I think it's worth asking, but def not with this crowd. Probably not very many researchers would want to publicly look into that in the current political environment, I would guess. I was looking at one article about it, but the stuff brings up emotion and conclusions so quickly for ppl.

I mean, all that in the context of accountability being needed, abuse being extremely dark stuff, etc.

1. Sexual assaults are historically underreported.
2. The MeToo movement led to a vast disclosure of previously unreported sexual assaults.


If you don’t disagree with either statement above, then how can you possibly argue that that didn’t lead to less sexual assault.

It’s like you’re trying to argue that “how do we know that there is not more redlining against African-Americans today than in the 1940s” when it hadn’t been exposed until decades later.

Let’s keep the emotions out of it.

The premise that “more reporting” leads to “less assaults” should be facially obvious. Do you have any studies/articles that rebut the presumption? Or just a bunch of questions about the proven validity of the facially obvious.

You have to ascribe some value to powerful men who victimize women facing consequences.

I can glean what you mean, but might I suggest avoiding triple negatives in sentences?

I would agree that it's a reasonable hypothesis that more reporting leads to less sexual misbehavior.

I'm not sure I follow that last sentence.

When you mean facially obvious, are you saying it has face validity, or did you mean something else?

Seems like a dichotomy that does not need to be one. Anyone can see the value in giving people courage to speak up, but at the same time see the negative consequences from a mob mentality. I don't buy the premise you can only have #MeToo with the mob mentality. If you are arguing against mob mentality, you are not arguing against the virtues of #MeToo.

I guess you guys will be pleased to learn that #MeToo has nothing to do with any "mob mentality."

this

For those actually interested in the topic, I'll continue posting topics in the blog thread here: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...lture-1775233/

There's some truth to the dichotomy but I don't see it as hopelessly intractable because I don't think the disagreements are based on a disagreement of the fundamentals but rather on how we value and prioritize them. Something along the lines of:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=872251

itt conservatives thinkers argue against at-will employment.. but only for rich white guys that sexually harass those in their employ.

I think I agree.

Not even close

A bit semanticy but if it was fundamentals then it would be resolvable by evidence/etc but it is, what I would call, a fundamental difference in how we value things. I tried to illustrate this with the absolute vs relative poverty example. We could all agree 100% on the facts and be perfect on execution but nothing can completely* resolve the difference in how we value fairness (less of a gap) vs greatness (raising the bottom or the total or even the top).

Neither side can claim to be morally correct over the other side because this sort of thing defines our morality. The only resolution we have to these issue is democracy.

* it's partially resolved by realising how they are connected but a difference remains. And almost no-one is completely one-sided on this - for example it's a real problem that I want to reduce the gap as far as possible but also want to raise the bottom - these things can conflict.

Hmm, actually I think chezlaw is making some good points here now.

I'm gonna fade out of this thread ya'll, if you want to have productive convo, you can try me at the thread at house of blogs.

Not sure I'll keep posting even there, tbh. Overall this doesn't feel that productive. Some good pieces, but a low % of good faith IMO. HMU if you want to continue convo tho. If you do enjoy my stuff, subs to the channel are appreciated.

Hope you hang around a bit. It can be more productive by concentrating on the productive bits/posters.

I'm from the UK and we have heath care, education, social housing, benefits etc. Even under conservative governments, it's all varying degrees of fairness vs greatness within a capitalist country.

I agree on this quite a lot and for that and other reasons in the past I've been a left wing capitalist. But for exactly the same reasons I would now pretty much identify as a democratic socialist.

The reality is that because of science/tech and automation, it's increasingly difficult for peoples choices to impact on the consequences. We can explore this more but to put it pithily - humanity is increasingly wealthy at the same times as it's increasingly difficult to earn a fair share by working or making good choices.

We have to, imo, make the differential bit more about perks and less about anything important. Otherwise the impact of the psychological problems caused by being unable to improve our families share of the pie by making good choices will, among other things, wreak havoc on political decisions. Democracy itself is on the line.

Note. Although I think I'm correct, I recognise that I'm obviously in a fringe position on this even for people on the left. I don't want to confuse my views with that of the mainstream of the left.

pretty much exactly what's going on. using the bogus "good men are having the lives ruined by false accusations" with no actual evidence of that happening to attack a movement that was decades in the making.

incorrectly using terms that have real legal meanings like "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" to bolster bad arguments.

subscribing to the idea that men are somehow victims in this rather than overwhelmingly the perpetrators in quantities so vast that we probably wont ever truly know.

but plz do continue to say that the people that disagree with you are the ones posting in bad faith as you scurry back out of the forum..

There is that dichotomy again.

I think the #metoo movement is profoundly important. The problem of rape and sexual assault has been too hard to overstate. Nothing is perfect but we can't expect a quite drastic response to such a massive problem to be perfect. It's not something anyone wants for itself so the movement needs to succeed to the point where it isn't needed anymore.

But it's till evolving. How to best handle high profile cases continues to play out - not least because the accuser may want anonymity. And yes of course the very fact of being publicly accused is a very real punishment.

We have a high profile case in the UK at the moment where an unnamed Tory MP is accused of rape. Whether to release the name is very complicated - there's been a reaction to some high profile innocent men being accused and, as far as I can tell, the victim doesn't want to be outed at the moment. Some think he should be outed anyway, I tend to go with the victims wishes (which is I think the law although it's all very new)

Locked by request. You can continue discussions here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...lture-1775233/