3 ms·
> if he had agency in the attacks on him I think he did in the sense that he could have chosen to respond in different ways. He could have said, for example, s
by pdonis 5y ago
> if he had agency in the attacks on him
I think he did in the sense that he could have chosen to respond in different ways. He could have said, for example, something like: "I admit I behaved badly in the past. I have changed who I am so I don't do those things any more, and I have apologized in private to the people I hurt. That's all I'm going to say about it." And then just ignored whatever happened on social media after that.
The question is whether that would have affected, for example, his getting fired and disowned by companies he had worked for. I don't think it would have, because I don't think the companies that fired him were doing it based on any evaluation they did themselves of his behavior; they were doing it based on fear of social media.
> it seems hard to simultaneously put forth that your previous behavior was wrong and should be judged harshly and also that you will not judge others for their previous behavior
I don't think that's what he's saying. The things he was accused of on social media and which caused companies to fire him were not things he had actually done in the past, but accusations about things he had not done in the past. So I don't think he's complaining about being judged on what he actually did. I think he's complaining about being cancelled on the basis of things he had not done, simply because social media never stops at what you actually did, but always goes on to accuse you of things you didn't do, and you have no way of defending yourself. And he's saying he won't judge other people based on things social media says about them because most of the things social media says about anybody aren't true.
(Note that if you disagree about whether, for example, he actually raped someone, naturally you'll disagree about the extent to which the social media cancellation was justified. But the fact is that he says he didn't rape anyone, so what he is saying is not what you are describing. He's not saying that rape isn't bad or that he wouldn't judge someone harshly who had raped someone. He's saying he won't judge someone harshly just because social media accuses them of raping someone.)
- aeturnum 5y agoI think you point to the basic question here: is it fair to only judge him for the things he has apologized for and taken ownership of, or would it be moral to form and act on our own opinions? If you feel it's only appropriate to judge people on the behavior they admit to, then I think your read is correct. That also, to me, feels like it becomes tautological - it places the locus of power on the accused and the onus of coming forward on the victim. We want some level of responsibility on the victim. False accusations exist (though research suggests they are extremely rare). I don't have good answers - but someone asked what more someone could want and I answered. There are parts of how he talks about the experience that make me uneasy. I can understand that unease making others uncomfortable. The line I would draw is one of looking for reflection on personal behavior. As I said in my post, I'm not comfortable accepting his description of the events as the end of it and I do not see any understanding of why that might be in his answer. I don't think he needs to have intended to commit sexual assault to have done it and I don't think someone needs to accuse him (privately or publicly) for him to reflect on the possibility. I said elsewhere that I would work with him, but I would certainly understand if people didn't feel comfortable about it. I guess I've seen many people leave companies or not get hired for far more mundane interpersonal mismatches. It is really hard for me to take seriously that cultural fit matters at work, but that people must accept a former abusers' representations they have changed. I also just want to say: >[the companies fired him] based on fear of social media. I have no idea if this is true and neither do you. I have seen external embarrassments handled in different ways and I am skeptical it was this simple. Of course, I could be wrong, but there are plenty of prominent figures who had accusations made against them and they either kept their jobs or found new positions.
- pdonis 5y ago> I think you point to the basic question here: is it fair to only judge him for the things he has apologized for and taken ownership of, or would it be moral to form and act on our own opinions? I'm fine with forming and acting on your own opinions, if they are based on reliable information. What I'm not fine with is cancelling someone without even bothering to find out reliable information, which is what appears to have happened in this case.
- pdonis 5y ago> False accusations exist (though research suggests they are extremely rare). What research are you referring to?
- aeturnum 5y agoFor a journalistic take I recommend[1], but if you would like to go right to the papers the wikipedia article has a good overview[2] [1]https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
- pdonis 5y ago> >[the companies fired him] based on fear of social media. I have no idea if this is true and neither do you. Fair enough. We don't have access to internal company deliberations.