If the mention of Ford and Kavanaugh was on topic, would that eliminate your objection to the post in question?
Of course I’ve been persuaded in some cases, and moved to evaluate things differently overall by the thoughtful contributions of posters, including and especially the previous two that I mentioned. For this specific item, my take hasn’t changed from what was said in this thread, and the initial PMs that I sent you. (SamualA’s contributions are another matter entirely, and I’ll let ECG address that).
Bringing this back to the original item, the proposed question was if people could agree that exposing someone to death threats because you think it might help your side in a political squabble is a pretty shitty thing to do. The counterfactual is to bring up an example where someone was exposed to death threats to aid in a political squabble where it was condoned. HD brought up Ford (which I thought was a particularly bad example). I think a better way to address that would have been to demonstrate how the Ford example wasn’t germane - to introduce more information to the fact pattern showing how the testimony by Ford was serving a different purpose, had a legitimate purpose, and was extremely relevant to the underlying question - that being Kavanaugh’s suitability for the court. Contrast that with the total irrelvance of the identity of the whistleblower to the veracity of the claims made by the whistelblower.
But that’s not what happened. A bad argument was made, but instead of it being rebutted, everything stopped because HD said something that folks found offensive. Personally if I were to think of an example I would pick Cheney outting Valerie Plame to be more on point - which to say was a shitty thing to do is an understatement. The question being asked is whether it is more than just a bad argument - is it moddable? Is it made in bad faith? Does it display a hatred of women? To this one item, I think you really have to stretch to get there. Folks have interpreted HD’s statement as him saying she should not have testified - that’s not in evidence. Folks have interpreted the statement to mean that Ford should be blamed for the threats - but that’s not in evidence either. Ford took action that she felt was right, was within her right to do, and others should be encouraged to do if they are in the same situation. But that’s not the question - the question was as I wrote in post #9: The construction of the questions to determine relevance is, were there death threats? Then if so, were they the result of political activities? The answer to both is yes. That makes the post relevant, but still a terribly bad argument.
We’ve discussed in the mod loop. I’ll let any other mods share whatever thoughts they are comfortable with.
I’d still strongly object to the sentiment, but I don’t think I would have reported it – there has generally been a bit more leeway in “on topic” assault/rape allegation discussions. And I find that additional leeway acceptable, for the most part.
Okay, thanks for breaking it down this way. Let’s get to the heart of the disagreement.
Fair enough. This hasn’t been part of my argument.
<BUZZ>
And here’s the main MASSIVE disagreement. Blame – responsibility for a negative event – for the death threats is clearly and explicitly assigned to “Ford and her allies” in that post. I’m not sure how it could be more clear. The poster said (my bolding) “Ford and her allies exposed Kavanaugh’s family to death threats”. I still can’t conceive of how that is not assigning blame to Ford (and her allies) for the death threats.
I find this to be a terrible cop out. If Ford’s accusations were “political activities”, that means any accusations at all connected to a politician or political nomination are “political activities”. That’s so broad as to include every single accuser of any politician or nominee ever, if the allegations were made while the accused was in office or in the process of nomination. That doesn’t make it acceptable to bring them up, much less in a victim-blaming fashion, in unrelated threads that touch on politics.
I very much hope they will contribute.
Thank you for continuing to respond to posts, even as I think you’re terribly wrong here.
This is a warning for being a jerk, and for a not even close in the realm of reality hijack. It’s a terrible, transparent, and bullshit attempt at some kind of gotcha and in the context of this thread is clearly jerkish. The only reason you are not banned from this thread is that your post is the subject of the thread. Any further contribution shall be in the context of the post in question, not participating in tangent or subsequent discussion.
Proving either malice or the absence of malice, short of functional telepathy, isn’t possible. If you’re trying to say that nothing can be sanctioned unless malice can be proved: it wouldn’t then be possible to sanction anything at all.
How were we to do that, without contributing to the (continuing) hijack about whether Ford was acting in bad faith? Because her testimony only had a legitimate purpose (which I agree that it did) presuming that she wasn’t doing so.
I had quite a lot I wanted to say about that, but refrained so as not to contribute to the hijack.
I’m not in the mood to simultaneously argue for a particular standard of proof wrt impeachment of the President and censure of SDMB members, but I do think the presumption ought to be of good faith until some level of evidence is presented to counter that presumption. I would not restrict that evidence to clear confessions.
That being said, I’m sure I could jump into the Pit right now and find some clear confessions of malicious intent, things like ‘let’s bait the trolls’ and patting each other’s backs when someone gets warned or suspended.
But something like, this member has been told consistently not to use a certain provocative phrase or slur, but they keep bringing it up. At some point (after one or two incidents) you have to draw a line and say, there is no way you forgot how offensive that slur is, you are no longer arguing in good faith but are instead riling people up on purpose, here is your warning. That sort of thing.
…in the spirit of this particular post, if you didn’t know about it there exists a pit thread that already has several posts related to this topic if you want to have subsequent discussions there, if you feel so inclined.
It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? The particular posts you identify are close to the line, but not sufficient to cross it to merit a warning. Mod notes are part of the tools that mods have available and not all moderation action results in warnings. This is outside the scope of this thread though, so if you want to discuss further, feel free to start another thread.
If I am driving and run into your car that is legally parked and cause damage to your car, I’m clearly at fault. If I ask to pay you rather than go through insurance because it will increase my rates, but you decline, and subsequently report the claim as is normal - I can say that your reporting the claim exposed me to increased insurance premiums. Would you interpret that as blaming you for the premium increase? I mean, in one sense, that could be considered the proximate cause of the rate increase, but I wouldn’t consider that blaming you. I would be to blame, since I was the responsible party. The effect of you reporting is that I’m exposed to higher premium, but you are not to blame for it. That’s how I interpret it, and that’s why I said earlier that it’s not “blame” in the sense that most people would construe blame. This is one of those things that I think there is basis to interpret the way that you do - I just don’t share your view.
Ford’s action were political, but not solely political. I wouldn’t hazard a guess to attribute a ratio. But the confirmation hearing process is a political one, and I do view pretty much every single thing related to confirmation hearings as political in nature, even if they are serving multiple purposes. But that’s not to say that every accuser of every politician is engaging in political activities. Reporting something to law enforcement for criminal behavior, or to an oversight body for non-criminal behavior I wouldn’t consider political at all.
But in that case I did nothing wrong. I was the victim of your negligence. That’s not what the post in question said.
In the post referenced in the OP, Ford (and her allies) “exposed Justice Kavanaugh’s family to death threats”… not by doing something reasonable, honest, innocuous, etc. (i.e. comparable to reporting an accident to law enforcement and the insurance company), but “because they thought it might help their side in a political squabble”. Not to talk about her experiences, or reveal her truth, but to harm someone she disliked.
If I falsely reported an accident as your fault to my insurance company and law enforcement, because I don’t like you, and as a consequence your rates go up, then it’d be entirely proper to blame me for your higher rates.
So here would be a roughly comparable statement for the faked accident scenario – “Andy exposed Bone to higher insurance rates because he doesn’t like Bone and wants his family to suffer”. Doesn’t that indicate that I’m to blame? It certainly looks that way to me.
She took part in a political process. But that doesn’t mean that her actions were political – which indicates a political motive.
This seems like a semantics thing, so I’m not sure if it’s really worth going further on. Why is this part important? Would it be very different if she had talked to media and law enforcement, resulting in a similar level of political “kerfuffle”, but declined to take part in the hearing, or the GOP Senators prevented her from taking part in the hearing? I don’t think this would change the relevance or appropriateness of the post in question. Either way, it was irrelevant to the discussion – entirely off topic and entirely out of the blue.
First, why would you say that reporting the claim exposed you to higher premiums? I mean, it’s obviously true, and it isn’t a fact that I need to know. So what is your motivation for putting it in words? I can’t see any reason, unless you intended to suggest a little responsibility on my part.
Second, the topic of sexual assault is extremely fraught, and what is not considered victim-blaming in other circumstances becomes much more sensitive. If my friend’s bike is stolen and I tell him “it wouldn’t have been stolen if you’d locked it up,” I’m maybe being insensitive, but not really jerkish. That’s a pretty standard comment that everyone expects.
But an analogous comment about sexual assault - “you wouldn’t have been raped if you hadn’t walked alone at night” - carries a lot more baggage. Women hear these kinds of comments constantly - pretty much every rape prevention program focuses on what women need to do, not on preventing men from raping. Yet another comment that shifts responsibility to the woman is exhausting to people who hear it every day.
I get that this is a different situation, but I want to point out why analogies to things like car accidents and insurance aren’t really applicable when it comes to sexual assault. And this distinction is going to be recognized much more readily by women who have experienced this.