@Pogi:
Eh. I have no problem with a "wait and see," but when people consistently come in with no new information and no purpose other than to say "but maybe it's this," it can get annoying. That said, considering your profession, it would only be natural for you to want to wait and see.
Actually, some time back I felt the same way - the masses will always react emotionally, which can lead to a negative opinion of someone when it should be positive, etc. Even statistically smaller chances could need some representation. I understand how that can be the more empathetic view.
All that said, this is a discussion forum, and not a court of law. Just like in real life, people are going to make judgments without knowing all of the facts. Emotional judgments. We discuss based on the information that we have, not any of the myriad pieces of information that we don't.
In addition, some of the "wait and see" people are horribly transparent in their motives.
Well put, and I pretty much agree with everything you said. This certainly isn't a court of law; I wouldn't expect us to wait for Exhibit A to be entered into evidence before talking about the contents of Exhibit A. But wouldn't you agree that there should be some standard of supporting evidence before we impugn a person's character? Surely we can aim for a middle ground, somewhere between gathering pitchforks the instant an accusation is posted on Facebook and having to avoid leading the witness.
Also, I agree with you that people are emotional creatures. I'm not advocating that we suck all emotion out of the forum, nor am I advocating we can't reach preliminary inferences, as long as they're based on more than an accusation and we acknowledge they're subject to change. But regarding emotion, I don't really have a position for what amount is the "right" amount. I'm just saying that, whatever amount of emotion and snark the forum/mods choose to allow or disallow, the same standard should be applied equally to both those voicing the majority opinion
and those voicing the minority opinion. If majority snark is allowed, minority snark should be, too. If minority snark is bannable, majority snark should be, too.
When majority snark is allowed but minority snark is banned, not only does it shift membership numbers to strengthen the status quo, it also makes those expressing majority snark strengthen their resolve to reject other viewpoints, because if the mods agree with me and 30 other posters, I
must be right.
Again, I agree that we can't always wait for ALL the information. But at the very least we need a response from the accused, unless there's some obvious video implication like in that Baltimore cop thread.
The other problem with this story was the original reporting and thread titles, it was so incredibly loaded and absolutely designed to be inflammatory: "famous black woman mistaken as prostitute for kissing white boyfriend" what the fuck ever
I used to scoff at people who blamed "the media." But over the last few years, I've really come to understand the abuses of sensationalist headlines, and I now blame the media for most of the unjust crucifixions of people's characters.
Several posters have come back in this thread and admitted we were wrong once the audio came out, some even apologizing to other posters, but there's no satisfying some people.
FWIW, I've been impressed with the people that have owned up to it, and expressed remorse and a desire to avoid such quick judgment in the future. And there have been more than I expected, honestly, so I've been wrong in that sense, even though I never expressed my cynicism.
I also think that some of the bans were hasty,
I think that should have been the end of your sentence.
but if the first and only thing you have to say in a thread starting out about possible minority/gender harassment is "I don't believe that shit" or some variant, with no follow up or elaboration, what can you really expect.
Ideally, the same treatment as those that immediately dismiss cops or anyone else in the same substanceless manner. Whether such a comment warrants a ban or nothing, it should be treated the same for all dismissals.
Reading back, I realized my position might be confusing. So to clarify my position: I think an alleged victim's claim should be taken seriously and given the benefit of the doubt, so their claim is properly investigated. But I also think the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt that they're innocent, unless and until the investigation suggests otherwise with credible evidence. This creates the odd mental position of assuming both that the alleged victim is telling the truth, and that the accused did nothing wrong. Almost certainly, one of those assumptions will eventually be proved wrong. But I believe BOTH parties should get the benefit of the doubt before solid evidence starts rolling in from which we can begin to make inferences.
Those who think it stifles conversation are correct, but for the wrong reasons. It stifles a very specific conversation: the one they wish to have on their terms. It doesn't actually end discussion, it merely seeks to end the positive feedback loop that results from assumptions speculation and guesswork.
There's value in being told, in essence, to calm down, think about what is actually known, what can be REASONABLY inferred from what is known, and acknowledge where one is venturing into speculation land. God knows I need that reminder. I read the OP early on, and while I didn't post, I took the story at face value. Why? Personal bias, is my guess.
I like this post a lot.
"Wait and see" is a conversation liberator. Conducting discourse under the assumption we don't know everything opens it up to the consideration of more possibilities and more angles, and allows this to be done civilly.
When a thread decides very early what the correct viewpoint is it gains momentum and runs over or through anyone who might have a question, be hesitant to form a conclusion or, god forbid, is genuinely skeptical of the accepted narrative. Now of course skepticism and asking questions isn't always in good faith and can obviously be inspired by some abhorrent position, but simply assuming this is always the case is incompatible with the ideals of free discourse and entirely unnecessary.
It's also often the case that when an event or scenario is decided to be indicative of a societal ill, questioning or mere hesitance to jump to conclusions regarding that specific event is interpreted as an attack on the existence or importance of that much larger problem. "Why are you questioning this? Don't you think minorities are mistreated by police?" It's unfair and, as above, is absolutely contrary to open discussion. It creates hostility where there should be none.
I vehemently disagree that "waiting for the facts" stifles, impedes or otherwise degrades civil, useful, interesting discussion amongst members of this community and argue very strongly for precisely the opposite.
I also like this post a lot. I would add, though, as I said above, that I think both parties--the alleged victim and the accused--should be given the benefit of the doubt. Neither should be impugned as a liar or a criminal, until some evidence starts rolling in. Also, I don't think we need to wait for ALL the evidence to begin making preliminary inferences, just pretty solid evidence (certainly more than a Facebook accusation), as long as we acknowledge the incompleteness of the evidence and that things could change with additional evidence.
