4 ms·

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 accusati

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.

ohyes 10y ago
Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective. So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case didn't name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you. You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them? I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  because if the courts find her accusations to be false (even if they are true), than she would than open herself up to defamation and lible charges from the accused. From a game theory perspective, it doesn't make sense to break the accused anonymity outside of official court procedings if she doesn't need to because of the huge liability it unnecessarily opens up if her accusations are deemed false.

ohyes 10y ago

Part of my point is to look at it from the accuser's perspective. So you're not really responding to my the point, which is that the accuser in this and the other case didn't name the person. It seems like from the accuser's perspective, a witch-hunt and the destruction of my reputation would be great. So... why not do it? It seems like the most effective path would be to absolutely destroy the other person (corroboration, witnesses, detailed accounts) before they can play defense and start smearing you. You've spoken to and demonstrated why we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet, which is well and good and correct. But what you haven't answered is why someone making serious accusations of this nature wouldn't name the person who has done this to them? I don't think equality has anything to do with my point? It's more a game theoretic question.

ryanx435 10y ago
because if the courts find her accusations to be false (even if they are true), than she would than open herself up to defamation and lible charges from the accused. From a game theory perspective, it doesn't make sense to break the accused anonymity outside of official court procedings if she doesn't need to because of the huge liability it unnecessarily opens up if her accusations are deemed false.