• superkret@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      She lied about not consenting since clearly every woman in the world’s deepest desire is to be kissed by him.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I have to say, I really don’t know the finer points of this, but I’ve personally witnessed women who were okay with sexual advances until their friends told them not to be.

        Peer pressure is a powerful force, especially for those who have difficulty thinking for themselves. I don’t know if this is an individual who would maintain their stance if everyone around them was telling them to change it.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Notice how her entire team immediately took her side? This isn’t the first time he’s done something like this, and she’s not the first person on the team he’s done it to, either.

  • Amilo159@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Those who doesn’t want to bend (i.e resign) they will break (get fired)

  • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    123
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People are so quick with conclusions without actual information.

    If you read the article, it is about whether the person gave consent or not for the kiss.

    We as just observers on the internet, have no idea about that. So why drawing conclusions?

    EDIT you can downvote all you want, since it doesn’t mean anything on here. However let me ask:

    Were you next to both of them when it happened? I’m assuming not, so how do you know the facts? Conclusions without facts are just random opinions.

    • Liv2themax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a significant difference between claiming some things was spontaneous and actually getting consent. This guy wasn’t in a relationship with the player where this type of behavior would have been previously cleared. He’s not even claiming that he asked permission. In this case you would have to assume mutual spontaneous consent. That is what he’s claiming. However, one party has clearly said it wasn’t mutual consent. So now you either have to assume the victim is lying or you take the logical path and realize that there’s photographic evidence of a powerful figure, who doesn’t claim to have asked for consent, assaulting a female athlete and showing no regard or remorse for that behavior.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s not even claiming that he asked permission.

        I read that he asked her and she said it was okay. Of course, this is his account of things, but it really is just his word vs. hers on this matter.

        Unless someone has a microphone that could’ve picked up the exchange.

      • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        63
        ·
        1 year ago

        First of all thanks for an actual argument without throwing insults and such.

        You are right indeed, about actual consent, spontaneousness/ spontaneous consent. One party says it was spontaneous consent and the other party said it was not, so how do we as the internet observer what it truly was?

        I mean, certainly if it was not, he should resign and such. I would like to say though, I never said that there was no photographic evidence. This matter is an she versus he said.

        • osarusan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          One party says it was spontaneous consent and the other party said it was not, so how do we as the internet observer what it truly was?

          You are a clown.

            • osarusan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dude, can you argue without resorting to insults? All it does is make you look desperate because you can’t focus on the subject, you have to attack the individual.

            • osarusan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No man. Use your fucking brain. This is either one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments I have ever seen or you are truly an idiot.

              You’re saying the equivalent of “How do we know person A punched person B, and it wasn’t person B who slammed his face into person A’s fist? shrug We as internet observers just can’t know.”

              It’s disgustingly dishonest. Everyone is trying to tell you this and you keep retreating further. Step out of your shoes or whatever personal reason is causing you to have this cognitive dissonance and look the situation honestly. You should see that your posts defending this have been pathetic and dishonest.

              • bobman@unilem.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Dude, can you argue without resorting to insults? All it does is make you look desperate because you can’t focus on the subject, you have to attack the individual.

                • osarusan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What on earth are you talked about? I literally attacked his argument, not him.

                  You, on the other hand, offered nothing but tone trolling.

        • anlumo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          1 year ago

          If he never tried to get consent, there was no consent, implied or otherwise.

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude, Hermoso herself said it was non consensual. How can you justify suing HER since it happened to HER. Do you know what she was thinking?

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        He said it was.

        She said it wasn’t.

        Who do we believe, and based on what?

      • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        52
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point is, people here pretend as if they know everything what has truly happened. While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment (or do we?). I do not justify anything, never claimed I was justifying anything.

        Certainly he can he an ‘‘POS’’ but I don’t know. I don’t know him that much, do not follow him and do not know him personally.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can see that he kissed her on the lips and she said she didn’t want or consent to that. What more evidence do you need? Do you think she is lying?

          • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            44
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.

            I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.

            Personally, I’m curious how this goes. What more evidence I want? Nothing. Don’t think there’s more unless we can actually get a video with sound where we hear what both of them say.

            • rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So you don’t want any more evidence. So you either believe her or you think she’s a liar. Which is it?

                • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  21
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, you believe the abuser caught in video but you’re too much of a coward to admit it outright.

                • rusticus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  17
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No. You didn’t. You said “I’m not saying she’s lying”. That’s not the same.

                  Do you believe her statements or do you think she’s lying?

            • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.

              1. please explain what kind of “sign” you are thinking of.

              2. please then make an earnest attempt to empathise: you are in a public situation, your boss, who has an immense amount of control over your future career, makes an unwanted sexual advance. how confident do you feel enacting the “sign” in point #1

              3. please then rate, on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is “not at all convincing” and 10 is “completely convincing”, the “sign” in point #1, and the public statement after the fact that the kiss was not consensual, in terms of you believing that Hermoso did not consent. in rating the public statement after the fact, please bear in mind the risks of the public statement to Hermoso (including the lawsuit mentioned in this article, the potential career damage in point #2, and the potential harm that thhe player is likely to cause to people who have experienced sexual assault, were she to be discovered to have been lying about not consenting)

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.

              This is absolutely true when dealing with tribalists. You’re either with them or against them; there is no in-between.

              Just look at everyone getting mad at you for even suggesting we don’t know all the facts. Sad, but that’s what this generation has become. Rabid fools desperate to fit in with other rabid fools.

              • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If they’re mad about an opinion over the internet, well that’s on them. Nowadays it’s pretty much follow the hype train and pretending to know everything.

                They can downvote me to oblivion, that’s fine. It’s internet point which does not mean anything at all and especially here on Lemmy. I can still do everything. So it matters even less.

                Majority doesn’t even have a good argument point, if I remember well, there were only one or two people who had. The rest didn’t and went direct into personal matters, which isn’t a good thing for an argument.

                I quite much forgot about this thread/ argument until, I saw your comment.

          • osarusan@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.

            His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.

            Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment

              Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.

              The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.

              • osarusan@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.

                Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not as sad as everyone who can’t argue without resorting to insults.

        All it does is show us that you’re not confident in your stance.

      • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        55
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well the fact that no one gave an counterargument, proves my point.

        This is pretty much “follow the hate train”. As usual.

        I don’t particular like the guy but people here pretend as if they have been there and heard everything. Which is kind of funny(?)

        • frickineh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          ·
          1 year ago

          The counterargument is that she said it wasn’t consensual. Holy shit, how many people in your life should think about pressing charges against you if that’s how you think consent works?

          • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            38
            ·
            1 year ago

            Since you are making this personal, I won’t argue with you. However if you are curious, you can check my other comments to the ones that are actually giving arguments without being personal.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We as just observers on the internet

      George Orwell:

      The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is something to be said about missing perspectives from outsiders and even the ease of digital modifications of images, in a completely different situation that this mushbrained loser is trying to apply to this one for some reason.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, just fill in what you don’t know with what you’d like to believe.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Impartiality isn’t good on platforms like these.

      It’s all a rabid chase for upvotes by having the ‘popular’ opinion, regardless of if it’s right.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, it wouldn’t make sense for him to apologize if he isn’t lying about her saying yes.

          I’m not saying he’s right, but I don’t have audio of what happened so I just have to pick who I want to believe or admit I don’t know.

          • AbolishBorderControlsNow@mastodonapp.uk
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            @bobman

            There seems to have been a bad culture of sexism in Spanish football with many women refusing to play.

            I see no reason to disbelieve her. Why should she agree to be kissed by her boss.

            Someone that high profile is paid a lot of money to provide good leadership.

            He obviously felt that he had the power to behave that way. Which is exactly the problem.

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A person in a position of power does something unwanted to another person underneath his/her power. Then the person in a position of power claims the person underneath lied about consent. This is always the fault of the person in power. Shame on you for not having better judgment. Be better.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That was the risk he chose to take when he took advantage of the power dynamic. None of us get to choose the severity of punishment for bad actions but we are responsible. And there is no question he is at fault here. You can reasonably argue the severity of punishment but no one should be questioning his accountability here.

              • rusticus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Wrong. The power dynamic is not equal. Therefore it is impossible to “figure out a solution on their own.” Your profound ignorance around abuses of power are shocking. Get help.

                Edit: I love how what appears to be a bunch of men on the internet defending the sexual assault of a woman beneath the male in the power dynamic. And all of her colleagues and teammates are defending her, not him. A story as old as time itself.

                • bobman@unilem.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Any chance you can present your argument without resorting to personal attacks?

                  All it does is make you look weak and unsure about your position, which makes rational people averse to accepting it at face value.