|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you.
I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed.
I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck.
We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone immediately.
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 13 2019 00:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2019 23:43 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2019 23:29 Doodsmack wrote:On July 12 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2019 22:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Acosta is out. Good news! Man a lot of the bestest people do not work out for various often nefarious reasons. Trump should really look into his hires at his company because there is likely some pretty awful people there. Perhaps a HR firm or something could help him out. Acosta himself probably got a raw deal since there was apparently some work Epstein was doing with intelligence which made him a protected asset. And Acosta is (probably) forbidden from even revealing the existence of epsteins intelligence work, so he cant use that as a defense. It's a tough spot to be in, but it doesn't ultimately excuse what Acosta did. He's an attorney. He's obliged to do the right thing, even if it sucks. What are the rules on recusing ones self as a prosecutor? Like if the DA or the CIA tells you make this deal because they are our asset, you ask why, they say nation security, or need to know or something like that. I get you can't go against them but can your recuse yourself and not be complicit. I understand this is likely a CLM (career limiting move) but is it legal? It depends upon what the issue is. Generally speaking, there's nothing wrong with refusing to prosecute someone. DA's are afforded a ton of discretion in this regard. Nor is there anything per se wrong with offering a favorable plea deal. So insofar as we're talking about these things, I'm not sure that Acosta did anything wrong even if it looks unsavory in retrospect. However, where Acosta did mess up was in hiding the deal from the victims and their families. He broke the law when he did that. Makes sense, and that law makes sense. If it is like he said and the CIA or FBI told him to make this deal. Could he say no?
The CIA have no legal authority over him. Hell, they have no legal authority within the US generally. They definitely have no moral authority. You can always say no when asked to do something evil.
|
Trump now telling easily verifiable lies about his past relationship with Epstein, saying they were never friends. Trump only banned him from mar a logo after he was charged in 2006 and it went public. Trump has a healthy dose of Epstein slime on him. Also has hebephile slime on him - an interesting combination.
Since trump and Epstein had a falling out around the time of charges being filed (reported by nyt to possibly be business related), one can assume theres bad blood. Gives some more context to this statement:
Lots more details are coming out about where Epstein got his money. He was involved with ponzi schemers and other fraudsters. All looks to be very corrupt. Hopefully SDNY will uncover everything.
|
On July 13 2019 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Rather than push for Epstein to have the same sentence any of us would get, we should be using cases like Epstein's to show why our current justice system is extremely overly harsh for most people.
We can do both. The justice system can be both overly harsh for some crimes for normal people, and too lenient for other crimes for more connected people.
Allowing rich people to hire their own guards is just absurd. If rich people can't go into the same prison as other people, then they should push to make those prisons less horrible for everyone, instead of being allowed to go to their own luxury prisons. 13 months in a luxury prison, while being allowed to leave the prison for 12 hours a day is absurd for a serial child rapist.
And similarly, any prison time for a black guy found with some weed is also absurd.
I would agree that in general and on average, sentences are too harsh in the US justice system. But that does not mean that there are not some singular cases where the system is too lenient. It seems to be especially lenient with rich, well connected white men, to a point where this advantage cancels out the too harsh sentences for the average guy, and goes well and far into the area of "far too lenient".
|
|
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone.
Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed.
It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?”
|
On July 13 2019 00:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Rather than push for Epstein to have the same sentence any of us would get, we should be using cases like Epstein's to show why our current justice system is extremely overly harsh for most people. That would really blow peoples mind and ruin the whole for profit prison thing. If you alone said we can all agree that petty theft, small scale drug use, prostitution, and small drug selling is not as bad as what Epstein did therefore we will commute all the current "criminals" sentences to be less than his. I'm not advocating for this but it is an interesting thought experiment.
Hm, i really like it.
|
fox news front page: AOC
everyone else: Acosta
i guess i shouldn't be surprised
|
On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?”
How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty?
I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation".
|
On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation".
Again, one need look no further than what happened with Kavanaugh to see the lie in Kwark's point.
|
|
|
On July 13 2019 02:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation". Again, one need look no further than what happened with Kavanaugh to see the lie in Kwark's point.
Kavanaugh showed over defense as well. People would cite his career and background as a defense/evidence he would never do that. Instead, everyone should reserve judgment and not even comment on it until an investigation is complete.
|
On July 13 2019 02:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation". Again, one need look no further than what happened with Kavanaugh to see the lie in Kwark's point. Explain please.
There was zero corroborating evidence of any of the victims' allegations against Kavanaugh. And the independent evidence that existed tended to disprove the allegations. And I haven't even mentioned internal inconsistencies in the allegations themselves. Nonetheless, many, many people -- including prominent politicians that are now running for president -- boldly declared not only that the accusers (particularly Ford) should be believed, but that they believed them, and that Kavanaugh should be disqualified from the bench. The whole affair was vile and disgusting.
|
|
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation".
Believe every accusation isn’t what was said so I don’t know who you’re quoting there. It’s believe victims.
It’s not about criminal convictions of the accused, it’s about treating the victim with the dignity, compassion, and credibility that go with belief. It’s not about how you treat the accusation, it’s about how you treat the victim.
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 13 2019 02:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation". Again, one need look no further than what happened with Kavanaugh to see the lie in Kwark's point.
Am I to be held accountable for other people not knowing what believe victims entails?
|
On July 13 2019 02:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation". It’s not about criminal convictions of the accused, it’s about treating the victim with the dignity, compassion, and credibility that go with belief. It’s not believe every accusation though. It’s believe victims. It’s not about how you treat the accusation, it’s about how you treat the victim. You changed it before disagreeing with it but it is explicitly about doing something for the victims.
Can you elaborate?
As I see it:
1: I was raped by 3
2: I believe you were raped by 3
Or is it:
2: I believe you were raped by someone
?
Belief is not necessary for respect. I think I am misunderstanding your exact position.
|
On July 13 2019 02:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation". Again, one need look no further than what happened with Kavanaugh to see the lie in Kwark's point. Am I to be held accountable for other people not knowing what believe victims entails?
You're to be held accountable for conflating what you think it means with how most people actually use it. It's a blatant misrepresentation and whitewashing.
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 13 2019 02:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 02:40 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation". Again, one need look no further than what happened with Kavanaugh to see the lie in Kwark's point. Am I to be held accountable for other people not knowing what believe victims entails? You're to be held accountable for conflating what you think it means with how most people actually use it. It's a blatant misrepresentation and whitewashing.
I speak only for myself. My understanding of “believe victims” does not involve removing the legal process, just about how you treat someone who claims to have been a victim. I believe my understanding best conforms to the theoretical intent of the phrase and feminist theory. It addresses the specific problem of victims not being treated with dignity by law enforcement and society. Your interpretation deals with the separate issue of low conviction rates which I believe is entirely irrelevant to “believe victims”.
If I become a Democratic Party spokesperson I’ll let you know. Until then you may presume that when I say something that is other than what they do I’m speaking for myself and disagreeing with them.
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 13 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2019 02:37 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you. I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed. I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck. We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone. Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed. It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?” How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty? I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation". It’s not about criminal convictions of the accused, it’s about treating the victim with the dignity, compassion, and credibility that go with belief. It’s not believe every accusation though. It’s believe victims. It’s not about how you treat the accusation, it’s about how you treat the victim. You changed it before disagreeing with it but it is explicitly about doing something for the victims. Can you elaborate? As I see it: 1: I was raped by 3 2: I believe you were raped by 3 Or is it: 2: I believe you were raped by someone ? Belief is not necessary for respect. I think I am misunderstanding your exact position.
It is “for the purpose of this discussion I’ll treat you with the respect and dignity I would any person sharing their personal experiences with me.”
Are you familiar with invalidation? You do not have to agree with someone’s experience to treat it as valid. The specific problem they’re dealing with is the systematic invalidation of victims reporting sexual abuse within society.
Believe victims is a shorthand for the proposed redress of that. If the intent was “lynch accused” then it would be that. But it’s not, it’s just believe victims. It’s what we would expect if we went into the police station to report that we were mugged or told people that our car got stolen. It’s not revolutionary, it’s the default society gives most of us most of the time. That if you say “I’d like to report a robbery” then the police treat you as if you were robbed. “Believe victims” is about the specific problem of victims of sexual assault not receiving that same treatment that we all expect and deserve from society and law enforcement.
That’s why I compared it to “black lives matter”. They’re both referencing an exception to the basic standards of common decency that privileged individuals take for granted. They’re both stating the obvious and there isn’t a deeper meaning behind it. The purpose is to summarize the disconnect between what we expect and what marginalized individuals experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
