Discussing rape allegations vs. Discussing the person making them in AH.

Alright, I've calmed down after posting an angry rant in the current "I was raped" thread in After Hours, but after stepping back I do have to ask....is there really any value in having discussions on what is/isn't rape in threads that are more about the motives of the person rather than what is/isn't right? I get that people talk about other people in this way, it's like the kind of character assassination a hated politician or celebrity would get, but these threads are usually started with the idea that "Poster doesn't like X person's post, want some sympathy and asks people to agree with her". The discussion should go about the rights and wrongs of the situation itself, in a hypothetical way, but it gets bogged down with insults & slurs against people involved. Heck I've had to restrain myself from posting bannable language on it.

.And we think that the people involved don't read it. They do. I'd hate to think that some vulnerable poster posted a similar story, got a similar reaction, and made a permanent life ending choice because of it.

I really think that these "hated person" threads need to be put together into "issue" threads, removing the personal attacks which don't address the issue, and leaving the actual right/wrong discussion. I get that hated politicians and celebrities make money off their image, but where do we draw the line of decency? Do we allow the same vitriol against, say, a random Facebook poster, a blogger or an activist that we'd allow against Enda Kenny? Can we drag both their names through the mud? Can we curse & blind & wish unspeakable evils on both of them exactly the same way? Start threads with their real names on top & call them "Geebags"? Report their every social media move? Discuss theories about why they posted what they posted? Make up evidence as to why it's right to hate them?

Why are we allowing the man to be played & not the ball?

TheChizler

I think there was a bit of name calling and ascribing intentions at the start of the thread but in fairness it's seriously improved and there's a valuable discussion going on.

Danjamin1

Agreed with TheChizler, I was not aware of the blogger in question before the thread was started nor will I care who they are once the thread is closed but regardless of the posters motives for writing the article it's opened a valuable discussion. Given that the blogger posted the article under their own name openly I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss their personal scenario as they have put that out there themselves. Their own reaction on social media is despicable btw as they are cherry picking the negative remarks and ignoring the actual debate that's ongoing as a result of their piece. I would have thought that debate would be appreciated by the poster but appears not to be the case. This appears to actually be driving a lot of negative comments as it is calling in to question the bloggers motives in posting the article in the first place.

Hunky Monster

It's more this I'm talking about.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

She's an attention craving internet parasite.

johnnythunders wrote: »

You didn't report it, because you weren't raped.

Now you want to feel better for having been a bit of tart (obviously in your own eyes I mean) in college.

Next.

Also, 'social influencer'? What an absolute fool.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I'm reading down through her facebook and I get triggered.

"One in four women you know have been raped" - her words.

Shes an absolute tool.

joe199 wrote: »

I think this young girl needs help mentally and if found mentally stable should possibley be talked to by the law

kjl wrote: »

...Rosemary McCabe. She is such a clickbait whore that she is actually making light of real rape cases with her moment of weakness.

Don't know what that guy saw in her tbh.

gossamer wrote: »

....Bloggers/ vloggers/ "social influencers", will do anything to make a quick buck. Rosemary MacCabe has molded herself into Ireland's answer to Lena Dunham over the past couple of years. And if it worked for Lena and co, it will work for Rosemary. It's shameless self-promotion and fairly low, even by narcissistic blogger standards.

And that's only a few pages in. It starts to get into a debate on her after a while. Some anti-her-stance people have the cop on to say "my opinion of her is neither here nor there", but it just gets so nasty. I'll take that the debate is healthy (good to know that "no means yeah,but" to so many) but I'm worried that it's a matter of time before someone posts a blog post of something similar, gets the same sh*t thrown in their face, and decides to do something drastic & permanent in response to it.

I'd hope to see "tackle the ball, not the player" type rules put in the moderation. Yes, have the debate, but discourage character assassination. De-personalise this. We see it with "*celebrity* is such a gee bag" and expect the shlebs to "suck it up". But the day is coming when we ask the wrong person to "suck it up".

Why should we stop people from discussing whether they like/dislike someone?

jameorahiely

Is the purpose of a public blog not to get "clicks" or readers discussing it?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why should we stop people from discussing whether they like/dislike someone?

A more general reason: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477910/

jameorahiely wrote: »

Is the purpose of a public blog not to get "clicks" or readers discussing it?

Wher did I say not to discuss it?

B_Wayne

jameorahiely wrote: »

Is the purpose of a public blog not to get "clicks" or readers discussing it?

Do you think there was a beneficial discussion occurring within the quoted Posts?

Just had a quick glance at discussion and pretty shocked by its content tbh.

jameorahiely

Deleted User wrote: »

A more general reason: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477910/



Wher did I say not to discuss it?

In your post on the thread where almost every second word was "****". "****" personal responsibility etc when you accused posters from boards of naming her.

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

In your post on the thread where almost every second word was "****". "****" personal responsibility etc when you accused posters from boards of naming her.

And I said at the top of this one I've calmed down, and named the post you just quoted as an angry rant. Park that post where it was. I'm speaking in general terms here.

jameorahiely

Deleted User wrote: »

And I said at the top of this one I've calmed down, and named the post you just quoted as an angry rant. Park that post where it was. I'm speaking in general terms here.

Why are you quoting other posters from the thread here then if we can't discuss your contribution too? Maybe the other posters were having an "angry rant" too :rolleyes:


Irony at it's finest

Danjamin1

Deleted User wrote: »

(good to know that "no means yeah,but" to so many)

Please don't oversimplify the debate with your own personal bias, the article & her experience are one side of an admittedly ambiguous scenario (she admitted this herself in the article). It's certainly not fair to simplify it to "she said no, ergo rape". If you read the thread yo'd know it's a far more nuanced discussion than that between both sexes.

KERSPLAT!

If you have an issue with anything in the thread the first thing you should do is report the posts in question. There are multiple posters who have already received thread bans for abuse, being uncivil, etc.

It's a large thread and is moving quite fast, help the mods by reporting posts you believe breach the charter and they'll be looked into

neonsofa

The person who wrote the original post could have done so anonymously but chose to do so under their own name and if I remember correctly she also requested feedback. That's exactly what happened. It was posted here and people gave feedback. Some of them may have been insulting and I would have been upset reading those kind of comments, but that is why I post anonymously and not under my real name. She chose otherwise. A thread could be started using a hypothetical person but we would all know it is not hypothetical and it is based on her story and that is due to the fact that she put it out there under her name. She is annoyed that if people commented on her site she would have control over which comments to delete, here she cannot do that. I understand her frustration but that is the nature of the Internet.

KERSPLAT!

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

If you have an issue with anything in the thread the first thing you should do is report the posts in question. There are multiple posters who have already received thread bans for abuse, being uncivil, etc.

It's a large thread and is moving quite fast, help the mods by reporting posts you believe breach the charter and they'll be looked into

I'm not talking about whether a particular thread's posts are breaking the rules as currently established, but whether the rules need tweaking to prevent a possible liability coming up in the future.

To the poster screaming irony, those other posters aren't here calling their posts angry rants, and you're not their representative.

I note other posts, but they drag the thread's subject matter in here, so beyond this paragraph I will not respond to them.

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not talking about whether a particular thread's posts are breaking the rules, but whether the rules need tweaking to prevent a possible liability coming up in the future.

I note other posts, but they drag the thread's subject matter in here, so beyond this paragraph I will not respond to them.

The person being discussed was the one who asked for a discussion, using her own name and her own experience.

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

The person being discussed was the one who asked for a discussion, using her own name and her own experience.

And you think the exact same thing wouldn't happen if she didn't ask for discussion? (which, by the way, was on her own site, not here. Not that I have an issue with it being here in the first place.)

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And you think the exact same thing wouldn't happen if she left that part blank?

What wouldnt happen? And left what part blank?

I genuinely don't understand what you're asking sorry.

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

What wouldnt happen? And left what part blank?

I genuinely don't understand what you're asking sorry.

Post edited while you were posting this. Apologies, should be clearer now.

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And you think the exact same thing wouldn't happen if she didn't ask for discussion? (which, by the way, was on her own site, not here. Not that I have an issue with it being here in the first place.)

Why would she have posted it online if she didn't want people reading it and discussing it? What was her reasoning for posting it online if not for people to read it and discuss it? She calls herself a social influencer (i dont know if thats the correct term its the first ive heard of it) doesn't she? Surely discussion is exactly what a social influencer encourages?

I know it was on her site, but she knows how the Internet works, links are shared.

dudara

In my personal opinion, there's a big different in discussing the topic, and discussing the person who raised the topic. It's an interesting topic, and I know I've thought a lot about it since I read the original blog post.

I know that the areas of the topic and the writer can be linked, but descending to making comments on the writer's appearance, mental state etc is just not cool (again, my personal opinion).

As always, please use the Report Post function to highlight posts that are crossing the boundaries of acceptability.

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

Why would she have posted it online if she didn't want people reading it and discussing it? What was her reasoning for posting it online if not for people to read it and discuss it? She calls herself a social influencer (i dont know if thats the correct term its the first ive heard of it) doesn't she? Surely discussion is exactly what a social influencer encourages?

I know it was on her site, but she knows how the Internet works, links are shared.

Again, you're are talking specifics here, when I'm going general. My point is- what happens when someone who posts a similar story, or something else that they find traumatic, gets taken apart and ridiculed like the above, and does something drastic and permanent through lack of support (not for the debated action, but counselling to cope with being dragged through the mud)? Should we not seek to head this off by filtering out the personal attacks/motive questioning & concentrating on the issue?

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, you're are talking specifics here, when I'm going general. My point is- what happens when someone who posts a similar story, or something else that they find traumatic, gets taken apart and ridiculed like the above, and does something drastic and permanent through lack of support (not for the debated action, but counselling to cope with being dragged through the mud)? Should we not seek to head this off by filtering out the personal attacks/motive questioning & concentrating on the issue?

But perhaps if the specifics weren't the case (her considering herself a social influencer and wanting discussion) people wouldn't feel the need to be so vocal, they would not feel that this person is actively trying to influence society which this person is claiming she does. If it had been an anonymous post people still would have discussed the case on its merits but there would be less personal insults (which were uncalled for imo). But the fact of the matter is she used her status as a social influencer on social media to raise this case for discussion and that is now the context in which the case was discussed.

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

But perhaps if the specifics weren't the case (her considering herself a social influencer and wanting discussion) people wouldn't feel the need to be so vocal, they would not feel that this person is actively trying to influence society which this person is claiming she does. If it had been an anonymous post people still would have discussed the case on its merits but there would be less personal insults (which were uncalled for imo). But the fact of the matter is she used her status as a social influencer on social media to raise this case for discussion and that is now the context in which the case was discussed.

Nothing to do with what I asked, unless you're pedalling the "she's a celeb & celebs are fair game." line. How do we draw the "celeb/non celeb" line? What about an ordinary girl who has no media ambitions who posts her experience to reach out to others, but gets set on here by her alleged rapist's best buddies, all posting anonymously? Is it all "fair game" then? What if these buddies start posting fake news posts "proving" she's in it for the fame? Will the character assassination be justified then? (Not claiming that anything like his has happened here or anywhere)

jameorahiely

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to do with what I asked, unless you're pedalling the "she's a celeb & celebs are fair game." line. How do we draw the "celeb/non celeb" line? What about an ordinary girl who has no media ambitions who posts her experience to reach out to others, but gets set on here by her alleged rapist's best buddies, all posting anonymously? Is it all "fair game" then? What if these buddies start posting fake news posts "proving" she's in it for the fame? Will the character assassination be justified then? (Not claiming that anything like his has happened here or anywhere)

How will the alleged rapists best buddies know the anonymous ordinary girl was the one their rapist buddy raped?

Also "fake news" wtf?

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing to do with what I asked, unless you're pedalling the "she's a celeb & celebs are fair game." line. How do we draw the "celeb/non celeb" line? What about an ordinary girl who has no media ambitions who posts her experience to reach out to others, but gets set on here by her alleged rapist's best buddies, all posting anonymously? Is it all "fair game" then? What if these buddies start posting fake news posts "proving" she's in it for the fame? Will the character assassination be justified then? (Not claiming that anything like his has happened here or anywhere)

If anybody posts their story online it is going to be discussed online. If they do so anonymously then it will be discussed in that context, if they do so under their real name then it will be done so in that context. Unfortunately if you use your name and your status to appeal to and influence society then yep those people are going to discuss you personally- rightly or wrongly. I am not saying they are right to do so but it happens and she is more aware of this than anybody. Sure she discussed conor mcgreggors character when he said something himself that she didn't agree with.

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

How will the alleged rapists best buddies know the anonymous ordinary girl was the one their rapist buddy raped?

Also "fake news" wtf?

Nothing to do with what I'm asking. In situation mentioned, trolls are anonymous, girl is not.

So, all you have to do to be a schleb is write something that people disagree with & put your name to it. [sarcasm] Of course every single one of them would never do such a thing without considering the entire world and how they would react, and every single one of them would never be vulnerable enough to take their own lives afterwards, would they? No, they're all schlebs, they all need to suck it up and take the flack, or shut the f*ck up and take the punishment.[/sarcasm]

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing to do with what I'm asking. In situation mentioned, trolls are anonymous, girl is not.

So, all you have to do to be a schleb is write something that people disagree with & put your name to it. [sarcasm] Of course every single one of them would never do such a thing without considering the entire world and how they would react, and every single one of them would never be vulnerable enough to take their own lives afterwards, would they? No, they're all schlebs, they all need to suck it up and take the flack, or shut the f*ck up and take the punishment.[/sarcasm]

If the negative feedback was on her blog would you have an issue?

jameorahiely

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to do with what I'm asking. In situation mentioned, trolls are anonymous, girl is not.

So, all you have to do to be a schleb is write something that people disagree with & put your name to it. [sarcasm] Of course every single one of them would never do such a thing without considering the entire world and how they would react, and every single one of them would never be vulnerable enough to take their own lives afterwards, would they? No, they're all schlebs, they all need to suck it up and take the flack, or shut the f*ck up and take the punishment.[/sarcasm]

This is the second time you've mentioned sucicide in this thread. Why?


If bloggers don't get an echo chamber of agreement, they'll be sucicidal,? Really?

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

If the negative feedback was on her blog would you have an issue?

No. That would be outside the remit of boards.ie and boards would have no liability in the case

jameorahiely wrote: »

This is the second time you've mentioned sucicide in this thread. Why?


If bloggers don't get an echo chamber of agreement, they'll be sucicidal,? Really?

I mention it because it is the worst case scenario, from which there is no current defence bar moderator's cop on. There is no way to know beforehand which person will be pushed beyond reason, so you have to act as if they all potentially could. If we're going to go to extremes, I do think someone harming themselves is a far worse case scenario than posting in an echo chamber, no? (I don't want echo chambers myself, but play the ball, not the player.)

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. That would be outside the remit of boards.ie and boards would have no liability in the case

Well obviously boards would not be liable, I am asking if you would have an issue with people giving negative feedback?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I mention it because it is the worst case scenario, from which there is no current defence bar moderator's cop on. There is no way to know beforehand which person will be pushed beyond reason, so you have to act as if they all potentially could. If we're going to go to extremes, I do think someone harming themselves is a far worse case scenario than posting in an echo chamber, no? (I don't want echo chambers myself, but play the ball, not the player.)

There was no way for the blogger to know that this man she discussed would not be harmed by someone who put 2 and 2 together (she gave a lot of identifiable information). She had no way to know that he wouldn't be pushed beyond reason as you say after reading that she considered it rape when she states herself that she doesn't think he viewed it as rape. So maybe she should have acted as if he potentially could be pushed beyond reason, and not have made him so identifiable on her public blog.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I mention it because it is the worst case scenario, from which there is no current defence bar moderator's cop on.

I'm getting the impression you mention it more to engender a visceral reaction. And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm also getting the impression you want the thread closed regardless. You've not exactly been backward in coming forward re your anger about it, both here and on thread. And now the self harm angle?

There is no way to know beforehand which person will be pushed beyond reason, so you have to act as if they all potentially could.

There is also no way to know beforehand if even the most innocent comment could have someone "pushed beyond reason". May as well stop discussing anything topical then and whole forums like PI should be closed. Just in case. Not.

If we're going to go to extremes,

By flagging up a speculative suicide risk, you're the one going to extremes to back your position.

I do think someone harming themselves is a far worse case scenario than posting in an echo chamber, no?

Really? You don't say. Has little bearing on the matter though.

(I don't want echo chambers myself, but play the ball, not the player.)

And if someone plays the player then report them and no doubt they'll be taken to task(as a few already have been in that thread).

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm getting the impression you mention it more to engender a visceral reaction. And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm also getting the impression you want the thread closed regardless.

Wibbs, you are wrong. I stated, clearly, that I'm talking about people posting about the rights & wrongs of the issue, not the person who posted the issue, and asking if we need to push for people to act decently to each other, given both the risk of vulnerable people taking the criticism to mean they should harm themselves, and the risk abuse of the system by people who want to abuse & silence vulnerable people. This is a wider & bigger question than the current AH thread.

To be fair, I read you make the same point on the thread.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes some are. However people getting a dig in about what she says is different to getting a dig in about her. This is all too common a confusion I have found(and/or a way to shut down debate). Just because I might think your opinion is daft, it does not follow I assume you are. Like the Boards rule goes; attack the post, not the poster.

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

There was no way for the blogger to know that this man she discussed would not be harmed by someone who put 2 and 2 together (she gave a lot of identifiable information). She had no way to know that he wouldn't be pushed beyond reason as you say after reading that she considered it rape when she states herself that she doesn't think he viewed it as rape. So maybe she should have acted as if he potentially could be pushed beyond reason, and not have made him so identifiable on her public blog.

What has what she posted on her own blog got to do with the modding practices of boards.ie?

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What has what she posted on her own blog got to do with the modding practices of boards.ie?

Nothing I suppose, you're right- just highlighting the hypocrisy, carry on.

Honestly.. this person is a public figure - from what I can gather, they have a reasonably successful blog. In this way, they are no different from anybody else that would be in the public eye. Should we ban boards from saying, "oh, Donald Trump is a fool", "I hate Beyonce's music, she's awful", etc.? No, obviously not. You mention suicide.. if this is a real view and a worst case scenario, as you stated, then surely this means that we should stop all negative commentary about anything.

Let's also be real here - this person posted this article to get likes/shares/discussion/clicks to their site - nothing more, nothing less. People are entitled to their opinions of a person and a situation.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honestly.. this person is a public figure ...

...and it's open season, case closed, everything to be questioned if they are, as I read your attitude as. I just wonder where the line is? What criteria do we call a "public figure", and what do we ease off for? And why does the wider issue have to get bogged down in second-guessing the person instead of the issue.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's also be real here - this person posted this article to get likes/shares/discussion/clicks to their site - nothing more, nothing less. People are entitled to their opinions of a person and a situation.

That's not "being real", that's drawing a conclusion. Might be right or wrong, but it doesn't matter in any of this. Doesn't matter if it's her or Katie Hopkins or anyone else. Whatever guidelines/rules/whatever governs what gets posted or not, have to hold whether the subject is posting in earnest or fishing for attention. On most things you can call out what you call BS, but when it gets to personal things such as sex, appearance, family members or other speculation, there's a risk of abuse which needs to be watched, and a reputation on boards.ie to hold on to. The more the conversation goes to the person, the higher the risk some randomer will post something the mods miss, the person doesn't, and boards gets left liable for something it never intended.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

...and it's open season, case closed, everything to be questioned if they are, as I read your attitude as. I just wonder where the line is? What criteria do we call a "public figure", and what do we ease off for? And why does the wider issue have to get bogged down in second-guessing the person instead of the issue.



That's not "being real", that's drawing a conclusion. Might be right or wrong, but it doesn't matter in any of this. Doesn't matter if it's her or Katie Hopkins or anyone else. Whatever guidelines/rules/whatever governs what gets posted or not, have to hold whether the subject is posting in earnest or fishing for attention. On most things you can call out what you call BS, but when it gets to personal things such as sex, appearance, family members or other speculation, there's a risk of abuse which needs to be watched, and a reputation on boards.ie to hold on to. The more the conversation goes to the person, the higher the risk some randomer will post something the mods miss, the person doesn't, and boards gets left liable for something it never intended.

Only Katie Hopkins is an actual parasite and professional troll.