Submitted 3 weeks ago by Rooskie91@discuss.online to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Even if we take into consideration that 90% (out of 25) could be lying (they aren’t), that’s still ~3 women he assaulted.
“If we just trusted women”
We don’t trust people based on their gender. We trust them based on credibility and evidence. If there’s even the tiniest amount of doubt then it better to let the guilty walk free rather than put an innocent person in jail. And I’m speaking broadly here - not about Trump specifically.
That is not OP’s point. Their point is the opposite, namely that a lot of people automatically distrust people (women) based on their gender. Lots of women have provided credible evidence under oath:
Yeah, and inoccent until proven guilty. We should not believe absolutely anyone, regardless of gender, making any accusation.
Every accusation should be thoroughly investigated, though.
It happened with Neil Gaiman recently. Many accusations, no sentence for him (at least as of yet), he denies the claims.
Yet, massive lost to reputation, projects cancelled, etc.
If he’s found guilty, all the shame and consecuences to him, but society should stop acting like people talking or a “hyper graphical article” makes things true.
We live in the age of quick opinions, echo chambers, and the like.
Another example is Luigi Mangione, everyone already thinks he did it, when there’s no evidence and only “evidence” it was him
[…] We should not believe absolutely anyone, regardless of gender, making any accusation. […]
Do you make a distinction between “accusation” and “testimony”?
[…] We trust [people] based on credibility and evidence. […]
I don’t think this is necessarily the case. For example, one could give someone a chance despite past wrongs.
If victims are capable of lying, rapists are capable of lying when accused of raping too.
Um… I’m a girl, and I totally believe these women were assaulted because we’re talking about rich assholes who literally feel like they can do anything.
But you have to present evidence no matter what. That’s literally how the court works. If all we have is he-said-she-said, then there’s not much we can do to reach a verdict. There have been regular people who have been incorrectly deemed assaulters/rapists due to lack of evidence. We have seen women who lie about this. You NEED to have proof, to ensure that it’s an undeniable fact that the accused is officially recognized as a shit person.
This is an unrealistic ideal, I’m gonna be real. I want these women to win and be acknowledged. I want all who interacted with Epstein to rot in prison and hell. But we need evidence. That’s just the truth.
Having the evidence needed to convict is different than evidence to no longer trust and shun.
With 20+ woman making accusations, being friends with a known pedophile and literally having recordings of him bragging about sexually assaulting women and bragging about going backstage with undressed teen girls the world shouldn’t need any more evidence. The honest and rational world doesn’t in fact.
Convictions are important going up against the rich and powerful. They live lives where they don’t have to care what us plebians think.
Are you talking about “just believing women”, or are you talking about someone who has way more evidence against them than just what women say?
Because I think you’re replying to someone who’s talking about “just believing women”
Fuck the courts?
I agree not hurting people without evidence, but there’s plenty in public domain in this case. Like, i dont know exactly where the line on calling someone a nazi is, but when hellboy, indiana jones, and georgei zukov all have you at the top of their personal shit-list and you’ve got a sonnenrad tattoo that covers your entire back, and you cannot order breakfast without shouting “BLOOD AND SOIL”, It’s pretty obviously over that line.
This is kinda that, but for pedophilia.
Trump isn’t really relevant to the issue of “just believing women”, because there’s way more evidence that Trump is a rapist than just what his victims said. So I don’t see why you can justify changing the subject back to Trump.
regular people who have been incorrectly deemed assaulters/rapists due to lack of evidence.
And rapists have raped and lied about raping.
Inconclusive is not the same as false accusation. That is an important distinction here.
Just cuz an alleged says no he didn’t: That does not automatically mean he’s innocent. It’s just inconclusive without evidence.
rapists lie about raping. And guilty rapists will most definitely lie about raping. This case if any shows us this.
Taking people at their word is flawed on both either side of the account. You can’t have one without acknowledging the other is capable of lying too. You can’t flock to one without also holding the same question to the other. The fact you were ready to call a woman a liar without evidence and believe a man without evidence shows there’s a bias.
and idgaf about what gender you are ‘as a’ you can be sexist against women while being a woman. That’s called being internally misogynistic. It isn’t new. But also men pretend to post as women just to take a strip out of women. That also isn’t new. And that’s just plain misogyny.
Misogyny is still misogyny. you are so quick to call a woman a liar here without considering the person she’s accusing might also be a liar.
I don’t care who or what or where you are : That’s misogyny.
I think you forgot that gay women exist. I really hate how many people assume the issue of sexual abuse allegations is about men vs women. That’s such a homophobic bias. There are women who falsely accuse women of sexual abuse. Usually gay women. And feminism doesn’t mean harassing gay women who’ve been a victim of DARVO. Standing with gay women who’ve been abused doesn’t make me or anyone else a misogynist, contrary to your weird ass claims.
Just cuz an alleged says no he didn’t: That does not automatically mean he’s innocent. It’s just inconclusive without evidence.
Well, inconclusive is going to mean that unfortunately, that guy is probably getting away scott-free, as most courts are not going to want to just take testimony as their sole piece of evidence. If we can’t prove neither is telling the truth, they can’t convict a person.
I believe the women. I WANT with my heart and soul for him to rot. Testimony + EVIDENCE is the only way the court is ever gonna throw the PRESIDENT in jail. The pictures, black book, etc. are very helpful, and I wish they’d just convict him with that alone + testimony. If it’s left up to a jury, maybe we wouldn’t be fucked. But you can’t seriously think testimony alone is gonna be satisfactory enough.
and idgaf about what gender you are ‘as a’ you can be sexist against women while being a woman.
Never said internalized misogyny doesn’t exist, just mentioned it because OP seems to think literally no women on Lemmy exist. Of course I can’t prove my gender on an anonymous site, so moot point now…
Just because I say we need evidence, I’m a misogynist? Ok. Never fucking called Trump’s accusers liars, I quite literally said there’s no way he isn’t a fucking pedo.
You can support SA accusers by hearing their side, having an open mind, and understanding that what they said COULD BE and is VERY LIKELY to be true, especially if several people are complaining. BUT, we still can’t just jump without looking, and so a court trial must occur. You’re supposed to do your absolute best to support them so they can reveal their truth in court and get all the evidence they need to bring that person down. That’s all we can do to get justice.
We just had to believe him when he bragged about it!
So you’ll believe the guy, but not the women.
And that’s exactly what’s wrong with most of these comments.
They said you don’t need victim testimony because the rapist is bragging about it, and your interpretation is that said don’t believe women.
You’re the sexest one, even if you don’t realize it.
Im pointing out that its not a matter of “believing men over women”, but rather believing whatever we want to believe.
When youre a hammer everything looks like a nail
Believing women dosnt mean just acting blindly on a womans word and nothing more.
Believing women means intiating proper procedures, starting investigations, and gathering the facts and evidence, impartially and without prejudice.
So yes, We need the epstein files, even if we believe women, because they are evidence that, in all likelyhood, supports their claims.
Convicting based upon words sworn under oath and with no facts to back it up but feelings and outage has lead to a lot of overturned verdicts and innocent lives ruined.
This can still ruin someone’s life though. As soon as there are whispers of an accusation that are official it’s over. There needs to be a better way.
What way is better than investigating allegations impartially? Do you know of something better that wouldn’t require someone to be psychic, or require everyone coming to some nigh impossible position where no one lies?
Being raped also ruins a person’s life.
The victims names on that list matter too.
I don’t think anyone here believes to take a woman(or any victim) on word alone. But on that same vein we can’t just decide we believe a rapist on their word alone that they didn’t do it either.
Inconclusive isn’t the same as false accusation.
Especially if there’s evidence being withheld.
The files should have been handled a decade ago with protecting victims.
remember who was in power at the time of Epstein arrest and death.
Believing women means intiating proper procedures, starting investigations, and gathering the facts and evidence, impartially and without prejudice.
The average person isn’t smart enough to understand this, and if told to “just believe women”, will harass false accusation victims.
The only effective solution to the issue of believing survivors is to teach the general public critical thinking and evidence evaluation skills.
When a woman claims to have been assaulted, I automatically believe her in regards to how I treat her.
As far as the person she’s accused goes, though, I think it’s pretty easy to understand that nobody should be convicted on the sole evidence of their accuser’s testimony, and I think that should apply to the court of public opinion as well.
It’s a situation where either one person is guilty of a horrible crime, or the other is making false allegations of said crime. In order for both to be “innocent until proven guilty”, you need to assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they’re false while interacting with the accused. It’s really counterintuitive and maybe impossible to do
assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they’re false while interacting with the accused
id also add to assume they’re at least somewhat plausible when interacting with people around them who may be effected in the future
putting people on guard, as long as it doesn’t negatively effect anyone involved is useful: it’s not a good outcome to have information, keep it to yourself to protect people, and then for someone new to get hurt
it’s incredibly tricky, and imo false reports are just as bad as true reports: false reports hurt real, and future victims significantly
That’s an excellent point
I know a woman who accused her girlfriend of abuse and cut contact with her. The one who was accused told all of us she was sorry, she didn’t realise she was abusive, and she wanted to know how she did it, so she could work on improving as a person. A few of us asked the accuser how she was abused, and… Nothing. She can’t say. I don’t know if she can’t or doesn’t want to or both, but that accusation fucked with that girl and gave her PTSD. And I’m never again going to treat that ‘victim’ like I believe her. Too many people doing that.
Trial by socia media? Fuck outta here.
All these scummy shitbags are certainly guilt, but this needs to be proven.
The motto I get behind is “trust, but verify”.
That is what ‘believe women’ means, because women’s claims of sexual violence are frequently not believed to the point that the police come up with excuses to not even look into the claims. Then if they do, the prosecutors come up with reasons why they shouldn’t ‘waste time’ prosecuting when there is as much evidence in a rape case as there is in a murder case.
One thing is certain: someone who has been declared a rapist by a court of law and has been convicted of many serious crimes should never be president of a country — especially not if he is also doing everything in his power to withhold incriminating material relating to the investigation of a pedophile ring.
[…] someone who has been declared a rapist by a court of law and has been convicted of many serious crimes should never be president of a country […]
IMO, I don’t think this is a good idea. My concern is that it may give one’s opposition an incentive to find a way to falsely convict them of a crime (or maybe create a new criminal offense) in order to remove them from the running for office.
I don’t mean legal regulations, but rather a minimum level of common sense: I cannot imagine a more unsuitable candidate as the incumbent US president - who he is was widely known. Now organized crime is in power - that was completely predictable, because that is what he has always stood for.
God, I remember stories of some women who falsely claim sexual assault. When there are consequences, just ruling on vibes and a 1 sided account of a story is so incredibly bad.
Name one time.
Ever think that women’s lives are often ruined by being raped and not being believed when they do report it?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
Somewhat famous case, thought partially to have been a source of inspiration for a book called “To Kill a Mockingbird”, somewhat famous in its own right.
Highly recommend you read it
Took me 5 seconds bro. Please do better.
theguardian.com/…/duke-lacrosse-rape-falsely-accu…
…crimewatchpa.com/…/woman-pleads-guilty-lying-abo…
www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-67992342
Are we really saying any group of people are infallible and incapable of lying?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe the majority of rape accusations aren’t false accusations with a sinister motive. I believe Trump is a rapist.
We should never act like any group of people will never lie, and we absolutely should never compromise on due process.
How bad does the damage from the false accusation need to be?
One I’m fond of pointing to as evidence that they happen is Tracy West accusing her ex Louis Gonzales. He spent three months in jail while it was being investigated, and only got out because he happened to have a very heavily corroborated alibi for the day that left only a 6 minute window during which he would have had to travel a total of 2 miles, obtain a duffel bag full of forensic countermeasures, subdue and rape the victim, dispose of said duffel bag in a manner it would never be recovered and return. And that 6 minute window was not when she originally said it happened, until they allowed her to revise her statement which became much fuzzier about when it happened. Also there was evidence that she was researching the way she was tied up in the days leading up to her being tied up exactly that way. By all appearances this case was about a custody dispute over their kid, and despite the case being dropped because it was physically impossible for him to have done it she still got to use it against him because fucking family courts. He eventually got a finding of factual innocence from CA courts and had the entire thing expunged from his record - to be clear, this essentially requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not have committed the crime. When he was interviewed by an LA paper about the case, he’d developed an obsession with being as publicly visible with as much paper trail as possible at all time, just in case because of how lucky he was with his alibi from this case (if he’d eaten before he left to get the kid, his alibi wouldn’t exist and that alibi is the reason he only spent 3 months in jail).
How about Brian Banks? Kid with a real chance of going into professional football, Falsely accused, threatened with 41 years, plead to 5 years + 5 probation + registering as a sex offender on advice of his lawyer. The accuser sues the school and wins $1.5M. 9 years later, his accuser contacts him on Facebook and they speak. He secretly records the conversation, in which she admits to having lied but refuses to tell authorities that because she was afraid that they might make her pay back the money. The video gets released publicly and the Innocence Project gets involved. He goes on to briefly join the UFL and then NFL after not having meaningfully played for 11 years (time that would have been the prime of his career if not for the accusation).
Speaking of the Innocence Project, what’s your opinion of them? It tends to vary for left leaning folks - either they like it because a lot of the people exonerated are POC or they hate it because a significant majority of people exonerated by it were imprisoned for some flavor of sexual assault. Go look at their list of cases: innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ According to the site when filtered for sex crimes 184 of the “more than 250” people were imprisoned wrongly for a sex crime. 124/184 of those exonerated by the Innocence Project that were imprisoned for a sex crime were misidentified by an eyewitness. For sex crimes, that eyewitness is very often the alleged victim.
Here’s one against Joe Biden: en.wikipedia.org/…/Joe_Biden_sexual_misconduct_al…
ITT: Bunch of people who don’t understand how the justice system works, accusing everybody else in it of being misogynistic incels.
Innocent until proven guilty (I say that as a woman AND a survivor of SA).
Then again he was proven guilty in other cases. Seeing as those weren’t enough to remove him from power permanently I am not sure what this would do. If I had to bet on if he assaulted minors I’d go for heck yes. I’d bet nearly everything I have on that. So I’d be a pretty bad jury member of this case ;) anyway: the more evidence there is, the harder it is to ignore. Victim statements are pretty good evidence, but more is better.
Just an important detail here: victims have been dying by suicide. So even if you survived without : support for victims is important.
More generally speaking: Of course support for people calling themselves victims is important. If they got victimized the reason is obvious. If they are only claiming to be victimized there ja probably still something wrong and they likely need support regardless. Innocent until proven guilty can very much go hand in hand with supporting the (presumed) victims.
In this particular case though I’m suspecting the best support might be some witness protection program combined with mental health support. I’m personally of the opinion that these women continue to be in danger from their abusers.
Surely there’s a middle ground in between locking people up for a false accusation and harassing victims into committing suicide. Like, maybe, some form of due process
“not a girl in sight in these comments”
lmao you just assume if anyone disagrees with you we’re not women.
Most women, even those who have been accused of sexual assault, have experience being assaulted.
Alright I’m gonna drop a hot take: if a woman both has been sexually assaulted, and has been falsely accused of sexual assault, and she still believes in unconditionally believing victims, then she deserves to be imprisoned for those false allegations. Because nothing short of that is going to teach her that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that’s her own standard she’s being held to.
Also everyone in this thread saying that women can’t be accused of sexual assault by women is a homophobe. Sorry I don’t make the rules, and the rules say erasure is intolerance.
:::spoiler Trump Trump, of course, has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a lot more evidence than just victims’ accounts, so the question of whether to “just believe women” is not relevant to Trump. :::
yes, I’ve been #MeToo’d, doesn’t mean I stop believing in “innocent until proven guilty.”
Lots of men post online pretending they are women just to enhance their opinion with an ‘as a’
TwoX chromosomes on Reddit was essentially the portal from hell for this particular bullshit so whatever is going on here is not original.
Is this a showerthought or just wrong?
Someone just learned that anecdotal evidence < material evidence by a lot
Got me an ex that wanted, out of spite, to turn me in with the police for rape. And saying so she could baby lasso me back.
There is a reason why evidence is needed to proof something.
Had two exes lie to the police, got thrown in jail for a day over the first one. Got off, but still.
No, we would still need evidence.
Because of that ‘innocent until caught’ and ‘due process’ things you may had heard about.
Note: a credible testimony IS evidence, although it must be a little bit beyond the simple ‘trust me’ stuff.
You haven’t actually proven anything, you’ve just modelled a possible scenario.
Gee I wonder who this guy(male) voted for
The burden of proof for a criminal rape suit is really high, and you can’t really just He-said She-said it.
Was none of the girls underage?
The burden of proof for a criminal rape suit is really high […]
How do you mean?
How about he-said she-and-25-others-over-5-decades-said?
I don’t think you understand how proof works
evidence needs to be present to determine guilt.
nice try though. release the files.
Whitness testimony under oath isn’t just evidence, it’s admissable evidence in a court of law.
Nice try tho.
I’m old, so I’m more familiar with before me too than after. I believe a piece of what she is trying to say is the doubt that permeates any initial accusation. Doubt was the standard approach to any mention of rape or assault for decades.
Back in college, in the 90s, a good friend was followed home from a party. She made it home, thought she was safe. While she was showering in her basement (house) apartment, she looked up to see hands and a nose pressed to the frosted glass of the window, trying to see in. She called the police. A pair of cops showed up and the first thing they asked wasn’t: are you ok. Or. Did you get a good look at the guy. No. They asked her if she’d been drinking tonight. Then: Well, what were you wearing when you walked home from this party?
Footprints and knee prints in the dirt consistent with someone tramping into the flower bed to kneel down by her bathroom window. Hand prints and a nose grease smear on the glass. No attempt to investigate further. Chastised to drink less. She was not drunk, yet this was the takeaway message of that encounter instead of her safety. Encounters like these regarding the sexual safety of women were so common in the 90s.
The salient point here is this post likely is not about flipping the innocent until proven guilty narrative. This is about the preliminary circumstances that would lead into a case and taking the woman’s safety seriously instead of ignoring perpetrators who leave evidence behind.
If no one listens to you or takes you seriously, or avoids asking the relevant questions, that is a problem. Worse it’s a problem that was the status quo for decades.
So, when OP says maybe we should listen to trumps accusers that’s what it likely means. To listen. Not to flip the innocent until proven guilty narrative.
Yes, the Epstein files are important, but not for proving guilt.
Honestly, guilt doesn’t matter in this case, because nobody who matters cares. His fanbase, his voters, his politicians and even his supreme court don’t care. He’s been convicted of felonies, and it just didn’t matter.
But the Epstein files are something different. It’s one of the core things his conspiracy manic fan base are sworn in on. It’s part of their core narrative and beliefs. Him being in there could really shake things up.
Why should we trust them? Not all accusations are true women are just as screwed up as men.
Lemmy is mostly men, it is hard to share any other perspective. SA is hard to get a conviction in. If there isn’t physical evidence like semen, then the victim is called a liar. If there is semen evidence, then the victim is called someone who regretted their choice and is now getting back at the person. (And this is assuming the perpetrator was male, there can be female perpetrators too). A lot of victims do not come forward about what happened because they don’t want to be called a liar and labeled a pariah publicly. The absolute shame and rejection when someone doesn’t believe you. This subject is pretty sensitive to me and lemmy just really, really disappoints sometimes.
Maybe not a court provable thing, but the takeaway here is that conservatives specifically are willing to give this man infinite benefit of the doubt, to a level never seen before. Even if we can’t throw his disgusting rapist ass in jail, he should 100% not be allowed to be president, much less actually succeed in that effort. It’s sick and fuckin weird. If you look over all the actual criminal and civil convictions, along with general aggregate proof, additionally the proof of just being a small, bigoted, racist, narcissistic POS, and stack on top of alllll that these other general allegations, the man is clearly an unforgivablly worthless sack of shit that no reasonable person could possibly look up to. That’s why true chump supporters are all either completely fooled by disinformation they CHOOSE to believe over all else, or “ends justify means” types who are lying to not look like pieces of shit themselves and live in a state of irrational fear, or straight up supportive of hate directly i.e. Nazis.
An ex of mine lied that I SAed her after I broke up with her. I’d be in jail with your ideology.
That’s not how evidence works but I appreciate the thought
Accusations aren’t evidence. It would break the way we prosecute.
Well, the thing is, the Epstein files isn’t about women.
It’s about girls.
So even if we did believe in women more, those files should be released
I personally witnessed a woman fake being raped and abused by her ex because her ex found a new girlfriend after they broke up for a few days. She even beat herself up and tore up her own clothes. She admitted to it the next day after she calmed down. I know not every woman is like this but there has to be evidence. It sucks I know but that’s just how it has to be.
Jesus christ the comments in this thread…
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 weeks ago
Ah, yes, ye Olde “just believe them” attitude.
No one would ever lie for personal gain, right?
I don’t “believe” claims that have significant impact - that requires evidence. Which is the basis of our legal system.
Just wait till you’ve been wrongfully accused about something and have to stand before a judge. It’s no fun, and you’ll be grateful then that evidence is required.
SomethingBlack@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is exactly right. The “believe women” stance is so childish and naive. “Take women seriously” would be just as effective, less dangerous and fit into every just legal system on the planet
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
For every 100 rapes and sexual assaults of teenage girls and women reported to police, only 18 lead to an arrest
It’s naive to believe our criminal justice system is reliably investigating and prosecuting instances of sexual assault.
Poayjay@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
ech@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
How does “We wouldn’t need [evidence] if society just trusted women” fit your argument?
merc@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
According to OP “We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.”
So, believing women is proof, and not only proof, but proof so strong that we wouldn’t even need the Epstein files. You might think that believing women doesn’t mean convicting every person who is accused, but OP sure seems to think so.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 weeks ago
So, you’re saying don’t believe them? Because if you believe them, then the accused is guilty, end of story.
LePoisson@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I mean I don’t think 25 women would lie about stuff that would be slander or libel when it comes to someone as litigious and thin skinned as Trump.
Not much evidence you can provide when it’s one person’s word over another. Only thing I can say is he never won a libel suit against his accusers as far as I know.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 weeks ago
I don’t care who is accused - I refuse to convict anyone on anything just from an accusation.
Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
And like a good scientist, I don’t give a shit what you think. Give me evidence.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“Just believe them” is shorthand for “Believe them long enough to actually press charges and hold a trial instead of dismissing them by default”.
Furbag@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah, I think a lot of people are completely missing the point. Very similar to how saying “black lives matter” doesn’t imply that non-black lives do not matter, or that black lives must somehow be considered more important than any other life, the phrase “believe women” doesn’t imply that we should start doubting men, or that a woman’s testimony should be held as a higher form of evidence than anything else. It’s pointing out the clear systemic bias against women in a system controlled and dominated mostly by men who do not want to cede their power and authority.
One of the many flaws of the English language is how difficult it is to condense a very complex sociopolitical message down into a catchy one-liner without losing a ton of the context that got people there in the first place.
wewbull@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Between charges and a trial is a criminal investigation. If that doesn’t give enough reason to proceed to trial, charges are dropped.
A better stat would be %age of accusations that result in an investigation. That should be a lot higher, but police shouldn’t be trying to prosecute cases that have nothing but an accusation to court.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Wait, which do you think happens more often: a false accusation, or an uninvestigated sex crime? Because false allegations happen, but statistically it’s like saying you shouldn’t go to restaurants because occasionally chefs murder people with knives. It’ll probably make the news, but only because it’s so fucking rare.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 weeks ago
I said neither of the above. Don’t out words in my mouth.
People are falsely accused of crimes all the time, which is why the legal system requires evidence.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Rapists lie too. Can’t just assume it’s the victim all the time lying.