Henry Cavill forced to apologize for #metoo comments

DONTMATTER

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did say the metoo movement has enabled professional whingers. I didn't say anything about victims of rape. I was the first one to point out that many victims of rape and sexual assaults do not have the same access to social media as professional whingers, so it is entirely professional whingers are driving the narrative of the metoo movement, not the victims of rape and sexual assault.

You're not the first person who claims to have never heard of Lena Dunham, to be fair not many people actually have heard of her, and even less people care who she is, which is a good thing because she's forever discrediting the causes she claims to represent. She's a liability to any movement, which is why some people in the metoo movement point out that while she may claim to be representative of their cause, they would prefer to disassociate themselves from her narrative -




The #MeToo era has no time for Lena Dunham


The huge problem is that many of the people involved in the metoo movement are saying that women should be believed, and then contradicting themselves by saying that they themselves don't believe all women. That is a huge problem, for them. It's certainly not my problem, but someone who tries to claim that I associate professional whingers like Lena Dunham with victims of rape, definitely doesn't get that, because for them it doesn't appear to be about supporting victims of rape at all, but rather it appears to be entirely about offering their virtual support to people who already agree with their narrative - professional whingers just like them.

You are obsessed with this Lena one. I couldn't give a ****e.
The metoo movement is not just about rape victims, you referred to the whole metoo movement as professional whingers in the first post I quoted. This is a nasty comment to say about rape victims especially but also to other victims of harassment and abuse.

DONTMATTER

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seriously? She is but one example to illustrate the point I was making. There are many more, millions even :pac:

But I don't need to cite the examples and experiences of millions when both yourself and DON'TMATTER have already pointed out that even you don't believe that all women who bravely choose to share their stories should be believed. Who is or is not to be believed is entirely predicated upon whom you choose to believe, based entirely upon the credibility of their narrative.

I don't need personal and subjective narratives to convince me as to who or what I do, or don't, or should or shouldn't believe. I can simply examine evidence presented from a number of different sources to build an overall picture rather than simply relying on a particular individual narrative which you choose to present as evidence. The one thing I do agree with you on is that belief is indeed based upon credibility, and if you have none, then that's an issue for you, not for me, as I'm well aware of just how prevalent the issue is in reality, contrary to your narrative that it is as widespread in society as you claim it is.

I didn't take the opening poster at their word either, because I would have been entirely wrong to have done so, and I said as much in my very first post on this thread -





I'm with DONTMATTER on this one -





I think the point of her post was that celebrities opinions aren't relevant to most people. It's about the only good point they've made in this whole thread tbh :pac:

Where did I say that I don't believe anyone? All I said is that even the most ardent anti metoo person has to admit that not all the women are liars.

And yes, celebrities are irrelevant. You are obsessed with them. Go talk to real life women. Ask them their stories, listen to them. After that you can still believe they are lying or they are whingers but at least you'll have got some real life experience of this and not something you read about in some celebrity gossip articles.

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Go talk to real life women. Ask them their stories, listen to them.

I did that. Posted it up here. You didn't respond to it because it exposed your narrative.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're more than reaching now....

He said many people involved in metoo have had a situation where they didn’t believe a woman’s experience.

He did not say one influential person had a situation where they didn’t believe a woman’s experience.

I’m sure he can name MANY more of these women...... since I’m reaching.

One eyed Jack

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You are obsessed with this Lena one. I couldn't give a ****e.
The metoo movement is not just about rape victims, you referred to the whole metoo movement as professional whingers in the first post I quoted. This is a nasty comment to say about rape victims especially but also to other victims of harassment and abuse.

I mentioned her once as an example. If that indicates an obsession to you, then by your own definition you are clearly obsessed with misrepresenting my opinion rather than acknowledging what I actually said, which was -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's... not my view though?

As far as I can see the metoo campaign certainly has achieved it's aims of validating a certain class of professional whinger. It hasn't had any effect on people's daily lives other than anyone I know personally regarding it with contempt and ridicule.

If you want to effect real change and educate people, it starts a lot closer to home than twitter. It starts with yourself. Educating other people requires a bit more effort than simply telling them they don't have a clue, and they should listen and believe what they're told without question.

That isn't an attempt to educate anyone, it's an attempt to indoctrinate people with your own ideology, and that's what people disagree with, because it doesn't square with their reality.

I would suggest that the metoo movement was never about the victims of rape and sexual assault, but that it was purely about enabling as I suggested already - a certain class of professional whinger. There's a difference there between the two groups. It's a very specific difference that at this point you simply can't fail to have missed, but have chosen to ignore.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Where did I say that I don't believe anyone? All I said is that even the most ardent anti metoo person has to admit that not all the women are liars.

No, that isn't all you said. Exactly what you said was -

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You don't have to believe every story, that's not the point.

The whole motivation for the existence of the metoo movement was because of women who claim they are not believed when they share their stories. It grew from one woman who chose to share her story because she felt she wasn't believed, and grew into many thousands of women sharing their stories because they too felt that they weren't believed, and yet here you are telling people that women who are brave enough to share their stories should be believed, while at the same time saying that we don't have to believe every story and that's not the point of the metoo movement.

It would be more helpful if you could get your own story straight.

And yes, celebrities are irrelevant. You are obsessed with them. Go talk to real life women. Ask them their stories, listen to them. After that you can still believe they are lying or they are whingers but at least you'll have got some real life experience of this and not something you read about in some celebrity gossip articles.

It's because I actually already talk to people who have experienced rape and sexual assault that I know they aren't the one dimensional professional whingers who are obsessed with portraying themselves as victims of men, that I can actually appreciate and acknowledge the difference between the two groups, something which you appear to have repeatedly and fundamentally misunderstood or misconstrued, as it doesn't fit neatly with your particular narrative.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seriously? She is but one example to illustrate the point I was making. There are many more, millions even :pac:

But I don't need to cite the examples and experiences of millions when both yourself and DON'TMATTER have already pointed out that even you don't believe that all women who bravely choose to share their stories should be believed. Who is or is not to be believed is entirely predicated upon whom you choose to believe, based entirely upon the credibility of their narrative.

Again it’s not a choice.

And again the credibility comes from a number of sources. One of these is sheer volume.

However you are not pointing to a high volume of women involved in metoo that selectively believe women’s metoo stories. You’re just claiming there’s a high volume.

Completely different scenario but nice try.

I don't need personal and subjective narratives to convince me as to who or what I do, or don't, or should or shouldn't believe. I can simply examine evidence presented from a number of different sources to build an overall picture rather than simply relying on a particular individual narrative which you choose to present as evidence. The one thing I do agree with you on is that belief is indeed based upon credibility, and if you have none, then that's an issue for you, not for me, as I'm well aware of just how prevalent the issue is in reality, contrary to your narrative that it is as widespread in society as you claim it is.

I’d be very curious about your other sources of evidence on this matter? What are they? Because sexual harrassment surveys could only be based on self report. And we know hoe seriously you take women’s reporting of their experience.

I didn't take the opening poster at their word either, because I would have been entirely wrong to have done so, and I said as much in my very first post on this thread -

You didn’t take the OP at their word? He shared an opinion not an experience..... do you think everyone is lying about their opinions now as well?

DONTMATTER

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I mentioned her once as an example. If that indicates an obsession to you, then by your own definition you are clearly obsessed with misrepresenting my opinion rather than acknowledging what I actually said, which was -





I would suggest that the metoo movement was never about the victims of rape and sexual assault, but that it was purely about enabling as I suggested already - a certain class of professional whinger. There's a difference there between the two groups. It's a very specific difference that at this point you simply can't fail to have missed, but have chosen to ignore.






No, that isn't all you said. Exactly what you said was -





The whole motivation for the existence of the metoo movement was because of women who claim they are not believed when they share their stories. It grew from one woman who chose to share her story because she felt she wasn't believed, and grew into many thousands of women sharing their stories because they too felt that they weren't believed, and yet here you are telling people that women who are brave enough to share their stories should be believed, while at the same time saying that we don't have to believe every story and that's not the point of the metoo movement.

It would be more helpful if you could get your own story straight.





It's because I actually already talk to people who have experienced rape and sexual assault that I know they aren't the one dimensional professional whingers who are obsessed with portraying themselves as victims of men, that I can actually appreciate and acknowledge the difference between the two groups, something which you appear to have repeatedly and fundamentally misunderstood or misconstrued, as it doesn't fit neatly with your particular narrative.

You mentioned her more than once. You seem celebrity obsessed.

Yes, you're calling victims of harassment and abuse professional whingers. You're backing up what I'm saying here.

Of course the metoo movement was about highlighting what many women go through. It's why it begun and it's why women posted their stories.

Exactly, so I didn't say that I didn't believe anyone and the anti metoo men can believe women are lying all they want but they can't claim they're all lying with a straight face. You're backing up my points again! You're confusing yourself here!

Well you can consider women who have been harassed and abused to be whingers, you can have contempt for them and ridicule them all you like but decent people will call that disgusting.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Again it’s not a choice.

And again the credibility comes from a number of sources. One of these is sheer volume.

However you are not pointing to a high volume of women involved in metoo that selectively believe women’s metoo stories. You’re just claiming there’s a high volume.

Completely different scenario but nice try.

It is of course a choice, it's a choice based upon credibility, and in order to believe the sheer volume of complaints, you would first have to believe the person claiming to have experienced what they claim to have experienced, is credible.

It's the very same scenario as your claims of the sheer volume of women who are sexually assaulted and raped, but I'm not sure if you actually got the point and intentionally sidelined it, or if you genuinely missed it altogether.

I’d be very curious about your other sources of evidence on this matter? What are they? Because sexual harrassment surveys could only be based on self report. And we know hoe seriously you take women’s reporting of their experience.

Freudian slip? :pac:

But no, you don't actually know how seriously I take this matter, you want to believe I don't, as that would suit your narrative. However, my research hasn't just consisted of self-reports, which I would agree with you would be wholly unreliable, but rather it consists of research also conducted by people working with people every day who actually have been the victims of sexual assault and rape, not just the self-reports of people who claim to be victims.

You didn’t take the OP at their word? He shared an opinion not an experience..... do you think everyone is lying about their opinions now as well?

Did you just misgender the OP? :pac:

Nope, I don't think everyone is lying about their opinions, just the people who choose to express their opinions in public, and then roll back on their opinions to try and present the same opinion in a different way when those opinions of their experiences they claim have happened are subjected to questioning and criticism. It's very difficult to take a person like that seriously, let alone believe a word they're saying.

One eyed Jack

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You mentioned her more than once. You seem celebrity obsessed.

Yes, you're calling victims of harassment and abuse professional whingers. You're backing up what I'm saying here.

Of course the metoo movement was about highlighting what many women go through. It's why it begun and it's why women posted their stories.

Exactly, so I didn't say that I didn't believe anyone and the anti metoo men can believe women are lying all they want but they can't claim they're all lying with a straight face. You're backing up my points again! You're confusing yourself here!

Well you can consider women who have been harassed and abused to be whingers, you can have contempt for them and ridicule them all you like but decent people will call that disgusting.

By the standards you appear to determine whether a person is decent or not, I certainly won't lose any sleep over your deliberations, as they are simply of no consequence to me.

Omackeral

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By the standards you appear to determine whether a person is decent or not, I certainly won't lose any sleep over your deliberations, as they are simply of no consequence to me.

Careful, you'll get the followed by the ignore list...

DONTMATTER

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By the standards you appear to determine whether a person is decent or not, I certainly won't lose any sleep over your deliberations, as they are simply of no consequence to me.

Well you started off by saying the entire metoo movement was full of professional whingers. You are now claiming that it's just those who have been harassed and assaulted. This is not any better. You also state that they should be ridiculed and people should have contempt for them. By anyone's standards this is a pretty scummy thing to say.

The Bishop Basher

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Well you started off by saying the entire metoo movement was full of professional whingers.

Your honour, I present this thread..

DONTMATTER

Rennaws wrote: »

Your honour, I present this thread..

"As far as I can see the metoo campaign certainly has achieved it's aims of validating a certain class of professional whinger. It hasn't had any effect on people's daily lives other than anyone I know personally regarding it with contempt and ridicule."

One eyed Jack

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Well you started off by saying the entire metoo movement was full of professional whingers. You are now claiming that it's just those who have been harassed and assaulted. This is not any better. You also state that they should be ridiculed and people should have contempt for them. By anyone's standards this is a pretty scummy thing to say.

I didn't actually say any of that at all though?

I've been very clear and explained to you numerous times what I've said and why I said it, and yet you still choose to believe what you want to believe. Which is fair enough, as it makes no odds to me, but should you ever find yourself making claims that you want people to believe, you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone of anything when your perception is so obviously biased.

That's why women in particular I suppose are less likely to be convinced when it comes to these kinds of cases -

Contrary to the natural assumption that more female jurors would find in favour of the victim, Irish academic research shows that female-dominated juries are less likely to convict a rapist.

In the 2009 book Rape and Justice in Ireland, by leading academics Conor Hanly, Deirdre Healy, and Stacy Scriver, it was found that, in sex assault cases, male-dominated juries had a higher conviction rate than those evenly split by gender.

The authors studied and analysed the verdicts and gender breakdowns of 108 juries, of which 64% had more men on them than women; 17% had more women on them; and 19% were evenly divided between male and female jurors.

Their study showed that female-dominated juries did not convict of rape in any case, and the male- dominated juries had a higher conviction rate.

Stanford Rape Case: Female-dominated juries less likely to convict in rape cases


Bold emphasis my own, and that's your basic problem right there - contrary to your belief, it's not men who don't believe women is the issue, it's that women themselves aren't so easily convinced.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is of course a choice, it's a choice based upon credibility, and in order to believe the sheer volume of complaints, you would first have to believe the person claiming to have experienced what they claim to have experienced, is credible.

The movement is more than the sum of its parts. The credibility of a million experiences doesn’t come from zooming in on each experience, assessing its credibility, then doing an average. The credibility comes by virtue of the large number of similar experiences.

So where are the large number of women involved in metoo who have disbelieved other women’s metoo experiences?

Lena Dunham is one. Who else? You said there’s many.......

It's the very same scenario as your claims of the sheer volume of women who are sexually assaulted and raped, but I'm not sure if you actually got the point and intentionally sidelined it, or if you genuinely missed it altogether.

Could you point me to where I’ve made any claim about rapes or assaults?

But no, you don't actually know how seriously I take this matter, you want to believe I don't, as that would suit your narrative. However, my research hasn't just consisted of self-reports, which I would agree with you would be wholly unreliable, but rather it consists of research also conducted by people working with people every day who actually have been the victims of sexual assault and rape, not just the self-reports of people who claim to be victims.

How seriously you take the matter? Not what I said at all. I talked about how seriously you take self reports of women in metoo. And you’ve openly said you don’t take it seriously at all.

Can you please share more about the research you’re referring to? What do you mean by “working with”? Have these people some insight into the prevalence of sexual harrassment? By what methods did they gain this insight?

Nope, I don't think everyone is lying about their opinions, just the people who choose to express their opinions in public, and then roll back on their opinions to try and present the same opinion in a different way when those opinions of their experiences they claim have happened are subjected to questioning and criticism. It's very difficult to take a person like that seriously, let alone believe a word they're saying.

Where did the OP do that?

DONTMATTER

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't actually say any of that at all though?

I've been very clear and explained to you numerous times what I've said and why I said it, and yet you still choose to believe what you want to believe. Which is fair enough, as it makes no odds to me, but should you ever find yourself making claims that you want people to believe, you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone of anything when your perception is so obviously biased.

That's why women in particular I suppose are less likely to be convinced when it comes to these kinds of cases -





Stanford Rape Case: Female-dominated juries less likely to convict in rape cases


Bold emphasis my own, and that's your basic problem right there - contrary to your belief, it's not men who don't believe women is the issue, it's that women themselves aren't so easily convinced.

Here's what you said:

"As far as I can see the metoo campaign certainly has achieved it's aims of validating a certain class of professional whinger. It hasn't had any effect on people's daily lives other than anyone I know personally regarding it with contempt and ridicule."

It's a scummy thing to say no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.

Omackeral

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't actually say any of that at all though?

Do you think that matters?! It DONTMATTER.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

The movement is more than the sum of its parts. The credibility of a million experiences doesn’t come from zooming in on each experience, assessing its credibility, then doing an average. The credibility comes by virtue of the large number of similar experiences.

What sort of a way to determine the credibility of any one individuals story is that? It simply goes back to what I said before that you believe it because you want to believe it. It's simply an example of confirmation bias.

So where are the large number of women involved in metoo who have disbelieved other women’s metoo experiences?

Lena Dunham is one. Who else? You said there’s many.......

Ok that one obviously did go over your head. I also mentioned Hillary Clinton, and Meryl Streep, and there were many other women involved in the metoo movement who turned a blind eye to other women and tried to discredit them for speaking out about their experiences as part of the metoo movement.

Could you point me to where I’ve made any claim about rapes or assaults?

That wasn't the claim I made. I didn't say you made any claim about rapes or sexual assaults. I was referring to your claims of the sheer volume of women (women who as part of the metoo movement have made claims of sexual assault and rape), women who by virtue of their numbers who have made claims, you happen to believe them on that basis.

How seriously you take the matter? Not what I said at all. I talked about how seriously you take self reports of women in metoo. And you’ve openly said you don’t take it seriously at all.

I take the matter of anyone, regardless of their gender, sex, sexual orientation or age, who have experienced rape and sexual assault seriously enough that I think the metoo movement has actually done damage to them. The metoo movement presents a certain narrative, and if you don't fit with that narrative, or if you disagree with that narrative, then you are characterised as someone who doesn't support women who have experienced rape and sexual assault. Fortunately, the metoo movement doesn't represent the vast majority of women who have experienced rape and sexual assault, let alone the vast majority of people I referred to earlier, so the damage they have really done for people who have been raped and sexually assaulted, is limited.

I don't take the metoo movement seriously, because it only represents a tiny minority of people who claim to have experienced rape and sexual assault.

Can you please share more about the research you’re referring to? What do you mean by “working with”? Have these people some insight into the prevalence of sexual harrassment? By what methods did they gain this insight?

I think the term working with people who have experienced sexual assault and rape was self-explanatory. I don't know why you'd try to be so obtuse about it. The research I was referring to comes from organisations like RCNI and RAINN, from the Department of Justice, from Courts Services annual reports, and from other organisations which work with people who have been the victims of sexual assault and rape. They gained this insight as I said from working with people who have experienced rape and sexual assault, not simply from the sheer volume of unverifiable reports on social media.

Where did the OP do that?

I didn't say the OP did that. You asked a completely separate question. I gave you a completely separate answer.

One eyed Jack

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Here's what you said:

"As far as I can see the metoo campaign certainly has achieved it's aims of validating a certain class of professional whinger. It hasn't had any effect on people's daily lives other than anyone I know personally regarding it with contempt and ridicule."

It's a scummy thing to say no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.

It's not a scummy thing to say at all, which is why I stand by what I actually said as opposed to your characterisation that I tried to weasel out of anything.

I just haven't allowed to you to spin what I said in order to fit your narrative based upon your perception of anyone who disagrees with you is all.

ginandtonicsky

6.5 million people tweeted about #metoo actually, and that’s a figure from 3 months after it started trending so it’s probably more.

It spread more than 85 countries, as #yotambien in Spain, #balancetonporc in France,#quellatonvache in Italy and spreading as far as China and Israel.

Most men I know are bloody great and would call anyone on their sexist behaviour towards me, be it a wolf whistle or an actual sexual assault. I don’t live my life in fear of men and I love an aul admiring glance or a bit of sexual innuendo. The fact of #metoo, Westminster, presidents club and Michael Colgan is something else however, and most women will have experienced similar.

Sadly, most women I know reacted with “but of course” to these events. Sure of course you’ll be groped if you wear that, of course that kind of a power hungry prick will attempt to degrade you like that. Sure don’t we all know a lad like that. Yes we do, and while he’s not our mates or our husband or our brother or father, we know him and plenty of him and it’s no longer on us to accept it as “ah sure yeah of course”.

If you perceive that as an attack on men or some sort of blatant misandry by the hairy pitted feminazis, it says more about you than anything else.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What sort of a way to determine the credibility of any one individuals story is that? It simply goes back to what I said before that you believe it because you want to believe it. It's simply an example of confirmation bias.

Not at all. I earlier gave the example of a friend who did not want to believe the stories of metoo but was convinced by the sheer number of them, confirmed by talking to his gf. He’s pretty anti-feminist (as is his girlfriend).

A high number of people sharing a similar experience is evidence in itself. It has more credibility than one person sharing an experience.

Ok that one obviously did go over your head. I also mentioned Hillary Clinton, and Meryl Streep, and there were many other women involved in the metoo movement who turned a blind eye to other women and tried to discredit them for speaking out about their experiences as part of the metoo movement.

I can’t find anything that suggests Hilary Clinton was involved in the metoo campaign.

Meryl Streep seems to talk a bit about it but has been criticised from the start by those involved in metoo so she doesn’t seem to be heavily involved in the movement either.

In fact the Lena Dunham example doesn’t hold up either as the Thor actress was criticising her for not basically pretending to be involved.

Any real examples?

That wasn't the claim I made. I didn't say you made any claim about rapes or sexual assaults. I was referring to your claims of the sheer volume of women (women who as part of the metoo movement have made claims of sexual assault and rape), women who by virtue of their numbers who have made claims, you happen to believe them on that basis.

Nope never mentioned sexual assaults and rape. I have consistently said sexual harrassment.

I take the matter of anyone, regardless of their gender, sex, age, sexual orientation or age, who have experienced rape and sexual assault seriously enough that I think the metoo movement has actually done damage to them. The metoo movement presents a certain narrative, and if you don't fit with that narrative, or if you disagree with that narrative, then you are characterised as someone who doesn't support women who have experienced rape and sexual assault. Fortunately, the metoo movement doesn't represent the vast majority of women who have experienced rape and sexual assault, let alone the vast majority of people I referred to earlier, so the damage they have really done for people who have been raped and sexually assaulted, is limited.

And how did you come by this knowledge that the metoo movement does not represent the vast majority of women who have experienced rape and sexual assault?

Did women tell you this? Did you believe them? Well clearly you don’t believe self reporting so I assume you have some kind of study that backs this up that is not based in self reporting? Can I see it?

I don't take the metoo movement seriously, because it only represents a tiny minority of people who claim to have experienced rape and sexual assault.

Again how did you come by this knowledge?

I think the term working with people who have experienced sexual assault and rape was self-explanatory. I don't know why you'd try to be so obtuse about it. The research I was referring to comes from organisations like RCNI and RAINN, from the Department of Justice, from Courts Services annual reports, and from other organisations which work with people who have been the victims of sexual assault and rape. They gained this insight as I said from working with people who have experienced rape and sexual assault, not simply from the sheer volume of unverifiable reports on social media.

Ok so can you provide one example study? I can’t debate you unless I know exactly what claim you’re making, what it’s based on , and the methodology involved.

Does the RCNI deal with harassment?

I didn't say the OP did that. You asked a completely separate question. I gave you a completely separate answer.

Oh so you’re still trotting our this nonsense that I made an allegation, couldn’t support it, then restated it as a question?

Sigh.

Here we go again:

1. I (wrongly) assumed that like most people, you would believed the experiences of a large number of people. This was not an “allegation” as I don’t view it as a negative thing. I think it’s normal to believe large numbers of people saying the same thing about their experiences.

2. You said you wouldn’t believe a million people.

3. This changed my mind. I freely admit it. I was wrong. You were not the kind of person who believes large numbers of people.

4. I never restated this “allegation” as a question.

5. You are confusing the above “allegation” of which I was wrong and am happy to admit it, with the other “allegation” which was that you would not believe the experience of a million people.

6. The second “allegation” you’ve repeated and stood by a number of times since so it’s not even an “allegation” it’s just the truth.

7. The second “allegation” (that you don’t believe a million people’s experience) is an extreme opposite of the first “allegation” (that you would believe the experience of a large number of people) so it’s really bizarre that you seem to think they’re the same.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not at all. I earlier gave the example of a friend who did not want to believe the stories of metoo but was convinced by the sheer number of them, confirmed by talking to his gf. He’s pretty anti-feminist (as is his girlfriend).

A high number of people sharing a similar experience is evidence in itself. It has more credibility than one person sharing an experience.

How is that not an example of confirmation bias?

And no, no matter how high the number of people who claim to have shared an experience is, it doesn't have any more credibility than one person who has actually experienced it and has evidence that they actually experienced it. Otherwise, it's just a story, and one which you can either choose to believe, or not.

The rest of your post contributes nothing to the discussion, and from experience I'm not particularly interested in entertaining your nonsense any more than I've already done.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is that not an example of confirmation bias?

Um because it doesn’t confirm a preexisting belief or hypothesis he had. The exact opposite in fact.

Lol it’s right there in the link you posted.....

And no, no matter how high the number of people who claim to have shared an experience is, it doesn't have any more credibility than one person who has actually experienced it and has evidence that they actually experienced it. Otherwise, it's just a story, and one which you can either choose to believe, or not.

Of course it does. Which do you think would be more successful. A court case where one witness identified someone or a court case where ten witnesses identified someone?

The rest of your post contributes nothing to the discussion, and from experience I'm not particularly interested in entertaining your nonsense any more than I've already done.

That’s your CHOICE. I’ll just take that as an admission that you can’t find anyone involved with metoo who has disbelieved women’s stories, that you can’t support your assertion that metoo does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims, and that you have no additional evidence on the veracity of metro claims of sexual harrassment.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Um because it doesn’t confirm a preexisting belief or hypothesis he had. The exact opposite in fact.

Lol it’s right there in the link you posted.....

It was confirmed as you suggested by the sheer number of them, and by his girlfriend. That either of them have issues with feminism doesn't make your anecdote any more credible than it wasn't already.

Of course it does. Which do you think would be more successful. A court case where one witness identified someone or a court case where ten witnesses identified someone?

It would depend entirely upon the circumstances in each case, the number of witnesses would be irrelevant, and the credibility of each witness would be determined under cross-examination. There would be challenges presented as to the admissibility of evidence, and if you have a female dominated jury, the likelihood of a successful conviction is zero.

That’s your CHOICE. I’ll just take that as an admission that you can’t find anyone involved with metoo who has disbelieved women’s stories, that you can’t support your assertion that metoo does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims, and that you have no additional evidence on the veracity of metro claims of sexual harrassment.

You can't take something I haven't said as an admission of anything. You can certainly choose to believe what you want though, as you do :pac:

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was confirmed as you suggested by the sheer number of them, and by his girlfriend. That either of them have issues with feminism doesn't make your anecdote any more credible than it wasn't already.

Wow you genuinely don’t understand confirmation bias do you?

It doesn’t matter if you think the evidence was faulty. It was not confirming a preexisting belief. It was changing his preexisting belief. It’s the very opposite of confirmation bias.

and if you have a female dominated jury, the likelihood of a successful conviction is zero.

What are you talking about?

You can't take something I haven't said as an admission of anything. You can certainly choose to believe what you want though, as you do :pac:

Well I assume if you had a decent rebuttal you’d make it.

Feel free to jump in at any time and tell me who these women involved in metoo who disbelieve women are. You said there were many.

And also feel free to tell me how you know that metoo does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims. I’m dying to know.

And please do tell what evidence RCNI or RAINN have provided to you that indicates that the experiences of metoo are not common amongst women.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Of course it does. Which do you think would be more successful. A court case where one witness identified someone or a court case where ten witnesses identified someone?

I'm hungover so maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't this about ten separate court cases, each with one witness, and because there are many court cases, each witness is believed more?

That's the sort of logic I'm seeing argued here for days. "There are so many stories, they must all be true. And even if not, we should still be believe them because there are so many."

I don't imagine a judge or jury would be allowed take the other active and totally separate court cases into account.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm hungover so maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't this about ten separate court cases, each with one witness, and because there are many court cases, each witness is believed more?

That's the sort of logic I'm seeing argued here for days. "There are so many stories, they must all be true. And even if not, we should still be believe them because there are so many."

I don't imagine a judge or jury would be allowed take the other active and totally separate court cases into account.

It’s a fair point. It’s not a perfect analogy. Though it doesn’t show that multiple reports have more weight than individual reports. Here’s a different analogy for you:

You’re considering moving to a country where (unrealistically) one million Irish people have recently moved.

You ask one person what it’s like over there. The person responds that it’s an unsafe country.

You ask a million people what it’s like over there. One million of them respond it’s an unsafe country.

Would you believe the reports in either of these situations? Would one situation give you more concern than another?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s a fair point so here’s a different analogy for you:

You’re considering moving to a country where (unrealistically) one million Irish people have recently moved.

You ask one person what it’s like over there. The person responds that it’s an unsafe country.

You ask a million people what it’s like over there. One million of them respond it’s an unsafe country.

Would you believe the reports in either of these situations? Would one situation give you more concern than another?

Well you've just used the 10 witnesses, one case analogy again, but I see where you're coming from.
10 friends in 10 separate countries saying Ireland is crap does not make each person's claim more inherently true. But it would show that there is something there, and I don't think many here are disagreeing that there is a reason #metoo is what it is.


(I don't think Ireland is crap.)

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well you've just used the 10 witnesses, one case analogy again, but I see where you're coming from.
10 friends in 10 separate countries saying Ireland is crap does not make each person's claim more inherently true. But it would show that there is something there, and I don't think many here are disagreeing that there is a reason #metoo is what it is.


(I don't think Ireland is crap.)

Ok I take on board your criticism of my analogy. I’ll try again, again with plenty of unrealisticness:

There is a huge country to which many many Irish people have moved to.

You are thinking of moving there and as part of your research you do an internet search on personal safety of Irish immigrants in the country.

A. Your search returns one result where an Irish person recounts a negative safety experience in the country. Perhaps being mugged.

B. Your search returns one million results where Irish people recount individual negative safety experiences in the country. They range from muggings to physical assaults to to threats from neighbours, etc etc

Would you view A and B in the same way?

BTW I don’t think most people share oneeyedjacks quite extreme view.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok I take on board your criticism of my analogy. I’ll try again, again with plenty of unrealisticness:

There is a huge country to which many many Irish people have moved to.

You are thinking of moving there and as part of your research you do an internet search on personal safety of Irish immigrants in the country.

A. Your search returns one result where an Irish person recounts a negative safety experience in the country. Perhaps being mugged.

B. Your search returns one million results where Irish people recount individual negative safety experiences in the country. They range from muggings to physical assaults to to threats from neighbours, etc etc

Would you view A and B in the same way?

BTW I don’t think most people share oneeyedjacks quite extreme view.

I would take B and wonder why they moved to a bad part of Guatemala.

But this back and forth shows why men get defensive about this topic. While some see it as "defending the rapists", the fact is that our sex isn't a country.. We don't see ourselves as part of a cohesive unit. I don't have anything in common with a male rapist just because we both are male.

Basically, normal men don't like that men are more and more being branded as pests when individually, we ourselves aren't.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would take B and wonder why they moved to a bad part of Guatemala.

But this back and forth shows why men get defensive about this topic. While some see it as "defending the rapists", the fact is that our sex isn't a country.. We don't see ourselves as part of a cohesive unit. I don't have anything in common with a male rapist just because we both are male.

Basically, normal men don't like that men are more and more being branded as pests when individually, we ourselves aren't.

I’ve no problem with that.

The whole point of my analogies was to point out how ridiculous it is to think that the credibility of a million similar experiences is the same as the credibility of one experience.

Whether the experiences in metoo are credible or not is a completely separate issue to how many men are the aggressors in these experiences.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Wow you genuinely don’t understand confirmation bias do you?

It doesn’t matter if you think the evidence was faulty. It was not confirming a preexisting belief. It was changing his preexisting belief. It’s the very opposite of confirmation bias.

It certainly does matter that the evidence was clearly faulty, because it was based on unverifiable accounts and the word of his girlfriend. How you imagine he isn't biased is quite extraordinary given the circumstances as you presented them.

What are you talking about?

You asked for my opinion as to whether a Court case would be more or less successful depending upon the number of witnesses and I explained to you why the number of witnesses is not the determining factor in any Court case. I was referring to the research in the article I posted earlier which showed that in Court cases of this type with female dominated juries, the number of successful convictions is zero.

Well I assume if you had a decent rebuttal you’d make it.

Feel free to jump in at any time and tell me who these women involved in metoo who disbelieve women are. You said there were many.

And also feel free to tell me how you know that metoo does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims. I’m dying to know.

And please do tell what evidence RCNI or RAINN have provided to you that indicates that the experiences of metoo are not common amongst women.

When your own rebuttal of what I posted is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?", it's obvious you've run out of anything to contribute to the discussion.

I've given you examples of women who were involved in metoo who disbelieve women, and when you say you have no evidence of Hillarys involvement with metoo, there's plenty of evidence documenting how she tried to take credit for the movement and tried to say it was her involvement with the movement that caused her to lose the Presidential election -

Hillary Clinton Attempts to Steal Credit for #MeToo Movement

I've already stated that in my opinion the metoo movement does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims because the vast majority of rape and assault victims are not accounted for by the metoo movement. I've already stated that the vast majority of people who have been raped and sexually assaulted don't even have access to social media, and celebrities who are driving the metoo movement do not speak for them. The small number of women represented by the metoo movement is just that - women who have the privilege of having access to social media to tell their stories and present a particular narrative of their choosing. Many more women who do not have access to social media who have experienced rape and sexual assault, are not represented by the small number of women in the metoo movement. The movement doesn't even account for the numbers of men and children who experience rape and sexual assault.

You're talking what I said when you asked for my research and twisting it to suggest something I never even suggested. You've done it throughout this thread. I have provided you with answers to your questions and the best you appear to have come up with is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?" You're being wilfully obtuse and for no good reason.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It certainly does matter that the evidence was clearly faulty, because it was based on unverifiable accounts and the word of his girlfriend. How you imagine he isn't biased is quite extraordinary given the circumstances as you presented them.

Well I disagree that the evidence is faulty but the main point is whether it’s confirmation bias or not.

I see you’ve dropped the confirmation part now and are just calling it bias.

Is that so you can propose your own vague definition of bias as my friend changing his mind was clearly the OPPOSITE of the definition of confirmation bias given in your Wikipedia article.

You asked for my opinion as to whether a Court case would be more or less successful depending upon the number of witnesses and I explained to you why the number of witnesses is not the determining factor in any Court case. I was referring to the research in the article I posted earlier which showed that in Court cases of this type with female dominated juries, the number of successful convictions is zero.

I never mentioned rape cases though. My point is that multiple similar testimonies are more convincing than single testimonies. Whether it’s a rape case or not makes zero difference. It’s a pretty weak attempt at muddying the waters.

When your own rebuttal of what I posted is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?", it's obvious you've run out of anything to contribute to the discussion.

I was simply asking you to clarify what you meant by people who work with victims. Which you did. We had moved on from that to me asking you to provide the evidence from them that supported you. Tellingly, it was at this point that you decided it wasn’t worth replying to.

I've given you examples of women who were involved in metoo who disbelieve women, and when you say you have no evidence of Hillarys involvement with metoo, there's plenty of evidence documenting how she tried to take credit for the movement and tried to say it was her involvement with the movement that caused her to lose the Presidential election -

Hillary Clinton Attempts to Steal Credit for #MeToo Movement

Yes the important words there being TRIED TO. She tried to take credit. Seems she was unsuccessful. At no point is it suggested by anyone other than herself that she’s a core representative of the movement. It’s the same with your other examples.

I've already stated that in my opinion the metoo movement does not represent the vast majority of rape and assault victims because the vast majority of rape and assault victims are not accounted for by the metoo movement. I've already stated that the vast majority of people who have been raped and sexually assaulted don't even have access to social media, and celebrities who are driving the metoo movement do not speak for them. The small number of women represented by the metoo movement is just that - women who have the privilege of having access to social media to tell their stories and present a particular narrative of their choosing. Many more women who do not have access to social media who have experienced rape and sexual assault, are not represented by the small number of women in the metoo movement. The movement doesn't even account for the numbers of men and children who experience rape and sexual assault.

Well I’d agree that metoo does not represent Male and child victims of rape and sexual assault. But you don’t have to post your own experience to be represented.

I did zero campaigning on the abortion referendum. I don’t think I even posted here about it. I certainly felt represented by many of the groups and campaigners who were campaigning though.

You're talking what I said when you asked for my research and twisting it to suggest something I never even suggested. You've done it throughout this thread. I have provided you with answers to your questions and the best you appear to have come up with is "What do you mean 'working with'?", and "What are you talking about?" You're being wilfully obtuse and for no good reason.

What do you mean working with? Was a genuine question.

What are you talking about? Well you brought up female jurors in a debate about validity of multiple testimonies versus single testimonies. It was very slightly dismissive I guess but it’s all part of the rough and tumble of debate. You don’t seem to mind doing it yourself as the below quote of yours shows:

I'm not particularly interested in entertaining your nonsense any more than I've already done

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok I take on board your criticism of my analogy. I’ll try again, again with plenty of unrealisticness:

There is a huge country to which many many Irish people have moved to.

You are thinking of moving there and as part of your research you do an internet search on personal safety of Irish immigrants in the country.

A. Your search returns one result where an Irish person recounts a negative safety experience in the country. Perhaps being mugged.

B. Your search returns one million results where Irish people recount individual negative safety experiences in the country. They range from muggings to physical assaults to to threats from neighbours, etc etc

Would you view A and B in the same way?

BTW I don’t think most people share oneeyedjacks quite extreme view.

Your analogy is actually very realistic, but it's essentially flawed, and I'm surprised you cannot see why. If you search for something, anything, you're likely to find what you're looking for, especially online.

Depending upon the type of person you are, and previous experiences which will have shaped your world view, you're going to lend more credibility to opinions which support your already held belief, whether that's one persons opinion, or the opinion of millions.

Take for example some of the countries in the EMEA region, that's a pretty big sample right there which is culturally very different to our own Western culture. You could tend to believe some of the utter shyte that gets published online about these countries, or you could broaden your research criteria to give you a more informed perspective and realise that actually the countries in EMEA really aren't at all as bad as is made out by Western media and people who have never even set foot in any of these countries.

That's not an extreme point of view at all, it's quite the opposite of viewing the world through your own subjective lens. It's the more objective view that isn't simply based upon narratives and anecdotes which you are attuned to because they back up your already held beliefs.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s a pretty weak attempt at muddying the waters.

Ah mate, seriously! :pac:

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your analogy is actually very realistic, but it's essentially flawed, and I'm surprised you cannot see why. If you search for something, anything, you're likely to find what you're looking for, especially online.

Depending upon the type of person you are, and previous experiences which will have shaped your world view, you're going to lend more credibility to opinions which support your already held belief, whether that's one persons opinion, or the opinion of millions.

Take for example some of the countries in the EMEA region, that's a pretty big sample right there which is culturally very different to our own Western culture. You could tend to believe some of the utter shyte that gets published online about these countries, or you could broaden your research criteria to give you a more informed perspective and realise that actually the countries in EMEA really aren't at all as bad as is made out by Western media and people who have never even set foot in any of these countries.

That's not an extreme point of view at all, it's quite the opposite of viewing the world through your own subjective lens. It's the more objective view that isn't simply based upon narratives and anecdotes which you are attuned to because they back up your already held beliefs.

Not really. You generally wouldn’t find a million reports on any of the countries in the region you mentioned.

But I doubt we will convince each other on that. I’ll just leave it up to anyone who’s bothered reading this to decide for themselves what they’d believe about a country that had 1 million negative safety reports about it. Would they think it’s likely European prejudices?

Enjoy your trip to Somalia. I hear it’s lovely in July.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not really. You generally wouldn’t find a million reports on any of the countries in the region you mentioned.

But I doubt we will convince each other on that. I’ll just leave it up to anyone who’s bothered reading this to decide for themselves what they’d believe about a country that had 1 million negative safety reports about it. Would they think it’s likely European prejudices?

Enjoy your trip to Somalia. I hear it’s lovely in July.

I was referring to the EMEA region as a whole, and you completely ignored the point I was making. The point I was making is that rather than simply focus on the negative reports, it would make more sense to at least try to be objective and more informed from a number of different sources with different opinions, to form a more objective perspective.

If you haven't been to Somalia for yourself, then you really are dependent upon what you hear of Somalia, and whether that's likely to influence your decision to go there or not is entirely dependent upon what you've been told or what you read about it from the perspective of other people who are either from there, or have either lived there at some point, or who have just gone for a visit. It's only when you've actually been there for yourself that you can determine for yourself how safe you are. There's no point in me telling you that nobody is particularly interested in you because I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it.

It's the same thing with online unverified accounts of people's stories which they claim to have experienced. I think the one thing we can agree on in spite of our differences is that it really is up to people as individuals to decide for themselves what or who they choose to believe. I'll leave it there.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was referring to the EMEA region as a whole, and you completely ignored the point I was making. The point I was making is that rather than simply focus on the negative reports, it would make more sense to at least try to be objective and more informed from a number of different sources with different opinions, to form a more objective perspective.

To an extent I agree. As I’ve said from the start, the online reports that I’ve read match up with my own observations, and the experience of every single woman I’ve asked. So a variety of evidence is good.

If you haven't been to Somalia for yourself, then you really are dependent upon what you hear of Somalia, and whether that's likely to influence your decision to go there or not is entirely dependent upon what you've been told or what you read about it from the perspective of other people who are either from there, or have either lived there at some point, or who have just gone for a visit. It's only when you've actually been there for yourself that you can determine for yourself how safe you are. There's no point in me telling you that nobody is particularly interested in you because I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it.

That all sounds very reasonable until I remember that in my theoretical example which is based on your number, one million personal experiences are to be ignored.

Somalia may be safer than we are led to believe. But the info comes from state department warnings and media, not personal experiences.

If 1 million people posted about how they experienced it safely I’d think the state departments were wrong.

If 1 million people posted about how they were mugged I’d think the state departments were spot on and wouldn’t even think of going to get my own experience.

It's the same thing with online unverified accounts of people's stories which they claim to have experienced. I think the one thing we can agree on in spite of our differences is that it really is up to people as individuals to decide for themselves what or who they choose to believe. I'll leave it there.

In the most bland sense of it yes. I’m not going to force or attempt to force anyone to hold the same standards of belief as I do.

But equally I’m not going to pretend that I find serious doubts about a million similar experiences a valid position. You are of course free to hold that position but it is honestly one of the most (if you discount the crazy people) extreme positions I’ve seen on boards.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

But this back and forth shows why men get defensive about this topic. While some see it as "defending the rapists", the fact is that our sex isn't a country.. We don't see ourselves as part of a cohesive unit. I don't have anything in common with a male rapist just because we both are male.

Basically, normal men don't like that men are more and more being branded as pests when individually, we ourselves aren't.

That's the critical point of this entire thread. Some people want to hold ALL men responsible for the actions of a tiny minority same as it's a tiny minority of women that abuse men in the home..

LLMMLL wrote: »

The whole point of my analogies was to point out how ridiculous it is to think that the credibility of a million similar experiences is the same as the credibility of one experience.

Without any means to corroborate any of them, there is no difference. It's just a large collection of attention seeking nut jobs as far as i'm concerned. Singularly and collectively makes no difference at all. If something happened, report the crime. Twitter and Facebook are not appropriate places to do that.

py2006

Interestingly, our two feminists friends here have yet to bring up the repulsive and spurious 'rape culture in Ireland' claim which the more extreme of the loonbags like to advocate in their attack on men.

professore

The vast majority of crime (or at least convicted criminals) in the US is by black people.

If there was a similar movement for say victims of crime by black people, and millions said they were a victim of a crime by a black person (the vast majority true) and then Michelle Obama was accused of theft by one of Donald Trumps aides, are we just supposed to believe them? Any time something is stolen you believe the non black person. Always... Unless the white person supports black rights or criticises the status quo.

Would it be OK to have a constant media barrage about how black people need to be educated at a young age not to be thieves? By white people of course.

And being told that the advantages black people have in basketball, athletics, music etc were due to discrimination and quotas were needed, whereas in areas whites dominate, none were needed? (actually this is happening in reverse right now in South Africa - that's why C J Stander is playing with Ireland)

I ****ing hate discrimination of any sort other than me discriminating against an individual of any background who is an asshole. Groping or rapist men disgust me, and I will call them out anywhere I see it. The fact I even have to say this shows how far things have gone.

MeToo has been turned into a tool from raising awareness to one of discrimination. I never thought in 2018 that the single biggest form of bigotry in the west was of the media and certain feminists against men. Its not helped by the amount of feminists that pour into mainstream media and are accelerating its decline.

Omackeral

Found this interesting. This a thread on ''Female Role Models'' on After Hours now. One of the commenters said Kelly Brooke. I just said that she was filmed on daytime tv admitting to and laughing off abusing her ex partner. She found domestic abuse funny and acceptable. Some of the responses were very worrying and IMO are indicative of why a lot of men would be reluctant to ever report such behaviour.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

The lucky bastard

Hector Bellend wrote: »

she can abuse me anytime

Omackeral

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

6.5 million people tweeted about #metoo actually, and that’s a figure from 3 months after it started trending so it’s probably more.

It spread more than 85 countries, as #yotambien in Spain, #balancetonporc in France,#quellatonvache in Italy and spreading as far as China and Israel.

Most men I know are bloody great and would call anyone on their sexist behaviour towards me, be it a wolf whistle or an actual sexual assault. I don’t live my life in fear of men and I love an aul admiring glance or a bit of sexual innuendo. The fact of #metoo, Westminster, presidents club and Michael Colgan is something else however, and most women will have experienced similar.

Sadly, most women I know reacted with “but of course” to these events. Sure of course you’ll be groped if you wear that, of course that kind of a power hungry prick will attempt to degrade you like that. Sure don’t we all know a lad like that. Yes we do, and while he’s not our mates or our husband or our brother or father, we know him and plenty of him and it’s no longer on us to accept it as “ah sure yeah of course”.

If you perceive that as an attack on men or some sort of blatant misandry by the hairy pitted feminazis, it says more about you than anything else.

Great post. Balanced and fair.

It's that old thing where if you can't replace what you're saying with "Jews", you shouldn't be saying it.

DONTMATTER

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a scummy thing to say at all, which is why I stand by what I actually said as opposed to your characterisation that I tried to weasel out of anything.

I just haven't allowed to you to spin what I said in order to fit your narrative based upon your perception of anyone who disagrees with you is all.

Did you read this post?

ginandtonicsky wrote: »

6.5 million people tweeted about #metoo actually, and that’s a figure from 3 months after it started trending so it’s probably more.

It spread more than 85 countries, as #yotambien in Spain, #balancetonporc in France,#quellatonvache in Italy and spreading as far as China and Israel.

Most men I know are bloody great and would call anyone on their sexist behaviour towards me, be it a wolf whistle or an actual sexual assault. I don’t live my life in fear of men and I love an aul admiring glance or a bit of sexual innuendo. The fact of #metoo, Westminster, presidents club and Michael Colgan is something else however, and most women will have experienced similar.

Sadly, most women I know reacted with “but of course” to these events. Sure of course you’ll be groped if you wear that, of course that kind of a power hungry prick will attempt to degrade you like that. Sure don’t we all know a lad like that. Yes we do, and while he’s not our mates or our husband or our brother or father, we know him and plenty of him and it’s no longer on us to accept it as “ah sure yeah of course”.

If you perceive that as an attack on men or some sort of blatant misandry by the hairy pitted feminazis, it says more about you than anything else.

It's a great post and it shows that millions of women have bravely told their stories through the metoo campaign in many languages. You have said the metoo campaign is full of professional whingers, those that should be ridiculed and condemned.
You then stated that you don't include rape victims in this. Can you say who you do include in it? Out of the millions of women who have been harassed and abused, how many do you think are lying or deserve to be ridiculed? 5% of them? 10%? 50%?

DONTMATTER

professore wrote: »

The vast majority of crime (or at least convicted criminals) in the US is by black people.

If there was a similar movement for say victims of crime by black people, and millions said they were a victim of a crime by a black person (the vast majority true) and then Michelle Obama was accused of theft by one of Donald Trumps aides, are we just supposed to believe them? Any time something is stolen you believe the non black person. Always... Unless the white person supports black rights or criticises the status quo.

Would it be OK to have a constant media barrage about how black people need to be educated at a young age not to be thieves? By white people of course.

And being told that the advantages black people have in basketball, athletics, music etc were due to discrimination and quotas were needed, whereas in areas whites dominate, none were needed? (actually this is happening in reverse right now in South Africa - that's why C J Stander is playing with Ireland)

I ****ing hate discrimination of any sort other than me discriminating against an individual of any background who is an asshole. Groping or rapist men disgust me, and I will call them out anywhere I see it. The fact I even have to say this shows how far things have gone.

MeToo has been turned into a tool from raising awareness to one of discrimination. I never thought in 2018 that the single biggest form of bigotry in the west was of the media and certain feminists against men. Its not helped by the amount of feminists that pour into mainstream media and are accelerating its decline.

You are still getting really confused. Attacks on rapists and other scumbags does no equate with an attack on all men. You can only think that if you think all men are rapists and scumbags.

DONTMATTER

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Did you read this post?



It's a great post and it shows that millions of women have bravely told their stories through the metoo campaign in many languages. You have said the metoo campaign is full of professional whingers, those that should be ridiculed and condemned.

Once more. No he didn't. You really should reread what he wrote since you keep making inaccurate objections.

You then stated that you don't include rape victims in this. Can you say who you do include in it? Out of the millions of women who have been harassed and abused, how many do you think are lying or deserve to be ridiculed? 5% of them? 10%? 50%?

There is no ridicule involved when they're being asked to come forward and, having their claims investigated by the Gardai to determine their validity. That's actually taking the claims seriously. Automatic belief of claims without actual investigation by the Police would be wrong on many levels, and should never be encouraged.

The point remains that using the internet or social media to raise awareness will also attract a lot of people who are lying, disturbed psychologically or just want to be associated with such a scene. (since there is no vetting filter process as part of the metoo campaign itself) That's just the nature of the Internet and associated cultures. We have no way of knowing what percentage of the contributions to the metoo campaign are legit or baseless because they're not being verified.

TBH I really don't understand this reluctance or resistance to acknowledge this point. That coming forward and officially submitting their claims would do far more to highlight any social/cultural/legal problem with harassment or abuse than simply leaving it to a social media campaign. (and no, don't give me that pdf again... it doesn't really answer anything related to the topic on hand)

DONTMATTER

Deleted User wrote: »

Once more. No he didn't. You really should reread what he wrote since you keep making inaccurate objections.



There is no ridicule involved when they're being asked to come forward and, having their claims investigated by the Gardai to determine their validity. That's actually taking the claims seriously. Automatic belief of claims without actual investigation by the Police would be wrong on many levels, and should never be encouraged.

The point remains that using the internet or social media to raise awareness will also attract a lot of people who are lying, disturbed psychologically or just want to be associated with such a scene. (since there is no vetting filter process as part of the metoo campaign itself) That's just the nature of the Internet and associated cultures. We have no way of knowing what percentage of the contributions to the metoo campaign are legit or baseless because they're not being verified.

TBH I really don't understand this reluctance or resistance to acknowledge this point. That coming forward and officially submitting their claims would do far more to highlight any social/cultural/legal problem with harassment or abuse than simply leaving it to a social media campaign. (and no, don't give me that pdf again... it doesn't really answer anything related to the topic on hand)

It's you who is ignoring what's been said. Not every case in the metoo campaign is a rape case, most don't name names and reporting it is not the point. It's highlighting the issue.
That other poster has said that their are professional whingers amongst the women who have posted their stories, they have said they should be ridiculed and condemned, I've asked what percent approximately of the millions of women who have shared their story are lying in their opinion.
Remember they have made the claim of professional whingers being amongst them. How can they make that claim without knowing that these women they accuse are lying?

DONTMATTER

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You are still getting really confused. Attacks on rapists and other scumbags does no equate with an attack on all men. You can only think that if you think all men are rapists and scumbags.

It does when there is no effort made to separate the rapists/scumbags from the gender. The vast majority of articles/observations arising from the metoo campaign refer to the male gender as a whole. They're not trying to make any real distinction about the behavior of individuals, and instead, it's about aspects like "toxic masculinity" or a "rape culture" where the whole male gender is made responsible. It's the same with "consent classes" where calls are being made to bring them in for boys... regardless of the fact that most males do not force/break consent. The actions of the few are being attributed to the whole, and 'we' are being made responsible for that.

And the metoo campaign doesn't seek to establish a framework regarding the types of claims, where and when they happened, or frequency. If someone experienced something 50 years ago, it's being added to the claims about recent events. There is no effort being made to distinguish between the circumstances of the claims, and so everything is inflated.

It's really not that difficult to see it as an attack on our gender, since there is a lack of similar initiatives or declarations about "female" violence. In that case, the amount of female violence is low, but if we were to apply the same logic being used about male violence, it wouldn't matter. We should still be seeing claims about "toxic femininity", or consent classes for women. There is a ton of double standards being applied... and the use of logic is very selective.

professore

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You are still getting really confused. Attacks on rapists and other scumbags does no equate with an attack on all men. You can only think that if you think all men are rapists and scumbags.

Nope not confused at all. The agenda is very clear.