Good to know Microsoft has no qualms with hiring someone being accused of raping their own sister..
Capitalism - no morals, only profit!
Was he convicted? Accusations are free to make
They are, yet less than 2% of accusations are actually false, so piss off with the "only accusations" bullshit as if it isn't at least a massive red banner of a flag.
That’s an interesting stat - where are you getting that from?
Different sources claim different numbers, but the rate is considered by most sources to be low.
While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.
That means the government shouldn't just start throwing everyone in jail at the first accusation. That doesn't mean the public can't or shouldn't act on the information.
The information that nobody has proven in a court of law? That's for barbarians
You do realize that people also have the right of free association? The government needs to meet a very high standard before it can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Members of the public may refuse to do business with a person, or socially ostracize them, based on whatever information they have available.
Sure but then don't pretend there is anything righteous about it, it's just rumours until proven.
That's referring to guilt in a court of law. Altman definitely did it
Regarding the alleged rape, in short: The sexual acts are not even explicitly stated and allegedly occurred when she was young enough to barely be able to remember or understand anything, she went decades without saying a word to anyone about it. Then they have a dispute over an inheritance, and a couple of years later when he becomes famous she publicly accuses him, without providing evidence or reporting him to the courts.
I have not read her accusations but I don't think your criticism is really valid.
You can't publicly accuse someone if neither of you is a public figure. It just doesn't work that way. You need a platform that comes after at least one of the parties is famous.
Also, testimony from the victim is evidence. In the case of old sexual assault cases, it's quite often the only evidence. But if all you have is fuzzy memories from decades ago, you know that's not going to get you anywhere in court so why would you even attempt a legal claim?
The fact that an ostensible child sexual assault victim does not have additional evidence, or does not file a police report or civil suit, shouldn't be used to discount their claims.
...? In my comment I literally said that she did it when he became famous.
The testimony of the accusers is not evidence, it can be evidence. To be so, it must be supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence to convince the courts.
It is true that reporting old cases is difficult, but it is often done successfully, and is the only way to obtain true justice. That someone is willing to go through the pain of public exposure but won't even try it in court doesn't prove anything, but it is very suspicious.
Especially if doing so publicly not only fails to state evidence or claim to have evidence, but doesn't even make the accusations explicit; it looks like an attempt to avoid being sued.
It is not that I wish to discredit her pseudo-statements, but it is important that people understand how little there is, because every time his name appears on the internet there is a tough campaign of harassment by people who just parrot it.
Good to know Microsoft has no qualms with hiring someone being accused of raping their own sister..
Capitalism - no morals, only profit!
Was he convicted? Accusations are free to make
They are, yet less than 2% of accusations are actually false, so piss off with the "only accusations" bullshit as if it isn't at least a massive red banner of a flag.
That’s an interesting stat - where are you getting that from?
Different sources claim different numbers, but the rate is considered by most sources to be low.
https://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049
Thank you
Their arse.
4chan
my source is that I made it the fck up
So he wasn't convicted.
Innocent until proven guilty bud.
That means the government shouldn't just start throwing everyone in jail at the first accusation. That doesn't mean the public can't or shouldn't act on the information.
The information that nobody has proven in a court of law? That's for barbarians
You do realize that people also have the right of free association? The government needs to meet a very high standard before it can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Members of the public may refuse to do business with a person, or socially ostracize them, based on whatever information they have available.
Sure but then don't pretend there is anything righteous about it, it's just rumours until proven.
That's referring to guilt in a court of law. Altman definitely did it
proof?
This isn’t Reddit. We need receipts
could you elaborate on that?
Regarding the alleged rape, in short: The sexual acts are not even explicitly stated and allegedly occurred when she was young enough to barely be able to remember or understand anything, she went decades without saying a word to anyone about it. Then they have a dispute over an inheritance, and a couple of years later when he becomes famous she publicly accuses him, without providing evidence or reporting him to the courts.
I have not read her accusations but I don't think your criticism is really valid.
You can't publicly accuse someone if neither of you is a public figure. It just doesn't work that way. You need a platform that comes after at least one of the parties is famous.
Also, testimony from the victim is evidence. In the case of old sexual assault cases, it's quite often the only evidence. But if all you have is fuzzy memories from decades ago, you know that's not going to get you anywhere in court so why would you even attempt a legal claim?
The fact that an ostensible child sexual assault victim does not have additional evidence, or does not file a police report or civil suit, shouldn't be used to discount their claims.
...? In my comment I literally said that she did it when he became famous.
The testimony of the accusers is not evidence, it can be evidence. To be so, it must be supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence to convince the courts.
It is true that reporting old cases is difficult, but it is often done successfully, and is the only way to obtain true justice. That someone is willing to go through the pain of public exposure but won't even try it in court doesn't prove anything, but it is very suspicious.
Especially if doing so publicly not only fails to state evidence or claim to have evidence, but doesn't even make the accusations explicit; it looks like an attempt to avoid being sued.
It is not that I wish to discredit her pseudo-statements, but it is important that people understand how little there is, because every time his name appears on the internet there is a tough campaign of harassment by people who just parrot it.
You could just as easily look it up yourself, and I hate to link xitter, but here's her post:
https://twitter.com/xriskology/status/1710008424178581553?lang=en-GB
thanks
When you don't have the means to innovate, this sort of thing is what you do.