No ethnic group in one society has the right to put another ethnic group at absolute risk for its absolute safety in one aspect.
This article was first published by the sea Cicero", the author authorized to push
1
In 1991, there was a shocking "Kennedy rape case" in the United States.
The defendant in the case, William F. Kennedy, is the nephew of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy and the grandchild of the prominent Kennedy family. At the age of 31, his future was highly anticipated by the family.
In March of that year, William and a few friends were clubbing in Florida, where they met a girl named Patersia Bowman. The two had a good conversation and then left the bar together and headed to Kennedy's villa.
But what happened next became confusing, and according to William's description, the two then walked together, chatted and chatted, and couldn't help but have a relationship on the beach.
But the Partesia girl was talking about a completely different version: as soon as Kennedy returned to the mansion, he was fierce and unscrupulous to her, and although the girl struggled, she was finally caught by the boy and was pressed on the grass and raped for a quarter of an hour.
Immediately after this incident, it was fried all over the United States, and the police did extract Kennedy's semen from Theaxia's lower body, proving that the two people had indeed had a relationship. But does the relationship happen voluntarily or coercively or semi-compulsively? Lonely men and widows, late at night, this kind of thing cannot be clearly explained.
In the fog of facts, more people still instinctively sympathize with the weak, thinking that the girl will not risk the damage to her reputation to falsely accuse Kennedy for no reason, let alone what is the identity of the Kennedy family? Every family is either rich or expensive. And William and his uncle President John F. Kennedy had the name of the wind, and William himself used to be very popular. In contrast, the public is certainly more willing to believe Patersia's description.
So William was sued in court, and the aspiring prosecutor collected a lot of circumstantial evidence to send him to prison. The jury, like the general public opinion, is sympathetic to the woman.
In the midst of the crisis, the Kennedy family thought of the Chinese detective Li Changyu and spent a lot of money to ask him to go out of the mountains to investigate.
Surprisingly, after a simple investigation, Li Changyu easily cracked the unsolved case:
Appearing in court as an expert witness, Lee introduced to the jury the "law of micromassity exchange" proposed by the French forensic technologist Roccade at the beginning of this century: if two objects have touched, traces of traces of trace matter exchange must be left. In this case, according to the prosecution, the woman was first thrown on the cement floor by William and then pressed on the grass, and her dress and panties should rub the cement floor and grass at the scene quite violently, leaving obvious traces of trace substance conversion.
Then Li Changyu took out a white handkerchief that he had rubbed on the mud and grass before and circulated it to the jurors. The jury was then enlarged with a high-powered microscope, and the photograph showed that the handkerchief left obvious friction marks with the grass; on the handkerchief that touched the cement floor, gray friction marks could also be seen, and some of the fibers were damaged.
Next, Li Changyu showed the jury a high-magnification photo of the woman's clothes, panties and bra, telling them that after thorough investigation, no traces of broken fibers and grass were found, which meant that the woman had not stayed on the grass or struggled on the cement floor.
When the prosecutor heard Li's final words, he was immediately anxious: "Dr. Li, the handkerchief and the underwear are of different materials, why do you use a handkerchief instead of using women's underwear for comparison?" ”
Li Changyu calmly uttered the humorous sentence that was later called the famous quote of the court: "I'm sorry, I'm a normal man, and I don't have the habit of carrying ladies' underwear with me." ”
The originally serious courtroom laughed, and soon after the jury ruled that William F. Kennedy was not guilty.
This is a well-known strange case in Li Changyu's case, but what is more intriguing is the subsequent impact of this case - although William Kennedy was successfully exonerated, the report before the case has made many people form the impression that William is a rapist. Even after the case was closed, many people still insisted that he, like Simpson, who had also hired Li Changyu to solve the case, relied on "banknote ability" to escape justice. The woman, Patersia, has since insisted that she was raped, constantly reminding the public to nail the person to the pillar of shame.
There is a conspiracy theory that the Kennedy family has been targeted by a secret organization in the United States. From the assassination of John F. Kennedy to the indictment of William F. Kennedy, it was the organization's work. And if this conspiracy theory is true, the purpose of the organization seems to have been achieved - Although William was exonerated, his political future was completely ruined, and the rape case became an indelible stain on William's life.
This was 30 years ago. Looking back at the case today, we will feel that it is a matter of never being clear who william and Patersia were the victims of the case.
But fortunately, the mainstream society in the United States at that time still recognized the law. At the moment when the gavel fell, William was at least legally and socially exonerated, and although the political future was gone, it did not reach the level of social death.
2
But some unlucky American men 30 years later are not so lucky.
In October 2018, a U.S. court in Connecticut sentenced a case that seemed much simpler than the Kennedy rape case.
Nicky, a woman at Sacred Heart University in the state, listened to the verdict with disdain, contempt, and boredom throughout the sentence, and the court sentenced her to three years in prison with a two-year suspension of execution for defamation of others — and in terms of the characterization of the crime, the court had apparently given a lenient treatment. But Nicky and her supporters out of court clearly didn't appreciate it. The condemnation of two men accused of Nikki's defamation lasted for a long time.
In 2017, the United States launched a huge MeToo movement, in which Nicky alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by two male classmates at the same school at an off-campus party. After the investigation, the police found that the allegation was unfounded based on trace evidence, but Nicky still insisted on her claim on Twitter and was helped by MeToo activists.
After public opinion was detonated, the two boys accused of it then transferred to another school and one took a long-term suspension. The intolerable duo took Nicky to court shortly afterwards, and one of the anonymous victims commissioned the court to read out his complaint: "The past year has been the most difficult time of my life, and my university life has been completely ruined... The accusations she made against me out of her own mind seemed to me so incomprehensible, unjust, and terrible. ”
But proponents of the MeToo movement don't think so, such as the Hollywood actress Alyssa Milano who launched the campaign, who scoffed at the verdict, saying that "male society" should not "demand" that women provide legally criminalized evidence when charging sexual assault, because the main purpose of the MeToo movement is to encourage women to bravely say that they have been sexually assaulted , even if the evidence is insufficient.
Yes, allowing or even encouraging unsubstantiated allegations is what sets the MeToo movement apart from previous anti-sexual assault campaigns.
From a public psychological point of view, the principle of the MeToo movement is very similar to a kind of mutual aid organization that has long existed in the United States - in this type of organization, people who have similar memory trauma are encouraged to bravely tell their stories, and everyone comforts each other and walks out of the shadows of the past together.
Of course, there is no need to talk about evidence in the words spoken at such "mutual aid meetings", they are only complaints between the same patients and the treatment of psychological trauma.
The MeToo movement, at the beginning, only moved this model to the Internet, turning the entire Internet into a huge "anti-sexual harassment mutual aid society", so the main purpose of the movement was to "say" rather than "prove", with the purpose of arousing social concern and women's awakening, not legal recourse.
So women who have been sexually harassed or even sexually assaulted, as long as they tell the story in their impressions, the movement is complete. So the MeToo movement rarely leads to real sexual assault lawsuits, and most women narrate that the evidence has long since been lost.
In fact, if it only stays at the level of triggering society's attention to the problem of sexual assault, the role of the MeToo movement is still positive.
But the first step forward in truth is a fallacy. And in an organization, there are always activists who want to keep forcing. So the two loopholes of this imitation are highlighted with the development of the movement:
First, unlike ordinary mutual aid clubs, which exist in private spaces, the main battlefield of the movement is public social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. Once the participants of the movement are untrue or even maliciously falsely accused, the reputational damage to the accused is enormous.
Second, unlike the main purpose of the Mutual Aid Society, which is intended to help the victims out of their predicament, the MeToo movement, at least in its later stages, became an outgoing online public opinion offensive aimed at making the accused pay a heavy price. At this time, the participants of the movement say that "the evidence is not important", which is very untenable.
Of course, proponents of the MeToo movement patch up these two logical loopholes, such as their emphasis on the distinction between sexual harassment only zero times and countless times, believing that multiple women standing up to identify a controlled person for sexual harassment can make up for the lack of evidence in individual cases.
But just as a person's memories may not be reliable, the crowd of people may not be as reliable as people seem to be — there was the famous "Salem Witch Hunt" in American history, and at its peak, the entire town of Salem was convinced that they had received witch seduction and abuse, which led to more than 200 people being accused of witchcraft and 19 people executed.
And hindsight proved that this witch hunt farce was actually a "group hysteria", when a prejudice formed a climate, people sometimes modified their memories under pressure, and insisted on something that had never happened. This is the lesson of the Salem case for humanity.
More importantly, this kind of "public mouth shoveling gold" line of thinking actually violates the spirit of justice, legally speaking, if there is no complete chain of evidence to support, even if countless suspects are put together, it is impossible to reach a guilty verdict. But in the current left-wing public opinion in the United States dominated by the MeToo movement, such a game of "accumulation of zero into one" and conclusive conclusion according to countless accusations is unimpeded – this is actually a symptom of the old legal spirit of American society on the verge of degeneration. Americans have forgotten the legal and moral foundations of their former cohesion.
3
Speaking of the Kennedy rape case, with the help of Dr. Li Changyu, the case has formed a judicial precedent in the United States: U.S. courts will pay more attention to "trace physical evidence" when trying similar cases. Video surveillance may not be there, and others may be falsified by witnessing it, but if two people have violent physical contact, it is impossible to exchange trace amounts of substances.
The progress of detection technology has made the Rashomon gate under the lonely man and widow in the past clear and traceable. In a growing number of cases with the right conditions, we should trust the persuasiveness of this evidence, rather than ignoring it.
But in contrast, the MeToo movement's advocacy of "no evidence and no action" and "women's gender consensus" has taken the opposite path. It is encouraging victimized women not to trust the law, do not believe in evidence, and act purely for the sake of male and female antagonism, as well as fear and disgust for sexual assault, trying to use public opinion on the Internet to create an "anti-sexual assault sterile box" society that "prefers to kill a thousand by mistake, not to let go of one".
This utopia is of course extremely beneficial to women on the surface, but in practice, it must be a hell for everyone. It is common sense that gender cannot exist alone, and women who advocate that "sexual harassment allegations do not require evidence" have their own fathers, even husbands, and sons, and there is no guarantee that one day false accusations will not fall on their families.
Just as in physics, machinery can only transform the form of existence of energy, but cannot make perpetual motion machines. Sociologically, mere law and morality can only regulate which group in a society takes more risks and which group enjoys more security.
In a society where there is no control over sexual assault, men's safety and freedom are greatly guaranteed, but women bear a great risk of abuse. You may be sexually assaulted while walking on the road.
In a society where the suspicion of sexual assault is extremely strict and the accusations do not require evidence, women can enjoy the greatest degree of protection, but men will face the risk of being framed and discredited for no reason.
Both societies go to extremes and will be hell on earth.
What is really reducing the overall risk of the gender game is technological progress such as the "law of micromaterial exchange". And before technological progress completely saved human relations. What law and morality can do is to try to strike a balance between the sexes, so that both sides share a certain amount of risk and enjoy a certain amount of security.
In other words, women must bear the risk of being harassed with a very small probability of not being able to call for help, while men have to endure the risk of being falsely accused and unable to clear their grievances.
What law and morality can do is reduce both risks to a minimum at the same time, because the unilateral elimination of one must lead to the maximization of the other.
And neither men nor women nor any group has the right to say: Please let us only enjoy safety, and you bear the risk.
Based on the above understanding, and not the subjective bias of men, I reject the kind of arbitrary accusations advocated by the MeToo movement. Just as I hate the ancient patriarchal societies that didn't even have the concept of sexual harassment.
Rights and responsibilities need to be borne by themselves, risks need to be shared, whether between men and women, between rich and poor, between public and private, this is the fate of human beings - the fate that must be compromised.