The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[Rum]

Well this is not resolvable is it? We can't know who is telling the truth and who is jumping on the bandwagon can we?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that 10% of claims are valid. Too high? 5% then. Do we then say 'actually this guy' isn't the predator they say he is because only a few of the people who have come forward are genuine'?

At what point I wonder does a publically accused serial molester change down a gear and become someone who has crossed the line a bit too often.

I'm just posing the question. Despite my support for those who are brave enough to step forward I find it difficult to ignore the smell of the lynch mob too in all this.

[devogue]

Well this is not resolvable is it? We can't know who is telling the truth and who is jumping on the bandwagon can we?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that 10% of claims are valid. Too high? 5% then. Do we then say 'actually this guy' isn't the predator they say he is because only a few of the people who have come forward are genuine'?

At what point I wonder does a publically accused serial molester change down a gear and become someone who has crossed the line a bit too often.

I'm just posing the question. Despite my support for those who are brave enough to step forward I find it difficult to ignore the smell of the lynch mob too in all this.

Good post.

It's difficult but I can't help but look at it this way:

Imagine that fifteen years ago I was sexually assaulted. It has taken me that amount of time to find the mental equilibrium and courage to accuse the perpetrator. I now have choices about how to proceed, and here are two of them:

1) I contact a solicitor who specialises in sex crime. I arrange for a one hour preliminary appointment costing $150 to explore my options in complete confidence. I relate my experience graphically, highlighting the nature of the assault, the date, the time, the circumstances, the location, distinguishing physical features of my assailant, and any other evidence that may build a case. On advice from my solicitor I make a complaint to the police who then, based on the strength of my case, will recommend a prosecution take place. If the police or prosecution service do not recommend proceeding then unfortunately my case isn't strong enough and in their professional judgement the complaint must end at this point.

2) I contact the media and tell my story to journalists who require copy or clickbait.

In both cases there is a risk of high legal fees (either proceeding with a court case or slander/libel pay out).

Now, looking at those two options, which is the ethical choice? Which is the more reasoned choice? Which is the more powerful and substantive choice?

Now look at the accusations flooding the media at the moment and think on this.

[Rum]

You miss a third option. You are a victim, you see the shit hitting the fan for your perpetrator and you smile and shut the fuck up knowing you will probably be happier for doing so in the long run and that the bastard is going down one way and another.

That is of course assuming you have something to gain that you are sacrificing.

I have not followed the Weinstein thing close enough to know for sure, but from the headlines it seems that many of his accusers are well off, successful and probably have nothing much to gain financially from being open. They are perhaps the more reliable 'witnesses'.

[JimC]

For those (definitely the majority, IMO) of women accusing powerful male figures of past abuse who are truly victims, there should be no blame for failing to make the complaint at the time - blowing the whistle at the time had real difficulties. However, for many reasons, it is clearly much better for prompt accusations to be made, in terms of much more clear-cut investigations. One hopes that from now on, people who are abused by others in workplace situations do just that...

[Animavore]

There's a "debate" on IGN about Weinstein with commentators trying to cast aspersions on or blame the victims. Basically saying if they let this go for years they are also at fault.

I've been responding in basic variations of "You're a victim blamer". Not really much else. And the amount of stuff I'm learning from their massive "counter-arguments" to my one line retorts is eye-opening.

You obviously have not been following this thread. The amount of victim blaming here from some quarters is pretty fucked up too.

You have to remember that I have all the Trump supporting greaseballs on my ignore list at this stage.

[mistermack]

You obviously have not been following this thread. The amount of victim blaming here from some quarters is pretty fucked up too.

Absolutely not true, that's a deliberate distortion.
Nobody on this thread has blamed victims.
If you lie about an event, and falsely accuse someone, you are NOT a victim. THEY are the victim.

You are trying to make out that every accuser is a victim. That's utter bollocks.

[Strontium Dog]

So, you have evidence that some of them are lying?

[Hermit]

...the guilt has been presumed, not proven...

The details are debatable, but Weinstein very much admitted the underlying truth, i.e. he is a sexual predator. Proof of guilt has been established by his own words. Even if one or more of the allegations concerning him turn out to be complete fabrications it changes absolutely nothing about it. You're attempting to defend the indefensible.

[Rum]

You obviously have not been following this thread. The amount of victim blaming here from some quarters is pretty fucked up too.

Absolutely not true, that's a deliberate distortion.
Nobody on this thread has blamed victims.
If you lie about an event, and falsely accuse someone, you are NOT a victim. THEY are the victim.

You are trying to make out that every accuser is a victim. That's utter bollocks.

Absolutely not true and I said as much a little earlier.

If " There's nothing illegal about making promises you don't mean to keep, to get some girl to drop her knickers.
Basically, it's just conning a prostitute into performing for nothing" isn't blaming the victim I don't know what is.

[mistermack]

You obviously have not been following this thread. The amount of victim blaming here from some quarters is pretty fucked up too.

Absolutely not true, that's a deliberate distortion.
Nobody on this thread has blamed victims.
If you lie about an event, and falsely accuse someone, you are NOT a victim. THEY are the victim.

You are trying to make out that every accuser is a victim. That's utter bollocks.

Absolutely not true and I said as much a little earlier.

If " There's nothing illegal about making promises you don't mean to keep, to get some girl to drop her knickers.
Basically, it's just conning a prostitute into performing for nothing" isn't blaming the victim I don't know what is.

That's not a victim. If an adult girl drops her knickers willingly, she's not a victim. She's consented.
If she expected a reward, she's a prostitute of sorts. And if it was only a vague hint of reward, that didn't materialise, then he's a cad, and he's conned a prostitute.
This is why professional prostitutes want the money first. (so I've heard)

[Rum]

So a kid is offered a nice sweetie by a big guy with a van load of sweeties with vague promises of something nice at the end of it if she drops her knickers. She does so and the sweetie doesn't materialise but its her fault for wanting the sweetie?

[Brian Peacock]

A fine example of 'cowboy culture' at work - if you're not smart or savvy enough to know when you're been exploited or abused by someone else then that's your fault.

[Forty Two]

Well this is not resolvable is it? We can't know who is telling the truth and who is jumping on the bandwagon can we?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Case by case basis, based on the evidence. In this area, as in every other area involving allegations of wrongdoing, sometimes, the evidence just isn't there, even if something really happened.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that 10% of claims are valid. Too high? 5% then. Do we then say 'actually this guy' isn't the predator they say he is because only a few of the people who have come forward are genuine'?

Depends on the guy, doesn't it? And, depends on the claim, doesn't? What does it mean for a "claim to be valid?"

Example - woman claims that a man told her dirty jokes on a weekly basis for months, and made sexual comments and innuendo a lot. Let's assume that there is evidence that shows that allegation to be accurate. Is the claim that she has been sexually harassed "valid?" I would submit that it depends. It depends on if the conduct, at the time, was unwanted. Add some additional evidence -- let's add some recordings of the both of them engaging in witty, sexually charged banter, back and forth, on many occasions. Her jokes and comments were just as bad - at the same level - as his. Now, is her "claim valid?" Is he a predator?

In other words - it depends on the claim, and it depends on the evidence.

[mistermack]

So a kid is offered a nice sweetie by a big guy with a van load of sweeties with vague promises of something nice at the end of it if she drops her knickers. She does so and the sweetie doesn't materialise but its her fault for wanting the sweetie?

So you're hopping from adults to kids, to try to defend your position?
So what we have in reality are victims who are not victims, and kids who are not kids.

Nobody in this thread have criticised victims, or kids. You are just altering it to suit your narrative.

[Rum]

So a kid is offered a nice sweetie by a big guy with a van load of sweeties with vague promises of something nice at the end of it if she drops her knickers. She does so and the sweetie doesn't materialise but its her fault for wanting the sweetie?

So you're hopping from adults to kids, to try to defend your position?
So what we have in reality are victims who are not victims, and kids who are not kids.

Nobody in this thread have criticised victims, or kids. You are just altering it to suit your narrative.

You have clearly criticised the victims and have clearly suggested some of them deserve what they got or should have known better. If you think that just because the alleged victims were adults that absolves the abuser then you miss the point entirely. Anyone in a position of power or authority, who uses that position to exploit the target in question is abusing their position. I used the kids analogy to highlight the power differential.