Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Fred I don't know if this idiom is popular where you are but this formulation is I think broadly agreed upon: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Frederik, people talk about /all/ of the things you're writing about. How do you know about them in the first place?

Also, wtf at looking on rape vs infringing freedom of speech, and saying the difference is with the experience of the perpetrator?

― Frederik B, Tuesday, June 2, 2015 5:24 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i have no idea what you are trying to argue here. clarify?

also, Frederik, you might want to take a step back from this for a moment. you are invoking a lot of straw men. nobody here has said that we talk about rape "too much." or that we talk about racism "too much." (i don't recall this conversation even addressing race issues for quite some time.) i /thought/ we were talking about the process by which accusations of rape are adjudicated (and otherwise handled) on campus.

i should qualify -- rape /and/ sexual assault.

No, amateurist, you take a fucking step back. And read what the fuck we're talking about, instead of insinuating I'm hysterical or some other typical bullshit. The story Mordy posted ends like this: Every high-profile story that crumbles under scrutiny reinforces the perception that false accusations are common. And that only makes it more difficult to hold the real assailants accountable. I would say my post about professor-stories is pretty much like that ending. I've been raging about that piece of shit story for a few posts here, stop attacking me for not talking enough about you.

i actually do not understand what you're writing about -- what you are arguing. so i don't know if you are being "hysterical" (your word, not mine) but what you are not being is clear.

i'm not sure what occasioned the accusatory, profane tone of your recent comments. maybe you have some beef w/ mordy that predates what's been written recently on this thread. i don't want to wade into that. i'll bow out for the time being.

Also, Mordy, we have that idiom in Denmark as well, but that wasn't what I was writing about, I was writing about the horrific experience of victims. So the more precise question would be, how many women do you think should be raped instead of an innocent to suffer? And, wtf, aren't they innocents as well?

But don't answer. It's a bullshit question. But it's a bullshit idiom you invoked in this context.

maybe you have some beef w/ mordy that predates what's been written recently on this thread

hmm ya think

How can I be more clear? Let me try ALLCAPS: THE STORY MORDY POSTED IS A WORTHLESS PIECE OF CRAP AND IT PISSES ME OFF!!!

Clear enough for you? It's not what is being written on this thread, it's what's being linked to.

yelling always improves a situation

"So the more precise question would be, how many women do you think should be raped instead of an innocent to suffer?"

You realize this is insane.

when did you stop beating your wife etc.

i think the issue of the rights of the accused is relevant. i have no problem believing that in 99 out of 100 cases they are guilty, but still, false accusations aren't impossible. legally how do you deal with that dilemma without lowering the burden of proof to the point where the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard isn't violated?

i realize that is a banal way of phrasing this issue because it deals with it like this debate is happening in a "vacuum," but still, what is the way around this dilemma? the university one is to have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) to justify expulsion, which is less severe than being found criminally responsible. do you think that's the way to go? (i think it might be.) but where does that leave victims who aren't students? should civil damages be awarded more frequently or something like that? how do they deal with this in denmark?

it's basically a sneaky way of saying that some crimes are so heinous that we should ignore the rights of the accused. i don't think you really believe that, but maybe you do. idk.

What I'm saying is this isn't solely a legal issue, so the idiom is invalid.

I ask about a difference between how we talk about rape and infringing on free speech.

You answer: Because people guilty of rape go to jail.

Right, but people who are raped are raped, that's another pretty big difference. Which clearly is less important to you, than that people go to jail.

So how many rape-victims add up to on innocent in jail?

It's still a bullshit question, though.

Sorry 'accused of rape', not 'guilty'.

"So how many rape-victims add up to on innocent in jail?"

So you are actually arguing that we should lower the standard of evidence for the accused because you feel it will add to deterrence?

No.

Or because it'll get more potential future offenders off the streets? I wonder if you've thought about this argument about any other crimes. I can't imagine you would believe that the solution to reducing crime is to jail people w/ less evidence than we already do.

How many murder victims add up to one innocent in jail?

It becomes instantly nonsensical.

Try and engage with what I actually just wrote, Mordy. It might be less nonsensical than just making shit up.

Like, how do you respond to What I'm saying is this isn't solely a legal issue, so the idiom is invalid with I wonder if you've thought about this argument about any other crimes?

how is this not solely a legal issue - certainly it's primarily a legal issue

So what is it that you're arguing for? That society as a public forum becomes more sensitive to rape stories but it leads to no legal changes? So do you think that these university cases are mistakes since they change actual policy to be more balanced against the accused, but in general media shaming is a good thing? I don't understand what your argument is.

fredb its a bit much to expect ppl to mentally c&p the bits of yr erm yr eh yr 'arguments' I guess, that you want treated seriously when theres eh theres well theres a good bit of uh chaff in there and uh you uh you well you dont appear to read anything the ppl you are talking to have posted

Frederik is fundamentally right that the piece is awful. Every case of acquaintance rape that is not investigated properly is going to be debatable, just as every police shooting, which seems to be Balko's main beat, is going to be "debatable". Quite frequently they are "debatable" because they are not properly investigated and the ones that make the media have people lining up to debunk.

Writing an article about why a couple of high profile cases might have been the wrong ones to lead with is one thing, writing it with tossed out speculation on what the number of 'actual' rapes is, what his gut feeling on the number of false allegations is and mischaracterisation of the core arguments of activists is clearly in bad faith.

The objective isn't to fundamentally change the law, it's to ensure that the law saying sex without consent is rape is applied without prejudice to the victim.

so i don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that (that = "ensure that the law saying sex without consent is rape is applied without prejudice to the victim.")

The piece is a bucket of shit, and I see no reason in standing around and discussing politely how we deal with this bucket of shit. I'm more WHY THE FUCK ARE WE DEALING WITH THIS SHIT???

And the piece is about strategies in activism and media, not legal issues.

And with that, I'll sign off. Got an early screening tomorrow. Have fun dealing with this shit.

So how many rape-victims add up to on innocent in jail?

It's still a bullshit question, though.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, June 2, 2015 7:20 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this stance is interesting given the high level of proof you demand when it comes to podcast-friendly murderers of girls trying to pin their crimes on African Americans.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/thoughts-on-the-kipnis-clown-show-and-the-drama-of-university-life

definitely what this thread needed, thanks xp

so i don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that (that = "ensure that the law saying sex without consent is rape is applied without prejudice to the victim.")

This is easy to say and much harder to ensure in practice, though.

Not just in the U.S. and not just on colleges but acquaintance rape is never investigated without prejudice to the victim and, of the varying motivations of activists, the main one is trying to force a cultural shift that gets people to understand that and ameliorate it.

'acquaintance rape is never investigated without prejudice to the victim '

idk i more tend to trust people who don't represent absolute omniscience on questions that the entire collective knowledge of humankind wouldn't be able to answer mb it's just me

If you know of a legal structure in which the initial investigation, secondary investigation, decision on whether to press charges, jury / judicial decision and sentencing are all untainted by factors other than whether consent could reasonably be established, by all means do share.

Some systems are better than others, some are improving faster than others but all are flawed.

Weird definition of prejudice there, and one that would apply equally to all defendants.

It depends on what those factors are and how they are applied. Legally, a prior relationship with the attacker, a degree of intoxication, the use of illegal drugs, a 'bad reputation', having gone home with the alleged attacker, having consented to X but not to Y, etc, do not invalidate a claim of rape but they do always affect the way the victim is viewed and treated. There are elements that obviously make pressing charges or securing convictions harder, and that's legitimate, but victims still need to feel that the systems are taking their claims with the appropriate seriousness. That might be having specially trained officers conducting interviews, it might be pushing cases through even where a conviction looks challenging, it might be educating people in positions of authority and the wider public about what consent means, idk. As long as people are willing to believe there's a difference between "rape" and "rape rape", there'll be a problem.

As long as rape is not defined as a strict liability offense and some concept of mens rea for the defendant is considered relevant, some of the factors you mention can very well invalidate a claim that "x is a rapist". The criminal justice system does not say "what occurred between x and y is unacceptable and should be prevented and sanctioned"; it says "x is/is not a criminal and will punished thus." The societal effects outside the court are maybe best addressed there.

Arguments for making rape a strict liability offense in a climate where criminal punishments are administered harder to the poor and POCs is counter-revolutionary. The way to change the culture is not to destroy all the bad guys and never has been.

I don't think many people would argue that it should be a strict liability offence but there are degrees of nuance around the reasonability of the belief that valid consent was given that do require clarification and education.

Absolutely -- but the rhetoric of the righteous on this thread and elsewhere tends to miss that nuance completely, and that isn't good at all.

They don't so much miss it as rail against it in a manner that suggests the onus is on people that don't appear to be as angry about it as they are to know the answers.

I said that it wasn't solely a legal issue, and was ridiculed for that as well. Am I now also guilty of thinking it is too much a legal issue?

As soon as your ("one's" -- I don't want to pick on you) extralegal solutions formalize into quasi-legal systems, you bring all the problems of legalistic proof and fairness with you. No dodging legal problems if you have a person punished at the end of a group process.

Strict liability for most crimes would be fine if the criminal law system were anonymous and fair and did see punishment as a goal in itself. I would be a happier man if I owned a magical unicorn.

did not see

Here's today's discussion subject: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

lol @ at the url

vox-reader-afraid

I'm expecting a bunch of Class of 1984 type quasi-horror movies about students chasing professors down with Title IX complaints clutched in their hands

At the very least, there's debate to be had in these areas. Ideally, pro-choice students would be comfortable enough in the strength of their arguments to subject them to discussion, and a conversation about a band's supposed cultural appropriation could take place alongside a performance. But these cancellations and disinvitations are framed in terms of feelings, not issues. The abortion debate was canceled because it would have imperiled the "welfare and safety of our students." The Afrofunk band's presence would not have been "safe and healthy." No one can rebut feelings, and so the only thing left to do is shut down the things that cause distress — no argument, no discussion, just hit the mute button and pretend eliminating discomfort is the same as effecting actual change.

https://theflaneursturtle.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/epictetus.jpg

no one?????!

i don't know why exactly but that URL made me think of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU