6 ms·

Why aren't any of these shitbags getting named? This type of thing should ruin the guy's career. Fair or not I'm just going to assume Travis and anyone workin

by ohyes 10y ago

Why aren't any of these shitbags getting named? This type of thing should ruin the guy's career. Fair or not I'm just going to assume Travis and anyone working for him is just like this disgusting mike#2 fellow.

geofft 10y ago
This is why: https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833 https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833 Even assuming no malice, a rational economic actor faced with a career-ending allegation of bad behavior is interested in discrediting the accusation via all possible means, including discrediting, shaming, or embarrassing the accuser to force a retraction. And once you're assuming malice, they're especially interested in it.
- ohyes 10y ago
  To my knowledge Susan didn't specifically name anyone? It seems like the smear campaign will happen regardless as long as the woman is alleging bad behavior like this. (Presumably because there is a cadre of psychopaths who think this sort of sexism should be allowed). So I don't see where the disincentive is for the abused to go nuclear first. (The abuser clearly has no compunction or ethics regarding escalating the situation, she's just a 'whiny little bitch' to him).
  - geofft 10y ago
    Smear campaigns depend on the sympathy of outsiders. I can't smear anyone by myself, I smear them by convincing other people to believe negative things about the person I'm smearing. If I can convince people to believe that someone accused me "falsely" by name and tried to ruin my career, I'm a lot more likely to gain the support of neutral outsiders against that person than if I go after someone who very carefully never named names.
ryanx435 10y ago
innocent until proven guilty. this means that we have to hold 2 competing ideas at the same time until due process has been given, like shrodeinger's cat only for justice: 1) the woman is a victim and the "shitbag" should be punished appropriately. 2) the woman is lying and the "shitbag" is a victim of false accusations. until more details are known, it is possible that the accused is the victim. If this ends up being the correct situation, than having their names smeared in the public eye for crimes they did not commit is morally reprehensible.
- ohyes 10y ago
  That applies in the case of a court of law or if I were an individual in the media reporting on the alleged incident (in which case I would likely try to corroborate with other alleged victims). It doesn't make sense in the situation (here) where someone is making the accusation. She knows it happened, she was there, from that perspective this guy should be getting wrecked. It would be a public service. There's no reason for her to fear that she herself is lying. (Irrelevant to my argument but perhaps relevant to yours: I'd also argue that de-facto assuming there's a good chance the accuser in the situation is lying flies in the face of everything I've read about it being difficult for abuse victims to come forward. There's little to no gain for the accuser. The accuser is often assumed to be lying, they now have to fear reprisal from the accused and others. Making this type of thing up isn't a rational move with a useful end. Unless it is true, in which case the useful end is to take down the accused, in which case the accused should be named).
  - ryanx435 10y ago
    I hereby accuse you of sexually assaulting me. I know it happened. I was there, and from that perspective you should be getting wrecked. I am making my accusations anonymously on the internet so it must be true. by your logic we should now scream your name from the mountain tops and conduct a witch hunt and destroy your reputation and livelihood simply because you have been accused. the truth is that Women are people and people often lie. True equality means recognizing that everyone, male, female, and everywhere in between, have the capacity for lying.

by ohyes 10y ago

geofft 10y ago

This is why: https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833 https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833 Even assuming no malice, a rational economic actor faced with a career-ending allegation of bad behavior is interested in discrediting the accusation via all possible means, including discrediting, shaming, or embarrassing the accuser to force a retraction. And once you're assuming malice, they're especially interested in it.

ohyes 10y ago
To my knowledge Susan didn't specifically name anyone? It seems like the smear campaign will happen regardless as long as the woman is alleging bad behavior like this. (Presumably because there is a cadre of psychopaths who think this sort of sexism should be allowed). So I don't see where the disincentive is for the abused to go nuclear first. (The abuser clearly has no compunction or ethics regarding escalating the situation, she's just a 'whiny little bitch' to him).
- geofft 10y ago
  Smear campaigns depend on the sympathy of outsiders. I can't smear anyone by myself, I smear them by convincing other people to believe negative things about the person I'm smearing. If I can convince people to believe that someone accused me "falsely" by name and tried to ruin my career, I'm a lot more likely to gain the support of neutral outsiders against that person than if I go after someone who very carefully never named names.

ryanx435 10y ago

innocent until proven guilty. this means that we have to hold 2 competing ideas at the same time until due process has been given, like shrodeinger's cat only for justice: 1) the woman is a victim and the "shitbag" should be punished appropriately. 2) the woman is lying and the "shitbag" is a victim of false accusations. until more details are known, it is possible that the accused is the victim. If this ends up being the correct situation, than having their names smeared in the public eye for crimes they did not commit is morally reprehensible.

ohyes 10y ago
That applies in the case of a court of law or if I were an individual in the media reporting on the alleged incident (in which case I would likely try to corroborate with other alleged victims). It doesn't make sense in the situation (here) where someone is making the accusation. She knows it happened, she was there, from that perspective this guy should be getting wrecked. It would be a public service. There's no reason for her to fear that she herself is lying. (Irrelevant to my argument but perhaps relevant to yours: I'd also argue that de-facto assuming there's a good chance the accuser in the situation is lying flies in the face of everything I've read about it being difficult for abuse victims to come forward. There's little to no gain for the accuser. The accuser is often assumed to be lying, they now have to fear reprisal from the accused and others. Making this type of thing up isn't a rational move with a useful end. Unless it is true, in which case the useful end is to take down the accused, in which case the accused should be named).
- ryanx435 10y ago
  I hereby accuse you of sexually assaulting me. I know it happened. I was there, and from that perspective you should be getting wrecked. I am making my accusations anonymously on the internet so it must be true. by your logic we should now scream your name from the mountain tops and conduct a witch hunt and destroy your reputation and livelihood simply because you have been accused. the truth is that Women are people and people often lie. True equality means recognizing that everyone, male, female, and everywhere in between, have the capacity for lying.