5 ms·

Having read a whole bunch of blog posts from the people involved in that scandal, I'm really curious why you're convinced that it was indeed rape.

by smnscu 10y ago

sneak 10y ago
Because I read the posts from the multiple women he raped and I have no reason to doubt their credibility. My question is why do you think we should default to not believing rape victims?
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Why should we default to believing an accusation of anyone on any matter in particular absent proof? Is burden of proof not always on the accuser, rather than the accused?
  - sneak 10y ago
    No, it usually isn't. It only really gets reversed when it's rape, actually.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Something to do with 'innocent until proven guilty'.
  - evgen 10y ago
    Ah. I see the problem here. You are mistaking a court of law for society outside its doors. The criminal justice system must treat any subject before it as innocent until proven guilty, the rest of us do not have such restrictions. We operate is a fuzzy place where reputation is a strong determinant in whether heresay matters, where a pattern of suspicious behaviour is sufficient to decide not to associate with someone, and where OJ actually did kill his ex-wife.
    - RandomOpinion 10y ago
      >where a pattern of suspicious behaviour is sufficient to decide not to associate with someone There's a word for that: mob justice. Is that really what you and your ilk stand for?
      - icebraining 10y ago
        No, it's freedom of association. Mob justice would be doing something that violated his rights.
        int_19h 10y ago
        I'm curious what you think about private discrimination on account of race, then (e.g. when hotels and restaurants were turning away black customers, back in 50s in US - not because the law said so, but because they could).
        evgen 10y ago
        Discrimination in commercial transactions within the public marketplace are illegal (c.f. Katzenbach v. McClung, et al) and discriminatory membership requirements for "private" clubs that operate in public is unpleasant, but I have no idea how to fix that particular problem legally so we solve it with the previously noted social pressure (aka "mob justice") and this seems to work reasonably well. OTOH, the state does not get to tell you who your friends will be or who you should be spending your time with.
        int_19h 10y ago
        They are illegal, yes. I was wondering whether OP also treats it as "just freedom of association", since fundamentally refusing to serve some customer for any reason whatsoever is exactly that - and yet most people would agree that, done on such scale, it violates people's rights, too.
        icebraining 10y ago
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  >My question is why do you think we should default to not believing rape victims? Where I live, we have the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. It is a legal right as well as a human right under under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11. Frankly, this trend of accusation = guilt that has popped up among today's youth is rather disturbing. Hopefully, enough of them will be bitten by it for them to re-learn the lessons of history that caused the presumption of innocence to become the standard.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>> It is a legal right as well as a human right under under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights You have highlighted the difference between Social Justice, and Human Rights.
  - sneak 10y ago
    The presumption of innocence is only for bodies that take it upon themselves to strip people of their rights. I do not; therefore I am allowed to believe rape victims if I so choose. So are you. Pretending you are a judge and warden is not a defense for ignoring victims of a predator.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      Social ostracism can be a very efficient tool to strip people of a lot of things that are kinda important; and an accusation as serious as this is particularly potent in that regard. I mean, how many organizations would hire a guy whose name was prominently featured alongside the word "rape" in mass media? Now, I'm not saying that you should adopt the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and all that stuff. But I don't think it's reasonable to just blindly believe any accusation, either. Just as you owe the alleged victim to hear their side of the story, you also owe the alleged perpetrator to hear theirs, and at least try to see which one makes more sense.
- smnscu 10y ago
  I didn't want to sound provocative, I was hoping for what I got – a small discussion around the subject. When this event occurred the story got flagged (or deleted?) as soon as it reached the front page, multiple times. I don't appreciate this kind of censorship, especially since knowing whether the Tor org can be trusted is very useful information for one of my side projects. On-topic, there've been multiple rape scandals online in the past few years, and the truth can often be hard to discern.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Having read a whole bunch of blog posts from the people involved in that scandal, I'm really curious why you're convinced that it was indeed rape.

by smnscu 10y ago

Having read a whole bunch of blog posts from the people involved in that scandal, I'm really curious why you're convinced that it was indeed rape.

sneak 10y ago

Because I read the posts from the multiple women he raped and I have no reason to doubt their credibility. My question is why do you think we should default to not believing rape victims?

Karunamon 10y ago
Why should we default to believing an accusation of anyone on any matter in particular absent proof? Is burden of proof not always on the accuser, rather than the accused?
- sneak 10y ago
  No, it usually isn't. It only really gets reversed when it's rape, actually.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Something to do with 'innocent until proven guilty'.
- evgen 10y ago
  Ah. I see the problem here. You are mistaking a court of law for society outside its doors. The criminal justice system must treat any subject before it as innocent until proven guilty, the rest of us do not have such restrictions. We operate is a fuzzy place where reputation is a strong determinant in whether heresay matters, where a pattern of suspicious behaviour is sufficient to decide not to associate with someone, and where OJ actually did kill his ex-wife.
  - RandomOpinion 10y ago
    >where a pattern of suspicious behaviour is sufficient to decide not to associate with someone There's a word for that: mob justice. Is that really what you and your ilk stand for?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      No, it's freedom of association. Mob justice would be doing something that violated his rights.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        I'm curious what you think about private discrimination on account of race, then (e.g. when hotels and restaurants were turning away black customers, back in 50s in US - not because the law said so, but because they could).
        evgen 10y ago
        Discrimination in commercial transactions within the public marketplace are illegal (c.f. Katzenbach v. McClung, et al) and discriminatory membership requirements for "private" clubs that operate in public is unpleasant, but I have no idea how to fix that particular problem legally so we solve it with the previously noted social pressure (aka "mob justice") and this seems to work reasonably well. OTOH, the state does not get to tell you who your friends will be or who you should be spending your time with.
        int_19h 10y ago
        They are illegal, yes. I was wondering whether OP also treats it as "just freedom of association", since fundamentally refusing to serve some customer for any reason whatsoever is exactly that - and yet most people would agree that, done on such scale, it violates people's rights, too.
        icebraining 10y ago
RandomOpinion 10y ago
>My question is why do you think we should default to not believing rape victims? Where I live, we have the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. It is a legal right as well as a human right under under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11. Frankly, this trend of accusation = guilt that has popped up among today's youth is rather disturbing. Hopefully, enough of them will be bitten by it for them to re-learn the lessons of history that caused the presumption of innocence to become the standard.
- syshum 10y ago
  >>> It is a legal right as well as a human right under under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights You have highlighted the difference between Social Justice, and Human Rights.
- sneak 10y ago
  The presumption of innocence is only for bodies that take it upon themselves to strip people of their rights. I do not; therefore I am allowed to believe rape victims if I so choose. So are you. Pretending you are a judge and warden is not a defense for ignoring victims of a predator.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Social ostracism can be a very efficient tool to strip people of a lot of things that are kinda important; and an accusation as serious as this is particularly potent in that regard. I mean, how many organizations would hire a guy whose name was prominently featured alongside the word "rape" in mass media? Now, I'm not saying that you should adopt the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and all that stuff. But I don't think it's reasonable to just blindly believe any accusation, either. Just as you owe the alleged victim to hear their side of the story, you also owe the alleged perpetrator to hear theirs, and at least try to see which one makes more sense.
smnscu 10y ago
I didn't want to sound provocative, I was hoping for what I got – a small discussion around the subject. When this event occurred the story got flagged (or deleted?) as soon as it reached the front page, multiple times. I don't appreciate this kind of censorship, especially since knowing whether the Tor org can be trusted is very useful information for one of my side projects. On-topic, there've been multiple rape scandals online in the past few years, and the truth can often be hard to discern.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]