4 ms·

Aziz Ansari did get a lot of sympathy, suffered far less than many others, and had all reputable news publishers take a pass on the accusations that were floati

Aziz Ansari did get a lot of sympathy, suffered far less than many others, and had all reputable news publishers take a pass on the accusations that were floating around. For Weinstein, as the counterexample, it seems like the public accusation was necessary to get the regular wheels of justice to turn. And to add the argument that is almost as tired as yours: “Innocent until proven guilty” is for punishment by those with the monopoly on violence, i. e. the state/the courts. If I can not watch a comedian because I don’t find them funny (which is, unfortunately, not a crime), surely I can skip their HBO special because I believe their accusers?

cpcallen 8y ago
> If I can not watch a comedian because I don’t find them funny (which is, unfortunately, not a crime), surely I can skip their HBO special because I believe their accusers? Of course. But TFA asks: does it follow that everyone should be deprived the HBO special?
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  Everyone should be able to pool together resources to hire the person if there is enough demand for it. Another company could pick it up, maybe? Edit: to be clear (I’m concerned about being seen as 100% supporting any position) my position is that if there is enough demand, a presumed minority outcry can be ignored safely (Facebook).
  - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
    It would be very difficult for another company to go against public opinion. You'll have to find not only another company but also another cable provider and, in the most extreme case, another guild of comedians in case if they decide to boycott your channel.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      Then perhaps there aren't enough consumers to support the commodity in question, and this is just market forces at play?
      - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
        Market forces are good for getting to a Nash equilibrium, but not necessarily good for getting to an optimal distribution.
        SolaceQuantum 8y ago
        I agree. What's your recommendation on how to push society into optimal distributions, specifically how should we push society into an optimal distribution of social pressures not to hire/consume/etc certain products where the products are people?
ardy42 8y ago
> And to add the argument that is almost as tired as yours: “Innocent until proven guilty” is for punishment by those with the monopoly on violence, i. e. the state/the courts. It's a legal requirement for the state/the courts, but it's a just and fair principle that the rest of us should still strive to embrace.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  we ought to strive for it as an ideal, but admit practical compromises. to make a contrived example: suppose you have a friend that several other people accuse of stealing. none of them can prove that he stole from them, but each of them lost their wallets at separate gatherings where he was present. you might not find this sufficient cause to confront him or cut him out of your life, but you would probably be a little more careful where you leave your wallet when he's around.
  - idle_zealot 8y ago
    > you might not find this sufficient cause to confront him or cut him out of your life, but you would probably be a little more careful where you leave your wallet when he's around This strikes me as socially unhealthy behavior. In the case described, one of two things is true: 1) The accusers are right, and your friend is a theif. You've implyed that if this were the case, you would confront them and/or cut ties with them (which is reasonable). 2) Your friend is being falsely accused of a serious crime by several people. In this case, he needs your support and trust more than ever. In neither case is continuing to hang around him as normal, with added caution against his potential theivery, a useful behavior. If he is a theif then you continue to associate with a theif and to put youself at risk of theivery, albeit with some reduced risk on account of increased caution. If he is not a theif, then it's likely that your guarded actions and internal scepticism will be picked up on, and that your friend will notice that you doubt his innocence, which may well hurt your friendship. That all said, I agree that "guilty until proven innocent" doesn't apply in the scenario that you described. This is because there is "trial". You assume innocence while trying to uncover the truth. So in your scenario, you would assume that your friend is innocent and investigate the wallet disappearances, question the accusers and accused, track down addition witnesses and character witnesses, before finally passing your personal judgement. From there you can confront/cut out the theif, or sympathise and emotionally support the falsely accused.
nsxwolf 8y ago
Aziz Ansari got a lot of sympathy because the accusations against him were so meaningless they didn't pass the laugh test for most people regardless of political persuasion.

cpcallen 8y ago

> If I can not watch a comedian because I don’t find them funny (which is, unfortunately, not a crime), surely I can skip their HBO special because I believe their accusers? Of course. But TFA asks: does it follow that everyone should be deprived the HBO special?

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
Everyone should be able to pool together resources to hire the person if there is enough demand for it. Another company could pick it up, maybe? Edit: to be clear (I’m concerned about being seen as 100% supporting any position) my position is that if there is enough demand, a presumed minority outcry can be ignored safely (Facebook).
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  It would be very difficult for another company to go against public opinion. You'll have to find not only another company but also another cable provider and, in the most extreme case, another guild of comedians in case if they decide to boycott your channel.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    Then perhaps there aren't enough consumers to support the commodity in question, and this is just market forces at play?
    - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
      Market forces are good for getting to a Nash equilibrium, but not necessarily good for getting to an optimal distribution.
      - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
        I agree. What's your recommendation on how to push society into optimal distributions, specifically how should we push society into an optimal distribution of social pressures not to hire/consume/etc certain products where the products are people?

ardy42 8y ago

> And to add the argument that is almost as tired as yours: “Innocent until proven guilty” is for punishment by those with the monopoly on violence, i. e. the state/the courts. It's a legal requirement for the state/the courts, but it's a just and fair principle that the rest of us should still strive to embrace.

leetcrew 8y ago
we ought to strive for it as an ideal, but admit practical compromises. to make a contrived example: suppose you have a friend that several other people accuse of stealing. none of them can prove that he stole from them, but each of them lost their wallets at separate gatherings where he was present. you might not find this sufficient cause to confront him or cut him out of your life, but you would probably be a little more careful where you leave your wallet when he's around.
- idle_zealot 8y ago
  > you might not find this sufficient cause to confront him or cut him out of your life, but you would probably be a little more careful where you leave your wallet when he's around This strikes me as socially unhealthy behavior. In the case described, one of two things is true: 1) The accusers are right, and your friend is a theif. You've implyed that if this were the case, you would confront them and/or cut ties with them (which is reasonable). 2) Your friend is being falsely accused of a serious crime by several people. In this case, he needs your support and trust more than ever. In neither case is continuing to hang around him as normal, with added caution against his potential theivery, a useful behavior. If he is a theif then you continue to associate with a theif and to put youself at risk of theivery, albeit with some reduced risk on account of increased caution. If he is not a theif, then it's likely that your guarded actions and internal scepticism will be picked up on, and that your friend will notice that you doubt his innocence, which may well hurt your friendship. That all said, I agree that "guilty until proven innocent" doesn't apply in the scenario that you described. This is because there is "trial". You assume innocence while trying to uncover the truth. So in your scenario, you would assume that your friend is innocent and investigate the wallet disappearances, question the accusers and accused, track down addition witnesses and character witnesses, before finally passing your personal judgement. From there you can confront/cut out the theif, or sympathise and emotionally support the falsely accused.

nsxwolf 8y ago

Aziz Ansari got a lot of sympathy because the accusations against him were so meaningless they didn't pass the laugh test for most people regardless of political persuasion.