5 ms·

> I have no idea who is telling the truth in this situation, and unless you are the person who has been accused or those who are the alleged victims, neither do

by ghusto 1y ago

> I have no idea who is telling the truth in this situation, and unless you are the person who has been accused or those who are the alleged victims, neither do you Almost sounds like there'd be a long established fair-as-possible process for dealing with these situations, doesn't it? > But - it is worth stating very clearly that history is replete with examples of men who have used their senior position in communities to take advantage of women And now history is replete with examples of woman destroying the lives of men with no process or consequence.

maeln 1y ago
> > I have no idea who is telling the truth in this situation, and unless you are the person who has been accused or those who are the alleged victims, neither do you > Almost sounds like there'd be a long established fair-as-possible process for dealing with these situations, doesn't it? A fair-as-possible process that is only fair if you have enough money to afford a lawyer, the time to fight for your case, are not part of a community that has been systematically discriminated against by the people enforcing the process, that the laws are in your favor, that you are not victim of a difficult to prove crime, ... I will never advocate for vigilante justice, but let's not kid ourselves, the justice system has many, many flaws and bias, and acting as if it should be the only source of truth, and that no personal judgment should be made without, is very naïve.
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  The justice system is pretty terrible, but it's still better than mob justice. > and that no personal judgment should be made without I think it's fine to make personal judgements about things that have little impact on other people. For things that have a big impact, a more formal approach is called for. I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big.
  - maeln 1y ago
    > The justice system is pretty terrible, but it's still better than mob justice. Absolutely, but there is a space between mob justice and the legal system. Most community do self police in some form or another. It is also far from perfect, and mistakes happen just like in the other system. But it is a middle ground between the heavier burden of proof and long process used by the legal system, and the lack of usually any proof and visceral reaction of mob mentality. Member of a community usually have more information about the other member of the community, which inform their judgment. They have also more at stakes. > I think it's fine to make personal judgements about things that have little impact on other people. For things that have a big impact, a more formal approach is called for. I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big. If we choose to believe him. If we choose to believe the accuser, then we could reason that by "exposing" him they may have prevented other victim. Something a long and legal process might not have prevented. I am not saying this is the case. I know personally neither the accuser nor the accused, and have no real way to make an informed decision in this case.
    - akoboldfrying 1y ago
      > But it is a middle ground between the heavier burden of proof and long process used by the legal system, and the lack of usually any proof and visceral reaction of mob mentality. Where do you see the line between community self-policing and mob justice? I agree that community members often have information about each other, but I think it's often low-grade and commingled with vague popularity and "office politics". I interpreted the situation in TFA to be that many people signed the letter who had little information either way. >> I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big. > If we choose to believe him. Here I was only talking about the impact it had on him, not whether or not he was guilty of something. I think we can believe that it had a big impact on him. Or do you suspect that he is exaggerating for effect?
- ghusto 1y ago
  At no point was I insinuating that the justice system isn't flawed. It's heavily flawed, for all to see. The alternative however, is unjustifiable. Mob law is worse than no law.
wulfstan 1y ago
No - and in fact in my view this is the core problem with these kinds of situations - there isn't a long established process validating a set of accusations, that if true, fall short of criminality but should result in your exclusion from a community. Individual communities have to establish ground rules for these sorts of things to protect the vulnerable. > And now history is replete with examples of woman destroying the lives of men with no process or consequence. I do not accept that this happens with nearly the regularity that people, usually men, claim it does. To make these kinds of accusations as a woman tears your life apart in unimaginable ways. By way of example, 1 in 100 rape accusations MADE TO THE POLICE in the UK leads to a charge being made against the accused. That is what we as a society are up against, and why we have to take creepy, exploitative behaviour that falls short of criminality so seriously.
- mattbee 1y ago
  > No - and in fact in my view this is the core problem with these kinds of situations - there isn't a long established process validating a set of accusations, that if true, fall short of criminality but should result in your exclusion from a community. > Individual communities have to establish ground rules for these sorts of things to protect the vulnerable. You can never sue anyone for ostracizing you from an open community, or for the consequences of that ostracism. There's no limit on who global communities might choose to ostracize. It's so fundamental to how we group together; you always have to know the norms. British law is famously friendly to wealthy litigants, and the High Court for awarding ruinous damages. The OP took an opportunity to sue four signatories who (from my understanding of the court order) put their name to harmful allegations that they didn't know the truth of. The four defendants paid £20,000 in costs and damages. Unfortunately for the OP, the ostracism clearly still stands, and despite going to the High Court to sue for libel, the first-hand reports of his conduct are still online. I don't see this as a lesson in the terrifyingly and unpredictable consequences of Cancellation - seems like more "don't shit where you eat".
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  You seem to think that the fact that > 1 in 100 rape accusations MADE TO THE POLICE in the UK leads to a charge being made against the accused backs up your claim that > To make these kinds of accusations as a woman tears your life apart in unimaginable ways But this is not the case at all, unless you intended "these kinds of accusations" to mean both making formal charges and writing accusatory blog posts -- but the whole reason for this article is to point out the massive amount of damage that the latter can do at almost no cost to the accuser. Absent further evidence, it's clear that in this particular case, the two accusers' lives were not at all "torn apart" by making these life-destroying accusations -- do you agree?
myvoiceismypass 1y ago
> now history is replete with examples Super curious what the stats are that support a statement like this. Scale matters with everything.

by ghusto 1y ago

maeln 1y ago

> > I have no idea who is telling the truth in this situation, and unless you are the person who has been accused or those who are the alleged victims, neither do you > Almost sounds like there'd be a long established fair-as-possible process for dealing with these situations, doesn't it? A fair-as-possible process that is only fair if you have enough money to afford a lawyer, the time to fight for your case, are not part of a community that has been systematically discriminated against by the people enforcing the process, that the laws are in your favor, that you are not victim of a difficult to prove crime, ... I will never advocate for vigilante justice, but let's not kid ourselves, the justice system has many, many flaws and bias, and acting as if it should be the only source of truth, and that no personal judgment should be made without, is very naïve.

akoboldfrying 1y ago
The justice system is pretty terrible, but it's still better than mob justice. > and that no personal judgment should be made without I think it's fine to make personal judgements about things that have little impact on other people. For things that have a big impact, a more formal approach is called for. I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big.
- maeln 1y ago
  > The justice system is pretty terrible, but it's still better than mob justice. Absolutely, but there is a space between mob justice and the legal system. Most community do self police in some form or another. It is also far from perfect, and mistakes happen just like in the other system. But it is a middle ground between the heavier burden of proof and long process used by the legal system, and the lack of usually any proof and visceral reaction of mob mentality. Member of a community usually have more information about the other member of the community, which inform their judgment. They have also more at stakes. > I think it's fine to make personal judgements about things that have little impact on other people. For things that have a big impact, a more formal approach is called for. I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big. If we choose to believe him. If we choose to believe the accuser, then we could reason that by "exposing" him they may have prevented other victim. Something a long and legal process might not have prevented. I am not saying this is the case. I know personally neither the accuser nor the accused, and have no real way to make an informed decision in this case.
  - akoboldfrying 1y ago
    > But it is a middle ground between the heavier burden of proof and long process used by the legal system, and the lack of usually any proof and visceral reaction of mob mentality. Where do you see the line between community self-policing and mob justice? I agree that community members often have information about each other, but I think it's often low-grade and commingled with vague popularity and "office politics". I interpreted the situation in TFA to be that many people signed the letter who had little information either way. >> I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big. > If we choose to believe him. Here I was only talking about the impact it had on him, not whether or not he was guilty of something. I think we can believe that it had a big impact on him. Or do you suspect that he is exaggerating for effect?
ghusto 1y ago
At no point was I insinuating that the justice system isn't flawed. It's heavily flawed, for all to see. The alternative however, is unjustifiable. Mob law is worse than no law.

wulfstan 1y ago

No - and in fact in my view this is the core problem with these kinds of situations - there isn't a long established process validating a set of accusations, that if true, fall short of criminality but should result in your exclusion from a community. Individual communities have to establish ground rules for these sorts of things to protect the vulnerable. > And now history is replete with examples of woman destroying the lives of men with no process or consequence. I do not accept that this happens with nearly the regularity that people, usually men, claim it does. To make these kinds of accusations as a woman tears your life apart in unimaginable ways. By way of example, 1 in 100 rape accusations MADE TO THE POLICE in the UK leads to a charge being made against the accused. That is what we as a society are up against, and why we have to take creepy, exploitative behaviour that falls short of criminality so seriously.

mattbee 1y ago
> No - and in fact in my view this is the core problem with these kinds of situations - there isn't a long established process validating a set of accusations, that if true, fall short of criminality but should result in your exclusion from a community. > Individual communities have to establish ground rules for these sorts of things to protect the vulnerable. You can never sue anyone for ostracizing you from an open community, or for the consequences of that ostracism. There's no limit on who global communities might choose to ostracize. It's so fundamental to how we group together; you always have to know the norms. British law is famously friendly to wealthy litigants, and the High Court for awarding ruinous damages. The OP took an opportunity to sue four signatories who (from my understanding of the court order) put their name to harmful allegations that they didn't know the truth of. The four defendants paid £20,000 in costs and damages. Unfortunately for the OP, the ostracism clearly still stands, and despite going to the High Court to sue for libel, the first-hand reports of his conduct are still online. I don't see this as a lesson in the terrifyingly and unpredictable consequences of Cancellation - seems like more "don't shit where you eat".
akoboldfrying 1y ago
You seem to think that the fact that > 1 in 100 rape accusations MADE TO THE POLICE in the UK leads to a charge being made against the accused backs up your claim that > To make these kinds of accusations as a woman tears your life apart in unimaginable ways But this is not the case at all, unless you intended "these kinds of accusations" to mean both making formal charges and writing accusatory blog posts -- but the whole reason for this article is to point out the massive amount of damage that the latter can do at almost no cost to the accuser. Absent further evidence, it's clear that in this particular case, the two accusers' lives were not at all "torn apart" by making these life-destroying accusations -- do you agree?

myvoiceismypass 1y ago

> now history is replete with examples Super curious what the stats are that support a statement like this. Scale matters with everything.