What? Ford has made over $700,000 dollars in various GoFundMe accounts.
She is a liberal and feminist hero now who will command big bucks for books and speaking engagements and will probably be able to walk on water with her college.
Now I totally agree we should hold high standards for someone wanting to be on the supreme court. But lets look at their professional record since they became a lawyer. Dont dig up something they might have done in high school.
Speaking of the Ford smear campaign…
Accounts which weren’t started by her and were intended to help with the fact that her family has had to relocate four times due to the death threats. Furthermore, Ford shut down the accounts and donated a sizable chunk of it to organizations that support trauma victims.
How much money would it take for you to be willing to expose yourself and your whole family to potentially years of virulent abuse and death threats sufficient to require you to keep moving home, Urbanredneck? What’s your figure?
…and will continue to be the subject of abuse and death threats from the right. But hey, those book sales.
True, the fact that he behaved like a whining manbaby who declared in front of Congress an intent to carry out his role with a deep partisan bias should have been the main disqualifier.
By the way, Brett Kavanaugh’s GoFundMe accounts also got over half a million dollars, AND he got the SCOTUS job.
There is a pretty familiar pattern to anyone who has been paying attention to online discourse lately.
Step 1: a woman does something in the public eye. Could be making a video series. Could be testifying that she was sexually assaulted. Could be making a free video game.
Step 2: a horde of internet manbabies get angry and proceed to inundate the woman with death threats and rape threats. The craziest among them make up bomb threats at their speaking arrangements, post their phone numbers/home addresses/workplaces online, and generally blur the line between “troll” and “terrorist”.
Step 3: this produces a quite natural backlash to the backlash, where people look at this disgusting behavior and support the woman in question - by donating money to them, or giving them a space to tell their story in media, or similar.
Step 4: some people (often but not always the same people who abused the woman in step 2) then paint this outpouring of support as the original goal and accuse the woman of being a “professional victim”; in a similar tack, many additionally act like this somehow “makes up for” the treatment she got, and that she should stop complaining.
Call it “The Sarkeesian Salsa”.
This is step 4. “Why should Christine Ford have to worry about death threats and constantly needing to move to avoid getting doxxed by maniacs who want to kill her? She got a ton of money out of it, and bolstered her national persona! Now she can afford that 24/7 security detail she needs to be safe in public!” Even outside of the rest of the context here, that’s just so wrong I don’t even know where to start. I’m not sure if you’re already aware of what you’re doing or if you’re missing the larger context, but you should be aware that there absolutely is a larger context, and what you’re doing is super shitty.
Not as shitty as humblebragging about sexually harassing two medical professionals, but pretty shitty.
I dare you to go to a job interview (because that’s what this was) and act the way Brett Kavanaugh acted in his congressional hearings. If you get the job, you shouldn’t accept it, because that company is clearly running a Producers gambit. That’s why some 2400 lawyers took the unprecedented step of opposing his nomination - his behavior in the hearing was not just unprofessional but downright obscene.
Love that word “discourse”.
Yes, people will not always agree, especially online. What? Did you expect everyone to just agree with everything the democrats do?
Did you honestly expect no “discourse”?
BTW: How do you have so much time on your hands to write such long comebacks and do research on people who comment here?
:dubious:
That whole long post, and THAT’S what you get out of it? A word you had to look up and a question about how much timeBudget Player Cadet has on his hands?? Oh, wait, that’s what some people do when they don’t have a counter-argument: they ignore the actual argument and switch focus to the trivial/irrelevant. In other words, it’s a Red Herring.
BPC wouldn’t have had to look up anyone’s posting history for that comment about the treatment of medical professionals. It was pretty memorable–and appalling–on its own.
Some posters admit to doing such terrible things that they are easy to remember and there is no research necessary.
Just answering your question and not addressing the larger issue here I can answer this.
In my last job I saw two difference instances of this.
I personally heard my first manager at that company say he would never hire anyone with disabilities again. This was because it took almost 16 months to fire the guy and he was totally and completely incompetent. (I was hired to replace him.) In his entire tenure at the company he never wrote a single line of code that survived the QA process. In fact everything he ever wrote someone else had to fix latter. (Granted I never saw his work so this might have been hyperbole.)
Same company, but different department and manager. I worked with a person who was in a wheel chair. In my 4-5 years working with him he completed a total of maybe 8-10 work orders of work. For comparison sake a typical programmer completes about 150 WO in a typical year depending on their complexity. In addition, the guy was a complete and total asshole to everyone around him except for his boss. The worst part of it was I was assigned to QA his and 3 other programmers work. So I got the brunt of a lot of his crap. I personally complained about him to HR. He was never laid off and as far as I can tell he was never even reprimanded.
Now, I have no clue if the above would be true for minority’s, women, sexual orientation or any other category. (I have never been in management.) - I suspect it wouldn’t. Also in fairness the company was not exactly well run and as I understand it HR was constantly putting out fire because the company valued technical smarts more than People skills. (Hell, that isn’t near strong enough, they valued it more than just acting like a human being.) So, it is certainly possible this should be taken with a grain a salt.
Why waste time arguing? He obviously has way more time on his hands and is totally devoted to the democrats. Plus most of his comments are insults.
Then don’t waste your oh-so-precious time replying in the first place. Whether the alternative is “a well-thought-out argument that addresses what I say” or “radio silence”, it’s an improvement over “quoting one sentence, not understanding it, and whining about how much time I spend on responding to you”.
That means that he was illegally discriminating against employees to avoid having the appearance of discriminating against employees when he disciplines them for performance.
It’s not that big a deal. You can have standards of performance that you expect your employees to live up to. If they cannot live up to those standards, yo may terminate them.
The fact that he was a poor manager, or worked for a poor company, has nothing to do with the way that employees would actually be treated.
Once again, your company has extremely poor HR policies and managers if this is the case.
A table spoon of salt goes with this one. Yes, there are bad companies out there that are not very good at managing employees. Those companies have reasons to fear hiring minorities or other “protected classes” because they are bad companies, and they don’t understand what a protected class is. It does not mean that they are protected for being in that class, as many people seem to assume, even posters on this board, but they are protected from discrimination due to them being in that class.
So, for instance, I can got an employee, and say, “hey, you only completed 8 work orders last year, when the metric is 150. You are under performance review.” Then you write them up with documentation to show what you talked about, that you gave them notice and a chance to work on their problems. Then you come back, and you say, “Well, we’ve reviewed your performance, and you have not improved at all, I am sorry, but we can no longer employee you.”
And that is how the conversation should go with anyone, white, black, male, female, able bodied, disabled, nice guy, or asshole.
People tend to want to excuse their poor management skills by blaming their employees. I’ve never understood the dichotomy in that.
It’s a lot simpler than running an actual analysis, plus it allows the person who’s actually the cause of the problem to act smug.
Kinda HAS to be hyperbole, doesn’t it? I mean, did he have references? Did anyone check on them? Did someone ask him questions during the interview process? And the logic fails miserably. If TWO people with disabilities were hired and completely incompetent, would you look to blame people with disabilities, the durn government, or your obviously incompetent HR department.
I mean, every now and then a professional bullshitter gets through the process, but fool me once…
I worked with a professional bullshitter once. Actually, I worked for her. How she got the job is beyond me and everyone was glad when she was gone. But would we now say ‘I’ll never hire an able-bodied woman again because I was burned once’??
In addition to what Robot Arm said, many many people lie all of the time for no real benefit. Some are seeking attention, some want revenge for a perceived slight, some have a false belief, some are mentally ill, and some are just ruthlessly evil.
Further, I am not convinced that there is no benefit to this type of falsehood. Again, using Ford only as an example and not to reignite the debate, but she is now a hero those on the left. She is seen as brave, and will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit.
It also provides an ironclad excuse for anything negative in her life. For example, her grades were poor during her first two years of college. Well, clearly now that was a result of the trauma she had, not from poor study habits, partying too much, etc.
I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted. I also concede that for years we did not take this seriously, but the question is what do we do going forward. I know it is not any poster’s intention, but the suggestion seems to be that because we ignored women for all of these years, now the pendulum must swing back past balance and go in the other direction: where we simply believe women so long as their story is not verifiably false.
Now, nobody actually says such a thing, but what they do is find credibility through, well, anything. If she tells her story boldly, why, see the conviction in her voice, you know he did it! If she tells her story meekly, look at the trauma that poor woman has suffered, you know he did it!
If she discloses immediately, that shows how serious she is about it and therefore she is credible. If she discloses years later, this is very common, she was likely traumatized by the assault.
If she tells a consistent narrative, look at how solidly she told that story, it must be true. If she gets several details wrong, then who can be expected to remember everything. That shows she is telling the truth because a person telling the truth would be unlikely to remember everything.
The only time a claim is considered “false” is when actual verifiable details are undoubtedly untrue. And even then it doesn’t get the “false” label. We had a case around here recently where a young woman accused her step father of molesting her in 2006. She was adamant that it was in 2006 because she had turned 16 that year, remembered getting her first car right before it happened, and it happened while her mother was away at a particular business conference. She remembered her mother calling her from the conference and cried when she wanted to reach out to her mother but did not have the nerve. I watched her testimony and it was very compelling.
Several problems. First, her mother did not attend the conference that year. No problem for the state, we just shift gears in the middle of the trial and say it was 2007. Oops, the mother did go to a conference that year, but the stepfather was also out of town that week in 2007. 2008? Nope. The conference was held in town that year and the mother drove to it everyday. 2009? She was off at college during that week. The mother was very hostile to the stepfather, but conceded that at no time during their marriage was she away from the home without the family except at these conferences.
2005 says the state? She had not gotten the car yet but she had testified that she had taken a drive in it after being molested and remembers crying the whole time.
It also came out that she had only “remembered” the molestation while in an inpatient recovery center for heroin abuse when in a group setting several other patients told stories of being molested.
After hearing all of this the State quickly labeled her allegations to be false and dismissed the charges…Yeah, right! They argued all the way to the jury that she was simply traumatized and confused and that it could have happened at any time. The jury acquitted.
Of course, she was not prosecuted for false allegations or was this used as a teaching tool to investigate these allegations more thoroughly. The belief is that he got away with it. Even though he was acquitted, he is still believed to be guilty by many who only read the original arrest in the newspaper.
This sort of stuff should not happen.
Yeah, many dopers have lived sheltered lives if they seem to think that people don’t tell easily discoverable non-truths.
The “benefits” of her position according to you seem to be entirely speculative if not outright fictional. What’s actually attested about her situation seems to be quite disadvantageous overall.
Doesn’t sound like much of a “benefit” to me. Any woman who would voluntarily subject herself to that kind of prolonged trauma in order to make a false accusation would have to be insane. And there’s no indication AFAICT that she has any prospect at all of making any “coin on the lecture circuit”.
Except insofar as you’re trying to make out a case that accusations of sexual assault provide much more “benefit” to the accuser than they actually do.
All I can do here is repeat BPC’s summary of your previous posts:
You are simultaneously grossly minimizing the very real negative effects of her testimony, wildly speculating about hypothetical benefits, and dragging in unrelated personal information for the sole purpose of smearing her. Nice.
…while doing your best to allege or imply that women such as Ford who claim to be sexually assaulted likely weren’t “actually” assaulted.
It’s neat how you’ve taken the usual narrative used to discredit claims of sexual assault and reworked it to your preferred narrative. What usually happens is: if she tells her story boldly, clearly it shows she wasn’t traumatized and therefore wasn’t raped. If she tells her story meekly, she obviously doesn’t believe what she’s saying. If she discloses immediately, she’s just feeling “morning after” remorse for a bad one-night-stand and is just trying to protect her reputation. If she discloses years later, she must have made up the assault and is just jumping onto a bandwagon for personal gain.
Any of that sound familiar?
Ah, the “some false rape allegations exist, therefore the default assumption should be that any rape allegations are false” argument. I mean, I assume that’s why you mentioned this; otherwise it’s irrelevant to the point.
Slight correction: while what I said definitely still applies here, I was summarizing Urbanredneck’s posts. (It’s a bit like the difference between Douglas Murray and Ann Coulter.)
UltraVires, are you aware of the Sarkeesian Salsa as a pattern in online discourse? Are you aware that you are empowering and endorsing step four with posts like that? Do you have any evidence of claims like “She […] will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit.”? You say “I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted.” This is not what that looks like. Posts like yours make coming forward harder, and carry the subtext of, “Say what you want, we aren’t going to believe you, and we’re going to slander you for coming forward.” Even if you don’t intend it, that’s what it does.
My apologies for mixing up my U-themed posters. I hate when I inadvertently misattribute - everyone is responsible for their own content and no one else’s. So your point is well-made.
Again, note the implied caveat that he will of course taken seriously any woman who was actually sexually assaulted. One wonders what his criteria for determining to his own satisfaction which amongst all the women claiming sexual assault fall into this category, as Dr Ford apparently does not. Perhaps it is reflected in his own words, and the only time a claim is considered “true” is when actual verifiable details are undoubtedly true.
Sarkeesian has made hundreds of thousands of dollars and received absolutely no harm from the so-called threats she claims to have received. Just like, as Kimstu posted, Ford has received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of her actions, whether she claims she will donate it to charity or not. The evidence isn’t that the benefits are illusory but the harm are real, it’s that the harms are either fictional or completely ineffective while the benefits are massive and lasting.