Support NeoGAF

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

So, are all you posts online the equivalent of: "I'm going to need rock-solid evidence, before I express an opinion." Is that all you say, over and over again. Or are there some topics you are magically able to express an opinion on, without "rock-solid" evidence (which rarely exists).

Most arguments I engage in don't involve matters of legality or accusing people. I tend to have a higher standard when it comes to those matters, and I like to think I'm consistent in my evidence requirements with such.

So, you don't think it's equally likely that she was mistaken, but you still think it's really important for you to post that maybe she was mistaken? I don't get why you would be motivated to do that, if you thought it was more likely she was right

As I stated, I didn't even consider the "odds" as I don't profess to know them.

 

[digdug2k]

I'm fairly certain I've read through most of your posts, and it seemed like you were saying that you needed more than just the video, and that the woman who made said video could have been mistaken. Having been in her position more than a few times, it's pretty obvious when someone is even subtly beating one out on a subway, and it happens more frequently than most people seem to assume.

I'm not trying to vilify you here and I'm sure you're not the blatantly sexist asshole some other posters have implied, but in sexually motivated cases such as this the burden of proof is placed squarely on the perpetrator, not the victim(s). To be brutally honest, I seriously doubt there have been even a handful of situations in which someone was wrongfully accused of public masturbation.

It makes me sad to hear people actually say that burden lies on the "perp" and not the victim. There's no reason to feel bad for not believing someone who presents something to you without proof. You're not a bad or sexist person if you don't, no matter how much people try to shame you for it.

 

[Keri]

Most arguments I engage in don't involve matters of legality or condemning people. I like to think I'm consistent in my evidence requirements when it comes to such matters--which is, to say, rare.

This isn't a court of a law and you have no power to condemn this man. You can freely express your opinion here and it will have only as much weight as any of your opinions, that you post on any topic. This man isn't going to go to jail if you say you think he was probably guilty anymore than a director is going to have his career ended, if you post that his last movie sucked.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

This isn't a court of a law and you have no power to condemn this man. You can freely express your opinion here and it will have only as much weight as any of your opinions, that you post on any topic. This man isn't going to go to jail if you say you think he was probably guilty anymore than a director is going to have his career ended, if you post that his last movie sucked.

The court of public opinion can absolutely condemn a person. The possibility of jail was not a point in any of my posts.

 

[Kinitari]

This isn't a court of a law and you have no power to condemn this man. You can freely express your opinion here and it will have only as much weight as any of your opinions, that you post on any topic. This man isn't going to go to jail if you say you think he was probably guilty anymore than a director is going to have his career ended, if you post that his last movie sucked.

Part of expressing himself and how he reasons about this sort of thing is expressing that he didn't think there was enough to make a conclusion yet.

What you're telling him right now is that he isn't free to express his opinion, as in doing so in seemingly good faith, he's been repeatedly shit on for not walking in lock step.

How about we let people be skeptical without demanding that they don't? Or in this case, even assume or insinuate motivation.

Like, take a step back here the guy said "I don't think this is enough to go on" - someone adds a bit more evidence and now he says "ah yes, now I feel comfortable in the assumption".

I only WISH more people operated this way.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

This isn't a court of a law and you have no power to condemn this man. You can freely express your opinion here and it will have only as much weight as any of your opinions, that you post on any topic. This man isn't going to go to jail if you say you think he was probably guilty anymore than a director is going to have his career ended, if you post that his last movie sucked.

People on the internet can definitely condemn a person without getting legality involved.

 

[milanbaros]

No. What you need is context. Your need for demanding more evidence is likely rooted in how unbelievable it is that someone would pull one off on a damn train.

For people who actually commute on subways, elevated trains, etc., these types of sex offenders are a common occurrence. You see it enough times, you can take it on faith that she was probably yelling at a guy who was actually doing it.

So rather than press people for further evidence, how about you take a moment to wonder why it is basically every poster in this thread who commutes in a major city finds it completely reasonable that this woman did, in fact, identify yet another train masturbator?

I commute on the tube everyday in London and have never seen this.

The two scenarios a) friend b) stranger on the Internet broadcasting to the whole world require different levels of tevidence for me to believe.

 

[Media]

The reason a lot of people are upset at the 'we should wait for all the facts' crowd in this thread is because sexual crimes against women are nearly the only type of situation where this type of narrative emerges. It seems every single time there's a thread of this nature, people are jumping enmasse to say we shouldn't judge, as if suddenly the Internet is a court of law. It's disturbing.

 

[Keri]

The court of public opinion can absolutely condemn a person.

Do you know this man? Are you a member of the community he lives in? If not, then your opinion has no ability to affect his life and you have no ability to condemn this man. The most you could possibly do, is potentially hurt his feelings if he reads this. (Which, again, would be the same if you posted that a director's movie sucked).

Part of expressing himself and how he reasons about this sort of thing is expressing that he didn't think there was enough to make a conclusion yet.

What you're telling him right now is that he isn't free to express his opinion, as in doing so in seemingly good faith, he's beg repeatedly shit on for not walking in lock step.

How about we let people be skeptical without demanding that they don't?

He's trying to justify his posts by asserting it would be irresponsible to believe the woman in the video, because then you'd be condemning a man without "rock-solid" evidence. I'm pointing out that his internet opinion isn't going to condemn anyone. So he can freely say what he thinks was more likely. If he honestly has no opinion on what likely happened, then what's the point of participating in a discussion about it?

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

The reason a lot of people are upset at the 'we should wait for all the facts' crowd in this thread is because sexual crimes against women are nearly the only type of situation where this type of narrative emerges. It seems every single time there's a thread of this nature, people are jumping enmasse to say we shouldn't judge, as if suddenly the Internet is a court of law. It's disturbing.

It's a delicate subject for sure. The problem however is lumping every argument and every person together; I've never posted a topic similar to this as far as I know, and yet I'm being grouped together with sexist idiots, based on nothing but skepticism on this very specific case

Do you know this man? Are you a member of the community he lives in? If not, then your opinion has no ability to affect his life and you have no ability to condemn this man. The most you could possibly do, is potentially hurt his feelings if he reads this. (Which, again, would be the same if you posted that a director's movie sucked).

Do you not realize we're on a public forum....on the world wide web? Any individual poster's feelings here have a much broader reach than just themself, and has the ability to influence others. Our posts don't exist in a vacuum

 

[echoshifting]

The reason a lot of people are upset at the 'we should wait for all the facts' crowd in this thread is because sexual crimes against women are nearly the only type of situation where this type of narrative emerges. It seems every single time there's a thread of this nature, people are jumping enmasse to say we shouldn't judge, as if suddenly the Internet is a court of law. It's disturbing.

This. Exactly this.

 

[Sanjuro]

This. Exactly this.

What should the natural response be?

 

[Kinitari]

The reason a lot of people are upset at the 'we should wait for all the facts' crowd in this thread is because sexual crimes against women are nearly the only type of situation where this type of narrative emerges. It seems every single time there's a thread of this nature, people are jumping enmasse to say we shouldn't judge, as if suddenly the Internet is a court of law. It's disturbing.

Nah, I appreciate that women have to deal with this sort of thing in the worst possible way, but let's not use that as an excuse to shit on people who don't feel comfortable judging people without it first meeting their personal evidence threshold.

This thread isn't an example of what you've described, as people seemed to have felt it was enough evidence. I'd even wager that would be the case in most sexual assault related threads,, that the majority of posters usually feel there is enough evidence on the jump.

And having a few people be skeptical and cautious should not only be non offensive, but embraced as a healthy part of dialogue. Sometimes the OP is not enough, and we have plenty of threads with all sorts of topics where the skepticism has proven to be entirely warranted.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I don't think we should be jumping on one person. It wasn't the fact that someone pointed out that we don't know for sure that bothered me. It was how many people did it. It dominated the thread. Some even saying that they could imagine being mistaken for a flasher by some unhinged woman. I think people just found it easier to imagine themselves in the hypothetical falsely accused guys shoes than the flashed womans. And that makes sense if they're male because they're unlikely to have to think about being flashed on a subway.

 

[Keri]

Do you not realize we're on a public forum....on the world wide web? Any individual poster's feelings here as a much broader reach than just themself, and the ability to influence others.

So do you never post any negative opinions, ever? Because any negative opinion has the ability to influence others. And your opinion on this subject doesn't carry any more weight than any other opinion. Do you take all of your posts so seriously? Also, I just don't understand entering a conversation on a subject, simply to say: "I am unable to form an opinion on this matter." The only way I can understand your posts is if your opinion is that the woman was likely mistaken and you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

[Kinitari]

I don't think we should be jumping on one person. It wasn't the fact that someone pointed out that we don't know for sure that bothered me. It was how many people did it that was. It dominated the thread. Some even saying that they could imagine being mistaken for a flasher by some unhinged woman. I think people just found it easier to imagine themselves in the hypothetical falsely accused guys shoes than the flashed womans. And that makes sense if they're male because they're unlikely to have to think about being flashed on a subway.

Why did it bother you that it wasn't enough evidence for a lot of people? It sounds like you think it's because of a defensiveness, where someone thinks "I've had bags on my lap before... I've never jerked it, if that's the evidence I'm really not comfortable going down that path"

Which to me, sounds like a reasonable and appreciable way to operate.

 

[echoshifting]

What should the natural response be?

Well that's sort of a tricky question, isn't it? I hear what Kinitari is saying, that voices of dissent and skepticism can be a part of a healthy dialogue in any situation where the evidence isn't entirely clear. But I also agree with Media, obviously...it just seems to be the case that there is more than what could be considered a healthy degree of skepticism when the subject is sexual assault and it's a woman's word against a man's.

I understand the sensitivity of these issues. Being wrongly accused of sexual deviancy of any kind can completely wreck a person's life. But I do feel the point Keri and others are making is true as well, that opinions expressed here are highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the case in question.

Rather than attempt to dictate what a natural response should be, I'll just circle back to the post I quoted: regardless of natural responses, it is disturbing how often it happens. This seemed like a pretty clear cut case, and I don't even take public transit that often. Everything about that video screamed guilty to me, and to many others. So it's somewhat troubling that the skeptics were still out in force in this particular case. Do we need a smoking gun every single time to be able to agree that the dude probably did it? Who are we protecting, and why?

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

So do you never post any negative opinions, ever?

I am really confused how you got that impression; my posts aren't even about "negative opinions."

Also, I just don't understand entering a conversation on a subject, simply to say: "I am unable to form an opinion on this matter."

Because that's not what I said...I was arguing that perhaps we shouldn't automatically condemn someone based on what I felt wasn't sufficient evidence

The only way I can understand your posts is if your opinion is that the woman was likely mistaken and you just can't bring yourself to admit it

Wait what? I am so baffled by your interpretations of my posts. My original argument was that there was a possibility she was mistaken; since then I have said that doesn't seem to be the case based on new evidence and the guy is a sexual deviant that should be dealt with

 

[Kinitari]

So do you never post any negative opinions, ever? Because any negative opinion has the ability to influence others. And your opinion on this subject doesn't carry any more weight than any other opinion. Do you take all of your posts so seriously? Also, I just don't understand entering a conversation on a subject, simply to say: "I am unable to form an opinion on this matter." The only way I can understand your posts is if your opinion is that the woman was likely mistaken and you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

An alternative is that someone comes into the thread, sees something that doesn't meet what they think is enough to condemn someone, but see's a lot of others doing so. At this point, they might think that it's a good idea to voice caution, because of a deep seeded uncomfortability with Internet vigilantism going wrong.

Does that sound likely at all to you?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Why did it bother you that it wasn't enough evidence for a lot of people? It sounds like you think it's because of a defensiveness, where someone thinks "I've had bags on my lap before... I've never jerked it, if that's the evidence I'm really not comfortable going down that path"

Which to me, sounds like a reasonable and appreciable way to operate.

It bothers me that that is a serious concern people have. Not once in my life has it ever occurred to me that I might be mistaken for someone jerking off. And that wasn't all the evidence. There was the clearly angry woman reacting, the guilty reaction and the fact that no one on the train stood up for him.

 

[Lesath]

I don't think we should be jumping on one person. It wasn't the fact that someone pointed out that we don't know for sure that bothered me. It was how many people did it that was. It dominated the thread. Some even saying that they could imagine being mistaken for a flasher by some unhinged woman. I think people just found it easier to imagine themselves in the hypothetical falsely accused guys shoes than the flashed womans. And that makes sense if they're male because they're unlikely to have to think about being flashed on a subway.

I can attest to this. I've been lambasted by an old woman who yelled at me for not getting up faster than the person next to me on the bus to give up a seat for her, as well as told off by a skinny lady who sat next to me and complained that my elbows were in her space (they hadn't moved from the moment she sat down). I recall in high school when students were in a public bus waaay past capacity and I could barely reach the handrail above me some chick behind me yelled at me for losing my balance. Being falsely accused sucks, and I could imagine the horror of being accused of what the guy did.

On the other hand, I've never been flashed (intentionally). So yeah, I've found it easier to withhold my judgement until more evidence came to light. If I were born a woman, I probably wouldn't.

 

[Brakke]

The reason a lot of people are upset at the 'we should wait for all the facts' crowd in this thread is because sexual crimes against women are nearly the only type of situation where this type of narrative emerges. It seems every single time there's a thread of this nature, people are jumping enmasse to say we shouldn't judge, as if suddenly the Internet is a court of law. It's disturbing.

That's not really true at all tho. Lots of people take a skeptical stance to lots of situations. People here regularly doubt police testimony when police claim the unarmed people they've killed lunged for guns or whatever. Other people regularly frown at people jumping to condemn police based on witness claims.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Well that's sort of a tricky question, isn't it? I hear what Kinitari is saying, that voices of dissent and skepticism can be a part of a healthy dialogue in any situation where the evidence isn't entirely clear. But I also agree with Media, obviously...it just seems to be the case that there is more than what could be considered a healthy degree of skepticism when the subject is sexual assault and it's a woman's word against a man's.

I understand the sensitivity of these issues. Being wrongly accused of sexual deviancy of any kind can completely wreck a person's life. But I do feel the point Keri and others are making is true as well, that opinions expressed here are highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the case in question.

Rather than attempt to dictate what a natural response should be, I'll just circle back to the post I quoted: regardless of natural responses, it is disturbing how often it happens. This seemed like a pretty clear cut case, and I don't even take public transit that often. Everything about that video screamed guilty to me, and to many others. So it's somewhat troubling that the skeptics were still out in force in this particular case. Do we need a smoking gun every single time to be able to agree that the dude probably did it? Who are we protecting, and why?

I mean, maybe not a smoking gun, but at the very least substantial evidence. I mean, why wouldn't you want that? What benefit do you have judging someone for doing something if you're not 100% sure they did it?

 

[Apollo]

dude looks like he has something in his pocket. Loud mouth woman caught him saw him touching it and thought he was rubbing his dick. Who would rub their dick with someone on the side of them and ppl in front of them. Loud mouth just wanted attention.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

dude looks like he has something in his pocket. Loud mouth woman caught him saw him touching it and thought he was rubbing his dick. Who would rub their dick with someone on the side of them and ppl in front of them. Loud mouth just wanted attention.

It would help if you read the thread.

But lemme get this plate ready for you, yo...

 

[Ferrio]

dude looks like he has something in his pocket. Loud mouth woman caught him saw him touching it and thought he was rubbing his dick. Who would rub their dick with someone on the side of them and ppl in front of them. Loud mouth just wanted attention.

Advanced crow eating?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

dude looks like he has something in his pocket. Loud mouth woman caught him saw him touching it and thought he was rubbing his dick. Who would rub their dick with someone on the side of them and ppl in front of them. Loud mouth just wanted attention.

lol just healthy skepticism am i right

 

[Sanjuro]

Well that's sort of a tricky question, isn't it? I hear what Kinitari is saying, that voices of dissent and skepticism can be a part of a healthy dialogue in any situation where the evidence isn't entirely clear. But I also agree with Media, obviously...it just seems to be the case that there is more than what could be considered a healthy degree of skepticism when the subject is sexual assault and it's a woman's word against a man's.

I understand the sensitivity of these issues. Being wrongly accused of sexual deviancy of any kind can completely wreck a person's life. But I do feel the point Keri and others are making is true as well, that opinions expressed here are highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the case in question.

Rather than attempt to dictate what a natural response should be, I'll just circle back to the post I quoted: regardless of natural responses, it is disturbing how often it happens. This seemed like a pretty clear cut case, and I don't even take public transit that often. Everything about that video screamed guilty to me, and to many others. So it's somewhat troubling that the skeptics were still out in force in this particular case. Do we need a smoking gun every single time to be able to agree that the dude probably did it? Who are we protecting, and why?

I don't think people are necessarily protecting anyone. Healthy portion of the individuals populating this thread are here to see "Woman goes off" more than anything else. There really wasn't a substantial news article, basically some New York Post shlock with a video attachment. Not many are actually are of regular NYC subway transit or have ever encountered such a situation. End result, the amount of people harboring seriously strong personal opinions on the matter is very low.

 

[Kinitari]

Well that's sort of a tricky question, isn't it? I hear what Kinitari is saying, that voices of dissent and skepticism can be a part of a healthy dialogue in any situation where the evidence isn't entirely clear. But I also agree with Media, obviously...it just seems to be the case that there is more than what could be considered a healthy degree of skepticism when the subject is sexual assault and it's a woman's word against a man's.

I understand the sensitivity of these issues. Being wrongly accused of sexual deviancy of any kind can completely wreck a person's life. But I do feel the point Keri and others are making is true as well, that opinions expressed here are highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the case in question.

Rather than attempt to dictate what a natural response should be, I'll just circle back to the post I quoted: regardless of natural responses, it is disturbing how often it happens. This seemed like a pretty clear cut case, and I don't even take public transit that often. Everything about that video screamed guilty to me, and to many others. So it's somewhat troubling that the skeptics were still out in force in this particular case. Do we need a smoking gun every single time to be able to agree that the dude probably did it? Who are we protecting, and why?

I think these are good questions, and it's hard to say even what my own personal reasons are.

I remember a thread where a bunch of girls accused some people of accosting them on the bus because their ethnicity. In the end it was pretty clear the girls were being dishonest.

What I felt the strongest coming out of that thread was how bad I felt for both the accused and the girls accusing. I felt that they were all put under the spotlight, and the ones falsely accused had to deal with the fallout, and the stupid kids who did the accusing suddenly had the world turn on them. Even though they were in the wrong, I still felt a lot of sympathy and didn't want their dumb mistakes to fuck them up too much.

I think what I'm getting at is, I don't like judging anyone too negatively, and the standard to meet that for me is high. I also don't like seeing frothing rage and judgment build, and feel as though there is often an empathetic disconnect for those we feel have wronged society.

It might be further a product of my non punitive core, and my desire for a rehabilitation oriented justice system, combined with learning a lot about the darkness of human nature from a psychologist friend of mine who is learning to care and empathize with people who would normally be looked at with disgust. I think these are wonderful things, and so, I want to share these ideas with the world.

A bit of a tangential point, but basically I think a high standard of evidence and a lot of kindness is good in basically any context. Maybe I have exceptions to that, but I wonder if I wasn't personally attached to those exceptions, if I would do even better.

 

[Pancake Mix]

There was evidence. The woman in the video witnessed the man masturbating before she yelled at him, so there was a witness to the behavior. It just wasn't evidence that most credit, (i.e. the word of a woman, I guess).

Oh give me a fucking break. She was the only witness who seemed to notice something, so calm down. You'd immediately trust someone you know and love, but a random woman on the bus? No, she could make mistakes. It doesn't seem to be the case here, but people can make mistakes about what they're witnessing.

I'm not going to apologize for not unequivocally believing the word of someone I don't know.

 

[Keri]

An alternative is that someone comes into the thread, sees something that doesn't meet what they think is enough to condemn someone, but see's a lot of others doing so. At this point, they might think that it's a good idea to voice caution, because of a deep seeded uncomfortability with Internet vigilantism going wrong.

Does that sound likely at all to you?

Again though, you're not going to "condemn" someone by posting your opinion online. It seems like, in the context of ALL other subjects that exist, people are able to understand that. Only in the context of sexual crimes involving women is there an overwhelming concern about "condemning" someone by expressing an opinion.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

It bothers me that that is a serious concern people have. Not once in my life has it ever occurred to me that I might be mistaken for someone jerking off. And that wasn't all the evidence. There was the clearly angry woman reacting, the guilty reaction and the fact that no one on the train stood up for him.

You're not looking at it from the perspective of someone with anxiety or other mental issues. You're looking at it solely from your perspective. Some people see an anxiety causing danger in every social interaction and their brains constantly flip to the worst case scenario. It may never occur to you or me because of our outlooks, but that doesn't mean it doesn't occur to anyone. I have known people that would have had exactly that same guilty looking reaction to a completely innocuous situation. I know a guy who ran into an old co-worker on the sidewalk, and got so much anxiety trying to think of what to say that he had a panic attack, stood there with his mouth open for 30 seconds, and then had to walk away. That was with someone he KNEW and all he needed to come up with was the words "Oh, hi". Now imagine a person in that sort of situation, constantly worried and anxious about what awkward social interactions they could be confronted with. This is probably a nightmare scenario that lives in their minds. If their first thought is to leap to "Well maybe we just need more evidence" I don't blame them.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

A personal evidence threshold shouldn't even make it to a discussion like this. They're clearly judging everyone in here, despite having little knowledge of the situation.

And even then, that's still what we're talking about, instead of the actual incident, when we have further evidence proving that this dude jerks it on trains as a goddamn hobby.

Why is that?

Because people kept getting on Tom Nook even after he came around and said that the guy probably did it after hearing further evidence.

The first post after that further evidence was "Well I hope people will eat crow." even though being neutral and withholding judgment on a situation is nothing to eat crow about.

 

[Media]

Nah, I appreciate that women have to deal with this sort of thing in the worst possible way, but let's not use that as an excuse to shit on people who don't feel comfortable judging people without it first meeting their personal evidence threshold.

This thread isn't an example of what you've described, as people seemed to have felt it was enough evidence. I'd even wager that would be the case in most sexual assault related threads,, that the majority of posters usually feel there is enough evidence on the jump.

And having a few people be skeptical and cautious should not only be non offensive, but embraced as a healthy part of dialogue. Sometimes the OP is not enough, and we have plenty of threads with all sorts of topics where the skepticism has proven to be entirely warranted.

Basically what echo said is my opinion. Of course there should be difference of opinion for healthy discussion. But it appears to me that more people leap into that stance and accuse others of being too quick to judge in cases of sexual assault. Sorta in the same nature as the 'let's wait for all the facts' folks when an unarmed black man is shot by police.

Especially when the accused is someone of note, the woman is automatically assumed to be lying for a lot of people. Even though false reports of sexual assault are statistically less likely.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Many posts in this thread are absolutely worth eating crow over, such as (again):



That dude needs a couple plates of fucking crow.

And yet you'd rather defend these kinds of morons by default.

I didn't defend him. You asked why we are still on the subject of doubting, and I explained to you why. Because someone said that people who doubted the situation should eat crow, and a person who doubted the situation came in to defend his position of doubt.

The person you quoted isn't just doubting anything. He's straight up accusing her of lying just to get attention.

That's the biggest problem in threads like this. Almost no one even bothers trying to make the distinction and just lumps people like Tom Nook, who just wanted more evidence, in with people who actively believe the person in the story is lying for whatever dumb reason they might have.

As for your edit, I'm only defending Tom Nook because he very clearly isn't taking the same position as the person you're quoting. And people were treating him exactly how they would treat Apollo. Tom Nook wasn't defending people like Apollo, and his opinion on the situation doesn't align with Apollo's either. People shouldn't be spitting the same shit at him as they should Apollo. Which is exactly what's happening. The fact that you were willing to lump Apollo and Tom Nook together and claim that I was defending both of them just proves my point.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

You're not looking at it from the perspective of someone with anxiety or other mental issues. You're looking at it solely from your perspective. Some people see an anxiety causing danger in every social interaction and their brains constantly flip to the worst case scenario. It may never occur to you or me because of our outlooks, but that doesn't mean it doesn't occur to anyone. I have known people that would have had exactly that same guilty looking reaction to a completely innocuous situation. I know a guy who ran into an old co-worker on the sidewalk, and got so much anxiety trying to think of what to say that he had a panic attack, stood there with his mouth open for 30 seconds, and then had to walk away. That was with someone he KNEW and all he needed to come up with was the words "Oh, hi". Now imagine a person in that sort of situation, constantly worried and anxious about what awkward social interactions they could be confronted with. This is probably a nightmare scenario that lives in their minds. If their first thought is to leap to "Well maybe we just need more evidence" I don't blame them.

I don't blame them either. You've explained what I assumed was behind those reactions. They are illogical reactions though and not just the healthy skepticism others are claiming. My first comment in this thread was that others were projecting their own insecurities [disclaimer: not everyone] onto this situation. So we are both in agreement.

 

[psynergylover]

Awesome. Now everyone can stop acting like the woman who scolded him was the crazy one.

There was debate on this!?!?!?(haven't read the thread)

 

[Damerman]

Plot twist: She's really his Domme and they're really into humiliation play.

That roast though, hahaha holy shit

Loool omg


The guy admitted to guilt when she asked... Why are people asking for more proof?

 

[Media]

Loool omg


The guy admitted to guilt when she asked... Why are people asking for more proof?

If I remember correctly, it was better to think the guy might have anxiety or be mentally ill and doesn't handle confrontation well than to think that perhaps she was telling the truth.

 

[milanbaros]

There was debate on this!?!?!?(haven't read the thread)

There were a lot of people saying that the video was insufficient alone to condem the man and that another possible explanation was that she was mistaken. Another, more remote possibility is that she was crazy.

Not sure anyone said she was definitely crazy based on that video. In fact, the people who cited that as a possible explanation tended to be the one's withholding final conclusions on anything outside of what was shown in the video.

But no, go with the narrative that people were saying he wasn't doing anything and the woman was crazy.