• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

Wayward DP said:
yeah if I'm being honest I don't actually object to too much in this post.

I get what you're saying and empathize with some of it. but I think the nuance and detail in this post helps avoid simply being accused of victim blaming. which you might anyways. and if so I guess I'm kind of a bit of a victim blamer too, to an extent.

I think where you get in trouble is when you leave the impression that you blame the partially responsible party more than the at fault one, which is an inference that could easily be drawn from your original post on the topic.
Click to expand...
Well, quite frankly, the bad guy in the article turned out to not be very interesting at all. He was, in the end, just a malevolent piece of shit living in his mom's basement acting out his juvenile revenge fantasies. He was so pathetic as to be almost beneath contempt. I'm fine with knowing he got punished and outed for his malicious actions. But what made the article fascinating and engaging was how it made the reader want to scream at the victims "What were you thinking!?!?"
 
Neurospasm said:
Good post. I was actually going to post something like this to your post. I had a buddy of mine go wandering around by himself in Barcelona pretty late at night when he got into a shady situation. Afterwards he was “oh whoa is me” when we were all informed that getting into that scenario is a bad idea for a foreigner in the first place.

Of course it’d be great if nothing would ever happen but this is not the world we live in.
Click to expand...
You actually think the woman in the Mailloux scenario deserves to be shit on? Wasn’t a video filmed during a sex act without her knowledge and shared?
 
hockeylover said:
You actually think the woman in the Mailloux scenario deserves to be shit on? Wasn’t a video filmed during a sex act without her knowledge and shared?
Click to expand...
No I don’t. There can be more than one person in the wrong at different levels is all I’m saying. Most often in these scenarios people are black or white on their opinions when a little bit of grey skepticism is warranted.
 
And I think y'all are over complicating this whole bit about fault being on a gradient.

The simple question is who caused harm. If someone was doing something harmless and them harm was brought to them by someone else, we can all put our heads together and ruminate about what said harmless person should have been doing to mitigate their risks, but the responsibility (or fault...literally the same thing, wehave out here finding distinctions with no difference ffs) for the harm caused is with the person who dealt it.
 
MindzEye said:
And I think y'all are over complicating this whole bit about fault being on a gradient.

The simple question is who caused harm. If someone was doing something harmless and them harm was brought to them by someone else, we can all put our heads together and ruminate about what said harmless person should have been doing to mitigate their risks, but the responsibility (or fault...literally the same thing, wehave out here finding distinctions with no difference ffs) for the harm caused is with the person who dealt it.
Click to expand...
I just don’t fully agree on this. Of course the person causing harm is the main problem. That part is quite obviously true. If as a harmless person you know that you are putting yourself in a high risk scenario then you have also put yourself in a scenario to be partially at fault. The key thing for me is if you know the dangers and still go ahead with something.
 
Neurospasm said:
I just don’t fully agree on this. Of course the person causing harm is the main problem. That part is quite obviously true. If as a harmless person you know that you are putting yourself in a high risk scenario then you have also put yourself in a scenario to be partially at fault. The key thing for me is if you know the dangers and still go ahead with something.
Click to expand...

The only reason said scenario is deemed high risk is because of the person willing to commit harm.

People in general are terrible at assessing risk. The idea that we can calculate our risk accurately in a situation to situation basis is just wrong. This whole line of thought works backwards from after something has happened. You can walk through a bad neighborhood every night at midnight for a year and have nothing happen , then on the 366th time get stabbed to death. Did you have a .3% chance of getting stabbed to death every time? a 5% chance and you got lucky? Or a .00001% chance and got comically unlucky.

This is all largely biased judgemental bullshit that we tell ourselves as to why that would never happen to us, because we're smart and other people are dumb.
 
hockeylover said:
You actually think the woman in the Mailloux scenario deserves to be shit on? Wasn’t a video filmed during a sex act without her knowledge and shared?
Click to expand...
Yes, because that's what can happen when you exercise piss-poor judgement and decide to hop into bed with a guy you barely know. Quite frankly, being filmed was one of the lesser bad things that could have happened to her in that situation, a situation she voluntarily put herself into by making the original bad decision to sleep with Mailloux in the first place. I'm sure that woman who just reached an out of court settlement with Hockey Canada over being gang-raped by a bunch of players could tell this chick a thing or two about just how much worse things can get in such situations. She didn't know Mailloux very well, and to him she meant nothing, which is why he thought nothing of sharing the video with his buddies. To him, she was just a random puck bunny, a piece of ass, like the multitude of young women who can always be found waiting outside the players' dressing room in every arena. And, judging by her actions that night, what else should Mailloux have thought about her?

So if I'm this girl's father, sure I want Mailloux prosecuted for what he did, because what he did was illegal, but my daughter sure as shit isn't getting a free pass. There's legal responsibility and then there's actual responsibility and on the latter score, this girl has things to answer for as well as Mailloux. You can't control what other people do but you can control what you do. She did not exercise control and she got burned. Even if Mailloux had done nothing illegal, if his phone was turned off, this girl could have woke up the next day with a dose of the clap. Would that too be all Mailloux's fault? Random hookups, whether they include acts which are illegal or not, are risky, full stop. People who engage in them must be prepared to own their part in them because they do not occur in a vacuum. It takes two to tango, as the old saying goes.
 
MindzEye said:
And I think y'all are over complicating this whole bit about fault being on a gradient.

The simple question is who caused harm. If someone was doing something harmless and them harm was brought to them by someone else, we can all put our heads together and ruminate about what said harmless person should have been doing to mitigate their risks, but the responsibility (or fault...literally the same thing, wehave out here finding distinctions with no difference ffs) for the harm caused is with the person who dealt it.
Click to expand...
There is a world of difference between legal responsibility and personal responsibility. Mailloux failed on both counts but the woman in question failed on the latter. Your chances of suffering harm are greatly reduced when you don't put yourself into harm's way. She hopped into the sack with a guy she barely knew and bad things happened. The takeaway for her going forward should be "Don't go to bed with random guys you barely know." She can't control what Mailloux does but she can control what she does. Ergo, she bears some measure of responsibility, if not legal than at least personal. But she is not blameless.
 
MindzEye said:
The only reason said scenario is deemed high risk is because of the person willing to commit harm.

People in general are terrible at assessing risk. The idea that we can calculate our risk accurately in a situation to situation basis is just wrong. This whole line of thought works backwards from after something has happened. You can walk through a bad neighborhood every night at midnight for a year and have nothing happen , then on the 366th time get stabbed to death. Did you have a .3% chance of getting stabbed to death every time? a 5% chance and you got lucky? Or a .00001% chance and got comically unlucky.

This is all largely biased judgemental bullshit that we tell ourselves as to why that would never happen to us, because we're smart and other people are dumb.
Click to expand...
You only have to be dumb once to suffer. It's the luck of the draw. Some people do stupid shit on the regular and get away with it, others step out of line just once and get owned. But in the example you put forth about walking through a bad neighborhood I would say that the person in question is being stupid each and every time they take that walk, whether something happens to them or not. If you insist on playing with fire, don't cry when you get burned. And just because people have trouble assessing risk doesn't obviate them from their responsibility to themselves.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Yes, because that's what can happen when you exercise piss-poor judgement and decide to hop into bed with a guy you barely know. Quite frankly, being filmed was one of the lesser bad things that could have happened to her in that situation, a situation she voluntarily put herself into by making the original bad decision to sleep with Mailloux in the first place. I'm sure that woman who just reached an out of court settlement with Hockey Canada over being gang-raped by a bunch of players could tell this chick a thing or two about just how much worse things can get in such situations. She didn't know Mailloux very well, and to him she meant nothing, which is why he thought nothing of sharing the video with his buddies. To him, she was just a random puck bunny, a piece of ass, like the multitude of young women who can always be found waiting outside the players' dressing room in every arena. And, judging by her actions that night, what else should Mailloux have thought about her?

So if I'm this girl's father, sure I want Mailloux prosecuted for what he did, because what he did was illegal, but my daughter sure as shit isn't getting a free pass. There's legal responsibility and then there's actual responsibility and on the latter score, this girl has things to answer for as well as Mailloux. You can't control what other people do but you can control what you do. She did not exercise control and she got burned. Even if Mailloux had done nothing illegal, if his phone was turned off, this girl could have woke up the next day with a dose of the clap. Would that too be all Mailloux's fault? Random hookups, whether they include acts which are illegal or not, are risky, full stop. People who engage in them must be prepared to own their part in them because they do not occur in a vacuum. It takes two to tango, as the old saying goes.
Click to expand...
Ya having sex filmed and distributed without permission is comparable to getting an STD during consensual sex.

I can't even begin to unpack the rest of this. You seriously have the worst fucking takes on everything.
 
MindzEye said:
And I think y'all are over complicating this whole bit about fault being on a gradient.

The simple question is who caused harm. If someone was doing something harmless and them harm was brought to them by someone else, we can all put our heads together and ruminate about what said harmless person should have been doing to mitigate their risks, but the responsibility (or fault...literally the same thing, wehave out here finding distinctions with no difference ffs) for the harm caused is with the person who dealt it.
Click to expand...
I mean we can use whatever semantics or distinctions we want, but for me the gist of it is basically, yes, the wrongdoer is at fault and deserves blame and responsibility. that doesn't mean that the victim behaved perfectly or could not have acted differently to mitigate their losses.

and mitigation very much matters and is a legitimate and accepted concept in the world I work in at least.

and for clarity - failure to mitigate =/= fault. but ignoring it doesn't necessarily do anyone any good. I mean it has to still be okay to point this out somehow or another. obviously it can be done tastefully and glibly and I do think it is a delicate balance.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Yes, because that's what can happen when you exercise piss-poor judgement and decide to hop into bed with a guy you barely know. Quite frankly, being filmed was one of the lesser bad things that could have happened to her in that situation, a situation she voluntarily put herself into by making the original bad decision to sleep with Mailloux in the first place. I'm sure that woman who just reached an out of court settlement with Hockey Canada over being gang-raped by a bunch of players could tell this chick a thing or two about just how much worse things can get in such situations. She didn't know Mailloux very well, and to him she meant nothing, which is why he thought nothing of sharing the video with his buddies. To him, she was just a random puck bunny, a piece of ass, like the multitude of young women who can always be found waiting outside the players' dressing room in every arena. And, judging by her actions that night, what else should Mailloux have thought about her?

So if I'm this girl's father, sure I want Mailloux prosecuted for what he did, because what he did was illegal, but my daughter sure as shit isn't getting a free pass. There's legal responsibility and then there's actual responsibility and on the latter score, this girl has things to answer for as well as Mailloux. You can't control what other people do but you can control what you do. She did not exercise control and she got burned. Even if Mailloux had done nothing illegal, if his phone was turned off, this girl could have woke up the next day with a dose of the clap. Would that too be all Mailloux's fault? Random hookups, whether they include acts which are illegal or not, are risky, full stop. People who engage in them must be prepared to own their part in them because they do not occur in a vacuum. It takes two to tango, as the old saying goes.
Click to expand...
this part of your argument/reasoning - I do not endorse. just so the record is clear.

women can sleep with whomever the hell they want. and if that person happens to film them without their consent, the person filming them is an asshole and likely criminal.
 
Wayward DP said:
this part of your argument/reasoning - I do not endorse. just so the record is clear.

women can sleep with whomever the hell they want. and if that person happens to film them without their consent, the person filming them is an asshole and likely criminal.
Click to expand...
No argument from me. Filming without consent is illegal and should be prosecuted. And yes the woman is free to do what she wants. But she, like anyone else, must accept that actions carry consequences and sometimes those consequences, while unintended, can be bad. At the end of the day, the only woman who got filmed giving Mailloux a blowie was the woman who chose to hop into bed with him and give him that blowie. Had she just gone home, nothing would have happened to her. Again, nothing she did was illegal, but was it smart and/or safe? I don't think it was.
 
Wayward DP said:
I mean we can use whatever semantics or distinctions we want, but for me the gist of it is basically, yes, the wrongdoer is at fault and deserves blame and responsibility. that doesn't mean that the victim behaved perfectly or could not have acted differently to mitigate their losses.

and mitigation very much matters and is a legitimate and accepted concept in the world I work in at least.

and for clarity - failure to mitigate =/= fault. but ignoring it doesn't necessarily do anyone any good. I mean it has to still be okay to point this out somehow or another. obviously it can be done tastefully and glibly and I do think it is a delicate balance.
Click to expand...
And just to be clear, no amount of mitigation in this particular case absolves Mailloux of even one scintilla of legal and criminal responsibility. The woman is still the victim here. But let's not go overboard and say that she is an innocent victim. She wasn't kidnapped and held against her will. She voluntarily entered into a situation fraught with all sorts of risks; risks that she should have considered before getting into bed with a stranger.
 
WellPlayed said:
Ya having sex filmed and distributed without permission is comparable to getting an STD during consensual sex.

I can't even begin to unpack the rest of this. You seriously have the worst fucking takes on everything.
Click to expand...
It is comparable. In both cases her poor judgement leads to an unintended consequence. Had she made a better choice (i.e. not hopping into bed with a complete stranger) she wakes up the next morning in her own bed, secure in the knowledge that she does not have an STI nor is there a video of her performing fellatio on the internet.

She didn't consent to the distribution of the video which is why Mailloux was charged. But she was aware that she was being filmed so she consented to that much, which was colossally stupid on her part (because again, she barely knew the guy) It is no different than consenting to sex with a complete stranger and then not asking him to wear a rubber. If she wakes up the next day and it burns when she pees, at least some of the blame is on her for being careless.

All I'm asking for is for everyone to own their own bullshit. You choose to go to bed with someone you barely know? That's your shit to own. You allow him to film you, even if he says he won't share it? Again, your shit to own. Don't ask him to glove up and you catch a dose? Yep, that's your shit too. It's not 100% on you, but you played a role and you need to own your part of it. She may be an innocent victim as far as the law goes, but she is not, in reality, an innocent victim. She was to some degree an architect of her own misfortune and what has bothered me from the first report of this incident is that people want to portray her like she's some poor waif who bears no personal responsibility while he gets painted as though he's some sort of rapist. That's bullshit and I won't abide it. She was of sound mind and she made choices. Bad choices. Now she has to accept the consequences of her bad choices and, if she actually learns anything, make better choices the next time. But she will never be blameless in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top