|
On September 26 2018 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 04:38 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 04:33 Simberto wrote:On September 26 2018 04:20 xDaunt wrote:[quote] Let's review: [quote] Source. Now let me introduce a very basic evidentiary principle to you: Not having any recollection that an event happened is evidence that the event did not happen. That everyone who Ford names as being there denies having any knowledge of being there is absolutely devastating evidence against Ford. Cite to whatever half-assed, questionable psycho-babble "science" that you want. The actual known facts control here. And none of them support Ford. This is why Ford keeps stalling when it comes to testifying. It is patently obvious how it's going to go. She wasn't violated by Kavanaugh, but she pretty much will be by the prosecutor on Capitol Hill if she testifies. This is nonsense. If you asked me about parties during my high school years, i would almost always say that i don't remember if that party happened. Not because they didn't happen, but because i remember very few details about that stuff. And that is only slightly more than a decade ago. So me not remembering is not evidence that it didn't happen, it is evidence that i don't remember. After a few years, you only remember really memorable events. And if this party, while really important to Ford, was just another party to those other people, they probably don't remember it. How many details of your social life from highschool do you remember? I dunno, my long term memory is quite exceptional so it is hard to relate. Regardless, the facts are the facts. You can try to explain them away if you want, but it doesn't change the fact no one -- not one of the four people named by Ford -- can or will corroborate Ford's story. Like I told ChristianS, that fact is dispositive in light of the complete absence of any other evidence to support her story. Someone didn't get invited to a lot of high school parties  I'll take the Fifth on that one. I think the point being attempted is that not remembering this party doesn't mean that the party or events didn't happen. Also it's not quite as conclusive as you're trying to make it sound. You're right when it comes to public/political opinion that outside of the "believe women unless the man can prove without question his innocence" groups her story has pretty much been obliterated.
I'm not quite there personally, but I also recognize the immeasurable amount of suffering caused by not believing women (or just not even giving a shit) when they report this stuff. From the military, to congress, to the workplace, to the home ,women have been getting sexually abused by strangers, family, friends, and partners with virtually no recourse.
I'm reminded of the Bobbit story. Where he mistreated her so badly she cut off his dick and a jury was like "yeah, we get it" and didn't send her to jail. But he went on to become a pornstar and a regular on Howard Stern.
There's also that thing where he tried to seriously suggest he was a virgin until he got married completely obliterated any credibility he had in my eyes. The guy wasn't almost 40 when he lost his virginity (Jesus doesn't play that "anal doesn't count" game) and I seriously question people who believe that story. I'm laying out and assessing the evidence as it would be considered in court. Four people saying that they don't remember an event happening is powerful circumstantial evidence that the event did not occur. It's the kind of thing that the finder of fact would latch onto. It mostly certainly would get Kavanaugh past summary judgment if he litigated the defamation claim (which he won't). In contrast, the bald statement from Ford's friend that she "believes Ford" isn't even admissible because it's not relevant or reliable evidence. And you raise an important point about the societal harm caused by not believing women who have been victimized. My question for you is this: how does promoting such a patently defective claim as Ford's do anything but worsen that problem? Well, it's pretty well established that victims are emboldened to speak up when other victims of the same perpetrator come forward first. The more questionable the story the easier it is for the next victim to think people will believe their more provable story (even if it was rejected at first) Cosby is a topical example of such a phenomena. Not saying believing women is a magic bullet cure-all but blindly believing women is actually an improvement on blindly (or even half-mindedly) believing men (which was the status quo and still pretty much is) strictly from a statistical point of view. Men lie about sexually assaulting people exponentially more than people come forward with fake rape/assault stories. Yeah, but surely you get that peddling patently bad claims like Ford's is counterproductive to the goal of making it easier for victims to be heard, right? Would you have any remorse if it turned out Kavanaugh not only assaulted her but other women and you were more worried about protecting a federal judge seeking a promotion than the clearly established precedent of abused women being dismissed because their abuser has important people who depend on it not being true? Or would the lack of evidence that would apply in a courtroom (as opposed to evidence of Kav being part of a group of guys that have a terrible record with women, or lying about being a virgin until marriage) be enough for you to not feel any remorse or guilt for presuming (based on available evidence) that Kav isn't a creepy liar and knowing you helped destroy her life for speaking the truth (however much it may be lacking in concrete evidence)? I would feel like an ass, but I wouldn't second guess my analysis based upon what was available. The evidence is what it is. But I'm not really worried about this eventuality right now. I ask because if we reduce it to believing her or not, I would feel a lot less bad about Kavanaugh losing a promotion because of something he didn't do than I would about denying a sexual assault victim's experience. Which by all accounts something happened to her that changed her entire persona around that time whether it was Kav or not. It's not just about Kavanaugh losing a promotion. It's the deliberate smearing of his reputation, character, and career. The emotional trauma that Kavanaugh and his family are suffering right now is quite real. And as of now, it seems completely unwarranted. Imagine if you will that it happened exactly as Ford says but the evidence is as we know it now, what should she do/have done in your mind
Well, I'm the wrong person to ask that question given what I do and my experience with such matters. I routinely have to keep my mouth shut about assholes. If I was in Ford's position, I wouldn't have come forward or even have sent the letter to Feinstein. It was a terrible idea from the get go.
|
On September 26 2018 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 04:38 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 04:33 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
This is nonsense. If you asked me about parties during my high school years, i would almost always say that i don't remember if that party happened. Not because they didn't happen, but because i remember very few details about that stuff. And that is only slightly more than a decade ago. So me not remembering is not evidence that it didn't happen, it is evidence that i don't remember. After a few years, you only remember really memorable events. And if this party, while really important to Ford, was just another party to those other people, they probably don't remember it.
How many details of your social life from highschool do you remember? I dunno, my long term memory is quite exceptional so it is hard to relate. Regardless, the facts are the facts. You can try to explain them away if you want, but it doesn't change the fact no one -- not one of the four people named by Ford -- can or will corroborate Ford's story. Like I told ChristianS, that fact is dispositive in light of the complete absence of any other evidence to support her story. Someone didn't get invited to a lot of high school parties I'll take the Fifth on that one. I think the point being attempted is that not remembering this party doesn't mean that the party or events didn't happen. Also it's not quite as conclusive as you're trying to make it sound. You're right when it comes to public/political opinion that outside of the "believe women unless the man can prove without question his innocence" groups her story has pretty much been obliterated.
I'm not quite there personally, but I also recognize the immeasurable amount of suffering caused by not believing women (or just not even giving a shit) when they report this stuff. From the military, to congress, to the workplace, to the home ,women have been getting sexually abused by strangers, family, friends, and partners with virtually no recourse.
I'm reminded of the Bobbit story. Where he mistreated her so badly she cut off his dick and a jury was like "yeah, we get it" and didn't send her to jail. But he went on to become a pornstar and a regular on Howard Stern.
There's also that thing where he tried to seriously suggest he was a virgin until he got married completely obliterated any credibility he had in my eyes. The guy wasn't almost 40 when he lost his virginity (Jesus doesn't play that "anal doesn't count" game) and I seriously question people who believe that story. I'm laying out and assessing the evidence as it would be considered in court. Four people saying that they don't remember an event happening is powerful circumstantial evidence that the event did not occur. It's the kind of thing that the finder of fact would latch onto. It mostly certainly would get Kavanaugh past summary judgment if he litigated the defamation claim (which he won't). In contrast, the bald statement from Ford's friend that she "believes Ford" isn't even admissible because it's not relevant or reliable evidence. And you raise an important point about the societal harm caused by not believing women who have been victimized. My question for you is this: how does promoting such a patently defective claim as Ford's do anything but worsen that problem? Well, it's pretty well established that victims are emboldened to speak up when other victims of the same perpetrator come forward first. The more questionable the story the easier it is for the next victim to think people will believe their more provable story (even if it was rejected at first) Cosby is a topical example of such a phenomena. Not saying believing women is a magic bullet cure-all but blindly believing women is actually an improvement on blindly (or even half-mindedly) believing men (which was the status quo and still pretty much is) strictly from a statistical point of view. Men lie about sexually assaulting people exponentially more than people come forward with fake rape/assault stories. Yeah, but surely you get that peddling patently bad claims like Ford's is counterproductive to the goal of making it easier for victims to be heard, right? Would you have any remorse if it turned out Kavanaugh not only assaulted her but other women and you were more worried about protecting a federal judge seeking a promotion than the clearly established precedent of abused women being dismissed because their abuser has important people who depend on it not being true? Or would the lack of evidence that would apply in a courtroom (as opposed to evidence of Kav being part of a group of guys that have a terrible record with women, or lying about being a virgin until marriage) be enough for you to not feel any remorse or guilt for presuming (based on available evidence) that Kav isn't a creepy liar and knowing you helped destroy her life for speaking the truth (however much it may be lacking in concrete evidence)? I would feel like an ass, but I wouldn't second guess my analysis based upon what was available. The evidence is what it is. But I'm not really worried about this eventuality right now. I ask because if we reduce it to believing her or not, I would feel a lot less bad about Kavanaugh losing a promotion because of something he didn't do than I would about denying a sexual assault victim's experience. Which by all accounts something happened to her that changed her entire persona around that time whether it was Kav or not. It's not just about Kavanaugh losing a promotion. It's the deliberate smearing of his reputation, character, and career. The emotional trauma that Kavanaugh and his family are suffering right now is quite real. And as of now, it seems completely unwarranted. Imagine if you will that it happened exactly as Ford says but the evidence is as we know it now, what should she do/have done in your mind Well, I'm the wrong person to ask that question given what I do and my experience with such matters. I routinely have to keep my mouth shut about assholes. If I was in Ford's position, I wouldn't have come forward or even have sent the letter to Feinstein. It was a terrible idea from the get go.
Then do you at least see how that is counterproductive to the goal of making it easier for victims to be heard? That you're actually advocating for victims to keep their mouth shut?
Then how that might be offensive to victims or people who are concerned about their health and safety (let alone those that prioritize them over a affluent and powerful white man's reputation/career)?
|
On September 26 2018 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Then do you at least see how that is counterproductive to the goal of making it easier for victims to be heard? That you're actually advocating for victims to keep their mouth shut?
Then how that might be offensive to victims or people who are concerned about their health and safety (let alone those that prioritize them over a affluent and powerful white man's reputation)?
The bottom line is that there's a balance that must be stricken. On the one hand, we want victims to feel free and able to come forward and air their grievances. On the other hand, we do not want to wrongfully tarnish people with outlandish accusations. I don't have the right answer for how to do this. All I know is that what Ford has done and is continuing to do is wrong and should be condemned as such. Let's just review the circumstances surrounding her allegations:
1) The event was never reported for 35 years and her memory of it is terrible (she doesn't know the time or place);
2) She made the allegations knowing that her memory is terrible;
3) In light of her terrible memory, she either did not speak with the named witnesses to independently verify her allegations before going public, or she did speak with them and went public anyway knowing that she had no corroborating evidence; and
4) When she went public, she demanded to be heard before the judicial committee, and was given that access. Afterwards, she walked back her demand and started placing all sorts of ridiculous conditions on whatever statement or information that she might give, including demanding that she not be placed under oath. Now it looks like she might not show up at all.
This is all obviously problematic, worrying, and (at a bare minimum) highly suggestive of wrongdoing. Ford is not a good poster girl for victim's rights.
|
It's not a witness's job to find proof, it's just their job to share what they witnessed. If you witness a crime and speak up about it, the cops are supposed to look for evidence to build a case. If they fail to find thst evidence maybe the criminal gets away with it but the witness still doesn't face legal repercussions just because the cops didn't find corroborating evidence.
"It was irresponsible of the witness to come forward without evidence" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a witness is.
|
On September 26 2018 07:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Then do you at least see how that is counterproductive to the goal of making it easier for victims to be heard? That you're actually advocating for victims to keep their mouth shut?
Then how that might be offensive to victims or people who are concerned about their health and safety (let alone those that prioritize them over a affluent and powerful white man's reputation)? The bottom line is that there's a balance that must be stricken. On the one hand, we want victims to feel free and able to come forward and air their grievances. On the other hand, we do not want to wrongfully tarnish people with outlandish accusations. I don't have the right answer for how to do this. All I know is that what Ford has done and is continuing to do is wrong and should be condemned as such. Let's just review the circumstances surrounding her allegations: 1) The event was never reported for 35 years and her memory of it is terrible (she doesn't know the time or place); 2) She made the allegations knowing that her memory is terrible; 3) In light of her terrible memory, she either did not speak with the named witnesses to independently verify her allegations before going public, or she did speak with them and went public anyway knowing that she had no corroborating evidence; and 4) When she went public, she demanded to be heard before the judicial committee, and was given that access. Afterwards, she walked back her demand and started placing all sorts of ridiculous conditions on whatever statement or information that she might give, including demanding that she not be placed under oath. Now it looks like she might not show up at all. This is all obviously problematic, worrying, and (at a bare minimum) highly suggestive of wrongdoing. Ford is not a good poster girl for victim's rights.
1) That's perfectly reasonable in my view considering the circumstances
2) Also perfectly reasonable in my view.
3) If it happened to her I have no problem with this.
4) She certainly could have done a better job with this but I don't really expect her to knowing she ins't a politico and Democrats didn't help her at all.
Her resume for being a poster child aside, had someone drugged her (she might be unaware if she was, meaning her memory issues could be a direct result of her attacker) before what allegedly happened 1-3 could still be exactly the same.
In that situation you're telling women they should just suck it up and accept that their experience doesn't have enough corroborating evidence to legitimize them sharing their experience with the people they consider relevant.
EDIT: Both believing her and relying on a court-like interpretation of the available information can both have negative impacts on victims coming forwards, being heard, and most importantly perpetrators being held accountable. That's to say that even if you can comfortably rely on the legal interpretation you've previously outlined, there's a reasonable position that can't do that and sees the harm as you see the harm drawing attention to potentially inaccurate allegations can have.
|
My point is that we don't want people to recklessly throw around accusations of rape and other serious wrongdoing. I don't think that victims need to go out and find corroborating evidence in every case, or even most cases, but I do think it is reasonable to expect that in Ford's case. There are real reasons to doubt that this ever happened to Ford, all of which are should be manifestly evident to Ford herself. That she went public anyway in the manner described above is why people should have such a problem with her accusations.
As for your response to #4 specifically, she had retained counsel weeks (if not months) prior to going public. She knows what she is doing.
|
On September 26 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
My point is that we don't want people to recklessly throw around accusations of rape and other serious wrongdoing. I don't think that victims need to go out and find corroborating evidence in every case, or even most cases, but I do think it is reasonable to expect that in Ford's case. There are real reasons to doubt that this ever happened to Ford, all of which are should be manifestly evident to Ford herself. That she went public anyway in the manner described above is why people should have such a problem with her accusations.
As for your response to #4 specifically, she had retained counsel weeks (if not months) prior to going public. She knows what she is doing.
Counsel doesn't guarantee competency. She's being used/exploited regardless of the validity of her allegations imo.
You're indeed correct that we don't want people to recklessly throw around rape accusations. I presume that we also agree that we don't want rapists or sexual assaulters to go free/not be held accountable because there isn't enough corroborating evidence or women are scared to come forward because of the people who will look for any hole in their story and strictly see things from a "what can you prove" perspective.
So which of those two is a more prevalent problem in your view?
False rape accusations ruining the career/lives of affluent white men or affluent white men using plausible deniability and longstanding social prejudices to avoid being held accountable for sexual abuse?
|
On September 26 2018 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
My point is that we don't want people to recklessly throw around accusations of rape and other serious wrongdoing. I don't think that victims need to go out and find corroborating evidence in every case, or even most cases, but I do think it is reasonable to expect that in Ford's case. There are real reasons to doubt that this ever happened to Ford, all of which are should be manifestly evident to Ford herself. That she went public anyway in the manner described above is why people should have such a problem with her accusations.
As for your response to #4 specifically, she had retained counsel weeks (if not months) prior to going public. She knows what she is doing. Counsel doesn't guarantee competency. She's being used/exploited regardless of the validity of her allegations imo. You're indeed correct that we don't want people to recklessly throw around rape accusations. I presume that we also agree that we don't want rapists or sexual assaulters to go free/not be held accountable because there isn't enough corroborating evidence or women are scared to come forward because of the people who will look for any hole in their story and strictly see things from a "what can you prove" perspective. So which of those two is a more prevalent problem in your view? False rape accusations ruining the career/lives of affluent white men or affluent white men using plausible deniability and longstanding social prejudices to avoid being held accountable for sexual abuse?
I'm just going to ignore the "affluent white men" thing because I'm in favor of equal justice under the law, and this isn't about privilege or the abuse thereof anyway.
In my mind, "holding people accountable" entails honoring due process. The US isn't some banana republic where people are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. The rule of law -- in almost every circumstance -- requires that the accuser (regardless of forum) prove the wrongdoing by one quantum of proof or another. Sheer societal decency and public order require that this structure remain in place in non-judicial settings as well. To do otherwise leads to the degeneration of society into mob rule.
So taking this macro perspective, I find it quite easy to keep the burden on the accuser rather than compel the accused to prove his innocence.
|
On September 26 2018 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
My point is that we don't want people to recklessly throw around accusations of rape and other serious wrongdoing. I don't think that victims need to go out and find corroborating evidence in every case, or even most cases, but I do think it is reasonable to expect that in Ford's case. There are real reasons to doubt that this ever happened to Ford, all of which are should be manifestly evident to Ford herself. That she went public anyway in the manner described above is why people should have such a problem with her accusations.
As for your response to #4 specifically, she had retained counsel weeks (if not months) prior to going public. She knows what she is doing. Counsel doesn't guarantee competency. She's being used/exploited regardless of the validity of her allegations imo. You're indeed correct that we don't want people to recklessly throw around rape accusations. I presume that we also agree that we don't want rapists or sexual assaulters to go free/not be held accountable because there isn't enough corroborating evidence or women are scared to come forward because of the people who will look for any hole in their story and strictly see things from a "what can you prove" perspective. So which of those two is a more prevalent problem in your view? False rape accusations ruining the career/lives of affluent white men or affluent white men using plausible deniability and longstanding social prejudices to avoid being held accountable for sexual abuse? I'm just going to ignore the "affluent white men" thing because I'm in favor of equal justice under the law, and this isn't about privilege or the abuse thereof anyway. In my mind, "holding people accountable" entails honoring due process. The US isn't some banana republic where people are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. The rule of law -- in almost every circumstance -- requires that the accuser (regardless of forum) prove the wrongdoing by one quantum of proof or another. Sheer societal decency and public order require that this structure remain in place in non-judicial settings as well. To do otherwise leads to the degeneration of society into mob rule. So taking this macro perspective, I find it quite easy to keep the burden on the accuser rather than compel the accused to prove his innocence.
Despite your desires "affluent white men" makes a difference in reality. Unless you're trying to suggest that affluent white men are treated equally in the eyes of the law (regarding practical outcomes) as impoverished Black men. Ideally sure, in reality you'll have a hard time supporting that.
The courtroom and the living room aren't the same place and they shouldn't be.
So as to the practical reality of the situation you'd prefer that we continue the status quo rates of reporting and accountability than error on the side of the accuser (at least socially, though still not legally) because you think the consequences of the former are better than the latter. That's the crux of the disagreement.
The millions of women getting assaulted and the people doing it getting away with it (both legally AND socially) is less acceptable to me than the consequences of your level of skepticism. Which are that the rates of those assaults and women being too scared to report remain relatively unchanged as do the people held accountable for assaults that occur under comparable circumstances.
Alternatively perhaps the false allegation increases (let's say doubles) the overall damage to individuals lives is still drastically less in my view than the status quo.
EDIT: For all we've talked about the credibility of her claims we're being awfully forgiving of Kavenaugh pretending to be a choir boy instead of just owning up to his actual past (separate from Ford's allegations).
|
Are you in favor of vigilantism?
|
On September 26 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:
Are you in favor of vigilantism?
Well I'm fond of revolutionary socialism which would probably fall somewhere under your perception of vigilantism, so in that way, probably yes.
As to the situation at hand, not if you're asking about the people threatening Ford's life or rallying the neighborhood to Kavanaugh's doorstep so we can drag him in the street and beat him based on believing Ford's allegations.
EDIT: I sense this might have to do with this part:
(at least socially, though still not legally)
I don't think we're anywhere near the legal system changing significantly. I'm talking about the balance of social repercussions shifting slightly away from heavily favoring affluent men. I'm not talking about locking up/beating down every guy who has allegations against them.
|
On September 26 2018 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Well I'm fond of revolutionary socialism which would probably fall somewhere under your perception of vigilantism, so in that way, probably yes. As to the situation at hand, not if you're asking about the people threatening Ford's life or rallying the neighborhood to Kavanaugh's doorstep so we can drag him in the street and beat him based on believing Ford's allegations. EDIT: I sense this might have to do with this part: I don't think we're anywhere near the legal system changing significantly, I'm talking about the balance of social repercussions shifting slightly away from heavily favoring affluent men. I'm not talking about locking up/beating down every guy who has allegations against them.
I’m just asking generally.
And you do understand that vigilantism undermines public order and peace?
|
On September 26 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:
Are you in favor of vigilantism? Well I'm fond of revolutionary socialism which would probably fall somewhere under your perception of vigilantism, so in that way, probably yes. As to the situation at hand, not if you're asking about the people threatening Ford's life or rallying the neighborhood to Kavanaugh's doorstep so we can drag him in the street and beat him based on believing Ford's allegations. EDIT: I sense this might have to do with this part: (at least socially, though still not legally) I don't think we're anywhere near the legal system changing significantly, I'm talking about the balance of social repercussions shifting slightly away from heavily favoring affluent men. I'm not talking about locking up/beating down every guy who has allegations against them. I’m just asking generally. And you do understand that vigilantism undermines public order and peace?
Well, I think it depends on the circumstances.
Sometimes (ridiculously frequently imo) the justice system undermines public order and peace, so it's a matter of balancing consequences in my view.
|
On September 26 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:
Are you in favor of vigilantism? Well I'm fond of revolutionary socialism which would probably fall somewhere under your perception of vigilantism, so in that way, probably yes. As to the situation at hand, not if you're asking about the people threatening Ford's life or rallying the neighborhood to Kavanaugh's doorstep so we can drag him in the street and beat him based on believing Ford's allegations. EDIT: I sense this might have to do with this part: (at least socially, though still not legally) I don't think we're anywhere near the legal system changing significantly, I'm talking about the balance of social repercussions shifting slightly away from heavily favoring affluent men. I'm not talking about locking up/beating down every guy who has allegations against them. I’m just asking generally. And you do understand that vigilantism undermines public order and peace? Well, I think it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes (ridiculously frequently imo) the justice system undermines public order and peace, so it's a matter of balancing consequences in my view.
I wouldn't say it undermines peace on the surface. However, the justice system definitely creates, in MLK's words, a "negative peace" that is just as harmful.
|
Vigilantism clearly undermines law and order. You don’t even have to get to lynching to see the severity of the effects. One thing that will unequivocally come out of the Kavanaugh nomination process is this: the GOP electorate will further harden and fall into Trump’s camp. Everyone on the right now understands why a pugilist like Trump is necessary, even if it means sacrificing principle.
|
Also, the selection of an Arizona DA to handle questioning on Thursday means that Flake has fallen into line.
|
On September 26 2018 10:53 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2018 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:
Are you in favor of vigilantism? Well I'm fond of revolutionary socialism which would probably fall somewhere under your perception of vigilantism, so in that way, probably yes. As to the situation at hand, not if you're asking about the people threatening Ford's life or rallying the neighborhood to Kavanaugh's doorstep so we can drag him in the street and beat him based on believing Ford's allegations. EDIT: I sense this might have to do with this part: (at least socially, though still not legally) I don't think we're anywhere near the legal system changing significantly, I'm talking about the balance of social repercussions shifting slightly away from heavily favoring affluent men. I'm not talking about locking up/beating down every guy who has allegations against them. I’m just asking generally. And you do understand that vigilantism undermines public order and peace? Well, I think it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes (ridiculously frequently imo) the justice system undermines public order and peace, so it's a matter of balancing consequences in my view. I wouldn't say it undermines peace on the surface. However, the justice system definitely creates, in MLK's words, a "negative peace" that is just as harmful.
may have intentionally avoided that term to try to negate any baggage anyone might have with it. But yes that would be a way of describing what I'm talking about.
It would be wrong for us to not recognize that for many people from a practical "this is how it impacts my daily life" pov the two are nearly indistinguishable. It's most acutely apparent to those on the wrong side of the enforcement of that negative peace.
I happen to agree with the sentiment that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" but process doesn't equal justice imo and I think that's part of where xDaunt (and most liberals for that matter) and I differ. xDaunt seems to think that the legal system provides mostly adequate process to ensure outcomes are just, even if they are inaccurate in their accounting of events. I'm reasonably familiar with a whole lot of life experiences and data that conflicts with xDaunt's position in my view. I simply can't reconcile the idea that law and order supersedes justice or that they are interchangeable concepts with the realities I've experienced or had shared with me. I can understand how that's generally different for people like xDaunt but I think that's more because he/they doesn't have to reconcile those conflicts in the same way so it's hard for him/them to see them in the first place.
Additionally really grappling with what it means to one's worldview can be overwhelming on it's own.
On September 26 2018 11:10 xDaunt wrote:
Vigilantism clearly undermines law and order. You don’t even have to get to lynching to see the severity of the effects. One thing that will unequivocally come out of the Kavanaugh nomination process is this: the GOP electorate will further harden and fall into Trump’s camp. Everyone on the right now understands why a pugilist like Trump is necessary, even if it means sacrificing principle.
Laws and processes are only as good as the people that make/enforce and follow them. Good laws enforced poorly may disrupt order and bad laws enforced well may maintain order, but neither nurture justice. It's for that reason (among others) that a law's existence and the properly processed enforcement of that law doesn't necessarily bring us closer to justice in my view, and in fact can move us further away.
I agree this is solidifying Trumps support rather than peeling it off though. Every battle establishment Republicans fight with Trump and lose makes it harder to pull away. There's virtually no viable ground outside of his circle of influence and what little is left is rapidly being eaten up by centrist Democrats. So that the anti-Trump Republicans are basically indistinguishable from "blue dog" or whatever they call the 90's era Republicans with D's next to their name
|
Trump at the UN security council reminds me of (watching old video of) the UN during the 60's.
|
I like how willfully obtuse the Swetnick declaration is. The crux of her claims is dependent upon other witnesses, but she doesn't name any of them. The bottom line is that she didn't witness anything. At most she heard things from other people. And of course, the demand here, as always, is delay, delay delay. None of these accusers has done anything to even help with the "investigation." Ford won't provide her psych records or polygraph test results. Ramirez won't testify. And Swetnick/Avenatti won't name names beyond Kavanaugh and Judge.
|
On September 27 2018 01:17 xDaunt wrote:
I like how willfully obtuse the Swetnick declaration is. The crux of her claims is dependent upon other witnesses, but she doesn't name any of them. The bottom line is that she didn't witness anything. At most she heard things from other people. And of course, the demand here, as always, is delay, delay delay. None of these accusers has done anything to even help with the "investigation." Ford won't provide her psych records or polygraph test results. Ramirez won't testify. And Swetnick/Avenatti won't name names beyond Kavanaugh and Judge.
She says she was drugged and raped by that group. Even if she doesn’t remember it clearly, she would know if she had sex once she was no longer drugged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
