[worry]

Mentalist, I would say that's a good understanding of some of what I've said for sure.

I'm also saying "I believe her, but maaaaybe she's lying..." is the same as "I don't believe her." And it's just as worthless to the victim.

[Silencer]

Friendly mod reminder to take deep breaths and keep calm while talking to other members with divergent opinions or perspectives to your own.

[Nevyn]

Mentalist, on 08 December 2017 - 01:23 AM, said:

Whereas Nevyn's position would be that doing so is essentially allowing society to take law into its own hands, and thus undermining the whole idea of due process.

Feel free to point out what I've misinterpreted.

This seems like a good point to kick off topic 3, I'm on a roll, so may as well keep ranting now, even if it means neglecting my poor cat.


There is a distinction to be made when we talk about social reactions to incidents like this, and what is ok and what is not.

Upthread I disagreed with Whisperzzz because he was seemingly suggesting that any public outcry, lost jobs, etc, from these allegations were problematic because the allegations were not proven.

But a public outcry is natural.

As an example, instead of a noted film star and in media, think of this as happening in a small town. A person has harassed another, people find out. Well, that dude might stop getting invited to parties. He is going to get the stink eye, and some talking to's, regardless of what happened in court. This level of reaction may make life unpleasant enough for him already that he moves, or may not. And all of that reaction is understandable, even in a he said she said. In is natural and human to take sides, and to judge. And given contrary stories, humans tend to basically believe one side or the other. So even without enough evidence for a court, he faces public response, and that can't be avoided. Those are the breaks, because for the victim to face social backlash and be disbelieved instead is far more harmful, both to her, but in keeping other women quiet.

But in that same small town, if it escalates to spray painting on his car, or leaving an angry note in his mailbox every day, or badgering him about his behaviour at every visit to the grocery store, or going to his job and asking his boss how he likes employing a dirty old man who gooses 17 year olds, the public has stepped past harassment. They are not merely reacting naturally, judging, and avoiding someone they find distasteful. They are seeking to apply their own punishments as a proxy for what law enforcement has not.

Stepping back into that Hoffman case is natural. Outcry is natural. Tweets up the wazoo. People not paying to see things he is in, or even protesting his involvement, natural. And movie execs losing his phone # because he is toxic, also a natural consequence.

But Hoffman already put out an apology. And the interview in question he had no reason to expect to be going into it, but was still questioned again. And worry then expressed wanting to see him questioned about this in every interview for the rest of his days. But an interview, fundamentally, is about passing information. The accusation of this is public. His response is public record and not a denial. And now this interview is public is well. There are no more facts to mine. Hoffman appears to have acknowledged the behaviour he recalls, and expressed both doubt and hazy as to some particulars . So there is no full confession coming, whether because he is hiding or honestly doubts some of the victim account. Plus, worry said he does not care about Hoffman's memory or consider it relevant.

And that means worry wants it brought up again and again as a punishment, as an incentive to essentially force Hoffman into being a recluse.

Lets remember, this interview wasn't on a tv show. This was not promoting a new gig, or anything like that.

This was a 20th anniversary movie screening, complete with the director, producer, and 2 stars of the picture. Untelevised, with a private audience who bought tickets to watch, and see these people talk about the picture. So this is not a guy skating scot-free in public while troubling allegations lie unaddressed, and dealing with softballs. It was a function committed to likely before the allegations. Some ticket buyers may have stayed home after they heard them. But the ones who came in large part, bought tickets and came to see the people talk about the film.

Want to promote a charity, Dustin? Sorry, that conversation now is about your harassment case, even though there is nothing new to add. Out to dinner with friends at an LA restaurant, Dustin? Our friends at TMZ want you to amend your admissions and apology more to their satisfaction.

It is natural to be mad at Hoffman. To view him differently. To not want to see him in new pictures. Maybe even boo him if you see him. Just as with the small town shunning, those are human reactions. They are also things you can do to someone for any arbitrary reason you like, it doesn't have to be an alleged crime.

Where I start to worry about the mob, is when you step outside of simply reactions and opinions and voting with your wallet, and move into seeking to punish someone yourself. People aren't empowered to do that. And they should not be, because their standards of proof are not the same.

It is ok that the public can often get a story/reaction wrong because there are limits to what they can do about it. When you start stepping outside that, or wanting others to, I don't like it.

And when you add worry saying he wants that "until Hoffman dies" to various statements about not being interested in whether Hoffman was better or worse than other accused, that is why I found it to be an overreaction.

[Nevyn]

Topic 2 : The difference between believing, facts, and memory.

Throughout this conversation, you have kind of given the impression that you view this entire topic as though it was experienced both by the participants, and by the audience, like watching a scene in a film from a 3rd person pov. Everyone working from the same picture, and any variation is deception.

That is not how memory works.

The victim was young, faced with a star, and even had diaries from the time. I believe her in general because I don't have reason not to, and when it comes only to the public opinion standard of fact, she gets benefit of the doubt. But beyond that, because she had those notes ,and the encounters would be far more memorable to her, I trust her recall of the specifics, which is different from simply believing she is honest. I also believe she remembers more clearly.

He was an older movie star, generally talking sex with everyone on set , and his interactions with her and other crew would likely be downtime to him and the least memorable part of his day. And 40 years have passed.

So I don't know if he remembers her, but it is entirely credible that he does not. What's more, it would not be a surprise that presented with her specific claims of these incidents that he might think " ok, I know I was flirty with people but there is no way I said THAT".

That is why I find it weird when you go on about his attacks on her in the interview, and generally and continually express that he should simply assume her account is right, apologize without reservation, admit to actions he may not recall, and question nothing.

It is perfectly possible for him to believe the account exaggerated or inaccurate. His initial apology was the public relations version. Avoid making people like you mad by showing contrition, don't go into specifics. Oliver made him go into specifics , which you appeared to want. Well, that is how specifics go. His recollection will never perfectly match hers. And trying to explain while taking her word for it would be more dishonest than disputing the things that don't seem right to him looking back through a 40 year lens.

And more than that, you suggested that his recollection was not important because you had hers. But as I said in topic 1, intent matters, and she does not know what was in his head. A clearer picture of what happened and how bad it was includes his frame of mind. And would have been easier for him to express without interjections by Oliver.

Further you suggested that I was contradicting my assertion that I believed her by discussing his memory and state of mind as a factor. And I hope this has made clear why that is not true. Even if she is not only honest but with perfect recollection, his state of mind at the time matters. Her story is not the gods eye view. Nor is it necessarily the Hoffman eye view. And his memory matters in terms of how he responded to Oliver.

edit: whoops, this was written on a tablet, and I thought already submitted. Written before topic 3.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 08 December 2017 - 03:29 AM

[Nevyn]

worry, on 08 December 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

Okay, Nevyn. I was "complaining", while you were engaging in civil discourse about how I'm not aware fact and belief are different things and making measured responses like "duh". I was a "ball of rage", while you were politely trying to "go slow" for me. I was "excessive", while you were reasonably referencing lynch mobs. I had trouble staying "focused", while you were making the singular argument that Dustin Hoffman was ambushed, and that from his perspective he didn't do anything wrong so how could he cop to it?, and that even if he did do it it wasn't as bad as Harvey Weinstein, and that I'm on a slippery slope of criminalizing denials of wrongdoing, and that while you believe the victim there hasn't been a trial or due process, and that I, personally, am pro-harassment.

I concede all of the above, and wish you all the best on your not-troubling, not-weird, extremely reasonable plan to spend the next two days dissecting all of my posts line by line.

While you're doing that, feel free to tally all the times I insulted you or demeaned your understanding, and compare it to the reverse.

We were having an argument which you wanted to stop by replying.

I would reply to 4 different ideas with quotes in different sections, only to find in a reply excerpts ripped from the different ones out of context as if they had all been said about one element.

I would reply about your expectations to what Hoffman should reply and have it thrown back at me as if it was doubting the victim, which y the way I find more insulting than anything I said about you.

So that led me to the conclusions that either you were not getting key basic concepts, or else just ignoring them to cast my argument in a bad light. So yeah, I got a tad frustrated.

I tried to avoid all that while explaining why I objected to your comment about interviews for the rest of his life. And in your reply I saw the ptoential for the argument to branch again. But I didn't want to find a part of my explanation of why Cosby is a bad example excerpted and summed up as if it was something I said about mob justice, or believing victims. So I tried to keep the discussion just about that, and you dismissed it. So now I'm just doing the topic posts.

Despite my frustration I am still trying to give you a clear picture of what I think of the topics we've gone over. Maybe you don't care. Maybe the previous misunderstandings were wilful. Maybe our arguments will remain ships passing in the night. But this current plan should at least be the end of the back and forth.

I am sorry that I insulted you. I should absolutely watch my tone. But it is frustrating to have an argument where you feel like fairly straightforward points are not only not getting through, but are being interpreted as something wholly different.

[Abyss]

And that concludes the 'arguing about what we were arguing about' portion of the thread for today, moving on now...

[Macros]

I want more abyss

This post has been edited by Macros: 08 December 2017 - 08:28 AM

[Aptorian]

Be careful what you wish for...

[Morgoth]

Jesus christ people. Why why why do you persist in pretending this is some sort of court of law? Due process, procedual rules of criminal justice, it is all utterly irrelevant to a discussion about our personal feelings about these accusations, and how we believe we should respond to them.

[Macros]

yes morgoth, give into the anger!

[Tsundoku]

Entertain me, comrades.

Attached File(s)

•  vladimir-putin-eating-popcorn.jpg (36.95K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[Morgoth]

Macros, on 08 December 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

yes morgoth, give into the anger!

But it's just dumb. It's like when teenagers fresh out of their first philosophy class start bringing up strict logic in a discussion on politics.

[Macros]

YOUR LOGIC HAS NO PLACE ON THE INTERNET< GIVE INTO THE RAGE

[Morgoth]

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

[koehkont]

Fuck 'm all to death

[amphibian]

I think there's some value in the old concept of were-gild. In the old Germania systems, it was for the killing of a person, but I think it could be applied in a way that's different from regular civil courts today.

Some of the main barriers to report of sexual assault to the criminal justice system are invasive questioning/re-hashing the trauma in combination with the great length of time, the huge amount of energy it takes, and the not being believed thing. There's others too, I am aware of them, but choosing brevity here.

A more informal than civil court type of "injury to my body" court that is faster to form a lesser form of a trial and only concerned with a lesser standard of evidence and a monetary payment in form of a percentage or labor seems like it'd mitigate several of the barriers. One of the key things about my concept of this is that it would be public if the survivor wanted it after the conclusion of the not-full-trial. The person who offended gets no say in whether it goes public or not.

I say money bc if given over to the survivor, then they are free to choose what to do with it. They have autonomy. The person who offended can point to the were gild as a "I paid, my restitution has been made". Labor and the resultant pay for that labor is a back up for those who have little money to pay. The percentage should hurt the offender seriously, but not destroy them. Hard to balance, but it can be done.

I do not think this would solve everything, but I do believe that it would alleviate many of the major problems involved with sexual assault and the aftermath, particularly for how to make restitution and help the survivor rather than just punish the offender, which isn't working well currently.

[Macros]

It comes back to the old problem, rich people can afford the fines.

[QuickTidal]

Well, Hoffman has been accused by another woman.

Safe to say these aren't going to be isolated incidents now. If Hoffman wasn't yet on the list of scumbags (he probably already was)...he is now, especially because he refuses to admit wrongdoing.

[amphibian]

Macros, on 08 December 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

It comes back to the old problem, rich people can afford the fines.

Which is why I put it as a variable percentage. The sliding scale can go pretty high.

The rich getting better results from justice systems is an endemic problem in pretty much any justice system ever invented, so I don't think that's a system killer here.

[Macros]

I say we bring back the lash