|
Post by Aime E. Dangerously on Oct 20, 2017 14:29:21 GMT -5
Agree with what people are saying above, that it's like the Saville scandal in the sense that it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Of course, we can't know what's true with so little information so far, but all I'm saying is that people who say that women are making it up are exactly the reason why women (and men too, who perhaps are even less likely to be believed because of society's whole "be a man" attitude) don't come forward with this kind of thing when it happens. Rape is such a complex, traumatic issue, and there are many reasons why people may keep it a secret. Fear of being blamed, feeling shame, not wanting to relive it, it all depends on the person and the situation.
Now with Weinstein being caught out, women may feel like now's the time that they'll finally be listened to.
For every one person telling lies, there's a hundred people telling the truth, and it's time we listened and took it seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 20, 2017 15:26:13 GMT -5
Compulsively acting like a weird dipshit in interview and appearances doesn't help his image either.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 15:35:37 GMT -5
Reporting on an accusation is pretty routine for most news outlets. Also, there's not much corroborating evidence you can really present here - it's essentially he said/she said. It'll be a tough case though, because iirc Blaine admitted to being on heavy drugs during that period of his life so even his own memory probably isn't iron-clad. Well, hopefully the truth of the matter comes out in the end. Hence the problem. How the hell is Blaine supposed to defend himself? The accusation is made, and in this very thread we can see people comparing him to Jimmy Saville with nothing to suggest that's the case. For the rest of his life, this will come up in connection with his name. Saying "well it's tough to come up with evidence" cuts both ways. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we have in this country, and it's disturbing to see how many people are willing to abandon that when the issues is emotional.
|
|
|
Post by The 1Watcher Experience on Oct 20, 2017 15:40:12 GMT -5
Agree with what people are saying above, that it's like the Saville scandal in the sense that it's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, we can't know what's true with so little information so far, but all I'm saying is that people who say that women are making it up are exactly the reason why women (and men too, who perhaps are even less likely to be believed because of society's whole "be a man" attitude) don't come forward with this kind of thing when it happens. Rape is such a complex, traumatic issue, and there are many reasons why people may keep it a secret. Fear of being blamed, feeling shame, not wanting to relive it, it all depends on the person and the situation. Now with Weinstein being caught out, women may feel like now's the time that they'll finally be listened to. For every one person telling lies, there's a hundred people telling the truth, and it's time we listened and took it seriously. Totally agree and I feel horrible for all the victims out there, from the ones that felt forced into silence to the ones bravely taking a stand. I have no sympathy for any that are lying trying to cash in because it hurts the real victims and the reputation of anyone accused.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Oct 20, 2017 15:40:46 GMT -5
Reporting on an accusation is pretty routine for most news outlets. Also, there's not much corroborating evidence you can really present here - it's essentially he said/she said. It'll be a tough case though, because iirc Blaine admitted to being on heavy drugs during that period of his life so even his own memory probably isn't iron-clad. Well, hopefully the truth of the matter comes out in the end. Hence the problem. How the hell is Blaine supposed to defend himself? The accusation is made, and in this very thread we can see people comparing him to Jimmy Saville despite literally any evidence to suggest that's the case. For the rest of his life, this will come up in connection with his name. Saying "well it's tough to come up with evidence" cuts both ways. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we have in this country, and it's disturbing to see how many people are willing to abandon that when the issues is emotional. People aren’t comparing him to Savile the person, the comparison is to the situation here a few years ago where a major story of several allegations allegations made about one person in particular led to similar allegations being made against several other celebrities.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Oct 20, 2017 15:41:48 GMT -5
Reporting on an accusation is pretty routine for most news outlets. Also, there's not much corroborating evidence you can really present here - it's essentially he said/she said. It'll be a tough case though, because iirc Blaine admitted to being on heavy drugs during that period of his life so even his own memory probably isn't iron-clad. Well, hopefully the truth of the matter comes out in the end. Hence the problem. How the hell is Blaine supposed to defend himself? The accusation is made, and in this very thread we can see people comparing him to Jimmy Saville with nothing to suggest that's the case. For the rest of his life, this will come up in connection with his name. Saying "well it's tough to come up with evidence" cuts both ways. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we have in this country, and it's disturbing to see how many people are willing to abandon that when the issues is emotional. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard of conduct for our criminal justice system, not for the expression of a private individual's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 15:42:29 GMT -5
Hence the problem. How the hell is Blaine supposed to defend himself? The accusation is made, and in this very thread we can see people comparing him to Jimmy Saville despite literally any evidence to suggest that's the case. For the rest of his life, this will come up in connection with his name. Saying "well it's tough to come up with evidence" cuts both ways. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we have in this country, and it's disturbing to see how many people are willing to abandon that when the issues is emotional. People aren’t comparing him to Savile the person, the comparison is to the situation here a few years ago where a major story of several allegations allegations made about one person in particular led to similar allegations being made against several other celebrities. . I'll own that I glanced over a lot of this thread. If that is the case, I apologise for my rush to judgment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 15:43:58 GMT -5
Reporting on an accusation is pretty routine for most news outlets. Also, there's not much corroborating evidence you can really present here - it's essentially he said/she said. It'll be a tough case though, because iirc Blaine admitted to being on heavy drugs during that period of his life so even his own memory probably isn't iron-clad. Well, hopefully the truth of the matter comes out in the end. Hence the problem. How the hell is Blaine supposed to defend himself? The accusation is made, and in this very thread we can see people comparing him to Jimmy Saville with nothing to suggest that's the case. For the rest of his life, this will come up in connection with his name. Saying "well it's tough to come up with evidence" cuts both ways. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we have in this country, and it's disturbing to see how many people are willing to abandon that when the issues is emotional. It does cut both ways. No one is abandoning "innocent until proven guilty" due to emotions or otherwise as far as I can tell. No trial has even begun yet. That's up the lawyers and jury to work out. It seems to me that the an accusation was made, he denies it - BOTH were reported on in every outlet I saw. No one has been crucified, publicly or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 15:44:13 GMT -5
Hence the problem. How the hell is Blaine supposed to defend himself? The accusation is made, and in this very thread we can see people comparing him to Jimmy Saville with nothing to suggest that's the case. For the rest of his life, this will come up in connection with his name. Saying "well it's tough to come up with evidence" cuts both ways. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we have in this country, and it's disturbing to see how many people are willing to abandon that when the issues is emotional. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard of conduct for our criminal justice system, not for the expression of a private individual's opinion. Perhaps not. My point was that it seems that the accusation has been made, and with no evidence one way or the other people seem willing to accept it as gospel.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 15:47:19 GMT -5
Hence the problem. How the hell is Blaine supposed to defend himself? The accusation is made, and in this very thread we can see people comparing him to Jimmy Saville with nothing to suggest that's the case. For the rest of his life, this will come up in connection with his name. Saying "well it's tough to come up with evidence" cuts both ways. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard we have in this country, and it's disturbing to see how many people are willing to abandon that when the issues is emotional. It does cut both ways. No one is abandoning "innocent until proven" guilty as far as I can tell. No trial has even begun yet. That's up the lawyers and jury to work out. And there isn't likely to be one, due to a lack of evidence. But the accusation has been made in the public sphere, and Blaine will now have to suffer the consequences. If he in fact did what he's accused of, there was a time to pursue that avenue of investigation. Hitting him 10 years after the fact with an unprovable accusation, that the media is willing to run with, just rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 15:50:39 GMT -5
It does cut both ways. No one is abandoning "innocent until proven" guilty as far as I can tell. No trial has even begun yet. That's up the lawyers and jury to work out. And there isn't likely to be one, due to a lack of evidence. But the accusation has been made in the public sphere, and Blaine will now have to suffer the consequences. If he in fact did what he's accused of, there was a time to pursue that avenue of investigation. Hitting him 10 years after the fact with an unprovable accusation, that the media is willing to run with, just rubs me the wrong way. The media isn't running with anything, they are simply reporting accusations. If people are so eager to believe an accusation is true, that is not the responsibility of journalists to weigh when reporting something. They simply report facts. The fact is an accusation was made. There is no standard for dealing with rape in that manner. There have been countless cases of people waiting to come forward for various, legitimate reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Oct 20, 2017 15:51:17 GMT -5
It does cut both ways. No one is abandoning "innocent until proven" guilty as far as I can tell. No trial has even begun yet. That's up the lawyers and jury to work out. And there isn't likely to be one, due to a lack of evidence. But the accusation has been made in the public sphere, and Blaine will now have to suffer the consequences. If he in fact did what he's accused of, there was a time to pursue that avenue of investigation. Hitting him 10 years after the fact with an unprovable accusation, that the media is willing to run with, just rubs me the wrong way. And unfortunately this is not remotely new or unique to his situation.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 15:55:24 GMT -5
And there isn't likely to be one, due to a lack of evidence. But the accusation has been made in the public sphere, and Blaine will now have to suffer the consequences. If he in fact did what he's accused of, there was a time to pursue that avenue of investigation. Hitting him 10 years after the fact with an unprovable accusation, that the media is willing to run with, just rubs me the wrong way. The media isn't running with anything, they are simply reporting accusations. If people are so eager to believe an accusation is true, that is not the responsibility of journalists to weigh when reporting something. They simply report facts. The fact is an accusation was made. There is no standard for dealing with rape in that manner. There have been countless cases of people waiting to come forward for various, legitimate reasons. Agree to disagree. Particularly in an era where they are under attack from powerful people, I think journalists have an obligation to stick strictly to what is provable. Besmirching someone's name without being able to back it up is slander, pure and simple. An accusation, to my mind, is not newsworthy unless diligent reporting suggests there is fire to the smoke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 15:57:42 GMT -5
That's the media for you.
If he did it, he's scum and who cares?
If he didn't, all they'll do is go JK LOL and he'll forever be thought of as a rapist anyways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:00:23 GMT -5
The media isn't running with anything, they are simply reporting accusations. If people are so eager to believe an accusation is true, that is not the responsibility of journalists to weigh when reporting something. They simply report facts. The fact is an accusation was made. There is no standard for dealing with rape in that manner. There have been countless cases of people waiting to come forward for various, legitimate reasons. Agree to disagree. Particularly in an era where they are under attack from powerful people, I think journalists have an obligation to stick strictly to what is provable. Besmirching someone's name without being able to back it up is slander, pure and simple. An accusation, to my mind, is not newsworthy unless diligent reporting suggests there is fire to the smoke. Just for clarifications sake, you're saying, for example, these allegations against Harvey Weinstein should never have made the papers because they are not "provable?"
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 16:01:50 GMT -5
Agree to disagree. Particularly in an era where they are under attack from powerful people, I think journalists have an obligation to stick strictly to what is provable. Besmirching someone's name without being able to back it up is slander, pure and simple. An accusation, to my mind, is not newsworthy unless diligent reporting suggests there is fire to the smoke. Just for clarifications sake, you're saying, for example, these allegations against Harvey Weinstein should never have made the papers because they are not "provable?" Accusations from dozens of parties over decades, aggregated by journalists before they published anything. It isn't even the same galaxy.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Oct 20, 2017 16:03:30 GMT -5
I was actually doing some reading up on the whole “should it be reported just on an allegation” stuff and found a poll done in the UK. 75% of people polled think in these kind of accusations that no one should be named until at the very least, they are formally charged. As I said earlier, it’s really a shitty situation. If a celeb is named and the allegations are found to have no merit, the accused has their name tarnished even though they’re innocent. It can also prevent those people who have had crimes committed against them from coming forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:03:37 GMT -5
Just for clarifications sake, you're saying, for example, these allegations against Harvey Weinstein should never have made the papers because they are not "provable?" Accusations from dozens of parties over decades, aggregated by journalists before they published anything. It isn't even the same galaxy. I mean, you realize you're essentially saying that someone must commit sexual assault or rape multiple times over a long period of time before they can be publicly accused of it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:05:13 GMT -5
I was actually doing some reading up on the whole “should it be reported just on an allegation” stuff and found a poll done in the UK. 75% of people polled think in these kind of accusations that no one should be named until at the very least, they are formally charged. As I said earlier, it’s really a shitty situation. If a celeb is named and the allegations are found to have no merit, the accused has their name tarnished even though they’re innocent. It can also prevent those people who have had crimes committed against them from coming forward. That's celebs. Think if you're just some schmoe. You pretty much have to move and start over.
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 16:08:35 GMT -5
Accusations from dozens of parties over decades, aggregated by journalists before they published anything. It isn't even the same galaxy. I mean, you realize you're essentially saying that someone must commit sexual assault or rape multiple times over a long period of time before they can be publicly accused of it? . I feel I've made myself very clear. Weinstein has dozens, probably hundreds of accusations logged against him. Many have been substatianted by people with nothing to gain by lying, and police files confirm that at the very least the accusations were made in a timely fashion. The cover up was disgraceful but nothing suggests that is happening here. If you can't or won't see the difference, I don't know what else I can say.
|
|