Advice columnist: Trump raped me in a fitting room

[Scylla]

@iiandyiiii

I am looking at the merits of this accusation in the context of the present, which includes many other allegations and Trump’s own words. IMO you have indeed denigrated Carroll by accusing her of dishonesty with no actual evidence.

Well I suppose you’ve denigrated me by disagreeing with my arguments and suggesting that i’m Wrong, and I, you.

You keep saying this “without evidence.” In my first post I posted a whole bunch of things that I thought were fishy about her story. If you consider her story evidence, than that is evidence too. You disagree with it, or think iy’s Wrong. Now your denigrating me without evidence?

Wtf?

But you’re probably right, we’re not going to make any further headway here. I suspect the difference in our outlook stems from the same source as the difference in most of our political opinions – I suspect you see the American system and American society as, broadly speaking, just and fair, and I see the American system and our society as, broadly speaking, lacking fairness and justice, with only an illusion of fairness and justice.

No. You don’t get where I am coming from at all. I know that things are fucked up. I know that the world is unfair. I justice and fairness is as rare as a snowflake in July. I’ve been around.

We have had to work very hard for a very long time to get the modicum of justice and fairness and equality that we do have. Step by step little by little, over 1000s of years we’ve learned gradually to do a little bit better.

You seem to want to throw that all away and try something that you’ve just thought without even bothering to think through the consequences that would occur.

You probably don’t even realize that this drivel is just recycled socialist dogma. Every time it’s been tried 10s of millions of people end up dying.

“Yes, we will step outside of the system and just accept accusations uncritically against the rich and powerful people that we don’t like, so we can get rid of them. We don’t need courts because the journalists are really good at figuring this stuff out. Nobody should be allowed to contradict an accuser because that would be accusing them of lying without evidence that they lied. The story that the accuser tells is “evidence”. When someone disputes it or “denigrates” it that is not evidence. “

No you got me wrong. I know the world is unfair and unjust. I don’t trust the justice system or the police.

I just trust you less. I trust the press less. I trust the SJWs less. I trust the accusers less. I trust the accused less.

The justice system is simply the tallest dwarf. What you propose is infinitely worse.

[Scylla]

@raventhief

“Ultimately they got it right” because they caught the rapist on another rape and found he had taken pictures of her. Not because they didn’t give up, or because someone believed her- the police department she reported it to prosecuted her for a false report that wasn’t false. Tell me again about how many reports are deemed “unfounded.”

22 a day according to the cite I posted earlier.

[iiandyiiii]

@Scylla

Well I suppose you’ve denigrated me by disagreeing with my arguments and suggesting that i’m Wrong, and I, you.

Yes, I’ve denigrated you. I have no problem with denigrating those who attack women for nothing more than telling their stories. It doesn’t mean you’re an awful person, but I think you’re very wrong here.

You keep saying this “without evidence.” In my first post I posted a whole bunch of things that I thought were fishy about her story. If you consider her story evidence, than that is evidence too. You disagree with it, or think iy’s Wrong. Now your denigrating me without evidence?

Wtf?

Ha! I’m denigrating you based on the evidence of your evidence-free attacks on Carroll. What you posted that’s supposedly “fishy” is not actually evidence of dishonesty. Evidence of dishonesty would look like her friend saying “she told me she made it up because she hates Trump”, or a payment from a tabloid with an accompanying email that tells her to lie about it, or something like that.

No. You don’t get where I am coming from at all. I know that things are fucked up. I know that the world is unfair. I justice and fairness is as rare as a snowflake in July. I’ve been around.

We have had to work very hard for a very long time to get the modicum of justice and fairness and equality that we do have. Step by step little by little, over 1000s of years we’ve learned gradually to do a little bit better.

You seem to want to throw that all away and try something that you’ve just thought without even bothering to think through the consequences that would occur.

You probably don’t even realize that this drivel is just recycled socialist dogma. Every time it’s been tried 10s of millions of people end up dying.

“Yes, we will step outside of the system and just accept accusations uncritically against the rich and powerful people that we don’t like, so we can get rid of them. We don’t need courts because the journalists are really good at figuring this stuff out. Nobody should be allowed to contradict an accuser because that would be accusing them of lying without evidence that they lied. The story that the accuser tells is “evidence”. When someone disputes it or “denigrates” it that is not evidence. “

No you got me wrong. I know the world is unfair and unjust. I don’t trust the justice system or the police.

I just trust you less. I trust the press less. I trust the SJWs less. I trust the accusers less. I trust the accused less.

The justice system is simply the tallest dwarf. What you propose is infinitely worse.

That last part is the fundamental disagreement – I think the justice system is, generally speaking, a tool for the powerful to maintain the status quo. Not a tool for justice. So I generally trust them less than accusers, the press, etc.

[raventhief]

@Scylla

22 a day according to the cite I posted earlier.

And how many of those are false?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Scylla

22 a day according to the cite I posted earlier.

…the number you cited turned out to be complete and utter bullshit. You didn’t even do a smidgen of work to verify the number. Odd behaviour from someone who claims to be “skeptical.”

[Scylla]

@raventhief

And how many of those are false?

22

[Scylla]

@Banquet_Bear

…the number you cited turned out to be complete and utter bullshit. You didn’t even do a smidgen of work to verify the number. Odd behaviour from someone who claims to be “skeptical.”

No it didn’t. The person that said it was just skimmed the article. It was the 5 that was considered bullshit.

The article actually looks at several different #s from several sources. You should read it.

[raventhief]

@Scylla

22

So there are no “unfounded” accusations that are not false?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Scylla

No it didn’t. The person that said it was just skimmed the article. It was the 5 that was considered bullshit.

…you appear to have skimmed the thread. The person who “said it was” was me.

The article actually looks at several different #s from several sources. You should read it.

LOL. The MAD report makes no claim of “22 a day.” That was an extrapolation by the author: an appalling abuse of statistics and not something a true skeptic would repeat. You really need to stop taking liberty with the numbers.

[Scylla]

@iiandyiiii

Yes, I’ve denigrated you. I have no problem with denigrating those who attack women for nothing more than telling their stories.

I denigrate people who denigrate other people by making serious accusations toward them outside of the legal system, especially when said accusations are timed with the release of their book publicity tour.

It doesn’t mean you’re an awful person, but I think you’re very wrong here.

It’s a comfort to know that I’m hovering somewhere above awfulness in your estimation.

Ha! I’m denigrating you based on the evidence of your evidence-free attacks on Carroll.

How dare you! that is my story, my truth, based on 50 plus years of existence on this planet living o. The real world and dealing with all kinds of people. Who are you to denigrate my interpretation of what I have seen. Who are you to chide me and suggest I shouldn’t share it. I never dared to say that she should silence herself or that she shouldn’t be free to tell her story on the news if that was how she wanted to. I simply disapproved of her choice.

You on the other hand have gone so far as to tell me several times that I shouldn’t publically doubt her story. You have suggested that I silence my voice, my story, my experience, my feelings!

You have gone far out of bounds. I have simply disapproved if her choice. You’ve dared to tell me I am not supposed to make one.

What you posted that’s supposedly “fishy” is not actually evidence of dishonesty. Evidence of dishonesty would look like her friend saying “she told me she made it up because she hates Trump”, or a payment from a tabloid with an accompanying email that tells her to lie about it, or something like that.

This is interesting. You. One single person on the internet is now telling me what evidence is and isn’t. Do you possess any training in evidentiary standards? Your full of shit. You are making this up as you go along. Half-baked is giving it too much credit.

Again, this goes back to climbing back up through several thousand years of trial and error to try to create a justice system that makes some kind of sense. You on the other hand are like “well that doesn’t work and fails lots of people, and journalists and well-intentioned people on the internet are going to get it right by making it up as we go along”

Good luck with that.

That last part is the fundamental disagreement – I think the justice system is, generally speaking, a tool for the powerful to maintain the status quo. Not a tool for justice. So I generally trust them less than accusers, the press, etc.

Sure. No doubt. Ok. No question it does a lot of that. I have never said that it didn’t suck and fail and do all kinds of bad shit. I think I have been pretty forthright and agreeable on this point.

I just think that it works better than anything else anybody has come up with so far.

You want to get rid of it and replace it with something else. Ok. I am slightly concerned that what this really means is that you want to replace it with a much more restrictive and unfair system that will be even worse… except with the people you approve of in power. That’s the best case scenario.

Most likely, it will end up with 10s of millions of people dead and the rest of the populace enslaved, the way it has every other time we’ve replaced representative Democracy and capitalism with socialism.

But let’s examine your system so far:

1. Accusers can accuse anybody especially if they are rich and powerful, and if is wrong to contradict them.

2. Journalists are really good at finding the truth, so we don’t have to worry about false accusations and hoaxes

What else?

I’ve been pretty denigrating here, but you have also seen me thoughtful and open.

What do you wish to replace the criminal justice system with? What is your Vision of how a better society should deal with this?

So far we have just been arguing about little bits and pieces. Perhaps if I saw the big picture I would understand. Lay it on me.

[iiandyiiii]

@Scylla

Sure. No doubt. Ok. No question it does a lot of that. I have never said that it didn’t suck and fail and do all kinds of bad shit. I think I have been pretty forthright and agreeable on this point.

I just think that it works better than anything else anybody has come up with so far.

You want to get rid of it and replace it with something else. Ok. I am slightly concerned that what this really means is that you want to replace it with a much more restrictive and unfair system that will be even worse… except with the people you approve of in power. That’s the best case scenario.

Most likely, it will end up with 10s of millions of people dead and the rest of the populace enslaved, the way it has every other time we’ve replaced representative Democracy and capitalism with socialism.

But let’s examine your system so far:

1. Accusers can accuse anybody especially if they are rich and powerful, and if is wrong to contradict them.

2. Journalists are really good at finding the truth, so we don’t have to worry about false accusations and hoaxes

What else?

I’ve been pretty denigrating here, but you have also seen me thoughtful and open.

What do you wish to replace the criminal justice system with? What is your Vision of how a better society should deal with this?

So far we have just been arguing about little bits and pieces. Perhaps if I saw the big picture I would understand. Lay it on me.

Snipping the silly back-and-forth for this part, which is more interesting.

No, I don’t want to “replace the justice system” – I want to make it live up to its ideals. And I want to make society live up to what should be its ideals. In both cases – justice, fairness, compassion, etc. All of this has utterly failed most victims and survivors of rape, and this has only very recently begun to change on any sort of a significant scale. There are many such injustices in our systems, but this is one of the worst, IMO, because it has meant that powerful men could abuse women pretty much at will, with a very low chance of consequences. And I think this is still going on today – still, so many are skeptical of women who come forward, always finding stuff that’s supposedly “fishy”, or something like that… when every story is always going to have something weird. This is real life… almost nothing is easy and pat and obvious. People are far from perfect, including victims – sometimes they’ll laugh at the wrong time. Sometimes they’ll say something that sounds awkward. Sometimes they’ll be cowardly or just afraid with good reason. Sometimes they’ll tell their story at a time that might have a chance to improve their life. Or a million other things.

Yes, occasionally women lie… but rarely. Very rarely, in my understanding. If Carroll is lying, she risks destroying her (extremely successful) reputation forever – all for what? A few thousand extra copies of her book sold? Some tiny chance of doing political damage to Trump? Do you really think that’s more likely than that Trump, who bragged about sexual assault and has been accused by over a dozen women, really assaulted her?

That just seems nuts to me, barring evidence that Carroll is a serial liar (there is no such evidence, in my understanding). Do 70-something year old women just happen to come up with rape accusations willy-nilly? That’s more plausible to you than that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 90s?

I just don’t understand this thinking. Yes, very occasionally women lie about rape. Generally, desperate women, or drug addicts, or the chronically poor, etc. But very successful writers in their 70s, with an enormous amount to lose?

Sure, maybe it’s possible. Maybe Carroll is an alien, too. But Trump being a sexual assaulter seems about a million times more likely than either of these possibilities.

[iiandyiiii]

That last part is what it comes down to. Which is more likely? That a very successful and relatively wealthy writer in her 70s decides to risk destroying her reputation forever so she can sell a few thousand more books, or that Trump, who has bragged about sexual assault and been accused by over a dozen women, actually assaulted her as per her account? That seems like a pretty damn easy comparison to me.

[Scylla]

So how exactly do you plan to improve on the criminal justice system?

The idea that you are going to improve something contains the implicit idea that you understand it’s strengths, weaknesses and failings enough to know how to improve it.

As I’ve mentioned, our legal system has grown and evolved since before Hammerabi’s code, and in those thousands of years countless millions of people have worked very hard to improve it (because there is a lot at stake.). Sometimes those efforts have been successful. More often , attempts to improve it have left it more broken.

It has been a painful glacial journey. Two steps forward one step back to get where we are now.

You think it sucks and want to make it better. great. You don’t want to replace it, you say. It seems like you proposing some addition or alternate system, something including journalists and storytelling and chastising people who are skeptical of some accusations.

You have not given me a complete picture of what you want. So far I have;

The justice system is a tool of the rich and powerful and fails most deserving g people most of the time. To fix it

1. Anybody can accuse anytime, inside or outside of the justice system.

2. If you accuse outside of the justice system it is wrong for other people to publically disbelieve you.

3. If you are accused wrongly, the press is really good at finding hoaxers so don’t worry.
   This is really all that you have given me. Can you fill this in? If you want me to go along with what you are saying you kind of owe me the big picture about what exactly you are seeking to do, how you are going to do it and why it will be better.

We’ve talked before and I know you are a smart guy. Hopefully you have something. Hopefully you can see that you can’t expect my cooperation from the little bits aspires you’ve shared.

Do you have a fully baked idea here?

[iiandyiiii]

@Scylla

So how exactly do you plan to improve on the criminal justice system?

The idea that you are going to improve something contains the implicit idea that you understand it’s strengths, weaknesses and failings enough to know how to improve it.

As I’ve mentioned, our legal system has grown and evolved since before Hammerabi’s code, and in those thousands of years countless millions of people have worked very hard to improve it (because there is a lot at stake.). Sometimes those efforts have been successful. More often , attempts to improve it have left it more broken.

It has been a painful glacial journey. Two steps forward one step back to get where we are now.

You think it sucks and want to make it better. great. You don’t want to replace it, you say. It seems like you proposing some addition or alternate system, something including journalists and storytelling and chastising people who are skeptical of some accusations.

You have not given me a complete picture of what you want. So far I have;

The justice system is a tool of the rich and powerful and fails most deserving g people most of the time. To fix it

1. Anybody can accuse anytime, inside or outside of the justice system.

2. If you accuse outside of the justice system it is wrong for other people to publically disbelieve you.

3. If you are accused wrongly, the press is really good at finding hoaxers so don’t worry.
   This is really all that you have given me. Can you fill this in? If you want me to go along with what you are saying you kind of owe me the big picture about what exactly you are seeking to do, how you are going to do it and why it will be better.

We’ve talked before and I know you are a smart guy. Hopefully you have something. Hopefully you can see that you can’t expect my cooperation from the little bits aspires you’ve shared.

Do you have a fully baked idea here?

1 is already true, and always has been. Anyone can say anything they like. They might get sued, if it’s false and defamatory.

2 is not something I’m for. I don’t care what you believe – I care what you put out into society. It’s wrong to do and say things that make it harder for victims and survivors of sexual assault and rape to come forward, when it’s already so, so hard. That means it’s wrong to accuse or even imply dishonesty in an accuser without proof. Say “I’m reserving judgment for more evidence” all you want – that’s not denigrating anyone.

3 is generally accurate. I’m sure it would be terrible to be falsely accused, but powerful men have enormous resources to fight accurate accusations, and usually win… fighting the false ones is a relative breeze.

But this is separate from how the justice system should improve WRT sexual assault and rape. In my understanding, they often treat accusers like suspects – they drill down with hostility, rather than starting with compassion. And they include members of an inherently patriarchal culture – usually men, but also women – who so often see rape as only the stranger-in-a-bush variety… anything else must have been brought about by the accuser. What was she wearing? Is she promiscuous? Why did she go up to his apartment, or in the dressing room? Why did she flirt with him? Etc. None of that is actually relevant to whether she might have been raped, but it’s used to browbeat accusers just the same. Those are the kinds of things that need to be improved.

Relating to this specific case, I hope you’ll evaluate the question I’ve just asked a couple of times in previous posts – Which is more likely? That a very successful and relatively wealthy writer in her 70s decides to risk destroying her reputation forever so she can sell a few thousand more books? Or that Trump, who has bragged about sexual assault and been accused by over a dozen women, actually assaulted her as per her account?

[nelliebly]

[quote=“Scylla, post:271, topic:836042”]

**

How dare you! that is my story, my truth,**

Please excuse the snip. The irony was too rich to ignore.

[Ambivalid]

[quote=“nelliebly, post:276, topic:836042”]

@Scylla

**

Please excuse the snip. The irony was too rich to ignore.

I think that was sarcasm.

[Scylla]

@iiandyiiii

Relating to this specific case, I hope you’ll evaluate the question I’ve just asked a couple of times in previous posts – Which is more likely? That a very successful and relatively wealthy writer in her 70s decides to risk destroying her reputation forever so she can sell a few thousand more books? Or that Trump, who has bragged about sexual assault and been accused by over a dozen women, actually assaulted her as per her account?

Likely is the wrong question: for starters their are billions of women Trump has not assaulted, so she is “likely” to be in this latter category.

It is also my experience that pretty much everybody lies all the time about everything (and the psychological literature backs me up on this,) even when there is nothing at stake or nothing to be gained. Because of this, I place literally 0 weight to any store that can’t be backed up with more direct evidence.

I also don’t care which is more likely. I care about what can be proven. If she can’t prove that it happened and she is unwilling to engage the authorities to help her do so, than, as far as I am concerned it do not happen.

But I will answer your question. I think it is more likely that it didn’t happen. You mention that she is risking her reputation by making this accusation. She is actually risking nothing. The only way this could hurt her is if she actually confessed that she made it up, or, if she makes her specific enough that it can be verified or proven false, or if she files a false police report. By accident or design, those things seem unlikely. Trump is a relatively safe target to attack. It would hurt him more and give her more attention and publicity and sympathy if he were to actually try to sue her. The more attention she gets the more books she sells. So no, she is not risking anything. She has everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by making this accusation as long as she is not incredibly stupid and entrails herself.

So the real question is is it more likely that she is doing this because she has nothing to lose and can be famous and get a lot of attention, and be a hero to Trump haters and sell lots of books and make a ton of money, or that it actually happened and that she sat on it for 29 years in spite of having a voice and a platform and won’t press charges because that would distract from migrant workers who get raped 24/7?

But that is not the reason I think that it is likely it didn’t happen (though it’s a good one.). The big reason that I think it unlikely is because as Trump pointed out “She’s not my type.” This disarmingly shallow and contemptible statement wax presented by Trump as if it were all the proof he needed for anybody to believe.

The fact is, she is not his type, because they are close in age. Trump tends to trade in his wives regularly for younger versions and looking st the pool of accusers against him seems to confirm his preference.

[iiandyiiii]

@Scylla

But that is not the reason I think that it is likely it didn’t happen (though it’s a good one.). The big reason that I think it unlikely is because as Trump pointed out “She’s not my type.” This disarmingly shallow and contemptible statement wax presented by Trump as if it were all the proof he needed for anybody to believe.

The fact is, she is not his type, because they are close in age. Trump tends to trade in his wives regularly for younger versions and looking st the pool of accusers against him seems to confirm his preference.

I think we’re done here, because this statement reveals (IMO) your profound and cavernous ignorance about rape and sexual assault.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Scylla

The fact is, she is not his type, because they are close in age.

…you want us to take you seriously when you make claims like this and state that it is “a fact?”

[Poysyn]

Oh!

I can answer the question about the legal system - ALL police need to get training in proper forensic interview skills, or that there are special response teams that deal solely with sexual violence.

That judges and lawyers get training in trauma response and victimology.

That the loopholes that still exist in the system that allow for improper cross-examination be closed.

That all accusations are replied with “Believe first”.

I know you will freak out, so let me finish. That the belief that the person was victimized by sexual violence is accepted - that does not mean that the accused is assumed guilty. That is what the investigation is for - these can be two separate things.

Analogy -

If I am struck by a car, there is medical and possibly psychological help offered right away. The investigation will determine if that driver was criminal in striking me, but there is never a question about whether I was struck and injured.