Harvey Weinstein et al

[JohnRoberts]

I do not know how this morphed into talking about jury duty but to inject a perhaps interesting factoid, former President Obama has been called for jury duty in cook county. He should be well qualified for that but probably too much celebrity for a normal court  trial.

-----
On topic there is an ongoing investigation by NYC police into rape charges against Weinstein , but the charges are from 7 years ago so not being fast tracked. No statute of limitations for rape in NY.

---------
I won't bore you with my jury duty anecdotes (called multiple times served once) but yes I think it is important civic duty to help our fellow citizens enjoy a jury of their peers (or betters) to receive a fair trial. 

I had a childhood friend arrested for armed robbery. He didn't do it and the system worked for him, but luckily he could afford legal representation.  A scumbag store owner picked him out of a line-up because he looked like a good patsy (long hair and beard). The store owner paid off criminal extortion demands then tried to pretend he was a victim of armed robbery to get money from his insurance while not implicating the actual criminals he feared. He was a victim but almost made my friend a victim too. It could have turned out very badly for my friend so I take jury duty seriously.

Another reason I love the US, but we all must do our part to be good citizens (vote, serve jury duty, etc).  8)

JR

 

[DaveP]

but we all must do our part to be good citizens (vote, serve jury duty, etc)

+1
DaveP

 

[ombudsman]

I'd rather see people get away with murder than put innocents in jail. You can pick any type of crime you want really, innocent until proven guilty is key in my mind for a society to really function properly and morally (assuming we have a state etc).

I totally agree.

Well, part of the problem here is terminology. In the media currently we're seeing at least three terms that are somewhat related; sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. However, even though appear to be clearly different to many individuals, some don't see that big a difference between them, and it also varies between jurisdictions.

So, my first point here is that the level of "false accusations" is going to be hard to even define simply due to the fact that the definitions often are so broad and partially overlapping. After all, someone grabbing my rear in a club; is that sexual assault? And what about sexual harassment? I once had a woman call me "lamb meat" while I was changing clothes behind stage. I laughed it off, but wasn't it clearly sexual harassment? What if she had just complimented me on my fitness (I was young at the time)? Or my eyes? At some point we're going to get into an area where to one person it's a crime and to another it isn't.

It's not just charges that are being conflated here; it's also consequences. Being accused of something on a website is different than being accused of it at your job or being accused in an actual legal proceeding.

No one can stop false accusations that are outside the context of the law, systematically.  All you can do on a case by case basis is to sue privately for defamation. The best way to avoid that is simply to avoid doing anything that is wrong or may be taken the wrong way, and avoid situations that would encourage that way of looking at it, and even then, anyone can accuse anyone of anything. I don't see this as a realistic worry for most people, but even if it was,  there's really not anything you can do about it.

In an actual legal case there is a high burden of proof. I don't necessarily have great faith in juries but again, the system kind of is what it is. You can be concerned about it but that doesn't mean we can or should change the rules.  We all know this stuff happens and the victims have to be able to say when it does and press charges if it is warranted.

My second point would be something I've wondered about. Isn't it true that the worse the crime the less frequent it is?  So we'd expect to see more cases of shop lifting than breaking and entering etc, more cases of spur-of-the-moment fist fights than  premeditated murder...... and then one has to wonder just how likely it is that crimes as severe as some of the ones we're discussing are somehow far more common than false accusations.... After all, equality surely brings with it the acceptance that not only men are jerks, but women too, and that not only men are physically damaged but women too ("some" in both cases of course).

So I'm not saying every accusation is false, and I'm not saying even a majority is, but I am saying that because this is such a sensitive issue it's pretty much not talked about and studied. There are a myriad of reasons for why someone would make up a story, and just assuming something is likely true because it's so incredibly unlikely someone would issue a false claim is exactly part of the problem I think.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.  Rape has always been in human culture, I doubt it has ever been rare.

I wouldn't say a false charge is incredibly unlikely; just regular unlikely, because very few people like to tell total strangers about how they were humiliated, even when it was pretty bad and they need to in order to stop it from happening to the next person. In any case all accusations need to be viewed critically.

If the concern is how the public square handles things, in it's wild and sometimes unfair, stupid, or overcorrecting ways, that concern is absolutely valid. But again, what can you do about it ? There is no hierarchy of control or accountability in society
that can actually change minds or group behavior (despite the claims of people that assign their favorite target in that role, like the media or government).  Society is just the sum behavior of a bunch of people, half of whom are below average, and most of whom think they are smarter than everyone else.

You can be concerned or mad about whatever you want, and you might win an occasional victory in a limited scale, but if you're not happy with the general direction of society, you're probably going to continue to be unhappy with it (as I am). It's like a big ship that doesn't turn quickly with insane people at the helm and insane people for the crew and all the passengers and all of them are sure that the other insane people are why they are starving and heading for an iceberg or off the edge of the flat earth.

 

[ombudsman]

I agree...with some caveats. I think this definition is too simple, but I dont think Im going to be able to fully articulate why on an internet forum. This is assuming someones motivation for how they feel. IE: Maybe someone is uncomfortable around someone because they do not understand their culture, or the way they speak, or _____. Is this racist? Maybe, or maybe not. I think you have to understand a persons motivation to know if they are uncomfortable with someones race, or uncomfortable with an individuals behavior, or maybe just not sure how to feel! I have been in numerous situations where I was very uncomfortable around unfamiliar people. If I worded it wrong, it would sound racist, whereas the truth is that I was uncomfortable because I didnt know how to engage them in conversation. It was actually a really good learning experience.

Yes it does, because there is some grey area in all of this. A persons motivation (in my opinion) determines if there actions are racist or not. For instance, you can accidentally offend someone by something something that they presume is racist. Its very easy to use the wrong words, or ask questions in a poor manner and then have the race card pulled. I have asked innocuous questions about peoples culture before and then been accused of being a racist, because my questions did not come out right. Thats not a sign of me being a racist, but rather a simple sign of a misunderstanding. Of course, there are plenty of examples of people doing outright racist things, and I think those motivations are somewhat clearer.  ;D I think we need to remember that we are talking about people, and we cannot forget the impact that individuals perspectives have.

Racism is far more complex than being simply black and white.

To me being unfamiliar or uncomfortable with a type of person you have spent little time around is not racism. That's social awkwardness that could create a situation where racism could occur, or not.  That being said, other than among small children, it's pretty widely known that you shouldn't  ask probing personal questions of strangers or people you only know professionally, use slurs, or make glib comments about peoples' appearance. 

I do think manners have been declining  in that area; we have a lot of people that feel entitled to go too far because they are self absorbed and think it's their unique personality to be a jackass with no filter. (If only that was a unique personality !)

If a landlord refuses to rent to a person because of their race, or an employer refuses to hire them for that reason, clearly that is racism. Those are cut and dry examples that can be observed, and sometimes they can be proved.

Saying the wrong thing might be perceived as offensive, and that can happen between any people.  In these situations where we're talking about what people say as distinct from what they do, yes there is a subjective component as to whether that is racism (/etc). To me that is a different subject than clear double standards in the way people are treated. 

Something might appear offensive in the moment and then not later on or with more context... or then again, it might get worse with more information. We all know this can snowball quickly when race or sex are involved. Unintentional slights occur, as do intentional ones, and those that may not have been specifically intended but on the other hand could have been avoided with just a little reflection and common consideration.

 

[mattiasNYC]

No one can stop false accusations that are outside the context of the law, systematically.  All you can do on a case by case basis is to sue privately for defamation. The best way to avoid that is simply to avoid doing anything that is wrong or may be taken the wrong way, and avoid situations that would encourage that way of looking at it, and even then, anyone can accuse anyone of anything. I don't see this as a realistic worry for most people, but even if it was,  there's really not anything you can do about it.

Well, it might not be a realistic worry, but I would add to that other issues and tendencies in our current society.

So for one I think the repercussions of false accusations are arguably bigger today than before, and that's as you point out because of social media. Now, one can hope that in the case of for example Spacey Netflix and others essentially 'knew' there was something to these allegations and so their actions were reasonable. But I can imagine a lot of cases where businesses will try to be ahead of the curve just in case and fire people before the case is evaluated by authorities. And losing one's job is a pretty big deal. There's also social stigmatization etc, and because a lot of people are very emotional and fairly stupid they'll never concede that someone was innocent, because "no smoke without fire" etc. One example of this would be a misidentified man in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, where the general public went sleuthing trying to ID the bombers. So, who would ever have worried about being targeted as a terrorist just by going to watch a marathon? Likewise I believe one poor soul got misidentified as a Charlotteville demonstrator (for white supremacy).

And so that's really the other thing; apart from the potential repercussions there's also a bunch of different things we can be accused of these days, and the tendency to believe what we hear without delving even just a bit deeper into the information and sources makes it all the more likely to happen.

And then lastly I'd say that perhaps our behaviors will change now sine this is the case, in order to minimize risk. I would guess more people will record encounters more frequently to protect themselves actually.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.  Rape has always been in human culture, I doubt it has ever been rare.

I think you misunderstood me actually. However, words are tricky things; what do you mean by "rare"?

The way I would use the word "rare" I'd probably say that it indeed is rare. It doesn't happen to most people, just a small minority. It obviously depends on the definition unfortunately, but that's what I'd say. So if for example "rape" is defined as a clear sexual act as opposed to "just" grabbing someone's bottom, then based on my argument (that you didn't see the point of) sexual assault will be more common than rape, simply because the latter is much more severe and thus requires a 'more deranged' mind to carry out, for lack of better words. But my point was just that a false accusation too 'requires far less derangement' than an actual rape, and using that logic one could argue it's not as uncommon as people make it out to be.

In one sense I think we've for good reason become very sensitive to accusations of rape etc, but that a side effect of that is that just because we shouldn't victimize the victims further they also shouldn't be questioned or 'investigated'. I actually think there's a slightly similar tendency with the cop vs civilians issue, where we're told to just accept that cops have authority and have no real reason to lie about 'whatever', and therefore trust them. Yet once we got recording technology and are also able to get more media from other geographical regions it really does seem that we're seeing more and more cases of cops being on the wrong side of truth or morality.

So again, all of this is just to say that people are shitty. And women are people. And thus it's not an unreasonable thing to be somewhat nervous about developments such as these.

If the concern is how the public square handles things, in it's wild and sometimes unfair, stupid, or overcorrecting ways, that concern is absolutely valid. But again, what can you do about it ? There is no hierarchy of control or accountability in society
that can actually change minds or group behavior (despite the claims of people that assign their favorite target in that role, like the media or government).  Society is just the sum behavior of a bunch of people, half of whom are below average, and most of whom think they are smarter than everyone else.

christ that's depressing.......

 

[bluebird]

christ that's depressing.......

And if you place your life in his hands, he will change your perception and save you.

 

[ombudsman]

And then lastly I'd say that perhaps our behaviors will change now sine this is the case, in order to minimize risk. I would guess more people will record encounters more frequently to protect themselves actually.

I think there is a lot of behavior that needs to change and would generally see this as a good thing (while recording is a separate issue).

I think you misunderstood me actually. However, words are tricky things; what do you mean by "rare"?

The way I would use the word "rare" I'd probably say that it indeed is rare. It doesn't happen to most people, just a small minority. It obviously depends on the definition unfortunately, but that's what I'd say. So if for example "rape" is defined as a clear sexual act as opposed to "just" grabbing someone's bottom, then based on my argument (that you didn't see the point of) sexual assault will be more common than rape, simply because the latter is much more severe and thus requires a 'more deranged' mind to carry out, for lack of better words. But my point was just that a false accusation too 'requires far less derangement' than an actual rape, and using that logic one could argue it's not as uncommon as people make it out to be.

I'm not trying to be especially precise with the term and I'm partly relating it to what I know of in my own life. Cystic fibrosis is called a rare disease; I know of one person that has it. I know of about a dozen women who have been raped (not sexually assaulted/groped), and probably a lot more who don't care to share about it.

Yes I agree surely a lesser kind of sexual assault must be a lot more common, but what I'm getting at is that this relative frequency does not necessarily tell you anything about the absolute frequency of rape (or of sexual assault for that matter). 

If you're a Facebook user, you must have seen the "me too" tag recently and probably a lot of stories about it. Based on what I saw and a lot of  discussion about it around that time, I will venture a guess that the number of women that you know that have had their breasts or genitals grabbed/groped by strangers hovers around 100%.

 

[mattiasNYC]

And if you place your life in his hands, he will change your perception and save you.

Is the perception of the people massacred in that church that they were saved?.....

 

[mattiasNYC]

I think there is a lot of behavior that needs to change and would generally see this as a good thing (while recording is a separate issue).

Well, yes, I obviously agree with you, but the problem is that we - all of us in society - don't agree on just where the line is drawn. I mean, I have to go back to my examples; I just don't see a clear line. I think I know when something is clearly over the line, but others may disagree. And I know men that now feel that something is a problem if there's disagreement, but not if there's agreement (duh), but so how do we know? Reading signals? We're talking about humans here, reading signals is a two-way affair with two flawed beings trying to make sense of things.

And what do you do if you're meeting a person that is turned on by confidence and the perception of "strength" and "aggression"? Ask for permission? Don't ask for it?

I think there's a level of physical touch that is in a sense equivalent to speech as a means of communication. We can do away with it to make sure nobody is uncomfortable, but speech only doesn't seem to work as well.

I'm not trying to be especially precise with the term and I'm partly relating it to what I know of in my own life. Cystic fibrosis is called a rare disease; I know of one person that has it. I know of about a dozen women who have been raped (not sexually assaulted/groped), and probably a lot more who don't care to share about it.

If you know a dozen women who were raped, and I do mean know that they were, then I would probably argue you're in a minority. Most men don't. It's either that or your circle of female friends or acquaintances is pretty darn large. I've seen statistics that I've translated into the real world and it sort of plays out like this (let's assume that 1 in 5 were raped):

My mom had 8 sisters. At least one of them must have been raped. If not, the it "carries over" to some other family which must be over-represented. At school there were at least 15 girls in my class which means that 3 were raped. If one was (and I have evidence of zero, but suspected one) then that leaves 2 more for the class next door. If that class also only had one victim then there's now a deficit of 4. At some point one group must be making up for the deficit.

Yes I agree surely a lesser kind of sexual assault must be a lot more common, but what I'm getting at is that this relative frequency does not necessarily tell you anything about the absolute frequency of rape (or of sexual assault for that matter). 

Well, the point was two-fold. One point was that because lesser crimes are more common it means that if false accusations are less bad than actual rape they'll be more common, and if rape is a problem then so is false accusations (the same can be said for juxtaposing sexual assault/harrassment to false accusations of that). The second point was that if that's true and false accusations are uncommon, then rape is even less common. It obviously doesn't make it less of a problem for any individual, but it puts things in some sort of perspective.

If you're a Facebook user, you must have seen the "me too" tag recently and probably a lot of stories about it. Based on what I saw and a lot of  discussion about it around that time, I will venture a guess that the number of women that you know that have had their breasts or genitals grabbed/groped by strangers hovers around 100%.

Yes, I agree with that number. What I don't agree with however is that all of them a) disliked it at the time it happened, b) felt it was a big problem at the time, c) have the same definition of just what that is.

In other words, like I said, I've been sexually harassed, and I just realized yesterday that I've been sexually assaulted as well. But the latter really hinges upon my feelings about it (it was a kiss). If I was rationalizing it, both at the time and now, I would have not wanted that kiss to lead to anything else which was the intent behind it. So, I clearly didn't consent explicitly. Now, the question really is what implications that had and has on my life. It's a mostly forgotten thing. But if I was asked the question "Have you ever been sexually touched without your prior consent" I would have to say "yes", yet everything in my being tells me that that's an answer that doesn't necessarily means what we think it means, especially if lumped in with other replies into an anonymous statistic.

And the point I'm making now is that I can't help but get the feeling that what we're seeing now isn't just a just exposition of individuals and generally abusive behavior by powerful (mostly) men, but also the strength of special interests (some feminist groups) as well as a general 'venting' by women that are generally sick with patriarchy and misogyny. I mean, I hate to be super-crude about this, but I really do feel like a lot of the "I got my ass grabbed" falls into the "So what? Bfd." category. If it was a hot guy that did it and you ended up sleeping with him, would you complain? No, you wouldn't. A guy you don't find attracitve? Yes, problem. But we're humans and touch is a means of communication. The bigger issue is clearly when these people don't stop when it's made clear it's not appreciated, or like Trump abuse their position of power to get what they want.

I'm rambling.... sorry....

 

[bluebird]

Is the perception of the people massacred in that church that they were saved?.....

Really, I was just messing with you... But actually faith can be a powerful thing and a couple people in that church accepted what was happening to them. And perception even more powerful, does the world exist when in a deep sleep? Maybe that will be my next topic ;D

 

[Banzai]

There was even a dude with a full turban on his head. ;D.  Made me proud to be an Angeleno.

Turban dude would have been a Sikh

 

[tands]

So mattias, I notice your great concern that men everywhere are being falsely accused of raping women, do you think this happens a lot?

 

[bluebird]

Wha? Tands cut it out, re-read the conversation. The whole point is that its a very complex subject... and your missing the point. Your looking for an argument. Look for "conversations" and you will be less lonely.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Really, I was just messing with you...

I know... when that button is pushed though... it has to be scratched.... did I just mix idioms?... We should make that a thing.

But actually faith can be a powerful thing and a couple people in that church accepted what was happening to them. And perception even more powerful, does the world exist when in a deep sleep? Maybe that will be my next topic ;D

Don't know why, but the "conversation cards" on philosophy in Monty Python's "Meaning Of Life" comes to mind...

 

[mattiasNYC]

So mattias, I notice your great concern that men everywhere are being falsely accused of raping women, do you think this happens a lot?

"great concern"? Define "great". I have far greater concerns than that specific one. One of my greater concerns is how people dumb down private and public discourse because they're either too lazy to look at a topic in depth, or too biased to get out of their box. What I'm commenting on now is as much the commentary on sex crimes as any other facet of it.  By allowing ourselves to dumb down a conversation simply because it's a hot button for us (the people who 'own' the issue) we set a precedent for all other conversations to be dumbed down as well.

Now, as for your actual question: Define "a lot". I mean, I seriously can't answer the question until you define it.  But something tells me you don't really care about it.

 

[tands]

Your great concern that 'things' are being dumbed down, then, ok.

More than 1 in 100, let's say. In all this 'complex subject' matter you seem to be comparing a rape and a false rape accusation with each other, implying that 1) they are similar in some way, and/or 2) that they occur at a similar rate.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Your great concern that 'things' are being dumbed down, then, ok.

Yeah, well, why do you think US elections look the way they do? Because people do in-depth analyses on important political issues? Or because they don't?

More than 1 in 100, let's say.

Ok. More than 1 what in 100 what? 1 rabbit in 100 Joules?

In all this 'complex subject' matter you seem to be comparing a rape and a false rape accusation with each other, implying that 1) they are similar in some way, and/or 2) that they occur at a similar rate.

That's what it seems like? I think I pretty much explained exactly not that.

 

[tands]

Ok, great. It would be like comparing apples with oranges, imo.

So mattias, I notice your [lesser than] great concern that men everywhere are being falsely accused of raping women, do you think this happens a lot?

Now, as for your actual question: Define "a lot". I mean, I seriously can't answer the question until you define it.

More than 1 in 100, let's say.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I can't help but think that it still smells of Bigotry and isn't the best thing even when it's in the guise of playful banter ? ? But yeah, it's funny.....  Just don't think that, although "tolerant" of these certain things, it's healthy to make fun of them.

Again it seems religion gets a free pass....

 

[tands]

https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/929031740718501888