5 ms·

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is the gate for government violence, but as a society we operate on a very different standard, for very g

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is the gate for government violence, but as a society we operate on a very different standard, for very good reasons. Multiple credible accusations, corroborated by contemporaneous accounts, collated by a reputable journalist is definitely enough to call the accusations founded. Not enough to send people with guns to take away his freedom, maybe, but enough to form an opinion. Otherwise, are we supposed to involve the legal system in every assessment we make of anyone?

Bancakes 4y ago
You may form opinions which are yours to keep. When you enable a hivemind with half the power of the legal system, you ought to bear half the responsibility of the legal system.
philwelch 4y ago
The legal system is already involved. Why are you so anxious to form an opinion?
tpoacher 4y ago
Tell that to Tim Hunt
joannanewsom 4y ago
What is the value of forming an opinion about someone we will probably never interact with and has no influence on our lives? I can understand if you work for his company or know him in person. But for the rest of the internet, I don't see the purpose except to fuel outrage.
- rtpg 4y ago
  I mean… he’s the one out here in front of the press all the time. He was a CEO of a card processing company! There is a universe in which he wouldn’t be a household name. Sure the “outrage” is just high level gossip for most people talking about it, but it’s a reaction to this person being a loud and vocal person who was trying to build a public persona of being a Good Guy. There’s definitely a larger idea here about journalism in general looking for hero stories. But the guy is out there giving the interviews
  - wikfwikf 4y ago
    You also answered the GP's question as to why we should care about this. If you're reading and seeing multiple stories all over the media about what a wonderful, altruistic person someone is, the information as to whether that person is in fact a great guy, or whether he's a predatory scumbag who is exploiting the media to make himself look great is very valuable. It tells you something about how the media works.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > a gear guy or a predatory scumbag You can be a terrible person and have great ideas/inventions. Steve jobs treated his family like shit, Nazis made many scientific discoveries, etc.
      - sitkack 4y ago
        I think you can assassinate a wonderful idea by having the _wrong_ person present it. People rarely judge a thing on its inherent qualities.
        Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Source matters. Always, for anything. There is essentially no such thing as "inherent qualities" distinct from their source. Or rather, you can never actually know all the inherent qualities. Knowledge of the sources history, character, motivations, and intentions is itself one of those inherent qualities. If someone presents you with an idea, you often don't know if it's a good idea or just looks like a good idea because it was crafted to look good, in service of some unknown ultimate goal that you would not voluntarily choose to support if you knew everything. Every scam in history is based on convincing a victim to harm themselves. Apparently, inherent qualities can be unknown, unknowable, or hidden. It's too late to contest that. It's already been happening for all of human history, and on every possible scale. Judging something because the source has a known evil character is not wrong or counterproductive or unfair the way it is judging something because the source has pleasing charisma or lacks it. If a Nazi says something, it's automatically not a wonderful idea in the first place, even if someone else later says the exact same thing and we all agree it's a wonderful idea then. It's not wrong or illogical. It's just a slight of hand used by the dishonest (or the merely misguided) to try to make it seem wrong or hypocritical by pointing out only the surface similarity between that and prejudice based on nothing that stands up to scrutiny, when those are actually two very different things. It's like a less obvious version of crying about being ddnied the freedom to deny others freedom.
- michaelt 4y ago
  Because you've already formed an opinion (Maybe you've read articles saying "The one moral CEO in America" like the grandparent) and you want to correct it if your prior opinion was incomplete.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- wikfwikf 4y ago
  Your take is that having sex with someone who you believe to be asleep is ok if that person has chosen to sleep in the same room as you and to take cannabis? This is obviously rape apology.
jiriknesl 4y ago
Forming an opinion is great and everyone's right. Nowadays, exactly the same process you describe, is used to cancel people without proper chance for them to defend themselves. So I would be double careful with "multiple accusations", amplified in mass media and/or social media bubble because this is exactly how mob virtually lynches people in 2022.
- samhw 4y ago
  What do you mean by 'cancel', outside the context of blacklisting entertainers? How does that apply to a CEO? Presumably anyone considering employing or funding him is entitled (and likely competent) to read the facts and others' thoughts about them. I think the point about 'multiple accusers' is fair. People will come out of the woodwork, especially when there's money at stake (from the press or from legal action). Michael Jackson is a good example: undoubtedly he did rape some of those kids, but not all of them. Still, I don't see why this provides an argument against forming an opinion, rather than one for forming opinions judiciously. Also, look up Jesse Washington if you want to understand what lynching means.
sytelus 4y ago
Not "we", but people like you certainly. There is no "credibility" if there is no real evidence. History is full of journalists creating sensational articles and amplifying things out of proportion to sale news papers. They deliberately leave out the context just to create outrage. You feel entitled for being jury and the judge and punish a person because it all "feels" right - except if you would be on the receiving end.
dangerface 4y ago
> Multiple credible accusations, corroborated by contemporaneous accounts, collated by a reputable journalist is definitely enough to call the accusations founded. Journalists build a narrative and then find facts that fit their narrative. If you continue to form your opinions on accusation you will find yourself easily manipulated by those who know how journalism works.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  For the record...that's not journalism. It might be reporting. It might be marketing. It might be character assassination. But. It's not journalism. We need to stop giving that type of behaviour a greater title than it deserves.
  - skyzyx 4y ago
    This. Exactly fucking this.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Unfortunately, that approach leads to confimation bias, as well as other biases. The point being - the media and other nefarious characters knowing - once the seed of accusations are planted, for the most part we are wired *not* to let go of that. It lives on well after the real facts have surfaced. Also, along the same lines, the human memory is fairly easy to manipulate. It's not the air tight SSD we all presume it to be. As a rule of thumb "follow the money". The fact is there are plenty of CEOs and other champions of Crony Capitalism that would pay good money to see him fall. If Big Sugar can buy off Harvard profs and their research so they blame fat for America's failing health ...Price is definitely fair game. And look...sugar still gets a free pass from most people. I'm not defending Price. He's got a lawyer for that. Simply pointing out that beneath the surface, the world is a dirty place. When money and the status quo is involved I'm far slower to jump to conclusions.

Bancakes 4y ago

You may form opinions which are yours to keep. When you enable a hivemind with half the power of the legal system, you ought to bear half the responsibility of the legal system.

philwelch 4y ago

The legal system is already involved. Why are you so anxious to form an opinion?

tpoacher 4y ago

Tell that to Tim Hunt

joannanewsom 4y ago

What is the value of forming an opinion about someone we will probably never interact with and has no influence on our lives? I can understand if you work for his company or know him in person. But for the rest of the internet, I don't see the purpose except to fuel outrage.

rtpg 4y ago
I mean… he’s the one out here in front of the press all the time. He was a CEO of a card processing company! There is a universe in which he wouldn’t be a household name. Sure the “outrage” is just high level gossip for most people talking about it, but it’s a reaction to this person being a loud and vocal person who was trying to build a public persona of being a Good Guy. There’s definitely a larger idea here about journalism in general looking for hero stories. But the guy is out there giving the interviews
- wikfwikf 4y ago
  You also answered the GP's question as to why we should care about this. If you're reading and seeing multiple stories all over the media about what a wonderful, altruistic person someone is, the information as to whether that person is in fact a great guy, or whether he's a predatory scumbag who is exploiting the media to make himself look great is very valuable. It tells you something about how the media works.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > a gear guy or a predatory scumbag You can be a terrible person and have great ideas/inventions. Steve jobs treated his family like shit, Nazis made many scientific discoveries, etc.
    - sitkack 4y ago
      I think you can assassinate a wonderful idea by having the _wrong_ person present it. People rarely judge a thing on its inherent qualities.
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Source matters. Always, for anything. There is essentially no such thing as "inherent qualities" distinct from their source. Or rather, you can never actually know all the inherent qualities. Knowledge of the sources history, character, motivations, and intentions is itself one of those inherent qualities. If someone presents you with an idea, you often don't know if it's a good idea or just looks like a good idea because it was crafted to look good, in service of some unknown ultimate goal that you would not voluntarily choose to support if you knew everything. Every scam in history is based on convincing a victim to harm themselves. Apparently, inherent qualities can be unknown, unknowable, or hidden. It's too late to contest that. It's already been happening for all of human history, and on every possible scale. Judging something because the source has a known evil character is not wrong or counterproductive or unfair the way it is judging something because the source has pleasing charisma or lacks it. If a Nazi says something, it's automatically not a wonderful idea in the first place, even if someone else later says the exact same thing and we all agree it's a wonderful idea then. It's not wrong or illogical. It's just a slight of hand used by the dishonest (or the merely misguided) to try to make it seem wrong or hypocritical by pointing out only the surface similarity between that and prejudice based on nothing that stands up to scrutiny, when those are actually two very different things. It's like a less obvious version of crying about being ddnied the freedom to deny others freedom.
michaelt 4y ago
Because you've already formed an opinion (Maybe you've read articles saying "The one moral CEO in America" like the grandparent) and you want to correct it if your prior opinion was incomplete.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wikfwikf 4y ago
Your take is that having sex with someone who you believe to be asleep is ok if that person has chosen to sleep in the same room as you and to take cannabis? This is obviously rape apology.

jiriknesl 4y ago

Forming an opinion is great and everyone's right. Nowadays, exactly the same process you describe, is used to cancel people without proper chance for them to defend themselves. So I would be double careful with "multiple accusations", amplified in mass media and/or social media bubble because this is exactly how mob virtually lynches people in 2022.

samhw 4y ago
What do you mean by 'cancel', outside the context of blacklisting entertainers? How does that apply to a CEO? Presumably anyone considering employing or funding him is entitled (and likely competent) to read the facts and others' thoughts about them. I think the point about 'multiple accusers' is fair. People will come out of the woodwork, especially when there's money at stake (from the press or from legal action). Michael Jackson is a good example: undoubtedly he did rape some of those kids, but not all of them. Still, I don't see why this provides an argument against forming an opinion, rather than one for forming opinions judiciously. Also, look up Jesse Washington if you want to understand what lynching means.

sytelus 4y ago

Not "we", but people like you certainly. There is no "credibility" if there is no real evidence. History is full of journalists creating sensational articles and amplifying things out of proportion to sale news papers. They deliberately leave out the context just to create outrage. You feel entitled for being jury and the judge and punish a person because it all "feels" right - except if you would be on the receiving end.

dangerface 4y ago

> Multiple credible accusations, corroborated by contemporaneous accounts, collated by a reputable journalist is definitely enough to call the accusations founded. Journalists build a narrative and then find facts that fit their narrative. If you continue to form your opinions on accusation you will find yourself easily manipulated by those who know how journalism works.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
For the record...that's not journalism. It might be reporting. It might be marketing. It might be character assassination. But. It's not journalism. We need to stop giving that type of behaviour a greater title than it deserves.
- skyzyx 4y ago
  This. Exactly fucking this.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

Unfortunately, that approach leads to confimation bias, as well as other biases. The point being - the media and other nefarious characters knowing - once the seed of accusations are planted, for the most part we are wired *not* to let go of that. It lives on well after the real facts have surfaced. Also, along the same lines, the human memory is fairly easy to manipulate. It's not the air tight SSD we all presume it to be. As a rule of thumb "follow the money". The fact is there are plenty of CEOs and other champions of Crony Capitalism that would pay good money to see him fall. If Big Sugar can buy off Harvard profs and their research so they blame fat for America's failing health ...Price is definitely fair game. And look...sugar still gets a free pass from most people. I'm not defending Price. He's got a lawyer for that. Simply pointing out that beneath the surface, the world is a dirty place. When money and the status quo is involved I'm far slower to jump to conclusions.