agree or disagree?
I am seeing people debate this quite a bit in other threads and I just want to see what the general sentiment is.
important to mention that once there is evidence an allegation becomes an accusation.
An allegation is by definition typically without proof, but with this example I want to ask under the pretence that it is with full certainty without proof
i think an allegation without proof is an accusation, but an accusation without proof is an allegation. But even if an allegation without proof is an accusation, an accusation without proof is an allegation, which makes an allegation without proof an accusation, so an accusation without proof is an allegation. Therefore when there's an allegation without proof, there's also an accusation without proof which is an allegation.
This is my opinion
I agree with your sentiment, but if in reality if no proof comes out or it's not settled and it damages a players career and or reputation isn't that a net negative result caused by shoddy situation which hasn't been seen through properly.
basically if proof never comes out but the player still gets dropped I think it's unjust. If there is proof then it's just.
The problem is that there is almost never "proof" in the way that you're expecting. Almost by definition, these things usually happen in private, with no surveillance footage or additional witness.
The only proof is the alleged victim's word and how much you believe it. For what it's worth, that is often credible enough on its own. But we can't know at this stage.
Personally, innocent until proven guilty is worthless in real life. If someone is accused of something like SA or pedo shit I'm not gonna support them anymore at least in the short term. Until matters are settled (either evidence comes out or things perter out and nothing of worth is shown) they aren't worth the support. If they turned out to be a piece of shit I'd rather not have supported them. If they turn out to be normal I'll go back to supporting them. No one on the internet deserves your loyalty.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard because locking up an innocent person is a violent crime. Not supporting a valorant pro for a month or two is not. I'd rather hit some innocent people than have the off chance of supporting a rapist even if only temporarily. No one is worth that.
I mean, I'm not a diehard "loyal" fan to anyone online cuz that's lowkey parasocial behavior.
What I'm tryna say is I don't want to start flaming the hell out of someone online or holding an opinion that they are actually guilty of what they have been accused of until good evidence has been provided.
For example, Flashback during that entire DRX drama.
I don't care about him because I do not know them personally, but I also don't want to just classify him as a rapist until evidence comes out (guess what - it didn't)
Wouldn't you feel horrible if all your friends or associates started hating you immediately after you've been falsely accused of something? (it happens you know)
What I'm tryna say is I don't want to start flaming the hell out of someone online or holding an opinion that they are actually guilty of what they have been accused of until good evidence has been provided.
Not my point. You present a black and white extreme that isn't real. There is a difference between no longer supporting/consuming someone's shit and actively shitting on them. If a pro I like is accused of some shit then yeah I'm not gonna watch their streams or follow their stuff for a bit. If that is a big deal to you your priorities are misaligned. Personally, the risk of supporting a rapist or pedo far outweighs any desire I have to consume their content. Same shit with friends I would understand people distancing themselves from me if I was accused of rape. That is literally the reasonable thing to do. Especially any female friends shits normal. At the end of the day if its all smoke then shit blows over and you reconnect and rebuild it ain't crazy.
How is the flashback situation not real? 💀
Also I mis interpreted ur point lol, I agree and think it’s fine to just not consume a streamer’s media for that (honestly you don’t even need a reason to stop watching anyone)
I just don’t support what happened during the flashback drama, where ppl were literally sending him death threats and slandering him over rumors (parasocial behavior).
Simply not supporting a streamer cuz of accusations is very understandable and no one even needs a reason to not watch one.
Now for ur second point I’d have to disagree but I understand your perspective. Logically it’s good to distance yourself from people accused of things such as sexual assault and harassment. However, I would not want my close friends and family abandoning me during this time - especially if I literally didn’t do it. It’s always nice to have ppl that believe and support in your during your darkest times (one of which would be if you were falsely accused of a horrid crime and many casual associates started distancing themselves from you)
I’d hope that my close friends or family know and trust me enough to not immediately conclude I did such a thing. I trust that most of my close friends and family wouldn’t do such a thing either, and if they did - then all I can say is I didn’t know them enough and made a mistake.
How is the flashback situation not real? 💀
I didn't say the flashback situation wasn't real. I said the dichotomy you presented (either blindly believing someone's innocence or flaming the shit out of them) was not real.
Now for ur second point I’d have to disagree but I understand your perspective. Logically it’s good to distance yourself from people accused of things such as sexual assault and harassment. However, I would not want my close friends and family abandoning me during this time - especially if I literally didn’t do it. It’s always nice to have ppl that believe and support in your during your darkest times (one of which would be if you were falsely accused of a horrid crime and many casual associates started distancing themselves from you)
It does depend. For close friend's/family I do think it is reasonable for them to be more skeptical of accusations. My main point was that if they felt it was reasonable to distance themselves I would understand and I think that is a normal and valid response. Ultimately most of the response from close friends/family comes down to the specific context of the accusation to the point that I don't find much value in trying to litigate the precise boundary of when their support crosses a moral line. Obviously no one should be put in a spot where they harm themselves because of an allegation.
However, if an allegation is serious enough that family/friends have reasonable doubt as to whether or not they are real, I think that distancing yourself from the individual who was accused is the safe thing to do. Like, for instance, if the flashback allegation had come from a long term GF (4-5 years) who had deep relationships with the various pros he associated with and/or with his family I would expect them to not blindly espouse his innocence. Remember it isn't that you conclude that the accused committed the crime its that you have enough doubt as to whether or not they did the crime to be uncertain. That is the circumstance that I feel distance is mandated.
The main issue I take with this response is you assume that any allegation is going to come from an outside source with little to no association with your family or friends. This is not necessarily the case. However, seeing as the most common way we are exposed to these allegations is typically through twitter or some other social media platform, and because these allegations typically are directed at more famous people from less famous people, I can see why this framing is the first that jumps to mind.
Ok, the point of that comparison was not to simulate a possible scenario lol, it's to put into perspective how "innocent until proven guilty is worthless in real life" is a bit of an extreme sentence and not true in my opinion. It will be very mentally draining for a lot of people to have many associates and even close friends distance themselves all due to an allegation which could very well be untrue.
What I mean by innocent until proven guilty is -> I will not slander nor make personal judgements until I have collected enough information to make an educated statement/it is legally or de facto proven that they have done an activity. Basically, treat them as if they haven't done anything yet. This doesn't mean you have to full on support them or believe they must be innocent with no other possibilities.
I don't mean innocent until proven guilty" as in "I will blindly believe this person is innocent until it is proven by the courts they have done this."
Hmm, honestly i see your point and I agree that it's extremely reasonable to distance yourself from people who are accused of horrific crimes like rape (especially people you are not very close with - i.e a streamer)
I think i jumped to a couple conclusions on my end on what exactly you meant haha, but I'm glad we were able to fully explain our perspectives. I don't believe we honestly disagree on that much, i just misidentified the point of your original argument. In the end, I think while it's generally reasonable to distance yourself from people accused of crimes and disgusting behaviors, it always does depend on the situation and I personally hope that people I am close with would support me if I ever was accused of such a thing instead of immediately distancing themselves from me,
Regarding your final paragraph, I believe a very strong source of accusation would warrant some suspicion out of me, but this is why I said "I stand with innocent until proven guilty generally", and not "I always stand with innocent until proven guilty".
I am not saying any allegation will always be baseless and therefore everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The point I'm trying to make is that it's generally beneficial to not immediately assume someone is guilty of their accused crime when allegations come out, especially if they are not developed.
This does bring an interesting point up though, I don't think we are arguing from different ends on a topic. We probably just have different interpretations of the statement "innocent until proven guilty" applied to daily life. Thus, unless you have like any glaring contradictions or errors in my statements that you need to correct or for me to explain something -> I'm gonna end this conversation here to not stall this specific thread any longer. I don't personally think there's anything odd about your general point of view on this topic that I would want to question anymore.
Have a great day/night!
I respect your point of view and i appreciate you for elaborating on it.
Yes, I personally I agree with this. Most seem too as well judging by the replies to this thread.
I think disagreements/issues between people happen when it's time to interpret what 'serious' means. (i.e. do you take action against the alleged, or does it mean to thoroughly investigate the accusers claims, etc.)
To me, if the allegations are serious enough to warrant career ending actions, they are probably serious enough to get the alleged perpetrator arrested. Honestly, if there is no legal action involved between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, I start to doubt the validity or at least the extent of the claims. Like, if any of the things the victim says is true, the accused should not be allowed to walk around and potentially harm other people. imo, if the claims have substance, lawyer up instead of tweeting about it.
Thing is that I'm all for innocent until proven guilty. That's actually why I dislike these allegations between there is no proof of guilt AND (to me) feels like there is a lack of proper justice if the allegations ARE true. All these allegations do is hamper his career while letting him run around free from consequence (assuming they are true). At most, this will result in the alleged perpetrator losing their career. Otherwise, this is but a simple speed bump. imo, the only reason one would ever release these allegations on only social media and not take legal action is if the allegations are not true or exaggerated.
Edit: Additionally, these allegations absolutely wreck the alleged perpetrator if they are false, which adds on to the last sentence I said above. Absolutely no reason to post "x abused/hurt me" unless you're bringing awareness to the situation AFTER the law has been involved.
Yes that is actually a good point, I understand that people might be in an emotional state and post something online, but I think most people would think to go through the legal system first, and really no lawyer would suggest publicly calling out the alleged perpetrator, even if they had a solid case, in a legal sense it is a lose-lose situation
I'm politically from left, I was shocked how me-too just destroyed the principle of innocence presumption, my political camp just destroyed one of their main belief on the altar of hate of the "bad guys". My own camp need to rethink about all of this because we are ruining ourselves.
My position is the following : No proof ? I'll give you all my compassion, but you won't have my accusation on anyone.
I don't want to touch on politics too much (at risk of being banned), but I definitely agree with you. I consider my self to be generally neutral, and I've noticed this. I think these are noble goals and causes, but somewhere along the way a sort of 'toxic positivity' atmosphere swept up such movements, and basically made them appealing to further leaning wings only and also caused the general public to become more alienated.
Beyond the toxic personality, the problem is because we think we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys that's allow us to dehumanize and because of this dehumanization ruin they live, destroy their life and push them to suicide, "Making a bad guy suicide just help to make the world better", we are supposed to be the camp of compassion and understanding, but we succumbed to facility of hating, instead of trying to convince. I saw people being against the RIC (basically democracy) because "I don't want this guys that disagree with me to be able to vote"
"No politics" is the dumbest rule ever, almost everything is politics depending on the definition, and almost every Val drama got a slice of politics
even with the most restrictive definition. I hate the fact politics is seen as something horrible, that will make people fight each other instead of talking to understanding each other, even if politics is literally how the rule will organize our everyday life, and therefor it should be the topic the most talked about... But because we are not able to try to understand each other and keep our mind sane when somone say something that seems insane, we loss the right to talk about this most important subject in so many places... Rule should be "no hate", if some people are unable to talk about this subject without insulting, so there should be banned.
Discord