Because to some people, being a victim (or a social underling) means being weak, and the whole point is to not be one of the weak, but of the strong, because to them those are traits of virtue and character, rather than of relative physical or social power. And in a proper world, it follows, those on top are there by right, underlings are deferential, and those on top are magnanimous and courteous about it if they are of good character *but *the underlings had better always know their place and prove their worth by being able to take it stoically as just the way things are. If there’s any nastiness that just *must *be dealt with because someone abused his privilege, it is to be dealt with quietly so as to not let it be known in public that it happens so we continue to project a righteous social order. If that bothers you about this world, don’t worry, God will reward and punish later.
I hope he finished whatever it was that he needed to do.
But it was “that bad” because it caused a lasting psychological injury. Now, I’ve always been pretty resilient and it’s quite possible I could’ve shaken off that assault by Kavanaugh. But a lot of people aren’t as resilient as I am. And my reaction to that is not going to be “ha ha ha, I could’ve taken that - you’re weak and inferior”. Because I’m not a psychopath. I have empathy that was formed based on life experiences. And one of those experiences involved a heart to heart with a woman that was deeply scarred by sexual harassment at work. It was eye-opening for me because it was less serious than an incident I “shook off”.
Say you get in a physical altercation with some random guy. You land a punch. You don’t even hit him that hard. But, your weak-assed punch connects enough to make the guy lose his balance and hit his head and he dies,
You are now on the hook for murder. There is a legal concept called the Eggshell Plaintiff. Eggshell skull - Wikipedia. The rule states that the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
So, maybe Kavanagh picked a victim that was more susceptible to psychological trauma than the Facebook Friends of Starving Artists. Guess what, it sucks to be Kavanaugh, then —— maybe if he wanted to stay out of trouble he should’ve tried to rape one of SA’s Facebook friends that claim they would’ve shaken it off. And maybe they would’ve and this hypothetical Kavanaugh would be confirmed today. Or maybe they’d find out that attempted rape is more traumatic that they thought it would be.
If you’re a man, and you say you were raped, Starving Artist will call you a liar. True story.
I’ve found that the best way to handle people like Starving Artist in a message board format is to not even acknowledge his existence.
:checks nametag:
No, I’m not that guy. Wait…
:checks driver’s license:
No, still not him.
:checks calendar:
2018, eh? Bill Clinton has been out of office since…
:counts fingers. Removes shoes, counts toes:
17 years.
Since we’re talking 2018, would like to note that the current Republican President is an admitted sexual assaulter, so let’s cancel the two out and get back to the subject of Kavanaugh and your completely insane and immoral defense of attempted rape, shall we?
Aren’t you acknowledging his existence with this post?
What? Cite, please.
Dude, I think you need an explosives permit if you’re gonna blow minds like that.
I’m not going to comment on your comment about a comment I made regarding someone I would never comment on.
Um … what? :eek:
No comment.
No comment.
edited to add: *shakes fist at Czarcasm!
Cite.
SA looks worse by just noticing that it was after an special prosecutor’s investigation (something that the republicans are not willing to do with Kavanaugh now and SA looks to agree with) that the accusations of Broderick were not deemed credible or that they were inconclusive. So Kenneth Starr looked elsewhere.
The same Kenneth Starr, it might be noted, under whose tenure as Baylor University’s President and Chancellor several cases of sexual misconduct and assault by members of the football team were swept under the rug and inadequately investigated or otherwise buried.
Things aren’t perfect yet but at least have improved to the extent repercussions for this shite aren’t totally unexpected.
I’m a bit surprised Bill Clinton even came up. Didn’t SA see all the “Shut Up, Bill!” articles from progressives during the 2016 election season? The shine has come significantly off the man since he was president. Then again, SA lives in the past, so acknowledging the 90s should be considered an improvement.
Let’s talk about proportionality. If what Ford says is true, she would have been justified in killing Kavanaugh on the spot. For what you characterize as a relatively minor incident, the law says she could have killed him for it, and that would have been a proportionate response.
That you would trivialize this is terrible and I doubt many folks subscribe to this line of reasoning. The key thing is whether or not the allegations are true, and whether or not the truth of the allegations is knowable. Because if they are true, then I certainly wouldn’t support Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, or for his current position either.
Sometimes you just need to hit back.
Because, you know, when you read one of his posts, the appear to be a sort of, shall we say, unwanted intrusion, and when you feel violated like that, you feel like hitting back.
Ah, Baylor. Home of my own Assault that Wasn’t so Bad. I was 18, he was probably 21. There was drinking involved and me being out past curfew (yep, 1980 and Baylor dorms had curfew). I fought him off, but it took a lot of energy and tears and he could have (and nearly did) gone that extra step and actually raped me. No, I didn’t report it. Didn’t even occur to me since I’d broken some minor rules along the way. And it shook him up pretty badly as well, he told a friend of mine that he knew I “was a nice girl, but he didn’t know I was a NICE GIRL”. So he might have learned his lesson. He might have learned that he could get away with it. Don’t know.
I got over the shame of it, but I still remember how humiliated and ashamed I felt. God knows there was no agency to talk to about it short of BUPD. Where I would earn myself probation for being out late and drinking. So call my parents to say I was doing all this AND I nearly lost my virginity? Oh, hell no. So I kept quiet and got on with my life as per approved by some of the assholes here.
I didn’t brush it off. It was a big deal. And that crack about not knowing I was a NICE GIRL ™ really gets my goat. To have him jump on me time after time after I said no, no, NO NOOOO, and still he tried getting my pants off. Why did I have to prove anything?
See? Nice girls sometimes end up dead fucking last. Screw that mentality. Fuck that way of thinking. Been there, done that, have the scars to prove it. Don’t tell me it didn’t bother them. Getting on with your life doesn’t mean what happened to you was right. It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t speak out later on. Fuck that noise.
SA, does this advice - “…put the wrongs others do to them in the past where it belongs and live a happy life instead” also apply to soldiers? Maybe not the guys who were actually wounded in Afghanistan or Vietnam or Iraq, but the ones who come home with PTSD from being in combat, or seeing buddies die violently, or proximity to an IED explosion? Should they not allow themselves to buy into the victimhood dogma constantly being promoted by the left? Or is it only assaulted women who need to “live a happy life instead”?
All of which is a long way of asking, “Do you know anything about the way trauma affects the brain?”