Andre Galvão accused of sexual assault
1 month(s) ago • 3609 views • 84 replies
"Loyalty you have to ask for or demand is not loyalty, it's a statement of insecurity. Sadly it seems we are all being conditioned to accept the witch hunt as standard legal practice. We are expected to assume guilt regardless of what the evidence or lack of evidence shows, and any expression of doubt results in attacks and allegations that you support such behavior." Regarding ignorant mobs with pitch forks, or virtue signaling cancel cultures, who have no regard to real guilt or real innocence, or evidences, or due processes, my position is: https://www.youtube.com/w[...]qbk9cDX0l0 |
"Loyalty is what is invoked, to cause people to discard their reason, and betray the real virtues of kindness, honesty, and fairness. The absence of a Presumption of Innocence, is also a vile Evil. Still, as much as I greatly admire her father, And I admire her career as an athlete. Why are these affirmations of guilt or innocence, so premature. Let the investigation, play out. However, contrary to my own last point. The Right to a Speedy Trial, Contrasted with the Practical need, Of also virtuous defenses, To make that defense, and gather evidences, Which can make the Innocent, Scorched earth, for years. False accusations, occur as much or more as rapes, and all are vile Evils. What a mess." Whenever serious allegations surface, especially involving someone as prominent as André Galvão the entire Jiu Jitsu community feels the impact. Emotions run high, opinions form quickly, and social media tends to amplify the loudest voices rather than the most accurate ones. This post isn’t about defending or condemning anyone. It’s about grounding the conversation in facts, context, and due process. I have done some research on this issue in general and it is never easy. One question that is pretty common is “How common are false accusations?” or “How often are reports true?” The honest answer: it’s complicated, and here’s why. 1. Most cases don’t have clear-cut physical evidence Many reports, especially those made long after the alleged event, rely heavily on testimony. Without definitive forensic evidence, it’s extremely difficult to prove something did happen or did not happen. 2. “False,” “unfounded,” and “unsubstantiated” are not the same and I found the below information on how these are often defined. • False = proven to be intentionally fabricated • Unfounded = insufficient evidence • Unsubstantiated = cannot be confirmed or disproven Only the first category is truly “false,” but many datasets mix these together, which makes the statistics unreliable. 3. Proven false reports are rare, but unprovable cases are common. This is because for a case to be officially marked as false the investigators need the following to be true. • A clear admission, or • Strong contradictory evidence Both are uncommon. Most cases remain in a gray zone where the truth is not legally provable either way. 4. Sexual misconduct is heavily underreported This makes the denominator unclear. If we don’t know how many incidents actually occur, we can’t calculate a precise percentage of false reports. 5. Motivations behind false reports vary and are hard to detect Research shows motivations can include: • Avoiding consequences for unrelated behavior • Custody or relationship disputes • Social pressure • Mental health factors But motivations are rarely obvious, which complicates classification. 6. Researchers disagree on methodology Some studies only count proven false reports (which keeps the number low). Others include ambiguous cases (which pushes the number higher). Neither approach is perfect. What the best research does agree on Across multiple independent studies, the rate of proven false accusations tends to fall in the low single digits to low teens. Meanwhile, actual sexual misconduct is significantly more common and widely underreported. Both realities matter. Both deserve to be acknowledged without minimizing either side. What this means for the Jiu Jitsu community right now When allegations surface, the community typically splits into two camps: • “Believe all accusations immediately.” • “Assume it’s a lie until proven otherwise.” I think that both extremes are unhelpful. My humble position is this: 1. Take allegations seriously. They deserve attention, not dismissal. 2. Avoid rushing to judgment. Neither guilt nor innocence should be declared by social media. 3. Let due process work. Investigations, evidence, and testimony determine outcomes not online speculation, or statements. 4. Support a culture where people feel safe reporting misconduct. This only strengthens the sport. 5. Also support a culture where accusations are evaluated fairly. This protects the integrity of the community and the rights of the accused. Both principles can coexist. In fact, they must coexist if we want Jiu Jitsu to remain a healthy, trustworthy environment. Final thought Jiu Jitsu is built on discipline, respect, and accountability. When difficult situations arise, our responsibility is to respond with clarity, not chaos. We need to respond with facts, not assumptions and with a commitment to fairness for everyone involved. Sorry about the length of this post! I almost feel like I was hitting numbers like Professor William Murphy does! |
"Whenever serious allegations surface, especially involving someone as prominent as André Galvão the entire Jiu Jitsu community feels the impact. Emotions run high, opinions form quickly, and social media tends to amplify the loudest voices rather than the most accurate ones. This post isn’t about defending or condemning anyone. It’s about grounding the conversation in facts, context, and due process. I have done some research on this issue in general and it is never easy. One question that is pretty common is “How common are false accusations?” or “How often are reports true?” The honest answer: it’s complicated, and here’s why. 1. Most cases don’t have clear-cut physical evidence Many reports, especially those made long after the alleged event, rely heavily on testimony. Without definitive forensic evidence, it’s extremely difficult to prove something did happen or did not happen. 2. “False,” “unfounded,” and “unsubstantiated” are not the same and I found the below information on how these are often defined. • False = proven to be intentionally fabricated • Unfounded = insufficient evidence • Unsubstantiated = cannot be confirmed or disproven Only the first category is truly “false,” but many datasets mix these together, which makes the statistics unreliable. 3. Proven false reports are rare, but unprovable cases are common. This is because for a case to be officially marked as false the investigators need the following to be true. • A clear admission, or • Strong contradictory evidence Both are uncommon. Most cases remain in a gray zone where the truth is not legally provable either way. 4. Sexual misconduct is heavily underreported This makes the denominator unclear. If we don’t know how many incidents actually occur, we can’t calculate a precise percentage of false reports. 5. Motivations behind false reports vary and are hard to detect Research shows motivations can include: • Avoiding consequences for unrelated behavior • Custody or relationship disputes • Social pressure • Mental health factors But motivations are rarely obvious, which complicates classification. 6. Researchers disagree on methodology Some studies only count proven false reports (which keeps the number low). Others include ambiguous cases (which pushes the number higher). Neither approach is perfect. What the best research does agree on Across multiple independent studies, the rate of proven false accusations tends to fall in the low single digits to low teens. Meanwhile, actual sexual misconduct is significantly more common and widely underreported. Both realities matter. Both deserve to be acknowledged without minimizing either side. What this means for the Jiu Jitsu community right now When allegations surface, the community typically splits into two camps: • “Believe all accusations immediately.” • “Assume it’s a lie until proven otherwise.” I think that both extremes are unhelpful. My humble position is this: 1. Take allegations seriously. They deserve attention, not dismissal. 2. Avoid rushing to judgment. Neither guilt nor innocence should be declared by social media. 3. Let due process work. Investigations, evidence, and testimony determine outcomes not online speculation, or statements. 4. Support a culture where people feel safe reporting misconduct. This only strengthens the sport. 5. Also support a culture where accusations are evaluated fairly. This protects the integrity of the community and the rights of the accused. Both principles can coexist. In fact, they must coexist if we want Jiu Jitsu to remain a healthy, trustworthy environment. Final thought Jiu Jitsu is built on discipline, respect, and accountability. When difficult situations arise, our responsibility is to respond with clarity, not chaos. We need to respond with facts, not assumptions and with a commitment to fairness for everyone involved. Sorry about the length of this post! I almost feel like I was hitting numbers like Professor William Murphy does!" One caveat to this: "Meanwhile, actual sexual misconduct is significantly more common." Respectfully, that too is quite speculative, if you mean more common than false accusations, rather than more common than reported. Other than that one caveat, I think you made an excellent post. The last time I pulled the U.S. FBI numbers, which was before the Pandemic:: 2.8% have enough proof of sexual assault to prosecute, and 8% are proven to be unsubstantiated. The FBI report on sexual assault in 2018, stated that 29% of false allegations that were unsubstantiated involved inconsistencies in the alleged timeline of events. But, as you as you stated, no one really knows how the remaining percentage where neither false accusation nor sexual assault can be proven, divides. And people, and societies, then tend to reflex to their own biases, regarding the matter, without reliable, confirmable data to prove those biases. You are quite accurate, in that the rate of proven convictions for both false accusations, and accusations are around the same, both low single digits, to as high as very low teens, depending on sources, and domiciles. Data gaps and reporting issues certainly due exist. And in the other direction strong bias towards, "hang 'em high, guilt assumed" for certain allegations, that are considered grievous societal taboos, and/or certain demographics, or situations. In other cultures, guilt is often assumed of the accuser, particularly in some Abrahamic religion cultures where wearing immodest dress etc, or walking the down the wrong street alone is thought to be asking to be raped, which is very unfortunate. And, in Japan, no one is raped, unless the case is clearly already solved with undeniable evidence, so that the Police numbers are not poorly impacted by a lack of conviction - which is also...uh...very Japanese, I guess. Japan being a heavyweight champion of data gaps, and misreporting, because of the "don't lose face" culture. And South America, particularly Brazil, often seems to have a "she must have wanted it" culture, which is...very unfortunate. Italy certainly seems to have a "wolf whistle / cat call" culture, I don't know how that translates into more or less than that, though, as I am not Italian. High corruption index cultures, are also associated with higher data gaps, and misreporting, and expectations of in-group members to cover things up, out of "loyalty" or mutually assured destruction. Those dynamics all make this a confounding issue, often in the opposite directions of each other. |
"One caveat to this: "Meanwhile, actual sexual misconduct is significantly more common." Respectfully, that too is quite speculative, if you mean more common than false accusations, rather than more common than reported. Other than that one caveat, as someone who has done a fair amount of work investigating these cases, and has to teach college classes on these cases, with former LEO's and lawyers, I think you made an excellent post. The last time I pulled the U.S. FBI numbers, which was before the Pandemic: Out of sexual assault accusations in the U.S., the FBI numbers reported: 2.8% have enough proof of sexual assault to prosecute, and 8% are proven to be false claims through admissions of guilt of false accusation or proof of same. But, as you as you stated, no one really knows how the remaining percentage where neither false accusation nor sexual assault can be proven, divides. And people, and societies, then tend to reflex to their own biases, regarding the matter, without reliable, confirmable data to prove those biases. You are quite accurate, in that the rate of proven convictions for both false accusations, and accusations are around the same, both low single digits, to as high as very low teens, depending on sources, and domiciles. Data gaps and reporting issues certainly due exist. And in the other direction strong bias towards, "hang 'em high, guilt assumed" for certain allegations, that are considered grievous societal taboos, and/or certain demographics, or situations. In other cultures, guilt is often assumed of the accuser, particularly in some Abrahamic religion cultures where wearing immodest dress etc, or walking the down the wrong street alone is thought to be asking to be raped, which is very unfortunate. And, in Japan, no one is raped, unless the case is clearly already solved with undeniable evidence, so that the Police numbers are not poorly impacted by a lack of conviction - which is also...uh...very Japanese, I guess. Japan being a heavyweight champion of data gaps, and misreporting, because of the "don't lose face" culture. And South America, particularly Brazil, often seems to have a "she must have wanted it" culture, which is...very unfortunate. Italy certainly seems to have a "wolf whistle / cat call" culture, I don't know how that translates into more or less than that, though, as I am not Italian. High corruption index cultures, are also associated with higher data gaps, and misreporting, and expectations of in-group members to cover things up, out of "loyalty" or mutually assured destruction. Those dynamics all make this a confounding issue, often in the opposite directions of each other." Thanks for raising that. I should clarify what I meant when I said, 'actual sexual misconduct is significantly more common,' I was not speculating about any specific case or making claim beyond the established research. I was referring to the well documented fact that the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the general population is much higher than the rate of demonstrably false reports. So, I guess I was just stating that statistically, sexual misconduct itself occurs far more frequently than cases that can be proven false. At the same time, I do not want to minimize the reality of false accusations. |
"Thanks for raising that. I should clarify what I meant when I said, 'actual sexual misconduct is significantly more common,' I was not speculating about any specific case or making claim beyond the established research. I was referring to the well documented fact that the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the general population is much higher than the rate of demonstrably false reports. So, I guess I was just stating that statistically, sexual misconduct itself occurs far more frequently than cases that can be proven false. At the same time, I do not want to minimize the reality of false accusations." Regarding, "I was referring to the well documented fact that the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the general population is much higher than the rate of demonstrably false reports." The U.S. FBI data did NOT bear that out, though, regarding criminal sexual assaults. The U.S. FBI data actually showed the OPPOSITE, that there were higher rates of provable false accusations than provable criminal sexual assaults. The proposition you are putting forward is a widely published claim, but regarding criminal sexual assaults, is (or was) without empirical U.S. criminal court verdict support. To be less ambiguous, "sexual misconduct" includes a wide range of activities that are not criminal sexual assault, and can include behaviors that are not criminal at all, depending on the definitions being used. Classical criminology says that which is not illegal, is within bounds, but that does not take into account adults "treating the Dojo like a Disco" situations, which many of us find repugnant, unprofessional, and in their way, sometimes predatory. As another example, conduct prohibited by a professional organization, or board, but that is not criminal, can be sexual misconduct. Doctor falls in love with their adult patient and marries patient. They live happily ever after. Professional sexual misconduct? In some situations, depending. Criminal? Usually not, although sometimes, depending on the situation. Was the doctor that patient's mental health therapist, or Psychiatrist, and the transition from being a patient to a romantic relationship was paper thin...now that gets dicey, quickly doesn't it. And for "extra fun", not only do the academic and advocacy groups use different definitions, but the last time I went through the U.S. law enforcement data, the 1,600 agencies reporting in, had variance in coding, due to differences in State law languages. Finally, in the U.S. and many domiciles, civil cases, have a lower burden of proof than criminal, and my prior research ONLY considered criminal cases, not civil ones. And, we were guided by the criminal Court decisions, not even making adjustments for Romeo and Juliet situations, but relying on the findings of the Criminal courts, whereever and however they landed. However, it is probably time for me to run through this exercise again, to update my data to the current period, and I will start that process. So, updating this, is a non-trivial exercise, but worthwhile, and I will do so, and then provide the findings, and data, to the group. I am in the process of drafting some Amicus Briefs, in conjunction with a lawyer, and some legislative recommendations on related topics, so I might as well do this anyway, for inclusion in those, if relevant. |
"Regarding, "I was referring to the well documented fact that the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the general population is much higher than the rate of demonstrably false reports." The U.S. FBI data did not bear that out, though, regarding criminal sexual assaults. The U.S. FBI data actually showed the opposite, that were higher rates of provable false accusations than provable criminal sexual assaults. The proposition you are putting forward is a widely published claim, but regarding criminal sexual assaults, is (or was) without empirical U.S. criminal court verdict support. To be less ambiguous, "sexual misconduct" includes a wide range of activities that are not criminal sexual assault, and can include behaviors that are not criminal at all, depending on the definitions being used. For example, conduct prohibited by a professional organization, or board, but that is not criminal, can be sexual misconduct. Classical criminology says that which is not illegal, is within bounds, but that does not take into account adults "treating the Dojo like a Disco" situations, which many of us find repugnant, unprofessional, and in their way, sometimes predatory. And for "extra fun", not only do the academic and advocacy groups use different definitions, but the last time I went through the U.S. law enforcement data, the 1,600 agencies reporting in, had variance in coding, due to differences in State law languages. Finally, in the U.S. and many domiciles, civil cases, have a lower burden of proof than criminal, and my prior research ONLY considered criminal cases, not civil ones. And, we were guided by the criminal Court decisions, not even making adjustments for Romeo and Juliet situations, but relying on the findings of the Criminal courts, whereever and however they landed. However, it is probably time for me to run through this exercise again, to update my data to the current period, and I will start that process. So, updating this, is a non-trivial exercise, but worthwhile, and I will do so, and then provide the findings, and data, to the group. I am in the process of drafting some Amicus Briefs, in conjunction with a lawyer, and some legislative recommendations on related topics, so I might as well do this anyway, for inclusion in those, if relevant." Are you speaking of the UCR/NIBRS system? As it is my understanding that they do not track "provable false accusations." From what I understand the system only tracks reported rapes and unfounded cases. In the case of unfounded cases, it does not equal false, as I mentioned above, it could be insufficient evidence, victim withdrawal, jurisdictional issues, misclassification, and cases police did not pursue. I am not an expert on this and have found my information reading RAND, meta-analyses and some independent studies. These all seem to put the false reports in the range of 2-12%. The only other studies I have seen are the Kanin studies which are small and some dispute the methodology. I will continue to follow so I can learn. Appreciate the insite and knowlege sharing. |
"Are you speaking of the UCR/NIBRS system? As it is my understanding that they do not track "provable false accusations." From what I understand the system only tracks reported rapes and unfounded cases. In the case of unfounded cases, it does not equal false, as I mentioned above, it could be insufficient evidence, victim withdrawal, jurisdictional issues, misclassification, and cases police did not pursue. I am not an expert on this and have found my information reading RAND, meta-analyses and some independent studies. These all seem to put the false reports in the range of 2-12%. The only other studies I have seen are the Kanin studies which are small and some dispute the methodology. I will continue to follow so I can learn. Appreciate the insite and knowlege sharing." Give me a bit, I am back to Amicus Brief land, with the lawyer, at this very moment. I will update the numbers to the current period, provide them back, with full transparency, with where they where derived from, etc. Assuming, that data is still being provided to the public. As it has been strange days over at the Federal agencies this term, and last, regarding the providing of data, and the accuracy and reliability of that data. Regarding: "I am not an expert on this and have found my information reading RAND, meta-analyses and some independent studies. These all seem to put the false reports in the range of 2-12%. The only other studies I have seen are the Kanin studies which are small and some dispute the methodology." The above statement from you is congruent with what I found, when reviewing those studies - outside of the Rand study, which is widely cited in "interesting" ways, but rarely cited precisely. But as I said, I am only looking at criminal convictions / records, not surveys of individuals, etc. with my comments regarding *criminal sexual assault* specifically. Also, I am excluding civil cases, and excluding sexual misconduct that was not sexual assault, in my comments regarding criminal sexual assault. I am aware, and have read a lot of survey research on this topic, some of it is real horror show, in its implications, but I am also aware that survey research can have some inherent reliability issues, as well, and the devil is really in the details of the definitions, including subject interpretation, as well as other issues. So, I take careful note of survey research, but I hesitate to bet the farm on that type of research, in general, compared to research with more objective measures. Especially if it might ever be used in Court, or to influence a court decision. |
Some of you will like this Amicus Brief, and legislative proposal, as it addresses closing the loops, and vulnerabilities in the sex offender registry system. So that the public may have better Caveat Emptor ability with those registries. In contrast, some of you, including the State of California, may be more concerned with the privacy rights of the Convicted Sex Offenders. But, I live in Florida... The other one, which is also in progress, with the same lawyer, some of you may not like as much, as it does address some of the problems with false accusations. We are both university professors, and we are trying to approach this domain with as much fairness, as we can manage. |
"Are you speaking of the UCR/NIBRS system? As it is my understanding that they do not track "provable false accusations." From what I understand the system only tracks reported rapes and unfounded cases. In the case of unfounded cases, it does not equal false, as I mentioned above, it could be insufficient evidence, victim withdrawal, jurisdictional issues, misclassification, and cases police did not pursue. I am not an expert on this and have found my information reading RAND, meta-analyses and some independent studies. These all seem to put the false reports in the range of 2-12%. The only other studies I have seen are the Kanin studies which are small and some dispute the methodology. I will continue to follow so I can learn. Appreciate the insite and knowlege sharing." I would like to respectfully point something out, though, if your numbers ARE correct. If 2% to 12% of accusations are ultimately proven to be false, the 2% is huge, and the 12% is unthinkably bad. Given that a false accusation often leaves someone fired, unemployable in their prior profession, even without a criminal conviction. They will spend the rest of their life, failing background checks, and hoping the initiator, will invite, or accept the explanation, That they were in fact, innocent, as the arrest, not the conviction, triggers, the automatic, background failure. They are scorched earth, and a leper, for the rest of their life, even after exoneration, in many cases. Or, even worse, upon conviction from a false accusation, Sometimes imprisoned, for years, when convictions occur, from false accusations, And they do, and have, Before those accusations are subsequently discovered to be false. If they ever are.... These are terrible crimes, up there, with murder, or rape, or serial torture, to have someone jailed for years, on a lie? Or worse, falsely murdered, because of that rumor, and that Gossip, by a vigilante, thinking they were justice, and not the reverse. In prison, or out. Those rates of accusations being false, would be very bad news. Especially if they are just the percentages of false accusations, that were discovered to be false. There is no part of this domain, that is anything but horrible. |
"Are you speaking of the UCR/NIBRS system? As it is my understanding that they do not track "provable false accusations." From what I understand the system only tracks reported rapes and unfounded cases. In the case of unfounded cases, it does not equal false, as I mentioned above, it could be insufficient evidence, victim withdrawal, jurisdictional issues, misclassification, and cases police did not pursue. I am not an expert on this and have found my information reading RAND, meta-analyses and some independent studies. These all seem to put the false reports in the range of 2-12%. The only other studies I have seen are the Kanin studies which are small and some dispute the methodology. I will continue to follow so I can learn. Appreciate the insite and knowlege sharing." As we are working on the Amicus Briefs and Legislative Proposal projects, related to Innocent Man projects, across several areas, And also, in others, seeking to close loopholes in the Sex Offender Registries, or at least Better informing and disclaiming to the Public of their limitations, Here are some grim stats regarding the consquences and harms to society from false accusations regarding sexual abuse: From 1989 to 2021, in the United States alone, there were: 4,101 people falsely convicted for sexual assault who were later exonerated of those crimes, after serving an average of 12 years in prison before they were subsequently exonerated. and 2,344 people falsely convicted for child sexual assault who were later exonerated of those crimes, after serving an average of 8 years in prison before they were subsequently exonerated. Black people tended to serve a couple more years than non-black people who were false convicted then subsequently exonerated, and Black people made up around 2/3 of those falsely prosecuted, in the adult sex abuse cases, and 38% of the child sex abuse cases. https://exonerationregist[...]0Years.pdf Likewise, equally disturbing, the Innocent Man project, reports: As of 2020, around 91% of DNA exonerations were for people falsely convicted of sex crimes, which climbs to 97% for cases that include both a sex crime AND a murder charge. More disturbingly of those DNA exonerations: 25% stated they were coerced to make false confessions, and 10% stated they coerced into pleading guilty. https://www.innocenceproj[...]2019-1.pdf https://www.albanylawrevi[...]t-25-years So, whether the rate of real false accusations of sexual assault is the alarming 2%, or the mind blowingly horrible 10% or above.... There is plenty of reason to consider making false accusations of sexual abuse, with intent to do so, to be identical in severity to false imprisonment, with the added crime of doing so via perjury, and false report, defrauding the State into being one's vehicle for that false imprisonment, coupled with committing a type of sex crime, by making that false accusation with intent, that is it worthy of the person found guilty of making a knowingly false accusation with intent, also registering as a sex offender, the same as other predators, on that list, and for similar reasons. Likewise, one can and should hate crimes of sexual assault, for the same reason, they often leave their victims permanently scarred for life. One can hate one Evil, and hate it's opposite Evil, just as much, and for the same reasons: they ruin individuals lives, and harm society greatly thereby. Especially in those cases, of a false accuser, who knows their accusation was false, and sits on that, while their victims rots, for years, in prison, for a false charge for an average of 8 to 13 years, assuming they are ever exonerated. That's harsh criminal cruelty, and one could argue they should serve a year in prison at least for every year of Life and Freedom they took from their victim(s), on top of the perjury, and false report charge. |
And, to be clear, I have also exposed a couple hundred sex offenders, and gift wrapped them for the appropriate law enforcement or journalistic outlets to pursue. But, on this board, the popular position of hating sex offenders is already well vocally spoken for, including by myself. So, if no one will give voice to the victims on the other side, then I will give voice to that side as well, To attempt to be even handed, fair, and just. Not to mention, most of those false convictions, were handled by Public Defenders, with thick dockets, Who in many of those cases, seem to have pressured their clients to just "take the deal" or "it will likely go much worse for you". And facing charges, where the court of public opinion, is often already biased, widely, by the arresting agencies, Prosecutors, and others. Of course, the real victims of sexual assault, have almost as much cause to hate false accusers, as the direct victims of false accusations. Because the real victims of sexual assault, are also the indirect victims of those who make false accusations of sexual assault, as the false accusations are stolen suffering and stolen valor of the victims of real sexual assault, as well as predations on those they falsely accuse. |
And now we've got allegations against Michael Jordan by people who weren't even present when the alleged action happened and only saw it on video afterward. People who were there have stated that the kid had ice down his shirt an shorts and MJ was just trying to help him get the ice out, but the allegations are still flying. |
Spot on, Joe. It’s a perfect example of why context is everything before jumping to conclusions. We see this all the time in the grappling world; take a standard closed guard kimura, for instance. To anyone who knows the sport, it’s just technical control and leverage. But on social media? People who lack any context will clip it and post headlines like 'See what the gym instructor is doing to your wife!' just to farm outrage. It’s dangerous when people who weren't even in the room try to dictate the narrative based on a short video clip. If the people actually on the mats say he was just helping the kid get ice out of his gear, that's the testimony that should matter, not the 'keyboard experts' watching from a distance |
"Spot on, Joe. It’s a perfect example of why context is everything before jumping to conclusions. We see this all the time in the grappling world; take a standard closed guard kimura, for instance. To anyone who knows the sport, it’s just technical control and leverage. But on social media? People who lack any context will clip it and post headlines like 'See what the gym instructor is doing to your wife!' just to farm outrage. It’s dangerous when people who weren't even in the room try to dictate the narrative based on a short video clip. If the people actually on the mats say he was just helping the kid get ice out of his gear, that's the testimony that should matter, not the 'keyboard experts' watching from a distance" On the other side, there seems ample evidence that unwanted sexual behaviors are rampant in these domains. The questions are: are there adequate controls in place to discourage such behaviors from happening without collusion? And, is there collusion and cover up behaviors present? For large international networks, are they running their own Epstein networks of grooming, and quasi-human trafficking in that regards? For even small gyms, are there inappropriate, and sometimes illegal behaviors that are predatory? These problems exist my friend, they are not new, and they do not cure themselves. However, like other fungus, rot, and pathogens, they hate sunlight, and can be disinfected with transparency and honesty. |
"Spot on, Joe. It’s a perfect example of why context is everything before jumping to conclusions. We see this all the time in the grappling world; take a standard closed guard kimura, for instance. To anyone who knows the sport, it’s just technical control and leverage. But on social media? People who lack any context will clip it and post headlines like 'See what the gym instructor is doing to your wife!' just to farm outrage. It’s dangerous when people who weren't even in the room try to dictate the narrative based on a short video clip. If the people actually on the mats say he was just helping the kid get ice out of his gear, that's the testimony that should matter, not the 'keyboard experts' watching from a distance" The Jordan incident wasn't even on the mats in a relatively private setting. It was in Victory Lane at the Daytona 500; a place where there are likely hundreds of cameras capturing every second. Let's pretend for a second that MJ was a predator. He's 63 years old and likely would have been a predator for his entire adult life, let's say 40 years. That means he's pretty good at not getting caught. But now he's going to go to a place where he knows his every action will be caught on film and do predatory things? Makes no sense. Just people trying to get clicks at the expense of someone else. |
Anybody want to watch this, and post the reader's digest version: https://www.youtube.com/w[...]D_IK7H60iA Full disclosure, I hate watching podcast-y type of things. |
"Yikes: https://bjjdoc.com/2026/0[...]s-reveals/" Another perfect example of a claim/accusation without context or foundation that now has a name attached to it whether it is justified and accurate or not. For all we know the statement made was "if you make a false claim to the police I will revoke your visa". That's vastly different than doing so for going to the police legitimately. |
"Another perfect example of a claim/accusation without context or foundation that now has a name attached to it whether it is justified and accurate or not. For all we know the statement made was "if you make a false claim to the police I will revoke your visa". That's vastly different than doing so for going to the police legitimately." The interesting thing, is in the U.S,. false claims, without evidentiary proof, are actionable defamations. |
"The interesting thing, is in the U.S,. false claims, without evidentiary proof, are actionable defamations." While true in theory, it's not so easy in practice. Defamation is very difficult to prove, and filing a police report for something you legitimately believe to be a violation would likely not meet the bar whether it is ultimately true or not. |
