Tony Robbins and #MeToo

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Everyone deserves a fair trial. There are definite cases where a guy's life has been ruined because of a false rape accusation so yeah, protections need to be put in place to stop that happening.

But in addition to that everyone deserves a fair trial and this incudes the possible rape victim. The same way you shouldn't go around accusing people of rape without proving it you also shouldn't accuse people of faking/hyping up rape charges for the attention without proving it and there needs to be protections put in place to stop that happening too.

Eh, kinda? We're still an innocent until proven guilty country. Its not an accused job to prove he didn't rape someone, its the accusers job to prove he did.
Absent any evidence at all, just claiming someone raped someone else isn't enough to get charges, let alone a conviction. Probably isn't enough for an arrest.
Tony went stupidly, horrendously over the line. But his bit about #MeToo being used to people to garner attention, regardless if they've been sexually assaulted, is a legit point to make, and he should have shut his mouth there.

I agree that it shouldn't be on the accused person to prove their innocence. However, there is one problem and that is while an accusation won't get charges, conviction, or an arrest, false accusations can ruin a person's life. I have a friend who is going through that since the middle of last year and his life is in turmoil.

He's a teacher and he essentially has to fight to prove his innocence if he wants to have any hope of a future even though he didn't do anything wrong. The accusations, even though false, could end his career if they get out. All because of a jealous woman with a broken heart.

And the saddest part of all this is that now anytime him or any of his friends, male or female, hear someone claim they've been raped, we all question it instead of believing her. The worst thing that a false claim does is make everyone question legitimate claims more.

I remember reading an opinion piece that a false accuser should face the same potential punishment as the punishment faced by the person they falsely accused. And while that makes sense for a very basic point, I hesitate. Like if someone is falsely accused of murder, should the accuser face the death penalty?

As for questioning legitimate claims, we already do that. 100% question, and its the right thing to do - its called due-process. A case is opened, evidence gathered, witnesses questioned, and requisitioned, lawyers brought in, courts brought in, cross-examination and entering of evidence.
We question all rape 'victims' because its a very serious crime, with very serious consequences, and we as a society want to be as close to 100% sure as we can be before passing judgement on someone.
And by questioning I do not mean accuse of lying or assuming false. I mean evidence has to be found, the accused has the right to defend themselves, and the accuser has to be at least accepting of the fact that a court may rule against them.
it always gets my gut when some lawyer in a high-profile case tells the media after the ruling "We will continue to seek justice!" Dude, you already did, and justice was served. That's what the whole court case and ruling from a judge was about.

 

[secretkeeper12]

Am a little confused as to the reason why some of his clients say they see hiring attractive women as a risk though. Is this an "attractive women are more likely to make up sexual harrassment stories" thing or a "men will just not be able to help themselves around them" thing? Perhaps a bastard child of both? Sexual harrassment is only a state of mind anyway, bro.

Yeah, that sounds like the exact kind of culture women are trying to change with this movement. To many, Robbins confirmed himself to be a little misogynistic when he validated bosses who do that. Like, a woman can't expect a fair chance at being hired if she's pretty? What kind of message is that?

I remember reading an opinion piece that a false accuser should face the same potential punishment as the punishment faced by the person they falsely accused. And while that makes sense for a very basic point, I hesitate. Like if someone is falsely accused of murder, should the accuser face the death penalty?

I think a false claim should be treated as Perjury, and the false accuser subject to the punishment for it.

According to Cornell, the max sentence for perjury is 5 years [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621] That's more reasonable than an equal sentence of sexual assault; in New York state, rapes are a class B felony and can require a sentence of up to 25 years. [https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/new-york-felony-class.htm]

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I think a false claim should be treated as Perjury, and the false accuser subject to the punishment for it.

According to Cornell, the max sentence for perjury is 5 years [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621] That's more reasonable than an equal sentence of sexual assault; in New York state, rapes are a class B felony and can require a sentence of up to 25 years. [https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/new-york-felony-class.htm]

I wonder if they could do something like Malicious Perjury? Like lying to a court to save you own ass should be a different class than lying to a court to purposefully hurt someone else.
One is self-protective, if stupid, the other is directly malicious.

 

[Trunkage]

I think a false claim should be treated as Perjury, and the false accuser subject to the punishment for it.

According to Cornell, the max sentence for perjury is 5 years [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621] That's more reasonable than an equal sentence of sexual assault; in New York state, rapes are a class B felony and can require a sentence of up to 25 years. [https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/new-york-felony-class.htm]

I wonder if they could do something like Malicious Perjury? Like lying to a court to save you own ass should be a different class than lying to a court to purposefully hurt someone else.
One is self-protective, if stupid, the other is directly malicious.

You never going to get 100% no false claims. In copyright law, they have SLAPP which goes beyond perjury and is meant to provide extra disincentives for patent trolls. So an extra law, similar to this could be added. I think it should be more based on the severity of the accusation, 5 years for false claims of fraud or copyright cases. 10 for murder or rape. It's not perfect but hopefully it would help

Edit: Dealth penalty for rape? Wouldn't it have to include murder?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I remember reading an opinion piece that a false accuser should face the same potential punishment as the punishment faced by the person they falsely accused. And while that makes sense for a very basic point, I hesitate. Like if someone is falsely accused of murder, should the accuser face the death penalty?

Well, if they accuse someone of murder, knowing that they could get the death penalty if convicted, isn't that attempted murder?

OTOH, while this might deter false accusations, it's also going to deter true accusations. In regards to sexual assault, those are too well deterred already. You going to accuse someone rich and powerful with good lawyers of something? As it is that's not a good idea, less so if you run the risk of being locked up for doing so.

it always gets my gut when some lawyer in a high-profile case tells the media after the ruling "We will continue to seek justice!" Dude, you already did, and justice was served. That's what the whole court case and ruling from a judge was about.

Yes and no. On the one hand, yeah, there was a judgement. On the other, it proved that they couldn't find the accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Not the same as finding them innocent.

 

[ErrrorWayz]

So, the motivational speaker Tony Robbins recently made a gaffunk on stage when he said some people misuse the #MeToo movement to feel "significant."

Well, people use every hashtag to make themselves feel significant. That's no more of an issue than Twitter in general (which is an issue, don't get me wrong). What really worries people though, is the potential for strategic accusations.

I can't really see what this guy here has done that warrants any sort of internet mob response, though. He's no worse than any other motivational speaker selling bullshit to the masses.

(Actually, saying that, there is a certain irony in a man who makes a living out of making people feel significant complaining about people feeling significant through use of a hashtag...)

Did you really not read beyond that sentence? I mean it clearly explained how he then followed that up by badgering an actual sexual assault victim on stage. I get that it doesn't fit with your storyline, but come the hell on mate.

What was the extent of the "sexual assault" you keep referring to? Do you know? Was she raped? Did someone pinch her bum? Did her boss ask her for a drink? By conflating these things it certainly helps folk build their hand wringing storylines.

That aside, no matter how people try to cut it, the #metoo thing is absolutely out of control, extra judicial mob rule. Its chilling in its persistence, its law-free pesudo-moralising, the damage it wreaks on justice and, perhaps most worryingly, the ease with which it is used for personal media gain.

Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

 

[maninahat]

So, the motivational speaker Tony Robbins recently made a gaffunk on stage when he said some people misuse the #MeToo movement to feel "significant."

Well, people use every hashtag to make themselves feel significant. That's no more of an issue than Twitter in general (which is an issue, don't get me wrong). What really worries people though, is the potential for strategic accusations.

I can't really see what this guy here has done that warrants any sort of internet mob response, though. He's no worse than any other motivational speaker selling bullshit to the masses.

(Actually, saying that, there is a certain irony in a man who makes a living out of making people feel significant complaining about people feeling significant through use of a hashtag...)

Did you really not read beyond that sentence? I mean it clearly explained how he then followed that up by badgering an actual sexual assault victim on stage. I get that it doesn't fit with your storyline, but come the hell on mate.

What was the extent of the "sexual assault" you keep referring to? Do you know? Was she raped? Did someone pinch her bum? Did her boss ask her for a drink? By conflating these things it certainly helps folk build their hand wringing storylines.

Whereas you, by not knowing the details, are trivialising her circumstances.

That aside, no matter how people try to cut it, the #metoo thing is absolutely out of control, extra judicial mob rule. Its chilling in its persistence, its law-free pesudo-moralising, the damage it wreaks on justice and, perhaps most worryingly, the ease with which it is used for personal media gain.

Yes, Have you seen the lynching in the street? The bosses hanging from lamposts? The celebrities thrown in jail without fair trial? Oh, no you haven't. Because none of that has happened. The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing.

Also, whilst I agree it must occasionally happen, I'm struggling to see the benefits of a woman dishonestly announcing they have been sexually assaulted by a celebrity. Generally speaking, its these people who then get the most severe abuse, from fans and from people who paradoxically believe these women just want attention.

Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

I don't have a financial times subscription, but even reading around, I don't see how her's and the CPS's incompetent failures to follow legal procedure tie in to a goddamn twitter campaign against unrelated celebrities.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Just one of many stupid things innumerable ignorant people have said in regards to sexual assault. Sadly though I am not at all surprised, I hear people say stupid things all the time because they do not or are not willing to fully understand the scope of the problem or adequately address the issue. When most every female I know has been sexually assaulted and/or harassed including myself repeatedly throughout our lives on a regular basis, I have no idea how people could not notice how rampant and serious this actually is.

I am still in shock that as many women who have spoken up actually bothered to do so since most who are assaulted or raped never speak up. Not bothering to get my hopes up however that this will change anything, it may even set things back in time rather than actually help reduce the number of people being assaulted. As long as it remains extremely difficult to get convictions, regardless of the evidence, I do not see it changing all that much within my lifetime.

 

[Satinavian]

I wonder if they could do something like Malicious Perjury? Like lying to a court to save you own ass should be a different class than lying to a court to purposefully hurt someone else.
One is self-protective, if stupid, the other is directly malicious.

The problem with rape and even more so sexual harrassment is that it is very hard, often impossible to prove.
But at the same time it is nearly as hard to disprove. Which would be necessary to prove a false accusation.

Which under "innocent until proven guilty" means that both the accuser and the accused are to be treated as innocent most of the time.
It is very secondary how it is punished.


On the whole :

Is #metoo still a thing in the US? That is kind of surprising.

 

[ErrrorWayz]

So, the motivational speaker Tony Robbins recently made a gaffunk on stage when he said some people misuse the #MeToo movement to feel "significant."

Well, people use every hashtag to make themselves feel significant. That's no more of an issue than Twitter in general (which is an issue, don't get me wrong). What really worries people though, is the potential for strategic accusations.

I can't really see what this guy here has done that warrants any sort of internet mob response, though. He's no worse than any other motivational speaker selling bullshit to the masses.

(Actually, saying that, there is a certain irony in a man who makes a living out of making people feel significant complaining about people feeling significant through use of a hashtag...)

Did you really not read beyond that sentence? I mean it clearly explained how he then followed that up by badgering an actual sexual assault victim on stage. I get that it doesn't fit with your storyline, but come the hell on mate.

What was the extent of the "sexual assault" you keep referring to? Do you know? Was she raped? Did someone pinch her bum? Did her boss ask her for a drink? By conflating these things it certainly helps folk build their hand wringing storylines.

Whereas you, by not knowing the details, are trivialising her circumstances.

I don't feel I am trivialising anything by asking for the full facts of a situation. Indeed, it would be intellectually weak to make a judgement without the full facts. If someone else wants to use her case as "evidence" of something being widespread they need explain their evidence.

I note the person challenged did not reply because they obviously have no idea what "sexual assault" she "survived".

Seems like a perfect example of the band wagon moralising conflating all forms of sexual crime into one hysterical catch all causes.

That aside, no matter how people try to cut it, the #metoo thing is absolutely out of control, extra judicial mob rule. Its chilling in its persistence, its law-free pesudo-moralising, the damage it wreaks on justice and, perhaps most worryingly, the ease with which it is used for personal media gain.

Yes, Have you seen the lynching in the street? The bosses hanging from lamposts? The celebrities thrown in jail without fair trial? Oh, no you haven't. Because none of that has happened. The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing.

Wow, yes, you very much are using it entirely inaccurately!

Given the speed with which you accused me of "trivialising" something you seem to be very quick to do so, "meh, so some people lost their jobs, were socially shunned and had their lives destroyed for a couple of years but who cares they were men".

This chap below hung himself. The entire article talks about the stigma and mental health repercussions involved.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11912748/Guilty-until-proven-innocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html

Here's a charming tale of a chap who spent 2 years being investigated only to have his case dropped - that must have been a fun 2 years... The very problem is that judicial process has been warped by the hysteria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42745181

I really do find it baffling you are so quick to claim victimhood for women and so dismissive of men's lives being ruined?

Also, whilst I agree it must occasionally happen, I'm struggling to see the benefits of a woman dishonestly announcing they have been sexually assaulted by a celebrity. Generally speaking, its these people who then get the most severe abuse, from fans and from people who paradoxically believe these women just want attention.

It's not occasional but it is extremely hard to find accurate statistics on false allegations because it's hard to define a false allegation but (usually depending on the bias of the party reporting) they are pitched between 3% and 10% of all claims. In 2017, that's 6079 to 20,263 cases annually, based on RapeCrisis numbers.

Frankly, I am surprised if you can't see the motivation, I think you are doing so wilfully because it's patently obvious the motive is money.

Here's some people who probably were assaulted and still took money in lieu of making a case (and then made a case anyway)...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html

[Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

I don't have a financial times subscription, but even reading around, I don't see how her's and the CPS's incompetent failures to follow legal procedure tie in to a goddamn twitter campaign against unrelated celebrities.

Well, the climate of hysteria engendered (ha!) by social media and keyboard "activism" has started to infect public discourse so much it is bending the legal system toward "encouraging" conviction. The onus is now so much on believing claimants that it led to the collapse of every UK rape trial.

This is similar to the Rochdale abuse cases, where organised rings of child abusers were ignored for nearly a decade because the police feared being accused of being racist.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So, the motivational speaker Tony Robbins recently made a gaffunk on stage when he said some people misuse the #MeToo movement to feel "significant."

Well, people use every hashtag to make themselves feel significant. That's no more of an issue than Twitter in general (which is an issue, don't get me wrong). What really worries people though, is the potential for strategic accusations.

I can't really see what this guy here has done that warrants any sort of internet mob response, though. He's no worse than any other motivational speaker selling bullshit to the masses.

(Actually, saying that, there is a certain irony in a man who makes a living out of making people feel significant complaining about people feeling significant through use of a hashtag...)

Did you really not read beyond that sentence? I mean it clearly explained how he then followed that up by badgering an actual sexual assault victim on stage. I get that it doesn't fit with your storyline, but come the hell on mate.

What was the extent of the "sexual assault" you keep referring to? Do you know? Was she raped? Did someone pinch her bum? Did her boss ask her for a drink? By conflating these things it certainly helps folk build their hand wringing storylines.

Whereas you, by not knowing the details, are trivialising her circumstances.

That aside, no matter how people try to cut it, the #metoo thing is absolutely out of control, extra judicial mob rule. Its chilling in its persistence, its law-free pesudo-moralising, the damage it wreaks on justice and, perhaps most worryingly, the ease with which it is used for personal media gain.

Yes, Have you seen the lynching in the street? The bosses hanging from lamposts? The celebrities thrown in jail without fair trial? Oh, no you haven't. Because none of that has happened. The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing.

Also, whilst I agree it must occasionally happen, I'm struggling to see the benefits of a woman dishonestly announcing they have been sexually assaulted by a celebrity. Generally speaking, its these people who then get the most severe abuse, from fans and from people who paradoxically believe these women just want attention.

Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

I don't have a financial times subscription, but even reading around, I don't see how her's and the CPS's incompetent failures to follow legal procedure tie in to a goddamn twitter campaign against unrelated celebrities.

It isn't about them being celebrities. It is about them having power over women to keep them silent. Celebrities finally speaking out against other celebrities and others in positions of power over them was their way of saying " You do not have to keep silent anymore, it is safe to speak up now because you are not alone." The reality of sexual assault is women for many generations now understand all too well it is far better to keep silent and pretend nothing happened or you can lose who you are, everything you have worked for, destroy your relationships, and ruin the rest of your life. The socially " accepted" response to being raped and abused is to pretend like it never happened. The whole " me too" thing was to show that needs to change. It was their effort to actually change that. Reality is though nothing has changed as long as women can still be harmed for telling the truth about what happens to them.

 

[ErrrorWayz]

So, the motivational speaker Tony Robbins recently made a gaffunk on stage when he said some people misuse the #MeToo movement to feel "significant."

Well, people use every hashtag to make themselves feel significant. That's no more of an issue than Twitter in general (which is an issue, don't get me wrong). What really worries people though, is the potential for strategic accusations.

I can't really see what this guy here has done that warrants any sort of internet mob response, though. He's no worse than any other motivational speaker selling bullshit to the masses.

(Actually, saying that, there is a certain irony in a man who makes a living out of making people feel significant complaining about people feeling significant through use of a hashtag...)

Did you really not read beyond that sentence? I mean it clearly explained how he then followed that up by badgering an actual sexual assault victim on stage. I get that it doesn't fit with your storyline, but come the hell on mate.

What was the extent of the "sexual assault" you keep referring to? Do you know? Was she raped? Did someone pinch her bum? Did her boss ask her for a drink? By conflating these things it certainly helps folk build their hand wringing storylines.

Whereas you, by not knowing the details, are trivialising her circumstances.

That aside, no matter how people try to cut it, the #metoo thing is absolutely out of control, extra judicial mob rule. Its chilling in its persistence, its law-free pesudo-moralising, the damage it wreaks on justice and, perhaps most worryingly, the ease with which it is used for personal media gain.

Yes, Have you seen the lynching in the street? The bosses hanging from lamposts? The celebrities thrown in jail without fair trial? Oh, no you haven't. Because none of that has happened. The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing.

Also, whilst I agree it must occasionally happen, I'm struggling to see the benefits of a woman dishonestly announcing they have been sexually assaulted by a celebrity. Generally speaking, its these people who then get the most severe abuse, from fans and from people who paradoxically believe these women just want attention.

Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

I don't have a financial times subscription, but even reading around, I don't see how her's and the CPS's incompetent failures to follow legal procedure tie in to a goddamn twitter campaign against unrelated celebrities.

It isn't about them being celebrities. It is about them having power over women to keep them silent. Celebrities finally speaking out against other celebrities and others in positions of power over them was their way of saying " You do not have to keep silent anymore, it is safe to speak up now because you are not alone." The reality of sexual assault is women for many generations now understand all too well it is far better to keep silent and pretend nothing happened or you can lose who you are, everything you have worked for, destroy your relationships, and ruin the rest of your life. The socially " accepted" response to being raped and abused is to pretend like it never happened. The whole " me too" thing was to show that needs to change. It was their effort to actually change that. Reality is though nothing has changed as long as women can still be harmed for telling the truth about what happens to them.

I not talking about women being harmed for telling the truth. That's horrific.

I am talking about women lying with impunity for personal gain.

The way to resolve societal ills is not on Twitter.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So, the motivational speaker Tony Robbins recently made a gaffunk on stage when he said some people misuse the #MeToo movement to feel "significant."

Well, people use every hashtag to make themselves feel significant. That's no more of an issue than Twitter in general (which is an issue, don't get me wrong). What really worries people though, is the potential for strategic accusations.

I can't really see what this guy here has done that warrants any sort of internet mob response, though. He's no worse than any other motivational speaker selling bullshit to the masses.

(Actually, saying that, there is a certain irony in a man who makes a living out of making people feel significant complaining about people feeling significant through use of a hashtag...)

Did you really not read beyond that sentence? I mean it clearly explained how he then followed that up by badgering an actual sexual assault victim on stage. I get that it doesn't fit with your storyline, but come the hell on mate.

What was the extent of the "sexual assault" you keep referring to? Do you know? Was she raped? Did someone pinch her bum? Did her boss ask her for a drink? By conflating these things it certainly helps folk build their hand wringing storylines.

Whereas you, by not knowing the details, are trivialising her circumstances.

That aside, no matter how people try to cut it, the #metoo thing is absolutely out of control, extra judicial mob rule. Its chilling in its persistence, its law-free pesudo-moralising, the damage it wreaks on justice and, perhaps most worryingly, the ease with which it is used for personal media gain.

Yes, Have you seen the lynching in the street? The bosses hanging from lamposts? The celebrities thrown in jail without fair trial? Oh, no you haven't. Because none of that has happened. The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing.

Also, whilst I agree it must occasionally happen, I'm struggling to see the benefits of a woman dishonestly announcing they have been sexually assaulted by a celebrity. Generally speaking, its these people who then get the most severe abuse, from fans and from people who paradoxically believe these women just want attention.

Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

I don't have a financial times subscription, but even reading around, I don't see how her's and the CPS's incompetent failures to follow legal procedure tie in to a goddamn twitter campaign against unrelated celebrities.

It isn't about them being celebrities. It is about them having power over women to keep them silent. Celebrities finally speaking out against other celebrities and others in positions of power over them was their way of saying " You do not have to keep silent anymore, it is safe to speak up now because you are not alone." The reality of sexual assault is women for many generations now understand all too well it is far better to keep silent and pretend nothing happened or you can lose who you are, everything you have worked for, destroy your relationships, and ruin the rest of your life. The socially " accepted" response to being raped and abused is to pretend like it never happened. The whole " me too" thing was to show that needs to change. It was their effort to actually change that. Reality is though nothing has changed as long as women can still be harmed for telling the truth about what happens to them.

I not talking about women being harmed for telling the truth. That's horrific.

I am talking about women lying with impunity for personal gain.

The way to resolve societal ills is not on Twitter.

You can't really talk about one without the other. The vast majority of women speaking up about being abused were actually abused. It is very rare for someone to make a false claim, but all women speaking up pay for those who have. When someone says they were mugged and someone stole their wallet, one's first thought isn't " what if they are lying" it is usually an empathetic response to the victim and try to help them. When a woman is abused however, sexually or otherwise, the first thought all too often are " what did you do to provoke it?" " are they lying?" when it really should be no different. The reality women live with is they are more likely to be harmed worse if they speak up when something happens to them than if they keep quiet. Women in a way have been forced to platforms such as twitter as they have been silenced everywhere else. Women are so afraid to speak up, they even say they made it all up to make the pain stop. The problem is even when women tell the truth to the police, they can be charged with false reporting. People are more likely to not believe them than believe them. This is why they have been forced to twitter instead.

Under pressure, Marie eventually recanted ? and was charged with false reporting, punishable by up to a year in jail. The court ordered her to pay $500 in court costs, get mental health counseling for her lying and go on supervised probation for one year. More than two years later, the police in Colorado arrested a serial rapist ? and discovered a photograph proving he had raped Marie.

What happened to Marie seemed unthinkable. She was victimized twice ? first raped, then prosecuted. But cases like hers can be found around the country. In 1997, a legally blind woman reported being raped at knife point in Madison, Wis. That same year, a pregnant 16-year-old reported being raped in New York City. In 2004, a 19-year-old reported being sexually assaulted at gunpoint in Cranberry Township, Pa.

In all three instances, the women were charged with lying. In all three instances, their reports turned out to be true. The men who raped them were later identified and convicted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/opinion/sunday/sexual-assault-victims-lying.html

How many women have been charged that were actually raped and their rapists never charged because they didn't take photos?

 

[Thaluikhain]

The way to resolve societal ills is not on Twitter.

It's not a good way, but sometimes it (or the like) is the only way. How many ugly, violent demonstrations did the civil rights movement take, or getting women the vote?

 

[maninahat]

[snip]

I don't feel I am trivialising anything by asking for the full facts of a situation. Indeed, it would be intellectually weak to make a judgement without the full facts. If someone else wants to use her case as "evidence" of something being widespread they need explain their evidence.

I note the person challenged did not reply because they obviously have no idea what "sexual assault" she "survived".

Seems like a perfect example of the band wagon moralising conflating all forms of sexual crime into one hysterical catch all causes.

They didn't respond because they probably either thought your question was disingenuous (which is what I assumed) or they don't know, or both. I consider it disingenuous because on hearing a woman had been "sexually assaulted", you start by asking whether it really was a sexual assault she went through, imply she might be an over-sensitive idiot making a false claim, and use that implication to bolster your preconceptions about the MeToo movement.

Yes, Have you seen the lynching in the street? The bosses hanging from lamposts? The celebrities thrown in jail without fair trial? Oh, no you haven't. Because none of that has happened. The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing.

Wow, yes, you very much are using it entirely inaccurately!

Given the speed with which you accused me of "trivialising" something you seem to be very quick to do so, "meh, so some people lost their jobs, were socially shunned and had their lives destroyed for a couple of years but who cares they were men".

This chap below hung himself. The entire article talks about the stigma and mental health repercussions involved.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11912748/Guilty-until-proven-innocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html

Here's a charming tale of a chap who spent 2 years being investigated only to have his case dropped - that must have been a fun 2 years... The very problem is that judicial process has been warped by the hysteria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42745181

I really do find it baffling you are so quick to claim victimhood for women and so dismissive of men's lives being ruined?

Great, you've provided two examples of things that happened years before the MeToo hash tag. I don't think anyone has said that there are no false accusations, or that it is tremendously damaging for someone to make a false accusation, or that it is tragic for the victims of these false accusations. What I and others criticise is this trend of dismissing the MeToo movement as "hysteria", "witch hunts", "band wagoning", "mob rule" and a bunch of other terms that turn the attention away from the accused back onto the accusers. This is the same victim blaming culture which discouraged these people coming out before; false accusations are very rare, but are the first thing these people get accused of when they dare open up about being the victim of a sex crime.

Also, whilst I agree it must occasionally happen, I'm struggling to see the benefits of a woman dishonestly announcing they have been sexually assaulted by a celebrity. Generally speaking, its these people who then get the most severe abuse, from fans and from people who paradoxically believe these women just want attention.

It's not occasional but it is extremely hard to find accurate statistics on false allegations because it's hard to define a false allegation but (usually depending on the bias of the party reporting) they are pitched between 3% and 10% of all claims. In 2017, that's 6079 to 20,263 cases annually, based on RapeCrisis numbers.

Frankly, I am surprised if you can't see the motivation, I think you are doing so wilfully because it's patently obvious the motive is money.

Here's some people who probably were assaulted and still took money in lieu of making a case (and then made a case anyway)...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html

But there is no reliable profit in falsely accusing a powerful innocent person of rape and hoping they will settle out of court, instead of them being enraged by the spurious allegation, going to court to win a very easy to defend case, counter-suing for perjury and slander, and sending the accuser to jail. It would take a particularly extravagant degree of preparation and commitment to successfully force money out of a Hollywood hotshot for a crime they know they didn't commit. Note that the example you are using here is of someone who is very clearly a rapist, and not a cowed victim of some senseless mob.

Now as it happens I work in HR and have dealt with a case involving an alleged false rape accusation. The motive for that wasn't money though; it was because that employee had (or so the evidence suggested) acted vindictively on a whim, making a dumb claim they couldn't back up, all for the purpose of being able to talk shit about a colleague to her friends. This scenario is a world away from the circumstances being described by MeToo contributors.

[Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

I don't have a financial times subscription, but even reading around, I don't see how her's and the CPS's incompetent failures to follow legal procedure tie in to a goddamn twitter campaign against unrelated celebrities.

Well, the climate of hysteria engendered (ha!) by social media and keyboard "activism" has started to infect public discourse so much it is bending the legal system toward "encouraging" conviction. The onus is now so much on believing claimants that it led to the collapse of every UK rape trial.

This is similar to the Rochdale abuse cases, where organised rings of child abusers were ignored for nearly a decade because the police feared being accused of being racist.

Not to say that social media activism doesn't have an influence on broader society, but I find it highly implausible that a prosecutor is going to hang court proceedings and throw their case because of the things they read on twitter. Rochdale is a consequence of a broader social atmosphere, created by the internal investigations and political scrutiny that the police has an ongoing issue of institutional racism. On top of that, the situation with Rochdale and the DDP are far more a product of staffing and administration failures; it's telling that the articles you provided don't once accuse social media of being the reason for these miscarriages of justice. It's also worth mentioning that in the case of Rochdale, the police critically ignored the testimony of rape victims because they didn't believe they had been raped; that they had simply made "lifestyle choices" and didn't take them seriously. It seems this post has come back around to the beginning again.

 

[ErrrorWayz]

[snip]

I don't feel I am trivialising anything by asking for the full facts of a situation. Indeed, it would be intellectually weak to make a judgement without the full facts. If someone else wants to use her case as "evidence" of something being widespread they need explain their evidence.

I note the person challenged did not reply because they obviously have no idea what "sexual assault" she "survived".

Seems like a perfect example of the band wagon moralising conflating all forms of sexual crime into one hysterical catch all causes.

They didn't respond because they probably either thought your question was disingenuous (which is what I assumed) or they don't know, or both. I consider it disingenuous because on hearing a woman had been "sexually assaulted", you start by asking whether it really was a sexual assault she went through, imply she might be an over-sensitive idiot making a false claim, and use that implication to bolster your preconceptions about the MeToo movement.

It wasn't disingenuous, I'd argue it's at the crux of the discussion. We still don't know is what the nature of her "sexual assault"? I've said nothing about her either way in terms of a value judgement. I have merely pointed out that people are willing to hand wring at the drop of hat without knowing the full facts and then asked if we knew the full facts. It turns out we don't.

The OP was desperate to get in the full mawkishness of "survivor" and "sexual assault" to get maximum impact but "surviving" a bum pitch is not the same as surviving a rape.

I'd suggest the continued attempts to defend the hand wringing without full factual understanding merely serves to repeatedly underline my point.

Yes, Have you seen the lynching in the street? The bosses hanging from lamposts? The celebrities thrown in jail without fair trial? Oh, no you haven't. Because none of that has happened. The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing.

Wow, yes, you very much are using it entirely inaccurately!

Given the speed with which you accused me of "trivialising" something you seem to be very quick to do so, "meh, so some people lost their jobs, were socially shunned and had their lives destroyed for a couple of years but who cares they were men".

This chap below hung himself. The entire article talks about the stigma and mental health repercussions involved.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11912748/Guilty-until-proven-innocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html

Here's a charming tale of a chap who spent 2 years being investigated only to have his case dropped - that must have been a fun 2 years... The very problem is that judicial process has been warped by the hysteria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42745181

I really do find it baffling you are so quick to claim victimhood for women and so dismissive of men's lives being ruined?

Great, you've provided two examples of things that happened years before the MeToo hash tag. I don't think anyone has said that there are no false accusations, or that it is tremendously damaging for someone to make a false accusation, or that it is tragic for the victims of these false accusations. What I and others criticise is this trend of dismissing the MeToo movement as "hysteria", "witch hunts", "band wagoning", "mob rule" and a bunch of other terms that turn the attention away from the accused back onto the accusers. This is the same victim blaming culture which discouraged these people coming out before; false accusations are very rare, but are the first thing these people get accused of when they dare open up about being the victim of a sex crime.

Here you seem to be shifting ground because you realise your original dismissal of the damage caused to men's lives was utterly indefensible and completely incompatible with the ethically posturing of MeToo? The timing of the examples I provided are immaterial when the issue is the impact of false allegations on men's lives. Furthermore,

I don't think anyone has said that there are no false accusations, or that it is tremendously damaging for someone to make a false accusation, or that it is tragic for the victims of these false accusations

I feel you did that here?

The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing

You seems to be saying a men having their lives destroyed by false claims is a comparatively small price to pay...

Finally here, the common thread here seems to be because false accusations are "very rare", which they aren't, a point ignored below because it's narrative threatening. One of the most sinister dichotomies at the heart of rape "activism" is the willingness to argue rape is hugely under reported and widespread while actively working to dismiss the very real percentage of false accusations as de minimis. Even on a practical level, this is statistically impossible stance to defend, if rape is such a widespread issue then the issue of false allegations grows in proportion. Again, I freely admit it is impossible to find accurate figures for false allegation but it is also impossible to find accurate figures for sexual assault.

Also, whilst I agree it must occasionally happen, I'm struggling to see the benefits of a woman dishonestly announcing they have been sexually assaulted by a celebrity. Generally speaking, its these people who then get the most severe abuse, from fans and from people who paradoxically believe these women just want attention.

It's not occasional but it is extremely hard to find accurate statistics on false allegations because it's hard to define a false allegation but (usually depending on the bias of the party reporting) they are pitched between 3% and 10% of all claims. In 2017, that's 6079 to 20,263 cases annually, based on RapeCrisis numbers.

Frankly, I am surprised if you can't see the motivation, I think you are doing so wilfully because it's patently obvious the motive is money.

Here's some people who probably were assaulted and still took money in lieu of making a case (and then made a case anyway)...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html

But there is no reliable profit in falsely accusing a powerful innocent person of rape and hoping they will settle out of court, instead of them being enraged by the spurious allegation, going to court to win a very easy to defend case, counter-suing for perjury and slander, and sending the accuser to jail. It would take a particularly extravagant degree of preparation and commitment to successfully force money out of a Hollywood hotshot for a crime they know they didn't commit. Note that the example you are using here is of someone who is very clearly a rapist, and not a cowed victim of some senseless mob.

Now as it happens I work in HR and have dealt with a case involving an alleged false rape accusation. The motive for that wasn't money though; it was because that employee had (or so the evidence suggested) acted vindictively on a whim, making a dumb claim they couldn't back up, all for the purpose of being able to talk shit about a colleague to her friends. This scenario is a world away from the circumstances being described by MeToo contributors.

With respect, you really do seem to be incapable of (or wilfully) failing of grasping how devastating the press around and process of a "sexual assault" allegation is in the current climate. Especially for someone who depends on good press to make money.As the OP showed us above, people don't both to unpack the "sexual assault" they just think rape and survivor. The cases are not "easy" to defend nor is the real damage only in the conviction, it is in the nasty and seditious "no smoke with out fire" thinking and the associated stigma.

[Have look at the ever pleasant Alison Saunders, booted out, sorry "who resigned", from her job because she unofficially reversed the presumption of innocence in UK rape cases by encouraging the DPP not to share evidence.

https://www.ft.com/content/b6cf4cae-364f-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

There is no way this could have happened without the atmosphere of total hysteria engendered by social media.

I don't have a financial times subscription, but even reading around, I don't see how her's and the CPS's incompetent failures to follow legal procedure tie in to a goddamn twitter campaign against unrelated celebrities.

Well, the climate of hysteria engendered (ha!) by social media and keyboard "activism" has started to infect public discourse so much it is bending the legal system toward "encouraging" conviction. The onus is now so much on believing claimants that it led to the collapse of every UK rape trial.

This is similar to the Rochdale abuse cases, where organised rings of child abusers were ignored for nearly a decade because the police feared being accused of being racist.

Not to say that social media activism doesn't have an influence on broader society, but I find it highly implausible that a prosecutor is going to hang court proceedings and throw their case because of the things they read on twitter. Rochdale is a consequence of a broader social atmosphere, created by the internal investigations and political scrutiny that the police has an ongoing issue of institutional racism. On top of that, the situation with Rochdale and the DDP are far more a product of staffing and administration failures; it's telling that the articles you provided don't once accuse social media of being the reason for these miscarriages of justice. It's also worth mentioning that in the case of Rochdale, the police critically ignored the testimony of rape victims because they didn't believe they had been raped; that they had simply made "lifestyle choices" and didn't take them seriously. It seems this post has come back around to the beginning again.

Couldn't disagree more, social media is increasingly becoming a catalyst for some of the most aggressive, unthinkingly destructive and unpleasantly sanctimonious elements of society. Quite simply the State fears the instant bad press. While it would be remiss to suggest that social media alone is responsible for the appalling and frequent miscarriages of justice around rape in the UK it certainly both feeds and mirrors the shameful witch hunting that has been happening as politicians cower before the bullying that demands rape convictions rise. This is simply not justice, not matter how it is cut.

While I am sure your opinions are honestly held and you don't mean any malice, I personally find the happy willingness with you dismiss the damage to males lives as rare and somehow acceptable collateral damage to be pretty chilling. I also find the fact that you do not feel that the uncorroborated, instantly disposal, instantly forgotten "opinions presented as fact" bullying of a Twitter mob to be influential on decision making to be rather worrying.

For my part, I expect you feel I am an unfeeling and calculating, unconscious bigot who is pointing to a few cases of some privileged people getting a bit of inconvenience as a reason to stop a widespread beneficial change.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle as ever.

I hold no illusions that the situation is only going to get worse, from my perspective, as the next generation takes the reins and public discourse increasingly becomes an X-factor vote. The world has moved on. I just think it's really, really dangerous but you work in the framework provided I guess.

 

[maninahat]

[snip]

It wasn't disingenuous, I'd argue it's at the crux of the discussion. We still don't know is what the nature of her "sexual assault"? I've said nothing about her either way in terms of a value judgement. I have merely pointed out that people are willing to hand wring at the drop of hat without knowing the full facts and then asked if we knew the full facts. It turns out we don't.

The OP was desperate to get in the full mawkishness of "survivor" and "sexual assault" to get maximum impact but "surviving" a bum pitch is not the same as surviving a rape.

I'd suggest the continued attempts to defend the hand wringing without full factual understanding merely serves to repeatedly underline my point.

One can imply anything you want by phrasing it as a question: "I'm not saying ErrrorWayz is a car thief, I am merely asking if he is one? He hasn't said either way, and I guess we won't know until it has been confirmed in court." I claim to ask a neutral question, but I've asked it apropos of nothing with the effect of now encouraging the reader to start speculating about a thing that was never on the table, in effect poisoning the well.

[snip]

Here you seem to be shifting ground because you realise your original dismissal of the damage caused to men's lives was utterly indefensible and completely incompatible with the ethically posturing of MeToo? The timing of the examples I provided are immaterial when the issue is the impact of false allegations on men's lives. Furthermore,

I don't think anyone has said that there are no false accusations, or that it is tremendously damaging for someone to make a false accusation, or that it is tragic for the victims of these false accusations

I feel you did that here?

The "worst" (and I'm using that word entirely inaccurately) thing that has happened to these guys is that some of them are being fired, a few are subjected to police investigations, and next to none have actually seen the inside of a jail, because the judicial process is still a thing

The context of the second quote was me chiding your criticisms of MeToo. This isn't the same thing as chiding any possibility of there being false rape accusations. You were talking specifically about MeToo in the first place:

"...the #metoo thing is absolutely out of control, extra judicial mob rule. Its chilling in its persistence, its law-free pesudo-moralising, the damage it wreaks on justice and, perhaps most worryingly, the ease with which it is used for personal media gain."

Finally here, the common thread here seems to be because false accusations are "very rare", which they aren't, a point ignored below because it's narrative threatening. One of the most sinister dichotomies at the heart of rape "activism" is the willingness to argue rape is hugely under reported and widespread while actively working to dismiss the very real percentage of false accusations as de minimis. Even on a practical level, this is statistically impossible stance to defend, if rape is such a widespread issue then the issue of false allegations grows in proportion. Again, I freely admit it is impossible to find accurate figures for false allegation but it is also impossible to find accurate figures for sexual assault.

Well most make an educated guess of it being 3% - 10%, though a lot of studies tend towards the lower end. In actual numbers:

"According to the National Registry of Exonerations, since records began in 1989, in the US there are only 52 cases where men convicted of sexual assault were exonerated because it turned out they were falsely accused. By way of comparison, in the same period, there are 790 cases in which people were exonerated for murder... in the most detailed study ever conducted of sexual assault reports to police, undertaken for the British Home Office in the early 2000s, out of 216 complaints that were classified as false, only 126 had even gotten to the stage where the accuser lodged a formal complaint. Only 39 complainants named a suspect. Only six cases led to an arrest, and only two led to charges being brought before they were ultimately deemed false. (Here, as elsewhere, it has to be assumed that some unknown percentage of the cases classified as false actually involved real rapes; what they don?t involve is countless innocent men?s lives being ruined.)" [https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/]

The rates of false rape allegations are equivalent to, or perhaps lower than, false allegations of other crimes - yet if I were to come forward and claim someone had stolen my car, no one would challenge me as to whether I was just faking it, or whether my car hadn't been stolen, merely scratched. The undue amount of attention given to false rape allegations is vastly disproportionate and predominantly acts as yet one more hurdle for rape victims to traverse before being taken seriously.

With respect, you really do seem to be incapable of (or wilfully) failing of grasping how devastating the press around and process of a "sexual assault" allegation is in the current climate. Especially for someone who depends on good press to make money.As the OP showed us above, people don't both to unpack the "sexual assault" they just think rape and survivor. The cases are not "easy" to defend nor is the real damage only in the conviction, it is in the nasty and seditious "no smoke with out fire" thinking and the associated stigma... social media is increasingly becoming a catalyst for some of the most aggressive, unthinkingly destructive and unpleasantly sanctimonious elements of society.

I am aware of mob rule on twitter, and how social media can be used to harass and pillory those who haven't been proven of wrong doing. But MeToo itself isn't about providing an opportunity to do that, it is an opportunity for people to publicly declare the crimes committed against them that they have previously felt the need to keep quiet about, specifically because we live in a society that punishes people for speaking out. I'm sure right this instant there is some twitter dickhead hammering insults away at Kevin Spacey or Louis CK, but this as a punishment is in no way in proportion to the crimes they have committed, and it is apparent that these powerful people have been getting away with various crimes for decades. Maybe they wouldn't have if society hasn't always had such a hostile collective attitude towards victims. Even now by calling this a "witch hunt" works towards that by suggesting rich people getting away with sex crimes is frenzied make-believe.