Good news on the WI Spa incident

[PostingForTheFirstTime]

I just saw this reported on Facebook:

nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR1e_ws81-vaALSlUfdhuYlufJNoLzR31q-WII_WCUISsfR5Rnvx-21RtFc

It's going to be interesting how this plays out. As I understand it (perhaps wrongly), in the US those senior in the Police and the judiciary live in a very political world and are always aware of what can make them politically vulnerable and what can be used to their political advantage. After many attempts to suppress this story, and the suppression supported by many on the progressive side of the debate, who presumably have considerable politica clout, it's surprising that LAPD have been actively pursuing this case.

Is this indicative of some kind of progressive vs conservative battle going on in California? I'm aware there's a lot in the air politically in California at the moment:

www.reuters.com/world/us/recall-looms-california-governor-aims-galvanize-democrats-2021-08-29/

I'm not really sure who to believe tbh, there seems to be 1001 different variations of this story everywhere you look

You believe the people who are stating easily disprovable facts that have not in fact been disproved.

You ignore the random speculation, and inherently nonsensical claims like "this video was a hoax".

Can you really not tell the difference between those?

For starters, you can start to discount totally self-contradictory claims, or people who've made multiple different claims in succession.

Is this indicative of some kind of progressive vs conservative battle going on in California?

It's got to be. "Well, we probably can't convict him, and even if we did he'd go to a women's prison to have more fun" is not much of a vote-winner is it?

I'm struck by the timing. The recall election in California is in about 2 weeks and watching how progressives have been trying to minimise this over the past 24 hours has looked simply horrible, and more like a perfect gift to their opponents.

Personally, I've never heard : this is absolutely not representative of our community, we condemn this kind of behaviour, it is important to us as women that female people and children are safe and respected, and we stand with them.

Not about anything. Cotton ceiling. Rape/DIAGF/kerb stomping threats. People with machetes and swords photographing themselves in women's spaces. Convicted sex offenders assaulting women in prisons. Not even this.

What I see constantly: it doesn't happen. You're making it up. You're being mean. You mustn't talk about it. Well if it did happen it doesn't matter. If women were harmed then it's the women's fault for responding wrong/not being more open minded. And the bottom line: female people and children will need to accept all this as their lot in life in order for male people to have more freedoms and self expression.

Yeah, no.

there seems to be 1001 different variations of this story everywhere you look

Only from people who weren't there, as PPs emphasise, there's been no change from the original complainants.

Jesse Singal indicates that he's the only journalist who got in touch with the man who'd recorded some of the activity in the lobby.

It feels like an incident that attracted a lot of misrepresentation and disinformation from those who didn't want to cope with the cognitive dissonance of its significance in social and political terms with no regard for the women and children at the heart of it.

If I was right-wing, this would be a great time to be alive.

Above there was reference to the Daily Mail being an unreliable source.

And yes, that is a historically well-deserved accolade.

But you know what? It doesn't need to be unreliable any more. It can serve the narrative it likes - that the left is crazy - by telling the 100% unvarnished truth!

So well done, Guardian, Democrats, etc. You're making the Daily Mail
(and the NY Post) look like the honest, reasonable outfits, because they now are.

@merrymouse

btw Microsoft's newest browser Edge now warns visitors to the daily mail that it is not credible:

However libel laws in the U.K. mean that it would be difficult for them to post something that was completely untrue.

You might not like the way the story has been presented, but it’s unlikely that they would say the person charged had previous convictions if that wasn’t true.

Neither The Guardian nor Pink News are members of IPSO, the independent press standards regulator. One has to ask why not, when other broadsheets are, and does Microsoft flag them up as potentially iffy?

Jesse Singal indicates that he's the only journalist who got in touch with the man who'd recorded some of the activity in the lobby.

Glenn Greenwald's also pitched in a bit, in this short thread

twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1433770504700190720

Today in journalism:

In July, Slate published an article by @e_urq about the viral video from an African-American woman complaining she was being harassed in the women's bathroom of an LA spa. It maligned her video as a "hoax," using that word 5 times.

But now, 4 women and one minor girl came forward and filed complaints with the police that the person indecently exposed themselves, leading to an arrest. Slate had to add "updates" (which should be a retraction) while the reporter denies (!) ever calling it a hoax.

In other news from the corporate journalism front, the USA Today "fact-checker," @dpfunke, tried to imply parents of slain Marines in Kabul were lying when they complained Biden was looking at his watch when meeting them. Now they had to admit it was true.

If the people at war with you are employees of media corporations doing things like this on a virtually daily basis, it's a sign that you're on the right track.

@MargaritaPie

I'm not really sure who to believe tbh, there seems to be 1001 different variations of this story everywhere you look

Really?

Perhaps you could provide a link to a paper that carries a different version.

The Guardian article certainly blames the victims, but it doesn’t dispute the facts about Merager:

Merager has been a registered sex offender since 2006, police said, and has a history of previous indecent exposure charges. Merager was convicted of indecent exposure in LA in 2002 and 2003, and pleaded not guilty to seven counts of indecent exposure in an alleged December 2018 case, according to court records. That case is still open.

@MargaritaPie

I'm not really sure who to believe tbh, there seems to be 1001 different variations of this story everywhere you look

I call bullshit on the claim that those supporting the woman who first made this claim have deviated from the claim at all.

But you are right. Those seeking to deny it happened, those seeking to discredit her have posted false claims.

Sharing as relevant I think.

I would like to hear from the people who are defending this person. I am trying to understand this better.

MargaritaPie, why do you think this person had an erection in the women’s naked area?

I asked my husband and apparently erections didn’t really “happen” at the time he played rugby and they had post match showers (he played a lot). Why is this different?

@NecessaryScene

If I was right-wing, this would be a great time to be alive.

Above there was reference to the Daily Mail being an unreliable source.

And yes, that is a historically well-deserved accolade.

But you know what? It doesn't need to be unreliable any more. It can serve the narrative it likes - that the left is crazy - by telling the 100% unvarnished truth!

So well done, Guardian, Democrats, etc. You're making the Daily Mail
(and the NY Post) look like the honest, reasonable outfits, because they now are.

Yes.

The Guardian haven’t been interested in investigating what happened or explaining the issues to the reader. They have just served up the Guardian US party line. Guardian reporting on this issue is as bad as anything produced by the DM - even matching them on racism and sexism.

Most damning, the goal seems to be to leave the reader less, not more informed.

Who to believe...it's just such a tricky one, isn't it?

Do we believe the women who

-have been consistent from the start
-whose distressed reactions to what had just happened was actually filmed
-who reported the incident officially to the police
-who the police have taken seriously and have now identified a suspect and have a warrant out for arrest.

Or

The transactivists who:

• immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a transwoman and these women simply must be transphobes

-then claimed it couldn't possibly be a transwoman because that never happens, and even if it was 'she' was doing nothing wrong and can use whatever facilities 'she' wants -said the man probably didn't even exist and this was a set up by transphobes -but if he did exist, it must have been a predatory ''cis man'', (even though men going through the hassle of self IDing as a woman to access victims literally never happens either) -victim blamed women and children -declared it rude to look at women's dicks -told everyone we shouldn't believe the women because some of them are religious -blamed the women reporting a sex offender for the male violence that broke out in the aftermath -dismissed it all as a right wing hoax when they'd tied themselves up in knots with their ridiculous excuses.

Such a hard one...I simply cannot decide who is telling the truth here 🤔

@yourhairiswinterfire

Who to believe...it's just such a tricky one, isn't it?

Do we believe the women who

-have been consistent from the start
-whose distressed reactions to what had just happened was actually filmed
-who reported the incident officially to the police
-who the police have taken seriously and have now identified a suspect and have a warrant out for arrest.

Or

The transactivists who:

• immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a transwoman and these women simply must be transphobes

-then claimed it couldn't possibly be a transwoman because that never happens, and even if it was 'she' was doing nothing wrong and can use whatever facilities 'she' wants -said the man probably didn't even exist and this was a set up by transphobes -but if he did exist, it must have been a predatory ''cis man'', (even though men going through the hassle of self IDing as a woman to access victims literally never happens either) -victim blamed women and children -declared it rude to look at women's dicks -told everyone we shouldn't believe the women because some of them are religious -blamed the women reporting a sex offender for the male violence that broke out in the aftermath -dismissed it all as a right wing hoax when they'd tied themselves up in knots with their ridiculous excuses.

Such a hard one...I simply cannot decide who is telling the truth here 🤔

Excellent summary.

Here’s what the police say.

I don’t think we can jump to conclusions just because there have been several different stories out there. Maybe there are different people?

This person say that they are a transwoman, so I think we should believe that.

I just want to know why they/she had an erection? I am trying to understand this better. @MargaritaPie could you please explain this to me? You seem to be on this transwoman’s side and I am really trying to understand this whole thing better.

Hope more women will share incidents of what this sex offender has been up to

I’ve been musing again over the ways in which the push towards making single sex spaces into single gender ones leaves women at greater risk of sex offenders, and if that increased risk can be quantified.

We’re assured by transactivists that non trans sex offenders will not seek to take advantage of these societal changes to predate on, flash, or spy on women, but I’m wondering what percentage of them, in reality, will.

Even if it’s 1%, that is millions, globally.

And that’s assuming no overlap at all between trans identity and sex offending, which does seem optimistic, given that another line taken in parallel with this stance is that women are also likely to commit sexual offences.

It’s really not a realistic assessment.

@Sophoclesthefox a quick Google says there are over 100000 sex offenders in England and Wales. Even at 1% that's 10000, and I'm not sure about the reoffending rates but I'm sure that more than 1% of sex offenders do reoffend, and opening the doors to single sex spaces under the guise of single gender spaces will only set to increase those rates with poor legal recourse to any one who objects to a penis being erect in a woman's space because that penis, at that time, feels female.

Ignore my numbers, I'm clearly having a bad maths day. However have just read that the recidivism rate is 10%.

[quote MargaritaPie]Is "nypost" daily an actual reliable news site? It kindof looks like "worldnewsdaily" or those other sites that are just satire made-up stuff.

The daily mail has posted an article too but I'm not seeing anything on the BBC or Sky or any actual news site.

btw Microsoft's newest browser Edge now warns visitors to the daily mail that it is not credible: www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/23/dont-trust-daily-mail-website-microsoft-browser-warns-users[/quote]
Is this a serious question or just desperation?

Like it or not the NYPost is one of America's oldest newspapers. Founded in 1801. You might not like their editorial bias which leans more right wing than other outlets but to suggest they have no credibility is laughable.

Dave Hewitt's piece on The Guardian's ideological dead end is excellent.