deleted by creator

I want to dig into how you reconcile the contradiction, specifically: “Our position differs in that we didn’t dismiss anything”. I don’t understand how this is materially different from liberal concepts like ‘presumption of innocence’ and ‘conclusive evidence’.

Our admin reached out to the alleged victim. They locked the post and stated that any harassment of either party would be banned. Beatnik handed over all his admin privileges and basically transferred site ownership to TC69 and the other admins. Beatnik is now just a normal user who hasn't posted since making a statement. He could be easily banned and if we get any hint he's posting again, he can be called out. But this isn't a court, we can't stop him or anyone from posting. Bans aren't permanent. This is a problem with putting so much on the internet and trying to force it to be something it can't be. In person, you can get a restraining order and you can physically bar someone from a community. So there's only so much we can do as a site to punish someone. Because of that we shouldn't attempt to act like there's some scenario where proper justice, in a liberal or any other sense, can be done.

That response is as different as it could be from the chud response. The alleged victim comes forward. The post is immediately deleted, they're banned. Everyone has a laugh about it. The accused brags about it on twitter or the site. A person in power has been protected. They kept their admin status. Nothing changed. Everyone keeps posting about how women lie to get attention or money.

In your view are these situations the same and indistinguishable because of the "everyone had a laugh part?" Seems awfully reductive. Especially when everyone here did not have a laugh.

Now onto the broader philosophical argument. If chuds view themselves as justified in protecting good men from unscrupulous accusers, how is that different from us believing Beatnik might be the victim of a scam? How do we know we're good and they're bad when they believe they're good and we're bad? Outside of the above response, I don't know. I feel like this is one of those "how do you know your green isn't my red?" questions. I don't think morality is so objective. You try to do the best thing you can and live with the consequences. Chuds don't even try to do that.

I mean I look at the context of the post. We're beset by trolls just about every week. We have old chapo members who hate us and are gladly tweeting that we support pedophiles right now. We have people from a discord who hate us and raid every so often. There are two or three very active subreddits dedicated to trolling us and posting drama. There's a whole nother site for a different podcast that likes taking a shot at us from time to time. That's not including the various interpersonal and ideological struggles happening within the site at any given time. These are real things that happen. This isn't like claiming the deepstate is paying women to lie about Trump.

Not only that but we have bad actors who are active users here. I know that because as soon as the accusation was posted, it was almost instantly posted in other places. So all these people who hate us are here and at least some of them have become long-standing members with credibility. They just get a kick out of being a double agent or whatever. Or they believe in the politics but hate the idpol shit so they vent by stirring shit from the other end. When the stupidpol purge happened there were several users who posted there and here.

None of that means that we don't have weirdo sex pest users. Of course we do. So does any large group of people. Being leftist doesn't make us immune from having shitty people on our side. If anything this site defaults to thinking everyone is a secret chud or wrecker a little too much.

I think a lot of the struggle here isn't actually over philosophy or morality, it's that we're trying to force this site and the internet to do something it can't do. If we ban a sex pest they can just get a new name and keep posting. Materially there is no change. You would never know you're replying to them unless they made it obvious. Therefore we can't actually be a platform of justice in any real sense. Liberal or otherwise. We can ban people and try to curtail the bad people but we can't actually stop a really clever bad person.

That's why I occasionally push for logging off. We put too much faith in the internet and try to make it the center of our movement and that's a bad thing. Precisely because it's so easy to lob a grenade into the center of anything we build and bring it down. It's not secure by design. There's a reason leftist orgs had in-person vetting before corona. The internet should be the way to get to a place, it shouldn't be the place.

This also plays into how we deal with our own powerlessness. We put so much emphasis on online behavior being the metric by which we judge right and wrong, and who belongs and who doesn't. It comes from a good place but it's still misguided. We can't control anything happening in politics so we redefine what happens online as politics and then try to control that. We turn that control into a moral crusade because control means safety. We control who gets to be in our community and who doesn't. We get to control, to an extent, who says what. We determine which are the right opinions and which are bad.

I know that sounds like a parler post. But I don't disagree with some levels of control because they are indeed necessary to secure the community for marginalized members. Unlike the internet censorship people I agree with banning chuds and sex pests and others as well as not turning this place into some kind of marketplace of ideas where lolbertarians come debate us everyday.

But the control has a bad side because it means people confuse that for political control. They think by regulating the community they're doing praxis. Again, to some extent it is because marginalized groups need safe places to congregate without harassment. But it's not going to help bring about socialism or propel the leftist project forward. So we can't treat it as an important part of the movement or accomplishing politics. Therefore we should limit our agonizing over these lines in the sand we set up to police our community. We shouldn't put so much emphasis on policing consumption and worrying about how watching the wrong movie or liking the wrong podcast makes you a chud.

If you understand that then these online interactions become simpler and easier to contextualize in a broader political sense. A lot of controversies aren't actually meaningful. The power the internet has appears to only exist to those who believe it has power.

So to bring this back around. I guess the idea is that I'm pretty comfortable with my morality on this. I don't see it as a contradiction. I see a material difference between how this has been handled so far and how r/The_Donald would handle it. I think it's been handled as well as it could have been for a website. The accused are no longer in power. The site is still up. The alleged victim has every channel of support from the admin and most users open to them. They've been clear that people shouldn't harass anyone over this. Not sure what else there is to do. I don't know what a perfect response looks like. If Beat had been banned instantly and publicly then we'd just be having a permutation of the same conversation.

‘Degrades quality of investigations’ may very well end up being requiring a higher standard of proof for next time.

This time around, Beatnik acted with an over abundance of caution, knowing, in part, that many in this community are survivors of SV, and that we hold a high standard for not allowing abusers.

After this time, the entire community will be more wary, and more resilient. If the same post pops up next time, we may see the response be “ok give some evidence and we’ll take it seriously”. That creates a higher workload for fabrication.

Also, the stress of a false accusation aside, a two day hiatus isn’t gonna kill the site. The accused gets to go on gardening leave. It’s not like the place falls apart if someone with a red [A] beside their name doesn’t log in for a couple of days.

to be fair, I've always felt "Believe All Women", despite being a catchy and profound slogan, was a poor one to use because of times when its very obviously not true. I can't think of a better one off the top of my head, but I think it should be more of a "Justice is Blind" connotation , along the line of "Give all women the benefit of the doubt when they make accusations, no matter what their life circumstances might be", and if an initial investigation into it throws up a bunch of red flag like this one has, so be it and skepticism is warranted, but don't ever go into an accusation already assuming there's going to be red flags because a person happens to be a sex worker or homeless or an addict or whatever. It should be more about the initial conditions and attitudes going into an investigation, NOT a view that its a requirement to hold as the investigation goes on no matter how many suspect things are uncovered and pieces don't add up.

This article (I think this is the one) handles the issue in a fairly mature way IMHO: https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

I think its intersting to note that two of the top reasons that false accusers will make up a rape story are (1) Fear of retribution from partner if they knew activity was consensual and (2) Fear of retribution from parents if they knew activity was consensual. Particularly that second one.