Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
As was pretty obvious from the start. Maybe we can have discussions about his music again now.
if you read around the things online - esp his lawsuit docs, it was obv complete shit.
Or at least that's what a few articles I read said when this first started doing the rounds and coming up every time he was mentioned on here. Jezebel had a few posts about the contradictory statements http://jezebel.com/conor-obersts-accuser-officially-recants-rape-story-ap-1604797078
I guess the fact someone posts online about something rather than going to the police.
Meanwhile, this makes genuine cases easier for people to dismiss. See also: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2013/12/read_the_stomac.php
man you are so clueless here it's unbelievable
(a) i don't think the fact someone has said online that they like a person contradicts claims that in the past they may have been on the end of sexual abuse from them (see 'marital rape', or 'domestic abuse'). that kind of claim seems based on a very linear, simplistic concept of how people function emotionally (such as that, coincidentally, a Bright Eyes' fan might have).
(b) did you hear about the Jimmy Savile case? basically some people don't like to report perceived abuses because they feel that they either won't be taken seriously or have internalised some concept that it was their 'fault'. imo, it's highly conceivable that a fan being sexually abused by an artist would end up bound this way
(c) that someone posted about something on the internet rather than going to the police would signal more to me a general distrust of the police, and that a victim may feel more comfortable talking about something online in an anonymous fashion
just deducing that she's lying based on her behaviour. thats just a downright dodgy (but very common) way to look at this.
instead of going to the police is evidence that they're lying. can't believe the stuff people try to defend on here sometimes.
This is about this specific case, where the story didn't add up and has since been admitted to be false by the person who said it.
I agree with your general statements that just cos someone doesn't go to the police or cos of 'past behaviour' that means they've made it up.
what "didn't add up" about the story?
i'm not sure if this post is a joke?
oh ok fair enough (just ctrl+fed 'court statements' on that page and it didn't come up)
here are the "contentious" sections of that document, quoted in full:
12. Notably, Faircloth's own contradictory admissions further demonstrate the falsity of the XOJane Statements. For example:
• In January 31, 2013 posting on Facebook, Faircloth wrote: "The last time I saw [Oberst's band] perform at the Cat's Cradle, it was my 16th birthday and [Oberst] pulled me up on stage and sang happy birthday. Best memory ever!"
• On December 7, 2011, Faircloth posted on Facebook that Bright Eyes was her favorite band.
• On December 3, 2011 Faircloth posted on Facebook that the only way she could get her son to fall asleep was by playing songs from Oberst's band Bright Eyes to him
13. None of the aforementioned admissions by Faircloth would make sense if Oberst had raped Faircloth, as she falsely and maliciously alleges in the XOJane Statements.
not sure where they invalidate the same argument made above (i.e. that victims often have complex relationships to their abusers)
your argument is that, based on those two sections of the court documents (unless there is something else in there, i'm not gonna read it all) everyone should've been able to see that 'she made it up'
me and DD are both arguing that point 13 in that document is false
i can think of many reasons that someone who had been sexually abused may describe the night in question in glowing terms i.e. she may have talked it up in order to hide her "shame"
none of this is dependent on the fact 'she made it up'
Point 13 is blatantly just conjecture
If nothing actually happened fine but the online conduct of someone isn't proof either way of that. Weird thing to put.
he brought in 'facts' about this case specifically to back up your statement which was also about this specific case.
really don't see how that's generalising too much or not talking about this specific case.
making it up just cos she didn't go to the police or has 'past behaviour' . But the point is she has admitted she made it up. So police and behaviour points have no baring on it anymore.
So previously you (and sean) were basing your opinion on her behaviour and the fact that she didn't go to the police?
that literally makes no sense
i don't see why that's relevant to the argument here?
"As was pretty obvious from the start" seems to be implying there was, at some point, reason for us all to assume this girl was just making it up all along - you still haven't given any convincing reasons there
I don't mean the news stories but the comments people were making? Within half an hour I'd read enough stuff that showed there were massive holes in the initial story.
sean deleted it then crispinalexander and NickDS had a go at me saying I was assuming conor oberst was a rapist and shouldnt be allowed to continue his career and all this sort of stuff.
weird how often the people who can't manage to see the complexity of a situation accuse (people like) me of always seeing things in 'black and white'.
didn't you say DiS shouldn't interview him until he's been 'cleared'? Well he's is now.
I very much can understand the complexity but I can also look at things as individual cases and not just as generalisations. No one wins in these situations like this case, it damages everyone.
probably not a great idea to make up stuff people have said in these threads
I'm putting in in inverted commas as cleared implies some kind of charge.
it's not a point I actually made. Don't even know why you thought it was in the first place so its quite weird that you not only misinterpreted it then but you're still insisting its what I said after I clarified for you several times.
But really lets not do that again.
I don't even know what we're arguing about. The allegations are false, lets all get on with our lives.
We should prob take this to the love/hate thread.
Here's the thread about it
sorry but you can't really just be all let's move on and forget when you're completely unwilling to accept that you've been a bit of a dick to someone in a thread about rape.
I haven't been a bit of a dick to anyone.
Anyway, I hate getting sucked into these discussions, I don't actually enjoy them.
a bit of a hole which happens to the best of us but surely you can see the problematic and damaging nature of what you initially posted and why people are a bit upset with you?
twice now you've conveniently remembered that argument the way you want to.
honestly dont get why people like you think it's ok to act like that in discussions about rape.
i reasonably felt your language was misguidedly accusing sean of having some other reason for deleting posts other than legal concerns. you threw up a load of bullshit trying to side-step that, like you always do.
now you're saying things like "people like you think it's ok to act like that" what on earth are you talking about?
it's so funny that you're pretending that something being "silenced" doesn't come with an agenda."
like you were pretty much accusing me of 'pretending' something there (i.e. lying) even after i've told you i wasn't saying sean wasn't setting out to silence people on purpose. insisting that someone means one thing when they're telling you it's not what they've said is a pretty crap thing to do in any context. pretty ironic to be doing it in this one.
also saying things such as "like you always do" (-you) and and "...which is what you always do." (-NickDS) as if my way of discussing the topic is less legitimate than yours or i'm the one being disingenuous here. don't really know what it is you guys think I "always do". what have i side-stepped? i addressed the point about sean and "silencing" very directly. literally don't know what else I could have said to have you not dismiss outright it as "bullshit"?
someone even said in the previous thread "DarwinDude wouldn't shut up" (kiyonemakibi)
the way people (including you) spoke to me in those threads was hostile, dismissive and unfairly misrepresented what I had originally said. you just don't seem to understand why it's not ok to approach the subject in that way. particularly when you dont know what the experiences of the person you're speaking to might be.
can't even believe i'm having to explain this when someone told me to "shut up" in the previous thread.
the parameters of the argument with you. i hate that those posts were deleted because at the end of the day, you did imply sean had some secondary reason for doing what he did. i know what i read and it wasn't particularly ambiguous.
it's also hypocritical that you accuse me of being hostile. when i called you out on what i considered to be bullshit you quickly shifted the argument, as you have here, to the "you're using dismissive language" rhetoric.
someone calling you out on something isn't necessarily someone not taking your contribution seriously; even if i do use dismissive language out of frustration. i know you don't care and nor should you, but i actually do give a shit what you have to say and that's the only reason i end up getting drawn into these things.
when my issue is solely and precisely with your selective memory when it comes to accusing me of shit.
seems quite narcissistic to try and paint me as someone who doesn't take the subject seriously instead of accepting personal fault.
and what is my "fault"?
"it's bullshit because it's just a never ending game of shifting
the parameters of the argument with you. i hate that those posts were deleted because at the end of the day, you did imply sean had some secondary reason for doing what he did. i know what i read and it wasn't particularly ambiguous."
- this doesn't even make sense. you're claiming something about whatever I posted AFTER sean deleted posts and which was ABOUT sean deleting posts. those posts haven't been deleted! you can still read anything i said discussing sean deleting the posts. it's not even ambiguous. it's you trying to second guess something, me explicitly telling you that's not the case and then more of you continuing to argue that i was saying something else (based on knowledge you think you have of me from previous threads).
"someone calling you out on something"
what on earth are you supposed to be calling me out on?
"even if i do use dismissive language out of frustration."
- thats the point, don't use "dismissive language" if you dont want to be dismissive of someone.
" the only reason i end up getting drawn into these things."
- why do people on here always make it out like i've like ensnared them into a debate or something? like as if everything was fine until i came along. lol dont post such problematic stuff then. don't blame me for there being disagreement.
but honestly, this:
"Anyway, the non-libellous discussion has been deleted and proper open discussion will only be shut down and silenced."
can you explain how this is meant to mean anything other than what i inferred?
"Can you actually not get the difference between certain discussions being shut down (as demonstrated by a bunch of posts being deleted) because of peoples unreasonable fears about legal action, and Sean deliberately trying to silence discussion about rape?"
and your reply was:
"you're so incoherent it's mind-melting
i'm quoting your own words that were implying sean had an agenda other than his own legal fears in shutting that thread down."
maybe someone can help me out here cause i cant for the life of me see what part of that you're still not getting.
(1) Looking at the selected quotes provided by CA, it is possible to interpret them in the way CA has, but it is by no means the only and most obvious interpretation.
(2) DD clearly indicated that the inferred meaning was not the one that had been intended, but by this point CA was not going to back down from.
(3) Sean is probably not worth fighting over
you heavily and almost directly implied sean was going to silence rape discussion. you wouldn't have said he was going to "silence it" if it was just about him overreacting to legal repercussions. it's a strong implication that you just instantly pretended meant something else.
what else is there to be said? you can deny it but ultimately, i just think that would be bullshit. but of course, me calling you out on this is, in your mind, me dismissing your contributions generally and not taking the discourse seriously, because that's a far easier conclusion to reach than to accept that you accused someone of something that wasn't fair.
I wasn't accepting the premise that it was entirely "obvious" that he wasn't a rapist, just that until things have been investigated by the police (rather than by an internet posting), then I wasn't going to condemn him to never being covered by this site, especially when the allegations came to light and whether we should continue to cover his music was discussed, the internet revealed that the individual making the accusation seemed to be very positive about him since the alleged event had taken place.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it wasn't certain that he definitely did it.
Perhaps being a fan of his music made it hard to accept.
I'd encourage everyone, no matter what your take on this, to make a donation http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/donations1.php
that any rape accusation is "obv complete shit" or to have people bring in evidence of 'positive' attitudes towards the alleged perpetrator as if that in itself casts doubt on someone. that sort of stuff makes 'genuine cases' easier to dismiss and makes 'genuine' victims feel shit.
but it was pretty disturbing how some immediately thought he was guilty based on a post online by Some Girl and went to great lengths to persuade others of his guilt.
not as disturbing as how some people immediately assume that any accusation of rape is just someone talking shit at an artist for whatever reason
...that's kind of what happened...
and why clearly messed up and disturbed women like the accuser in this case will make these accusations, i'm guessing the publicity and attention she got from it was masking some major traumas and inadequacies in her own life.
than assumed he was innocent.
But then that might just be the particular parts of the internet I go on. I suppose if you browse 4chan rather than Tumblr there may be a load of neckbeards going on about how she made up the rape allegation because all women are evil etc.
Why people can't just say "I don't know whether he's innocent or not and it's not really my place to even guess" is absolutely beyond me.
I'm wide awake it's morning is a good record but yeah no one wants to discuss that so blegh
the accuser sounds pretty messed up, i hope she gets the help she needs and manages to move on with her life, obviously it's been awful for mr bright eyes too but hopefully he'll be able to rebuild his life, the woman who accused him though has probably destroyed her own life by doing this and may never recover, poor woman.
If someones in the process of being sued for something they said, how much can we actually trust a retraction and apology? I mean, if we abandon the idea that the law produces just outcomes.
I'm obviously not saying that we should act as if she was initially telling the truth or whatever. But i definitely cant get on board with people who are gonna be like "ha! Told you he wasn't a rapist!" with regards to this.
yeah i thought this
but it seems kinda contentious and i'm scared of conor oberst and his lawyers suing me for $1.2 billion pounds
this thread will probably get deleted now
guess you can't have a lawsuit trail without everyone there??
on the editorials' part, even using the word "admits" in those headlines is a bit uncomfortable. why can't she 'claim', or just 'say', that she lied?
setting aside all the evidence from those blog investigations or whatever, I think as a general rule a retraction like this should be treated with a similar level of scrutiny to the initial allegation.
in the way Oberst was trying to do, as the burden of proof lies with him- he has to prove that she was actually purposefully lying about the allegations. Even if he didn't rape her, if they had, say, ever spent any time alone together it would be difficult to prove that he definitely DIDN'T rape her (despite there being no evidence to say that he did). Being found not guilty of rape and actually proving that the other person was deliberately making stuff up are very different things.
So Oberst must've had some indisputable proof that Faircloth was deliberately lying, otherwise he'd have absolutely no chance of successfully suing her- and if that was the case, Faircloth could've just kept quiet, kept her reputation intact and a question mark would've hung above the whole ordeal. I'd say it's very unlikely that she would've admitted to lying if it wasn't all going to come out eventually anyway.
I was very surprised by her admission- I had no idea whether or not Oberst raped her, but I did assume the court case was just about him saving face, and that in all probability it would all just sort of disappear and we'd never hear about it again. The fact he could obviously so easily prove the allegation false makes the whole thing seem quite sad, where Faircloth is involved- obviously her actions are so, so wrong, but at the same time they clearly weren't a calculated attack on Oberst, just a stupid, casual lie which got quickly out of hand.
if this was commented on as little as possible tbh. Including quite a lot of people in this thread
don't think we'll ever surpass this tbh
The OP and any other chump upthread who claimed this was 'obvious from the start' need to have deep and sincere words with himself, or Jesus, or someone. sweet shitting crikey
Managing to make this post - esp given the subject matter - without coming across like you were using it to settle Internet Scores and restart old rows would have been massively helpful imo.
or internet scores (wtf??). I did not bring any of that shit up.
not really that interested anyway tbqh
but considering the thread I think I'll leave it alone
the phrase "as was pretty obvious from the start" can have two meanings, both valid;
1) "As you can easily from the evidence given, it was fairly obvious from the start that it was likely to be over turned" meaning that retroactively you're saying it was obvious
2) "As was obvious from the very start when the allegations first appeared it was likely to be over turned" meaning that at the time of the allegations you thought it was obvious.
two very important distinctions, and it is why the phrase in the OP has been railed against, and in my opinion rightly so.
See, that's the problem; what evidence? And at what point?
i literally completely forgot that he was in Desaparecidos
I saw them play live
he was a mega bellend
It is really best that everyone backs off, lets the police / prosecutors / whoever do their jobs and just accept what they find. Instead we had people picking apart someone's personal life and making judgements or saying how cases were obvious from the outset. A lot of people though accusations against Clifford, Rolf Harris etc were baseless and the victims were just in it for some compo remember. Even if it was obvious in hindsight, this kind of attitude can stop people with genuine complaints from speaking up.
Well I guess learnt is the wrong word as I knew it'd happen anyways but whatever.
1) People are way too quick to assume the person pressing allegations is insane and/or attention seeking - this is an unhealthy attitude
2) People are way too quick to assume and believe the allegations without any evidence backing them up brought to their attention - this is an unhealthy attitude
3) People need to read articles before the tweet stuff like 'OMG Conor Orberst is a rapist'
I'm relieved to find out this is apparently not the case and hope the woman gets the help required, and if no help is required, then well done you've just done more to fuel the dismissal of rape allegations.
although wrt 2) i find it understandable that some people react that way when the reality is that in most cases the person making the accusation is telling the truth and the person they're making the allegation about will never be held accountable.
I don't dismiss every case as a result of this, it's not understandable it's people believing everything they read on the internet and re-posting everything as fact.
You can be inclined to believe he's a rapist after the article, it's up to the reader, but to post it as fact when nothing had been proven isn't ever the right thing to do and those are the people I'm referring to.
people should it on a case by case basis, I'm not using the friend was fasley accused as rape as a justification as to why people shouldn't ever believe people making allegations. Think I worded it poorly.
Logic is strange, it's like thinking all Panda's can do kung fu because the only one you've ever seen is a cartoon.
Thanks for your insight Sean.
how can you believe her when she says she made up the accusations?
doesn't lie with every single utterance from their mouth.
To lie and say he raped her doesn't even mean she's a pathological liar, so a truthful admission of having lied doesn't have to be a lie in and of itself.
This whole case is a shame. It will give more weight to the myth of the large numbers of women crying-rape-like-cry-wolf.
Every time we switch our computers on, there should be a warning box whilst connecting to the internet: "the information you are about to read does not mean you have first hand access to the information of whatever you are reading about. Please take that into account when you blab your mouth with your jumped up sense of entitlement to broadcast to the world how knowledgable, savvy and with it you are. And do remember that one can type shit just as much as one often hears people talking shit. We will be monitoring what you write. You will be held accountable by lawyers and the four horsemen of the apocalypse for anything you insinuate or any bullying you participate in. Thank you for using Internet Explorer. Have a nice day."
Right below the clause about Sean's right to prima nocta.
and posting this when the discussion has run its course probably won't help anything except to let me try and write out some of the stuff it's made me think about a lot.
For starters - and I know sincerity isn't done round here but what the hell - Conor Oberst really means a lot to me. He's one of the few artists, be that writers or musicians or whatever, that I've ever really connected with, his material has meant a huge amount to me for the best part of a decade, and I can't imagine a time where I don't love his music or admire his lyrics.
And I know, from following him, that he's a "difficult" character, he's talked a lot of shit (the John Peel stage incident?) acted like a twat (he wore shades for the entire Desa... gig - come on), and probably been downright unpleasant to a lot of people. But when I read that he'd been accused of rape, I instinctively didn't want to believe it could be true, in the same way that I wouldn't want anyone I liked or admired to be guilty of something like that.
But not wanting to believe is not very helpful, and whatever I may have wanted to be the case, the person who made the claim has every right to be taken seriously. Their online behaviour doesn't seem particularly relevant, insofar as it even if it doesn't match our view of a what we think someone "should" act like, it doesn't really impact on if it really happened or not. Her claims should have been listened to and addressed.
So I suppose I should be relieved that she has now said the claims were untrue, but this thread just proves how problematic the whole area is... People are saying here can we believe her taking it back, if it came at the threat of a lawsuit? How can a liar tell the truth? And I see the logic in that, but at the same time, how could Oberst, or anyone in this situation, ever clear their name? or be thought of as "not a rapist"? Does one accusation really mean they should forever be tainted with doubt? I don't know - it seems horrible, but maybe that's still better than a world where rape goes unremarked on and unpunished.
Here is a list of rights which I think every single person who claims they have been raped or sexually abused should be entitled to:
1. The right to anonymity. The complainant in this case arguably waived this right when she posted on an account which was connected to her Facebook profile. However, people who took steps to verify her identity, and then spread her name around the Internet, acted in a way that made it impossible to realize this right. Everyone should have the confidence to talk about what has happened to them without intimidation, fear of reprisal or victimization.
2. The right to be believed and taken seriously. Drawing on evidence of previous behavior by this woman, including apparent long-running patterns of lying on the Internet, many commentators were quick to judge her as unreliable. Often it is the most vulnerable people (such as those with serious mental heath problems) who are treated as unreliable witnesses.
3. The right for complaints to be properly investigated. People will understandably argue that anyone in a position similar to the one which this woman was claiming to be in, ought to have gone to the police and pursued so-called proper procedures to redress her grievance, instead of posting about it on the Internet. But we need to remember why so many people do not see the police and the justice system as capable of administering justice. Even if your case is one of the minute number which make it to court, who really wants to be subjected to an aggressive and humiliating cross-examination? So there are very good reasons why a victim would not want to go to court.
This does not, however, excuse the use of the alternative: Trial by Internet. We are simply not competent to investigate something of this level of severity, complexity and sensitivity. We have only partial evidence at best. We don't even have a witness statement. Nor do we have the expertise, experience or resources to carry out a proper investigation let alone act as judge, jury and executioner.
There is a contradiction at the center of all of this. On the one hand, people are claiming that they do, after all, believe “genuine” victims and that they would never approach a “genuine” rape claim with the incredulity which they expressed in this case; they would never doubt the story of a “genuine” rape victim or victimize her further. They would never rubbish her account altogether. They would always believe a “genuine” victim.
At the same time, many of those people are claiming that, by lying, this woman has done irreparable damage to the plight of “genuine” victims and has made it more difficult for them to be believed. Are they not then admitting that sometimes “genuine” victims also present in a way which makes certain people question their reliability? On what basis are “genuine” complainants discredited if not via the same bullshit lines of questioning and tactics employed by you in this case? You are now condemning this woman in the strongest possible terms for what she has supposedly done for the cause as a whole. But you too participated in the same problematic lines of enquiry, relying on hearsay and stereotypes about the appropriate behavior of abused victims.
If the claims are indeed untrue, then I am even willing to go as far as to say that Conor Oberst has suffered quite a grave injustice, he has been wronged. His rights have been violated even. But he has not suffered a miscarriage of justice in any sense of the term. He has not been put on trial, sent to prison or lost his civil liberties. His reputation may never recover fully (if that is even a quantifiable or knowable status) but it will be more or less restored.
If the question is: how can we obviate future injuries against men like Conor Oberst? Then the answer is: by treating all rape claims as legitimate until they have been properly investigated and by following principles of natural justice. Of course, Rape Culture and its powerful anti-women narratives are impeding proper, rigorous and fair investigations because very few people want to come forward only to be abused again in the witness box. This is unfair for victims the world over. But it is also unfair for those who may be wrongly accused and are entitled to a fair hearing. It is not just the rights of victims at stake but the very possibility of justice.
People deleted their Bright Eyes fan sites. Fans disowned him. Some people genuinely believed him to be a rapist. I'm not going to argue against them because I fully understand and respect the reasoning behind their bold faith in the claims of a complete stranger: they would believe any complete stranger, almost without hesitation, if she spoke out about abuse. But these people wouldn't be in a position where they feel they have to believe every single rape claim if they had trust in the system to deliver justice, and trust in the rest of society to realize – and even transcend the need for – the three rights which I set out above. In other words, if everyone had parity of esteem and participation in the justice system, and the society which it serves, then there would be no underdog to root for. So contrary to what many music fans are now angrily declaring, it is not Feminism which is to blame – it is Rape Culture.
We need to be able to imagine a social order in which Rape Culture no longer persists and then we need to start working towards it. We need to be able to imagine a future where it doesn't really matter when someone makes a false rape accusation because we will be able to treat it for what it is: an aberration. But right now, there's not a huge difference between how this woman was treated and the treatment of these “genuine” victims you all keep comparing her to.”
Is the most thoughtful and accurate comment on anything like this that I've ever seen.