It's almost like the later case isn't going to make national media. It's almost like many of the prominent cases are ones where the person's behaviour has been a known issue for decades. It's almost like companies tend to announce that people are being removed *after* concluding the investigation, not before. It's almost like an inveistgation where HR goes "uh yea, we've got like 3 decades worth of reports on this guy, but the CEO told us under no uncertain terms to drop the matter" doesn't take very long.
Gee, you sure know how each of these companies are dealing with these cases! Because to me it's almost like these companies are doing everything they can do distance themselves from their accused employees. It's almost like the truthfulness of the accusation is secondary to keeping their customer-base. Understandable, corporations work rationally, it's the mob that is stupid.
A moral panic looks like crank physicists on the TV floating theories about repressed memories of ritual satanic abuse. A witch hunt looks like senator mccarthy percedingin over a commission in part with the FBI to ferret out suspected communists. It looks like the FBI demanding that it's employees sit in it's homosexual detection device in order to determine if they will continue to be employed there.
Those aren't moral panic, they're just gigantic hyperboles. A moral panic looks like this:
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11343380/Sexually-assault-1-in-3-UK-female-students-victim-on-campus.html - 33%
- https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/us/a-third-of-college-women-experience-unwanted-sexual-contact-study-finds.html - 25%
Yeah right. Those are numbers that simply can't be true. This would mean that going to college is more dangerous to women than prison (4% officially, though some estimates put assault at 20% -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States) You either have a serious problem with your methodology (possibly how you frame what sexual abuse means), or you have a moral panic, where the public and even a part of the scientific community goes off the rails. I think it's the latter.
Also no, no we do not need to treat every source as equal. Sexual harassment in these industries are so prevlevant there are literally hundreds of studies that attempt to quantify exactly how bad it is. Something like one person in five will experience it at some point. No one is inventing sexual harassment. So you know, pretending that buzzfeed is the only source is just a wee bit disingenuous.
I'm not pretending it's a non issue, but MAYBE we could go about this in a cool headed way, instead of further fanning the flames of mass hysteria, no? The activist-types really should know this better, after all, you'd think they want to win people over for their cause. Well evidently, that isn't the case, exhibit A: this thread where multiple former supporter have stated they no longer think this movement is being honest/heading in the right direction. I gather it's what's happening generally, not just on our humble forums.
Of course that's utterly irrelevant. You seem to think there's some big moral panic. It's not on me or anyone else to disprove your claim, it's on you to prove it. Your moral panic does not get to exist by default until disproved, and you shouldn't expect people to prove the negative. The null hypothesis is true until you demonstrate otherwise.
I have provided plenty of support for why I think there is a moral panic, while all you did to counter them is to blame corporations, dismiss sources as biased (even though I used Buzzfeed, and now the NYT to make my point), make hyperboles, and accuse my friend of lying, without ever occuring to you that MAYBE parts of this #metoo thing have gone too far. Again, you have shown your tendency to disregard obvious facts that run contrary to your political ideology. It's to be expected from the far-left, unfortunately.