| Forum Index > General Forum |
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
Canada1589 Posts
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 States4062 Posts
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 States10947 Posts
On July 13 2019 03:03 KwarK wrote: 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 States8939 Posts
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 Kingdom5136 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States8939 Posts
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
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 States8939 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17732 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States8939 Posts
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
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 States10947 Posts
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 States35244 Posts
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? No more than in the British. Victims in the UK have an equally hard time getting taken seriously. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada1589 Posts
So in a more "common" circumstance how should it work? Woman comes in and says a Democratic congressman sexually assaulted her. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom5136 Posts
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 States35244 Posts
On July 13 2019 04:46 Mohdoo wrote: 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? 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
Liberia16678 Posts
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 States6232 Posts
On July 13 2019 04:24 xDaunt wrote: 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. 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 States10710 Posts
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 States35244 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike: Global Offensive StarCraft 2 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
WCS Regional Challengers
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
Last vs Rush
Sharp vs ZeLoT
Alpha Pro Series
Solar vs Hurricane
Momentum Cup
BW Jeez Weekly
Corrupted Cup
StarCraft Sundays
Proxy Tempest
Alpha Pro Series
SouLeer vs Vindicta
[ Show More ] |
|
|
WCS
