(bolding mine) My argument remains that I’ve not seen any credible incidents of this happening I’m not saying I’ve never seen anyone jump the gun a bit, but I’ve not seen the movement as a whole ever advocate indiscriminate retribution. It’s always been after deciding if the accusation seemed to have merit.
That’s precisely why we’re not jumping to get rid of Biden. The accusation is actually dubious for once. It’s not people claiming it’s dubious because they don’t know anything about rape or are looking to find any way to assume the accused is innocent. But we have an actual reason: the fact that the story has changed over time in a way would not make sense for the accuser. If you are going to accuse someone of something they actually did, you lead with the worse thing. You don’t accuse them of something smaller then, when that didn’t stick, increase it to something more.
The claim that we automatically believe the accusers is a strawman by our opposition–a way to both discredit when we do believe someone, and to, as seen in this thread, use against us when we don’t believe someone.
To me, it seems that it is the opposition that is trying to paint the #MeToo movement and other anti-rape activists as being unreasonable in an attempt to shut down the movement. It’s an extremely oft used technique when you can’t argue that the facts are wrong. Instead, use strawmen to create ad hominem and stop it that way.
I also do want to point out that, just because something wasn’t punished in the past doesn’t mean the person who did it didn’t know it was wrong. We are not inherently judging by today’s criteria, but by “would they have reasonably known it was wrong even back then?” There is no way that Harvey Weinstein didn’t know his actions were wrong, for example. And I can’t see how the movement can move forward if we give people like that a pass.
There has to be some discriminate repudiation of past wrongs–of those which are so egregious that there is no way they didn’t know it was wrong even back then, while allowing those who did things that they reasonably didn’t know was wrong to apologize and do some action currently to show their desire to make it right.
Sorry if this would be more appropriate in the other thread, but you posted this here, and I’m the type who has to respond when he thinks of things lest he forget or get sidetracked.
The people (let’s be real: it’s all guys) who are practically salivating at the notion of Tara Reade’s story being in some way falsified are really telling on themselves, as are the people who feel the need to wield “woke” like it’s a dog turd.
This board is nowhere near as open-minded or current as it thinks.
How do you completely insert your own made up version of what went on between Kavanaugh and Blasey-Ford (she never claimed to have engaged in any kind of consensual play with him) to bolster his supposed innocence in one post, then in the next post totally disregard women who maintain they weren’t sexually violated by Biden because according to you video evidence (which can be edited to remove context) proves otherwise and therefore how they felt should be considered completely irrelevant to his actions? :dubious:
Why do you want Biden to drop out? In case you haven’t noticed, all the other candidates have already dropped out and endorsed him, so he’s the de facto nominee. What good do you think Biden dropping out will do at this point?
Helpful tip: when a person’s dubious allegation shows obvious signs of falling apart at the seams (like backtracking previous statements, canceling planned interviews as further investigations draw up more bizarre inconsistencies), perhaps the last thing you ought to do is smugly saunter into a thread and further insult the people who are slowly but surely being proven right, especially when you have an extended track record of arguing your poorly informed POV in bad faith all throughout this thread.
It has the same effect as Trump calling his vastly more intelligent political opponents “dumb” and “incompetent”. Ultimately, these insults reverberate on you like a boomerang.
I’ve read that it’s usually the other way around - that the reason victims change their stories over time is because they want to first “test the waters” to see if they will be believed, and then, if their listeners are sympathetic, they then feel comfortable to lead into the bigger, more serious accusation, especially if the accused is a powerful and well-known figure. They don’t feel safe diving in head first.
I’d prefer the allegations be false because it increases Bidens election chances if they are false. I don’t understand why thats a bad thing. Thats not the same thing as denying they happened or burning down the victims house like what happened with Roy Moores accuser. They need to be investigated and for selfish reasons, I hope they are false because it would make voting for Biden easier for a lot of people.
If someone accused your brother of being a sex offender I’m sure you’d hope it was not true either.
“Proven false” is the lower bound, since there are always going to be some allegations that are false (we would know them to be false if we suddenly had a crystal ball or somehow gained omniscience) but cannot be proven false because there were no witnesses or other evidence either way.
Also per Wikipedia:
Do the math, and that means somewhere between and 2,545 and 12,726 of those were “proven false”. I think that supports my statement that “A reasonable estimate is that every week in the United States, police receive over 100 allegations of rape that are false, reputation-destroying calumnies.” Very possibly a much higher number than that.
Joe Biden was not even at the event. An aide was sent on his behalf because he was recovering from a surgery. He spoke to the audience via a pre-recorded video message.
Because I think he’s a poor candidate and almost anyone in the party would be better. It’s about far more than just this issue (and I’ve been hoping for it long before I was aware of this issue). I’ve resigned myself to the extreme unlikelihood of this, but it’s still what I wish would happen.
Adler would have been counted in that number. Again, that you trust the system, and the system’s numbers, shows how little you understand the present moment with regards to this issue.
I wish we lived in that world, but I think your observations are colored by your own predilections and preferences toward fairness. The predominant reaction of self-appointed spokespersons for MeToo is to call for resignations after media ‘investigations’ and prior to official inquiries. No prominent advocate wanted to wait for Senate ethics investigations for Franken. There are posters in this thread (besides iiandyiiii, who dislikes Biden for other reasons) who’ve decided Joe Biden needs to drop out because of this accusation. There are posters who’re attacking the motives and morals of those examining the evolving accusations of Ms. Reade with a skeptical eye.
It’s not everyone involved in the movement who’re reacting with indiscriminate venom, but it absolutely is “a problem” internal to the movement that the movement must deal with.
That’s certainly how it’s being used by conservatives (and some retrograde lefties), but the hashtag “believe women” exists and is used without irony or qualification by many in the movement. You and I see it as shorthand for “take these reports and accusations seriously and listen to women who bring them with respect and a willingness to hold abusers to account.” But, as with any simplistic slogan, it’s treated as a literal and basic imperative by too many on “our side”, and deliberately as a “gotcha-ya” by reactionaries opposed to MeToo.
I know you’re passionate about justice, but do you really think I’ve been advocating a “pass” for serial rapists and powerful abusive moguls? Please parse with more care.
There’s no way I or anyone could (and I certainly wouldn’t) argue Weinstein or Epstein or Cosby or any number of prominently accused (or convicted) rapists didn’t know they were doing wrong. But it’s not a stretch to think that Joe Biden might not have thought he was crossing boundaries with shoulder rubs and encouraging whispers and hair smelling. He’s an old school glad-handing politician; he arguably had no awareness of the creepiness of that sort of thing before being dressed down in the media and hearing it from colleagues.
If Joe were an alcoholic, we’d all want him in rehab. But he’s acknowledged that his handsy habits made women uncomfortable and he’s committed to changing his behavior. That’s not a response that’s “good enough” (we should hold him to a sustained change in behavior and heightened observation of his interactions with women and young people) and certainly not one we’d accept from a habitual abuser. But it’s a reasonable start for someone of good intentions but poor awareness of social boundaries. It’s restorative, for those made uncomfortable by Biden’s behavior in the past, for Uncle Joe himself, and for cultural awareness. Everybody moves forward. And we still get to lock up the Weinsteins and boot the Anthony Weiners out of public office.
My criticism of Biden isn’t really about this allegation – AFAICT, he’s responded appropriately (assuming the allegation isn’t true). If the allegation is true, then he should admit it and drop out immediately. I’ve wanted him to drop out for many months due to other issues.
I think you’ve been pretty clear about the basis of your criticism of Biden, iiandyiiii. (Acknowledged in post #731 above yours.) This thread is about the sexual allegations though, so I keep forcing myself back to the Reade issue specifically. I don’t mean to push you into the role of spokesperson for a movement; you’re just the most persistent and persuasive representative of a particular general perspective, so I (and others) end up choosing you as an interlocutor for these discussions.
Not seeing how it refutes the point he made that you didn’t read it. How are Biden and a bunch of his elected political supporters, not gigantic hypocrites on the college sexual abuse kangaroo courts they’ve supported v what they want to happen to Biden now? (‘listen’, ‘believe’ etc but ultimately nothing, obviously).
But this is shooting fish in a barrel of course, finding politicians and most highly partisan people to be hypocrites. If the person on their side can be got rid of without damage to the party and cause (eg. Franken, a Democratic governor would just appoint another Democrat to his seat), bon voyage. If it’s really going to bollocks things up for the party/cause, well there’s always some double speak argument to be made.
Not saying BTW that a holier (including secular holy of course) than thou absolutist position on stuff like this is necessarily realistic. Holier than thou’s are often people in positions of no responsibility counting on somebody more practical to step up and be the hypocrite. It’s just the refusal to admit the double standard that’s amusing.
Reade should be listened to. Her allegations should be taken seriously. If they said something dumb like “all women should be believed all the time” then that would be dumb and even hypocritical, but #MeToo and #BelieveWomen are about taking all allegations seriously and treating accusers with respect and dignity, not blindly accepting claims without investigation.
I reject Sullivan’s argument (based on his earlier views before I stopped reading, at least) because it’s almost entirely based on bullshit straw-manning – he says that there’s no nuance… but there’s plenty of nuance. Louis CK wasn’t treated the same as Weinstein or Cosby. Franken hasn’t been criticized in the same way as Trump. He misrepresented the criticism of Kavanaugh again and again. He’s misrepresented the entire thrust and aim of the #MeToo movement. It’s been a while since I read Sullivan, but his arguments about #MeToo from a few years ago (and from the snippets I’ve read in this thread) were non-factual and immoral.
believe verb
Save Word
To save this word, you’ll need to log in.
Log In
be·lieve | \ bə-ˈlēv
believed; believing
Definition of believe
transitive verb
1a : to consider to be true or honest
believe the reports
you wouldn’t believe how long it took
b : to accept the word or evidence of
I believe you
couldn’t believe my ears
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE
I believe it will rain soon
intransitive verb
1a : to accept something as true, genuine, or real
ideals we believe in
believes in ghosts
b : to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact
Do you believe?
—usually used with in
believe in the Scriptures
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
believe in exercise
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK
I believe so
We really, really need to stop burying our collective heads in the sand and pretend it’s people’s fault for misunderstanding the phrase “believe women” (or the even more troubling variant “believe all women”). No, “believe” is not a word with a dozen different definitions. When people typically say “I believe so and so” it’s never meant to be heard as “I take them seriously but I’m not 100% sure about their claims”. It means you take someone at their word, that you accept what is being said as fact.
Why #MeToo advocates are loath to admit the phrase is indeed problematic is absolutely beyond me. We have had enough examples of wrongly accused men being instantaneously condemned in the court of public opinion the moment an allegation went public regardless of what the facts suggested afterwards. Proponents have defended this mentality with the logic that since false accusations are statistically rare it’s better to assume an allegation is honest and that a false accusation isn’t as bad as a real one being dismissed, so it’s even worth the risk of turning out to be wrong. If you can’t see how this viewpoint will harm #MeToo over time, then I don’t know what to tell you. If you really intend for “Believe women” to be interpreted as “Listen to women”, then change it to #ListenToWomen. That says exactly what you claim you mean and leaves no room for misinterpretation. Any successful movement understands the last thing you want to do is champion a slogan that communicates the wrong message to the average person just because it has an esoteric meaning known only by those within the movement.
Let’s say he drops out due to this false charge. They decide on another candidate , someone steps forward with a false rape charge. Repeat, rinse repeat as necessary.
The kremlin REALLY doesn’t want Biden to be President.
The Kremlin, and the rest of our adversaries, are rubbing their hands in delight that one of two doddering old fools will likely become President. Neither is physically up to the job; one is showing signs of decline while the other is such a trainwreck of insecurity and narcissism. These are dark days for our country.
How are Biden and a bunch of his elected political supporters, not gigantic hypocrites on the college sexual abuse kangaroo courts they’ve supported v what they want to happen to Biden now? (‘listen’, ‘believe’ etc but ultimately nothing, obviously).