[lkey]

Rape apologia.

81% of women have been sexually harassed, at least 20% have been raped. Yet, weirdly, that hasn't changed the allocation of capital in the United States in their collective favor.

But let's see what kind of person you actually are. Do you have a problem with suing, post-rape? What kind of society would you consider ideal?

Keep in mind that the current criminal case closure rate of rape cases is 25% and has been dropping for the last 10 years.

[lazide]

Uh huh. Or just noting Cash Rules Everything Around Me. Which I doubt was a fact lost on the complaintant - which if the crime occurred, might indeed make the circumstances worse eh?

Which, notably, none of what you are saying even addresses eh?

Do you think Trump has gotten where he is because these things are not happening?

None of this excuses anything.

[saghm]

> Do you think Trump has gotten where he is because these things are not happening?

I don't even understand what you're trying to claim here. As best I can figure out, it sounds like you're saying that Trump made his money from suing people for sexual assault, but that's so absurd I can't even imagine someone trying to claim that as a troll.

Even ignoring that, your argument seems to be "people in general are motivated by money, therefore this specific instance of a person acting where money could plausibly be a motivation is the only possible explanation". It informs quite a bit about how you view the world, but it's not a particularly compelling explanation.

[lazide]

Wow, you are indeed quite confused.

People with a lot of money often get away with things for several reasons, including;

1) people sometimes attack/slander/harass others for arbitrary reasons hoping to get some of it (even if they never have to actually pay them!)

2) ability to hire people to professionally defend them (lawyers, PR people, etc.)

3) their often extensive networks among people in power (often in groups #1 and #2!), which can result in decisions going ‘their way’ even without having to take explicit action - but if they want, allowing them to take explicit action.

4) their ability to absorb extensive financial penalties without actual harm to their style of living, allowing them to be more risk tolerant.

5) they often own things (like newspapers, media outlets, companies), which can make most peoples lives hard if power is applied.

This means most people are hesitant to cross them, as normal folks can likely be crushed. This includes many people like police, public prosecutors, journalists, civil servants, etc. It’s ‘leverage’, and ‘power’.

So for most people, especially if they keep getting what they need, it’s not worth rocking the boat. You’re more likely to just get steamrolled/destroyed if you try. some people will even actively encourage it, as long as it seems like it will pay out. most people caught in this situation will ‘grin and bear it’, hoping to get out ‘alive’ and avoid further contact.

If you’re already being pushed out/fired, you’re already more in the direction of being ‘destroyed’, so the additional consequences of trying to fight are less. And at that point, it’s clear it won’t pay out as much going the other direction.

It’s sex realpolitik + money - and I’m sure anyone in that circle is quite familiar with it. Both the complaintant, and the defendant. Why make a scene if it’s in your financial/safety interest not too, after all? Especially if you’ll likely lose.

If you have not as much to lose, why not make a scene?

If you are a victim of an actual crime or not is a lot less tangential to this calculus than anyone wants to think about, but it’s true.

Notably, a LOT of people will also retroactively cast consensual behavior into non-consensual later, if it is also in their financial or social interest, which further muddies the waters.

After all, were you there when this event potentially happened? Was it rape? Sexual harassment? Was it a half sprung trap?

Good luck knowing for sure if you weren’t, or sometimes even if you were!

[saghm]

> So for most people, especially if they keep getting what they need, it’s not worth rocking the boat. You’re more likely to just get steamrolled/destroyed if you try. some people will even actively encourage it, as long as it seems like it will pay out.

> ...

> Both the complaintant, and the defendant. Why make a scene if it’s in your financial/safety interest not too, after all? Especially if you’ll likely lose.

This is what I'm still stuck on. You're making a strong claim about of what a specific individual's mindset was about a traumatic event based on broad generalizations of social dynamics. It's hard to imagine how you could have such high confidence that someone you've never met has an exact combination of motivation from money and self-preservation to end up acting in ways you'd predict, rather than any number of other plausible explanations.

[lazide]

People make decisions based on many factors.

I’m just giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she isn’t a fool.

But hey, maybe I’m wrong and money plays no part in this action between a hundred-billionaire and an ex employee.