The Supreme Court

[Strat]

God, burt, bless your heart but i just couldnt read past this:

Basically everyone on earth has been assaulted in one way or another. Actually, men are more likely to be physically assaulted. But yes, I'm sure every woman on the planet has been harassed and many have been sexually assaulted. That doesn't change anything I'm arguing.

An assault on a man is far fucking different and not even in the same fucking park as an assault on a women in which we are discussing here.

This comment above is exactly what is wrong with the current climate and im legit depressed this was your response. And this is where i think we just part ways on this discussion.

( i did read everything else you responded to and thank you)

[Jorge]

Basically everyone on earth has been assaulted in one way or another. Actually, men are more likely to be physically assaulted. But yes, I'm sure every woman on the planet has been harassed and many have been sexually assaulted. That doesn't change anything I'm arguing.

An assault on a man is far fucking different and not even in the same fucking park as an assault on a women in which we are discussing here.

You guys are talking about completely different things, but then he acknowledged your point

[Strat]

Basically everyone on earth has been assaulted in one way or another. Actually, men are more likely to be physically assaulted. But yes, I'm sure every woman on the planet has been harassed and many have been sexually assaulted. That doesn't change anything I'm arguing.

An assault on a man is far fucking different and not even in the same fucking park as an assault on a women in which we are discussing here.

You guys are talking about completely different things, but then he acknowledged your point

yea but "Actually, men are more likely to be physically assaulted" when we are discussing the issue at hand here is very concerning and very telling about burts mind set, which is the mind set of many powerful men that are currently in the hot seat right now.

[BurtReynolds]

I was getting a bit off topic there and we are arguing two things at once (that was more directed at the "men have it easy part", which illustrates your mindset).

There is obviously some (actually, much) capacity for understanding the suffering of others, regardless of what sex we are. But I'm not even denying what you said (at least not very much). I'm not downplaying sexual assault, it's commonality or the lasting impact it has. I'm saying these things don't override principles we have or justify rebalancing the playing field in the accusers favor, or justify some of the other crazy shit that's gone on during this confirmation process.

This isn't just about criminal cases either. It applies for supreme court nominations or just some random guy's reputation.

[BurtReynolds]

My take on the #BelieveWomen thing is: I have witnessed how difficult & scary it can be to come forward with a story of sexual assault, especially when it's against a person with power. My ex girlfriend saw that paralyzing, all-consuming fear every day at the foundation she ran. Not only do you have to deal with the personal and professional ramifications of an accusation like that, but you also have to brace for the immediate knee-jerk reaction of a larger audience, be it family, friends, or the public at large. That knee-jerk reaction is still -- despite the "woke" age we live in -- to be disbelieving, skeptical, and victim-blamey. I'm sure Burt will question this, because he thinks the world has collectively morphed into a SJW twitter mob, but I've seen it, and it is prevalent. This is anecdotal and irrelevant, of course; the point is: I understand the impetus behind #BelieveWomen. The idea, as I understand it, is to create a safer, more welcoming environment for victims to come forward and make those accusations, because that's part of how you fix shit. I personally have not come across anyone who argues that a victim's word alone should be enough to throw someone in jail. I'm sure they exist, but that's not what I believe the "movement" (if you can call it that?) to be about.

Here's the part of the post where Burt starts nodding along in agreement: #BelieveWomen (and its more extreme Pokemon evolution, #BelieveAllWomen) is inherently fallacious. Of course people lie. There are shitty, insane, evil people out there and it is outright naive to say that there aren't people who will take advantage of the political climate to bring someone else down. It is obvious to me that there should never be laws passed that are based around the cultural shift of something like #BelieveWomen. That is terrifying and dangerous, because the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct as a pillar of any rational justice system. I've seen the way the mindless horde will run with a concept like #BelieveWomen and take it to absurd lengths: a person of note is accused, however vaguely or anonymously, and they are immediately ripe for a dragging. This is because the moral righteousness that comes from feeling like one is on the "right side of history" is so fucking addictive. It's like a drug. Having carte blanche to destroy someone is fun. And this is disturbing, because an innocent person's reputation can be ruined because of something someone said somewhere. It's ugly. It's wrong. And I think it is fucked that having nuanced, complicated feelings on this topic will make you a villain in some people's eyes. I don't #BelieveAllWomen; I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt while also creating an environment of empathy and understanding that will hopefully motivate more victims to come forward. We should be empathetic, but we should also be discerning.

On Kavanaugh: I don't like him. I believe that he did it. I acknowledge that there is no evidence and that the accusation alone should not be enough to derail his nomination (and certainly not enough to prosecute him for anything). But I don't think it is desperate straw-grabbing to suggest that his composure and temperament should call his fitness into question.

Personally I don't think someone's temperament when accused of multiple rapes is a very good indicator of how they will perform on the court, and I have no idea if he did it or not, but otherwise I agree.

[Strat]

My take on the #BelieveWomen thing is: I have witnessed how difficult & scary it can be to come forward with a story of sexual assault, especially when it's against a person with power. My ex girlfriend saw that paralyzing, all-consuming fear every day at the foundation she ran. Not only do you have to deal with the personal and professional ramifications of an accusation like that, but you also have to brace for the immediate knee-jerk reaction of a larger audience, be it family, friends, or the public at large. That knee-jerk reaction is still -- despite the "woke" age we live in -- to be disbelieving, skeptical, and victim-blamey. I'm sure Burt will question this, because he thinks the world has collectively morphed into a SJW twitter mob, but I've seen it, and it is prevalent. This is anecdotal and irrelevant, of course; the point is: I understand the impetus behind #BelieveWomen. The idea, as I understand it, is to create a safer, more welcoming environment for victims to come forward and make those accusations, because that's part of how you fix shit. I personally have not come across anyone who argues that a victim's word alone should be enough to throw someone in jail. I'm sure they exist, but that's not what I believe the "movement" (if you can call it that?) to be about.

Here's the part of the post where Burt starts nodding along in agreement: #BelieveWomen (and its more extreme Pokemon evolution, #BelieveAllWomen) is inherently fallacious. Of course people lie. There are shitty, insane, evil people out there and it is outright naive to say that there aren't people who will take advantage of the political climate to bring someone else down. It is obvious to me that there should never be laws passed that are based around the cultural shift of something like #BelieveWomen. That is terrifying and dangerous, because the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct as a pillar of any rational justice system. I've seen the way the mindless horde will run with a concept like #BelieveWomen and take it to absurd lengths: a person of note is accused, however vaguely or anonymously, and they are immediately ripe for a dragging. This is because the moral righteousness that comes from feeling like one is on the "right side of history" is so fucking addictive. It's like a drug. Having carte blanche to destroy someone is fun. And this is disturbing, because an innocent person's reputation can be ruined because of something someone said somewhere. It's ugly. It's wrong. And I think it is fucked that having nuanced, complicated feelings on this topic will make you a villain in some people's eyes. I don't #BelieveAllWomen; I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt while also creating an environment of empathy and understanding that will hopefully motivate more victims to come forward. We should be empathetic, but we should also be discerning.

On Kavanaugh: I don't like him. I believe that he did it. I acknowledge that there is no evidence and that the accusation alone should not be enough to derail his nomination (and certainly not enough to prosecute him for anything). But I don't think it is desperate straw-grabbing to suggest that his composure and temperament should call his fitness into question.

Personally I don't think someone's temperament when accused of multiple rapes is a very good indicator of how they will perform on the court, and I have no idea if he did it or not, but otherwise I agree.

He didn't do it. The Clintons did it. Obviously.

[BurtReynolds]

My take on the #BelieveWomen thing is: I have witnessed how difficult & scary it can be to come forward with a story of sexual assault, especially when it's against a person with power. My ex girlfriend saw that paralyzing, all-consuming fear every day at the foundation she ran. Not only do you have to deal with the personal and professional ramifications of an accusation like that, but you also have to brace for the immediate knee-jerk reaction of a larger audience, be it family, friends, or the public at large. That knee-jerk reaction is still -- despite the "woke" age we live in -- to be disbelieving, skeptical, and victim-blamey. I'm sure Burt will question this, because he thinks the world has collectively morphed into a SJW twitter mob, but I've seen it, and it is prevalent. This is anecdotal and irrelevant, of course; the point is: I understand the impetus behind #BelieveWomen. The idea, as I understand it, is to create a safer, more welcoming environment for victims to come forward and make those accusations, because that's part of how you fix shit. I personally have not come across anyone who argues that a victim's word alone should be enough to throw someone in jail. I'm sure they exist, but that's not what I believe the "movement" (if you can call it that?) to be about.

Here's the part of the post where Burt starts nodding along in agreement: #BelieveWomen (and its more extreme Pokemon evolution, #BelieveAllWomen) is inherently fallacious. Of course people lie. There are shitty, insane, evil people out there and it is outright naive to say that there aren't people who will take advantage of the political climate to bring someone else down. It is obvious to me that there should never be laws passed that are based around the cultural shift of something like #BelieveWomen. That is terrifying and dangerous, because the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct as a pillar of any rational justice system. I've seen the way the mindless horde will run with a concept like #BelieveWomen and take it to absurd lengths: a person of note is accused, however vaguely or anonymously, and they are immediately ripe for a dragging. This is because the moral righteousness that comes from feeling like one is on the "right side of history" is so fucking addictive. It's like a drug. Having carte blanche to destroy someone is fun. And this is disturbing, because an innocent person's reputation can be ruined because of something someone said somewhere. It's ugly. It's wrong. And I think it is fucked that having nuanced, complicated feelings on this topic will make you a villain in some people's eyes. I don't #BelieveAllWomen; I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt while also creating an environment of empathy and understanding that will hopefully motivate more victims to come forward. We should be empathetic, but we should also be discerning.

On Kavanaugh: I don't like him. I believe that he did it. I acknowledge that there is no evidence and that the accusation alone should not be enough to derail his nomination (and certainly not enough to prosecute him for anything). But I don't think it is desperate straw-grabbing to suggest that his composure and temperament should call his fitness into question.

Personally I don't think someone's temperament when accused of multiple rapes is a very good indicator of how they will perform on the court, and I have no idea if he did it or not, but otherwise I agree.

He didn't do it. The Clintons did it. Obviously.

I don't remember the particulars of the Bill Clinton stuff, but I do remember he (consensually) stuck that cigar in that lady's hoo-ha.

[washing machine]

I'm swapping jerseys.

Team Plat

[BurtReynolds]

I'm swapping jerseys.

Team Plat

We're still on the same team!

[Bi_3]

Either he is lying or she is lying. Who has more to gain by lying?

After reading some of the sad herstory in this thread, this stands out as a terribly illogical position that illustrates a lot of the problems being discussed here by restricting the possibilities to only the two worse options.

It’s entirely possible that are neither were lying but that one was simply wrong about something that happened 30+ years ago.

[Jorge]

I'm swapping jerseys.

Team Plat

We're still on the same team!

It is now called Team Plat

[Bi_3]

And I think this tweet by one of the Colbert writers sums it up well:

[Jorge]

What do you mean? They're clearly being sarcastic. His life isn't ruined. He's in the Supreme Court!

[Norris]

on, not in

[BurtReynolds]

I'm swapping jerseys.

Team Plat

We're still on the same team!

It is now called Team Plat

Well this is bullshit

[Jorge]

on, not in

I meant at

[Bi_3]

on, not in

Stop defending Kavanaugh

[Norris]

on, not in

Stop defending Kavanaugh

lol

[B]

Shocking news ... #BelieveWomen didn't start with Kavanaugh. It started from women not being taken seriously by cops when they reported rape and thus the investigations were half-assed and incomplete. Of course, they're bound by rules of evidence, but cops who think a woman has been raped investigate very differently than cops who think a woman was being slutty and then changed her mind.



Read that, and then ... well ... never send your daughter to college.

[B]

I'm kind of bored with people bitching that Kavanaugh was presumed guilty. The Democrats requested that the FBI investigate the claims. That's specifically NOT a presumption of guilt.