What is this bullshit?

Harassment and economic sanctions go a wee bit over the bar of "forming one's own opinions".

>Isn't innocent until proven guiltiy a thing?
>Aww you're adorable
Holy fucking shit, everyone sensible just stand back and let us do this, please.

>How naive do you have to be to think that courts are somehow infallible arbiters of objective truth?
The fact that you type drivel like this disgusts me.

Isn't the rapist only a rapist because he said "hey baby" or something to a female on an RPG forum?

Pretty stupid question desu.
They are the best we got. Better than average retards on the internet by miles.

How self-important do you have to be to think that you have the right to judge people and contribute to ruining their lives based on hearsay?

Also, you could be next.

>accused

They tried to get to kill a mockingbird taken off the syllabus a few times recently.
I fucking wonder why?

> You are blocked from following @dorkland and viewing @dorkland's Tweets.
It's nice when the retards clearly mark themselves as such.

Dragonsfoot moderators and admins should be raped. Right in their dumb faces.

It's often like that. There may be some actual instances of rape or harassment in the RPG circles, sure. Most of those cases however, that's the product of progressive types being jelous our so called "industry" isn't like other media.

I've never actually read that book, could you explain why removing it is significant please?

>We have trouble with harassment and abuse in our #RPG communities. It is great to see retailers taking action and deciding not to carry the products of someone accused of rape, but I have to ask the question: why isn't this "rule" being applied to every publisher accused of rape?

Some attempts at discussion follow, but are quickly hushed.

youtube.com/watch?v=ftQNuv_MsjY

It's okay user, I know how to use "private browsing mode" to circumvent it. All it does - when it's someone I never interacted with in any form - is marking them as willing victims of politically correct groupthink.

For the same reason D&D should be prohibited, because Gygax & Arneson were sexist, and Mentzer perpetrated facebook rape.

You are probably on one of their big shitlist of people who have different opinions than me. It's a big list.

I guess the entire USA should be nuked because the founding fathers were sexists.

It's about a false rape accusation being thrust on a black guy, how the court of public opinion is bullshit and how vigilante justice is always wrong basically.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Kill_a_Mockingbird

>Judge Taylor appoints Atticus to defend Tom Robinson, a black man who has been accused of raping a young white woman, Mayella Ewell. Although many of Maycomb's citizens disapprove, Atticus agrees to defend Tom to the best of his ability. Other children taunt Jem and Scout for Atticus's actions, calling him a "nigger-lover". Scout is tempted to stand up for her father's honor by fighting, even though he has told her not to. Atticus faces a group of men intent on lynching Tom. This danger is averted when Scout, Jem, and Dill shame the mob into dispersing by forcing them to view the situation from Atticus' and Tom's perspective.

>Atticus does not want Jem and Scout to be present at Tom Robinson's trial. No seat is available on the main floor, so by invitation of the Rev. Sykes, Jem, Scout, and Dill watch from the colored balcony. Atticus establishes that the accusers—Mayella and her father, Bob Ewell, the town drunk—are lying. It also becomes clear that the friendless Mayella made sexual advances toward Tom, and that her father caught her and beat her. Despite significant evidence of Tom's innocence, the jury convicts him. Jem's faith in justice becomes badly shaken, as is Atticus', when the hapless Tom is shot and killed while trying to escape from prison.

Because there is a black man who is accused of rape, (In go set a watchman, the better book IMO)
Atticus as actually like the local grand wizard or something, but still takes his case, because Innocent until proven guilty, when the entire white population of the town wants to just Lynch him. Via courtroom shenninigans, it is determined that the black man was actually advanced on by the white woman.
You can imagine how they think about this.

On a side note, there is murmurings in the White Camelia to actually start letting in black folks that are actual PEOPLE to use as potential weapons against this kinda shit.
It's not going anywhere because of the oldest fuddy duddys but the newer generations appear to like it.

We live in a weird fucking world.

Fun fact. The author of FATAL was never accused of any such things.

Ah right, I thought it would be due to the book's themes. Maybe denouncing 'guilty until proven innocent' or something.

Several big lists, as far as I know.

Thanks for explaining
I posted without refreshing first

the book is about a defense attorney defending an innocent black man accused of raping a white girl during depression era america

The newest version of FATAL is from 2004, none of these people have ever heard of it.

In other FATAL facts, FATAL 2e actually has bookmarks, but only for the index, not for any of the regular sections, and the address for Fatal Games moves from IL to KS sometime in 2004.

>Why exactly should opinions be infallible to the process of the naive objective when forming their own people about arbiters? How legal do you have to be to thing that truths are somehow beholden courts of system thinks?

Can we talk about how weird the "dorkland" twitter account is? most of his tweets never get a single retweets or favourites.

That's because the author of FATAL is a virgin recluse who never interacted with other human beings.

Guy might be a rapist himself. You never know with these types.

>Always impossible to verify, but always immediately ending that person's career, like a well placed shot.

Almost like something links these very specific incidents?

But that's stupid, right? Who'd really believe there's a shadow organisation with that sort of power. Impossible.

>like that ever stopped a rape accusation

Men can't prove their virginity.
Women can't be asked to.

So what you are saying is that he's a creepy loner and probably a paedophile.

Can't be accused if no one even knows you exist.

>probably

>hey I started a forum thread to discuss this event, of you want to chime in
>you are harassing me
What world do these people even live in?

>Can't be accused if no one even knows you exist.

Greater than 50% chance you're right. If you're wrong, oh well, it wasn't like you ruined a guy's life or anything.

I wonder if Byron Hall still plays FATAL.

This user agrees with this statement.

This one's still on (oddly): forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?820132-Opinion-Let-us-not-perpetrate-vigilante-revenge-in-pursuit-of-social-justice

>forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?820132-Opinion-Let-us-not-perpetrate-vigilante-revenge-in-pursuit-of-social-justice
>This. I've been a juror. I know how to apply this standard. I am not a juror now, and the RPG market is not a court of law. I'll vote with my wallet any time, any way, that I want. And I choose to avoid accused sexual harassers like the plague.
I wonder if we could convince /pol/ to bring down the social justice titans of the industry for us by getting some of their trap squad to claim they were raped or that kind of thing.
Kinda clear the brush with a flamethrower so new life can grow there sort of deal.

>How naive do you have to be to think that courts are somehow infallible arbiters of objective truth?
And internet lynch mobs are superior? Do you or any other of the self-appointed grand inquisitors out there review a case as thoroughly or as professionally as a judge?

Boycotts and sanctions are a form of vilgilante justice. Even when applied to convicted criminals. Punishment is due from our juidicial system not from activists.

Virgin neckbeard can also be chad rapist. Ever heard of verbal or emotional rape? It's a thing!

>As evidenced by the past few months, we're perfectly capable of formulating rational, reasoning responses. Even in they include advocating for bans and boycotts of people solely based on accusations.

uh-huh

>Boycotts and sanctions are a form of vilgilante justice.

Well, boycotts are not really vigilante stuff. People have every right to make their own economic decisions, vigilante actions need to be without legal authority but they have all the legal authority to make that decision.

Yeah, it's a thing.

Also this: The general gamer social awkwardness makes it more likely to be falsely accused, and in a way that sticks.

Could we? Never been to /pol/ but this kingdom desperately needs a hero.

Yeah, verbal sexual assault very much is a thing.

Shut up and look pretty, darling.

Instigating mass boycotts based on hearsay though, that's vigilantism.

Boycotts aren't vigilante stuff.
Trying to get someone fired from their place of work sure as shit is and it happens constantly.
I honestly think by this point the whole 'getting racists fired' thing need a counter culture of 'getting cunts fired'
Where people find the details of people involved in getting others fired and team up to shit in their throats bye getting them fired in turn.
Cockroaches scurry away when people shine a light on them.

>Instigating mass boycotts based on hearsay though, that's vigilantism.

Not really? It's bad but it's not vigilantism. Again, people have the legal right to make those economic decisions so it can't be vigilantism.

Yeah honestly this. It's one thing if the boycotters actively harass and witch hunt individuals based on hearsay but it's quite another to tell your friends "yeah don't buy from this company".

It's a little shitty refusing business with someone just because a HuffPo article says they're a rapist but it's not the worst way you can respond to that situation.

Yeah, I'll admit while such things are in the air I'm often a bit hesitant to actually buy media until it's all come out/legal stuff has gotten involved.

Then again: I'm part of what remains of the British empire. At this point how many beloved children's presenters have NOT turned out to be monsters is getting pretty low.

>I'm part of what remains of the British empire. At this point how many beloved children's presenters have NOT turned out to be monsters is getting pretty low.
Have any of The Wiggles been accused of any of that?

liartownusa.tumblr.com/post/165834277465/announcing-the-2018-social-justice-kittens
I wonder if the 2019 calendar will just be rape accusations.

>manipulating community to destroy careers
>not vigilantism

I gotta get me a Twitter account so I can tweet at Dorkland "Yeah, but you raped that young girl in 1997."

youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

This has always best summed it up for me.

Rolf Harris is taking the whores that accused him to court. Of the 8 cases he has appealed against he has won 8. Just 11 more to go.

He was cleared on such technicalities as "not being in the same city as the accused" and having police testimony to prove it that the police """mysteriously""" lost in the initial court cases.

My biggest fear for him now is his age. He is 87(?) now and if he dies before clearing his name he will be branded for the rest of time.

Also does anyone remember the Cliff Richard accusations? And how the BBC managed to arrive at his house with enough time to set up the cameras and start recording just before the police arrived to raid it? That's not fucking suspicious or anything.

This man is a rapist

Gods and Demons I hope not. The moment Jeff gets caught with a bottle of roofies is the day I lose hope in all humanity.

Never been to /pol/!?
Pic related.

The man needs to set up a trust fund with the rest of his money with all output channeled directly into proving him innocent after his death.
And then once that's done into a charity that fights false rape accusation cases.

Please take a screenshot if you do.

>The English Court of Appeal, however, denied the 87-year-old Australian former entertainer the right to appeal his other 11 convictions.

He didn't bring sufficient evidence to actually convince the judges there was a trial out of it.

No good. He failed on those 11, as he wasn't able to provide evidence enough to bring the convictions into question.

>That's not fucking suspicious or anything.
>your state controlled leftwing propaganda agency funded via intimidation campaigns is literally called the BBC, and people wonder why they're so cucked

it's like pottery

>Not really? It's bad but it's not vigilantism. Again, people have the legal right to make those economic decisions so it can't be vigilantism.
It's legal but it undermines the court of law because it constitutes a de facto punishment on top of any handed out by courts.

The basis of our juidicial system is citizens giving up avenging a crime themselves but leaving it up to the state. If they commit legal revenge, the offender gets punished de facto twice.

This is ofc worse when it happens to suspects-only instead of convicted felons.

There is nothing wrong with vigilantism. We should be stoning people based on accusations.

I personally find these situations to be less clear cut than maybe other anons here, and I want to make clear that I disagree with people who call for outright boycotts and demand removal of books etc. from sale.

But the problem for me is when one person makes the decision to not support a writer, basing his decisions on how they feel about a situation, maybe there is no smoking gun or 100% proof of misdeed, but it's still ok to decide that I don't want to support a person I think is shady in some way or another, whether i'm right or wrong, i can still make that decision for myself.

It should also be ok for that person to discuss and talk about the decision they have made, if that convinces other to do the same you will end up with a de facto boycott, which might have an actual economical impact on the writer, depending on the number of people taking part in this "boycott"

I don't feel like anyone in my hypothetical example has done anything wrong, or that they somehow shouldn't be allowed to stop buying products or to talk about it, yet it invariably leads to call of Witch Hunt! or "Innocent until proven guilty!" which i totally understand as well, but frankly I'm not seeing any possibly way to avoid this cycle.

I'm not defending the worse elements of this, who at the slightest provocation demand insane measures to be taken without a shred of proof - but rather that an individual is allowed to make decisions affecting them without having absolute proof, and other people might follow, and there is very little that can be done about it.

>it wasn't an adult inside the Dorothy the Dinosaur costume, it was three Aboriginal children paid in petrol

Yeah but 'Choosing not to buy from you' is difficult to class as a punishment as that's something you can do with anyone for any (Or no) reason. Harassing people is another matter entirely but choosing not to buy from someone is fully within their legal rights (And honestly, their right to make purchasing decisions they consider ethical)

So animal cruelty it is then.

>It's often like that.
I'm sure you've said so many times in the past.

It's almost like real life is complex and full of moral grey areas and the conflict between a victim's right to be treated as legitimate rather than dismissed out of hand and the accused right to a fair trial is a very tricky area. As well as the effects of social pressure on both sides of the situation for good and for ill.

Presumably one where you exist, which is why they react to your actions.

I don't doubt its legality. I say it undermines the juidicial system. A convicted child killer who has served his time - should we do business with him or not? Should we punish him on top of his sentence?

Refusing to do so is vigilante justice, even if legal. Or it's, at least, vengeance.

>It's almost like real life is complex and full of moral grey areas and the conflict between a victim's right to be treated as legitimate rather than dismissed out of hand and the accused right to a fair trial is a very tricky area

Well of course, it's just that people form opinions on their fellow humans based on things which would not pass any judicial scrutiny, and that's completely normal.
Does it suck if the public opinion turns against you based on things which are unproven? - Absolutely.

I'm just wondering how these people who are repeating the "Innocent until proven guilty!" think we should do? Not make any opinions on anything unless they are fully proven to be correct? Or not talk about any personal decisions you've made for yourself, so that no one else can be swayed be your opinion?

By the same token, this isn't about employment or refusal of service. This is about choosing to purchase from that person, you can't really go 'You must purchase from this guy you'd rather not'. Which is why I find it a bit difficult to classify a boycott as vigilantism, as it's something people are allowed to do for any reason they want.

But yeah, calling for people to get fired based on something they've not been convicted for yet? That is terrible. The only case I'd even potentially support is say, saying that you don't feel comfortable employing someone in a capacity where that crime is directly relevant to the current trial (Like someone being tried for child abuse working at a daycare).

That's pretty much what's needed it seems. These people need to be reminded that the principle "innocent until proven guilty" exists for a reason. Anybody can make a false accusation, of anyone. Accusations should be treated as literally nothing until proof is present.

>Accusations should be treated as literally nothing until proof is present.

Mind you, that's not the same as treating the accuser as a liar before any trials have happened or investigation is conducted.

>I'm just wondering how these people who are repeating the "Innocent until proven guilty!" think we should do?

Here's a starter: How about you don't fucking believe all the shit you hear online? Internet is FILLED WITH LIARS. I thought everybody knew this already but apparently not.

Yeah but i can still decide not to buy a product even if the person hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law, it's enough for me to make a decision that this person is a bit dodgy and i don't want to support them.

People make decisions all the time which are not based on 100% proven facts.

Jeez i can hypothetically decide not to buy a product because i don't like the cover, so i definitely can decide not to buy a product because the author who may have done something illegal.

If only it was possible to talk to your friends without public statements and forum whistleblowing...

That's exactly what a rapist would say. I remember you. You raped me in 2008. How the fuck are people still employing you? Get this rapist in jail!

Should have read what i actually posted user. I never said i've stopped buying anything, i've not taken any stance on whether the various accusations being thrown around are true or not.

I just simply pointed out that any one person can decide not to buy a product from a person they dislike, whether or not the reason for their dislike is 100% proven or not - and not only can you do that, we, humans do that all the time, forming opinions without a 100% proven accurate premise.

>Jeez i can hypothetically decide not to buy a product because i don't like the cover, so i definitely can decide not to buy a product because the author who may have done something illegal.

You got that backwards son. Not buying a book because you don't like the cover is perfectly rational, because 1) it pertains to the actual product and not the person behind it, and 2) the evidence exists and is right in front of your eyes: you see the cover, the cover sucks. No one can fault you for that.

But avoiding a product because of hearsay - a rumor, a totally unconfirmed story that's probably bullshit? That is NOT rational behavior. You don't see the evidence with your own eyeballs, it's literally just some shit that should be given zero consideration unless the guy is actually convicted of something.

As someone in the Twitter thread pointed out, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I find it amusing that his response was "Aww you're adorable."

Our freedoms are being stripped not by the institution, but by the people.

Yeah, but look at sites like rpg.net. People aren't "discussing their decisions" there, they are outright demanding everyone to follow. I've also seen posters outright asking if it's ok to buy this or that product like they were unable to decide on their own. In practice it just doesn't work like you describe more often than it does.