Zak Smith is suing his accusers

[billd91]

Yes because generalizing from McCarthyism to this would be as nonsensical as trying to generalize from the Salem witch trials to McCarthyism

Furthermore, I also mentioned the 1987 McMartin preschool trial in that post, which WAS in part about sexual abuse (in addition to being about witchcraft) and which involved dozens of accusers and accusations all of which turned out to be completely unfounded.

EDIT:
McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia
EDIT:
When you believe accusations just because they're about sexual abuse then you get unmitigated travesties like the Daycare sex abuse hysteria of the 1980's

Day-care sex-abuse hysteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may notice that ZakS hasn't been accused by children who have been led by questioning into making those accusations. The context of the situation matters, at least to those of us weighing the matter rationally.

 

[Bohandas]

I don't get this at all.

He's not "taking a stand" against anything, and certainly not against "every accusation everywhere automatically being assumed true by the public". He's suing those who have accused him. Assuming the matter gets to court, each will present their case and a decision will be reached. Hopefully that decision will track the truth, thought in court processes there's never any absolute guarantee of that.

As I think others have pointed out, by suing them he seems to be implying that they are lying (given the nature of the accusations made against him, it's not easy to see how they could be innocent errors altough given the strangeness of the world I guess that's a possibility). That could be construed as an allegation or accusation. Are you assuming it to be true, sight unseen?

I'm not saying that he's innocent or that they're lying, I'm just saying that we have no way of knowing which side is telling the truth, yet since the accusation involves sexual misconduct lots of people seem to automatically assume that its true, even though many of them would probably have withheld judgement if he were accused of some other kind of misconduct. Whenever someone is accused of sexual misconduct people seem to automatically assume that its true, when by all rights they ought to demand MORE evidence before passing judgement due to the seriousness of the accusation. Which brings us back around; although I am still withholding final judgement, I nevertheless hold that it would be less innapropriate for someone to assume his accusation of slander to be true sight-unseen than it would be for someone to assume their accusarion of sexual misconduct is true sight unseen because slander is less serious and career-ending of a charge.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wake up every day terrified my wife will be attacked while walking to a hair or eyebrow appointment, or harassed or attacked while walking our dog while I’m at work, or by a cop pulling her over, or that a male acquaintance will manage to manufacture or take advantage of a situation where I am not around.

The difference is that my fear is founded in how the world actually works.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here’s the deal, @Bohandas: there are several high profile sexual misconduct cases involving false- or at least unprovable- allegations. Duke. Tawana Brawley. Etc. This list goes on.

But because they are so high profile, a certain portion of the public has adopted this debunked notion that the risk of false accusations of sexual misconduct is much higher than it really is. Especially if the accused is a white male.

Furthermore, there is seldom a correspondingly strong pushback against similar accusations against women or minorities. How many times this year has a female teacher been accused of sexual contact with a student and it made the evening news? How many times have people vehemently asserted those women were innocent? Bonus question: given that male teachers are many times more likely to be arrested for this crime, how many MEN got their names and faces broadcast to the community?

More female teachers caught having sex with students, experts say

The 17-year-old was suiting up for track practice in February 2018 when his gym teacher at Canton McKinley High School reached out to him on Snapchat. Tiffany Eichler asked the boy to come to her …

www.dispatch.com

Or consider the Central Park 5. Refresher: five black teens were accused, convicted, and then served decades of time before being exonerated by DNA. Rather than pushback against the accusations, the initial case gave us the term “wilding”, and (then just a private citizen) Donald Trump took out a full page ad to call for the death penalty in their case. (Note: he has never apologized.)

Moving away from sex crimes, Richard Jewel was famously accused of being the Olympic Park bomber. Few then were concerned that the accusations were incorrect; the error of law enforcement in his case led to major changes in how they deal with the press. (White male, yes. But this was terrorism, not a sex crime, so contemporaneous pushback was minimal.)

So, yes, it IS important to be aware of the issue of false accusations and guard against them. But in doing so, you have to be reasonable and objective when assessing the risks. Distorting them does a disservice to society and will discredit your in the eyes of those who pay attention to the actual statistics.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not saying that he's innocent or that they're lying, I'm just saying that we have no way of knowing which side is telling the truth

This is not true. There are all sorts of pieces of evidence that bear on this, a number of which have been mentioned in the thread. These include things like the corroboration provided by mutiple bits of testimony, apparent patterns of behaviour, and the seeming lack of benefit to the accusers in bringing forth their allegations.

The situation is not a blank slate containing nothing but "He did it!" and "I didn't do it!"

Whenever someone is accused of sexual misconduct people seem to automatically assume that its true, when by all rights they ought to demand MORE evidence before passing judgement due to the seriousness of the accusation.

As is the case for many accusations of interpersonal wrongdoing, the evidence here is the testimony of those who say they have been victims. I don't think there's any general evidence that victim testimony is unreliable. Do you have any in mind?

And given your own professed ignorance of the evidence in this matter, how do you know how much evidence others have, and whether or not they have enough of it?

it would be less innapropriate for someone to assume his accusation of slander to be true sight-unseen than it would be for someone to assume their accusarion of sexual misconduct is true sight unseen because slander is less serious and career-ending of a charge.

Fairly recently I read a long list of prominent men who have been accused of sexual misconducgt without it appearing to really impede, let alone end, their careers.

Famously in the case of President Clinton, it was allegations of lying rather than allegations of sexual misconduct that came closest to ending his career.

Frankly I find this your line of reasoning here baseless, and pretty outrageous in its implication that the default response to women's allegations of sexual harassment or assault by men should be to judge the women slanderous rather than the men assailants.

 

[Bohandas]

Frankly I find this your line of reasoning here baseless, and pretty outrageous in its implication that the default response to women's allegations of sexual harassment or assault by men should be to judge the women slanderous rather than the men assailants.

You're making this about men and women; it's not. It doesn;t have anything to do with that. Imagine, if you will, a similar situation but with a different initial accusation. Person A says that they saw Person B murder a homeless person, Person B says that Person A is lying. Regardless of whether A is a man and B is a woman, or A is a woman and B is a man, or whether they're both women or both men, regardless of all these considerations we would be more remiss to believe A's accusation without concrete proof than we would to believe B's (although ideally we shouldn't believe either without proof)

 

[Bohandas]

Or consider the Central Park 5. Refresher: five black teens were accused, convicted, and then served decades of time before being exonerated by DNA. Rather than pushback against the accusations, the initial case gave us the term “wilding”, and (then just a private citizen) Donald Trump took out a full page ad to call for the death penalty in their case. (Note: he has never apologized.)

Well yeah, he's a moron. And that kind of goes to show my point about people wanting to believe these kind of accusations and being more interested in finding someone to punish than in discovering the truth.

As is the case for many accusations of interpersonal wrongdoing, the evidence here is the testimony of those who say they have been victims. I don't think there's any general evidence that victim testimony is unreliable. Do you have any in mind?

IIRC eyewitness testimony in general is pretty unreliable. In any case you're begging the question by assuming that it is victim testimony

 

[macd21]

You're making this about men and women; it's not. It doesn;t have anything to do with that. Imagine, if you will, a similar situation but with a different initial accusation. Person A says that they saw Person B murder a homeless person, Person B says that Person A is lying. Regardless of whether A is a man and B is a woman, or A is a woman and B is a man, or whether they're both women or both men, regardless of all these considerations we would be more remiss to believe A's accusation without concrete proof than we would to believe B's (although ideally we shouldn't believe either without proof)

Not really, no, and not when two other people say the same thing. We would be remiss in locking B up for the crime, but for believing A? Totally acceptable. As would, say, refusing to hire B based on the accusation, or refusing to socialise with them, and advising other people of the same.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well yeah, he's a moron. And that kind of goes to show my point about people wanting to believe these kind of accusations and being more interested in finding someone to punish than in discovering the truth.

My point regarding the CP5 in particular was that he and a bunch of other Americans believed it immediately and there was no substantial pushback, largely because they were a group of young black men. At the time, the default position for a large percentage of Americans was “group of black teens” = “gang”.

Had they been caucasians, no doubt the immediate reaction would have been “no, not THEM!”

See also young black Americans “too poor to know the difference between right and wrong” getting incarcerated and young white Americans “too rich to know the difference between right and wrong” are aquitted because of “affluenza.”

But the point in general is not whether you should believe or disbelieve the allegations in a given case; believe the probabilities. IOW, don’t decide one way or the other. but be aware that the odds do not favor the accused. Skepticism is a valuable tool, but you have to be sure to be skeptical in the right way.

To put it differently, when I hear about allegations like this about someone I don’t know, my attitude is, “Man, I hope it isn’t true, but...” If more accusations accumulate, ”this doesn’t look good,” looms larger.

If it’s someone I DO know, I wonder if I missed something. If I don’t think I did, I’ll be a defender. But again, if there is an accumulation of accusations, the odds tell me that my defense may be unfounded.

in neither case have I decided.

 

[John R Davis]

It's all rather tricky.
Person A is accused of bad things by Persons B to E. They arent pursued for this by either criminal or civil court.
The accusation affects Person A in detrimental ways.
I guess Person A either goes quiet trying to cope with the detrimental things or Person A pushes back. Can't think of anything else they could do?