consequences.

You see POD, in the example I gave above about the bank robbery allegation it does not, at the end of the process, matter whether I robbed said bank or not. It matters whether someone can prove it. I may know that I robbed the bank. I may also conclude that although you suspect I did you can't prove it. So if you post that I did rob the bank I can sue you and, if I am correct that you lack evidence, prevail against you in court and wind up with a substantial judgment against you.

Then there is the court of public opinion. Not everyone shares your view of the technique of calling out people on social media without proof. In fact, I suspect that most people don't care for the practice very much. Others may not feel it is an appropriate subject for public discourse at all. For example. I oppose the practice of "outing" homosexuals on social media. I believe it is an invasion of privacy and potentially dangerous to the person who is outed.

So POD. There are any number of ideas that a privately held company may choose to consider when deciding whether or not to allow any behavior. It is their decision.

So in your next post do not begin any sentences with "you" or "so you" or "your believe". You know what I believe now.

If you would like to ask me my opinion about what I think these companies would be wise to do then I am happy to tell you that. I have not done that up to this point
#15032198
The original point you made was that she should have contacted her local police instead of using social media. You have now apparently changed your argument, and instead are now claiming that she should contact the police whose jurisdiction is applicable, and that this is irrelevant to whether or not she also posts on social media.

You have also apparently backed off from your argument that the women or the social media platform should be held accountable for all accusations that have not been supported in a court of law. Instead, you are now arguing that social media companies may and perhaps should clarify in their TOS that libellous and slanderous accusations are not allowed.
#15032251
The original point you made was that she should have contacted her local police instead of using social media. You have now apparently changed your argument, and instead are now claiming that she should contact the police whose jurisdiction is applicable, and that this is irrelevant to whether or not she also posts on social media.


Oh good zinger. :roll:

AS I SAID. She should have contacted the police that had jurisdiction over here vile rape. Apparently you disagree. You seem to believe that she should limit her response to the charge of rape to bitching on the internet. I disagree with you. It appears I consider rape a more serious offense than you do.


You have also apparently backed off from your argument that the women or the social media platform should be held accountable for all accusations that have not been supported in a court of law.


I never said that. You are having some comprehension problems. What I said was that she is subject to the libel laws. If she makes an allegation she cannot prove then she MIGHT be sued and the plaintiff may prevail. Now this is not hard even for you to understand. I have backed off of nothing.

Instead, you are now arguing that social media companies may and perhaps should clarify in their TOS that libellous and slanderous accusations are not allowed.


As I have repeatedly said, and it would appear everyone else here understands, what the social media companies "should" do will no doubt be informed by any liability they might incur. I suggest you consult an attorney if you want to have an opinion on the subject. But you are usually careful so I will assume that you meant to say:

...you are now arguing that social media companies may and perhaps should clarify in their TOS that libellous and slanderous accusations are not allowed.


I would be surprised if their terms of service do not already say that. I know they do in the case of Twitter. Read their terms of service. No doubt they have concluded that is wise.
#15032275
Yeah, so I have still not read any good excuses as to why Zoe Quinn didn't go to the police. In addition to claiming that she was sexually assaulted, she claims that she was held against her will in a foreign country no less, which is probably a very serious charge anywhere! I think it is called false confinement or something?

SpecialOlympian wrote:Lmfao of course Maz is a gamergater.


Well if being against liars and scammers posting accusations of men on social media which lead their employer firing them which in turn leads to the man killing himself then I guess that makes me a gamergater.

But honestly, I've spent the past few days reading posts and listening to videos about Gamergate since I am not a gamer and did not even follow this internet drama at the time.

I realized how much I didn't know from just reading the Wikipedia entry for it, and then reviewing the other side of the story from the gamer side.

Wikipedia, which is known for it's 100% accuracy rating, claims that Zoe Quinn did not sleep with journalists in exchange for good reviews, and that the sexual relationship she had with a gaming journalist and his favorable comments of her game was just a coincidence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I like how maz quoted an article opposing his position.


It was to show how Wired chose a terminally offended feminist to write a totally not biased article defending a fellow feminist traveler. They use the smear of "male fragility" when it is Zoe Quinn who was invited to the UN to demand that their critics be silenced.

One of the things that I like to do when I read an article is image-search the person who wrote it.

Here is the writer, Laurie Penny, who penned the Wired article LMAO

Image

Does anyone think that this person is even capable of writing an article about a sensitive and divisive subject with objectivity? If not, then what does this say about Wired Magazine?

Listen to this crazy woman. She might be saying something interesting or not, but who could even tolerate more than five minutes of this? I couldn't even tolerate more than one minute of creature just because of her voice and mannerism alone!

#15032276
maz wrote:Well if being against liars and scammers posting accusations of men on social media which lead their employer firing them which in turn leads to the man killing himself then I guess that makes me a gamergater.

But honestly, I've spent the past few days reading posts and listening to videos about Gamergate since I am not a gamer and did not even follow this internet drama at the time.

I realized how much I didn't know from just reading the Wikipedia entry for it, and then reviewing the other side of the story from the gamer side.

Wikipedia, which is known for it's 100% accuracy rating, claims that Zoe Quinn did not sleep with journalists in exchange for good reviews, and that the sexual relationship she had with a gaming journalist and his favorable comments of her game was just a coincidence.


Lmao, getting on the gamer incel hate train 5 years after it left the station. What an amazingly useless waste of time. Just god damn haha
  • 1
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
Fighting In Ice Hockey

I'll repeat my response, @Rancid . Fighting in h[…]

You're a dago rather than a wop, so I'm guessing […]

Another persepective is that Germans, like other E[…]

Yes indeed, but not by the Iranian security estab[…]