I will agree to disagree then since this exchange is probably drifting far off topic. I don’t know what lies he’s been shown to spread that you claim but obviously he has not gained credibility in your eyes.
Good to know you believe the victims then.
If you’ve seen him working in an ensemble (@midnight, game shows, improv) he’s definitely funny in a loud offensive way and others in the industry clearly find him so as well… I’m sure many in the industry would empathize with his issues and give him leeway for being an asshole since so many of them have gone through the same kind of crap.
She made it pretty clear at 1:00 in that Charlie Rose interview that she wants him to stop because it comes back to her:
That is not representative of me at all. Um I — and, you know, I’ve asked him, just, ‘Can you just stop?’ because it comes back to me. People…because he writes for the show it’s a bigger story.
I don’t think the last season was her best, but I’d love for her to keep at it!
She said that as well as other reasons she’s not keen on it.
I have no problems with how she staffs her room one way or the other. In fact the only issue I have with the coverage and discussion of her responsibilities in her staffing is that it’s inconsistent. I see the same people stating that she isn’t responsible for her staff that have called for boycotts and exerted pressure to get people fired in other circumstances.
I recall The Daily Show being roasted because their writing staff did not represent the ideals that the viewers held and believed the show also held. So the question is: Is Amy accountable to that same idea, that a progressive is obligated practice the ideas they espouse when they have power?
And maybe another question is: Does Schumer even contradict herself seriously here? Yes she is a feminist, but does her self defining feminism allow for someone like that guy to work for her? Has she called for firing guys like that in other circumstances?
The Bavarian police published in 2005 a detailed report about rape and sexual assault* - obviously they could only evaluate reported complaint.
While less than 8 % of the complaints were unambiguous false and handled as case on it’s own according to the criminal code (“misleading the authorities about the commission of an offence”) the officers in charge assume that about a third of all sexual assault complaints are wrong.
Far more than 50 % of all complaints don’t result in a trial but were closed by the prosecutor, this is a catch-all clause for investigations without clear evidence.
A 2004 study of the Ministry of Family Affairs** shows that only 1 of 20 cases of sexual violence is reported.
[disclaimer: posted to add some data, I tried to summarize the studies without own assessment and rating]
* in German, though
** hey, they published an English summary
1 Like
Listened to this last night, great as always:
Pay special attention to the bit with Barry Crimmins, who knows what he’s talking about.
Metzger is great.
I’m genuinely curious to hear Metzger’s side, but I’m not sure I want to listen to 1:39 of this podcast given that my first impression is that he’s a pretty horrible person. Would you mind giving a few highlights, or at least a few times on the podcast where you think the best case for his side is made?
1 Like
Kurt joins the conversation around 14 mins in (and they start talking about the situation from the beginning at that point), it’s a pretty rambly chaotic show, so you really have to listen to the whole thing to get the full story. Barry Crimmins joins in at 48 mins if you want to listen to that bit.
You should read this post Metzger made on his facebook (and maybe update the OP @boingboing?) :
He’s far from a horrible person, he’s just a comedian, so says some edgy shit from time to time; his heart is in the right place though, and the point he was trying to make has some merit too.
1 Like
This would be a great addition to the OP. I have some quibbles with it, but it definitely makes him look a lot better from my perspective. He does have a few good points.
Unfortunately, his decision to trolley was predicated on what I believe to be a straw man, which seriously undercuts any point he was trying to make:
I did not “yell at victims to go to police.” They are VICTIMS. I am yelling at the people who said, “Women CAN’T go to the police! They have to work outside the system!”
As we’ve discussed in this thread, I don’t think anyone wants it to be the case that women have to work outside the system. Just that in reality due to any number of reasons (some of which are discussed above), it takes an incredible degree of courage, patience, and stoicism to work through the system that the vast majority of human beings do not possess, let alone most recent victims of rape or sexual assault. Even if we agree that the police should do something, that doesn’t mean they will, and it’s a little silly to expect people not to use whatever means they can use when the means they supposedly should use are simply unavailable.
And the content of what he wrote doesn’t say: “Police should do more about sexual violence.” It says something more like: “Women shouldn’t make any accusations of sexual violence unless they’re willing to go to the police.” That’s a very different message, and it’s problematic for a number of reasons already discussed here. And maybe it’s not what he meant, but if we suppose there are a few women who know him personally who are victims of sexual violence and are wondering whether or not it makes sense to come forward about it, and they read this, they would conclude that Metzger would shame and silence them rather than supporting them. I mean, just based on the content of it. It’s a pretty ugly statement.
Anyway, thanks for sharing that – it definitely improves my view of Metzger, though I think it would be even better if he just apologized for saying what he said instead of only apologizing for the “lynch mob” thing.
No, you’ve misunderstood him. He thinks victims of sexual assault should do whatever they feel like they need to do (and even their friends and other people who know what went down), his point was addressed to other people on the internet who pile on without all (or in most cases any) of the facts.
He definitely thinks victims should go to the police, and that UCB should at a minimum have advised them to go to the police (as opposed to just banning the guy from a gig and wiping their hands of the matter). He understands that for many of them they are unwilling to do so, and he’s fine with that. It’s not an opinion that’s worthy of a public steak-burning.
On a more general note, there’s no denying that there are problems with the system in handling allegations, but a lot of the time these things get overblown. Cops for the most part take these allegations very seriously (especially when they get kicked up to special investigation type units, as mentioned by the ex-cop on the podcast - obviously this isn’t the case in all jurisdictions), and treat people making allegations with respect. Of course there are cases when neither of the two are true, but you have to look at the whole issue in context and not treat the outliers as the default case, in most situations where there is no prosecution brought forward it is due to lack of evidence, not because of unwillingness or misogyny on the part of the police. There are also problems with backlogs in terms of evidence processing and other bureaucratic shit (they also address that on the podcast), which is the same for all kinds of police investigations, and is basically a funding issue.
Look, you can’t just say something deliberately provocative and then complain when people misunderstand you. Maybe what he meant was victims of sexual violence should do whatever, but what he says heavily implies they should go to the police – ignoring all the many problems with that notion.
I mean, again – problematic for any number of reasons. In what sense did UCB “wipe their hands of the matter”? It seems like a pretty clear-cut case where, since there were no eyewitnesses and no hard evidence of the sexual assaults, police wouldn’t have been able to do anything even if the victims had reported it. Given that, I’d say it makes much more sense to say that UCB would have been “wiping their hands of the matter” had they advised the victims to go to the police and taken no further action themselves.
I think there’s a lot of room to reasonably disagree on this issue, but I don’t think Metzger’s position is particularly reasonable – or at least, the way he’s presenting it doesn’t come across as reasonable.
Well, i agree there’s never any justification for burning steaks (medium rare is really ideal, I think)…
…but no one literally tried burning the guy at a stake. People publically and vocally criticized his statement. With good reason.
First of all, by his own admission he was being deliberately provocative. I mentioned before it makes no sense to engage in hyperbole and then complain when you’re misunderstood. Well it double makes no sense to make a deliberately provocative statement and then act sanctimonious when people are provoked by it.
But also, even if his statements aren’t beyond the pale (and again, they kind of are – he even admits he was deliberately being provocative) then they can still be pretty subject to criticism.
Actually, I’m not sure we’re in a position to judge which is the default case – I’m not sure it makes sense to assume that the vast majority of the time such allegations are handled seriously. It’s certainly possible. I really don’t have the information needed to draw a conclusion either way.
But look – there’s often not enough evidence to bring forward an accusation, that’s a given. Do you expect the victim in such situations to stay quiet? Do you expect third parties not to take some actions to try to protect other potential victims? One of the reasons that there’s room to disagree on this issue (IMO) is that completely sensible legal protections for the accused prevent the authorities from taking action even when there’s good reason to believe the accusations are true.
Given the amount of military hardware purchased by police departments in the last few decades – purchases occurring over a period time in which rates of violent crime have dropped dramatically no less – I have a hard time believing it’s really a funding issue. Maybe a priorities issue, but that means the onus is back on the police departments to prioritize their evidence backlogs over buying toys for their SWAT units.
And of course, that doesn’t necessarily apply to all PDs, but it is an issue, and it’s definitely an oversimplification to say that the police are just underfunded and that’s why they have problems responding to issues of sexual violence.
4 Likes
Look, you can’t just say something deliberately provocative and then complain when people misunderstand you.
He’s already apologised for going overboard on the language he used though. Did you not read the facebook post in my first post? I thought we’d moved passed this, now it seems like you want to go around in circles?
Maybe what he meant was victims of sexual violence should do whatever, but what he says heavily implies they should go to the police – ignoring all the many problems with that notion.
But there’s really nothing wrong with that suggestion, despite the problems with the police.
I mean, again – problematic for any number of reasons. In what sense did UCB “wipe their hands of the matter”? It seems like a pretty clear-cut case where, since there were no eyewitnesses and no hard evidence of the sexual assaults, police wouldn’t have been able to do anything even if the victims had reported it. Given that, I’d say it makes much more sense to say that UCB would have been “wiping their hands of the matter” had they advised the victims to go to the police and taken no further action themselves.
No. For the very important reasons that if the police did question him, they’d have his name in their files, and they’d maybe have his fingerprints and DNA (along with any other physical evidence) on file as well (unless he went to court to get them to remove them), and such info could prove vital further down the line - especially in cases with multiple victims. Also, there’s nothing to stop them from doing both. Also, you’re making a lot of assumptions about the details in the case, they still aren’t very widely known, but it is certainly not a good idea to have a default position of not ever going to the police, in fact it’s a downright terrible idea.
…but no one literally tried burning the guy at a stake. People publically and vocally criticized his statement. With good reason.
well, I was obviously being figurative. and it’s debatable whether they had good reason for the large number of lies being spewed forth (see those dailydot articles posted further up the thread for some seriously dishonest ‘journalism’, and much of the social media outrage was filled with repeating all of that nonsense, along with blaming Amy Schumer for nothing at all), it wasn’t all about mischaracterizing his comments against internet mob justice as comments against victims (a mistake which reasonable people could make, given his language, for which he apologised).
Actually, I’m not sure we’re in a position to judge which is the default case – I’m not sure it makes sense to assume that the vast majority of the time such allegations are handled seriously. It’s certainly possible. I really don’t have the information needed to draw a conclusion either way.
Given that, you shouldn’t be on the side of people proclaiming that all victims should steer clear of the police.
But look – there’s often not enough evidence to bring forward an accusation, that’s a given. Do you expect the victim in such situations to stay quiet?
Of course not. They should deal with the situation in whatever way they need to, ideally by going to the police.
Do you expect third parties not to take some actions to try to protect other potential victims?
I expect them to behave responsibly, and at a minimum educate themselves on any specific case before entering into torch and pitchfork mode. Third parties could be especially helpful in providing victims the support they might need to go to the police, and keeping pressure on government and police to do their jobs. They should spend far less time (zero would be good) trying to get comics fired from shows they don’t currently work at.
Given the amount of military hardware purchased by police departments in the last few decades – purchases occurring over a period time in which rates of violent crime have dropped dramatically no less – I have a hard time believing it’s really a funding issue.
That’s pretty much a non-sequitur. The majority of military grade hardware is going to rural police forces that don’t have the same levels of complaints to deal with as urban centers. The cost of running and staffing labs in urban areas to meet the demand of evidence processing far exceeds the cost of severely discounted military hardware.
And of course, that doesn’t necessarily apply to all PDs, but it is an issue, and it’s definitely an oversimplification to say that the police are just underfunded and that’s why they have problems responding to issues of sexual violence.
Of course, good thing I never said anything like that then.
Hey, to try to keep the in-line stuff from going crazy, I’ll summarize where I think we differ.
- I did read the facebook post. He apologized for “lynch mob”, not for the post in general. I think he should apologize for the post in general. “Lynch mob” was especially bad, but the whole thing was bad.
- I’ve never advocated for victims never to go the police. The closest I’ve said is that there are some situations where a victim, weighing the pros and cons, may come to a decision not to go to the police, and that people in such a situation should be able to rely on understanding and support. They should not be shamed and silenced (which is how Metzger’s initial post came across).
- I completely agree that a lot of people went over the line. I do not in any way agree with trying to get someone fired because they espouse an opinion different from mine. I think it’s unreasonable and unfair to hold Schumer accountable for things that Metzger says.
- This is unreasonable: “Given that, you shouldn’t be on the side of people proclaiming that all victims should steer clear of the police.” “shouldn’t be on the side of” is a guilt by association tactic. I disagree with guilt by association when it’s used against Schumer, and I disagree with it when it’s used against me. I can reasonably disagree with both you and anyone who thinks that victims should never go to the police ever.
- Most importantly, I haven’t ever seen anyone say that victims should never go to the police. Perhaps you can find a few isolated examples on twitter, but is there really a significant number of people advocating for such a position? Can you help give me a sense of how widespread this sentiment is? Both your defense of Metzger and his defense of himself are premised on the existence of such a contingent, so this is really important.
3 Likes
I’m not going to reply (or even read) your reply, as I’ve had a couple of beers already this evening. Might get take a look in the morning.
I will leave this here though, the ex-cop in the podcast (which you really should listen to) left this comment on Metzger’s facebook:
Thanks for sharing that. I think everything the officer said is completely reasonable. I don’t think it contradicts anything I’ve argued, except perhaps that I think there are some cases where the victim may be justified in not going to the police.
Please do come back when you’ve sobered up and give my comment a read. I think there are a few important points where I’d really like to read your reply. (I’m going to trim it down a bit in the meantime.)
So you’ve linked a podcast, and been unwilling to give a detailed summary when asked, insisting that the podcast must be listened to in its entirety (many of us don’t/can’t listen to podcasts, for various reasons) and now you’ve linked to a Facebook page (again, many of us can’t/won’t access that site) instead of simply quoting the comment.
You’re making it harder for people to follow your train of thought. Try to make it easier.
4 Likes
If you don’t want to listen to the whole podcast you can read the facebook posts, I’m not on facebook either was able to read them no problem, it sums his position up better than I could. And I did provide plenty of summary in my two rather lengthy replies as well, so not sure what you’re on about really.
I think a bit of copy/pasting would help here.
2 Likes
