One last question then.

If someone has multiple negative experiences with a specific race, are they now justified to presume that race of people is dangerous? Likewise, if someone has multiple negative experiences with a specific identity, are they now justified to presume that group of people is dangerous?

That's what women do to men when they presume men are dangerous because they and their friends have had bad experiences.

If women are justified to think this way because they're personally impacted. Then so is everyone else with whatever group they've had bad experiences with.

Any other standard would be cherry picking. But this is why I can't support this thinking and label it all equally bad. It's the same justification, just different application.

Find places to sit down and enjoy nature as a whole.

Not wrong. I'm going to actually enjoy the rest of my Sunday.

This guy gets it. 😎

Lmao, so it would only be dismissive if the assumption was to reduce trans people from being the victim of a crime. But to make the opposite assumption is unfair. But for men it's a non-issue to default them as bad people because...History? Want to know about the history of some other demographics?

Responses like this aren't convincing. I'm not going to justify viewing one demographic as evil when the same is apparently not allowed for other demographics. Doesn't matter how you try to twist it. It's all the same outcome wrapped in different justifications. Racists do it, sexists do it, apologists do it.

There could be millions and millions of people saying all men are bad, even though it's way more warranted and evidence-based, yet we won't see anti-male policies or men going missing with police not even looking for them like what happens to trans people.

Men receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crime. Domestic abuse protocol follows a system that tells police to arrest the man, even if the woman is the aggressor. Men are not allowed to attend doctor meetings during pregnancy in some countries because it is suspected the woman might be being abused, even if she says she is not. Men are advised not to defend themselves in the instance of an assault by a woman because he will become the suspected attacker.

There are many policies and standards in place which assume men are dangerous. What are you talking about? That's not even relevant to the point though.

This is a question of how people think. If you can look at the exact same situation but come to a different opinion based on nothing but the traits of the people involved, then I've got something to tell you...

It isn't different...This is what I can't get behind and exactly the point of my post.

I'm making the argument to treat all groups equally in this type of scenario. Either you don't judge the demographic or you do. Pick one.

I genuinely can't get behind anything else if you're going to try and make the point that one is fine and the other is not. I don't see why one group deserves an elevated position in this conversation due to how they identify or what they're born as.

I agree with that.

I'm drawing a comparison to how this is never the standard when men are lynched on the internet over one asshole. It doesn't help that it's a 75% chance the same people who preach "let's not attack trans people" probably are the same people who hate being told "not all men are bad" whenever women get assaulted. All I see is the exact same scenario but very different responses.

In both cases it should be: hate the person, not their demographic.

brother idk what media ur consuming but u gotta get off that shit lol

Mainstream media, the news, any social media platform. What do you mean what am I consuming? It's the entire internet unless you hang around in those Redpill spaces where the narrative is flipped.

the problem is when people say "not all men" as a way of deflecting their "responsibility" to making the world a safer place for everyone.

And do you agree this is the same when people say "not all trans people"? It's dismissive, correct?

For generations men have proven statistically to be the most violent group of people

Oh do you really want to go down this rabbit whole? I can give you multiple demographics who this statement applies to. Yet it would be considered offensive to generalise any of them.

Replies like this are proving my point. You massively downplay one group to protect them from judgement but another group, in this case men, are fair game because....men bad.

Your thought process is no different from the same people who want to generalise trans people and class them as evil. Same thinking, different application. It's incredibly hypocritical. At which point I just roll my eyes. Both of you are idiots. Don't generalise anybody over a couple of assholes, full stop.

As long as you're consistent.

If it's okay to generalise men as a group because some men are bad. I don't want to read any crying about how other demographics gets generalised over a few people. Anything else is hypocrisy.

If me writing about the comparison to men in this circumstance is me being self-centred, go ahead and make the same statement right now towards every other person crying about how this SA allegation affects the trans community. Make the tweet, post, whatever. Or else I can't take you seriously.

It's just very interesting.

When a man abuses a woman, do these same people say "let's not make this an excuse to hate men"? Nope. It's actually the opposite. It's used more as more justification as to why women aren't safe around men and how men are evil, the whole shabang.

When anybody else does the same thing, now they want to protect the group from being wrongfully judged? Lmao! Miss me with that. It's so fake. How about we stop judging groups in general, including men.

After repeated incidents of men abusing women:

"Men are trash, kill all men, I'll abort my son, bears a safer than men, saying not all men is ignoring the issue."

After repeated incidents of any other demographic doing the same thing:

"Let's be rational, guys."

I agree with not attacking an entire group for the actions of 1 but where the fuck are you guys when it's men being lynched over one POS. Let's keep this energy going forward. Thanks.😊

molestcent

This right here.

Lmao

Seriously though, Riot maintains chat logs to handle reports. They'll technically never read them unless you're reported.

I said this in another thread but the one thing that bothers me about Flor's response is she didn't deny the events but denied the accusation of SA. Like people have said, there's nothing wrong with playing it safe and making sure you get a lawyer before saying the wrong things. But saying you deny accusations of SA doesn't mean you didn't do the things that were said. Is that what the lawyer is for? To argue how you can explain the events without them being SA?

That omission really bothers me.

Anyways, I have wasted my Saturday watching Ardiis and reading Flor drama. Tragic. Goodnight.

Yoo! That's a good point, the fact the accuser gave a date means evidence around that specific day is huge. She also talked about calling her mother and taking an uber.

All of these events will have receipts or some type of witness, if not at least picked up by nearby cameras and GPS tracking. It won't mean SA took place but it means the accuser can be proven (or disproven) to have visited Flor that day. Anything else comes down to word of mouth.

What strikes me is Flor didn't deny the events, just that it was SA. This is very PR but like people are saying, it might be the best answer a person can give if they aren't 100% clean.

Nobody is safe from seangares

I should've rephrased what I meant. Getting a lawyer is the correct thing to do, her initial response is just wishy-washy.

She says she strongly denies accusations of SA. What does that actually mean? She might just not believe what happened was SA. The question is did that stuff happen tho? At which point, it doesn't matter what she thinks it was. It's a very safe answer, yeah, but it also makes it a bit suspect.

I don't know. We aren't going to get clear answers until either side actually gives evidence anyways.

In Mexico?

It's GG bro, only US gets MSRP and even they don't have it.

Cope of the century

Depends on the accusation.

"This person sexually assaulted me!"

Response:

"I'm going to lawyer up and decide what is safe for me to share"

vs

"This person is completely lying and I'm going to press charges for false accusations and defamation".

It's for sure strange.

She's going to lawyer up and deal with this legally to avoid saying the wrong things? That sounds like she did something. Innocent people have nothing to hide. If a girl accused me of SA right now I'd laugh and deny it at the top of my voice because I know I've never done that.

Nah, they're not locked in.

They must be so drained from the stress of surviving lower bracket. And will have had no time for proper prep for TH.

Taking it easy after making Toronto. Figured this would happen.

https://www.vlr.gg/489448/gc-will-be-fine/#1

Flor does not represent GC as much as people think she does.

My final thoughts on this whole situation (because you asked).

I keep seeing comments about how this will set GC backwards.

Guys. Half (probably more like 3/4) of the people who watched GC didn't even watch it for Flor. Plenty of us didn't even agree with her being turned into the face of GC. That was just Riot and a portion of the community giving her the glazing of the century. The scene is fine without Flor, especially outside of America. We have bstrdd fans, suzu fans, Vania fans, it's fine.

Any of the top GC players are still open to play and prove themselves for challengers or tier 1/2. Nobody is going to roadblock them because of Flor. Viewers will be fine, maybe a few trolls about the situation but nothing more than usual.

Good drama:

Refuse fist bump because of personal beef.
Get Valorant community riled up.
Nobody gets hurt, create new storyline to make future matches more excited.
Everyone wins.

Bad drama:

[redacted]

I agree.

It's just not going to look good because it's inconsistent.

However, it should then be the standard going forward. The next allegations we get (hopefully not), we need to match the same energy of no judgement. If we get anything else, then it's cooked.

Ardiis just went through the Flor stuff on his stream.

He was ranting about how the Reddit page is being very biased towards Flor when they gave no charity to Sinatraa. One of the top comments literally reads "we should wait for evidence, but for Sinatraa I can believe he'd do that". Like???

From it happening again bro!

That person is vulnerable and probably very emotional in that moment, I understand that. But if you do nothing, you've done nothing to change the situation. What are you going to do? Square up with the other person?

You can if it protects them.

Riot literally records and keeps all records of all texts you've ever sent in-game so they can reference them if they want to investigate.

If Flor said this, Riot will know.

Actually, you do.

If a crime is committed, those rules go out of the window. Even for therapists or doctors or whoever else is legally obligated to protect information. If you reveal something like that, they have to report it.

Bro said "r/" and expected an unbiased environment.

VLR is a lot better than reddit. Even though mods can also be biased, it's nowhere close to the silencing experienced on Reddit.

I'm not American but yes they can.

America is known for throwing out juvenile protections if a crime is considered serious enough. It's why some cases sentence teenagers to life sentences - the Judge can justify it by saying they behaved like an adult so they can get sentenced like an adult. The evidence has to be very freaking strong though.

It's a double edged sword.

Because sex crimes are so serious, the evidence must also be strong. In some countries someone's word is enough to get you the death sentence. In other countries your word alone is meaningless. The middle ground is to trust but verify. If Flor says she never did anything, it wouldn't be fair to assume she did. The other party would have to prove it.

Yup but he also got dropped completely. So I imagine the plan was always to drop him and his injury made it more convenient.

Fucking run it back!

Whilst I understand why people react this way, they don't do this for any other group so it ends up just feeling weird.

Whenever a woman gets killed or SA'd buy a cis man, women hate hearing "but not all men" or "don't judge men". Nobody protects men as a demographic in that situation (even though statistically most men are good people). But the first thing we do here is ignore the victim and jump to protecting trans people? It's just weird. This wouldn't even be a consideration if Flor wasn't a trans woman.

It depends on who you ask.

A biological male attracted to a biological female is a heterosexual pairing.

But progressives would say if the biological male identified as a woman then it's a same sex pairing. Non-progressives would still say it's heterosexual.

Doesn't really matter either way. It's not like I'm the one who wants to date her.

The Mazino strays are actually diabolical. 💀

Goes to show what harm allegations have. His ex has now forever put him in the same category as alleged sex offenders. All bro did was watch R34 and argue.

youre not "innocent" if victims drop charges due to massive targeted harrasment.

Doesn't this work against your point? If Flor fans defend her hard or make this about transphobia then they're blurring the allegations from being credible.

Governor was not THAT bad.

I remember last year Florescent tweeted she was struggling with transphobia and other personal issues so would be taking time off. https://x.com/florscnt/status/1819506137785684243/

Does the timeline match up with the allegations? Would be beyond wild if she made a pity tweet like that whilst (allegedly) abusing someone.

Time zone.

She'll probably respond before the TL vs TH game.

This shit set back gc and the lgbtq community legit decades

Bit hyperbolic.

People had a problem with GC not being biological women only. They don't care who players want to date.

Not saying that's good. Just that Flor being the face of GC wasn't even in agreement amongst viewers. I'm a bstrdd simp, personally.

This affects my interest in GC by 0%.

TL.

Lower bracket merchants.

The fact VLR isn't updated with stream links makes me think they're not streaming it.

Yes, her! Not sure what happened in the end but people forgot about her and moved on.

Wasn't there another trans person exposed for grooming someone last year in GC? Forgot who.