I hope I don't out myself as shallow here, I've been a fan of Extra Credits pretty much since they started on Escapist. I knew, of course, that James Portnow was the writer / lead researcher for the show, which back then was narrated by Dan Floyd.
I remember back in the day that I would often end up skipping episodes that featured live-action James, as those videos always made me feel uncomfortable. James has a wispy, vaguely cloying, maybe even smug delivery that grated on me.
Again, I hate to sound like I'm self-congratulatingly saying "ha! I knew it!" but I can't help but feel a weird, selfish sense of vindication when I find out someone who strikes me as weird and creepy turns out to actually be a creep.
I hope I don't out myself as shallow here, I've been a fan of Extra Credits pretty much since they started on Escapist. I knew, of course, that James Portnow was the writer / lead researcher for the show, which back then was narrated by Dan Floyd.
I remember back in the day that I would often end up skipping episodes that featured live-action James, as those videos always made me feel uncomfortable. James has a wispy, vaguely cloying, maybe even smug delivery that grated on me.
Again, I hate to sound like I'm self-congratulatingly saying "ha! I knew it!" but I can't help but feel a weird, selfish sense of vindication when I find out someone who strikes me as weird and creepy turns out to actually be a creep.
He had very clear signs of narcissism. Not terribly uncommon with abusers.
+5
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The threat that men will fall apart or harm themselves if women refuse to put up with their behavior is an age-old, tried-and-true tactic of control, and it plays on issues of identity that run hot and deep. Women are raised to put men’s interests before their own. Women are supposed to protect men from the consequences of their actions. Even if it means staying in an abusive relationship, or accepting social ostracism and shame, women are expected to suffer so that men can grow. Most women and queer people have been raised to treat men’s emotions with respect and deference, even at the cost of their own happiness, because most of us have been raised with the understanding that when men get upset, bad things happen. Men, too, even decent and nonsexist men, have grown up with this understanding—that male suffering simply matters more, or why else would we treat it as a public concern?
It's a real good article.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The threat that men will fall apart or harm themselves if women refuse to put up with their behavior is an age-old, tried-and-true tactic of control, and it plays on issues of identity that run hot and deep. Women are raised to put men’s interests before their own. Women are supposed to protect men from the consequences of their actions. Even if it means staying in an abusive relationship, or accepting social ostracism and shame, women are expected to suffer so that men can grow. Most women and queer people have been raised to treat men’s emotions with respect and deference, even at the cost of their own happiness, because most of us have been raised with the understanding that when men get upset, bad things happen. Men, too, even decent and nonsexist men, have grown up with this understanding—that male suffering simply matters more, or why else would we treat it as a public concern?
It's a real good article.
It is a good article, but it doesn't mention a detail. When it says:
Most women and queer people have been raised to treat men’s emotions with respect and deference, even at the cost of their own happiness, because most of us have been raised with the understanding that when men get upset, bad things happen.
Is skipping the why: Men are more willing to resort to violence to obtain their goals. So is not only the current abuse, is the fear of future abuse being even worse. There's a school of thought that says: "Well, then women should be taught how to kill rapists with guns", and while that sounds more effective than trying to make sociopaths care that their actions are bad, there has to be another argument.
Link goes to a post on the KoL subreddit about it, with further links to a google doc and twitter by the abuse survivor. This one def hits close to home - i thoroughly enjoyed and donated repeatedly to kingdom of loathing for a good while. But yeah, the rot goes deep at that company. Thankfully, the community seems to be firmly on the survivor's side, so that's... something.
Link goes to a post on the KoL subreddit about it, with further links to a google doc and twitter by the abuse survivor. This one def hits close to home - i thoroughly enjoyed and donated repeatedly to kingdom of loathing for a good while. But yeah, the rot goes deep at that company. Thankfully, the community seems to be firmly on the survivor's side, so that's... something.
...just... there's no way I can support this company any more. I played KoL for fucking years, always meant to get back to West of Loathing, and now there's no way I could ever go back to the site knowing what I know about the creators.
I loved the content, thought it was a great community, but when I read through all of the stuff, just... I'm sickened that I devoted all that time to something like this. And some of those stories just make me cringe so fucking hard. Fuck Randy, fuck Jick, fuck Skullhead, fuck Asymmetric. When the tree is rotten, you don't keep trying to treat it, you cut it down and burn it. Between knowing what happened, the getting minors drunk at the con, the gallery of ass-pics of members Skullhead ran that I'm not going near anywhere near because there might be teens in it, the fact that Skullhead sent out rare in-game items for pictures of a lewd or sexual nature from girls and women, the fact Jick turned a blind eye to what was going on to keep things calm...
I always told people this was a game that was just... it was fun, it was safe, you didn't need handfuls of $$$ just to go play- you just needed to use your head or just go have fucking fun, and the community was one of the best parts.
Fuck them and anybody else who still thinks they're worth defending. I believe her.
KoL was my first fucking MMO, ever. I'm never going back.
Link goes to a post on the KoL subreddit about it, with further links to a google doc and twitter by the abuse survivor. This one def hits close to home - i thoroughly enjoyed and donated repeatedly to kingdom of loathing for a good while. But yeah, the rot goes deep at that company. Thankfully, the community seems to be firmly on the survivor's side, so that's... something.
...just... there's no way I can support this company any more. I played KoL for fucking years, always meant to get back to West of Loathing, and now there's no way I could ever go back to the site knowing what I know about the creators.
I loved the content, thought it was a great community, but when I read through all of the stuff, just... I'm sickened that I devoted all that time to something like this. And some of those stories just make me cringe so fucking hard. Fuck Randy, fuck Jick, fuck Skullhead, fuck Asymmetric. When the tree is rotten, you don't keep trying to treat it, you cut it down and burn it. Between knowing what happened, the getting minors drunk at the con, the gallery of ass-pics of members Skullhead ran that I'm not going near anywhere near because there might be teens in it, the fact that Skullhead sent out rare in-game items for pictures of a lewd or sexual nature from girls and women, the fact Jick turned a blind eye to what was going on to keep things calm...
I always told people this was a game that was just... it was fun, it was safe, you didn't need handfuls of $$$ just to go play- you just needed to use your head or just go have fucking fun, and the community was one of the best parts.
Fuck them and anybody else who still thinks they're worth defending. I believe her.
KoL was my first fucking MMO, ever. I'm never going back.
Basically where i'm at - I'd stopped playing a while ago, but kept up donating because hells, i'd gotten hours of laughs and fun out of it, the community had been solid, and i enjoyed it's mechincal goodness. And now... Yeah. Fuck them. Fuck their bullshit, fuck the fact we're getting non-apologies and asscovering. And fuck the fact they've hurt so many people.
Well, I’m disgusted. Phoenix’s account of everything is a chronicle of a descent into Hell. I can’t even put into words how angry I am. I wish I had never donated one cent to KoL and I hope Phoenix can find some peace someday. I am aghast.
The threat that men will fall apart or harm themselves if women refuse to put up with their behavior is an age-old, tried-and-true tactic of control, and it plays on issues of identity that run hot and deep. Women are raised to put men’s interests before their own. Women are supposed to protect men from the consequences of their actions. Even if it means staying in an abusive relationship, or accepting social ostracism and shame, women are expected to suffer so that men can grow. Most women and queer people have been raised to treat men’s emotions with respect and deference, even at the cost of their own happiness, because most of us have been raised with the understanding that when men get upset, bad things happen. Men, too, even decent and nonsexist men, have grown up with this understanding—that male suffering simply matters more, or why else would we treat it as a public concern?
It's a real good article.
It is a good article, but it doesn't mention a detail. When it says:
Most women and queer people have been raised to treat men’s emotions with respect and deference, even at the cost of their own happiness, because most of us have been raised with the understanding that when men get upset, bad things happen.
Is skipping the why: Men are more willing to resort to violence to obtain their goals. So is not only the current abuse, is the fear of future abuse being even worse. There's a school of thought that says: "Well, then women should be taught how to kill rapists with guns", and while that sounds more effective than trying to make sociopaths care that their actions are bad, there has to be another argument.
It's not that men are willing to resort to violence, but that society is willing to excuse their doing so. That's the core problem - we excuse abusive behavior instead of holding abusers accountable, and abusers know this. They know that people will avoid "drama" rather than actually deal with these issues.
The threat that men will fall apart or harm themselves if women refuse to put up with their behavior is an age-old, tried-and-true tactic of control, and it plays on issues of identity that run hot and deep. Women are raised to put men’s interests before their own. Women are supposed to protect men from the consequences of their actions. Even if it means staying in an abusive relationship, or accepting social ostracism and shame, women are expected to suffer so that men can grow. Most women and queer people have been raised to treat men’s emotions with respect and deference, even at the cost of their own happiness, because most of us have been raised with the understanding that when men get upset, bad things happen. Men, too, even decent and nonsexist men, have grown up with this understanding—that male suffering simply matters more, or why else would we treat it as a public concern?
It's a real good article.
It is a good article, but it doesn't mention a detail. When it says:
Most women and queer people have been raised to treat men’s emotions with respect and deference, even at the cost of their own happiness, because most of us have been raised with the understanding that when men get upset, bad things happen.
Is skipping the why: Men are more willing to resort to violence to obtain their goals. So is not only the current abuse, is the fear of future abuse being even worse. There's a school of thought that says: "Well, then women should be taught how to kill rapists with guns", and while that sounds more effective than trying to make sociopaths care that their actions are bad, there has to be another argument.
It's not that men are willing to resort to violence, but that society is willing to excuse their doing so. That's the core problem - we excuse abusive behavior instead of holding abusers accountable, and abusers know this. They know that people will avoid "drama" rather than actually deal with these issues.
Not just violence, though that is certainly an aspect. A lot of men who commit abuses hold other sorts of power, so they can destroy careers and lives in other ways.
And indirect violence. Violence against themselves, which women have been taught for generations is their responsibility to manage.
If you are being abused, come to me for help, i can be trusted.
Said by, well, probably not every abuser ever, but definitely a significant chunk of them.
As Weinstein shows, the issue is also enablers and enablers include victims rights attorneys.
And the fathers of women who could become that person's victims.
“She Said” shows how some figures who have presented themselves as allies of victims have profited from financial settlements that silence them.
The attorney Gloria Allred is one of the most vocal crusaders against sexual harassment and assault. Privately, her firm helped negotiate a settlement that muffled one of Mr. Weinstein’s victims in 2004, taking a 40 percent cut. (The firm has also worked on settlements that silenced victims of Larry Nassar and Bill O’Reilly.) In an interview for “She Said,” Allred defends her use of confidential settlements, arguing that clients are not forced to sign them and often prefer them for reasons of privacy.
Allred’s daughter, the lawyer Lisa Bloom, a prominent victims’ rights attorney, was working behind the scenes with Mr. Weinstein — at a rate of $895 an hour — to quash the journalists’ investigation and thwart his accusers. In a confidential memo to Mr. Weinstein that Ms. Bloom wrote in December 2016, which is reproduced in “She Said,” she offered to help him damage the reputation of one of his accusers, Rose McGowan, and portrayed her background as a victims’s rights advocate as an asset.
“I feel equipped to help you against the Roses of the world, because I have represented so many of them,” Ms. Bloom wrote, before laying out a multistep playbook for how to intimidate accusers or paint them as liars. One of Ms. Bloom’s suggested tactics for undermining Ms. McGowan: “We can place an article re her becoming increasingly unglued, so that when someone Googles her this is what pops up and she’s discredited.”
Ms. Bloom accompanied Mr. Weinstein on a surprise visit to the Times the day before the initial article was published, to present the journalists with information intended to portray several accusers — including Ashley Judd, the first actress to go on the record — as unreliable and mentally unstable.
Another member of Mr. Weinstein’s legal team, the attorney David Boies, helped Mr. Weinstein evade scrutiny for his treatment of women over 15 years, working to halt reporting on the producer by news outlets, blocking the board of Mr. Weinstein’s company from reviewing his personnel file, and helping Mr. Weinstein execute a contract with Black Cube, an Israeli private investigations firm, that was promised a $300,000 bonus if it stopped the Times investigation. (Ronan Farrow, who published a separate Weinstein exposé in The New Yorker in October 2017, later broke the news of Black Cube’s work for Weinstein.) “She Said” reveals emails showing that during the time that Mr. Boies represented Mr. Weinstein, the two men discussed potential film roles for Mr. Boies’s daughter, an aspiring actress.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Everybody does deserve a defense, and access to counsel; there are very clear reasons why “this person is obviously guilty and it’s a heinous crime so fuck ‘em and fuck any lawyer who represents them” is a corrosive and dangerous attitude to take.
The problem is not that those accused of sexual crimes can still find zealous representation, but that that representation sometimes stretches the ethical boundaries of “zealous”. There’s actually a very wide gap between “this monster doesn’t deserve a lawyer and society should shame and shun anyone who acts as their lawyer” and an accused’s lawyer choosing as their strategy to manipulate the press and smear the accuser.
By analogy, an accused rapist’s lawyer should not argue the victim’s clothing meant she was asking for it, but the accused should still have a lawyer, and a lawyer who represents that person ethically should not bear social consequences for fulfilling a necessary role in the justice system.
Everybody does deserve a defense, and access to counsel; there are very clear reasons why “this person is obviously guilty and it’s a heinous crime so fuck ‘em and fuck any lawyer who represents them” is a corrosive and dangerous attitude to take.
The problem is not that those accused of sexual crimes can still find zealous representation, but that that representation sometimes stretches the ethical boundaries of “zealous”. There’s actually a very wide gap between “this monster doesn’t deserve a lawyer and society should shame and shun anyone who acts as their lawyer” and an accused’s lawyer choosing as their strategy to manipulate the press and smear the accuser.
By analogy, an accused rapist’s lawyer should not argue the victim’s clothing meant she was asking for it, but the accused should still have a lawyer, and a lawyer who represents that person ethically should not bear social consequences for fulfilling a necessary role in the justice system.
It is revealing how quickly the line between "mob lawyer" and "responsible corporate lawyer" can vanish when the "legitimate" clients engage in a criminal conspiracy.
And even for legal standards that's an unethical offense that should get the offender disbarred. McGowan said it so:
But in Susan Faludi’s New York Times review of “She Said,” also published on Sunday, she wrote, “Maybe the most appalling figure in this constellation of collaborators and enablers is Lisa Bloom, Allred’s daughter.”
“Her email is staggering. Staggering!” McGowan said. “This woman should never work again.”
“Lisa Bloom should be disbarred. So should David Boies,” McGowan added.
When you need any public service official, you roll the dice on whether they're crap or not, because humans are unreliable feedback generators. An accountant or computer programmer will immediately know what they're doing wrong since the terms of success and failure are clear and reliable.
It has nothing to do with generic "human nature is imperfect" drivel. The discussion has been about a specific institution has been coopted by a regressive(to be kind) movement, and how people in position of power within a cumminity disporportionally commit abuse.
When you need any public service official, you roll the dice on whether they're crap or not, because humans are unreliable feedback generators. An accountant or computer programmer will immediately know what they're doing wrong since the terms of success and failure are clear and reliable.
It has nothing to do with generic "human nature is imperfect" drivel. The discussion has been about a specific institution has been coopted by a regressive(to be kind) movement, and how people in position of power within a cumminity disporportionally commit abuse.
If you're a private* attorney, your purpose is to represent your client to the best of your ability and use every tool within the law to advocate for a positive result. If you do otherwise, you're abrogating your duty and should be disbarred.
If a potential client makes you uncomfortable, then you don't take the case.
Bloom crossed the line ("every tool within the law") and should be disciplined. She very likely won't be, since lawyers have virtual impunity when it comes to litigation tactics, but that feels a little too off-topic. Also, that "apology" is worthy a politician, it really is. I especially appreciate the "95% to 100%" line. That said, her experience defending the accused does make her better at advocating for victims—any competent prosecutor can make an ironclad defense, any competent defender can tear someone apart on cross examination.
*: It's a little more complex for public defenders, since they don't really have a choice in who they represent, but are still expected to perform their duty as an attorney.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
That makes sense, because anyone who defends someone accused of a crime is obviously guilty of the same crime. /s This thinking is how you get a justice system stocked full of former prosecutors at every level and almost no former defense attorneys.
If they chose to defend a person they knew was going to go all in on the "bitch be crazy" slander or did not leave when learning that, I don't have a problem judging them for it. In the case of Weinstein, they all should have known.
Being the defender of a 9/11 hijacker doesn't mean you have to say the government committed 9/11 if the hijacker asks for it.
If they chose to defend a person they knew was going to go all in on the "bitch be crazy" slander or did not leave when learning that, I don't have a problem judging them for it. In the case of Weinstein, they all should have known.
Being the defender of a 9/11 hijacker doesn't mean you have to say the government committed 9/11 if the hijacker asks for it.
It was Bloom's idea, the article is explicit about it.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
That makes sense, because anyone who defends someone accused of a crime is obviously guilty of the same crime. /s This thinking is how you get a justice system stocked full of former prosecutors at every level and almost no former defense attorneys.
Good thing nobody's saying that. The point (as @Couscous pointed out) is that if someone is signing on to the legal team of a predator who has used the legal system to attack the veracity of his victims (as documented above), the rest of society is not obligated to pretend that didn't happen.
Deserving a legal defense isn't the same as deserving a PR defense but they often treat the latter like the former.
Pretty much this. Too many defense people decide they have to use everything to defend a super shitty individual and helping that individual with PR. No, what everyone deserves in the way of legal defense is to make sure all i's are dotted and all t's are crossed. In short, the first duty of a good defense is to make sure the process is done properly and fairly. No matter how much of a shitty dbag someone is, the defense's first job is to make sure that the mob doesn't get to string them up after running a farce of a trail for something that might warrant a less severe punishment than what the angry mob wants. Also a good defense shouldn't lead individuals on, regardless of whether they are misguided idiot or fucking monster. Don't at the chastity of the other side; specially, if the evidence is damning. Advise on their best options and tell them you won't wage a PR battle for them, it's not your fucking job.
Deserving a legal defense isn't the same as deserving a PR defense but they often treat the latter like the former.
Pretty much this. Too many defense people decide they have to use everything to defend a super shitty individual and helping that individual with PR. No, what everyone deserves in the way of legal defense is to make sure all i's are dotted and all t's are crossed. In short, the first duty of a good defense is to make sure the process is done properly and fairly. No matter how much of a shitty dbag someone is, the defense's first job is to make sure that the mob doesn't get to string them up after running a farce of a trail for something that might warrant a less severe punishment than what the angry mob wants. Also a good defense shouldn't lead individuals on, regardless of whether they are misguided idiot or fucking monster.Don't at the chastity of the other side; specially, if the evidence is damning. Advise on their best options and tell them you won't wage a PR battle for them, it's not your fucking job.
Ahh yes the "Well you're obviously guilty, so why bother" standard of duty.
Also PR battles in noteworthy cases are 100% part of their job, because the case can be lost in the court of public opinion before the trial even begins.
Court of public opinion shouldn't fucking matter in a trail. Given that most of these are done by trail, all a lawyer is accomplishing by insinuating that an accuser is harlot, is that even more time will be spent finding a jury that hasn't formed an opinion because that jury is suppose to be kept about from media reports. Their only interaction with the case should be during the trail. Not what the court of public opinion says. Not what the media says. IMO bar associations would do well setting out some guidelines stating that they will fucking disbar people if at any point in their defense they insist the victim is a loose woman. I'm a bit sick and tired of entitled men getting away with sexual assault because some jackass feels that such things are excusable because of how a woman dresses, that she had a drink or that she doesn't adhere to their shitty moral values. When we say lawyers get into PR, that's exactly what we fucking me. You mean they shouldn't get into this shit of "well my client is innocent because his accuser is a loose woman." Fuck that noise, if their client is fucking innocent, they would be able to run their fucking case without potentially destroying the reputation of a victim.
Again, a lawyer's job isn't fucking PR. If their client needs help with PR, than their client can fucking hire someone who specializes in that shit because at trail, court of opinion means fuck all.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
That makes sense, because anyone who defends someone accused of a crime is obviously guilty of the same crime. /s This thinking is how you get a justice system stocked full of former prosecutors at every level and almost no former defense attorneys.
Good thing nobody's saying that. The point (as @Couscous pointed out) is that if someone is signing on to the legal team of a predator who has used the legal system to attack the veracity of his victims (as documented above), the rest of society is not obligated to pretend that didn't happen.
I understand where you're coming from but I really don't think it's fair to condemn people for performing their job. The legal system is incredibly complex and difficult to navigate and it doesn't seem right to look down on someone whose profession it is to help navigate the system.
Again, a lawyer's job isn't fucking PR. If their client needs help with PR, than their client can fucking hire someone who specializes in that shit because at trail, court of opinion means fuck all.
Every client needs some PR these days of 24/7 news networks, and Court TV, who will report every second of the case to the public. How they go about in the court room will be reacted to by the people outside. It can be a circus. The court of public opinion is a powerful force, and be vital in having opposite reactions to not guilty verdicts RE: Michael Jackson, R.Kelly, OJ Simpson.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
That makes sense, because anyone who defends someone accused of a crime is obviously guilty of the same crime. /s This thinking is how you get a justice system stocked full of former prosecutors at every level and almost no former defense attorneys.
Good thing nobody's saying that. The point (as @Couscous pointed out) is that if someone is signing on to the legal team of a predator who has used the legal system to attack the veracity of his victims (as documented above), the rest of society is not obligated to pretend that didn't happen.
I understand where you're coming from but I really don't think it's fair to condemn people for performing their job. The legal system is incredibly complex and difficult to navigate and it doesn't seem right to look down on someone whose profession it is to help navigate the system.
When a person is signing up to work for someone who operates unethically, has his lawyers operate unethically, and is very likely expecting that this individual will at least turn a blind eye to this unethical behavior (if not participate in it) - then yes, it is very much fair to hold them accountable for that. We are not talking about some random person caught up in the law here - we are talking about Harvey Weinstein, a sexual predator who used the legal system to abuse his victims further. Choosing to willingly sign on to his defense is making an ethical call, and one that we are not obliged to ignore.
Court of public opinion shouldn't fucking matter in a trail. Given that most of these are done by trail, all a lawyer is accomplishing by insinuating that an accuser is harlot, is that even more time will be spent finding a jury that hasn't formed an opinion because that jury is suppose to be kept about from media reports. Their only interaction with the case should be during the trail. Not what the court of public opinion says. Not what the media says. IMO bar associations would do well setting out some guidelines stating that they will fucking disbar people if at any point in their defense they insist the victim is a loose woman. I'm a bit sick and tired of entitled men getting away with sexual assault because some jackass feels that such things are excusable because of how a woman dresses, that she had a drink or that she doesn't adhere to their shitty moral values. When we say lawyers get into PR, that's exactly what we fucking me. You mean they shouldn't get into this shit of "well my client is innocent because his accuser is a loose woman." Fuck that noise, if their client is fucking innocent, they would be able to run their fucking case without potentially destroying the reputation of a victim.
Again, a lawyer's job isn't fucking PR. If their client needs help with PR, than their client can fucking hire someone who specializes in that shit because at trail, court of opinion means fuck all.
Your expectations do not match reality. Jury selection has limitations and in a high profile case you won't be able to find a completely ignorant jury. Juries are not routinely sequestered for months and all the jury instructions in the world will not keep them from watching the news.
Rules of evidence seem like something that should be decided by the judge and the court not bar associations.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
That makes sense, because anyone who defends someone accused of a crime is obviously guilty of the same crime. /s This thinking is how you get a justice system stocked full of former prosecutors at every level and almost no former defense attorneys.
Good thing nobody's saying that. The point (as @Couscous pointed out) is that if someone is signing on to the legal team of a predator who has used the legal system to attack the veracity of his victims (as documented above), the rest of society is not obligated to pretend that didn't happen.
I understand where you're coming from but I really don't think it's fair to condemn people for performing their job. The legal system is incredibly complex and difficult to navigate and it doesn't seem right to look down on someone whose profession it is to help navigate the system.
When a person is signing up to work for someone who operates unethically, has his lawyers operate unethically, and is very likely expecting that this individual will at least turn a blind eye to this unethical behavior (if not participate in it) - then yes, it is very much fair to hold them accountable for that. We are not talking about some random person caught up in the law here - we are talking about Harvey Weinstein, a sexual predator who used the legal system to abuse his victims further. Choosing to willingly sign on to his defense is making an ethical call, and one that we are not obliged to ignore.
This is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Our legal system is based on the fact that all parties have right to representation. If we start condemning those who provide that service then there will eventually be nobody to deliver that service and that is incredibly wrong.
Are we going to extend the same sort of judgement to doctors and surgeons who perform life-saving procedures on awful people?
Like, I get what people's intentions are here and why it's so compelling to want to throw these people to the fire but I'm genuinely disturbed a bit by some of the thoughts coming out of people's heads in this thread wrt having fundamental rights stripped from people absent a conviction.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
That makes sense, because anyone who defends someone accused of a crime is obviously guilty of the same crime. /s This thinking is how you get a justice system stocked full of former prosecutors at every level and almost no former defense attorneys.
Good thing nobody's saying that. The point (as @Couscous pointed out) is that if someone is signing on to the legal team of a predator who has used the legal system to attack the veracity of his victims (as documented above), the rest of society is not obligated to pretend that didn't happen.
I understand where you're coming from but I really don't think it's fair to condemn people for performing their job. The legal system is incredibly complex and difficult to navigate and it doesn't seem right to look down on someone whose profession it is to help navigate the system.
When a person is signing up to work for someone who operates unethically, has his lawyers operate unethically, and is very likely expecting that this individual will at least turn a blind eye to this unethical behavior (if not participate in it) - then yes, it is very much fair to hold them accountable for that. We are not talking about some random person caught up in the law here - we are talking about Harvey Weinstein, a sexual predator who used the legal system to abuse his victims further. Choosing to willingly sign on to his defense is making an ethical call, and one that we are not obliged to ignore.
This is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Our legal system is based on the fact that all parties have right to representation. If we start condemning those who provide that service then there will eventually be nobody to deliver that service and that is incredibly wrong.
Are we going to extend the same sort of judgement to doctors and surgeons who perform life-saving procedures on awful people?
Like, I get what people's intentions are here and why it's so compelling to want to throw these people to the fire but I'm genuinely disturbed a bit by some of the thoughts coming out of people's heads in this thread wrt having fundamental rights stripped from people absent a conviction.
Nobody is talking about stripping fundamental rights away from people. What we are saying is that when a lawyer takes a job that has clear ethical compromises, we're not obligated to pretend they don't exist. As was pointed out above, Weinstein's counsel has repeatedly engaged in unethical behavior aimed at smearing the victims that had come forth. If you are a lawyer signing onto that, you don't get to pretend that behavior doesn't exist.
People are not condemning defending a sexual predator, because we do believe that everyone deserves a defense. What is being pointed out is that there is an inherent conflict of interest between working on a defense that has been engaged in unethical attacks on the victims of their client; and serving in an administrative role in a university that places one in the reporting chain for sexual assault.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
My take is: Everyone has a right to representation, no matter how much I dislike them personally.
But can we still agree that a prominent victim-rights attorney representing a fairly well-known abuser is over the line for what that particular lawyer should be doing ethically? Conflict of interest is already something that's baked into our legal system, we didn't just invent that here in this thread. There are other lawyers in the world, Lisa Bloom was not abandoning someone to lack of council had she refused to represent him.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Seems like a great way to get bad defence lawyers and an over abundance of prosecutors. No one should have to ask themselves am I being too vigorous in defending my client.
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Seems like a great way to get bad defence lawyers and an over abundance of prosecutors. No one should have to ask themselves am I being too vigorous in defending my client.
If they're contemplating something like planting false stories in the press questioning the mental health/status of their client's accusers/enemies/whatever, then yes, they should absolutely be asking themselves that question.
And then they should have enough awareness to not follow through on performing that action.
Seems like a great way to get bad defence lawyers and an over abundance of prosecutors. No one should have to ask themselves am I being too vigorous in defending my client.
Gay/trans "panic" defenses are legal in 46 states. Does that make them ethically and morally okay? One should always be asking oneself if they are operating ethically and morally.
Posts
I remember back in the day that I would often end up skipping episodes that featured live-action James, as those videos always made me feel uncomfortable. James has a wispy, vaguely cloying, maybe even smug delivery that grated on me.
Again, I hate to sound like I'm self-congratulatingly saying "ha! I knew it!" but I can't help but feel a weird, selfish sense of vindication when I find out someone who strikes me as weird and creepy turns out to actually be a creep.
He had very clear signs of narcissism. Not terribly uncommon with abusers.
It's a real good article.
It is a good article, but it doesn't mention a detail. When it says:
Is skipping the why: Men are more willing to resort to violence to obtain their goals. So is not only the current abuse, is the fear of future abuse being even worse. There's a school of thought that says: "Well, then women should be taught how to kill rapists with guns", and while that sounds more effective than trying to make sociopaths care that their actions are bad, there has to be another argument.
Link goes to a post on the KoL subreddit about it, with further links to a google doc and twitter by the abuse survivor. This one def hits close to home - i thoroughly enjoyed and donated repeatedly to kingdom of loathing for a good while. But yeah, the rot goes deep at that company. Thankfully, the community seems to be firmly on the survivor's side, so that's... something.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
...just... there's no way I can support this company any more. I played KoL for fucking years, always meant to get back to West of Loathing, and now there's no way I could ever go back to the site knowing what I know about the creators.
I loved the content, thought it was a great community, but when I read through all of the stuff, just... I'm sickened that I devoted all that time to something like this. And some of those stories just make me cringe so fucking hard. Fuck Randy, fuck Jick, fuck Skullhead, fuck Asymmetric. When the tree is rotten, you don't keep trying to treat it, you cut it down and burn it. Between knowing what happened, the getting minors drunk at the con, the gallery of ass-pics of members Skullhead ran that I'm not going near anywhere near because there might be teens in it, the fact that Skullhead sent out rare in-game items for pictures of a lewd or sexual nature from girls and women, the fact Jick turned a blind eye to what was going on to keep things calm...
I always told people this was a game that was just... it was fun, it was safe, you didn't need handfuls of $$$ just to go play- you just needed to use your head or just go have fucking fun, and the community was one of the best parts.
Fuck them and anybody else who still thinks they're worth defending. I believe her.
KoL was my first fucking MMO, ever. I'm never going back.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Basically where i'm at - I'd stopped playing a while ago, but kept up donating because hells, i'd gotten hours of laughs and fun out of it, the community had been solid, and i enjoyed it's mechincal goodness. And now... Yeah. Fuck them. Fuck their bullshit, fuck the fact we're getting non-apologies and asscovering. And fuck the fact they've hurt so many people.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
It's not that men are willing to resort to violence, but that society is willing to excuse their doing so. That's the core problem - we excuse abusive behavior instead of holding abusers accountable, and abusers know this. They know that people will avoid "drama" rather than actually deal with these issues.
Not just violence, though that is certainly an aspect. A lot of men who commit abuses hold other sorts of power, so they can destroy careers and lives in other ways.
And indirect violence. Violence against themselves, which women have been taught for generations is their responsibility to manage.
As Weinstein shows, the issue is also enablers and enablers include victims rights attorneys.
And the fathers of women who could become that person's victims.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/books/harvey-weinstein-book-kantor-twohey.html
Careerism can kill your soul.
More than that, the legal community has taken the principle of "everyone deserves a defense" to unhealthy extremes. Remember, we saw it argued earlier this year that it was somehow damaging to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to say that perhaps someone who willingly joined Weinstein's defense team might not be a sutible candidate for a position in a college's sexual assault reporting chain.
The problem is not that those accused of sexual crimes can still find zealous representation, but that that representation sometimes stretches the ethical boundaries of “zealous”. There’s actually a very wide gap between “this monster doesn’t deserve a lawyer and society should shame and shun anyone who acts as their lawyer” and an accused’s lawyer choosing as their strategy to manipulate the press and smear the accuser.
By analogy, an accused rapist’s lawyer should not argue the victim’s clothing meant she was asking for it, but the accused should still have a lawyer, and a lawyer who represents that person ethically should not bear social consequences for fulfilling a necessary role in the justice system.
It is revealing how quickly the line between "mob lawyer" and "responsible corporate lawyer" can vanish when the "legitimate" clients engage in a criminal conspiracy.
And even for legal standards that's an unethical offense that should get the offender disbarred. McGowan said it so:
Wsa we'd
Given that the jury will 100% be influenced by public opinion unless it has just been completely sequestered these are obviously connected.
The crimes also influence public opinion, but we don't let lawyers take part in them and get away with it either.
If a potential client makes you uncomfortable, then you don't take the case.
Bloom crossed the line ("every tool within the law") and should be disciplined. She very likely won't be, since lawyers have virtual impunity when it comes to litigation tactics, but that feels a little too off-topic. Also, that "apology" is worthy a politician, it really is. I especially appreciate the "95% to 100%" line. That said, her experience defending the accused does make her better at advocating for victims—any competent prosecutor can make an ironclad defense, any competent defender can tear someone apart on cross examination.
That makes sense, because anyone who defends someone accused of a crime is obviously guilty of the same crime. /s This thinking is how you get a justice system stocked full of former prosecutors at every level and almost no former defense attorneys.
Being the defender of a 9/11 hijacker doesn't mean you have to say the government committed 9/11 if the hijacker asks for it.
It was Bloom's idea, the article is explicit about it.
Good thing nobody's saying that. The point (as @Couscous pointed out) is that if someone is signing on to the legal team of a predator who has used the legal system to attack the veracity of his victims (as documented above), the rest of society is not obligated to pretend that didn't happen.
Pretty much this. Too many defense people decide they have to use everything to defend a super shitty individual and helping that individual with PR. No, what everyone deserves in the way of legal defense is to make sure all i's are dotted and all t's are crossed. In short, the first duty of a good defense is to make sure the process is done properly and fairly. No matter how much of a shitty dbag someone is, the defense's first job is to make sure that the mob doesn't get to string them up after running a farce of a trail for something that might warrant a less severe punishment than what the angry mob wants. Also a good defense shouldn't lead individuals on, regardless of whether they are misguided idiot or fucking monster. Don't at the chastity of the other side; specially, if the evidence is damning. Advise on their best options and tell them you won't wage a PR battle for them, it's not your fucking job.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Ahh yes the "Well you're obviously guilty, so why bother" standard of duty.
Also PR battles in noteworthy cases are 100% part of their job, because the case can be lost in the court of public opinion before the trial even begins.
Again, a lawyer's job isn't fucking PR. If their client needs help with PR, than their client can fucking hire someone who specializes in that shit because at trail, court of opinion means fuck all.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I understand where you're coming from but I really don't think it's fair to condemn people for performing their job. The legal system is incredibly complex and difficult to navigate and it doesn't seem right to look down on someone whose profession it is to help navigate the system.
Every client needs some PR these days of 24/7 news networks, and Court TV, who will report every second of the case to the public. How they go about in the court room will be reacted to by the people outside. It can be a circus. The court of public opinion is a powerful force, and be vital in having opposite reactions to not guilty verdicts RE: Michael Jackson, R.Kelly, OJ Simpson.
Which has its upsides and downsides, it's not a factor which won't affect people in the real world. That's why it's an important platform for #MeToo.
When a person is signing up to work for someone who operates unethically, has his lawyers operate unethically, and is very likely expecting that this individual will at least turn a blind eye to this unethical behavior (if not participate in it) - then yes, it is very much fair to hold them accountable for that. We are not talking about some random person caught up in the law here - we are talking about Harvey Weinstein, a sexual predator who used the legal system to abuse his victims further. Choosing to willingly sign on to his defense is making an ethical call, and one that we are not obliged to ignore.
Your expectations do not match reality. Jury selection has limitations and in a high profile case you won't be able to find a completely ignorant jury. Juries are not routinely sequestered for months and all the jury instructions in the world will not keep them from watching the news.
Rules of evidence seem like something that should be decided by the judge and the court not bar associations.
This is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Our legal system is based on the fact that all parties have right to representation. If we start condemning those who provide that service then there will eventually be nobody to deliver that service and that is incredibly wrong.
Are we going to extend the same sort of judgement to doctors and surgeons who perform life-saving procedures on awful people?
Like, I get what people's intentions are here and why it's so compelling to want to throw these people to the fire but I'm genuinely disturbed a bit by some of the thoughts coming out of people's heads in this thread wrt having fundamental rights stripped from people absent a conviction.
Nobody is talking about stripping fundamental rights away from people. What we are saying is that when a lawyer takes a job that has clear ethical compromises, we're not obligated to pretend they don't exist. As was pointed out above, Weinstein's counsel has repeatedly engaged in unethical behavior aimed at smearing the victims that had come forth. If you are a lawyer signing onto that, you don't get to pretend that behavior doesn't exist.
People are not condemning defending a sexual predator, because we do believe that everyone deserves a defense. What is being pointed out is that there is an inherent conflict of interest between working on a defense that has been engaged in unethical attacks on the victims of their client; and serving in an administrative role in a university that places one in the reporting chain for sexual assault.
But can we still agree that a prominent victim-rights attorney representing a fairly well-known abuser is over the line for what that particular lawyer should be doing ethically? Conflict of interest is already something that's baked into our legal system, we didn't just invent that here in this thread. There are other lawyers in the world, Lisa Bloom was not abandoning someone to lack of council had she refused to represent him.
If they're contemplating something like planting false stories in the press questioning the mental health/status of their client's accusers/enemies/whatever, then yes, they should absolutely be asking themselves that question.
And then they should have enough awareness to not follow through on performing that action.
Gay/trans "panic" defenses are legal in 46 states. Does that make them ethically and morally okay? One should always be asking oneself if they are operating ethically and morally.