|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 17, 2018 0:37:28 GMT
I guess your concerns aren't really the issue to people dealing with sexual assaults. Also most of what you said is nonsense. Anything, regardless of how well-intentioned, has the potential to be destructive if left to run amok without counter-checks. You don't get rid of your pest problems by burning down your entire house. You don't get rid of muggers by shooting every guy you meet in a hoodie. That's clearly not happening, since guys like Affleck have faced no backlash.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 17, 2018 0:41:54 GMT
Anything, regardless of how well-intentioned, has the potential to be destructive if left to run amok without counter-checks. You don't get rid of your pest problems by burning down your entire house. You don't get rid of muggers by shooting every guy you meet in a hoodie. That's clearly not happening, since guys like Affleck have faced no backlash. So one person not getting backlash proves it's not happening? To be clear, I don't think we're there yet, but that's definitely the direction Hollywood is going if they don't put counter-checks in place.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 17, 2018 11:38:18 GMT
MeToo has gone from zero to sixty from addressing some reasonable concerns to flagrantly persecuting anyone, male or female, who doesn't toe the party line to the last comma, period and semicolon. They're seeking to criminalize normal human interactions, create sexual thoughtcrime, and set themselves up as the American equivalent of Oceania's Junior Anti-Sex League. Frankly, I was leery of a movement spearheaded by someone as seemingly unstable as Rose McGowan (who appears to be bent on turning it into some type of personality cult) in the first place, and what's been taking place subsequently hasn't done much to allay my concerns. I guess your concerns aren't really the issue to people dealing with sexual assaults. Also most of what you said is nonsense. Really? How? Can you show some substantive reasons for why it's nonsense in its' entirety? Or is it nonsense simply because it doesn't blindly support your pet cause by throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 17, 2018 12:39:51 GMT
I guess your concerns aren't really the issue to people dealing with sexual assaults. Also most of what you said is nonsense. Really? How? Can you show some substantive reasons for why it's nonsense in its' entirety? Or is it nonsense simply because it doesn't blindly support your pet cause by throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Both sides are just speculation here, Cavill is not a victim, he said something incredibly dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 17, 2018 13:04:55 GMT
Really? How? Can you show some substantive reasons for why it's nonsense in its' entirety? Or is it nonsense simply because it doesn't blindly support your pet cause by throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Both sides are just speculation here, Cavill is not a victim, he said something incredibly dumb. No he didn't. The fact that you even think what he said is "incredibly dumb" already shows why he might feel like a victim.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 17, 2018 16:06:02 GMT
Both sides are just speculation here, Cavill is not a victim, he said something incredibly dumb. No he didn't. The fact that you even think what he said is "incredibly dumb" already shows why he might feel like a victim. He's afraid if he talks to a woman he'll be called a rapist, that's dumb.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 17, 2018 16:51:03 GMT
Really? How? Can you show some substantive reasons for why it's nonsense in its' entirety? Or is it nonsense simply because it doesn't blindly support your pet cause by throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Both sides are just speculation here, Cavill is not a victim, he said something incredibly dumb. That's not answering my question.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 17, 2018 17:15:25 GMT
No he didn't. The fact that you even think what he said is "incredibly dumb" already shows why he might feel like a victim. He's afraid if he talks to a woman he'll be called a rapist, that's dumb. That's not what he said. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 17, 2018 18:56:01 GMT
Both sides are just speculation here, Cavill is not a victim, he said something incredibly dumb. That's not answering my question. Well you're question was "Give me proof", but I don't see any from you.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 17, 2018 18:57:31 GMT
He's afraid if he talks to a woman he'll be called a rapist, that's dumb. That's not what he said. Try again. "Well, I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to be called a rapist or something."
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 17, 2018 21:10:35 GMT
That's not what he said. Try again. "Well, I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to be called a rapist or something." So you're simply going to ignore the entire context of the conversation before that? "Go up and talk to her" doesn't literally mean to just talk. He is actually talking about flirting with women and "men chasing women". So what you said which was "He's afraid if he talks to a woman he'll be called a rapist, that's dumb." - this is completely wrong and misleading.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 17, 2018 21:19:58 GMT
"Well, I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to be called a rapist or something." So you're simply going to ignore the entire context of the conversation before that? "Go up and talk to her" doesn't literally mean to just talk. He is actually talking about flirting with women and "men chasing women". So what you said which was "He's afraid if he talks to a woman he'll be called a rapist, that's dumb." - this is completely wrong and misleading. The point he was making was he doesn't want it to be like that,but it would never like that, therefore it's dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 17, 2018 21:23:23 GMT
So you're simply going to ignore the entire context of the conversation before that? "Go up and talk to her" doesn't literally mean to just talk. He is actually talking about flirting with women and "men chasing women". So what you said which was "He's afraid if he talks to a woman he'll be called a rapist, that's dumb." - this is completely wrong and misleading. The point he was making was he doesn't want it to be like that,but it would never like that, therefore it's dumb. The point he was making was a valid question to ask in a post-metoo Hollywood. Therefore, it's not dumb.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 17, 2018 21:37:12 GMT
That's not answering my question. Well you're question was "Give me proof", but I don't see any from you. My question (actually, the way you phrased it, statement) was not "give me proof", it was this: Really? How? Can you show some substantive reasons for why it's nonsense in its' entirety? Or is it nonsense simply because it doesn't blindly support your pet cause by throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I'm asking for you, in your own words, to show me some evidence of how the MeToo movement has not been trending in some dangerous and potentially damaging directions. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 17, 2018 23:52:16 GMT
Well you're question was "Give me proof", but I don't see any from you. My question (actually, the way you phrased it, statement) was not "give me proof", it was this: Really? How? Can you show some substantive reasons for why it's nonsense in its' entirety? Or is it nonsense simply because it doesn't blindly support your pet cause by throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I'm asking for you, in your own words, to show me some evidence of how the MeToo movement has not been trending in some dangerous and potentially damaging directions. Can you? Uh... Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Tambor? Your turn.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 17:55:51 GMT
My question (actually, the way you phrased it, statement) was not "give me proof", it was this: Really? How? Can you show some substantive reasons for why it's nonsense in its' entirety? Or is it nonsense simply because it doesn't blindly support your pet cause by throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I'm asking for you, in your own words, to show me some evidence of how the MeToo movement has not been trending in some dangerous and potentially damaging directions. Can you? Uh... Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Tambora? Your turn. Weinstein is facing trial, Spacey may have charges brought. Of the many others named, none have had formal charges brought against them to date, nor faced their accusers in open court. They have had their reputations ruined, their livelihoods decimated, and may have their future careers permanently impacted based upon as of yet unproven allegations, and trial in the court of public opinion and the sensationalist press. You're okay with this? Or do you have any belief at all in the shibboleth of 'innocent until proven guilty', an assumption on which one of the bases of our legal foundation rests, de facto if not de jure? If you’re okay with the former, then you might feel right at home in Mao’s China or Stalinist Russia—two other societies where guilt was assumed through the presumption of public and peer pressure, as opposed to the right to trial by jury as a prerequisite to the establishment of guilt. Messy as our judicial system might be, I still prefer its workings to what the worst excesses of groups such as MeToo can result in when guided by hysteria and no restraints.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 18, 2018 18:00:59 GMT
Uh... Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Tambora? Your turn. Weinstein is facing trial, Spacey may have charges brought. Of the many others named, none have had formal charges brought against them to date, nor faced their accusers in open court. They have had their reputations ruined, their livelihoods decimated, and may have their future careers permanently impacted based upon as of yet unproven allegations, and trial in the court of public opinion and the sensationalist press. You're okay with this? Or do you have any belief at all in the shibboleth of 'innocent until proven guilty', an assumption on which one of the bases of our legal foundation rests, de facto if not de jure? If you’re okay with the former, then you might feel right at home in Mao’s China or Stalinist Russia—two other societies where guilt was assumed through the presumption of public and peer pressure, as opposed to the right to trial by jury as a prerequisite to the establishment of guilt. Messy as our judicial system might be, I still prefer its workings to what the worst excesses of groups such as MeToo can result in when guided by hysteria and no restraints. So what you're saying it doesn't matter if there's multiple accusors and witnesses? That's nice for you, but not everyone has a camera filming them 24/7 just in case.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 18:15:37 GMT
Weinstein is facing trial, Spacey may have charges brought. Of the many others named, none have had formal charges brought against them to date, nor faced their accusers in open court. They have had their reputations ruined, their livelihoods decimated, and may have their future careers permanently impacted based upon as of yet unproven allegations, and trial in the court of public opinion and the sensationalist press. You're okay with this? Or do you have any belief at all in the shibboleth of 'innocent until proven guilty', an assumption on which one of the bases of our legal foundation rests, de facto if not de jure? If you’re okay with the former, then you might feel right at home in Mao’s China or Stalinist Russia—two other societies where guilt was assumed through the presumption of public and peer pressure, as opposed to the right to trial by jury as a prerequisite to the establishment of guilt. Messy as our judicial system might be, I still prefer its workings to what the worst excesses of groups such as MeToo can result in when guided by hysteria and no restraints. So what you're saying it doesn't matter if there's multiple accusors and witnesses? That's nice for you, but not everyone has a camera filming them 24/7 just in case. That's right--this is why we have a judicial system: because even multiple accusors and witnesses can be wrong ( vide the Salem withchcraft trials; vide the McCarthy Communist hearings; vide American lynch law), and as you point out, no one is under surveillance 24/7--so we need an independent judicial body comprised (ideally) of an impartial judge and jury to weigh the claims and statements of those accusors and witnesses, to sift their accounts and determine the credibility and truthfulness of same. Of course, for you that's not fire-breathingly SJW enough, so you'd prefer to jettison all due process in favor of righteous popular vengeance--and I happily leave you to the sort of society you'll be facing if that ever completely obtains as the norm. It's already coming scarily close in some respects to becoming that sort of society as it is.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jul 18, 2018 18:24:13 GMT
So what you're saying it doesn't matter if there's multiple accusors and witnesses? That's nice for you, but not everyone has a camera filming them 24/7 just in case. That's right--this is why we have a judicial system: because even multiple accusors and witnesses can be wrong ( vide the Salem withchcraft trials; vide the McCarthy Communist hearings; vide American lynch law), and as you point out, no one is under surveillance 24/7--so we need an independent judicial body comprised (ideally) of an impartial judge and jury to weigh the claims and statements of those accusors and witnesses, to sift their accounts and determine the credibility and truthfulness of same. Of course, for you that's not fire-breathingly SJW enough, so you'd prefer to jettison all due process in favor of righteous popular vengeance--and I happily leave you to the sort of society you'll be facing if that ever completely obtains as the norm. It's already coming scarily close in some respects to becoming that sort of society as it is. You're basically saying that victims should be ignored no matter how many there are, that's not going to make things better.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 18:29:49 GMT
That's right--this is why we have a judicial system: because even multiple accusors and witnesses can be wrong ( vide the Salem withchcraft trials; vide the McCarthy Communist hearings; vide American lynch law), and as you point out, no one is under surveillance 24/7--so we need an independent judicial body comprised (ideally) of an impartial judge and jury to weigh the claims and statements of those accusors and witnesses, to sift their accounts and determine the credibility and truthfulness of same. Of course, for you that's not fire-breathingly SJW enough, so you'd prefer to jettison all due process in favor of righteous popular vengeance--and I happily leave you to the sort of society you'll be facing if that ever completely obtains as the norm. It's already coming scarily close in some respects to becoming that sort of society as it is. You're basically saying that victims should be ignored no matter how many there are, that's not going to make things better. No one has said anything about 'ignoring victims', the whole raison d'etre of jury trial is to make certain the victim's claims are heard. Stop being disingenuous; you have no talent for it.
|
|