US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1661

Prev 1 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1903 Next

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

JimmiC

Canada1812 Posts

July 12 2019 18:39 GMT

#33201

This might be over simplification on a complex issue but to me it is risk reward. If you choose to believe the "victims" then investigate and find out it was false it sucks for the accused and that is not good. But if you choose not to believe the victim, don't investigate and the accused was guilty you both punish the victim and let a rapist go free.

The first one sounds a lot less bad, but still bad. There is no perfect solution as long as there are sexual assaults and some people lie about them.

I mean in the end if Judge Kavanaugh is completely innocent, no doubt that sucks but he still became a SPC justice so it really wasn't that bad. But if he did it, man does that suck for the victim. way worse than for him. It is not as if there is no cost for a victim to come forward.

NewSunshine

United States4108 Posts

July 12 2019 18:52 GMT

#33202

On July 13 2019 03:39 JimmiC wrote:
This might be over simplification on a complex issue but to me it is risk reward. If you choose to believe the "victims" then investigate and find out it was false it sucks for the accused and that is not good. But if you choose not to believe the victim, don't investigate and the accused was guilty you both punish the victim and let a rapist go free.

The first one sounds a lot less bad, but still bad. There is no perfect solution as long as there are sexual assaults and some people lie about them.

I mean in the end if Judge Kavanaugh is completely innocent, no doubt that sucks but he still became a SPC justice so it really wasn't that bad. But if he did it, man does that suck for the victim. way worse than for him. It is not as if there is no cost for a victim to come forward.

Not to mention that in any government job I've ever heard of, one that isn't public office, if you had so much as a whiff of a sexual assault on you at any point, you'd be out on your ass no questions asked. Believing and respecting victims should go hand in hand with setting important people to a high standard.

Mohdoo

United States11201 Posts

July 12 2019 18:53 GMT

#33203

On July 13 2019 03:03 KwarK wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 13 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:

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.

It sounds like we have the same idea, just using different words to mean the same thing. I think everything you described can still exist while still witholding judgment.

In addition, I think using language other than "believe" would go a long way when talking to people like xDaunt. When I hear you say "believe", I think you are saying the accused is assumed to be guilty out of respect for the potential victim. But what you are ACTUALLY saying is that every potential victim is entitled to respect and proper process. If a hooker says a cop raped her, it should be investigated, not laughed off. But you are not saying we assume the cop is guilty. It is that you assume the victim isn't a shitbag and that they aren't making shit up. I really do think it is possible to take an agnostic perspective while also investigating.

brian

United States9015 Posts

July 12 2019 18:53 GMT

#33204

trying to argue that in believing victims we must declare the accused guilty is a farce, especially coming from a lawyer. we know we can treat the two sides separately and in fact most in the court room must.

this isn’t a new concept. it is the reverse of the exact same coin on which we have the presumption of innocence.

nobody ever saw the presumption of innocence and immediately decided ‘this victim is not a victim.’ because they understood that the presumption of innocence did not affect the veracity of the accuser. nobody ever had to argue against such an absurd claim because nobody was stupid enough to make it.

now we are.

swap ‘presumption’ for ‘belief,’ and tell me what you come away with. is it suddenly a stupid concept? of course not.

one can treat the victim as a victim even if they aren’t, just as one can treat a defendant as innocent, even if they aren’t.

i will go further and add that Daunt conflates this with people who outwardly came out to declare Kavanaugh guilty. they’re distinct things. claiming ‘everyone’ did that is a stretch further than i’m comfortable with, personally.

Dangermousecatdog

United Kingdom5501 Posts

July 12 2019 19:20 GMT

#33205

I don't get it. Is there something about the American psyche and culture where accusations of rape are dismissed, because this is what I am seeing from some people, or is this an internet thing?

brian

United States9015 Posts

July 12 2019 19:23 GMT

#33206

On July 13 2019 04:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't get it. Is there something about the American psyche and culture where accusations of rape are dismissed, because this is what I am seeing from some people, or is this an internet thing?

would you consider not wanting to investigate it dismissal? then yes.

xDaunt

United States17732 Posts

July 12 2019 19:24 GMT

#33207

On July 13 2019 03:53 brian wrote:
trying to argue that in believing victims we must declare the accused guilty is a farce, especially coming from a lawyer. we know we can treat the two sides separately and in fact most in the court room must.

this isn’t a new concept. it is the reverse of the exact same coin on which we have the presumption of innocence.

nobody ever saw the presumption of innocence and immediately decided ‘this victim is not a victim.’ because they understood that the presumption of innocence did not affect the veracity of the accuser. nobody ever had to argue against such an absurd claim because nobody was stupid enough to make it.

now we are.

swap ‘presumption’ for ‘belief,’ and tell me what you come away with. is it suddenly a stupid concept? of course not.

one can treat the victim as a victim even if they aren’t, just as one can treat a defendant as innocent, even if they aren’t.

Wtf are you talking about? This isn't a farce. This is exactly what happened with Kavanaugh. "Believing the victim" in that scenario didn't just mean Ford should be heard. It meant that Kavanaugh, as the alleged perpetrator, needed to be punished and denied a seat on the Supreme Court due to the accusations brought against him. Kavanaugh most decidedly was not afforded anything resembling a presumption of innocence.

brian

United States9015 Posts

July 12 2019 19:26 GMT

#33208

never mind, i think the post stands on its own with regards to that. you just have to get through the rest of it. i would be pretty shocked to have you come away with that same opinion in light of the rest. enough so that i really have to question what your understanding of the presumption of innocence means with regards to the accuser. in the sense that if you don’t mind i’m game to learn.

xDaunt

United States17732 Posts

July 12 2019 19:31 GMT

#33209

And again, the crucial part about the Kavanaugh case, which most of you still don't understand, is just how patently deficient and absurd the allegations against him were. Kavanaugh's case isn't like Epstein's or Cosby's where there's truly some compelling evidence of real wrongdoing.

brian

United States9015 Posts

July 12 2019 19:32 GMT

#33210

i dont see the relevance to the current question. how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs initially regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.

xDaunt

United States17732 Posts

July 12 2019 19:40 GMT

#33211

On July 13 2019 04:32 brian wrote:
how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.

Because the argument isn't over how things work in court. The argument is over how we should deal with these types of accusations socially or politically. The Kavanaugh case is so compelling on this point because it is an extreme case in which there was no compelling evidence of misconduct, thus the case exposed the absolute absurdity of the "all victims must be believed" mentality. The lesson is that there clearly must be some quantum of reliable evidence before the victim is to be believed and before society should take some adverse social or political action against the accused. I don't know what that quantum of evidence should be, but it certainly wasn't there in Kavanaugh's case. In contrast, I'd say it is likely there in Epstein's case.

Mohdoo

United States11201 Posts

July 12 2019 19:46 GMT

#33212

On July 13 2019 04:32 brian wrote:
i dont see the relevance to the current question. how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs initially regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.

The way I see it, it should be like this:

Person 1: There is a pickle in this steel box
Person 2: I do not believe you, but I also do not disbelieve you
Person 1: I would like for someone to determine if there is a pickle in this steel box
Person 2: ok

In this case, no one has any capability to know one way or the other before opening the box, so it is entirely possible to neither believe or disbelieve. You just don't know. You have no way to know. You aren't skeptical, but you also aren't convinced. You don't have nearly enough information. So you just kinda leave it as a question mark and then investigate. I just don't understand the idea that we must first start wither other belief or disbelief. What if we just decide to find out and leave it at that?

KwarK

United States35679 Posts

July 12 2019 19:52 GMT

#33213

No more than in the British. Victims in the UK have an equally hard time getting taken seriously.

JimmiC

Canada1812 Posts

July 12 2019 20:05 GMT

#33214

Kavanaugh's case is pretty unique. Both how long ago it happened and that the bar was not should this person go to jail. It was should this person be put on the Supreme court as a judge for his entire life. I'm entirely unsure why you wouldn't want to hold him to a higher standard to be honest.

So in a more "common" circumstance how should it work? Woman comes in and says a Democratic congressman sexually assaulted her.

Dangermousecatdog

United Kingdom5501 Posts

July 12 2019 20:10 GMT

#33215

I miswrote and I wasn't clear. I meant the bit where people then argue over whether it should be dismissed or not. That it should not be investigated. Some victims may or may not get taken seriously, but the idea that then it should be argued whether accusations of rape SHOULD be taken seriously, just beggers...belief.

There is no other side in UK. There is no "side" for xdaunt's position of no investigation. Serious criminal accusations, whether rape or murder, should be taken seriously. The rich and powerful and politically powerful should not have accusations dismissed. It's mindboggling that it can be argued otherwise.

KwarK

United States35679 Posts

July 12 2019 22:12 GMT

#33216

On July 13 2019 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think you’re still defining believe more narrowly than it is intended here. The expectation isn’t faith, it’s taking the description of the experience at face value. No differently than you’d expect if reporting that someone ran a red light and hit your car. You’re not demanding that there be no investigation, but you’re also not expecting to have someone condescendingly ask if you’re sure that you didn’t want them to hit your car because you love the attention.

GreenHorizons

United States17505 Posts

July 12 2019 22:45 GMT

#33217

I think the whole social/political aspect of allegations more closely parallel civil law than criminal. That is to say it's not about proving something beyond a shadow of a/reasonable doubt or strictly limited to proof of a specific allegation (that's what the criminal court and burdens are for).

It's about the social perception of the actors in question and the arguments presented (which can be greatly aided by facts and evidence but are not strictly limited to them or required to bring a pile of them).

One instance that comes to my mind is that while the criminal justice system stopped at James Earl Ray, the civil system affirmed that MLK jr was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies.

Another is OJ where he was exonerated in criminal court and guilty civilly and as far as most of society was concerned.

Ford Pinto a case where they weren't found criminally liable but were found civilly liable/settled and recovered their reputation more or less.

EDIT: To wrap that to Kavanaugh, there's no argument based on our existing system to put him in jail or anything, but more than enough evidence was presented to keep him off the Supreme Court imo.

Stratos_speAr

United States6242 Posts

July 13 2019 00:49 GMT

#33218

On July 13 2019 04:24 xDaunt wrote:

Show nested quote +

Kavanaugh wasn't going to be punished.

The idea that him not getting a Supreme Court seat is "punishment" or "unfair" screams arrogance, extreme self-entitlement, and an embarrassing level of privilege that honestly should be quite shameful. The childish manner that Kavanaugh responded with just makes it exponentially worse.

It's an incredible indictment of the moral integrity of the entire conservative movement that they couldn't just find a quality candidate without this issue and instead rammed through someone clearly completely unworthy of being a Supreme Court Justice into that seat.

Danglars

United States10822 Posts

July 13 2019 01:31 GMT

#33219

We can't even get to the point where Kavanaugh was denied justice, and Ford was denied a long investigation by (primarily) Feinstein. You couldn't even get a fucking warrant if this had been a criminal investigation based on the testimony against him, and everybody still pussyfoots around the idea that it was a promotion and rape accusations have no impact on a man besides denying promotion. He every bit deserved that appointment and justice was finally served. I am regularly thankful that the chorus of ignorant and malign voices, very well represented in this forum, did not gain their baleful result.

This week's longest stay at #1 for Amazon books is Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. It has insider testimony on the fight for the votes of individual Senators. It's rather amazing how many people opened up for the authors. It even goes back into the most comparable confirmation hearings, those of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. I recommend it to anyone here that wishes to give due time to opposing arguments.

KwarK

United States35679 Posts

July 13 2019 01:35 GMT

#33220

Kavanaugh did not deserve to be on the SCOTUS lol. Firstly, nobody deserves that kind of appointment. Positions as a public servant aren't something people are owed, they're a duty and a responsibility. Secondly, Kavanaugh is very clearly not one of the top legal minds of the nation.

Prev 1 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1903 Next

Please or register to reply.

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1661

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming