• Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it’s gone on the less I understand.

              So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?

              I can’t say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you’re saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you’re wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn’t were you wearing trousers?

              • 7heo@lemmy.mlOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men

                That’s simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.

                therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable

                She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It’s not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.

                when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?

                What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.

                I would be the first to want to put Linus’s ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you’re causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.

                could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men

                Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most “usual” attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that’s not an “incel” thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about “best effort”, and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are “women only” or “men only”, etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It’s always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of “am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?”.

                And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That’s why we’re literally currently devolving. It’s a race to who is going to trigger the “other side” the hardest. It’s easy for algorithms to manage, so that’s what surfaced over the last decades, but it’s absolutely unhealthy. And it won’t end well.

    • yt_deliveries@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      | part of the law.

      We’re not in a court of law here. Even then, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and that only applies to criminal matters. With civil matters the standard is “the preponderance of evidence.”

      Outside of court proceedings, the standard is completely arbitrary and has been since, well, forever.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes but the same is true in all of it, innocent until proven guilty is a legal thing not a social thing because it rests on the fact that the case is being tried - if I called you a smelly snail then you went to your mom and said I called you a smelly snail you wouldn’t expect her to say ‘well we have to act like he didn’t until it’s been tried in a court of law…’

          • 7heo@lemmy.mlOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thanks for making me laugh :) (I didn’t laugh at you, the snail example was pretty funny).

            Yes, the innocent until proven guilty is a matter of legal affairs.

            Yes, the public opinion isn’t bound to such limitations. But that is only because the public opinion isn’t supposed to have executive power.

            Arguably, the Internet changed that. The public opinion now does have at least some executive power: before the internet, it was practically impossible for anyone to organize a coherent retaliation towards any entity; and that responsibility was entirely left to the official, governmental executive power.

            Since social media enabled emergent social organization, coherent retaliation is absolutely possible, and is something the American “left” has been doing for a decade with the concept of “cancelling” people.

            Now, as I posted elsewhere, the algorithms in place online are shaping the discourse, and aren’t shaping it in a way that aims at social improvement, but at engagement maximization. Which, you know, anger and hate are the easiest and fastest route to.

            The consequence of this is that the American “right” has duly noted what the “left” has been doing, learned from their concept, learned the tools, and is now apparently preparing their own version of “cancelling” people, which presumably involves the second amendment.

            It is probably too late to remind everyone that “innocent until proven guilty” shall apply to any and all parties with executive power, however emergent; but I still think it’s an important fact to highlight.

            In case we can salvage anything from what our ancestors gave their blood and sweat for, and learn how to resolve conflict instead of giving in, having a major crisis; only after which we will begin pondering what need(ed) to be done.

    • JGrffn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do think the Naomi Wu thing was mostly a misunderstanding taken to extremes due to fanbases toxicity (doubt she would’ve outright said Linus wanted her to suck his dick if the stans hadn’t started harassing her, she basically jumped to all out offensiveness out of spite). This, however? Even if she was also being toxic in the workplace, it just means management had been so horrible that toxic behaviors developed with ease and would just spin out of control. This all sounds like they could just not adapt to becoming more corporate oriented fast enough, and the fact that Linus just recently stepped down as CEO is clear proof of this. He should’ve done that years ago.