Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG

[Halftrack]

Maybe or maybe not, I personally don't have a positive or negative view of Mendy. I don't think you'd find any post of mine endorsing or praising him for what he did. What I think you are mistaking for visceral bias is me taking a more neutral stance.

The posters I've generally replied to are clearly (whether via "visceral bias") judging him through a pre-determined negative or he's guilty/not innocent lense. Even your post is judging him through his lifestyle that you don't agree with. If I was going to the opposite end of the spectrum (whether via "visceral bias") I would endorse his lifestyle and praise it, which I'm not doing. I just understand that there are all sorts of lifestyles that all genders enjoy and as long as there is consent then all those lifestyles are fine with me.

The issue ive seen in this thread is that there are a set of posters that are so emotionally invested in this case and the thought that Mendy is still guilty or "not innocent" that a fairly neutral stance like mine (which is that the court found him not guilty amd the evidence released supported that) to them seems to be an endorsement. Which is not the case. I just don't believe someone should be judged for their lifestyle if it isn't harming others, which based on the findings of the court, his lifestyle (so far) hasn't been proven to.

Seen a couple who've said they think he's a scumbag regardless of the verdict, and one who said he's guilty because innocent people don't get accused. Rest are mostly just pointing out that not guilty is not the same as innocent, in response to people thinking otherwise and/or are on about women lying or whatever.

Don't think I've seen anyone who seems to be emotionally invested in him being guilty. I have seen a few who seem to be very invested in him being innocent and trying to shut down discussion with "presumption of innocenece" and such.

 

[beacon]

Maybe or maybe not, I personally don't have a positive or negative view of Mendy. I don't think you'd find any post of mine endorsing or praising him for what he did. What I think you are mistaking for visceral bias is me taking a more neutral stance.

The posters I've generally replied to are clearly (whether via "visceral bias") judging him through a pre-determined negative or he's guilty/not innocent lense. Even your post is judging him through his lifestyle that you don't agree with. If I was going to the opposite end of the spectrum (whether via "visceral bias") I would endorse his lifestyle and praise it, which I'm not doing. I just understand that there are all sorts of lifestyles that all genders enjoy and as long as there is consent then all those lifestyles are fine with me.

The issue ive seen in this thread is that there are a set of posters that are so emotionally invested in this case and the thought that Mendy is still guilty or "not innocent" that a fairly neutral stance like mine (which is that the court found him not guilty amd the evidence released supported that) to them seems to be an endorsement. Which is not the case. I just don't believe someone should be judged for their lifestyle if it isn't harming others, which based on the findings of the court, his lifestyle (so far) hasn't been proven to.

I think you're missing my point. You can't avoid visceral bias. You can acknowledge it, and try and compensate for its effect, but everyone is subject to it. The way you feel about Mendy may be different to the way I feel about him, but we are both subject to visceral bias. I was just responding to a question about why I think I felt the way I did, I'm not in the least emotionally invested in it, but I was just being honest about what I feel about the case.

I'm happy that justice appears to have been done, regardless of how I feel about Mendy as an individual, and I trust that the UK justice system works as intended the majority of the time.

 

[FrankFoot]

Not at all. But there is clearly a power imbalance, as there always is when young rich powerful celebrities have relations with fans. It's naive to suggest otherwise.

A woman bragging about banging a famous player knows what she is doing.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I'm a little surprised that people are taking the claim of sleeping with 10,000 women at face value. That's 2.8 different women a day for 10 straight years.

 

[beacon]

I'm a little surprised that people are taking the claim of sleeping with 10,000 women at face value. That's 2.8 different women a day for 10 straight years.

Well, there is that. It's not very likely, but it's probably into the high hundreds/low thousands. It's a moot point though, as it doesn't change the meat and bones of the case.

 

[beacon]

A woman bragging about banging a famous player knows what she is doing.

Definitely true of some of them, but I bet it's not true of all the women he claims to have slept with.

 

[Duafc]

@beacon you've articulated everything exceptionally well there, and very honestly.

Won't matter a dime though, for a depressing many (on both sides) it is miles more simple than all that.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Don't know how true this is, but just seen the women involved were all apart of a feminist WhatsApp group and googled his networth before sleeping with him?

If true, he's quite clearly innocent by all metrics.

 

[RedChip]

Don't know how true this is, but just seen the women involved were all apart of a feminist WhatsApp group and googled his networth before sleeping with him?

If true, he's quite clearly innocent by all metrics.

That sounds like the antithesis of feminism.

 

[afrocentricity]

Don't know how true this is, but just seen the women involved were all apart of a feminist WhatsApp group and googled his networth before sleeping with him?

If true, he's quite clearly innocent by all metrics.

No white text?

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Don't know how true this is, but just seen the women involved were all apart of a feminist WhatsApp group and googled his networth before sleeping with him?

If true, he's quite clearly innocent by all metrics.

It isn't.

 

[Pintu]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[afrocentricity]

That was quick

 

[Andrade]

If you want to use the presumption of innocence like that, then you cannot say that Carolyn Bryant lied about Emmett Till. You also can't say that Roy Bryant and J. W. Milan killed him.

These things are crimes. No charges were brought against Carolyn Bryant, while the other two were found not guilty of both murder and kidnapping. They are therefore presumed innocent, and treated as such, in the eyes of the law.

In horrifically bad taste to bring up Emmett freaking Till when discussing a footballer rape case.

 

[NotThatSoph]

In horrifically bad taste to bring up Emmett freaking Till when discussing a footballer rape case.

I didn't, just to make that clear.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Imo, questions needs to be asked regarding the CPS and their standards. It’s essentially he said vs she said, so credibility is obviously crucial not just in one charge but for all of them. The vast majority of them completely fell apart in court, and as soon as you introduced that type of uncertainty it’s easy to follow the same logic towards a not guilty verdict for all charges. The CPS should’ve been well aware of how problematic it would be to maintain a strong case with some of the charges that was brought into trial, amazing if they weren’t aware of the video of text messages.

 

[Andrade]

Now It's obvious that he will not face any more jail times over this.

However, as a lot of people rightly pointed out, he's not "innocent", he is just "not guilty". Unless there are some serious new evidences, he will never be "innocent" again in his life.

It may sound bad, but in my opinion, he deserved it for getting accused. Innocent people do not get accused. Accused people is not innocent (as the best they can be is "not guilty"). It's just that simple.

Also we know for an irrefutable fact that the success of rape case is too low. So even if we always believe the female victim no matter what, it would still be a net positive for women and therefor, society.

So for me, I still believe he's guilty, and I hope other people think the same way. Thankfully in social media (not just here) a lot of people also think the same, or at least on the right way.

My goodness, WTF is this?!?!

 

[adexkola]

In horrifically bad taste to bring up Emmett freaking Till when discussing a footballer rape case.

It's not.

 

[Andrade]

It's not.

Yes it is. Whoever did it should make their point without bringing up horrifically savage racist murders of children at a time of American apartheid.

 

[MackRobinson]

In horrifically bad taste to bring up Emmett freaking Till when discussing a footballer rape case.

Why? Emmett Till's case highlights the consequences for men who are falsely accused, especially black men.

 

[MackRobinson]

Yes it is. Whoever did it should make their point without bringing up horrifically savage racist murders of children at a time of American apartheid.

The point was made. You just decided not to read it.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Don't know how true this is, but just seen the women involved were all apart of a feminist WhatsApp group and googled his networth before sleeping with him?

If true, he's quite clearly innocent by all metrics.

It's a sign of the times.

By which I mean it's a sign of the times that it's impossible for me to know whether this is a piss-take or not.

ETA The quoted post, I mean.

 

[SalfordRed18]

No white text?

It's a sign of the times.

By which I mean it's a sign of the times that it's impossible for me to know whether this is a piss-take or not.

ETA The quoted post, I mean.

Your virtue signalling is absolutely tediois. There's absolutely nothing wrong asking for clarity, literally said I'm not sure if it was true or not. Since you both clearly know the ins and outs of the case, why exactly was he found not guilty?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Your virtue signalling is absolutely tediois. There's absolutely nothing wrong asking for clarity, literally said I'm not sure if it was true or not. Since you both clearly know the ins and outs of the case, why exactly was he found not guilty?

So, to be clear: do you consider it a genuine possibility that the people who accused him were "feminists" who targeted him in order to raise funds (after googling his net worth) for...I dunno, feminist things?

It's so feckin' stupid - sorry - that I don't know quite what to say.

 

[manutddjw]

If I were Mendy, I'd sue them for damages. He went from presumably large wages at Man City to signing for Lorient where he won't see anywhere near that money. Not to mention legal costs and the damage to his reputation. There has to be a consequence for making allegations that ruined his name and earning power.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Why? Emmett Till's case highlights the consequences for men who are falsely accused, especially black men.

I never understood the relevance of bringing up that case. He wasn't falsely accused of sexual assault, he was murdered for allegedly flirting with (or just talking with) a white girl. Feels like the ultimate whataboutism in here.

 

[SalfordRed18]

So, to be clear: do you consider it a genuine possibility that the people who accused him were "feminists" who targeted him in order to raise funds (after googling his net worth) for...I dunno, feminist things?

It's so feckin' stupid - sorry - that I don't know quite what to say.

To be clear, whether or not they're feminist doesn't really come into it, that's beside point.

It's definitely a possibility that people target someone with money for personal gain, though. So like I said, if you know the ins and outs, please feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

It's definitely a possibility that people target someone with money for personal gain, though.

Sure, you'd have to be extremely naive to deny that.

You were the one talking about feminists on social media, though, as if it were some kind of conspiracy. What's your take on that? Do you think he was targeted by money grabbing feminists?

 

[SalfordRed18]

Sure, you'd have to be extremely naive to deny that.

You were the one talking about feminists on social media, though, as if it were some kind of conspiracy. What's your take on that? Do you think he was targeted by money grabbing feminists?

And as I said, despite deleting that part of my post, whether or not they're feminist doesn't really come into it, that's beside the point. I'm only quoting what I read, it's for context and nothing else.

Carry on painting this anti-feminist picture though.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

And as I said, despite deleting that part of my post, whether or not they're feminist doesn't really come into it, that's beside the point.

Then why the feck did you mention it in the first place?

but just seen the women involved were all apart of a feminist WhatsApp group and googled his networth before sleeping with him?

 

[SalfordRed18]

Then why the feck did you mention it in the first place?

You keep deleting parts of my posts which already answer your questions, it's boring and tedious. You're trying to carry this on and paint some anti-feminist picture of myself that simply doesn't exist. If you want to get up in arms because I said feminist what'sapp group (which is literally what I read and just quoting) as opposed to just WhatsApp group, go ahead. That's the fight for equality we really need, but im done with this conversation now as it benefits no one.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

If you want to get up in arms because I said feminist what'sapp group (which is literally what I read and just quoting) as opposed to just WhatsApp group, go ahead.

This is your post (the one I replied to):

Don't know how true this is, but just seen the women involved were all apart of a feminist WhatsApp group and googled his networth before sleeping with him?

If you genuinely think it makes no difference that the women were "apart of a feminist WhatsApp group", then why would you post it in that form in the first place?

You can't be naive/stupid enough not to realize that using that particular term will get people's attention and potentially also get some "up in arms" (inappropriately, in my case, because I really ain't up in arms, and further from a "feminist" than what's healthy these days).

 

[MackRobinson]

I never understood the relevance of bringing up that case. He wasn't falsely accused of sexual assault, he was murdered for allegedly flirting with (or just talking with) a white girl. Feels like the ultimate whataboutism in here.

He was accused of sexually assaulting her.

According to Tyson's account of the interview, Bryant retracted her testimony that Till had grabbed her around her waist and uttered obscenities, saying "that part's not true".

Can we stop dismissing any counter-example as whataboutery? It's a valid example of what happens to the falsely accused and puts it in the perspective of a person of color and a bit disingenuous to dismiss it.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I never understood the relevance of bringing up that case. He wasn't falsely accused of sexual assault, he was murdered for allegedly flirting with (or just talking with) a white girl. Feels like the ultimate whataboutism in here.

The issue is the extremes.

Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of a false accusation because they are uncomfortable with the lack of knowledge. So they will adopt only extreme positions i.e. a false accusation is obviously the case (past lynchings, things involving racism, etc.) or so preposterous that it doesn't merit consideration (any modern case).

 

[VanKenny]

I'm pretty sure he's more than satisfied with the outcome as it stands.

Would you be more than satisfied after being falsely accused of sexual assault, losing years of work and wages, trophies etc, having his reputation temporarily trashed and permanently damaged etc?

You make it seem like he got off easy. He was extremely damaged in every possible area just because a person decided to lie and take advantage of him.

 

[Andrade]

Why? Emmett Till's case highlights the consequences for men who are falsely accused, especially black men.

The two situations bear no resemblance to each other which is why it is dumb to conflate them

 

[Andrade]

I never understood the relevance of bringing up that case. He wasn't falsely accused of sexual assault, he was murdered for allegedly flirting with (or just talking with) a white girl. Feels like the ultimate whataboutism in here.

No idea why people are bringing it up, it's offensive, frankly.

 

[Andrade]

He was accused of sexually assaulting her.


Can we stop dismissing any counter-example as whataboutery? It's a valid example of what happens to the falsely accused and puts it in the perspective of a person of color and a bit disingenuous to dismiss it.

I also hate the term 'whataboutery'. Almost as much as I hate the term 'person of colour'.

Here's the issue with what you said. Till was not tried and punished by the state, he was murdered by racists because someone said he did something. Then it was in fact the racist murderers that were tried and exonerated because the US at the time was exercising an apartheid system where there was little possibility of justice for black victims of white crimes. It's not the same thing.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

You make it seem like he got off easy.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

But you're right, I shouldn't have put it in those terms and I'm happy to withdraw the statement (as it were).

 

[Halftrack]

I also hate the term 'whataboutery'. Almost as much as I hate the term 'person of colour'.

Here's the issue with what you said. Till was not tried and punished by the state, he was murdered by racists because someone said he did something. Then it was in fact the racist murderers that were tried and exonerated because the US at the time was exercising an apartheid system where there was little possibility of justice for black victims of white crimes. It's not the same thing.

Yeah, it's entirely tasteless. Based on what we know, believing that Mendy is not completely innocent is a perfectly reasonable view to take, and is in no way comparable to the literal lynching of a black man.

If I were Mendy, I'd sue them for damages. He went from presumably large wages at Man City to signing for Lorient where he won't see anywhere near that money. Not to mention legal costs and the damage to his reputation. There has to be a consequence for making allegations that ruined his name and earning power.

Why? We don't know how credible the allegations were. All we know is that the juries didn't find them proven beyond reasonable doubt. And given that civil cases have a lower standard of proof (balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt) there's no guarantee they'd find in his favour. And if they didn't, that'd ruin his reputation even further.