Is #MeToo fair?

[Chikombo]

Should people call out monsters publically or should issues with sexual allegations be solved privately?


Is it ok for women to hang people out ruining their image for mistakes or crimes they may have done, or should it be hush hush about it? And can the accusations be over reactions?


Personally, I think Me Too is important and shocking how normal these things have been.

 

[Yeah right]

The Metoo movement is an important cultural shift that was needed.

I will admit there is the possibility of exploitation, but our court system has always been that way. So it should not come as a surprise.

Names need to be called out.

And come on. We are guys here. We know how guys act.

 

[salamander uchiha]

I'm in two minds as it's open to abuse and fraudulent claims can be made about individuals. It leads to them and their families being abused and ridiculed by those looking for somebody to blame. Once the person is cleared or proven innocent it doesn't change the trauma they and their family may have suffered.

I've been raised not to be bias and believe in innocent till proven definitely guilty. I'm not one to believe he must've done it because he's a guy.

 

[Lightbringer]

Yes, people who commit sexual crimes should be shamed publicly.

Also, #metoo allegations are not convictions. Allegations are investigated and determined whether they are true or not, and then tried in court if there's merit.

People who are falsely accused are well within their rights to sue for defamation and clear their name. But normally that isn't the case nor has been with the allegations so far. I think the only #metoo allegation I'm aware of that can defamed anyone is the one against Aziz Ansari, which most people came to his defense.

Statistically speaking, over 90% of sexual assault claims turn out to be true. So to immediately assume that the accuser is lying rather than telling the truth, especially with the risk of ruining their own lives, is really dumb.

 

[Joon]

On the fence about it. It is good the sexual predators are getting exposed. But allegations could be taken too far to frame or make defamatory statements to harm someone.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Is it ok for women to hang people out ruining their image for mistakes or crimes they may have done, or should it be hush hush about it? And can the accusations be over reactions?

That's the key-word here. Crimes. There is no situation where Person A gets a crime committed against them for no reason by Person B, and Person A is the bad guy.

 

[Yeah right]

Is aziz Ansari active? I have not heard anything for over a year now.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

That's the key-word here. Crimes. There is no situation where Person A gets a crime committed against them for no reason by Person B, and Person A is the bad guy.

Iirc you were a fan of Louis C.K and that dude got crucified for being a bit gross. The whole "he has power over them" was bullshit.

 

[Yeah right]

Iirc you were a fan of Louis C.K and that dude got crucified for being a bit gross. The whole "he has power over them" was bullshit.

I don’t know if this is true, but in the comedian world, you need friends. That’s how you get access. Networking and junk. If a guy tells you to do something, and you are a woman, you might need to in order to up your career chance.

Let’s say they refuse. He talks shit. A manger doesn’t the girl. Guy friends move out of her life. Now she is alone and without friends.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Is aziz Ansari active? I have not heard anything for over a year now.

IIRC, he's on a break of his own accord.

I don’t know if this is true, but in the comedian world, you need friends. That’s how you get access. Networking and junk. If a guy tells you to do something, and you are a woman, you might need to in order to up your career chance.

Let’s say they refuse. He talks shit. A manger doesn’t the girl. Guy friends move out of her life. Now she is alone and without friends.

Exactly this. It's called power dynamics, and why it's not a good idea to make these kinds of advances towards a subordinate in any career field.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

IIRC, he's on a break of his own accord.


Exactly this. It's called power dynamics, and why it's not a good idea to make these kinds of advances towards a subordinate in any career field.

Power dynamics exist but just because someone above you makes an advance doesn't mean they are gonna ruin your career. It's your judgment on what type of people you sleep with. You two might have an argument if this was the 1960's but in 2018, it's been made blatantly unacceptable to punish someone for not sleeping with you. So some guy who has a pleasant aura, I assumed at least, asks to sleep with him (not even sleep with, lol), and the women do so keeping their career in mind, and then decide to punish him for it. It's kind of f*cked.

Unless he made it clear he wouldn't take no for an answer, like Harvey did, he didn't do much wrong. If you think so, they might as well make it illegal for employees to sleep with employers because it's always about power-dynamics apparently.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Power dynamics exist but just because someone above you makes an advance doesn't mean they are gonna ruin your career.

The problem is that no one knows if this is the case or not. The women Louis made advances on had zero way of knowing that he would take a rejection of their advances amicably, and wouldn't do things to ruin their career. No one in this position knows this for sure. This doesn't invalidate the concerns that power dynamics create.

It's your judgment on what type of people you sleep with. You two might have an argument if this was the 1960's but in 2018, it's been made blatantly unacceptable to punish someone for not sleeping with you.

Once again, there is no guarantee to this. You're naive if you think every single instance of a person making an advance to someone they hold power over will end positively if those advances are rejected. By this same measure, and this is something Louis himself said, it's on the advancer's judgement to realize that making sexual advances to someone with whom you don't have that kind of relationship with can be an issue. It's on the advancer's judgement to realize that the person may be feeling coerced, even if that is not within the advancer's intentions.

So some guy who has a pleasant aura, I assumed at least, asks to sleep with them (not even sleep with, lol), they do so keeping their career in mind, and then decide to punish him for it. It's kind of f*cked.

No it's not. It's fucked to make advances on a person when you don't have that kind of relationship and you have the capacity to intimidate them.

Unless he made it clear he wouldn't take no for an answer, like Harvey did, he didn't do much wrong.

He blocked one woman from exiting the bathroom they were in and shoved another, by his own admission.

If you think so, they might as well make it illegal for employees to sleep with employers because it's always about power-dynamics apparently.

You mean the way there are companies that will actually fire employees for sleeping with subordinates? Or the way that many companies that require their employees to consult and disclose with HR when they're entering a sexual or romantic relationship for exactly this reason? These precautions would not exist if everything was cookie cutter "Oh, power dynamics aren't real, just say no and it'll be okay" as your outlook makes it out to be.

 

[Cornson]

MeToo is about believing the accuser and don't wait for evidence, just destroy the person the accuser claims did something and we have already seen people being falsely accused in MeToo...

You should be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove that you are innocent.

 

[jimbobbity]

If its done with the intent of bringing the assault and the culprit to light, then I support it. If it's done to do the former AND ruin the culprits life, then I don't support it. I'm all about punishing the person for the crime, not hating the person for the crime.

 

[Lightbringer]

MeToo is about believing the accuser and don't wait for evidence, just destroy the person the accuser claims did something and we have already seen people being falsely accused in MeToo...

You should be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove that you are innocent.

Can you name anyone that was proven guilty without evidence?

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

What decides if an allegation is fair or not is if it's true, and part of the #MeToo movement has played a role in verifying the truth, so I think it works out. One woman speaks out against a powerful person who'd likely win the case, then additional victims of that same person provide backing to the perpetrator's actual character. I mean, an innocent person being accused could feel the consequences, though the problem in that scenario wouldn't be the #MeToo movement but people who've already taken the accuser's word as fact. It's both problematic & a solution, but not unfair.

 

[Punk Hazard]

MeToo is about believing the accuser and don't wait for evidence, just destroy the person the accuser claims did something and we have already seen people being falsely accused in MeToo...

You should be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you prove that you are innocent.

No it's not. #MeToo doesn't mean call for guilt as soon as an accusation is made, it calls for taking accusations seriously.

If its done with the intent of bringing the assault and the culprit to light, then I support it. If it's done to do the former AND ruin the culprits life, then I don't support it. I'm all about punishing the person for the crime, not hating the person for the crime.

What? If you do something that terrible, you deserve consequences.

 

[Sagebee]

Is the metoo thing still going on and on mean the metoo campaign

 

[jimbobbity]

No it's not. #MeToo doesn't mean call for guilt as soon as an accusation is made, it calls for taking accusations seriously.

What? If you do something that terrible, you deserve consequences.

Theres a large difference between paying the consequences for your actions and terrorizing someone over them. The mere lawsuit would mean a huge loss of job opportunities, the entire neighborhood being notified and a huge dip in social life, and that's only after many years of prison life assuming they were convicted. Harassing somebody online/beating them up isn't justice, its just simple abuse.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Theres a large difference between paying the consequences for your actions and terrorizing someone over them. The mere lawsuit would mean a huge loss of job opportunities, the entire neighborhood being notified and a huge dip in social life, and that's only after many years of prison life assuming they were convicted. Harassing somebody online/beating them up isn't justice, its just simple abuse.

When what you did was sexual assault and/or rape, you deserve to lose your job. You deserve to have people know about what you did. Particularly when there's no reform or remorse on your behalf.