there was an article on the news about some guy that did a selfie in front of a star wars cardboard cutout, but apparently there were some kids standing nearby and some lady allegedly took a picture of the guy and put him on social media only for him to get labelled as a pedafile and it went viral. and hes been copping it since.
its made me think that this sort of thing would be no different to defamation. the article was in todays news
whats your opinion?

in turned out the guy was a family man who posted a selfie and sent it to his wife and kids.

its different if you were caught in the act of doing something wrong, then it would be ok to film, but to just make assumptions on a basis where you are imagining or conjuring something that has not happened is grossly defamatory in my opinion. and the person who circulates it should be liable

Edited by Socawho: 8/5/2015 09:31:09 PM

Edited by Socawho: 8/5/2015 09:31:43 PM

Edited by Socawho: 8/5/2015 09:47:47 PM

defamation covers it already

I saw this on Facebook the other day as it happened locally.

Was a clear as day picture of a man outside Target with a caption of 'this man came up to my kids, took a picture if them and then said he was going to send it to all of his mates' and then of course the witch hunt came.

Hopefully he sues the Mother for everything she has.

Edited by jlm8695: 8/5/2015 10:11:12 PM

This.

Also, why was he labeled a child molester for taking a selfie in front of a Star Wars cut out?

Actually, HOW can someone label this guy a child molester for taking a selfie in front of a Star Wars cut out? How does one make that assumption? If you can see a guy taking a selfie and some children happen to be nearby and your first thought is "He's a child molester", that probably says more about you than it does about him.

Isn't false misrepresentation just representation?

As I stated before, the person who took the photo was somehow under the assumption that he had photographed the kids and specifically told them that he was sending the photo to his 'mates'.

The problem with social media is you are guilty until proven innocent.
Supposing the guy got bashed to death by vigilantes...it would mean. that the lady who posted the photo isnt culpable for the crime.
the dangerous part of it is someone can make up anything and once it becomes viral most people will believe it

Edited by Socawho: 9/5/2015 12:18:32 AM

That's what I came here to say :lol:

Pretty shit attempt at an apology there, I didn't see the posts as they were happening live but it sounds as though she was pretty vocal in encouraging it to be spread and then she says she didn't know her profile was public? Plus no explanation about making up that the guy said he would send it to all of his mates.

I was channel surfing today and came across a discussion about this and they had heaps of male viewers commenting about how often they receive suspicious glances or get harassed when out with their kids or waiting to pick kids up from school. I don't want to derail the thread here but I think the prevalence of social media feminist blogs like mamamia that consistently generalize against men and always push the victim card are having a seriously negative impact on the impressionable minds out there.

Then maybe you shouldn't do the same thing you are complaining about and generalising based on your own agenda.

There is a big difference between fallaciously attacking an individual and focusing specifically on problem areas in society factually. One is slander/libel, the other is agenda-biased social commentary.

How am I generalizing when I've named a specific example instead of lumping all these sources together?

I have no agenda. Just because I've felt the need to criticize prominent writers/bloggers who write slanderous articles that lump all males in together does not make me an MRA loon or equip me with some kind of agenda, it makes me a guy who doesn't like what's being written about guys.

If this is going to start an argument then this will be my last comment on the topic but is there a possibility that the prevalence of certain radical feminist opinions on social media are having too much of an impact on the minds of readers? personally I think it's a fair question as things like the generalizations that stem from things like #questionsformen campaign certainly encouraged a lot of enmity between the two genders, plus writers like Clem Ford are often very keen to label injustices as male problems when the reality is most of us are just as shit scared of walking home alone in the dark as most women are.

I'm not trying to have a whinge about feminism if that's how I'm coming off, TBH your response suggests to me that if anyone has an agenda it's you. This wasn't an exercise in typical forum anti feminist sentiment, I merely highlighted a clear case of people thinking the worst of a man and wondered whether the growing popularity for blogs and writers that propagate this image is fueling this in anyway, not too unreasonable I would have thought.

Your comment came off as generalising feminist blogs as media that generalises men and cries victim. I can see how you could intend it to be specifically about a subset of feminist media, but it is easily read in reverse.


That's kind of the point of drawing attention to this stuff, only they want you to progress to from this point to going "OK, so why is there this opinion. What is it about male behaviour that has feminists so defensive?" Rather than asserting that their position is baseless (no-ones position is ever baseless, even if it is wrong) out-of-hand, reasonable critical thinkers will investigate why these positions are formed. Really, there is a lot of shit that guys take for granted or ignore because it doesn't affect them that affect women and women's rights. Some of that stuff actually affects men too, like divorce law.


You can't create change without challenging norms, you can't challenge norms without creating unease amongst those that have their position negatively affected by challenging the norms. It's important to leverage the best viral communication tools to get any message out, from feminism to nationalist propaganda (hi #StopTheBoats). To affect a change in power structure, you have to appeal to those in power who could be sympathetic. For eg: abolishing slavery; white people needed to agree to stop considering black people as property, black people couldn't just liberate themselves. Feminists can't obtain equality without trying to persuade men that there is a problem. #questionsformen may put some men offside, but it may cause some men to go "whoa, yeah actually it is a bit shit to say that someone can only behave in a certain way whilst I can do what I like without being judged" (for example)


I can categorically guarantee that you, and men in general, are not as shit scared of walking home alone in the dark as women, in general, no matter how much you think you are. That's not to say you aren't shit scared, but it's a whole different ballpark for women.


Oh I 100% have an agenda, everyone does in some way, I embrace it though. I'm passionate about my view on equality (not just gender, but sexual, racial and even religious despite my agnostic beliefs) which is why I aggressively bristle at any sign of dismissal of feminism in male-centric circles like this forum. Apologies for coming off as attacking you too harshly, I read your post in the tone I read all gender discourse on here (and there's a reason for that) but you don't seem to have intended it as such. I still feel your claims are flawed, but at least you aren't crying "feminazis, feminazis everywhere!".

100 percent. men these days are guilty until proven innocent.
All it takes is 1 woman Serial liar to destroy a mans reputation forever....even when the man is found to be innocent.
im not saying all men are innocent but not all women are either

If Draupnir sees my post hes gonna blow up deluxe

Edited by Socawho: 11/5/2015 07:39:04 PM

What a laugh.

The amount of times you slagged off this Clem Ford sheila just on this forum is innumerable. (And that's only on the threads I'm reading.) If you don't like what she writes about don't read what she writes. You seem to have some masochistic joy out of reading something she's written and then becoming outraged.

I don't even know who this lady is but if she had her car tyres slashed tomorrow you'd be a prime suspect.

As for you Soca that's a pretty poor attempt at filling Notorganic's shoes. Not enough pseudo-intellectual waffle for starters and you haven't even tried to call anyone a name or belittle them.

1/10.




Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 11/5/2015 08:04:25 PM

we should chat some time

oh by the way, I dont think slavery has been abolished. maybe you're just talking about one country, a foreign country where most members of this forum dont live, but thats ok.

white people werent and arent the only slave owners either, nor are or were black people the only slaves

if you're going to be passionate about equality as you say, then at least start with a balanced perspective :cool:

think what you think ...my piece wasnt intended for you...only for people who think rationally.

gee you would be fun at parties...people would think you were high on something you couldnt get on the market. :shock:

Edited by Socawho: 11/5/2015 08:23:36 PM

Brilliant.

Barely literate forumite (see forum title just for starters) and serial spammer slags off bloke who has an ability to see issues in colours other than black and white.

Not sure if this is what you meant but this book is an excellent read.

http://www.amazon.com/White-Gold-Forgotten-Africas-European/dp/0340895098

Haha no, no I don't, she's very popular with a lot of people I know so I see a fair bit of her stuff shared across social media and really can't avoid coming across it. I generally stick well clear of it but every now and then there's something monumentally stupid enough to catch your attention and I take the bait.



No, I really wouldn't. I know you've stated you don't know who she is but she identifies on the extreme side of most issues so she's stirred up quite a bit of controversy in her time. She's no saint.

Not specifically, however that's one example of the countless throughout history of other combinations to which I referred.

These days however there's a tendency by those with something to gain politically to refer just to American history as a divisive political football issue.

Of course there is nothing at stake and nothing to be solved. Its all about division and diversion politics, to keep the masses arguing, to keep the masses on the reservation and to use as leverage in an election campaign.

I'm sure someone's figured out how to make money from it too. Media these days is such that each outlet caters to one side of the electoral market specifically. ie left or right, democrat or republican in the case of the USA - and then there is campaign donations from various special interests. Somehow it filters into the Australian conversation because of social media, the internet etc lately, and the slow and steady process of Americanisation of the culture of much of the western world. Now its got to a point that words that they find taboo we can no longer use even though it may have no relevance to the history of this country.


Edited by ricecrackers: 11/5/2015 10:08:41 PM

Munrubenmuz, Clementine ford is basically the Andrew bolt of feminism. You have to see it to believe it.

^agree clem ford is bad of not worse than andrew bilt but alas I like fredsta will be attacked as being a mra.

thats should Mumrubz ever be accused of rape we all will assume he is guilty since he is a man

I'm having a read of her twitter thing now.

Good lord. You'd think the antagonism between men and women was on the level of the Israelis and Palestinians or something like that.

She seems to have a massive chip on her shoulder among other personal issues. If she's causing outrage and provoking reaction however then thats probably why she's getting paid to do it.

Not worth wasting one's time on unless you want to get sucked into the vortex of a manipulative, never-ending and unresolvable 'debate'.

Edited by ricecrackers: 11/5/2015 10:45:32 PM

mumbruz is basically a feminist worshiping nob jockey.

and he has the nerve to say im wrong about my post even when the woman owned up to what she did and said what she did was wrong

Sometimes i wonder if Mumruzs real name is Bruce Jenner

Edited by Socawho: 12/5/2015 07:02:16 AM

Edited by Socawho: 12/5/2015 07:27:01 AM

Speaking about feminist based websites makes you a MRA.

Noice.

-PB

You really are a try hard little man aren't you? With a comprehension problem to boot.

Read what I wrote peanut on the previous page. I said if you don't like what the columnist has to to say stop winding yourself up by reading what she writes.

Ignore her.

I read here she has a chip on her shoulder. Maybe.

Maybe a few blokes around here do also.

This lady needs jail time. Her stupidity has defamed him for life. This poor bugger has to explain himself to his family, his friends and his boss/colleagues because the daft feminazi bitch didn't think and jumped to a conclusion.

Hold up Broseph Guybbels (if you are going with 'feminazi', I feel this is appropriate), at what point was the woman defaming the man or her actions identified as feminist? Feminism was brought up after the fact, in an attempt to blame shift the distrust of men around children to feminist social media (when it is a phenomenon that has been observed since pre-internet times, based around the very real and observable predominance of the male gender in child sexual predators operating in public spaces. This doesn't mean women can't or don't offend, but come on it doesn't even come close to the same numbers.) The viral nature of shaming this guy has nothing to do with feminism, it was posted on Facebook by a paranoid (and clearly wrong) mother and in no way was there a feminist context to it. The viral nature of the shaming has everything to do with social media as a whole, and how instant our consumption of media is these days.

I also reject that this has "defamed him for life". The response in his defence blew up far bigger than the initial accusation, in 6 months no one will even know his name (do you even know it now?)