For certain! Both my life and that of 3 other guys would have been ruined if the judge chose to just believe the first girl I was with.
They would later go on to say that they lied on every single one of them. Tho, it didn't help the youngest one and latest they accused. He still got bullied out of the school they were in.
People downvoting you cause they can't handle the truth that stuff like that actually happens. It conflicts with their worldview in which women never lie and men are never falsely accused.
Say this in some places and they'll either call you a rapist or a rape apologist. It's the same as when cops say "If you're not doing anything wrong then why do you need rights? If you don't have any drugs then why won't you let me search your vehicle?"
Ask them if people should have believed Emmett Till's accusers and they'll say "THAT'S DIFFERENT" without really being able to explain how...
P.S., Epstein is a scumbag and all his associates should burn. Nothing in this comment is intended to be read as an excusal of them, but rather as an argument against overgeneralizing it to treat all men as guilty unless proven innocent
That's something that's always infuriated me. "Believe Women" isn't supposed to be "Immediately take accusation as fact and consider the accused guilty," it's supposed to be "Don't dismiss the accusation outright, take it seriously and investigate it," but because of the social consequences of what they're being accused of, if someone does end up lying then the damage has already been done by the time the truth comes out.
But it's not like we can fix this by just cracking down hard on "false allegations" either, because then guys like those in the files will just have direct State backed ways to keep real victims quiet by just having a better lawyer and "proving" they made false allegations. What real victim is gonna come forward if there's a chance that not getting believed could land them in prison for making a false allegation?
So like... the fuck do we even do here? We can't let innocent people's lives be ruined either by having false allegations levied at them, but the people who actually had this happen to them and already had their lives ruined don't deserve to be dismissed out of hand either. I genuinely don't know what to do.
Too many people get caught up in what it's "supposed to be" about, and they'll skewer anyone for pointing out how it actually plays out.
"MeToo isn't about falsely accusing men! It's about getting victim's voices heard!" Okay? That doesn't change the fact that the momentum has been abused to paint with a broad brush and verifiably false accusations have ruined people's lives.
People need to understand that if you want to press charges, you need to present evidence in court. Which means victims need to go to the hospital and get a forensics panel done within 72 hours of the incident, and the sooner the better. It has to be done before washing, too.
I understand that can be uncomfortable, and the system should be designed to keep them as comfortable as possible during the process. But it's the only way to prove what happened in court, unless it's on video.
And people will say I'm victim blaming by saying that the victim has a responsibility to gather evidence, but it's the cold hard reality and I couldn't change that even if I wanted to. And if I was a rape apologist then why would I encourage actual victims to gather indisputable proof of what happened?
But if you get falsely accused and say "There's no evidence of that because it didn't happen," then people will counterintuitively perceive your denial of evidence as an admission of guilt for some reason. It's like when they say using the word "alleged" means you're actually guilty. No, it means something was alleged. Pointing out that something was unproven or unprovable is not a confession of wrongdoing.
It's reached the point of absurdity to be honest, and I feel like the ones knowingly leveling false accusations are the most vehement about it, because they don't want to get caught out in a lie. "How dare you demand evidence?" That sorta thing.
And it doesn't help actual victims, because who's going to take them seriously when they're drowned out in a flood of shamelessly false accusations?
Weaponizing MeToo against innocent men as retaliation for perceived slights is counterproductive and contributes to the culture of not believing victims.
But you can't even address these issues without someone saying "seems sus"
False accusations should have strong punishments, but that doesn't mean every accusation should result in either the accuser or the accused being punished. Not being able to prove someone is telling the truth does not mean you can prove they are lying, especially when the confidence threshold is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
I personally think that false accusations should theoretically be covered already as perjury and libel, but I don't think that actually happens often.
I am genuinely very confused by this post. Were there really a lot of people who saw the Epstein files and were like, "Oh, so maybe women were telling the truth after all"? Because all of the reactions I have seen so far are either "I knew it!" or possibly "Whoa, this goes even further than I thought!"
It's devoid of context, but it could just be talking about the people who only just now have begun believing despite the voices of the victims.
The post makes it seem like this was a typical perspective, though. I get that womens' voices are generally not taken seriously enough when it comes to this kind of thing, but if there were one exception to this rule then Epstein seemed to be it because in my experience everyone considered him to be a dirtbag even before the files were released. Have I just been unwittingly sheltered when it comes to peoples' views on Epstein? (Genuine question.)
I wouldn't call it unwittingly sheltered. More like programed by right-wing media to never trust the victim when women step forward.
Have I [emphasis mine] just been unwittingly sheltered when it comes to peoples’ views on Epstein? (Genuine question.)
I wouldn’t call it unwittingly sheltered. More like programed by right-wing media to never trust the victim when women step forward.
That is a peculiar thing to say about me.
People believed them. That's why there are documents detailing various agencies' research into Epstein & co.
If no one believed them, no one would have looked into it.
Now, the Trump admin and captured agencies are trying to cover it up, redact abusers names, release victims names/info/pictures, cover the whole thing up, etc. But that's a different story.
i hope a snopes but deeper searchable thing comes out that proves claims with citations, and disproves ones (with cits too if able.)
like how do we know if they were farming babies to turn them into cream cheese?
but also clearly we know they were doing shit THOUSANDS of victims say an need to be believed.
fluff an slop will dilute the waters. on purpose. :/
People knew Epstein didn't kill himself and knew he was killed off to hide lots of terrible things. And of course knew that meant powerful and rich people were involved in unspeakable acts. But then to be able to point fingers at specific people (especially those who are in position that make claims against seem like slander used politically e.g. Trump) you have to get more than claims to implicate them.
Still, being certain someone committed a crime because multiple people, women, men, cameras or TVs said so doesn't seem reasonable without evidence.
Testimonial evidence is still evidence, and documentary evidence can be faked so it is not foolproof.
They should not jail people without evidence, but make more effort to gather evidence in the light of the number of accusations.
Also testimonials can be verified
There’s also people theorising he was never killed in the first place, just transported somewhere to avoid detection, although I sorta doubt it, since I haven’t seen enough evidence leading to that conclusion.
Yeah, lets screw law and order, and just trust, how many again? 100? 1000? 100.000? How many do I need to gather, to jail someone I hate, because it's a public trial, rather than evidence based. Hey, I get it, I hate Epstein more than the next person. I love to see the guy rot in hell. I also think trump, and most of the elite is in it as well. I also think the USA court system is full of flaws and is corrupt as fuck. But what happens when we go full jungle law in a society? Spoiler alert: It isn't going to be better. I get the hate, but the whole public trial thing, is dangerious as fuck.
it’s a public trial, rather than evidence based
There's a joke about Trump being able to shoot a guy on Pennsylvania Avenue and get away with it in front of a thousand witnesses. Comments like this remind me why it keeps coming up.
Some people simply cannot understand that witness testimony is evidence. Fucking wild.
I dont say the should jail people without evidence, i say that with so manny people making accusations, they should have made more effort to gather evidences. Its not like many of the people are alive and could have beem questioned, raided etc.
It is formulated that way, it doesnt say "jail Epstein without evidence"
Humans have utterly proven their uselessness with this. So many people, unable to put up a decent fight for justice.
So many people, unable to do the right thing.
womensstuff...
Whole Op-Ed columnist careers are turning to divorce Epstein from his associates and dismiss the mountains of evidence as irrelevant.
That said, the fuckers running around screaming "Release the Epstein Files!" while the trample the grave of Virginia Giuffre are telling on themselves.
@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
go to feed...
@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
go to feed...
...
Someone needs to tell this person the difference between testimony, evidence and confession
save