Iiandy: Her gender is not relevant. Disingenuous and dishonest to implicitly accuse people of trying to silence her for her gender when neither was asserted as a rhetorical device.
Sage Rat: Misdirection. By your analogy, the correct case is your mother claiming she was raped and that man on TV did it. Relevant is your mother’s character. My sister exaggerates and makes things up, I’ve had the conversation with all four of her kids about how they feel they xan’t trust her. Meanwhile, my mother once told me she’d decided as a teen to bite and draw blood from any would be rapist to ensure DNA evidence. Don’t project your mother on to all women. They are allowed their individuality
Also, she can still file charges in Maryland. The Maryland police have issued statements they are waiting for the complaint. Of course, if she files such a complaint and it is found without merit, she is open to charges herself. Makes it look even more like a hit piece she won’t take that step
What if it wasn’t a violent rapist? What if it was regular old “boys-being-boys” behavior from people she knew. What if the original scenario like with Ford happened to your mom? She tells you that 30 years ago in HS, “John Smith” and “Jack Jones” cornered her in a bedroom and threw her on the bed and did that same stuff. She tells you that it has greatly bothered her ever since. She kept it quiet all these years because she was embarrassed, worried about being called a slut, the boys were rich and well connected, etc. But now she’s telling you because John Smith is applying at your company and it’s bringing all those memories back. What would you advise her to do? What would you do about John Smith? What about the job he’s applying for?
Again, I was not making an analogy nor comparison. Senor Magiver declared that in cases where a person makes a claim and there is no evidence, then that’s just a “story”.
If you read more into my response than that, then you’re just writing in words for what you wish I had said.
Life is not easy. I realize that you’d like it if in every situation someone was in the right 100% and another person is in the wrong 100%. And if someone’s saying something in support of Christine Ford, than that person can only think that she’s a benevolent angel who can do no wrong, and we should lock up anyone she points her finger at.
But that’s not what I said. That’s just you making assumptions because it lets you keep a simplistic world view.
If you want to read what I actually think in terms of the weight of evidence as regards the case, I’d suggest that you read this post and this one. The post you’re commenting on is a discussion of word use, not the Ford case.
Let’s say that I have photos of Donald Trump, naked, getting whipped by a Dominatrix. Trump had given them to me in the basis that he thinks we’re best buddies and he can trust me holding them for him for a while.
Now I leave these photos, face up, in the middle of the Senate voting chamber for an entire day, watching people picking them up and look through them, snap photos, etc. and do nothing to stop them. The next day, surprisingly, the pictures of naked Donald Trump and the Dominatrix are the front cover of every newspaper.
Did I “leak” the photos to the press? No. But I think it’s fair to say that I’m no innocent.
Assume for a moment that he did not perpetrate any action that Ford alleges. Why would he make such a statement? Why would he apologize for something he did not do? That way seems like a path to infinite vapid apologies.
The specific wording isn’t really germaine to my point. My point was that I’d expect honesty about oneself and respect for Mrs. Ford and whatever trauma she may have gone through, whatever the cause may be. While, yes, it’s entirely possible that she’s simply a liar, that’s a very unreasonable assumption to make given criminal research. If you’re sure that you’re innocent, that still means that someone probably attacked her, just not you. And even if you’re pretty sure that she’s a liar, there’s still millions of women out there who have been sexually abused and the charges are grave and merit not being taken lightly. Defending yourself and treating the subject seriously are not mutually exclusive. You can raise a defense while still being a decent human being.
I’m not referring to the specific wording, I’m saying in general, apologizing for conduct not committed is strange. Why would he say any of that? If he did not perpetrate what Ford alleges, then what does being honest about oneself have to do with anything?
The point that I think is being made here – and if it isn’t, then I’m making it now – is that Kavanaugh could have responded to the accusation in a way that was far more empathetic than the way he actually did respond. And this brings up some important objective observations that one can make about this whole thing.
The specific statements of the two parties, Ford and Kavanaugh, were such that there’s no possible middle ground, no escape from the conclusion that one of them is lying. There’s no possibility of mistaken identity, according to Ford’s clear testimony. But there’s no possibility that it was Kavanaugh, according to Kavanaugh’s clear testimony – not even the possibility that he did attack her but thought so little of it that he forgot about it. His was a categorical, unconditional denial.
So where does that leave the objective non-partisan? In the absence of more evidence, all we have are the testimonies themselves. And they are indeed interestingly revealing.
If this is a conspiracy by Democrats as some allege, they managed to find an ordinary university professor capable of what would literally be an Oscar-worthy performance in front of Congress and a vast television audience. Not only was the testimony compelling in its sincerity, but the facts presented also fit the profile of truthful recollection, in terms of what was remembered and what wasn’t. It was not the profile of a careful fabrication, but the classic profile of a truthful but distant recollection.
That doesn’t mean it WAS the truth, but it does mean that no objective fault can be found with it.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, went on the attack in rather spectacular fashion, not only implying that Ford is a liar but suggesting an entire Democrat-fueled political conspiracy against him. This doesn’t mean he was lying, but it does fit the classic profile of guilt – so classic in fact that it even has a name: DARVO, an acronym for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.” Here’s an article about it: Kavanaugh’s opening remarks are a master class in a common sexual abuser defense tactic. This tactic is so common simply because it works.
I don’t know who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. I don’t know what really happened, although somehow Trump and the Republican majority claim they do. What I think can objectively be said is that classic behavior profiles definitely favor Ford. The fact that it appears that Kavanaugh in his youth was a rowdy drunk protected by privilege is also circumstantial evidence leaning in Ford’s favor.
If you assume he is innocent of the allegations, how could he have responded with more empathy that wouldn’t be condescending? ‘I’m sorry you are mistaken in your belief of what happened’ ‘It’s unfortunate for you that you’ve made such a grave error’.
I mean, if someone accuses me of a crime I didn’t commit - I’m going to bury them (rhetorically). This isn’t one of those, no harm no foul kind of things. This type of allegation can be career ending and life changing. If he’s innocent, why should he hold back?
Another thing that can be career-ending and life-changing is being sexually assaulted. Yet Ford managed a sympathetic and dispassionate recounting of the facts without engaging in belligerence. I find it very plausible that a different person than Kavanaugh might have reacted very differently and certainly far less belligerently, perhaps in the manner that Sage Rat suggested. I don’t think Kavanaugh did himself any favors with that performance. I doubt he won over any supporters he didn’t already have and probably alienated many, and left himself open to plausible suggestions that this was the “Deny, Attack, and Reverse” act typical of the guilty.
Maybe I’m biased, but I found Ford sympathetic and credible, and Kavanaugh obnoxious and not believable. All his sympathy was for himself, complete with waterworks, and all his belligerence directed at the putative victim and her supporters. And I say this as someone who argued in the Chris Hardwick thread that in that case my sympathies were with him and not with his accuser.
Of course, you are free to respond however you so wish, as is Kavanaugh. But I’m also free to believe that a person who is being considered as a candidate for Supreme Court Justice, to serve for the rest of his natural life, needs to hit a higher standard than your ordinary human. I would expect that person to be calm, collected, deliberative, and fair to all viewpoints.
If I was hiring someone to be an astronaut, for example, you can’t defend that person by saying, “Well sure he got flustered while spinning around a corner in that race car at 185 miles per hour. I would have, too!” How you would respond in that situation, or even how the average person would respond in that situation is not the criteria that we’re measuring on. You’re looking for someone who could calmly thread a needle while in a car, spinning out of control, going around a corner at 185 miles per hour. Anything less simply isn’t going to cut it.
Don’t get me wrong - Kavanaugh turned in an awful round of testimony and did not do himself any favors, IMO. I just don’t accept the implication he should have been contrite if he was in fact innocent. You said he should show empathy - maybe I’m not imagining very well, but anything I think of would sound condescending.
Calm and collected sure. But I don’t expect fairness to all viewpoints. Poor arguments should be met with derision. Of course, that’s not the issue at hand.
You stated he should be honest with himself - how should he do that if he were completely innocent?
The point is that he didn’t come anywhere close to even trying to be empathetic, and that it would be impossible for the way he *did *react to be any more condescending (and vicious) than it was. Hell, the condescension was rampant among all of his excuse-makers, and it continues into this very thread, doesn’t it?
It would be far more useful for you to discuss what *did *happen and what *was *said than to continue this attempt at distraction.
No, BrainFireBob, it doesn’t make it look like a hit piece if she won’t take that step. Do you understand why victims of sexual assault don’t go to police? If not, take a moment to recollect the vitriol directed at her by Senators and too many members of the public for her congressional testimony. That’s the kind of response that she’d face if, at this late date, she filed a complaint.
People who don’t want to believe her for whatever reasons–politics, misogyny, fear they might be prosecuted for doing something similar back in the day–will doggedly continue to lambaste Ford regardless of what she does or doesn’t do now. Were she to file a complaint, those people would scoff that if he’d REALLY sexually assaulted her, she’d have reported it back in 1982, and I strongly suspect they’d say she’s doing it at the behest of Democrats.
Not having a shred of evidence is a substantial reason not to believe her. Put another way, only an emotional response to her testimony works as a reason to believe her.