~ archived since 2018 ~

NYT Journalist More Skeptical than MRAs? "Trust but Verify"

Mens-Advocate

November 29, 2017

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://archive.is/778D9

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	NYT Journalist More Skeptical than MRAs? "Trust but Verify"
Author	Mens-Advocate
Upvotes	0
Comments	11
Date	November 29, 2017 4:59 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7gapj8/nyt_journalist_more_skeptical_than_mras_trust_but/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nyt-journalist-more-skeptical-than-mras-trust-but.1173939 https://theredarchive.com/post/1173939

Comments

[–]Mens-Advocate[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

The NYT seeks inadequately to compensate for its "Men Are Brutes" article, regressing a century or more. (In some countries, analogous propositions- that Muslims are brutes, or blacks are brutes - may be prosecuted as criminal hate speech.)

But the debunking article still bears thought.

A number here have quickly rushed to join the crucifixion, the lynching of men accused by women (in trial by media) and even argued we shouldn't defend them lest we be tarred with their alleged misdeeds, garnered from self-serving accusers and sensationalist media glosses. A few of us have argued that none of the accused should be judged, nor tried in media, until more of the facts have been verified and accusation weaknesses evaluated (in principle, by neutral evaluation in the courts, cross-examination, etc) such as:

Moore: Moore's "signature" in the accuser's yearbook was a forgery, copied from the accuser's divorce papers.
Clinton: Broaddrick has no witness at all to "rape", nor forensics, ... Kathleen Willey appeared much too stable and mature an individual to be "traumatised" by a crude proposition.
Franken: Shadows indicate his hands may have been hovering without touching.
Weinstein: Criminal "case": In the Battilana matter, his "confession" was ambiguous and discarded by the prosecutor's office. Civil "cases": In court, damages depend upon the amount to make whole. But many who said no, such as Judd, Jolie, Paltrow, and Sorvino, were still hired by Weinstein and are multi-millionaires, raising doubts about whether they could prove retaliation or damage. Those who allege their careers damaged have presented little proof - some were successful, some not, but has it been proved Weinstein causative? Weinstein may have gathered dirt, but did he use it? Is Steinem's defence of Bill Clinton - that he himself didn't actually retaliate - applicable to Weinstein?

My skepticism of accusations (regardless of accused's political side) may be right or wrong - we've seen no proper vetting of the accusations - but the questions at least deserve to be asked. In other words, almost all the accusations have holes. Much like Twelve Angry Men, is the minority position - that slowing down the rush to judgment will expose holes in the accusations - the right one?

MRAs should instead have been going all-out dissecting the accusations - counterbalancing the all-out rush to judgment - or at least displaying as much skepticism as the NYT. So why the reluctance to as much of an all-out defence as any competent defence lawyer or NYT journalist? Fear of appearing misogynist? Internalised feminism? A variant of "white knighting"?

There are thousands of journalists, and well-funded (even state-funded) feminist entities, savaging accused men. Should there not be at least a site or sub site or a few threads attempting to systematically, even dispassionately, document all exculpatory evidence for each?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_MRAnarchist 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

You have missed the point of the NYT article, and of my comment, if you're concentrating on Weinstein. There are many other men accused via media (or via internet) without due process, and to miss the pattern is to miss the forest for the one tree. The article and I clearly give multiple examples of extra-judicial rush to judgment. (If the left laments "extra-judicial killings" by the West in Iraq, why doesn't it lament "extra-judicial" character assassination of accused males?)

You also don't seem to have understood the concept of centuries of cases of false accusations en masse, or of mass hysteria, leading to abominable injustice (including murder):

1692:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

1992:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

1865-1968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington,_1916_(cropped).jpg

1882:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People

1956:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Visit_(play)

1616:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

But I suppose you still agree with the majority, that the sun revolves around the earth? After all, they had the numbers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mens-Advocate[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Salem -- those people were not spread over several decades, several states, and several countries!

Well, well, historical knowledge must not be your strong suit. Witch hunts spanned centuries and continents and murdered well over 100,000 innocents. From Wiki:

A witch-hunt is a search for persons labelled "witches" or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic[1] or mass hysteria.[2] The classical period of witch-hunts in Early Modern Europe and Colonial North America took place in the Early Modern period or about 1450 to 1750, ... resulting in an estimated 35,000 to 100,000 executions.[3][4] Including illegal and summary executions it is estimated 200,000 or more "witches" were tortured, burnt or hanged in the Western world from 1500 until around 1800.

You think Piven innocent or guilty on the basis of numbers?

you can defend Piven all you want

Thinking in depth (as opposed to jumping to emotional conclusions) must not be your strong suit either. (Are you sure you're not female?)

Piven is worth ~20m USD and was accused by 4 women, a ratio of 5m USD per accuser. At that same rate, Weinstein's worth of 300m USD would be expected to attract 60 accusers. Cosby's worth of 400m USD would be expected to attract 80 accusers. More money, more gold-diggers. Who'd'a thunkit?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Salem -- those people were not spread over several decades, several states, and several countries! 
Well, well, historical knowledge must not be your strong suit. Witch hunts spanned centuries and continents and murdered well over 100,000 innocents. From Wiki:

LOL! The stupidity of this response is hard to put into words! Salem was a set of particular witch-hunts, not all the witch hunts in history put together! As for the rest, no way am i reading something by someone so retarded --or dishonest. Stop defending the indefensible and, above all, stop wasting my time.

[–]Mens-Advocate[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Let's recap. You're essentially arguing that multiple accusations must be true. So I point out that the multiple Salem accusations were still false. So you find another excuse to ignore the point that the sum of unproved accusations is still not proved; your excuse is that the Weinstein accusations are spread over time and space. Why should that make a difference? If you check Dorothy Rabinowtz's masterful work, No Crueler Tyrannies, you'll find both prosecutors and ordinary citizens crazed by mass child molestation hysteria, hounding innocents from place to place, across states and countries, over years.

You're an idiot. Weinstein may have pissed off all the accusing women by pressuring them crudely for sex or pretending to hold movie roles ransom to consensual sex. In the USA, that's not criminal; at most, it's job discrimination, a civil matter. There is zero proof of any criminal actions; the accusations of criminality are entirely unsupported and quite possibly revenge for the sex pressure/quid pro quo. There is also zero proof of him ever retaliating for a woman's refusal. In other words, at worst, he propositioned too many women, crassly; the accusers may be taking revenge for offended dignity, or they may see a payday.

Yet apparently, like any bar-brawling white knight, you'll find any excuse to jump to castrate a man accused by multiple women. What the fuck are you even doing on an MR board?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link