So weird that people want to use this logic for SA, but not for stuff like non-violent drug offenses.
Did I misunderstand your comment, or are you trying to argue that recreational drug use is as bad as being a rapist? I dunno about you, but I much rather have a drug user in office than a sex offender.
I think they meant the top part--"not wanting to ruin someone's life" should apply to non-harmful acts, but in some people's minds rape isn't "as" harmful as having your life ruined or something...
they don't bring that up for people accused of drug dealing, assault, murder etc nearly as much. almost as if they don't think rape is a serious crime
It'd be more accurate to say he ruined his life and the life of the person who had to report him for it.
Good. Those type of disgusting things who don't deserve to call themselves men will grow up to become disgusting things like pedo-protecting republikkkans.
A lot of people can't read.
This isn't about false accusations.
It's not that they can't read, they're bringing it up specifically to cast doubt on victims and give plausible deniability for rapists.
Ruining his life falsely implies he deserves to live
To add to that: it'd be really neat if being reported for SA didn't ruin the abuser's life but instead fixed whatever is wrong with them so that they don't come out of prison 10 years later and do it again. Some of these people are pathologically dangerous. They go to prison criminals and come out criminals. Some.
They have them in there for years and do barely anything to change them. They just "store them" there and then let them back out for society to deal with them.
That "abolish prisons" policy, I believe by the US dem-socs, doesn't sound all that bad when you think about all the different ways prison fails us. Some countries have near 50% overall rates of reoffending.
The whole Defund The Police and Ending Prisons isn't about doing away with them altogether. The most radical leftist knows that would be stupid. But warehousing criminals, as they get more and more sociopathic/psychopathic, isn't a healthy system for a healthy society.
People want the visceral satisfaction of a just punishment, but that's a wasted opportunity. We have a person that has gone down a bad road, and we have the choice of helping them get back on track, or not. Society is improved with the latter, so shouldn't we adopt that strategy, rather than just punishing?
There are going to be people who are irredeemable, that's just reality. Serial killers, out-of-control psychopaths, child molesters, etc, can't be helped, and those people have to be warehoused. But most people can respond to rehabilitation, as prisons in Europe prove. Their recidivism rate is far, far lower than ours.
We have been doing the wrong things for many years, just because they look good in the media, or make ignorant voters feel good. In ALL things, we should be looking at what other nations are doing right, and start adopting those strategies. I'm sick of our country doing stupid shit, just because we've always done it that way, and it makes the worst people in America happy.
If the truth would ruin their life, then their decision already did. Your silence only harms their next victim.
"But you'll ruin..."
No the fuck you won't. They ruined it with their choices and actions. He'll face consequences for what he did, not for what someone else said.
It's coming from the same cohort of people who lynched black men for looking the wrong way at a white woman. There's no unforgivable deed to them, only in groups and out groups.
Conservative morality is built on the principle that there are good people and bad people. Everything the good people do is good; everything the bad people do is bad. And it's not just rhetoric, they actually see the world this way.
It's why they can be outraged about a tan suit, but not give a shit about hosting a closed-door meeting with known Russian spies. Wearing a tan suit was done by a bad person, so it's bad. Meeting with Russian spies was done by a good person, so it's good.
Their morality is defined not by their actions, not by the consequences of their actions, nor even the intention of their actions -- it's defined by identity. If you're part of the 'good people' group, you can do no wrong, and even if you do terrible things, it was probably for the benefit of the good people group, so you're forgiven. If you're part of the 'bad people' group, nothing you do is ever good enough, and even the slightest deviation from any norm will be treated as an act of pure evil, and if you ever do anything that seems good, it must be a trick, nothing but false pretenses.
It's deeply intertwined with religion, where they first learn such morality: everything God does is good because (by definition) God is good. 'Good' is defined in relation to godliness. Everything Satan does is bad because (by definition) Satan is evil. If something good happened to you, God did it. If something bad happened to you, Satan did it. When that forms the basis of your morality, it begins to extend into in-groups and out-groups, and that's where you get mainstream conservative morality from.
This is true. I remember trying to argue the hypocrisy of them passing supreme court seats after RBG died. They basically did the, "we won we get to decide. Who cares?"
"you'll ruin his life"
Ironically Pete calling out Brock's fake pics in Spiderman 3
I'm fine with this, as long as false charges are just as severely penalized.
If the truth can ruin the perpetrator's life, then the truth should ruin the accuser's life when appropriate
You shouldn't need a conditional like "as long as" anything. You should be fine with it when rapists are penalized, unconditionally. Do better.
Not to mention false charges are already penalized. The point of this is that the true ones ruin the victim's life too.
The problem is that then a true report that doesn't lead to a conviction for whatever reason results in punishment for the accuser. In an innocent until proven guilty system, which I'm sure we can agree is the best option, this means the accuser is guilty until proven innocent. The practical effect would be (and was, when something similar was completely by accident implemented in Pakistan) rape victims getting punished for reporting rape.
Edit: If anything, it should be the other way around: What "ruining someone's life" means in practice is that it excludes them from polite society (and therefore pushes into impolite society*), which among other things means they're unemployable or close to unemployable. Among other things, this is bad because it causes rapists to be more likely to rape again.
this means the accuser is guilty until proven innocent.
That's exactly what these type of people want for rape victims.
He thinks that an accusation is as bad as being raped.
That's too uncharitable an interpretation. "Punish false accusers for trying to ruin victims' lives (among a whole host of other reasons)" is an appealing sentiment that simply fails to be applicable in reality. This could be the case, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
I've seen enough of this argument to know that it is inherently bad faith and is equating being a victim of rape to being a victim of a false accusation.
Or maybe it's just something that's obvious at first glance with non-obvious pitfalls.
what about only punishing false accusations that can be proven, for example a text message saying „if you dont pay me I am gonna accuse you of SA-ing me“?
I'll leave it to people better informed than me to pick through the pros and cons of this, but for the most part it seems like a solution looking for a problem. Besides, perjury is already a crime in most jurisdictions.
How many strawmen are y'all going to construct to attack rape victims?
Never mind that coming forward with allegations against powerful men ALSO ruins the victims life in highly patriarchal societies. Hell, half the time, the victims are ruined and the predators are celebrated for “beating the allegations.”
Like I need people to understand, NO ONE has ever become rich and famous by accusing a rich person of sexually assaulting them.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
