|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Oct 20, 2017 16:08:50 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. I agree but regardless if you are a wealthy celeb or an average everyday guy, you still have the same rights. Granted, an everyday guy probably wouldn’t have the allegations made on an international news level but it would still be public knowledge is that they were accused of something. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:13:05 GMT -5
That's celebs. Think if you're just some schmoe. You pretty much have to move and start over. I agree but regardless if you are a wealthy celeb or an average everyday guy, you still have the same rights. Granted, an everyday guy probably wouldn’t have the allegations made on an international news level but it would still be public knowledge is that they were accused of something. Apparently someone doesn't subscribe to I am the center of my own universe magazine. Though the decision for the publisher/editor/writer(s) who are all me deciding to bury me publicly like that is kinda baffling... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:16:10 GMT -5
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. My point was more in the way of "where do you draw the line between 'proof' and 'no proof?' What's the correct number? If a perpetrator only does it once - does that mean they cannot be accused of something and that reported on? What if the first person to come forward about Weinstein met with the same "but where's the proof? We can't publish this accusation" line of thinking? Look, I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm right, just that when you go down the road of "accusations shouldn't be published without PROOF" it seems like you should have a very concrete idea of what that is, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:17:02 GMT -5
I agree but regardless if you are a wealthy celeb or an average everyday guy, you still have the same rights. Granted, an everyday guy probably wouldn’t have the allegations made on an international news level but it would still be public knowledge is that they were accused of something. Apparently someone doesn't subscribe to I am the center of my own universe magazine. Though the decision for the publisher/editor/writer(s) who are all me deciding to bury me publicly like that is kinda baffling... Talk about self-loathing....! |
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 16:22:11 GMT -5
. 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. My point was more in the way of "where do you draw the line between 'proof' and 'no proof?' What's the correct number? If a perpetrator only does it once - does that mean they cannot be accused of something and that reported on? What if the first person to come forward about Weinstein met with the same "but where's the proof? We can't publish this accusation" line of thinking? Look, I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm right, just that when you go down the road of "accusations shouldn't be published without PROOF" it seems like you should have a very concrete idea of what that is, right? I don't, but ten years after the fact with no corroborating evidence, well after the statute of limitations has expired, when the only outcome can be to damage the reputation of someone who can't defend themselves in any meaningful fashion? That isn't it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:24:21 GMT -5
My point was more in the way of "where do you draw the line between 'proof' and 'no proof?' What's the correct number? If a perpetrator only does it once - does that mean they cannot be accused of something and that reported on? What if the first person to come forward about Weinstein met with the same "but where's the proof? We can't publish this accusation" line of thinking? Look, I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm right, just that when you go down the road of "accusations shouldn't be published without PROOF" it seems like you should have a very concrete idea of what that is, right? I don't, but ten years after the fact with no corroborating evidence, well after the statute of limitations has expired, when the only outcome can be to damage the reputation of someone who can't defend themselves in any meaningful fashion? That isn't it. And what do you suggest a legitimate victim do if they can't find the courage to come forward until years later? - again - not asking you in an attacking way - just genuinely wondering? |
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 16:30:32 GMT -5
I don't, but ten years after the fact with no corroborating evidence, well after the statute of limitations has expired, when the only outcome can be to damage the reputation of someone who can't defend themselves in any meaningful fashion? That isn't it. And what do you suggest a legitimate victim do if they can't find the courage to come forward until years later? - again - not asking you in an attacking way - just genuinely wondering? . I can't answer that. that sexual assault happens is a reality and it's a tragedy. But a rush to judgment is how stuff like the "A Rape On Campus" story gets published and sets the whole culture back years. Is it possible she's telling the truth and Blaine is a complete POS? Absolutely. But in the absence of proof or a surplus of circumstantial evidence, I think a publisher has an obligation to say "no". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:35:20 GMT -5
And what do you suggest a legitimate victim do if they can't find the courage to come forward until years later? - again - not asking you in an attacking way - just genuinely wondering? . I can't answer that. that sexual assault happens is a reality and it's a tragedy. But a rush to judgment is how stuff like the "A Rape On Campus" story gets published and sets the whole culture back years. Is it possible she's telling the truth and Blaine is a complete POS? Absolutely. But in the absence of proof or a surplus of circumstantial evidence, I think a publisher has an obligation to say "no". Yeah, agree to disagree on that last point. I think the larger issue is that public needs to understand the difference between an accusation and a statement of fact, but there you go. |
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Oct 20, 2017 16:39:25 GMT -5
. 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. What if the first person to come forward about Weinstein met with the same "but where's the proof? We can't publish this accusation" line of thinking? That actually pretty much happened. Both the NY Times and the New Yorker sat on the story for almost a year while they investigated, got more sources, verification, found other victims, verified their story etc. They knew if they ran a story saying "This woman was assaulted by Harvey Weinstein" without anything else they'd have been crucified. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:40:31 GMT -5
What if the first person to come forward about Weinstein met with the same "but where's the proof? We can't publish this accusation" line of thinking? That actually pretty much happened. Both the NY Times and the New Yorker sat on the story for almost a year while they investigated, got more sources, verification, found other victims, verified their story etc. They knew if they ran a story saying "This woman was assaulted by Harvey Weinstein" without anything else they'd have been crucified. My point was more about if someone came forward early on. Like one of the first women he assaulted. |
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 16:40:36 GMT -5
. I can't answer that. that sexual assault happens is a reality and it's a tragedy. But a rush to judgment is how stuff like the "A Rape On Campus" story gets published and sets the whole culture back years. Is it possible she's telling the truth and Blaine is a complete POS? Absolutely. But in the absence of proof or a surplus of circumstantial evidence, I think a publisher has an obligation to say "no". Yeah, agree to disagree on that last point. I think the larger issue is that public needs to understand the difference between an accusation and a statement of fact, but there you go. Trying not to break any board rules but we have seen ample evidence recently that if it's said on TV by an authority figure at all, it's treated as gospel by a large percentage of the population. I don't see that changing anytime soon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:49:06 GMT -5
Yeah, agree to disagree on that last point. I think the larger issue is that public needs to understand the difference between an accusation and a statement of fact, but there you go. Trying not to break any board rules but we have seen ample evidence recently that if it's said on TV by an authority figure at all, it's treated as gospel by a large percentage of the population. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Not disagreeing with you there, but that doesn't mean news outlets should dumb themselves down... that's how we got these 24 hour news networks, but that's getting a bit off topic for this thread. This digression has digressed far enough probably. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 16:50:59 GMT -5
I feel both you boys. And.... I WILL FEEL BOTH YOU BOYS, unless of course you're into it. Kinda kills it for me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Natural Born Farmer on Oct 20, 2017 16:56:29 GMT -5
Trying not to break any board rules but we have seen ample evidence recently that if it's said on TV by an authority figure at all, it's treated as gospel by a large percentage of the population. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Not disagreeing with you there, but that doesn't mean news outlets should dumb themselves down... that's how we got these 24 hour news networks, but that's getting a bit off topic for this thread. This digression has digressed far enough probably. . I reckon. Worthy opponent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 17:10:30 GMT -5
Proud of you both.
It's tough, I know.
I equate it personally to being like okay, I'm a new WWE hire who is a famed lucha guy. A got flippy beyond flippy, but they got a guy that comes off the top so they want me work the mats. I really can't, but I will. They also want me to downplay my being Hispanic. So basically, everything that I am that even lead to my hiring in the first place needs suppressed because That's what's "best for business." THAT to me is posting in such an environment.
I of course kid, but there's something to it. I think they're probably right to approach it as they do though. For every hero that can be like "okay. that guy thinks that. Whatever." there's easily billions of trolls and crybabies who would whip up a dervish in an instant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 19:28:06 GMT -5
Since no initial police report was made so outside of him outright admitting it instead of just saying they had some drinks together (she was 21) how can this be prosecuted? This is the difficult thing about victims waiting so long.
-edit- after reading the third page it seems others brought this up as well. I am definitely not victim shaming I am just curious as to the process of this
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Oct 20, 2017 20:24:37 GMT -5
Open season on scumbags it seems. Right on.
|
|
