This occurred to me via few comments in the thread concerning accusations against MJ from Hookworms, but it’s almost certainly something that has been relevant many times before. I guess the overarching idea is to (ideally) switch conversations about whether someone should’ve been banned/has a valid argument to make from the original topic to here. Hopefully this will prevent emotive topics being filled up with potentially damaging content for someone sensitive to the original issue or at least prevent the discussion from being derailed.
don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with a banning on here. sometimes have thought they haven’t happened soon enough.
Don’t think I have either. In the MJ thread there was a post questioning the banning of one user…which got 25 likes and extended discussion. So, if a platform for it is needed, I thought this might be best
@moderators is there any way to stop new accounts from posting in threads about allegations of sexual assault. Seems like there’s always trolls wanting to jump in, derail conversations and delight in all of us arguing with them.
have a feeling some of these are the same people tbh. wasn’t kindregards the danish troll, for instance?
That was really weird and I don’t understand why some of the people who liked that did
Assume it was gonna be all a flood of incel trolls but actually there were proper board users in there??
Because we’re a large group of people who don’t all think the same things?
This website can sometimes feel incredibly cliquey and people feel like they have to like certain posts or show certain views because the majority of people do.
Also liking a post doesn’t equal to agreeing with it???
Don’t think this is possible but I’m sure @1101010 will be able to give a definite answer
It was disconcerting. Only two (new) posters went down the “do we know he’s guilty” line…but when someone posted defending them (in a much “politer” tone) it gets a ton of likes
No but surely it indicates some kind of positive response?
A bit like on Twitter…if I was highlighting something I didn’t really agree with I wouldn’t just like/retweet it without comment
I dunno why but I thought KR was CG
I’m a fan of this place not being a complete echo chamber, so sometimes I like posts that I don’t agree with. I obviously don’t agree with the stuff Hoader etc was saying in there, but I don’t ~always~ think disagreeing with someone’s world view is enough of a reason for banning. Which is why I first closed the thread and then took it up with the rest of the moderators in a PM.
I actually think whenever these threads come up that there should be a wider discussion happening.
There has been a HUGE shift with how we view sexual assault allegations which doesn’t really apply to any other crime. That shift is around the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing. With SA, we should believe victims but I imagine a lot of people grapple with the lack of proof/evidence which is why so few sexual assaults lead to conviction. But that by the by. The change we’ve seen is a trial by media/public that doesn’t really mean anything has to go to court. People can lose jobs and their reputation by an allegation coming out. Do they need to be prosecuted? Probably not. Should this be happening? I dunno.
For me personally, I can 100% see how people can feel very uncomfortable when allegations come out and people go “but where’s the proof” or “how do we really know” and “this could be a false allegation” because how do we know? The fact is we don’t and most likely never will. But the way I look at it is why would someone come out with these allegations? Usually because they’re sick of seeing someone who was so vile to them be celebrated and they want to reveal who the real person is. However so many men are so quick to play the spiteful woman card who is just doing this to get back at someone when they percentage of women doing that is so so so so so minute.
Basically I don’t know what I’m saying. But it’s along the lines of believe survivors but also don’t feel hugely comfortable with this public outing/shaming stuff which I imagine is where quite a lot of people sit.
Not according to the IP they’ve used but idk
The people banned from that thread were (a) well known troll, and (b) someone who signed up specifically to post in that thread, who was essentially also a troll, and likely with an axe to grind about how outspoken the band have been in the past about this subject.
Even taking aside that I don’t particularly believe this place is an echo chamber, it’s just a lot to see a staunch “free speech defender” (never a great starting point imho, but again let’s take that aside) take the side of two pieces of internet trash and people come out on side of that?
Like I said, it just felt very very weird given the context. There was no nuanced discussion shut down.
Personally I’d rather people weren’t banned so quickly just for having an opinion that differs from the consensus - sometimes i’ll come to that conclusion easier by hearing the wrong opinions rather than just being straight out told I have to agree with the right ones…
Are there any examples of this outside of very obvious trolling in threads such as the one under discussion this time?
Pretty much every serious discussion that happens on dis. I’m not saying I often disagree with the consensus. I’d just personally prefer to hear both sides more, however ridiculous that other side may be. I think more debate would be healthy and I wonder how often regular posters feel they can’t speak up on certain subjects.
That’s fair, I understand your point. With regards to banning…I think in his case I was in agreement with it because he was a new user who appeared to join just to make that point. Hard to have faith in someone when that’s the case.
@meowington Also agree with your post in general. In terms of individual points:
I’ve seen it said on here that the way SA is framed in public debate is actually still behind most other forms of crime (e.g. people don’t really question allegations of physical assault). That said… allegations of SA do appear to dominate the public sphere, I would guess a prominent reason for this is that people are only just starting to feel believed/supported?
Think we’re both in agreement about chances of false accusations. And I do see why “trial by public shaming” doesn’t sit comfortably for many people…but I think it’s individual to each case. For example - the two accusors of MJ chose public awareness as their vehicle for making him accountable to his actions. Others will chose a private route of going to the police. Essentially I think it’s up to them. I think it’s also worth saying that, even after considering the minute chances of this being a false accusation, several things make it seem even more likely (his bullshit statement, for example) so I don’t really have any personal reservations about raising it in public