Originally posted by -Pr-
lol "far less toxic". The ****.
Originally posted by steverules_2
Well with CD on hiatus and Broly dead maybe it is. I wouldn’t know though I don’t go in there anymore.
It has become a bastion of nuanced, civilised and polite conversation. Where ideas are shared and discussed without emotional arguments. 🙂
Originally posted by Smurph
It really is though.You have a group of over 60 people who wrote a collective statement saying that they were each the victim of "Warren Ellis using his celebrity status and vast public platform as catalyst and shield to manipulate and [b]groom targets under false pretenses
, and to coerce private pornography and sexual exchanges."Then you have Adam_PoE saying "adults can't be groomed; adults just have bad judgment"
So at the end of the day, what you're claiming that it's misogynistic to just... believe them. [/B]
That is their characterization. It does not make it a fact. Multiplying claims does not amount to evidence. Zero multiplied by 60 is still zero.
What you have is a group of justifiably aggrieved women, using the rhetoric of criminality, when by their own accounts no crime was committed, for social retaliation.
They were not coerced, ergo they were not groomed. But using that inflammatory language reflexively got you to their side, so their strategy worked.
Originally posted by Blight
I don't think Adam is being as disingenuous as he is being labelled.It's true that there seems to have been an imbalance of power within the relationship between the alleged victims and Ellis, but that [b]also
does not make them completely powerless, which I think Adam is trying to explain, snark or otherwise notwithstanding (I don't personally notice it, but I'm not here nearly as often as others).Since the #metoo thing, there have been a lot of allegations that run the gamut form truly horrific to what I would constitute as a bad date. I think it's important to parse out the individual actions rather than slap a label quickly and without second thought one way or the other.
Essentially I'm a dirty fence sitter that everyone hates right now.
In regards to Ellis specifically, I think I – personally – have a very easy time separating art from artist and also happen to think that companies need to develop a stronger backbone rather than kowtowing to the whims of terminally online activists, but that's just me. IF what he did was horrific, and it has been proven in a way more than just allegations (what that is can be nebulous and I certainly don't want to be the decider on what constitutes this) then by all means rip him from his projects. I see things like Justin Roiland having accusations levied and then get completely dropped, but that didn't stop the mob from completely ruining his career. That's something I wouldn't want to see happen to me from a complicated relationship, nor would I wish it on others. [/B]
Grooming specifically refers to the actions of an adult used to lower the inhibitions of a child for the purposes of sexual abuse.
It is an abuse of the term, and makes light of child sexual abuse, to use it to refer to adult women accepting the word of a romantic partner, because it comports with what they want to believe.
If an adult is decieved by another adult, then they did not exercise good judgment, and will hopefully learn from the experience to make better choices in the future. What they were not, however, is "groomed."
This is categorically no different than saying that speech is violence. No, violence is violence. It is a needlessly inflammatory exaggeration, usually to match how hurt an aggrieved party feels, but their feelings are not facts.
Every time you are wronged, it is not criminal. Every time you are wronged, you are not a victim. It is childish to think otherwise.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThe most embarrassing thing is that your rhetoric is nearly indistinguishable from an incel's. So you're a misogynist and not an incel. Ok.
Which is more humiliating: realizing you thoroughly embarrassed yourself for several pages, or doubling-down in a desperate attempt to save face and pretend you had the last word?
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThe situation with Warren Ellis is well documented. No need to torture hypotheticals and what-ifs here.
It is not an either/or situation. Unless there are competing claims, multiple things can simultaneously be true.He can be a dishonest and disloyal person who had multiple relationships simultaneously, and they can also be grown adults who made bad choices for their own reasons.
People do not magically become blameless victims every time something does not work out in their favor.
Relationships between adults are mutually-defined. If a party does not like the terms, she has the right to request changes, or to end the relationship, because it no longer meets her needs.
If she chooses not to do that, then she has accepted the unfavorable terms as a trade-off for whatever perceived benefit she receives for continuing the relationship as-is.
In any of those cases, she is an equal participant. She is a capable adult who did a cost/benefit analysis, and made the choice she thought was best. And if her choice turned out to not be the best, then she exercised bad judgment, and will learn to make better choices in the future.
But what she is not is a child who needs to be protected by society, because her inferior nature makes her easily manipulated, which is your view. But tell us more about how your paternalistic view of women does not make you the incel misogynist you claim everyone else to be.
It is an either/or. You blame the 50+ young women and not Warren Ellis.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEYou're pivoting to argue about evidence, but nobody's talking about evidence. Your issue is with how the very accusation is worded - wording which, you say, is misogynistic. So you're arguing that a group of 60+ alleged victims collectively organized to oppress themselves.
That is their characterization. It does not make it a fact. Multiplying claims does not amount to evidence. Zero multiplied by 60 is still zero.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEFirst, where in their accounts does it say that no crime was committed? Feel free to quote.
What you have is a group of justifiably aggrieved women, using the rhetoric of criminality, when by their own accounts no crime was committed, for social retaliation.
Second, the bar isn't criminality. Coercion, abuse and grooming are each accusations regularly made within civil justice systems, not just criminal courts. This "rhetoric of criminality" stuff is nonsense, and just a way to impose a false standard.
Again:
Originally posted by Smurph
Turns out that you can pursue sex in a way that makes you an a[b]sshole, even if it doesn't make you a criminal. [/B]
Originally posted by ODG
The most embarrassing thing is that your rhetoric is nearly indistinguishable from an incel's. So you're a misogynist and not an incel. Ok. The situation with Warren Ellis is well documented. No need to torture hypotheticals and what-ifs here.
Tell us more about how women do not have agency, and that they need to be protected by society because they are incapable of making their own decisions, and then unironically call other people incels and misogynists.
Originally posted by ODG
It is an either/or. You blame the 50+ young women and not Warren Ellis.
No, it is not. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Originally posted by Smurph
You're pivoting to argue about evidence, but nobody's talking about evidence. Your issue is with how the very accusation is worded - wording which, you say, is misogynistic. So you're arguing that a group of 60+ alleged victims collectively organized to oppress themselves.
No, I think a group of aggrieved women feel hurt, and want retribution, but hurt feelings are not a crime. They do not have a criminal or civil case, so they are pursuing extrajudicial justice by targeting his reputation.
If someone leads you on, and instead of exercising skepticism, you take his words at face value, because he is telling you what you want to hear, you are not a victim, you are foolish.
And it is perfectly reasonable to feel hurt by him, but some of this frustration should be reserved for yourself.
You should be asking yourself why you were so willing to suspend your own reasoning, because someone said the right words to you.
If they had put the individual effort into using good judgment and making good choices that they are collectively into their website, they would not be in this situation in the first place.
Claiming victimhood is just a way for these adults to avoid responsibility for their part in their own circumstances.
Originally posted by Smurph
First, where in their accounts does it say that no crime was committed? Feel free to quote.
Where are the criminal charges?
Originally posted by Smurph
Second, the bar isn't criminality. Coercion, abuse and grooming are each accusations regularly made within civil justice systems, not just criminal courts. This "rhetoric of criminality" stuff is nonsense, and just a way to impose a false standard.
Where are the civil charges?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE No, I think a group of aggrieved women feel hurt, and want retribution, but hurt feelings are not a crime. They do not have a criminal or civil case, so they are pursuing extrajudicial justice by targeting his reputation.👆 it's simple and straightforwardIf someone leads you on, and instead of exercising skepticism, you take his words at face value, because he is telling you what you want to hear, you are not a victim, you are foolish.
Claiming victimhood is just a way for these adults to avoid responsibility for their part in their own circumstances.
Where are the criminal charges?
Where are the civil charges?
"Civil charge" is a pretty clunky phrase.
The allegations are detailed in the 36 testimonials shared on that site, and in whatever documents were filed with the mediator for the mediation process that took place, and as communicated within the mediation itself. I assume that the contents of the mediation and related documents are confidential by way of contract with the mediator.
Originally posted by Smurphcivil charge is very simple to understand Smurph, it's a dispute between people. That's not clunky.
"Civil charge" is a pretty clunky phrase.The allegations are detailed in the 36 testimonials shared on that site, and in whatever documents were filed with the mediator for the mediation process that took place, and as communicated within the mediation itself. I assume that the contents of the mediation and related documents are confidential by way of contract with the mediator.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!lol thank you. I understand the concept. I am a trial lawyer.
civil charge is very simple to understand Smurph, it's a dispute between people. That's not clunky.
It's clunky because "charge" more closely relates to the concept of the state charging you with things. It's less useful within the broader scope of civil justice, which includes all sorts of dispute resolution mechanisms designed to be less adversarial in order to resolve a fight rather than inflame it. The transformative justice mediation process utilized by members of the Ellis collective is one such mechanism. But a more common example is like, mediation and arbitration in family law. You probably wouldn't characterize two people in a divorce as "charging" each other with claims for spousal support.
A quick Google shows people on Quora conflating civil charges with civil offences, which is more in the vein of bylaw infractions or regulatory penalties.
So, like I said, clunky.
Originally posted by SmurphI know all that, and I'm not interested in who you are or what you say you do at all offline, thank you. I don't understand why you say it's any more clunky than criminal charge, both cover a variety of actions and outcomes. Clunky seems a strange way to describe a simple concept. Of course civil requires a lower level of proof and means less.
lol thank you. I understand the concept. I am a trial lawyer.It's clunky because "charge" more closely relates to the concept of the state charging you with things. It's less useful within the broader scope of civil justice, which includes all sorts of dispute resolution mechanisms designed to be less adversarial in order to resolve a fight rather than inflame it. The transformative justice mediation process utilized by members of the Ellis collective is one such mechanism. But a more common example is like, mediation and arbitration in family law. You probably wouldn't characterize two people in a divorce as "charging" each other with claims for spousal support.
A quick Google shows people on Quora conflating civil charges with civil offences, which is more in the vein of bylaw infractions or regulatory penalties.
So, like I said, clunky.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI'd rather you continue to argue how once you're 20-years-old, you aren't a victim, you are a participant. Just proclaim you are the defender of all the Harvey Weinsteins and Bryan Singers in the world.
Tell us more about how women do not have agency, and that they need to be protected by society because they are incapable of making their own decisions, and then unironically call other people incels and misogynists.
Originally posted by Adam_PoELook, you disgusting little b1tch... stand by your proclamations and just double down on what you initially said so we can have a conversation. If you don't, no surprise. We both know this thread isn't going to go well for you.
No, it is not. There is plenty of blame to go around.
And homosexuality isn't an excuse for misogyny. In fact, it makes you look doubly worse.
50+ young women should be to blame. Warren Ellis should be not. That was your stance, after all right?
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!Just because, compared to criminal proceedings, there are so many more ways that civil matters can initiate, proceed, and get resolved. Conversely, "criminal charge" has a pretty rigid and clear definition. I wasn't criticizing Adam, just explaining that the terminology is a bit awkward in this context.
I know all that, thank you, I don't understand why you say it's any more clunky than criminal charge, both cover a variety of actions and outcomes. Clunky seems a strange way to describe a simple concept.
The allegations are in the testimonials. Are those "civil charges"? Idk but it was enough to kickstart the road to mediation, which both sides then entered into. /shrug