Taylor Swifts court trial

[sharon45]

It hasn't been proven in court yet, unless there is even more current news needed for this thread.

The molester is not facing criminal charges, so there is nothing to be "proven in court" regarding his sexual assault on her.

His company fired him approximately two years ago, so that fact has been long available to anyone caring to know before commenting.

HE filed his lawsuit against Taylor Swift, her mother, and several others before she filed her counter-suit. That is also a fact readily available to anyone - including the OP author - before making uninformed comments in this thread.

I really don't see what "more current news" is needed for this thread, or why anyone else is obligated to provide it to you.

Nobody needs to tell me or anyone else here anything. This little case just touches on much bigger issues people should be concerned with.

Where do people get their news to think there are 2 "sides?" There is no debate and as such the case was thrown out.

Much of the news does have a slant.

Sure... and so does the OP and other posts in this thread. Decidedly anti-women slants. That doesn't mean anyone else must seriously entertain misogynistic bullshit as a legitimate "side" in the discussion

Again, imo, most of all comments here, to some degree, were anti-women, and anti-men as well.

 

[sharon45]

To me, the so-called facts have changed throughout this thread, which is one reason why I haven't bothered to reply until late, once it seems to have mainly evolved into an attack on the OP.

There are no "facts" that have changed, and the actual facts have been available to anyone who cared enough to inform themselves before replying here.

Now, if you are referring to the uninformed opinions of some of the people here, starting with the OP, then you may have a point.

That is why I called them "so-called facts." I don't personally care about the case specifics, whether true or not; it is the exact reactions to them.

 

[sharon45]

It hasn't been proven in court yet, unless there is even more current news needed for this thread.

Where do people get their news to think there are 2 "sides?" There is no debate and as such the case was thrown out.

Much of the news does have a slant.

You are correct that his groping has not been proven in court. However it is a fact that he initiated legal action against Swift, which has been thrown out. The judge tossed his case because he utterly failed to establish that Swift had him fired from his job.

Yes, and that took a little while to be pointed out in this thread.

There's no "slant" here except for OP's initial (and failed) attempt to turn this into a "feminist" issue.

I disagree, I saw lots of different takes. I did notice that the word "feminist" was in the original posting, yet I don't think he really meant to make the whole thread into a "feminist issue" per se; but the OP is certainly allowed to say that I am wrong.

 

[sharon45]

Right, I was suspending comments until the more final details for this trivial case came out, so we could eventually get to the real meat of what it universally means.

The molester is not facing any "charges are relating to [his] conduct", so what "verdict" are you two waiting for?

I'm not looking for any particular verdict, since the case practically doesn't have a bearing on me.

 

[Ford]

It hasn't been proven in court yet, unless there is even more current news needed for this thread.

Where do people get their news to think there are 2 "sides?" There is no debate and as such the case was thrown out.

Much of the news does have a slant.

You are correct that his groping has not been proven in court. However it is a fact that he initiated legal action against Swift, which has been thrown out. The judge tossed his case because he utterly failed to establish that Swift had him fired from his job.

Yes, and that took a little while to be pointed out in this thread.

There's no "slant" here except for OP's initial (and failed) attempt to turn this into a "feminist" issue.

I disagree, I saw lots of different takes. I did notice that the word "feminist" was in the original posting, yet I don't think he really meant to make the whole thread into a "feminist issue" per se; but the OP is certainly allowed to say that I am wrong.

OP specifically asked for "feminists" to explain the situation.

I thought the first response from repoman summed it up quite effectively:

This guy is an idiot asshole and Swift is in the right here.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It hasn't been proven in court yet, unless there is even more current news needed for this thread.

Where do people get their news to think there are 2 "sides?" There is no debate and as such the case was thrown out.

Much of the news does have a slant.

You are correct that his groping has not been proven in court. However it is a fact that he initiated legal action against Swift, which has been thrown out. The judge tossed his case because he utterly failed to establish that Swift had him fired from his job.

Yes, and that took a little while to be pointed out in this thread.

There's no "slant" here except for OP's initial (and failed) attempt to turn this into a "feminist" issue.

I disagree, I saw lots of different takes. I did notice that the word "feminist" was in the original posting, yet I don't think he really meant to make the whole thread into a "feminist issue" per se; but the OP is certainly allowed to say that I am wrong.

OP specifically asked for "feminists" to explain the situation.

I thought the first response from repoman summed it up quite effectively:

This guy is an idiot asshole and Swift is in the right here.

Though in my case Taylor Swift has a case with no desire to benefit from any damages but donate them to charity, we shall wait for the final verdict(s,s)

 

[RavenSky]

Nobody needs to tell me or anyone else here anything. This little case just touches on much bigger issues people should be concerned with.

Again, imo, most of all comments here, to some degree, were anti-women, and anti-men as well.

That is why I called them "so-called facts." I don't personally care about the case specifics, whether true or not; it is the exact reactions to them.

So you don't care about the facts of the case, don't care to look them up yourself, and don't care to have them presented to you by anyone else?

And thus far, you have failed to present or respond to any sort of "bigger issues people should be concerned with."

So why, exactly, are you posting in this thread?

 

[LordKiran]

That is why I called them "so-called facts." I don't personally care about the case specifics, whether true or not; it is the exact reactions to them.

So you don't care about the facts of the case, don't care to look them up yourself, and don't care to have them presented to you by anyone else?

And thus far, you have failed to present or respond to any sort of "bigger issues people should be concerned with."

So why, exactly, are you posting in this thread?

Shot in the dark? Because a contrarian who argues just to argue saw another contrarian who argues just to argue getting ganged up on and his/her underdog instinct kicked in. /holsterspistol

 

[RavenSky]

LordKiran: cr;jq - yep!

And as to that "bigger issues people should be concerned with", I think this article is quite interesting:

It's not groping or fondling – it is sexual assault. Using euphemistic language downplays the severity of an offence and enforces a dangerous message: it isn’t a big deal, and victims won’t be taken seriously

According to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the elements of the offence of sexual assault are:

• A person (A) intentionally touches another person (B)

• the touching is sexual

• (B) does not consent to the touching, and (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines further clarify that “touching is widely defined and includes with any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing”. The definition is clear.

It’s a trivialisation that leads to a culture where victims are doubted and/or blamed. Was it really sexual assault, or just a quick caress? Are you honestly going to make a fuss about a pat on the bottom? Sure, he’s the president-elect, but lighten up, he was just joking about grabbing women by the pussy! It’s the sort of language that allows a mainstream television programme to “debate” the acceptability of sexual assault using a question such as: “Is a bum pinch harmless fun?”

By not pointing out how unacceptable this culture is, we become complicit in the message that victims are already receiving loud and clear: this isn’t really a big deal, you won’t be taken seriously, it’s not worth going to the police. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, one of the most frequently cited reasons for not reporting sexual offences is that they seemed “too trivial” to report.

A litany of sexual assaults, reduced to something flimsy and dismissible. Moments that profoundly affect women’s lives, diminished and whitewashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-not-groping-or-fondling-it-is-sexual-assault

 

[sharon45]

It hasn't been proven in court yet, unless there is even more current news needed for this thread.

Where do people get their news to think there are 2 "sides?" There is no debate and as such the case was thrown out.

Much of the news does have a slant.

You are correct that his groping has not been proven in court. However it is a fact that he initiated legal action against Swift, which has been thrown out. The judge tossed his case because he utterly failed to establish that Swift had him fired from his job.

Yes, and that took a little while to be pointed out in this thread.

There's no "slant" here except for OP's initial (and failed) attempt to turn this into a "feminist" issue.

I disagree, I saw lots of different takes. I did notice that the word "feminist" was in the original posting, yet I don't think he really meant to make the whole thread into a "feminist issue" per se; but the OP is certainly allowed to say that I am wrong.

OP specifically asked for "feminists" to explain the situation.

I thought the first response from repoman summed it up quite effectively:

This guy is an idiot asshole and Swift is in the right here.

Though in my case Taylor Swift has a case with no desire to benefit from any damages but donate them to charity, we shall wait for the final verdict(s,s)

Either way, I see it as noble PR from advisors.

 

[sharon45]

That is why I called them "so-called facts." I don't personally care about the case specifics, whether true or not; it is the exact reactions to them.

So you don't care about the facts of the case, don't care to look them up yourself, and don't care to have them presented to you by anyone else?

Without bothering to retrace my exact words, I am not as nearly concerned with the facts of this case as I am with the much larger issues connected to it.

And thus far, you have failed to present or respond to any sort of "bigger issues people should be concerned with."

Correct, and I probably will not get a good chance, since it mostly looks like now it could be considered mainly a derail.

So why, exactly, are you posting in this thread?

As I said a lot earlier, I have been waiting to see the OP's answers to his own thread, so I wanted to show my actual support for that.

 

[sharon45]

So you don't care about the facts of the case, don't care to look them up yourself, and don't care to have them presented to you by anyone else?

And thus far, you have failed to present or respond to any sort of "bigger issues people should be concerned with."

So why, exactly, are you posting in this thread?

Shot in the dark? Because a contrarian who argues just to argue saw another contrarian who argues just to argue getting ganged up on and his/her underdog instinct kicked in. /holsterspistol

Anyone is perfectly free to try me as a person who argues for the sake of arguing.

 

[sharon45]

It's not groping or fondling – it is sexual assault. Using euphemistic language downplays the severity of an offence and enforces a dangerous message: it isn’t a big deal, and victims won’t be taken seriously.

I agree that euphemistic language does not take the act seriously enough, yet I feel "sexual assault" is too strong a choice for this specific case.

 

[RavenSky]

I agree that euphemistic language does not take the act seriously enough, yet I feel "sexual assault" is too strong a choice for this specific case.

It fits the legal definition - both in the UK where that article is from and for the US Department of Justice:

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

(bolding mine)

From a legal perspective, the word "assault" does not automatically indicate actual or threatened violence. It means: "Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." (bolding mine)

What the DJ did to Taylor Swift was, in fact and in the law, sexual assault and it should be called as such. Using euphemisms or substitute words imply that it is not a sexual assault, and leave the victim feeling like she (or he) are over-reacting when they object.

 

[J842P]

I agree that euphemistic language does not take the act seriously enough, yet I feel "sexual assault" is too strong a choice for this specific case.

It fits the legal definition - both in the UK where that article is from and for the US Department of Justice:

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

(bolding mine)

From a legal perspective, the word "assault" does not automatically indicate actual or threatened violence. It means: "Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." (bolding mine)

What the DJ did to Taylor Swift was, in fact and in the law, sexual assault and it should be called as such. Using euphemisms or substitute words imply that it is not a sexual assault, and leave the victim feeling like she (or he) are over-reacting when they object.

Probably the most precise way to put it is that Taylor Swift was groped, and that constitutes sexual assault. But I don't really consider "groping" to be a euphemism, it hardly has a positive or even neutral connotation.

 

[blastula]

So you don't care about the facts of the case, don't care to look them up yourself, and don't care to have them presented to you by anyone else?

Without bothering to retrace my exact words, I am not as nearly concerned with the facts of this case as I am with the much larger issues connected to it.

Such as?

 

[Godless Raven]

Just so we're clear here...let's not pretend the reverse of this crime is someone that looks like Taylor Swift, fondling the people who can't get why she's doing what she's doing.

The real equivalent scenario Rvonse, is...let's say the same old fucking 6 foot plus creep with that "molester uncle" grin, puts his hands down your fucking jeans while you were having a public photo taken and grabbed your ass. Think you'd still just go on with your great life thinking "well, I got lots of groceries and a house to live in, I like my job...nothing to see here"? Coz it would fuck you up. Your life would not be "ok", and you most likely would have made a bigger scene about it than she did/has.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree that euphemistic language does not take the act seriously enough, yet I feel "sexual assault" is too strong a choice for this specific case.

Sexual molestation then.

Guy A: Heard you were sued for sexual assault.

Guy B: Naw, it was just sexual molestation.

Guy A: Ah, so nothing that big of a deal. I mean, yeah, it is creepy, but why even bother reporting it if you are a woman?

 

[Ford]

And so legally, the case is all but over.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/jury-sides-with-taylor-swift-in-groping-trial-w497780

The suit brought by the DJ was thrown out, the jury ruled in favor of giving Swift a dollar, and all that remains is the complaint against her mother and radio promotions manager. The latter is - according to everyone I know - a stand up guy and consummate professional. This is all but a done deal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...but...but...but...feminists.