Haven’t seen Bernie Sanders join leading Democrats (Gillibrand, Schumer, Khanna, Mamdani etc.) in pulling their endorsements of Platner. This image hasn’t aged well.
Ouch! But yes.
We have now entered the carnival funhouse world, where Fox News reports about John Fetterman demanding that Sanders pull his endorsement of Platner.
Let me off this ride.
I think that if a reasonable person looked at the totality of his behavior, they would have clocked him as a fraud and an abuser. And the striking thing I see, at least in this thread, is that people are still clinging to “the tattoo is defensible, it could’ve been an accident.” It was never about the tattoo. The tattoo should’ve been enough, or the other DV flags should’ve sealed it. Combined, it should’ve been a slam dunk before the rape allegation ever came out.
Making blanket statements about numerous people’s states of mind, as far as saying they’re all stupid and corrupt, isn’t worth getting into. People will have had different reasons for what they did, and I think the bulk of it can be accounted by cognitive bias and motivated reasoning, which are understandable human foibles that we all face. A lot of it is also negative polarization.
As for this:
I’m glad to hear one person saying this instead of repeatedly doubling down like many others are. That’s character breaking through the negative polarization.
I will say this whole thing has been a learning journey for me, because it’s made me see the anti-Kamala people and similar abstainers through a different lens. I still think they were catastrophically wrong and could’ve done better if they tried. But I do understand what it’s like to see what one feels as an unacceptable red line (in their case genocide, in this case an obvious edgelord abuser) and then be called a traitor or collaborator or fascist for holding that line. I don’t agree with where they landed but I definitely have a better understanding of the forces that pushed them there, and how those forces influence my own thinking at times.
We could all make a better effort in policing ourselves vis-a-vis negative polarization.
So you’re saying that lying about rape means he’s more likely to be lying about other things? Who has disagreed with that notion?
I see a lot of people still clinging to the idea that yeah, maybe he lied about a rape as well as some other allegations of misconduct toward women, but as far as his statements about the Nazi tattoo being an innocent mistake, that might be different. I mean, come on.
Why did I wind up in the absolute worst motherfucking timeline?
Let’s see some cites. Other than one particular poster, I don’t think anyone would contradict the notion that the alleged rape means his explanations of the prior red flags (including the tattoo) are now more likely to be lies.
If you care to dig up the dirt, you don’t need to scroll back very far to find at least 3 different parties continuing to defend the “innocent tattoo” story, and at least one outright attacking the rape allegation as being likely false.
I’ve called out enough people at this point, it’s not helping, and it’s probably led some people to double down via negative polarization, who usually wouldn’t deceive themselves in that way. So I’m not going to be doing that anymore, take that as a “win” if you care to.
There are three different questions you can ask folks.
- Now that he is lying about having raped someone, do you think it is likelier that he was lying about details of the tattoo story?
- Now that he is lying about having raped someone, are you convinced that he is lying about details of the tattoo story?
- Now that he is lying about having raped someone, do you feel stupid for not having been convinced before that he was lying about the details of the tattoo story?
For myself, the answer to the first question is yes, to the second question is no, and to the third question is fuck no.
I see it as not mattering either way. It’s like arguing about whether or not a murderer on death row committed tax fraud. It’s moot at this point.
We can learn from the Republican Party on moral dilemmas of this sort. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on the Platner debacle:
Yessir. That’s a principled stand we should all admire.
That is quite the unintentional comedy.
Eh, i was pretty certain he was lying about the details of the tattoo story before this came out. I mostly think he didn’t know it was a Nazi symbol when he got it for the same reason Chronos thinks he did. My a priori assumption is that a random person wouldn’t recognize it, and he seems pretty random. And also, while there’s a ton of evidence he’s a dirt bag, there’s not much evidence he has Nazi sympathies.
Did he learn it was a Nazi symbol a long time before he had it removed? Almost certainly.
I’m still not certain. But the evidence for his honesty (his statements, and the statement of one of his fellow soldiers) carries less weight now, which makes the weak evidence for his lying about the tattoo tip the scales for me.
I’m reminded of a thread we had awhile back, where someone was arguing for a pattern of evidence pointing to alien contact. We kept asking the person for their strongest case, and they’d give us a case. Every single time they gave us a case, a little research showed that the evidence in this instance was really weak. “But that doesn’t matter!” they protested: “there’s a pattern of evidence!”
What I said then was that a pattern couldn’t be stronger than its strongest individual element, and a pattern of weak evidence resulted in weak evidence for the pattern.
That’s how I felt here: all the individual claims about Platner’s dishonesty had serious flaws, and I couldn’t derive a strong pattern from those individual claims. But now there’s a sudden abhorrent piece of evidence about his dishonesty (and violence and repugnance) that’s really strong; and that strong evidence give such support to the pattern that it strengthens my willingness to believe all the other weak evidence.
I’m still not ready to call it case closed on other things, like his knowledge of the tattoo; but I’m no longer willing to give any weight to his denials.
This is bad epistemology. It depends on the situation.
This is also bad epistemology. Platner was clearly a lying jackass from the start, and it was soon obvious that he was a lying scumbag as well. Also, the evidence wasn’t weak. Some of it, such his online posts, were things he admitted were true from the start and apologized for immediately.
It’s worse than the other accusations, and it is stronger than some of them, but it is not categorically different.
The tattoo issue was easy to parse from the start. He was supposedly a military history buff but never figured out what this thing was for nearly 20 years? (I can believe that when he got the tattoo as a drunken jackass, he didn’t know what he was getting in the moment.)
I’m bothering to post the above because I want to push back on the notion that this whole thing wasn’t super fuckin’ easy to understand and form a judgment about from the start. It was. And it’s a disgrace that people on our side were fooled.
If we are going to keep bringing this irrelevant shit back again… No. People were trying on this board to paint him as a literal secret Nazi despite never showing any evidence that he was one (except one obscure tattoo), and trying to paint him as a secret right wing operative who would flip as soon as he got elected. There is still no evidence of any of that bullshit, It’s still a paranoid conspiracy theory. And the idea that “since he’s a liar that must all be true”… No. If a person known to be a liar denies being a lizard man, that doesn’t make him a lizard man.
Arguments that he was an idiot, that he was a scumbag, etc. Yes, there was evidence of that, and I’ve been critical of him from the beginning over those sorts of things. But I weighed that against the importance of putting a (D) in a Senate seat. So there was a reluctant, very weak support.
The idea being pushed now is that now he’s been discredited and disgraced, all of that other stuff must be true… Secret Nazi right wing plant. No, it doesn’t have to be true. It just means his scumbag ratio is too much to tolerate for just about everyone (except apparently one single holdout in this thread).
You can just fuck off right now with this bullshit. It doesn’t validate any of the other stuff. And this is rich coming from you, who is best known for making predictions over and over again that are completely wrong, like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football. What was bullshit then is bullshit now. The only thing that’s different is that there is a whole new wrinkle that makes all the old arguments moot. But you weren’t “right all along:”. Go fuck yourself with that fake sanctimony.
Aeschines has such a long history of being confidently wrong about so many things on this board that I give his opinions no weight. I only pushed back here because he got on my nerves.
My first thought was “Who? Oh yeah, I completely forgot about him.”
Yup, that was my point, thanks for confirming. 
(Or maybe it’s something like, “I think I’m right this time if you squint funny so I’m going to hoot and holler and milk this for all it’s worth!”)