Why don’t you send her a PM if you are so curious?
There’s a good chance she doesn’t want to open a thread like this. Did she participate in previous misogyny threads? I could only find her name in the byline for [POST=21800350]an edit of a post[/POST]. Maybe she has an opinion, maybe even a strong one, but is holding back. It’s stressful for me to open up a thread about misogyny and victim-blaming, and I’m a guy who hasn’t had to deal with either. I can’t even imagine how women feel when they come across what they think is misogyny.
Yeah, what was she thinking, getting sexually assaulted by a future supreme court justice? She should have just stayed out of the political proccess :rolleyes:
To be clear – the single offensive sentence I take issue to in YOUR post is this one:
Ford didn’t enter a political process. She spoke out about a sexual assault that happened to her. Just like Ditka, you’re putting the blame on Ford here. But Ford didn’t willingly enter a political situation; she was pushed into one when it turned out that a man who had sexually assaulted her was about to become a supreme court justice.
You’re right. It’s saying something that should be obvious, but that you mod as if you’re oblivious.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: 73 posts into the thread, I’d have thought that would have been extremely redundant by then.
Good Lord, I thought that was so obvious it didn’t need saying, even if it hadn’t already been said numerous times in the thread.
You get to choose your political views, and can rethink them as time goes along.
Aside from cases of persons whose gender identity doesn’t match their birth physiology (which isn’t really a choice either, but a matter of identity), women don’t have the option of choosing not to be women.
If you acknowledge that there was no argument presented, why did you post specifically to say that your post wasn’t addressed? It’s not like I haven’t been responding in the thread.
When I took on this role it was with the commitment that I would be able and willing to explain or answer questions about any moderation action. But if you don’t actually pose any, it’s not like I’m dodging anything. iiandyiiii and others have raised arguments which I’ve responded to. Some of that hinges on disagreements of interpretation. I think we’re pretty far apart on many things so it may not be fruitful, but if you have other points to raise I’ll address them if they are new.
So to sum it up, you think she lied purely for political reasons which resulted in death threats. And even though you KNOW your position is bigly contentious on this board re:her lying for political reasons, you chose this example because you thought it would be the easiest way to bolster you position that “death threats happen” because of readily available cites that death threats existed rather than “WHY death threats happen” which was the original point?
“It wasn’t intended as a “hand grenade” or to sidetrack that thread with a re-litigation of Ford’s accusations.” Seems like bullshit when you already know the general board’s feelings on the issue to prove a point that wasn’t in contention.
At best, you could use improvement if you wish to not further all the horrible things you come across as saying.
You’re right that “if you consider X, or look at this problem from this perspective over here, it looks a lot different” isn’t an argument per se.
Right now, the message that I get from you is that nope, there is no problem. I’m trying to point out that there sure seems to be one. But if you won’t look at it from over here, you won’t see it.
No, I do not believe you’ve accurately summarized my views. In particular, I’d take issue with the words “lied” and “purely”. Regarding the rest of your post, I’m aware that most of my political views are “bigly contentious” on this heavily-left-leaning board. I don’t think it’s a problem, or a violation of the rules, or trolling, or posting in bad faith, to hold minority viewpoints, or to share them.
Confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nomination are a political process. And there is no good reason to believe that Kavanaugh actually assaulted her or anyone else.
By this narrative, she was pushed into it by Feinstein and Eschoo and her Dem allies, even though it exposed her and Kavanaugh to possible death threats. As HurricaneDitka said.
And again, there is no credible evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone. So no, it didn’t “turn out” that way.
“I did not feel courageous. I was simply doing my duty as a citizen, providing information to the Senate that I believed would be relevant to the Supreme Court nomination process,” Ford said. “I thought anyone in my position would, of course, do the same thing.”
By her own words she inserted herself into a political process. Her intention was to prevent Kavanaugh’s nomination from succeeding. She wouldn’t have spoken out if the nomination hadn’t happened.
It doesn’t appear that her intentions were political, as in a Republican vs Democrat thing. It was absolutely about her and him regardless of political sides, and I believe if it was Obama who was nominating Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court she’d have done the same thing except going to Republican leadership to stop it. So it wasn’t political in that sense.
But it was political in the sense that she didn’t want to see someone placed in such a high position of power that she believed had assaulted her in college. So to say that she didn’t willingly insert herself into a political situation is nonsense and requires ignoring what she said about her own motivations.
I don’t see how inserting herself into a political situation is a mark against her though. It seems absolutely the right time to speak out about a wrong she believed was done against her by a person being put into a position of power, a position that would allow him to use his position to influence the highest law of the land for an indefinite time period based on his own judgement. And if his character is lacking in a way people are unaware of then she should speak out.
In your view, is there any way for a poster to take the position that Ford’s testimony was knowingly false without it being “clear misogyny”? Is there any way for a poster to take the position that the account was embellished in material ways and that the embellishment was politically motivated without it being “clear misogyny”?
I don’t know if anyone is taking that extreme a position, but Ford’s (and Kavanaugh’s) veracity was a matter of considerable public debate and is a matter of significant public dispute. I understand that your mind is fixed. And most of the posts in this thread appear to simply assume and declare that her story was both well-intentioned and substantively accurate (which does tend to paint criticism of her in a particular light). I understand that the actual accuracy of her account is off limits in this thread. But, is it possible, in your view, to disagree with that position without it being “clear misogyny”?
For this purpose, it doesn’t matter if her story is true. That’s the point of hearings like that - she tells her story, Kavanaugh tells his, corroborating witnesses are brought on both sides, and everyone gets to decide who they believe. While many people who refuse to believe Ford do so for misogynistic reasons, disbelieving her is not a definitive indicator of misogyny.
But here, HD assigns (partial) responsibility to Ford for death threats (there is no reason to say that Ford’s testimony resulted in death threats unless you intend to shift a little of the blame on her). The problem with this is that it questions her right to speak up at all. At that point, you are saying that his right to avoid adverse effects outweighs her right to tell her story, leaving women with no options. That is misogynistic.
If you have a solid reason to make those claims. Being wrong and/or not having your claims backed up by evidence does not equate to deliberate falsehood, embellishment, or political motivation (aside from the admitted intent to kill the nomination). Otherwise you are making accusations that would appear misogynistic, yes.
Just keep in mind that being well-intentioned and substantively accurate are not codependent. A person can be sincere and wrong. Proving statements to be inaccurate is a much lower bar than proving a malicious motivation.
Well, I wasn’t really focusing on the death threat point, so much as the dishonest motivation claim. But I think that the truth does matter (or really that it matters what you’ve decided you believe about the truth). For example, at one extreme, if she is knowingly dishonest, then her “right to tell her story” is going to be weighed differently, isn’t it? I’m not saying it’s a good argument (or an apt comparison to whatever was being discussed in the other thread), but the talk of her “right to speak up” or “right to tell her story” (or “options” available to women) seem to assume that her story is, at least, sincere. And I’m wondering if you believe that it is inherently misogynistic to think that she is not being sincere.
I absolutely agree with your second point. There are a number of different way to characterize the situation, depending on how you weigh the evidence. They include (at least):
The idea that Kavanaugh is knowing and deliberately lying. This is widely-held on this board, casually asserted, and is, as far as I can tell, an acceptable viewpoint.
The idea that Ford is well-intentioned and sincere but that the frailties of human memory (and the effects of trauma) have led to inaccuracies in her account. This seems to be acceptable (especially if you conclude that her account is generally accurate, but I think also if you conclude that she is substantively mistaken in even the most material of ways). But under this view, she is always well-intentioned.
(No one seems to float the possibility that Kavanaugh is both sincere and wrong).
What I’m wondering is if it is “clear misogyny” to take View 4 (that Ford is knowing and deliberately lying) – regardless of how that view is expressed. It sounds like you think that saying she is “wrong” is acceptable (as long as you agree that she is sincere), but that accusing her of insincerity is inherently “misogynistic”.
If someone comes forward about a sexual assault they experienced, and your response is “you are deliberately lying for political gain”, then yes, you are a misogynist.
Is there any wonder at all that rape and sexual assault are so underreported? This is what women face every time they come forward about their experiences.
The only way I could see that as a plausible scenario is if he was so drunk he had no memory of it after the fact. That still would make him culpable of assault though; not only is it not an excuse to be drunk but it adds negligence on top of it (letting yourself get so wasted you can’t control yourself). In that case it wouldn’t much matter how sincere he is, he’s still guilty, so it seems pretty moot.
Absent evidence yes. The Sagan standard is that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and I think that applies here. Flippantly accusing her of lying is saying that she’s using her position as a woman to bring down a man, and it is inherently misogynistic because if it was any other situation (woman accusing another woman, man accusing another man, man accusing a woman) then the power dynamics would be different. That’s just the facts in our society.
The highlighted portion is NOT something I have said. If that’s the misogynistic bit, it sounds like this is based off a misunderstanding of what I have and have not posted.
In fact, I’ve got a fairly low opinion of one’s “right to avoid adverse effects”. If you’ll recall, the original post was essentially me announcing my opinion that Ciaramella’s “right to avoid adverse effects”, including potential death threats, did NOT outweigh the American people / Congress’s right to question him.
Yet another entirely gratuitous mention of an individual’s name, who may or may not actually be a whistle blower, and who certainly has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
What do you mean “has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion”? It’s the “context” that you’re usually so keen on making sure everyone is aware of. steronz asked me about the whistleblower receiving death threats. My reply was the genesis of this thread. Immediately after that post, Ravenman asked: