Moose Blood Release Statement • Page 7

That idea isn't based on statistics, statistics back it up. The idea is, we believe credible statements - which automatically means "assuming guilt" to some degree - unless we have reason not to. Statistics show that false accusations are extremely rare, which automatically excludes at least one reason not to believe an otherwise credible statement, which is the right wing sexist canard of the lying sexual assault victim. This is to say, we don't use the specter of false accusation to cast doubt on specific cases where there is no specific evidence of false accusation, for many reasons, one being that false accusations are so rare that there is no reason to assume any one accusation is false without evidence. No one is saying we should try and convict accused assaulters because statistics say false accusations are rare.

 

But I speak from anecdotal experience too (which I explained in Inbox messages but not here cos I imagine the replies) hence why I insisted to get involved. I also disagree that It's not 00.001% because that's presuming those that are accused are automatically guilty. You don't typically take a false accusation to court unless you've got a serious alibi to back it up or you have then been challenged upon it - so a lot of the false accusations stay unchallenged too. How often they reported? There's plenty more I can say about the statistics, but I didn't want to get into that discussion because I don't want to undermine the gravity of such allegations - that's never been the point. It's not about picking sides.

It doesn't have to be polar opposite sides; I just believe in a more impartial stance, particularly when it's officially gone to trial because just assuming EITHER party is guilty of lying is wrong. But I agree with the statements people have made about the courts being unreliable and respect that. I agree with any boycotts of the band, unless they've been declared innocent. But its a fucked up situation all around.

 

Actually plenty of people in power use legal action and the threat of legal action to silence thier victims as most people can't afford the costly legal fees that are needed to defend themselves. Add on to that what was pointed out earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is flipped in these cases and you have a system where most victims don't even come forward.

 

I understand that they are rare but not THAT rare as people are choosing to believe. What's the figures for claims if the perpetrator is more influential (ie celebrity) too? I know anecdotal evidence of individuals using false accusations because they drunkenly cheated on their partner and don't want to admit blame, others including blackmail. If these got reported (also rarely do) they'd fall apart if the evidence doesn't stack up. So yes, I believe the figure of false accusations is higher. But that's 100% not to undermine the gravity of such allegations for victims and it's frustrating I have to repeat that. I know lots of horrible cases of sexual assault too. We all want the perpetrators behind bars.

 

Yes, I agree on that. Power/influence definitely has a play, but it can also make them a potential target. Like with Michael Jackson (purely as he's a popular example). Yes, that's a big case where you can question some of his decisions (ie paying off a victim's family instead of '93 trial) but ultimately he was still ruled innocent in 2005 trial and there were even secret recordings of the first victim's father proclaiming about how much money he'd get. MJ was ruled innocent yet it ruined his life.

 

So did the Oberst thing turn out to be false? I can't remember ever seeing anything about the resolution of that case but I admire his stance afterwards.

 

Being proven innocent in a court of law is just that. It doesn't always mean innocent in real life and it certainly doesn't mean that the court of public opinion has to follow suit, especially in egregiously mishandled cases. You're again confusing actual court with public opinion. One has a duty to be impartial, one does not.

 

I love the “I know people who have done this so obviously what I’m saying is true across the board” thing.

 

Well it's still [usually] the best arbiter to judge crimes. I understand it isn't perfect but automatically assuming guilt isn't right either.

 

Didn't say it's across the board but until you've got your own experience (which hopefully won't happen) then you know first-hand that a fair trial is still important. Moose Blood have proclaimed their innocence (instead of guilt) and therefore deserve some benefit of the doubt to the courts imo. Just saying the system is fucked isn't fair either. But yeah, it's fucked.

 

what are you trying to prove?

 

“To the courts” sure, but not really here.

 

I'm tired of having to go in and remove bands for this reason from my Apple Music Library...wish there was an option for complete removal so I don't have to go through playlists song by song.

Well worth the time though...

 

So, I don't know anything about Moose Blood, I haven't listened to them, but I had planned on it soon, as I wanted to catch McCafferty and Lydia on tour next month.

Is this related to the same exact issue eleven months ago where they removed the drummer? Is he still out of the band? Is she claiming that the whole band had something to do with it?

 

I wish this was a feature on spotify. Especially when I'm listening to an artist radio like Thrice and Brand New plays every 6 songs. It feels like thumbs down don't even help.

 

Her allegations are that she agreed to allow the band to stay at her house while they were on tour and, that night, the band's vocalist (who was either engaged or married at the time, by the way, not that it ultimately matters) stole nude pictures of her off of her phone and sent them to the band's group chat.

 

You are right: victim blaming is not allowed on this website. Blaming women who have been abused is not a “different viewpoint.”

 

People don’t share their awful opinions because they’re afraid people will call them out on them is a feature not a bug.

 

This is my new favorite post

 

I'm not advocating blaming women. Things got off the rails in this thread but at the heart of things, it felt like he was just trying to defend the idea of innoncent until proven guilty. Do I find that more important than defending victims? No. But it shouldn't be ridiculed. Both things are important and while I'll agree that the number one thing that should be stated is TRUST THE VICTIM, there is also a problem with people's lives being destroyed because of false accusations without ever having a fair chance to defend themselves. Maybe innocent until proven guilty shouldn't be the standard in these cases, maybe it should be more like extreme skepticism until proven innocent. But I see a lot of people laying guilt upon the accused without any real evidence other than a victim statement, which again should be taken with the utmost sincerity and respect.

 

Btw. I think Moose Blood is a shit band and I'm in no way defending them or any other abusers. I hope that all victims are trusted and given the support they need and that all true abusers are punished.

 

whose lives are being destroyed by false accusations lol. name 5 people who have suffered that and i can name 500 whose predators havent been brought to justice

 

I know your heart is in the right place here, but I have to say- point to me where anyone's life has actually been ruined. (Aside from PWR BTTM, and we all know why that was.) I see the misogynists and abusers of this music scene brazenly profiting and getting bigger opportunities all the time- especially the ones with legitimate claims against them. Again, in court, you are not allowed to assume someone is guilty without "sufficient" evidence. In our community and in our hearts, we are not held to that standard. As a woman, I do not feel safe associating with someone who has allegations levied against them unless they are thoroughly refuted. Because while it might not be my personal safety on the line, it is the safety of young girls who are often left defenseless and forgotten by this community.

 

Saints, come on, is this really the argument you want to take up? I can't remember who said it in one of these many conversations, but when we say "trust the victim" it's implied to read "trust the victim unless proven otherwise." Why are you saying that our reactions to these situations is to err on the side of waiting for "real evidence" as if a victims statement isn't enough for us?

 

Case in point:
WOMEN FACING DEFAMATION CASE FOR SPEAKING UP