What You Do: Orlog vs Prosecution

Once again, a woman is in the news for making an accusation against a man.

I say "in the news," but I mean "dragged through the mud." Statistics are difficult to get - how do you prove the consent of someone other than by self-reporting? - but generally fall between 2-10% unfounded. This is VERY low for false reporting of a crime, and isn't even restricted to intentional false reporting. "Unfounded" is a pretty vague definition that could mean anything from "not a legal rape" to "not enough evidence to pursue" to "the victim is not sure anything even actually happened."

So we are, again, having the discussion of how many women it takes to screw in a light bulb. The answer is, of course, dependent on whether the man's reputation might be besmirched rather than how such an action may have harmed the woman or women.

Many protests on the man's side revolve around the same old crap of "why did she wait?" This from people who hide spending sprees, gambling addictions, and even affairs from their spouses. People who keep hush-hush about seeing a therapist, wrecking their car while drunk, or having a kid that got busted for joy-riding.

Gee, I dunno. Why aren't you facing up the nasty parts of your life? Answer: Because it's uncomfortable and makes us feel weak or out of control. Compound a woman's choice to make an accusation like this with the sheer numbers that show that even reporting doesn't get much done and is likely to ruin the victim's life even more than the perpetrator's.

But, that's all nitpicking, because the war cry has been sounded: Innocent until proven guilty!

And I sigh, pick myself up and ready the same old tired explanation that is used in all of these situations, as well as when someone gets fired for being racist and the war cry is "free speech."

THOU SHALT NOT CONFLATE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES

Free speech and the mandate of innocent until proven guilty are both intended to prevent the government, government entities, and tyrants/supervillains puppet-mastering the government from using the collective power of the government (specifically the executive branch) to oppress dissenting voices or violate freedoms with tissue-paper claims of criminal activity.

Neither free speech nor innocent until proven guilty is applicable to one's public reputation or how the free and individual citizens and businesses choose to react to that reputation, ie, örlög.

Quite frankly, it is frustrating that "I know they did this thing" isn't always enough. In fact, there are entire plots based on the loopholes that it can create (anyone remember "Double Jeopardy" with Ashley Judd?). But it is good that the word of a single person and no evidence is not enough to put someone in prison (theoretically).

However, your public reputation is not dictated by the rules of the US Constitution. And, as I've had to explain to my hubby recently, you don't get to pick what your örlög is. Your behavior and OTHER PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT BEHAVIOR is your örlög, for better or worse, fair or not.

Fair is when people accused of crimes, often by dozens of victims, are put out of positions of power, influence, etc. Not is when the victims are blamed and dragged through the mud, and the perpetrators get to resume their fame-based lifestyles after a few months off. Looking at you CK and company.

And who ever said life was fair?

Orlog, Judgment and Discrimination

I like to say that I am non-judgmental, but that isn't exactly true. I was recently told that it feels like I am judging every word that people say. And that is accurate, but misleading.

I am an air sign, very solidly so. As such, one of the things I do is analyze everything. So, yes, every word people say, every action that they do... all of it goes through my metrics, my algorithm of behavior.

And, yes, I very much judge people on that, but perhaps not the way you'd think. Good/bad judgments are reserved for extremes and overall assessments, if at all, and those are pretty liberal in nature. I will determine things like the person's self-identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, hobbies, likes and dislikes, etc.

Each one of those things puts that person into a category based on that. Not categories for how much I value them as a person, but categories to determine if they would like certain topics of discussion, potential hot-button issues, and how I should address them (particularly important in the case of self- and gender identities).

But while those things change how I interact with that person, none of them change how I value that person AS a person.

There are some topics that either directly or indirectly do change my valuation of the person. Sex (not identity or orientation) is one. A person likes sex - good for them. A person cheats on their partner - red flags. A person has lots or little money - no good/bad assessment at all. A person steals money or things, or cheats on their taxes, etc. - evaluation time. A person doesn't want kids - valid choice. A person has kids and refuses to take emotional, physical or financial responsibility for them - mayor of schmuck-ville.

In case you didn't see the pattern, here it is in a nutshell. People can make their own choices about their lives and how they live it. It may not be the choice I have made/would make, but it is theirs to make. It may change the way I talk to them about certain topics, but that's more situational awareness then judgment.

However, if the person ACTS in a way that can or could hurt or harm others, judgment is made. Plain and simple. And the judgment itself is simple, too. This person will hurt others. If they will hurt others, they have lost value or respect in my eyes. They are not as good of a person now.

Ok, so what does this have to do with Orlog?

Well, Orlog is a person's reputation. It comes from their own behavior and, to a lesser extent, their words. It can come from what people say about them, though that has less impact than direct experience. It can also come from the actions of their friends and family. A person you know nothing else about can, and will, be judged by "that's Robert's boy" or "he hangs with Joe the Stoner". You can overcome the Orlog of friends and family pretty easily, but it is still there.

So every time someone interacts with me, their Orlog is subtly adjusting, moving along one or more axis as the information comes in.

Do I judge people? Of course, I do. I can tell you which of my friends I will lend money to, and which have lost that privilege. I can tell you who in my blood family will get more than a bare acknowledgment, and who is only family because of the blood ties to myself and others. We all judge people. It's how we know who we can trust and with what.

That is your Orlog and your Honor. Don't taint it.