#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Prolific Sherpaposting]

Debatable. If something can’t be proven to have an actual, substantial harm, it’s safe to ignore it. Especially if the supposed targets have nothing to say about it.

Given its history and context, its use is not acceptable.

No one gets to decide that for anyone else. Ever.

[Ors Might]

It’s context is Pewdiepie shouting it after getting headshot in a video game. Is that really something to act all scandalized over as if it really matters? A gamer shouting something offensive in a video game?

As an old *sighs* gamer and played countless matches......comments tend to be along the lines of "mother fucker!" and not "fucking nigger!" Having said that.....I can recall a few racial comments and faggot comments. Not as much now as people change and people tend to (at least in my arena) block such people.

People that aren't anti-Semitic usually don't shout out anti-Semitic things in the moment......

Depends on the intent. Was it shouted because Pewdiepie hates blacks and has hidden it all this time or is it because he shouted the most offensive thing he could think of at the time? Either way it’s irrelevant because grtting upset over a youtube streamer shouting a single slur is stupid.

[Vassenor]

It’s context is Pewdiepie shouting it after getting headshot in a video game. Is that really something to act all scandalized over as if it really matters? A gamer shouting something offensive in a video game?

As an old *sighs* gamer and played countless matches......comments tend to be along the lines of "mother fucker!" and not "fucking nigger!" Having said that.....I can recall a few racial comments and faggot comments. Not as much now as people change and people tend to (at least in my arena) block such people.

People that aren't anti-Semitic usually don't shout out anti-Semitic things in the moment......

Stress doesn't magically make you racist if you weren't already racist. Same with alcohol.

[Ors Might]

As an old *sighs* gamer and played countless matches......comments tend to be along the lines of "mother fucker!" and not "fucking nigger!" Having said that.....I can recall a few racial comments and faggot comments. Not as much now as people change and people tend to (at least in my arena) block such people.

People that aren't anti-Semitic usually don't shout out anti-Semitic things in the moment......

Stress doesn't magically make you racist if you weren't already racist. Same with alcohol.

Neither does the shouting of a single slur. Turns out racism is more complicated than the word nigger.

[Prolific Sherpaposting]

As an old *sighs* gamer and played countless matches......comments tend to be along the lines of "mother fucker!" and not "fucking nigger!" Having said that.....I can recall a few racial comments and faggot comments. Not as much now as people change and people tend to (at least in my arena) block such people.

People that aren't anti-Semitic usually don't shout out anti-Semitic things in the moment......

Stress doesn't magically make you racist if you weren't already racist. Same with alcohol.

Saying a racial slur doesn’t actually mean you’re racist.
Being racist does.

[The Black Forrest]

As an old *sighs* gamer and played countless matches......comments tend to be along the lines of "mother forker!" and not "forking nigger!" Having said that.....I can recall a few racial comments and faggot comments. Not as much now as people change and people tend to (at least in my arena) block such people.

People that aren't anti-Semitic usually don't shout out anti-Semitic things in the moment......

Depends on the intent. Was it shouted because Pewdiepie hates blacks and has hidden it all this time or is it because he shouted the most offensive thing he could think of at the time? Either way it’s irrelevant because grtting upset over a youtube streamer shouting a single slur is stupid.

Is it irrelevant? It was enough to get him tossed off major venues. People aren't putting up with this kind of simple minded "satire"

I only saw the video once and he looked pretty pissed to have been faking it. Could have....don't really care as I find him to be a moron and don't watch his nonsense.

As said pulling out racist or anti-Semitic stuff because you want to shout something offense? The only people I have known to do that; where just that.

[Ors Might]

Depends on the intent. Was it shouted because Pewdiepie hates blacks and has hidden it all this time or is it because he shouted the most offensive thing he could think of at the time? Either way it’s irrelevant because grtting upset over a youtube streamer shouting a single slur is stupid.

Is it irrelevant? It was enough to get him tossed off major venues. People aren't putting up with this kind of simple minded "satire"

I only saw the video once and he looked pretty pissed to have been faking it. Could have....don't really care as I find him to be a moron and don't watch his nonsense.

As said pulling out racist or anti-Semitic stuff because you want to shout something offense? The only people I have known to do that; where just that.

I’ve been known to make Holocaust jokes or the occasional dead baby joke for little reason other than the fact that I find them funnily offensive. Wasn’t a Nazi or a baby killer last I checked. And it is irrelevant, or at least it should be. Pewdiepie has had a long career and black listing him for a single, trivial incident is asinine.

[Costa Fierro]

Pretty sure that this is calling PDP satirical after the fact because he got called out for being a racist.

When was he called racist?

[Galloism]

movies like Blazing Saddles have something that you lot seem to constantly miss: it's extremely explicit about its satirical take, sympathetic towards the oppressed and antipathetic towards the oppressors, when it comes to its "offensive" content.

I'm aware. But that kind of nuance easily gets lost in the wave of rage from people who have never watched it and just get whipped up by others.

Even Mel fucking Brooks understands.

It's not unfounded either, as we see what the younger generation says when they see it.

[Ostroeuropa]

- And then there's some whose fear seems to come from them kinda suspecting that they themselves actualy did something worth getting #MeToo'd for. I see this happen a lot with older men during casual conversations: there's this very defensive acknowledgement that, yes, they or others like them were sexually inappropriate towards women, and then comes the ridicule and fearmongering towards accusers, because to take their actions serious would mean acknowledging they could and should be held accountable for them.

Well let's discuss that.

Without completely ignoring context, history, and being unreasonable like much of the movement has, on what basis can you condemn someone for following a no means no standard of consent prior to say, 2000?

And, given that level of unreason and the demonstrated willingness to go after people for infractions which are decades old, shouldn't these people be concerned for what is essentially, a retroactive imposition of modern standards on their conduct to treat them as criminals when even the victims advocates of the time were screaming "No means no"?

This isn't to say that those who went after the clearly incapacitated should be ignored. I'm discussing those who operated under the assumption that a conscious, sober, sane, person would voice their objection to advances if they existed.

And, given that this standard was advanced for such a long time, and that it appears to have dominated sexual conduct of ordinary persons who were concerned about consent for quite some time, is it not reasonable to conclude that lack of acknowledging this amounts to handing the ex sexual partners of a very large number of people license to vilify and demonize someone for what was, at the time, the societal best-practice standard of consent?

This goes beyond just not educating people on consent. It is a matter of an active and deliberate attempt to define consent, even by the feminist movement, in terms that are now considered abhorrent and license to have someones life destroyed over. This not only impacts perpetrators. People who were having sex, as a consequence of this campaign, may not have voiced consent which was present because they felt no need to given the standard of the time, and this hands those people license now to use that experience to attack their ex partners.

So then, a question, will we be firing and outcasting the campaigners on that issue? Or just the people who heard those demanding people care about rape, listened to their argument, and said "Yes, this makes sense." and operated in good faith on that basis?

I'd argue that even if the people there experienced sexual trauma, that the behavior of the people involved should not be subject to criticism as individuals, and certainly not a vilification campaign and so on, and i'd argue that the lack of acknowledging this by the feminist movement and their culpability in this, is an aspect of them gaslighting a large section of the populace and then guilt tripping them. Moreover, the stunt you pulled here by casting that kind of thing in negative terms as character commentary on the people involved is an aspect of that gaslighting and psychological abuse of the public. Lack of acknowledging this is a means to make ordinary persons feel like predators and to vilify them on that basis, even when the movement doing so was the major active participant in encouraging that behavior.

Given the age of people like CEOs and so on, and the fact that the movement has shown no appreciation for these dynamics, shouldn't they be concerned? It isn't a coincidence that older people would tend to be the most skittish about this, and you're not considering their circumstance by being skeptical of your movement and its behavior and realizing that they may in fact be justified in their hostility to this kind of thing.

[Major-Tom]

"Interviews with more than 30 senior executives show...."

Right from the article. While Bloomberg is a reputable source, it relies heavily on anecdotal evidence provided to the author by senior executives, specifically, thirty of them. All of them, presumably, are powerful people. Y'know, it's a common quote, often used in conservative circles, but despite my own leanings, I think it's appropriate to use it here;

"Why be scared if you have nothing to hide?"

There is a pervasive, dangerous idea that many women just make shit up in regards to sexual assault. Sure, some do. But, and this but is crucial, the number is fucking minute, minuscule. Take the numbers into consideration - 2-10% of sexual assault claims are false. Furthermore, take into consideration that most of these false claims are found out. That's not to excuse false claims, far from it, but when compared to another statistic, it's interesting.

The DOJ estimates only 35% of sexual assaults are ever reported (see same source above). So, what's more important? Sympathizing more with senior executives, CEOs, who are scared for valid (or more likely) totally invalid reasons? Or is it more important to continue a movement (albeit, a very flawed movement) that seeks to inspire confidence in victimized women who otherwise wouldn't report the crimes committed against them? As a man, as a citizen, and as a rational person, I choose the latter.

The #MeToo movement is as big-tent as movements come - don't for a second think that I'm excusing false accusations, and don't think that I'm not saying #MeToo is flawless. But I'd rather see people work to change #MeToo for the better while simultaneously encouraging a culture that promotes women who are victimized and assaulted to come out and speak up.

Because, really, are we going to take anecdotal evidence of two dozen or so executives (high up in social and economic power) and use it as an excuse to totally discredit a movement that has brought down powerful men who are 100% guilty? Are we going to take those anecdotes and use it to discredit an entire cultural shift that has seen more and more women empowered to speak out against nasty things?

I sure hope not, but it seems like the OP is doing that - along with many people I know, whether it be on this forum or in person.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

The 2-10% statistic isn't very indicative when you take the whole study into account. It only means that 2-10% of rape accusations are PROVEN false.

From the study:
"Of the 136 cases of sexual assault 8 (5.9%) were coded as false reports, 61 (44.9%) did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action, 48 (35.3%) were referred for prosecution or disciplinary action, and 19 (13.9%) contained insufficient information to be coded"

The majority of rape cases sit in the middle, possibly true, possibly false, who the hell knows.

[Ostroeuropa]

There is a pervasive, dangerous idea that many women just make shit up in regards to sexual assault. Sure, some do. But, and this but is crucial, the number is fucking minute, minuscule. Take the numbers into consideration - 2-10% of sexual assault claims are false. Furthermore, take into consideration that most of these false claims are found out. That's not to excuse false claims, far from it, but when compared to another statistic, it's interesting.

2-10% of accusations reported to the police for criminal proceedings are PROVEN false. By the same logic you are operating under, we can conclude at least 75% of accusations are false (rapes that go unproven.).
In reality the number of false accusations reported to the police for criminal proceedings is between 10 and 75% and is not knowable.
(The 2-10 number you are referring to is 2% are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be malicious falsehoods, and 8% are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be mistaken identity, or not qualifying as sexual assault under the law.).

This is an example of the kind of insincere and disingenuous arguments on the topic peddled by the feminist side and how uncritically people repeat them.

The DOJ estimates only 35% of sexual assaults are ever reported (see same source above). So, what's more important? Sympathizing more with senior executives, CEOs, who are scared for valid (or more likely) totally invalid reasons?

What's important is the justice system protecting the rights of citizens. That involves due process.

Or is it more important to continue a movement (albeit, a very flawed movement) that seeks to inspire confidence in victimized women who otherwise wouldn't report the crimes committed against them? As a man, as a citizen, and as a rational person, I choose the latter.

You're an enemy of due process because whataboutthewimminz, got it.

Incidentally, there is an assumption by the feminist movement that women must OBVIOUSLY want to pursue action against the perpetrator and that explains the low numbers. While it explains part of it, there's another factor that gets ignored.

Maybe they just don't give a shit. I've been assaulted, including sexually assaulted, and I not only didn't pursue police action, but don't particularly care either. Do you actually have any evidence that a 35% reporting rate is low for a crime?

No, it's just assumed to be so.

Beyond that you've got the anti-cop attitude of many communities, especially among the working class. Casting a failure to report as necessarily the result of treatment of accusers of sexual crimes is, again, disingenuous. Many people would not report *any* crime against them and subscribe to a snitches get stitches attitude across the board regardless of crime or gender.

If you bother to look it up, you'd see that in contrast to feminist ideological assertions on the issue based on nothing but quoting their scriptures at people, 35% is around about the report rate for crime in general. (8.9 million crimes per year in the UK, 3.5 million reported to police.)

As usual, feminists find something and assert without evidence misogyny is causing it, only for facts to trip them up.

The #MeToo movement is as big-tent as movements come - don't for a second think that I'm excusing false accusations, and don't think that I'm not saying #MeToo is flawless. But I'd rather see people work to change #MeToo for the better while simultaneously encouraging a culture that promotes women who are victimized and assaulted to come out and speak up.

Your focus on women is precisely why changing this movement is pointless. One not already rife with sexism and riddled with nonsense would be better. Scrap this, start over, keep the feminists out. The focus on womens wellbeing instead of the wellbeing of victims of sexual assault is precisely what lead to the problem in the first place of prioritizing womens human rights and wellbeing over mens, and led to the due process problems and false allegations in the first place.

Because, really, are we going to take anecdotal evidence of two dozen or so executives (high up in social and economic power) and use it as an excuse to totally discredit a movement that has brought down powerful men who are 100% guilty?

It's the latest in a long line of evidence against the movement. Polling shows that the movement has had the opposite effect of what was intended. More people think false allegations are a bigger issue than sexual assault than before, less think going after people for historic crimes is acceptable behavior, and there is more public negativity against accusers than before (Largely this is driven by a change in womens attitudes. 30% of men both before and after MeToo agreed that "Women who make accusations cause more problems than they solve", whereas 25% of women before and 30% of women after metoo agreed.).

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... egins-poll

Are we going to take those anecdotes and use it to discredit an entire cultural shift that has seen more and more women empowered to speak out against nasty things?

The cultural shift is in your head. The feminist movement is alienating more people than it is convincing. It's merely that they can't admit their campaigns don't work, so have to keep claiming victory.

[Des-Bal]

"Interviews with more than 30 senior executives show...."

Right from the article. While Bloomberg is a reputable source, it relies heavily on anecdotal evidence provided to the author by senior executives, specifically, thirty of them. All of them, presumably, are powerful people. Y'know, it's a common quote, often used in conservative circles, but despite my own leanings, I think it's appropriate to use it here;

"Why be scared if you have nothing to hide?"

There is a pervasive, dangerous idea that many women just make shit up in regards to sexual assault. Sure, some do. But, and this but is crucial, the number is fucking minute, minuscule. Take the numbers into consideration - 2-10% of sexual assault claims are false. Furthermore, take into consideration that most of these false claims are found out. That's not to excuse false claims, far from it, but when compared to another statistic, it's interesting.

The DOJ estimates only 35% of sexual assaults are ever reported (see same source above). So, what's more important? Sympathizing more with senior executives, CEOs, who are scared for valid (or more likely) totally invalid reasons? Or is it more important to continue a movement (albeit, a very flawed movement) that seeks to inspire confidence in victimized women who otherwise wouldn't report the crimes committed against them? As a man, as a citizen, and as a rational person, I choose the latter.

The #MeToo movement is as big-tent as movements come - don't for a second think that I'm excusing false accusations, and don't think that I'm not saying #MeToo is flawless. But I'd rather see people work to change #MeToo for the better while simultaneously encouraging a culture that promotes women who are victimized and assaulted to come out and speak up.

Because, really, are we going to take anecdotal evidence of two dozen or so executives (high up in social and economic power) and use it as an excuse to totally discredit a movement that has brought down powerful men who are 100% guilty? Are we going to take those anecdotes and use it to discredit an entire cultural shift that has seen more and more women empowered to speak out against nasty things?

I sure hope not, but it seems like the OP is doing that - along with many people I know, whether it be on this forum or in person.

How the actual hell can you say "most false claims are found out?" When a claim that isn't found out is indistinguishable from an actual claim? This came up before, people said the fact that there were so many famously false accusations that obviously most false accusations were found out- that is a non-sequitur. It does not follow, it is not a reasonable conclusion based upon the premise. I think it's a great thing for victims, that is victims not "women" to speak out about sexual assault but I do not think it's sensible to impose consequences upon people based on bare accusations or to become outraged when they aren't ruined by it.

[Luminesa]

"Interviews with more than 30 senior executives show...."

Right from the article. While Bloomberg is a reputable source, it relies heavily on anecdotal evidence provided to the author by senior executives, specifically, thirty of them. All of them, presumably, are powerful people. Y'know, it's a common quote, often used in conservative circles, but despite my own leanings, I think it's appropriate to use it here;

"Why be scared if you have nothing to hide?"

There is a pervasive, dangerous idea that many women just make shit up in regards to sexual assault. Sure, some do. But, and this but is crucial, the number is fucking minute, minuscule. Take the numbers into consideration - 2-10% of sexual assault claims are false. Furthermore, take into consideration that most of these false claims are found out. That's not to excuse false claims, far from it, but when compared to another statistic, it's interesting.

The DOJ estimates only 35% of sexual assaults are ever reported (see same source above). So, what's more important? Sympathizing more with senior executives, CEOs, who are scared for valid (or more likely) totally invalid reasons? Or is it more important to continue a movement (albeit, a very flawed movement) that seeks to inspire confidence in victimized women who otherwise wouldn't report the crimes committed against them? As a man, as a citizen, and as a rational person, I choose the latter.

The #MeToo movement is as big-tent as movements come - don't for a second think that I'm excusing false accusations, and don't think that I'm not saying #MeToo is flawless. But I'd rather see people work to change #MeToo for the better while simultaneously encouraging a culture that promotes women who are victimized and assaulted to come out and speak up.

Because, really, are we going to take anecdotal evidence of two dozen or so executives (high up in social and economic power) and use it as an excuse to totally discredit a movement that has brought down powerful men who are 100% guilty? Are we going to take those anecdotes and use it to discredit an entire cultural shift that has seen more and more women empowered to speak out against nasty things?

I sure hope not, but it seems like the OP is doing that - along with many people I know, whether it be on this forum or in person.

The problem is a rising number of CEOs, even guys who are totally not doing anything wrong, are afraid to work with women in the workplace. Anyone can be accused, and because a number of people are pushing to have due process thrown out the window, a guy could go to jail for something he did not do. Sure it might be a minute number among CEOs, but what about stats for normal men working with girl co-workers? It’s not meant to discredit a movement, but in order for the Movement to be effective, we not only have to expose sexual violence where it happens, but ALSO we have to make the law clearer regarding what is and what is not rape. Otherwise we have female workers suffering as well, because CEOs and male co-workers are scared to work with them.

[Liriena]

- And then there's some whose fear seems to come from them kinda suspecting that they themselves actualy did something worth getting #MeToo'd for. I see this happen a lot with older men during casual conversations: there's this very defensive acknowledgement that, yes, they or others like them were sexually inappropriate towards women, and then comes the ridicule and fearmongering towards accusers, because to take their actions serious would mean acknowledging they could and should be held accountable for them.

Well let's discuss that.

Without completely ignoring context, history, and being unreasonable like much of the movement has, on what basis can you condemn someone for following a no means no standard of consent prior to say, 2000?

Trick question. I said nothing about condemnation or even necessarily retroactive punishment. When it comes to those things, what I'd ideally want is a critical application of hindsight as a learning experience for the present and the future. Nobody likes thinking back on their life and realizing that the stuff they took for granted wasn't actually just "natural" and inherently good. And when the nostalgia kicks in, being told that you can't reproduce the harmful behaviors you just accepted as normal is gonna bother some. Buuuuuuuuuuuut it's something you ultimately need to do, not just for the sake of others but also your own. (Of course, that is if we are talking about relatively minor behaviors. Very different if we're talking about, say, rape.)

I was awkward and sometimes some stupid, inappropriate shit in my teenage years. I'm not gonna retroactively beat myself up over it, but I can at least look back on it and think "Welp, not gonna do that again", rather than get all defensive and think "No, it's the nagging, scary feeeeeemales today who are the problem!".

[Liriena]

Anyone can be accused

Anyone can be accused of anything. I could try to frame someone I dislike for robbery, murder, possession of hard drugs, or some other shit. Hell, I could do what the far right does and accuse random people of being the perpetrators of terrorist attacks before law enforcement can give out the real identity of the attackers.

but what about stats for normal men working with girl co-workers?

I dunno. What are the stats for male workers?

ALSO we have to make the law clearer regarding what is and what is not rape

How much clearer do you need it to be? At least in the American case?

[Des-Bal]

The problem is a rising number of CEOs, even guys who are totally not doing anything wrong, are afraid to work with women in the workplace. Anyone can be accused, and because a number of people are pushing to have due process thrown out the window, a guy could go to jail for something he did not do. Sure it might be a minute number among CEOs, but what about stats for normal men working with girl co-workers? It’s not meant to discredit a movement, but in order for the Movement to be effective, we not only have to expose sexual violence where it happens, but ALSO we have to make the law clearer regarding what is and what is not rape. Otherwise we have female workers suffering as well, because CEOs and male co-workers are scared to work with them.

They don't have to go to jail. If a CEO is accused of sexual assault and it gains any kind of notice the board can either immediately remove them or push them to resign or they can be raked across the coals for having stood behind an accused rapist. It wouldn't have to go to trial, something like Aziz Ansari went through could easily cost someone their job.

[Liriena]

"Interviews with more than 30 senior executives show...."

Right from the article. While Bloomberg is a reputable source, it relies heavily on anecdotal evidence provided to the author by senior executives, specifically, thirty of them. All of them, presumably, are powerful people. Y'know, it's a common quote, often used in conservative circles, but despite my own leanings, I think it's appropriate to use it here;

"Why be scared if you have nothing to hide?"

There is a pervasive, dangerous idea that many women just make shit up in regards to sexual assault. Sure, some do. But, and this but is crucial, the number is fucking minute, minuscule. Take the numbers into consideration - 2-10% of sexual assault claims are false. Furthermore, take into consideration that most of these false claims are found out. That's not to excuse false claims, far from it, but when compared to another statistic, it's interesting.

The DOJ estimates only 35% of sexual assaults are ever reported (see same source above). So, what's more important? Sympathizing more with senior executives, CEOs, who are scared for valid (or more likely) totally invalid reasons? Or is it more important to continue a movement (albeit, a very flawed movement) that seeks to inspire confidence in victimized women who otherwise wouldn't report the crimes committed against them? As a man, as a citizen, and as a rational person, I choose the latter.

The #MeToo movement is as big-tent as movements come - don't for a second think that I'm excusing false accusations, and don't think that I'm not saying #MeToo is flawless. But I'd rather see people work to change #MeToo for the better while simultaneously encouraging a culture that promotes women who are victimized and assaulted to come out and speak up.

Because, really, are we going to take anecdotal evidence of two dozen or so executives (high up in social and economic power) and use it as an excuse to totally discredit a movement that has brought down powerful men who are 100% guilty? Are we going to take those anecdotes and use it to discredit an entire cultural shift that has seen more and more women empowered to speak out against nasty things?

I sure hope not, but it seems like the OP is doing that - along with many people I know, whether it be on this forum or in person.

How the actual hell can you say "most false claims are found out?" When a claim that isn't found out is indistinguishable from an actual claim? This came up before, people said the fact that there were so many famously false accusations that obviously most false accusations were found out- that is a non-sequitur. It does not follow, it is not a reasonable conclusion based upon the premise. I think it's a great thing for victims, that is victims not "women" to speak out about sexual assault but I do not think it's sensible to impose consequences upon people based on bare accusations or to become outraged when they aren't ruined by it.

Stepping back from the issue of sexual violence in particular, the court of public opinion making up its mind on pretty much every crime, real or imagined, is inevitable regardless.

Millions of people are convinced that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who deserves jailtime (and probably the death penalty), and the same goes for Donald Trump. Millions of people agree that O.J. Simpson is a murderer. Politicians accused of corruption often get metaphorically "lynched" long before there's an actual trial.

[Des-Bal]

Anyone can be accused of anything. I could try to frame someone I dislike for robbery, murder, possession of hard drugs, or some other shit. Hell, I could do what the far right does and accuse random people of being the perpetrators of terrorist attacks before law enforcement can give out the real identity of the attackers.

We don't have people treating it as an outrage and proof that our society actually approves of robbery murder and possession of hard drugs when a simple accusation fails to comprehensively destroy someone.

[Des-Bal]

Stepping back from the issue of sexual violence in particular, the court of public opinion making up its mind on pretty much every crime, real or imagined, is inevitable regardless.

Millions of people are convinced that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who deserves jailtime (and probably the death penalty), and the same goes for Donald Trump. Millions of people agree that O.J. Simpson is a murderer. Politicians accused of corruption often get metaphorically "lynched" long before there's an actual trial.

In your opinion does the fact a problem exists justify allowing or encouraging it to get worse?

[Liriena]

Anyone can be accused of anything. I could try to frame someone I dislike for robbery, murder, possession of hard drugs, or some other shit. Hell, I could do what the far right does and accuse random people of being the perpetrators of terrorist attacks before law enforcement can give out the real identity of the attackers.

We don't have people treating it as an outrage and proof that our society actually approves of robbery murder and possession of hard drugs when a simple accusation fails to comprehensively destroy someone.

You mean like when people got angry that Bill Cosby kept getting away with it (until he didn't)?

[Galloism]

Anyone can be accused

Anyone can be accused of anything. I could try to frame someone I dislike for robbery, murder, possession of hard drugs, or some other shit. Hell, I could do what the far right does and accuse random people of being the perpetrators of terrorist attacks before law enforcement can give out the real identity of the attackers.

but what about stats for normal men working with girl co-workers?

I dunno. What are the stats for male workers?

ALSO we have to make the law clearer regarding what is and what is not rape

How much clearer do you need it to be? At least in the American case?

The law is actually pretty clear criminally speaking (sometimes too clear - last time we looked at it there were like a dozen states where it's literally a lesser crime for a woman to rape a man than the other way).

From a social standpoint, employment standpoint, and school/university standpoint, clarity is hard to come by. Hell, there was a case a few months ago where a drunk student came in, start to fondle a guy's privates while he was asleep, then when he woke up and started to reciprocate, she had him expelled for sexual assault against her.

[Des-Bal]

You mean like when people got angry that Bill Cosby kept getting away with it (until he didn't)?

1. I assume you're talking about the Bill Cosby who was not convicted on a bare accusation?
2. I don't actually see how that addressed anything I said. Are you reaffirming rape exists? I don't think it was being disputed.

[Costa Fierro]

Anyone can be accused of anything.

And somehow the significance of this is lost on you.

How much clearer do you need it to be? At least in the American case?

Let's have a scenario here. You have sex with a woman. You consent, she consents. It is verbal and enthusiastic. After the intercourse has finished and you part ways, she reports to the police that you raped her and retracts consent.

Is it rape?