4 ms·

Here's a thought experiment: What if some guy actually were a child molester, a pedophile, or something from the list of things mentioned in the article. Then o

by kleiba 14y ago

Here's a thought experiment: What if some guy actually were a child molester, a pedophile, or something from the list of things mentioned in the article. Then one day, his girlfriend finds out about it. And she starts an internet campaign like that -- not because she wants to warn others, but just for personal reasons like the girl from the article. Would that change how you feel about an internet "smear" campaign like that, the difference obviously being that it's not defamation but facts? EDIT: Since I'm getting downvoted already, I'd like to add that I don't want to imply that the above is my opinion (nor that it isn't). I'm just genuinely interested in the truthfulness of the statements posted by the girl is a factor relevant to people's judgment of what she's doing. It is completely hypothetical (but that's often the nature of thought experiments).

J_Darnley 14y ago
No it wouldn't. It would be just as bad. If a theoretical girlfriend has knowledge of that, she should go to the police and let them and the courts ruin a man's life, regardless of whether it is true.
- kleiba 14y ago
  Thanks for your reply.
tripzilch 14y ago
You're getting downvoted not just because before your edit it did actually seem very much like that is in fact your opinion, but also because it's a very stupid question. You're asking about a ridiculous hypothetical situation where a person would be guilty of all the things she smears him with (check the articles), a situation where you ask the opinion of random onlookers to imagine they are somehow magically 100% certain of his guilt as a fact, yet this person is somehow not convicted. I call troll. Maybe not even on purpose. If you have to qualify your question with "I am just genuinely interested ...", I don't think I ever used that phrase outside of circumstances where I was purposefully trolling.
- kleiba 14y ago
  Thanks for your answer. I see how my post could be perceived as trolling while in fact that was not my intention at all. I certainly did not write about being genuinely interested while I'm actually not. You're making a good point about how the situation I described is hypothetical. However, I did not write that you as an onlooker would be 100% convinced that all of the things she claims were true. The article actually only names some accusations she makes, and I referred to these in my original question. Therefore, the things she posts may in parts be correct in my thought experiment, and the onlooker knows about that, while other parts of her posts may still be incorrect ("smear"). Note that even with the actual article, i.e., without any knowledge about what actually happened other than what is written in the article, we are all "random onlookers". And we're all forming opinions one way or the other when we read something like this. I am interested to know how these opinions would perhaps be influenced if we had additional knowledge that isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. The thought experiment I sketched certainly is on an extreme end of the spectrum. If anything in my post was purposeful, then that it was hypothetical. Since your reply I'm thinking now that perhaps it was indeed "ridiculous" to think something like this up. But again, it wasn't my intention at all to troll. I appreciate that you took the time to answer.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    Why concern yourself with these hypotheticals? I enjoy tech prognostication, but there are so many ways for people to be terrible to each other in reality that dwelling seems unnecessary.
    - kleiba 14y ago
      Well, different people find different things interesting. For instance, I might ask: "why concern yourself with Twilight", yet there are many devout fans of the shows.
      - illuminate 14y ago
        Devils' advocacy for the sake of devils' advocacy seems a bit onanistic, or worse when it comes to seeing sinister plans in the eyes of victims. I find it interesting to ~do~ it in my own head, plenty of "what if?"s, but targeting victims of various crimes with "what if they deserved their abuse?" sans-evidence doesn't come off as very healthy. It goes in a darker direction than most brainstorming, IMO.
Millennium 14y ago
Statements like this are a serious matter, and the truth or falsehood of them is left for the courts to decide: until then, presumption of innocence rules the day. Barring that, the hypothetical case you mention is essentially indistinguishable from the actual case being discussed.
- kleiba 14y ago
  Yet the roles of the proponents are clearly set in the article: he's the good guy, she's evil girl. My question is not about whether this is actually the case. My question has been called hypothetical (and rightfully so), thus let me make it clear that I'm not actually talking about these very people, but just about the described events in terms of an abstract storyline. I think that what we make of a story like that is very much influenced by how we perceive the characters. Many of us will, for instance, be outraged by the actions of this girl - how could she! Now, since we're putting reality aside, what if a week later, there was another newspaper article, this time reporting the conviction of the guy from the first article. This would then perhaps change our perception of the roles. That was what I was after with my question, and whether that would change the way we assess the girl's actions. I was hoping for a (perhaps more philosophical) discussion, but that clearly didn't work you. It is now clear to me that I should have made a stricter separation between the abstract events and the concrete people involved. I never meant to accuse the guy (or the girl for that matter) of anything, I apologize for any misunderstandings that might have given such an impression. Other than that, I've been basically asked "why bother about hypotheticals", so it seems that not a lot of people find such a thought experiment as interesting as I do.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "This would then perhaps change our perception of the roles. That was what I was after with my question, and whether that would change the way we assess the girl's actions. ... Other than that, I've been basically asked "why bother about hypotheticals", so it seems that not a lot of people find such a thought experiment as interesting as I do." We all have filters (of varying weight and severity) set up in place to check veracity of the facts streaming into our heads. I don't think we've all "made up our minds", but I'd rather not devote much more effort and headspace to this until any new news comes in. The problem isn't that people necessarily take presented facts as reality, myself, I consciously go through your process for every article I read. I suppose I'm downplaying your posting it here because I find outward discussion of a situation with limited but fairly striking facts from fairly trustworthy sources (multiple court records). All is possible to be skewed, but I don't have the energy to call up the "attacker" and the "victim" and perform independent research in the matter. Does that make sense?

by kleiba 14y ago

J_Darnley 14y ago

No it wouldn't. It would be just as bad. If a theoretical girlfriend has knowledge of that, she should go to the police and let them and the courts ruin a man's life, regardless of whether it is true.

kleiba 14y ago
Thanks for your reply.

tripzilch 14y ago

You're getting downvoted not just because before your edit it did actually seem very much like that is in fact your opinion, but also because it's a very stupid question. You're asking about a ridiculous hypothetical situation where a person would be guilty of all the things she smears him with (check the articles), a situation where you ask the opinion of random onlookers to imagine they are somehow magically 100% certain of his guilt as a fact, yet this person is somehow not convicted. I call troll. Maybe not even on purpose. If you have to qualify your question with "I am just genuinely interested ...", I don't think I ever used that phrase outside of circumstances where I was purposefully trolling.

kleiba 14y ago
Thanks for your answer. I see how my post could be perceived as trolling while in fact that was not my intention at all. I certainly did not write about being genuinely interested while I'm actually not. You're making a good point about how the situation I described is hypothetical. However, I did not write that you as an onlooker would be 100% convinced that all of the things she claims were true. The article actually only names some accusations she makes, and I referred to these in my original question. Therefore, the things she posts may in parts be correct in my thought experiment, and the onlooker knows about that, while other parts of her posts may still be incorrect ("smear"). Note that even with the actual article, i.e., without any knowledge about what actually happened other than what is written in the article, we are all "random onlookers". And we're all forming opinions one way or the other when we read something like this. I am interested to know how these opinions would perhaps be influenced if we had additional knowledge that isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. The thought experiment I sketched certainly is on an extreme end of the spectrum. If anything in my post was purposeful, then that it was hypothetical. Since your reply I'm thinking now that perhaps it was indeed "ridiculous" to think something like this up. But again, it wasn't my intention at all to troll. I appreciate that you took the time to answer.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Why concern yourself with these hypotheticals? I enjoy tech prognostication, but there are so many ways for people to be terrible to each other in reality that dwelling seems unnecessary.
  - kleiba 14y ago
    Well, different people find different things interesting. For instance, I might ask: "why concern yourself with Twilight", yet there are many devout fans of the shows.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      Devils' advocacy for the sake of devils' advocacy seems a bit onanistic, or worse when it comes to seeing sinister plans in the eyes of victims. I find it interesting to ~do~ it in my own head, plenty of "what if?"s, but targeting victims of various crimes with "what if they deserved their abuse?" sans-evidence doesn't come off as very healthy. It goes in a darker direction than most brainstorming, IMO.

Millennium 14y ago

Statements like this are a serious matter, and the truth or falsehood of them is left for the courts to decide: until then, presumption of innocence rules the day. Barring that, the hypothetical case you mention is essentially indistinguishable from the actual case being discussed.

kleiba 14y ago
Yet the roles of the proponents are clearly set in the article: he's the good guy, she's evil girl. My question is not about whether this is actually the case. My question has been called hypothetical (and rightfully so), thus let me make it clear that I'm not actually talking about these very people, but just about the described events in terms of an abstract storyline. I think that what we make of a story like that is very much influenced by how we perceive the characters. Many of us will, for instance, be outraged by the actions of this girl - how could she! Now, since we're putting reality aside, what if a week later, there was another newspaper article, this time reporting the conviction of the guy from the first article. This would then perhaps change our perception of the roles. That was what I was after with my question, and whether that would change the way we assess the girl's actions. I was hoping for a (perhaps more philosophical) discussion, but that clearly didn't work you. It is now clear to me that I should have made a stricter separation between the abstract events and the concrete people involved. I never meant to accuse the guy (or the girl for that matter) of anything, I apologize for any misunderstandings that might have given such an impression. Other than that, I've been basically asked "why bother about hypotheticals", so it seems that not a lot of people find such a thought experiment as interesting as I do.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "This would then perhaps change our perception of the roles. That was what I was after with my question, and whether that would change the way we assess the girl's actions. ... Other than that, I've been basically asked "why bother about hypotheticals", so it seems that not a lot of people find such a thought experiment as interesting as I do." We all have filters (of varying weight and severity) set up in place to check veracity of the facts streaming into our heads. I don't think we've all "made up our minds", but I'd rather not devote much more effort and headspace to this until any new news comes in. The problem isn't that people necessarily take presented facts as reality, myself, I consciously go through your process for every article I read. I suppose I'm downplaying your posting it here because I find outward discussion of a situation with limited but fairly striking facts from fairly trustworthy sources (multiple court records). All is possible to be skewed, but I don't have the energy to call up the "attacker" and the "victim" and perform independent research in the matter. Does that make sense?