FA+
Shop
Moving to Weasyl!
12 years ago
Hey everyone, in light of recent restaffing decisions on FA, as announced here, I no longer feel like I want to be posting to this website or supporting it in any way. I can't even begin to put into words how grossed out I am by this website's staff and their general attitude toward harassment.
I'll leave my old art up, but if you'd like to continue getting your Swatcher fix, follow me on Weasyl!
https://www.weasyl.com/profile/swatcher
EDIT: Trigger warning for the comments.
I'll leave my old art up, but if you'd like to continue getting your Swatcher fix, follow me on Weasyl!
https://www.weasyl.com/profile/swatcher
EDIT: Trigger warning for the comments.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not applying malicious intent to his accuser. I am critical of anyone and everyone who needs nothing more than an accusation (or the fact that it's the word of a woman against the word of a man) to declare guilt. I am not 'taking his side' because he is a man, I am stating my own belief that the evidence from BOTH sides adds up to something very different from what many people have decided to believe.
You claim I said something I did not say. I clarified your misunderstanding. I did not take back what I have actually said, which would be backpedaling. If you fail to understand the clarification, or the difference between clarification and backpedaling, that's not my problem.
I'm not being hostile or smart-ass, I am genuinely wishing to know what part of that made you think 'yikes' and why, if it's not too much trouble.
This specific comment, I can't see what is there, or what could be misinterpreted to be there, to yikes about. I'm usually able to pick up that sort of thing, but on this one I just don't know.
For the record, I'm responding to you because you're arguing with me calmly, and not just broadly painting me as saying something I'm not and dismissing me. You're misinterpreting some of what I've said, but I don't mind clarifying for that.
Goddammit FA.
All people hear is "popufur is a rapist" and they'll parrot it. Anyone not joining in the witch-hunt MUST be a witch or just as bad too for even implying that anyone accused of such a horrible thing could ever possibly be accused falsely.
The more serious the accusation, the more significant the proof needs to be, but most people on this thing aren't concerned about things like that.
Also, aside from the entire scandal, he never once felt apologetic or sympathized for his actions. That's also unforgivable. He allowed his numerous fans from being a cliche "popufur" to attack the poor person after the notes were leaked and made no effort to calm the storm.
His bullshit was only the cherry topper on a shit-sundae. The accusations and his attitude (along with 'Neer's) about the whole situation were only the straw that broke the camel's back to pile of problems that have been lessening the fan-base of this site for years.
You can defend creepers all you want, but people are going to feel strongly about this all they want. It's not a witch-hunt, it's goddamn human decency telling people to run the hell away from here.
People aren't saying "He was really pushy with this girl, and manipulated her into consenting to sex with him when she really didn't want it."
They're saying he's a rapist and a sexual predator. "Close enough" is how many people are acting here, but it's bullshit. There is an enormous gulf between "creep" and "rapist."
If someone calls you the worst thing YOU can think of for a person to be called, when you know damn well you are NOT that, are YOU going to respond with a submissive, apologetic, conciliatory tone? Someone who did not rape anybody sees a person spreading that they're a FUCKING RAPIST is not terribly likely to be passive and apologetic or overly concerned for the welfare of the person who has now permnently and irrevocably ensured that some portion of the public will now forever think he is a rapist.
It is INSANE to suggest that a person falsely accused of such an extremely unforgivable act, pretty much the next worst thing a person can be short of outright murderer, is somehow obligated to show care and concern for their accuser.
It's natural to want to defend a victim. It is natural to want to attack those who MAKE victims of people. But it is not acceptable to let those good and valuable drives push us to disregard fact and evidence or allow innocent people to be accused of something they did not do. Not even pushy/creepy/jerk/asshole people who may be one not-great thing, but still fall very short of the outright evil they're accused of. :/
Also, you're missing my point on extortion and coercion.
Next, if I was called a rapist by someone and I was in fact innocent, I'd sure as hell try and find out why, make a mature defense, and address the issue without using scapegoats or relying on ass-pats.
Lastly, I'd like to reiterate (since I'm following the flow of your answers) that whatever he was accused of and however much of it is true, enough of it is proven (illegal or not) that I do not want to be associated with a site that features and endorses him as a lead designer, admin, artist, WHATEVER. There are LOTS of people I know that I'd feel the exact same way.
You talk about not driving values and ethics into the ground- that pretty much means to stick by what you believe. That also means not rationalizing against something that makes you feel extremely uncomfortable for a very plausible reason.
VERY FEW PEOPLE APOLOGIZE FOR RAPISTS. Those who do are truly disgusting. What gets LABELED as apologizing for rapists is whenever people try to say "Hang on, she said yes, he didn't hold her down and force himself on her, so whatever may be validly criticized about how he talked her into agreeing to do it, the fact that she agreed at the time makes this something not exactly the same as >rape.<"
There is a LOT of entirely valid criticism and judgment to be leveled against manipulation and coercion, it's not okay, not at all, but someone saying "coercion is different from holding someone down and raping them" is NOT apologizing for rape, OR coercion, NOR are they saying that coercion gets a pass. These are all bad things, but there's a difference between robbing the register at your job versus holding up a bank and shooting people in the process. And, again, for all the texts shown of him being a horny male, he did also produce communications from her that were just as clearly receptive and encouraging to his advances. Which he was then also criticized for doing. "Oh, on top of everything else, now you try to make her seem like a slut, 'oh she was asking for it,' what a disgusting rapist creep you are." I say witch-hunt because from the moment of the accusation, ANYTHING that any sane person would naturally do to try and prove their own innocence or disprove the accusations against them is just going to be seen as more proof of their horribleness and guilt.
Your discomfort with what you've come to believe he did is entirely reasonable and fair and an appropriate emotional response to what you believe he did. But what you believe he did, what others say he did, and what available evidence suggests happened, are all very drastically different things.
If I see someone accused of something, and their interests seem entirely geared towards mollifying their accuser, and shushing anyone vocally supporting them against the accusations, the natural and reasonable impression that gives is that they are actually guilty and trying to keep it quiet. Someone makes up some total bullshit about me, I get angry. MOST people get ANGRY at being falsely accused of something. If I were to call you something horrible, you're not going to calmly try to ask me why I did it or how you can make me feel better enough to take it back. You're going to be outraged and do whatever you can to discredit me and prove my accusation false.
If he HAD acted the way you say he should have, I guarantee you that's what people would see it to mean. "He's guilty, look, now he's trying to play nice and manipulate her into shutting up, what an evil bastard!"
He didn't sneakily get her home address, break in, and coerce her into cooperating. They arranged a meeting, she let him in, and what happened was what both had made clear their interest in happening.
Unless someone wants to claim she is mentally handicapped in some way as to be feeble or insufficient mental capacity to make consent, I don't believe she was non-consenting.
Please understand this: I am not saying "manipulating someone into doing something they don't want to do is okay," I am saying "I saw evidence in her own words that she WAS consenting, so I do not believe the accusation to the contrary."
I really hate that people can't separate "I don't believe it happened" and "I don't think it's a big deal."
If you know nothing about the situation, please bear in mind that many people arguing about it have seen different bits from both sides, and without a doubt NONE of us can possibly be 100% aware of the full real story. Speaking for myself, what I have seen of it was creepy/pushy/pervy texts from him to her that her (or her friends/supporters) made public, and later messages back and forth from BOTH of them to each other that he eventually posted to try and defend himself against the assertion that she had said "no" and he just pushed and pushed unwanted until she caved to pressure. Her responses to him were not what someone says to a person they have no interest in, and her actions (I believe it was a 3 hour drive for them to meet alone, specifically to hook up) are not the actions of someone who is making a clear "no" to the other.
The accusation was not that he forced himself on her when she said no. The accusation was that at one time she said no, and the EVIDENCE was that at other times, she said yes. He provided evidence of private communications between them where she reciprocated his interest. The true part of the accusations against him is that he was unmistakably clear about his interest in her, and yeah, it WAS creepy and pushy, but people can't seem to grasp the incredible gulf between "creepy jerk" and fucking "predator." Yet despite zero possible believable chance of her not knowing exactly what he would want to do if they met, she agreed to meet, and what they both expressed interest in happening apparently happened. She did not accuse him of forcing himself upon her, she accused him of 'pressuring' her into it when she didn't want it. This claim is dubious at best because seeing her messages to him expressing mutual interest in this, and applying any amount of simple common sense and reason to the fact that the only way she could have been in a position to be pressured into sex by him was to agree to a several-hour-drive to meet up with him.
People get defensive because the obvious thought to anyone thinking would be "If this guy was such a pushy creep, obviously trying so hard just to get into her pants, what the hell did she expect him to want to meet up with her for other than sex?" The assertion that she was pressured into it is questionable because she chose, full aware of his intentions, and after making plenty of flirtatious remarks back at him that conveyed more than passing interest from her end as well, to be alone with him. Even if all of her accusations are true, the facts would still add up to her being someone who was creeped out and uncomfortable by some guy's over-assertive advances towards her... but met up with him alone anyway. Which makes no sense at all. Do you agree to drive several hours to be alone with someone who's made you uncomfortable by their overly pushy unwanted sexual advances towards you? Who would do that? So people are doubtful about her claiming not to return his interest. His evidence that she DID return his interest means the most likely scenario was that she was unsure, uncertain, somewhat interested but somewhat not, and ultimately made a choice she then regretted. That is sad, it is unfortunate, it truly sucks for anyone to be in that position, but it doesn't make him a rapist anymore than it makes an overly pushy car salesman a thief when you regret letting yourself get talked into buying a car.
Because people can't seem to grasp this: I am not a rape apologist, I do not defend anyone who forces themself onto someone who makes their lack of interest clear, I do not defend or disregard coercion and manipulation as very bad things, I am someone who believes that serious accusation requires serious EVIDENCE beyond mere hearsay, innocent until proven guilty and all that, and that the evidence I have seen on this situation leaves me to believe he is NOT guilty of anything more than being a jerk who failed to pick up that despite her clearly expressed interest in messages, she still had some reservations.
I do not believe in treating women like mentally frail things that aren't responsible for their own choices. PEOPLE, regardless of sex or gender, who are not mentally impaired, are responsible for their decisions and the situations their decisions land them in. When someone makes it unmistakably clear that they want to have sex with you, you do not choose to meet with them alone and then say they pressured you into doing exactly what you knew was why they wanted to meet with you alone in the first place. This isn't victim-blaming. This isn't a case where she was simply out at a bar and he followed her home despite her constantly saying no. This is A telling B they want sex with B and B choosing to be in a situation where the only thing that would stop A from trying to have sex with B is for B to say no, and then B did not say no.
You don't go to a haunted house with friends if you absolutely don't want to go inside one then say they pressured you into actually going inside once you got there. You don't go to a roller coaster park if you hate roller coasters then say you were pressured to actually get on. You don't go to place with a clear and unmistakable purpose if you have no interest in that purpose, then say you were pressured into actually engaging in the thing that was clearly advertised as being the main reason for you to be there.
You don't agree to several hours of driving to meet up privately and alone with the creepy guy who wants to have sex with you if you don't want to have sex with him.
No, apparently just in treating them like fickle liars who will cry "rape" out of spite.
You don't agree to several hours of driving to meet up privately and alone with the creepy guy who wants to have sex with you if you don't want to have sex with him.
Maybe, maybe not. But the fact remains that driving to meet with someone privately who wants to have sex with you does not invalidate telling him "no" when you get there. Date rape is a real thing.
She did not accuse him of forcing himself on her. She accused him of pressuring her into it. This is the difference between him being told 'no' and doing it anyway, vs him being told 'yes' when she didn't really mean it.
Tell someone you want to go to a movie with them, you can't say it's all their fault for failing to somehow know that you really didn't want to go to the movie at all.
Her friends/supporters/crusaders are the ones who blew that into "rape." Which is, as far as anyone can know by looking at the evidence available for this specific incident and not just basing their decision on personal feelings about the subject in general, a lie.
Date rape is absolutely a thing, but date rape is still a matter of someone being drugged, or forced, or manipulated, etc, and as your own words put it, still requires "telling him "no" when you get there."
No means no. Plain and simple. No argument at all on that. Maybe isn't a yes. But yes is not no or maybe.
If someone says they won't condemn a man for murder without PROOF that he's a murderer, it doesn't mean they're defending murderers, or even that they're defending that specific person as entirely innocent. In case I am still not being understood, my whole point is that you can't condemn someone without PROOF, and proof of his guilt is non-existent, and the evidence available makes the accusation's position much more dubious than the defense's.
If one of my friend says someone has wrecked their car, and he wants to borrow my car, I'm probably not going to ask for the police reports before saying no to him. Especially if he hangs up on anyone who brings up the subject of car accidents.
If a complete stranger accused your friend of something, you would not believe the accusation if your knowledge of your friend suggested that they were not someone who would do such a thing. You would require evidence to disprove your (assumed) knowledge of your friend's innocence.
If a complete stranger accused another complete stranger of something, would you take a strong stance and repeat the accusation about the second stranger without knowing anything about either person? If you can hear "Dave's a rapist" from someone you don't personally know at all, how could you believe without evidence that Dave, who you don't know, could be a rapist, but NOT believe that it's POSSIBLE that the accuser, who you also don't know, could be a liar? Or, since in this case the accuser didn't actually say he raped her, how can you believe without evidence that she knew he knew she didn't really want to? Maybe she's not lying at all, and I don't think she is, but for him to be guilty, he would have to KNOW that she didn't really want it. If she says she made it clear that she was saying 'no' it's he said, she said. The evidence that was shown of what she had said to him beforehand was NOT a clear no, and seemed to be a fairly clear yes.
My point is, without some reason to believe A OR B, it's not right to blindly trust either side on their word alone. But that is what many, many, many people are doing. And again, I don't believe she's lying at all, I believe she's telling the truth that she felt pressured, but that doesn't make him guilty of rape unless she made it clear to him that she did not want to, and that is not something supported by evidence.
But yeah, whatever, end result is the loss of people who will believe something despite evidence to the contrary, so I guess it's better to let them go. I'm done.
I was starting to think I was the only one who felt this way about the situation.
... Unless you have a tumblr that you upload everything on?
The whole 'Zaush is a rapist' thing was extremely overblown and falsified. You look into it beyond just what most people regurgitate from the rumor mill, and it's bullshit. He made passes at her, he was unarguably pushy and even a bit creepy about it, but >she said yes< and invited him over knowing what he wanted, gave him what he wanted, then regretted it after the fact and played up the victim crap.
Everyone who accepts that "rape" can describe non-forced consensual sex between two sane adults just because one of them regrets it later is feeding into the bunk that women are mentally inferior and incapable of resiting the advances of the big evil manipulative males; you're not defending women, you're not empowering them, you're acting as if they ARE feeble and inferior, and that's horse shit.
He flirted with her, she flirted back, he made it absolutely and unarguably clear that he wanted to have sex, and she invited him over. What happened was NOT him holding her down and forcing himself on her while she protested and said no. It's not RAPE just because someone regrets it after the fact.
What do you call it when all that needs to happen to condemn someone as guilty is the accusation? A witch hunt. Because if someone says you're a witch, better to burn/drown an innocent and wrongly-accused person than even risk letting a guilty one go free. She said he forced himself on her, and people ran with it. He's a big evil popufur so anything bad said abut him MUST be true. Despite it being his personal business, he threw out private communications between them before the event that proved she was receptive to his advances but people disregard it no matter how much proof was eventually thrown out thre that the accusation was complete bullshit. Because a woman accused a man and that's all anybody ever really needs to hear to be satisfied calling him guilty.
Why am I a garbage person? Do you believe an assertion I made is factually incorrect, and/or that I am misinformed? Do you disagree wth my assertion that females are NOT inherently feeble-minded helpless little things that can be raped even if they reciprocated flirtatious advances and indicated they were also interested in meeting for an intimate encounter?
What part of what I said do you find disagreeable? What makes me garbage, the fact that I need more than just "someone said he raped a girl" to be willing to believe such an extreme accusation?
it's just really sad isn't it?
if they want to run around this rumor mill and lose their heads, let em I say. no point in fighting, it means idiots leave. and I have no want to talk to people that take what they hear as truth
I want to see the criminal reports. if she didn't even file one, there is no proof that this even happened beyond she said it did, right?
if that worked in the legal system I've have been in jail at the age of 14.
Also WTF man are you insinuating that I'm sexist for believing the accusation????????????????????? WTF again!
So you don't think anyone ever makes such a claim falsely, or even exaggerates it? I am in NO WAY defending assault or rape, but when all you need to find someone guilty is for them to be accused, that is not acceptable. That is, again, how the witch-hunts worked. That's the basic point of what the term witch-hunt MEANS.
I don't pretend to know what it's like to be assaulted in such a way but NO crime is so horrible that it is acceptable to throw innocent or falsely accused people under the bus just to avoid the chance of any guilty people getting away with it. I have a deep personal hatred of people doing bad things and getting away with them, but it doesn't make it okay to disregard the need to prove their guilt. 'Innocent until proven guilty' sound familiar?
I wasn't insinuating you personally are sexist just for believing the accusation. If you saw all relevant evidence and still believed him to be guilty, that doesn't make you sexist. The fact that many people don't need to see evidence at all, people who believe the accusation JUST because they believe any woman who says they were assaulted - THAT is sexism. You say you believe anyone who says they were assaulted, and if you mean that to apply equally to men who say they were assaulted, then in your case that's not sexism, but it is still wrong to be willing to condemn a person as guilty with nothing more than the accusation.
The ugly truth is that there ARE cases where people exaggerate or even completely make shit up and falsely accuse others. Pointing out that FACT is not the same thing as defending or covering for instances where the assault WAS real, nor is it saying there is anything okay or forgivable about actual assault.
"Looking at the evidence provided by both sides, I do not believe the EVIDENCE supports the accuser's story" is not the same as saying "I think he did it and just don't think it's a big deal." That's a problem with this topic, when people who believe he's guilty argue with people who don't believe he's guilty, they confuse "I don't believe he actually did it" with "I don't think there's anything wrong about him doing it."
What I saw of the communications from BOTH of them back and forth to each other was TWO people flirting and talking salaciously, neither of them remotely unclear or vague in their expressed interest to hook up, and I for one do not believe that females are so mentally inferior and incapable of resisting the mind-control powers of men. I know manipulation and coercion are real, but what I saw of BOTH SIDES was two people wanting to do each other, and after the fact, one of them regretted it.
Imagine a man doing this to a woman. As far as the woman knew, he returned her interest and there was a consenting encounter, then afterward the man says she used her feminine wiles to manipulate him into inviting her to his house, letting him into his home and then his bed and he never wanted it. How many people are going to react as passionately in his defense and her condemnation as a sexual predator as they do when it's the woman claiming it? Sexism in this topic is a FACT of reality. Anything that does not treat both sexes the same when the roles are reversed is, by definition, sexism.
Again, I am not defending or excusing actual assault. I am saying that his accuser provided nothing more than evidence that he made advances at her, and when pushed on it, he eventually provided private communication as well that made it clear she did NOT rebuff or dismiss his advances. There was no evidence that this wasn't two grown adults agreeing to meet and hook up.
If all you need to believe someone's guilt is for them to be accused, then that's on you. I can't argue with that, because there's no argument to be had when evidence and fact isn't part of the equation. I, however, don't believe an accusation unless there's more than JUST an accusation. I can't believe that you would feel a system of 'guilty upon accusation' is somehow right or just or fair at all.
Defending the wronged doesn't justify going so far as disregarding the need to prove guilt before finding someone guilty, nor does it make it okay to punish the falsely accused just because your intent was noble.
My point is it's wrong to damn someone based on accusation alone unsupported by evidence. It's more wrong to disregard evidence that contradicts the accusation. The worse the crime someone is accused of, the worse the consequence is as far as punishment or even just permanent damage to someone's name, the MORE it should be important to have something more than just an accusation to declare them guilty. It doesn't get much worse than 'sexual assault/rapist' short of outright murder, so forgive me for thinking it's wrong that a person is personally labeled something evidence would declare he is not.
We may just disagree on that. So there's nothing to argue about.
Though it's worth pointing out that as far as that announcement went, he's not in any position of authority. He's building the new site, presumably he may remain on for maintaining it, but unless there was an additional announcement I've missed, he's not going to have any authority here more than any previous coders have.
The fact remains that, based on anything beyond unproven hearsay, it's a very significant leap to assume that he would do anything of the sort.
From the available evidence either side has produced, the most reasonable conclusion is, AT WORST, he made the mistake of failing to pick up that this girl seeming to return his interest, despite agreeing to hook up with him, was not 100% on board. I don't personally think it's okay to treat "failed to sense that the 'yes' was a tentative one" as being even comparable to rapist or sexual predator. Like I've said, I consider women mentally equal to men, and if this was two guys in the exact same situation, I doubt many people at all would be calling the one a rapist. A guy would be expected to say no if they didn't want it. But then it's natural to just think 'all men think with their dick, so no man would ever NOT want sex,' which of course, isn't sexist in the least. :/
The site's choices were do nothing and ignore rampant slander against a user they have reasonable cause to believe is falsely accused, take a side and be blasted even more either way, or just try to shut the whole thing up as much as possible.
For all the fuckups and valid reasons FA has given people to leave, this really is far from their biggest mistake, and as quick as I am to point out when they've done something stupid, that's when I can easily see a better course they could have taken. I don't know what people expect them to have done other than join in crucifying someone for something the evidence didn't support, or do nothing while a person was torn apart by rumors and over-reaction.
The fact is, if anyone who wasn't one of their personal friends was being "torn apart by rumors," they would do nothing. If they're going to run the site as a private club where friends of the admins get special treatment, and people who they don't like get blacklisted, they should be up front about that and not pretend it's a public art archive.
Aggressively banning people and squelching discussion makes it look like they have something to hide.
Based on your apparent position in this argument, despite you stating you know nothing of the situation, it didn't seem unreasonable to think you were leaning towards believing the rape claim was a valid one. So, I have been making statements and arguments to the effect of calling for a reliance on evidence before believing ANY claim of significant crime, and have been voicing my own perception of what I have seen myself of the evidence that had been made publicly available.
There is a difference between a random user with very limited visibility involved in a small personal dispute, versus one of the most visible members of the entire userbase being accused of pretty much the worst thing someone can be accused of short of murder. ANY organization or administration or PERSON is going to be more actively protective of people they are personally involved with or connected to than they are to someone they have zero business with. That is how EVERYONE works. You are going to take more action to defend someone who means something to you than you will take for someone who holds no significance to you at all. They DO act stupidly in this regard quite often, they have reacted over-harshly to people who didn't deserve it and defended people they shouldn't have defended, but this is not one of those times.
If you're running a site, and someone you know or work with is accused of something, and you look into it and decide that from the evidence available, you don't believe the accusation is true, would you just ignore it entirely?
Yes, aggressively banning people and squelching discussion DOES make it look like they have something to hide, but doing nothing and allowing a lie and rumor to continue to be spread about a prominently visible artist who is also currently a significant contributor to this site's future and development is NOT something you can reasonably expect them to do. Again, covering up for a friend they believe IS guilty would be a VERY BAD THING, but trying to cover up for someone they have every reason to believe is NOT guilty is not the crime people are making it out to be.
"I don't believe he killed the guy" is NOT the same as "I don't believe he was wrong to kill the guy."
That is true. It was unreasonable to assume I was doing so simply because the victim was a woman, however.
They DO act stupidly in this regard quite often, they have reacted over-harshly to people who didn't deserve it and defended people they shouldn't have defended...
Agreed.
...but this is not one of those times.
Jury's still out on that one. Their response has almost always been "blame the victim," so this is really just part of a pattern for them.
If you're running a site, and someone you know or work with is accused of something, and you look into it and decide that from the evidence available, you don't believe the accusation is true, would you just ignore it entirely?
No, I wouldn't ignore it. But I also wouldn't just delete all discussion of it by administrative fiat, then close ranks and refuse to comment on the matter, either.
The fact that they refuse to provide transparency suggests, at best, that they don't respect their user base and see the site as a way to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
I disagree that it was unreasonable to make that assumption given that the significant tendency of the people who are on the 'he's a rapist' side, which is also the 'accusation is all the proof we need' side, is to take the side of the woman because women good, men bad.
However, a reasonable assumption can still be wrong, so I apologize for making the assumption about you.
"No, I wouldn't ignore it. But I also wouldn't just delete all discussion of it by administrative fiat, then close ranks and refuse to comment on the matter, either."
What would you do? I try not to tell someone "that was wrong of you to do" unless I can see a better course of action they should have taken. I don't see a better course here, but I am very open to hearing one.
"The fact that they refuse to provide transparency suggests, at best, that they don't respect their user base and see the site as a way to reward their friends and punish their enemies."
This is not an issue that is theirs to be transparent about. What is transparency but putting out all the available facts and evidence? But it's not theirs to put out there! They have no right to post this woman's private conversations with him. None at all. If they did try to be transparent, and publicly post all information they had on the matter, they would be RIGHTFULLY slammed for that being a tremendous violation of her privacy! He, however, being the accused, had every right to personally make public communications from her that disproved or AT LEAST called into very real question her claim that she was clear about saying 'no' or that she did not give him reason to think she was interested. But that's his business, not the site's.
The site's business was that an employee and a highly visible user, was being accused of something REALLY FUCKING SERIOUS, that could not just be ignored, but also was not a claim supported by available evidence. They can't be expected to step in and take a stance, but they also can't be expected to sit on their thumbs and allow a significant contributor and supporter of this site and community to be accused of something they have every reason to believe is untrue.
Again, I really do want to know exactly what you feel they should have done instead, but I do hope I'm right in thinking you would agree with me that "transparency" and posting this stuff site-wide would be an inexcusable breach of the accuser's privacy on their part. They had to do >something< but that certainly was not the something they should do.
Transparency would even extend to providing him with the information he needed to sue people for libel, if indeed the accusations are false.
They chose, instead, to try to squelch the entire issue in a heavy-handed way. Which is not only not transparent, it's actually drawn more attention to the issue than it would have gotten anyway.
I actually was going to ignore the whole thing until I learned about (a) the heavy-handed coverup, and (b) the creepy way this was being defended by friends of the staff. So, good job helping me make up my mind. ;)
He did, way back when this first came up. He posted communications from her that showed she returned his interest quite clearly. He was then accused of breaching her privacy, trying to victim-blame, making her look like a slut, etc, etc. Him just showing evidence that clearly and strongly contradicted the claims against him only made people more vehemently condemn him.
If the site had in ANY way either pointed to his statements in his defense, repeated his statement, or made any kind of action to draw attention to his statement in his defense, they'd have been accused of all the same things he was accused of simply for defending himself. That is not an option for them, and again, it would be the site taking a stance in a dispute between two people and getting involved in something they had no right to get involved in. Simply trying to remove the argument from their site is not getting involved so much as trying to remove themselves from the issue by not allowing their service to be the battleground for this dispute.
"Transparency would even extend to providing him with the information he needed to sue people for libel, if indeed the accusations are false."
The man showed clear evidence that he DID have every reason to believe she was consenting and interested, and he was crucified for it even harder. If he even HINTED at suing her, it would only make the damage to his name even worse. Now he'd be the rapist who sued his victim for not keeping her mouth shut. If a court of law found her guilty of libel, and/or found him entirely innocent, even THAT wouldn't change peoples' minds, they would just say it's the woman-hating system letting another rapist go free. Again, if the site had ANYTHING to do in prompting or encouraging any of that, it would be even worse for them. So, again, not an option.
For the record, I am very much not a friend of the staff. I've been probably one of their more vocal and vehement detractors for a long time. So I'm not defending them because I like them. I'm defending them because THIS time, I do not believe they were in the wrong. No matter how much I may dislike or even hate someone, I'm still going to speak up in their defense if I see someone attacking them when they don't deserve it.
You don't like what they did, propose something you think they should have done instead. I will continue to tell you why any other course of action would be even more damaging and/or wrong of them than the one they took. There IS no ideal course of action for them to take here. Making any statement on the matter is 'taking sides,' and just ignoring it and allowing this to derail the site would be taking the side of the accusers.
And again, just because you say yes to flirting, or yes to meeting up, does NOT mean you've consented to sex.
I'm gonna guess you're one of those "Men's Rights Advocates," because you clearly have an axe to grind on this subject.
I don't think anyone is doing it for the lulz, and if anyone is, they are certainly few and far between. But no matter how serious and well-intentioned someone is, nor how very valid the cause against any crime of assault is, you still can't ignore the need for EVIDENCE.
If someone makes sexual advances to you, and you respond in kind, someone makes it clear they want sex with you, and you make it clear you are interested in it with them, they propose meeting alone and in private when you have to be VERY stupid to not think they would want what both of you have talked about doing, and you agree to this meeting - you can still, by all means, and with every bit of right, say no to them even after all that. BUT, if, after all that, you do say yes, and do it, then you can't claim to have been FORCED into it. Even the claim of being pressured into it is really a hard pill to swallow because it means you CHOSE to be in a situation where there is no room for belief that sex would NOT come up as something he wants to do, which he has made very very clear and which you have reciprocated, and ultimately at the end you still did not tell them no. If you willingly walk into a situation where there is no room for doubt that there WILL be pressure to do something that you have expressed at least some desire to do, you CHOSE to be in that situation, and cannot push all the blame off onto someone else for pressuring you into it.
If you're on a diet, you don't walk into mcdonald's and say they pressured you into getting some. You don't go to a store filled with stuff you can't afford but you know you may want to buy then blame the salesperson for pitching stuff at you. I could go on for days, there's no end to metaphors for this, it is not plausible that she believed he would not push for sex if she agreed to the meeting, but she agreed to the meeting, knowing what he'd push for, and then she went along with it and blamed him for pressuring her.
I'm not one of those men's rights activists, I am a person who believes that PEOPLE, regardless of sex or gender, are equally mentally and emotionally capable and responsible for their choices and decisions, and I refuse to buy into the popular crap of people saying they're advocating for women as they treat women like mentally inferior, handicapped, or underdeveloped. But yes, any time someone tries to say a woman is just as responsible as a man for the situations they choose to put themselves in, that usually gets me accused of being anti-women. Go figure.
THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS CLAIMED.
She claimed he pressured her into saying yes. Her claim was NOT that she said no and was forced. Her claim was that she said yes, but didn't really mean it, and only said yes because she felt pressured.
So how would you feel about a man who knows the other man wants sex, indicates to the other man that he wants sex too, agrees to meet this man alone and privately, then claims that while he didn't say no, and he did agree to meet, and he did go along with it, he really didn't want to, and only said yes because he felt pressured? Because THAT is what she claimed the situation to be. Her crusaders are the ones saying it was rape and she clearly and completely said no and he forced himself on her.
SERIOUSLY.
IF YOU HAVE TO LEAN ON SOMEONE TO GET THEM TO AGREE TO SEX, YOU SHOULD NOT BE HAVING SEX WITH THEM.
THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED.
God damn am I glad I'm not dating you or your friends.
Yes, if you have to lean on someone to get them to agree, you shouldn't be having sex with them. I agree with you. As I keep agreeing with you. The difference is that what I am agreeing with you on is NOT what evidence says this situation was.
He showed her very much NOT "being leaned on," and the two of them being about as clearly mutually interested as it gets.
I agree with you on all the horrible things being horrible things, but my point is that none of those horrible situations are what THIS situation was, as far as anyone who wasn't there can possibly tell by what's been made public.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/...../#cid:14015933
i just thought that was interesting
People are more than willing to excuse women with trauma in their history who say extreme and horrible things towards men. Alex has trauma in his own history as well, extreme mental and emotional abuse from women, yet he himself has not committed any abuse. His extreme remarks aren't any worse than the extreme remarks many victims of assault throw against men, other than the fact that people see man vs woman as inherently worse than woman vs man.
TL;DR reply- The dude's a creeper and I'm not comfortable around him.
If you want to watch me on weaayl anyways, it is http://weasyl.com/user/drekian
Takin' names and movin' over. Maybe upload some art sometime. Who knows!