-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
How do you react to sexual assault/harassment accusations?
- Thread starter MrRob
- Start date
And I guess I could say I can tell you haven't met the evil of sexual assault yet? Don't judge so heavily. Far more people do crazy shit and far less people believe you and justice is rarely served. Good luck with that line of thinking when your own life and well being are on the line.
OP
OP
Part of the reason I created this thread and have trouble understanding how to react to these situations is that I too have been falsely accused.
Ten or so years ago an ex girlfriend of mine accused me of beating her up while she was pregnant with another man's child. I sat in jail for a couple days because I was arrested on a Friday and didn't have a bail hearing until Monday.
It was later proven that she lied but the accusation did make me a bit of a social outcast for a while. It took some time to rehabilitate the image others had of me.
Fair points. But I'm not so quick to judge. My case is not the same as a sexual assault case. I can give you that. But I can tell you that shit was real when it happened and that I had preconceived assholes talking mad shit before they even heard the story. Even threaten my persecution before my case. What you know about that?
Somewhat similar. And still I worry about ramifications 7 years after. Who's talking about that?
I've yet to hear about a sexual assault accusation where I thought "that sounds fake." Just think of the logistics of falsely accusing a famous person. 90% of a celebrities day is usually documented and accounted for so that eliminates any "crazy" person that's just going to make a fake claim out of thin air. All the claims are usually from a person the celebrity knew and had some contact with. Sure the accuser could be doing it for revenge or to ruin someone's career but how often does that happen? Maybe a monetary benefit but how many famous sexual assault victims do you know? I'm sure there's a better way to handle this but I'm in no position of power I'm just a dude on a forum.
TL:DR: I believe the accuser until I'm given reason not to.
TL:DR: I believe the accuser until I'm given reason not to.
Deny deny deny whether you're guilty or innocent I suppose. Ideally if guilty, you'd swiftly open up truly to individual or group therapy or open up to personal improvement, change, or if it's darker issues driving your behavior, being brave enough to deal with that.
I personally wouldn't want people speculating or believing the worst of me if any of it were true, as I would also personally move to deal with the problem in whatever way possible
I personally wouldn't want people speculating or believing the worst of me if any of it were true, as I would also personally move to deal with the problem in whatever way possible
Believing to support victims and limiting belief when it comes to condemning people seems like a good strategy.
It wasn't mutual flirting I would never ever touch her cos she's my boys girlfriend. I was attracted to her before then. But I wouldn't look at her like that now.
I didn't consent to get my wang touched. I don't consider my wang getting touched as mutual flirting.
This is the first time of me hearing he was accused of something, but I am not shocked like you. Neil always had a condescending tone in most of his talks. He acts arrogantly when handles topics such as religion and philosophy. Acts like he is better than everyone even though his background is pretty specific. Those are the characteristics of a psychopath.
I am not saying he did it, but it doesn't shock me.
Can you point me to these points of condescending tones and arrogance ? I've fallen off the map perhaps over the last couple of years but he was always known as a softy in terms of religious and philosophical talks from my readings. Let's skip the psychopath stuff for now.
No worries. I specified famous people in the wake of all this Harvey Weinstein stuff or else the topic would go way off the rails. Of course there's a history ,at least in the US, where people make false rape accusations against minorities and it leads to death penalty/decades in prison. I think there was a story earlier this year where a woman scapegoated a fictional group of black people for her made up rape/kidnapping. Lots of injustices where people without proper legal counsel get railroaded so if you're on a jury you have to be fair.
However, 9/10 for these celebrity accusations it's always easier to believe the accuser because the stories typically line up and make sense if you're not bias towards the accused.
I think this generally represents my view. I try to keep some level of skepticism with a lot of these accusations, but rarely are they truly happening in a vacuum. Nearly every one happens against an individual with a track record of behavior that was already edging a certain line of acceptability - so the action already fits their character.
Additionally, the second an additional victim speaks out against an individual - it very firmly confirms both accusations in my eyes.
I believe there is always two sides to a story, and before passing judgement i would like to see the evidence and facts. Obviously if it warrants it, then the perpetrator should be booked and fight the case from behind bars.
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser, but I also take into consideration the past of the accused and what their character is like.
As someone who's gotten in trouble for things I've never done (nothing serious thankfully), I try to take a step back and let events unfold before making any sort of judgement. Past behavior, amount of victims coming out, and definitely how the person being accused reacts all count. Being accused falsely, you feel really helpless and you're pretty much at a loss for words, it's also anger inducing. But if you know you're innocent, you know that things will hopefully sort themselves out, and talking shit or chucking a tantrum is the last thing you'd want to do.
i sometimes get called sexist for it, but if its a woman accusing a man, 9 out of 10 times i'll generally side with the woman. Because that's just the factual statistics backing up the likelihood of the circumstances. Now of course i'll wait to get good info regarding the case, but i definitely am not surprised if things go the way i think they will.
I also feel generally the same way if its a male accuser against another male.
I also feel generally the same way if its a male accuser against another male.
I agree. A loss of words is an understatement though to be fair. It's more like everything you worked/cared about is taking from underneath your feet in a blink of an eye. And you ain't even seen the judge yet!
Uuuh, those are not the characteristics of a psychopath at all. At worst they're the characteristics of a man with an ego/arrogance, but it's more likely attributed to a benign confidence in his field. To attribute condescension as some kind of proof, or at least smoke, that a person is not only a sexual assaulter, but a psychopath is pretty unnerving. Like if I were famous, I'd sometimes wonder what I'd be called considering I'm often quite reserved in my emotions and wouldn't handle being in the spotlight well at all because of my introversion. Would these exterior mannerisms be used as ammo should I be accused of something?
It's disturbing that a celebrity's public mannerisms are being used as judgment towards their potential criminal involvements. The Piven thread as another example, where posters are citing the way he looks, and even his performance as Ari as evidence he was more likely to have committed assault really isn't okay.
To bring it back to the broader topic, I'd say we as members of the public don't have a right to condemn either way. Perhaps this is too idealistic, but if everyone would just stop jumping down the throats of either party, we wouldn't be in the predicament of either the victim being blamed and ignored, or the accused being dogpiled and harassed. Celebrity culture is gross. You don't know Piven. You don't know DeGrasse Tyson. Maybe they make you laugh or give you useful insight that can't be discounted, but they aren't your friends, nor are they sheep for slaughter. We need to create a culture where it's healthy for an accuser to come forward, be taken seriously, let the authorities take the necessary steps in coming to conclusion, and then have the accused prosecuted however is necessary. It's also important to not group all accused in the same wide net. Groping someone at a party, as perverse and unsavoury as that is, is not the same as Weinstein's case, a man who's aggressively and consistently used his power and influence to coerce, abuse and rape women over the course of decades, at all.
But the narratives that get spun are so immediately hostile and fervent that all reason and logic are flying out the door.
If I know the victim personally, I'll believe them. If I read it on the internet, I reserve the right to believe whatever I want. I believe the majority of the accusations that have been coming out. I don't however enjoy or want to participate any more in the threads where everyone is quick to get some internet points in saying "I KNEW IT" or throwing around accusations haphazardly. I find the way it's discussed irrational and disturbing.
Innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't discount the accuser any more than I rush to the defense of the accused. Assessment and an open mind are paramount into ensuring that justice carried out. I'm not judge nor jury, but I do my best to avoid dismissing a possible victim or partaking in an internet mob destroying a potentially innocent person. A little patience can go a long way.
I generally dont take accusations as fact as most do, unless something is proven i dont generally believe it, of course i do have suspicions when the person has a prior track record of certain behavior.
This is me too.
What's crazy is if you just take Spacey and Weinstein, these 2 men have groped, assaulted, and forced themselves on countless men and women. How many victims have they created over the decades and some of us are only now hearing about it? What if any one of those people was able to be heard and believed 30 years ago? And yet there's so much hand-wringing over staying in the middle lol.
At this point I am tending to take the accuser's side by default as a knee jerk reaction because of the history of abuse perpetrated by men against women. It's never a surprise to hear of powerful men abusing their position and I truly think we're only seeing a fraction of the reality when it comes to these cases.
In my mind I have essentially reconciled, for example, that most of the great rock bands and artists of the 60s, 70s, etc have likely indulged in various levels of sexual misconduct with minors.
It's why it's important not to elevate celebrity or famous people to worship as we don't really know who they are and what they have done.
That said, I'm not one to jump on internet dogpiles and mob justice. But victims having the courage to speak out should never be held responsible for the aftermath.
It does bother me regarding people saying innocent until proven guilty in these cases however, because realistically what evidence is going to prove strong enough for conviction at this point down the line? These cases are historically nigh on impossible to prove and have the perpetrator suffer any judicial punishment
In my mind I have essentially reconciled, for example, that most of the great rock bands and artists of the 60s, 70s, etc have likely indulged in various levels of sexual misconduct with minors.
It's why it's important not to elevate celebrity or famous people to worship as we don't really know who they are and what they have done.
That said, I'm not one to jump on internet dogpiles and mob justice. But victims having the courage to speak out should never be held responsible for the aftermath.
It does bother me regarding people saying innocent until proven guilty in these cases however, because realistically what evidence is going to prove strong enough for conviction at this point down the line? These cases are historically nigh on impossible to prove and have the perpetrator suffer any judicial punishment
Case by case basis. Generally, I prefer to watch these things play out.
I feel that accusations should be taken very seriously. The sad truth is that, especially with cases that date back decades, the standard for what is deemed acceptable behaviour has changed a lot since the alleged misconduct. With that in mind, accuations certainly aren't surprising, nor would it be surprising if they end up being validated.
At the same time, I'm not really willing to prematurely apply pressure on involved parties until there is a clearer picture. This, too, is one of the unfortunate side effects of much abuse having occured so long ago - objective verification is virtually impossible (at best).
In a way, it seems to me that the best thing we can do is learn from past mistakes and create an atmosphere and environment in which victims feel more comfortable coming forward. The reason we're hearing so much now is in part due to how often such cases occur, but also in part due to the fact that we have a 30+ year backlog of unacceptable behaviour to work through.
I feel that accusations should be taken very seriously. The sad truth is that, especially with cases that date back decades, the standard for what is deemed acceptable behaviour has changed a lot since the alleged misconduct. With that in mind, accuations certainly aren't surprising, nor would it be surprising if they end up being validated.
At the same time, I'm not really willing to prematurely apply pressure on involved parties until there is a clearer picture. This, too, is one of the unfortunate side effects of much abuse having occured so long ago - objective verification is virtually impossible (at best).
In a way, it seems to me that the best thing we can do is learn from past mistakes and create an atmosphere and environment in which victims feel more comfortable coming forward. The reason we're hearing so much now is in part due to how often such cases occur, but also in part due to the fact that we have a 30+ year backlog of unacceptable behaviour to work through.
By default, I take the accuser's side, because in general people are truthful about this sort of thing. People tell the truth far more frequently than lie about this, and it doesn't make sense to engage in the world in such a cynical way that you exaggerate the less than 10% of falsehoods into your go-to assumption.
That rule of thumb suits me perfectly fine in my day-to-day experience. I understand the burden of proof is higher for the court of law, but hey, I'm not in court, so I don't have to worry about that. The burden of proof HAS to be high there because the consequences might involve locking people away. The consequence of me thinking they're a terrible person isn't nearly as dire, so such a default assumption that the accuser is telling the truth seems to be to be a safe one to take.
That rule of thumb suits me perfectly fine in my day-to-day experience. I understand the burden of proof is higher for the court of law, but hey, I'm not in court, so I don't have to worry about that. The burden of proof HAS to be high there because the consequences might involve locking people away. The consequence of me thinking they're a terrible person isn't nearly as dire, so such a default assumption that the accuser is telling the truth seems to be to be a safe one to take.
I believe that accusations should be taken seriously and that these accusations are investigated properly.
I was falsely accused of something by a bully when I was in secondary school and it led to many years of physical and emotional torture because people believed baseless rumours. This makes me give the accused the benefit of the doubt to a degree, and I believe that there should be proof, no matter how small, before judgement should be passed. But, with the high-profile cases that have come to light recently, it seems that people in power have abused their position and a lot of times there's no smoke without fire.
All in all, people shouldn't be afraid of coming forward and being vocal about things that have happened to them at the hands of others. Nobody should be made to be a victim, and nobody should be forcing their will upon others in this manner. I really hope that these recent events strengthen peoples resolve and that they step forward and confront their abuser.
I was falsely accused of something by a bully when I was in secondary school and it led to many years of physical and emotional torture because people believed baseless rumours. This makes me give the accused the benefit of the doubt to a degree, and I believe that there should be proof, no matter how small, before judgement should be passed. But, with the high-profile cases that have come to light recently, it seems that people in power have abused their position and a lot of times there's no smoke without fire.
All in all, people shouldn't be afraid of coming forward and being vocal about things that have happened to them at the hands of others. Nobody should be made to be a victim, and nobody should be forcing their will upon others in this manner. I really hope that these recent events strengthen peoples resolve and that they step forward and confront their abuser.
Of course you need to hear both sides of the story.
But you take the story of the accuser 100% serious.
The first post really nails my own thoughts on this.
Anyone can accuse anyone else of everything at any time, so while accusations need to be taken serious, they also should not be taken unquestioned.
There are many accusations we will never be able to prove or disprove, but we certainly are able to discern which ones are more realistic than others.
This is pretty much my train of thought. Take the Harvey Weinstein stuff for example: so many people have accused him of sexual misconduct that it's hard to believe he's innocent. There's a pattern. However, this new story about Kevin Spacey has me feeling that we should give him the benefit of the doubt. But it could also be bias on my part because I really like Spacey and I don't want a reason like this to make me feel ill towards him. He definitely could have handled the situation a whole lot better though.
I definitely feel that victims should have support because this kind of stuff is extremely serious, but at the same time I don't like like the idea of blindly believing them either.
False rape allegations are a tiny minority in statistics so I'll believe the victim first before the accused.
Did anyone really take it that far? I was personally just rolling my eyes at his over-familiarity.
On-topic, I feel it's important to approach allegations with a degree of (perhaps unvoiced) skepticism - you don't want to be seen as doubting the victim but you also don't want to blindly believe every allegation made against people, as there are definitely dishonest folk out there who know how much this kind of stuff can ruin someone. However, it's important not to get 'accusation fatigue' as I heard James O'Brian term it on LBC yesterday. A lot of people I know who don't really pay too much attention to this kind of thing are now starting to get 'fed up' with it all coming out. I'm not saying that's right at all, just noticing a common behaviour I see which is very unfortunate.
As with everything, treat each accusation as an individual case.
I don't react. The actions of strangers are pretty much meaningless to me. I don't assume people are innocent or guilty, I don't put mental energy into it.
I often don't react, because my opinion on a sexual assault case involving two people I don't know, that I'll likely never meet isn't particularly important to anyone, including me. According to RAINN, a sexual assault happens every 98 seconds. On most of those, I'll never hear about them, and will form no opinion. In publicized cases, sometimes I'll form an opinion and not express it, or form an opinion and express it, or even form an opinion and take some sort of action, depending on what I know about the situation, and what I believe to be true.
I don't put much thought into, especially if it's a single case of accusation. I'll wait to see how it plays out before passing any kind of judgement. I don't believe in witch hunts based on extremely little information.
Before #metoo happened my first reaction was: 'But what if it's a false accusation! Someones life will be ruined!' But hearing how many women have actually been sexually assaulted, not 'just' harassed, has really changed my immediate reaction. I knew from a few friends of mine they had gone through terrible stuff, but now I've started to see how widespread it is.
Of course I don't immediately condemn the accused (which I think tends to happen a lot, see the Sandler thread), and to the posters in this thread who have been falsely accused, I'm really sorry to hear, that probably makes you feel so helpless. But I think the opposite is really prevalent. First, that women are abused, and than not believed.
Of course I don't immediately condemn the accused (which I think tends to happen a lot, see the Sandler thread), and to the posters in this thread who have been falsely accused, I'm really sorry to hear, that probably makes you feel so helpless. But I think the opposite is really prevalent. First, that women are abused, and than not believed.
Realistically, what proof is possible to obtain? What level of proof is acceptable?
There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
Innocent until proven guilty.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Innocent until proven guilty.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.