|
Insanite posted:This is where I hope this thread could end up. I don't know if this is actually contributing anything different than what you're already saying, but I think this is much bigger than just "political tribalism". If we look back at recent history, we see patterns of the same sort of behavior exhibited towards those who came forward about Weinstein, Cosby, etc. Which yes, Weinstein was a huge political donor, but there were other considerations, such as power/money/making or breaking careers. Cosby was less politically active as Weinstein, but still had the power/"family friendly" image. The only reason why they tumbled was because the scale was so enormous, that it was impossible to look away. If we look beyond that though, I think it's fairly common to hear this happen among people within our own communities as well. Sexual assault/rape is very common. And how often do we hear "oh but he's a good guy, he would never do that to a woman"? I know I have in multiple circles, such as growing up in a small town or being involved in a punk scene. I guess my overarching point is, I believe the issue of a rapist being elected to a political office will continue as long as our society devalues women and downplays the severity of sexual assault/rape. Having someone elected who raped a woman isn't the core problem, it's the symptom of a much larger problem. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Feb 8, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
I do remember media saying they had interviewed a hundred people who'd known Reade at some point, and acted if that gave any credibility rather than being the actions of a desperate loving stalker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
I think the "you supported a rapist" attack is rough and I'm tired of litigating that particular point post-election. I didn't vote for Biden but I know sexual assault survivors who did, and they hated it but were firmly enough in the camp of lesser evilism that they felt they had no choice. I don't feel like handing out judgement on it. It sucks, it's a bad situation, and the guy simply never should have been nominated because it should have been disqualifying. But yeah, where do we go from here? It wasn't disqualifying, we were put in a situation where we chose between a rapist, a rapist, and nobodies without a chance, and we now have arguments over whether the rapist was really a rapist because admitting it to ourselves is harder than dealing with the fallout of the death of principles. I don't know how to recover from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
It should have been disqualifying because she talked about it before the primaries were even under way. He should have literally just not been in the presidential primary field. I feel like at this point now we are just going to have a Clarence Thomas situation. Someone who I think most of us are fairly certain sexually assaulted a woman and still ends up continuing to be one of the most powerful people on our government. And I don't know about you all, that erodes all faith I have in the government. Not that I had much in the first place but its another reminder that we are collectively OK with this a as a country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I propose that people not try to backseat mod the thread to cut out people who want to discuss the topic in more detail, share their observations, or express a different opinion. This isn't C-SPAM. If you're really hurting to see a bunch of guys write about women lying about being raped, a Reddit account is free to make. Lester Shy posted:After #metoo, I seriously thought we were going to have a difficult-but-necessary reckoning with all of the various abusers in the Dem party. Franken resigned. After Epstein's arrest, Christine Pelosi made a widely-mocked post about "some of our faves" being implicated, which, while cringeworthy, did indicate we were going to rid ourselves of the Bill Clintons and Bill Richardsons of the party. #metoo as a movement was always going to be ditched the second it became politically untenable because of who the movement was built around: wealthy white women in or connected to media, who could leverage their public profile and twitter followers and -- most importantly, in most cases -- afford lawyers and so could actually get something to stick to their rapists. But because it was foundationally wealthy, media-connected white women, it folded when it meaningfully ran up against the political vehicle of wealthy, media-connected white women: the Democratic party. Franken could be ditched because he wasn't crucial to the project, but Biden definitely was/is. I think the Christine Pelosi thing was just tipping their hand a little too much. They all know the part is infested with rapists, but if she knew that very little would ever happen to Dem politicians outside eg. Franken, I don't think she would have ever made that tweet. That said, #metoo was good still, because any rapist seeing some kind of consequence for their action is a win, and there was a good deal of momentum behind it that spilled over into other countries, other, non-media areas (campuses etc.), but it's dead as a movement. As a social phenomena it's still there and still full of potential, but will never catalyze into what everyone thought #metoo would have become -- what it needed to become -- without broad class solidarity and the tools it provides (unions, for one), so that women who don't have lucrative media jobs can still force their rapists to account for their crimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:The stuff with Reade's legal team/the perjury subplot is pretty much entirely the reason the media has gone dark on Reade since about May 2020, and I doubt NYT would have published this kind of article otherwise, because that episode is providing the "meat" to the story. To be clear, this isn't good, it's just what's happened. Hey, it's been almost a year. Can you point to a single charge of perjury that she has received or a single legal case that has been reopened because of her "perjury?" You don't even have to point to an appeal decision, just a filed appeal will do. And if you can't, at what point do you think that maybe what you are doing is gross? Also, this whole thing about her undergraduate degree is rape apologia in a nut shell. Nevermind that we don't know the details and don't know that, even if she did not receive a degree, she was intentionally lying about it. It is rape apologia because it is trying to equate bringing forward an accusation of rape with lying about credentials to advance one's career. It is rape apologia because it buys into the myth that bringing about rape accusations is good and advantageous for the victim. I am not going to get into anything else on this case. I am not going to argue whether it's true or not. But it is disgusting to see continuous rape apologia, no matter what one thinks of the situation, continue unabated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:There would've been more credence to her larger claim had she not decided RT to be her main outlet, and had she not begun actively supporting Putin before 2020. This is a repulsive attitude. What does any of this have to do with the rape, which took place in 1993, or the contemporary accusations, which are documented throughout the 90s and 2000s?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I believe that Reade was sexually harassed in the distant past but not sexually assaulted like with Ford. There would've been more credence to her larger claim had she not decided RT to be her main outlet, and had she not begun actively supporting Putin before 2020. I guess I don’t see how these things are connected. Could you elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I believe that Reade was sexually harassed in the distant past but not sexually assaulted like with Ford. There would've been more credence to her larger claim had she not decided RT to be her main outlet, and had she not begun actively supporting Putin before 2020. Also, a lot of sexual assault stuff has come out of twitter, so come on... we believe a lot of cases that are the internet equivalent of standing in the middle of street and yelling. As we should. Also, friendly reminder that if you really think that Reade lied about the sexual assault, like THE best case scenario is that Biden's office was a lovely place to work for women. The story about the sexual assault may not be consistent, but there is clear support that something happened. And there's a huge amount of women who support Biden's touching of women that is condescending at absolute best. And that's still lovely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:I guess I don’t see how these things are connected. Could you elaborate? okay fucksticks put on your big boy pants and strap the gently caress in because I'm about to take you to school on how tara reade worked with vladdy PUTIN to try and Russiagate this whole dickswizzling shitwagon of an election! 1/84 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I don't know how to recover from it. The olds die out, people move forward, and things get a little bit better next time, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:The olds die out, people move forward, and things get a little bit better next time, hopefully. It's not gonna magically get better. People have to actually fight for it or the status quo just gets passed down over and over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
As a sort of tack on to all of this - Do we know now if this made things better or worse in terms of transparency? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-harassment/congress-passes-bill-to-make-members-pay-sexual-misconduct-claims-idUSKBN1OC2V0 I assume worse? more context: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/416483-former-staffers-push-congress-for-action-on-sexual-harassment-measure
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:As a sort of tack on to all of this - Do we know now if this made things better or worse in terms of transparency? It doesn't appear any settlements has occurred since that bill passed (https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct, scroll down to the filter box to see sexual harassment/abuse specifically), so I guess unknown. The last one appears to be Pat Meehan, which occurred before that bill (and he ended up resigning when it was reported he used taxpayer money). E: As an aside, it looks like that Speier/Byrne enhancement bill extending this to all civil rights discrimination settlements (mentioned in that Reuters article) hasn't gone anywhere: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5464/text Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
I realise Biden's miserable political history is outside this thread's topic, but Biden's rape of Tara Reade is one personal and specific case that Democratic leadership and corporate media/PR chose to overlook. The fact he was still nominated reveals their complete lack of moral superiority/leadership. They have no grounds to lecture and anyone that gives them anything but extreme skepticism and contempt is a sycophantic worm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:
Grouchio fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
"Misdemeanor" is a hell of a label to give to rape and sexual harassment, not gonna lie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Whatever the case, I feel that Biden is atoning for his past actions with his policies, and that at the very least he has stopped his misdemeanors. - Rape isn't a misdemeanor - What policies of his shows that he is atoning for his past actions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:"Misdemeanor" is a hell of a label to give to rape and sexual harassment, not gonna lie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Fixed. Whoops. I feel like you are just trolling this thread at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Whatever the case, I feel that Biden is atoning for his past actions with his policies, and that at the very least he has stopped his It's hard to say given media silence on the issue, but given his history of being extremely skeevy around women (up to and including on live tv) it's hard to believe he stopped Biden has also openly said that he "is not sorry for anything [he's] ever done" in regards to his history of sexual harassment crepeface posted:I realise Biden's miserable political history is outside this thread's topic, but Biden's rape of Tara Reade is one personal and specific case that Democratic leadership and corporate media/PR chose to overlook. Part of why Reade was so heavily muted, besides daring to imply that the establishment's current favorite boy did anything wrong and the culture of shielding the powerful from any consequences, is she went against the "beacon of healing and unity" narrative the media was pushing. This is why his campaign was largely hiding him in a basement and painting him as Mr. Rogers, Biden is roughly just as combative and toxic as Trump and has a lifetime of vile policies to back it up Yinlock fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Hey, Not sure why you put the word perjury in scare quotes. You should preferably not do bullshit like that, because lying under oath is lying under oath, and it is a serious crime. Anyway, since you asked: https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca...z5SUCAgCg%3D%3D The defendant is Jennifer Vasquez from this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/tara-reade-s-qualifications-expert-witness-come-under-fire-n1212516 Reade's perjurious testimony contributed to the defendant being sentenced to life in prison. Also discussed here: https://www.montereycountyweekly.co...76b2cd779e.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:I feel like you are just trolling this thread at this point. Grouchio has a history of posting weird misogynistic poo poo, and specifically about Reade as well, which their rap sheet attests to. I don't think they should be taken very seriously in this thread (or indeed this subforum).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Not sure why you put the word perjury in scare quotes. You should preferably not do bullshit like that, because lying under oath is lying under oath, and it is a serious crime. Why is this relevant in the first place though
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Why is this relevant in the first place though Because character assassination is the number one way to silence sexual assault victims?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Why is this relevant in the first place though silicone thrills posted:Because character assassination is the number one way to silence sexual assault victims? I mean, joepinetree asked, and I provided.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
crepeface posted:I realise Biden's miserable political history is outside this thread's topic, but Biden's rape of Tara Reade is one personal and specific case that Democratic leadership and corporate media/PR chose to overlook. this is what I was posting about earlier, I feel the current status quo is "accept people who should be disqualified for many other reasons" which creates a pressure for survivors to come forward - like, biden's terrible political record should have been disqualifying enough. same with kavanaugh. it should never have been necessary that kavanaugh's nomination hypothetically hinged on interrogating someone during a hearing - his own court decisions are disqualifying enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Not sure why you put the word perjury in scare quotes. You should preferably not do bullshit like that, because lying under oath is lying under oath, and it is a serious crime. This response here is a great example of precisely what I am talking about. So let's start with the appeal that you linked, perhaps hoping that no one would click on it. quote:09/20/2019 Record on appeal filed. So whatever this was, it wasn't because of revelations that happened in 2020. Next, you link two stories about how they COULD be challenged. Stories that are close to 1 year old. You have yet to provide a single example of Tara Reade ACTUALLY being charged with perjury. Much like you did not provide any evidence of any appeals being filed AFTER the story broke. Now, I don't think that story is relevant at all to the case. But since people like you love to bring up the "perjury" at all times, how long without charges being filed against Reade do you think is enough to consider that maybe the whole thing was just a PR strategy thought up by the same people who advised Harvey Weinstein and not "perjury?" How long without a legal case being actually overturned for "perjury" for you to think "hey, maybe there was nothing there?" Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I mean, joepinetree asked, and I provided. No, you didn't. You provided nearly year old stories about how she totally could be charged. And a link to an appeal filed in 2019 without any linking documents or even Tara Reade's name attached at all. In fact, just to make it extremely clear: here's what you find when you search for stories with "Tara Reade" and "Perjury" after November 3rd, 2020 https://www.montereycountyweekly.co...d382bf5430.html So maybe it's time to retire the "perjury" accusation. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:This response here is a great example of precisely what I am talking about. So let's start with the appeal that you linked, perhaps hoping that no one would click on it. Apologies, I posted the wrong link! I blame lack of coffee.  https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca...zhSICAgCg%3D%3D Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on 8/7/2020. I'm not a California attorney so I don't have access to the case filing system, but maybe someone else does and can tell us if it is related to Reade. No reason to think it isn't though, considering the defendant. I don't have anything else to respond with, aside from pointing out that your hyper-aggressive tone is why I didn't engage in the previous iteration of this thread, and why I hesitated in engaging with this one. You use phrases like "people like you" to paint me as some sort of enemy. If you're gonna do that, then I think you and I are done here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Apologies, I posted the wrong link! I blame lack of coffee. What is the point of any of this? Tara Reade could've shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, but it still wouldn't have any bearing on the subject of this thread. Also, "No reason to think it isn't though, considering the defendant." Seriously? 
Insanite fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Insanite posted:What is the point of any of this? Tara Reade could've shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, but it still wouldn't have any bearing on the subject of this thread. The point is that he/she asked.  joepinetree posted:Can you point to a single charge of perjury that she has received or a single legal case that has been reopened because of her "perjury?" You don't even have to point to an appeal decision, just a filed appeal will do. And if you can't, at what point do you think that maybe what you are doing is gross?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Apologies, I posted the wrong link! I blame lack of coffee. " No reason to think it isn't though" isn't how things work, especially with regards to smearing rape victims. If you think my tone is hyperaggressive, imagine how a rape victim must feel when they are repeatedly accused of perjury even after a clearly political investigation found that they could not charge her with perjury. I don't care about discussing Joe Biden, much less in this forum. I don't care about discussing whether people believe Reade or not. I don't even care about discussing the particulars of this case. But the repetition, ad nauseum, of an old and legally discredited talking point thought up by literally the Harvey Weinstein PR team should be repulsive to anyone who claims to care about victims of sexual assault. Tara Reade was never charged with perjury. She will not be charged with perjury. A bogus political investigation was launched into whether she could be charged with perjury, and they found that they couldn't. Of course, I can't blame people for not knowing about that, after all the stories about how she was totally going to be charged with perjury got a lot more attention than the stories about how she couldn't be charged with perjury that came out after the election. I just ask that, when confronted with that basic information, they have the common decency to drop this revolting tactic. It shouldn't matter anyways (because her degrees or lack of them are immaterial), but at this point it should be clear beyond any doubt that this is just a smear, and not an actual legal possibility. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:The point is that he/she asked. In response to you getting cranky about "scare quotes" around perjury. Again, none of this really concerns the subject of the thread. You're making GBS threads it up, and it's not subtle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I don't have anything else to respond with, aside from pointing out that your hyper-aggressive tone is why I didn't engage in the previous iteration of this thread, and why I hesitated in engaging with this one. Yeah, strong emotion is natural and expected given the subject of the thread but the aggression is inappropriate, it sucks to read, it muddies the debate and discussion. I'm reading this thread because I want to learn about this from people who know more about it than I do and instead I'm mostly weighing whether I can trust the commentary of people I'm otherwise inclined to agree with, because they give such a poor impression of their reasoning and instincts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:" No reason to think it isn't though" isn't how things work, especially with regards to smearing rape victims. You asked if there is even a single appeal filed within the last year to reopen a case due to Reade's perjury. I linked what I thought might be one such appeal, and the reason I thought it might be related to Reade is because the defendant is someone who was convicted in part due to her testimony, and also the timing of the petition. I apologize that this doesn't meet your standards. If you don't believe Reade committed perjury at all, and that it was a political smear, then that is your prerogative, and it does explain why you use scare quotes. The other posters seem to think it is irrelevant either way though, so we should probably drop it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
The nature of this topic means that people who are closely personally affected by it and the issues surrounding it are going to have something to say. If people are too aggressive for your tastes in advocating for Tara Reade and make you want to not listen to them, that sounds like a you problem. Emotions are information too, and should not be discarded or disregarded because they make you personally feel uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:You asked if there is even a single appeal filed within the last year to reopen a case due to Reade's perjury. I linked what I thought might be one such appeal, and the reason I thought it might be related to Reade is because the defendant is someone who was convicted in part due to her testimony, and also the timing of the petition. I apologize that this doesn't meet your standards. It's not at all about whether I believe she committed perjury or not. It's about the fact that people insistently claim that she did, even after an investigation specifically on the issue decided not to charge her with it. She was not charged with perjury. She will not be charged with perjury. And unless you believe that rape victims need to have the burden of proof switched on them, it's a talking point that should be retired. Sorry if I can't discuss the smearing of rape victims with enough detachment for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:The nature of this topic means that people who are closely personally affected by it and the issues surrounding it are going to have something to say. If people are too aggressive for your tastes in advocating for Tara Reade and make you want to not listen to them, that sounds like a you problem. Emotions are information too, and should not be discarded or disregarded because they make you personally feel uncomfortable. What I wrote is that emotion is appropriate, aggression is inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
indiscriminately posted:Yeah, strong emotion is natural and expected given the subject of the thread but the aggression is inappropriate, it sucks to read, it muddies the debate and discussion. I'm reading this thread because I want to learn about this from people who know more about it than I do and instead I'm mostly weighing whether I can trust the commentary of people I'm otherwise inclined to agree with, because they give such a poor impression of their reasoning and instincts. If people getting emotional and combative about the subject matter makes you less inclined to believe them then this thread probably isn't for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
indiscriminately posted:What I wrote is that emotion is appropriate, aggression is inappropriate. Aggression is a natural and expected reaction to defense and hand-wringing of sexual violence. Curtail the latter and you'll have less of the former.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 19:55
|
|