|
indiscriminately posted:What I wrote is that emotion is appropriate, aggression is inappropriate. Maybe thing about it this way: When you see "they were no angel" articles after a cop shoots or kills someone who was just selling a cigarette or walking out of a store - does it make you angry? It does for most reasonable people. I get angry as hell when people "they were no angel" victims of sexual assault as well. Bringing up something she did or didn't do 20 years after the fact that absolutely NOTHING to do with the her statement that she was sexually assaulted.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Yinlock posted:Why is this relevant in the first place though Because Thorn Wishes Talon posted:these situations are rarely black and white. It is not "support rape culture vs. don't support rape culture." The vast majority of the time, people have to operate in murky gray areas, with imperfect information and conflicting priorities, and have to make the choice that they think is the most optimal one, either for themselves or their communities or both. Demanding that they instead put their foot town and make major sacrifices by picking a side and radically changing their behaviors based on that decision will only make you frustrated, because they won't do it. Believing Tara Reade would require a sacrifice, either commitment to #MeToo or self-image as a moral person, and this ideology holds that it is an impossibility to willingly sacrifice anything substantial. As such, it becomes necessary for someone who believes this to find a reason not to believe her. We have to remember what is important in all this. Not the woman, christ, it was never the woman. As Thorn has already made clear suggesting this has anything to do with believing women is a personal attack. quote:And labeling them "such-and-such apologist" and vehemently arguing that their behaviors are contributing to such-and-such culture will only make it harder for you to win them over — and you absolutely do need to win them over if you want to actually make actual progress. Challenging Thorn's unnamed third party on their story of Tara Reade being someone whose allegations can be happily ignored might be moral, it might be accurate, and it might be the kind of thing #MeToo demands. But calling out rape apologia as rape apologia might make it harder to win over rape apologists. What precisely they will be won over to by letting them smear a rape victim is unclear, but it's presumably important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
This isn't a real-time conversation, we can take as much time as we wish to think through what we want to say and to consider the intents of our interlocutors, and to remind ourselves that everyone reading and participating in this thread is a whole person too with their own history and tribulations, all of us humans, and that maybe it's best we don't indulge the reflexive urge to stick it to them for not being completely simpatico with ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
"perjury" is not "stating incorrect information under oath" and this stupid conflation of the two is not done in good faith because "perjury" sounds scary and bad tara reade did not lie about a liberal arts degree when she had a law degree, and there is no reason to believe that having a liberal arts degree is in any way relevant to the cases she was involved in anyway, or her statements before or since its a blatant smear job and if you can't smell it a mile away the problem isn't with tara reade
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
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 But your logic is incredibly shaky. Here is an awful story of a man in power operating for something that has good intentions, but used that position for awful things: I am spoiling the relevant quote because it does mention rape and homelessness quote:The move was a swift response to a New York Times investigation into the chief executive, Victor Rivera, who has gained prominence in recent years as his organization grew into one of the largest shelter providers in New York. Ten women — including employees and women who lived in shelters run by Mr. Rivera’s organization, the Bronx Parent Housing Network — had accused him of sexual assault or harassment, The Times found. In two instances, women said Mr. Rivera had coerced them into performing oral sex. Like if we want to get out a piece of paper and tally up the people who benefited from housing to the people Rivera took advantage of because of their housing situation, maybe we'll have more people who benefited? Does that matter? Of course not. The broader issue is that you are steering this conversation to be about Joe Biden who at the very best case scenario made some women feel like poo poo. Our focus should not be on the sanctity of Joe Biden's soul, but what it means for women who he hurt to live in a nation that he now leads. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
i think trying to parse individual culpability in your voting decision isn't particularly fruitful in this thread, because what you're really saying is 'how do you live ethically in the late capitalism of 2021 where every single one of your actions contributes to brutality to a lesser or greater extent because of interlinked externalities and the base horror of day to day life', and there's really no way to have a "right" answer to such an individualized question, and it can quickly turn into a game of 'oh well do you drink coca cola?! coke uses your $1 to pay for guards for their slave factories in south america'. its also why previous discussions of this topic went off the rails. again, i also think trying to litigate specific details is also a big mistake, but welp...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
One of the most uncomfortable questions and situations we find ourselves in thanks to Biden's election is that as far as I can tell, we seem to have lost nearly every inch of progress made by MeToo. Even though MeToo was a movement mainly for wealthy white women, it was still having positive effects in turning around peoples' attitudes by making it clear that apologetics such as smearing victims with unrelated accusations, JAQing off about past indiscretions, etc. were no longer acceptable. Apologetics like that used to be the norm, and for a while some progress was made towards making the norm "Believe women first and foremost, because they have nothing to gain from lying about this," which was making some serious headway everywhere. People were beginning to believe it, more victims were coming forward, and it really looked like it might be a watershed moment. Then it was decided that Tara Reade had to be shut up, and suddenly MeToo was shuttered. It feels like we're right back to square one, where people who Just Have Questions About Credibility feel emboldened to smear Tara Reade (and presumably other inconvenient victims) with impunity, and their opinions (dogshit as they are) must be addressed with seriousness instead of discarded for the victim-smearing bullshit it is. Like it or not, Tara Reade's treatment in the media, and everyone who unflinchingly swallowed and repeated the smears, have directly contributed to rape culture's perpetuation in this country. And people are right to be angry about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Aruan posted:i think trying to parse individual culpability in your voting decision isn't particularly fruitful in this thread, because what you're really saying is 'how do you live ethically in the late capitalism of 2021 where every single one of your actions contributes to brutality to a lesser or greater extent because of interlinked externalities and the base horror of day to day life', and there's really no way to have a "right" answer to such an individualized question, and it can quickly turn into a game of 'oh well do you drink coca cola?! coke uses your $1 to pay for guards for their slave factories in south america'. its also why previous discussions of this topic went off the rails. rationalizing your complicity is something you have to do yourself, absolutely, but if you're going to post in public "i think we can forgive a little rape because i believe biden's going to do some things that make me feel good sometime in the future" its a lot loving different
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:One of the most uncomfortable questions and situations we find ourselves in thanks to Biden's election is that as far as I can tell, we seem to have lost nearly every inch of progress made by MeToo. Even though MeToo was a movement mainly for wealthy white women, it was still having positive effects in turning around peoples' attitudes by making it clear that apologetics such as smearing victims with unrelated accusations, JAQing off about past indiscretions, etc. were no longer acceptable. Apologetics like that used to be the norm, and for a while some progress was made towards making the norm "Believe women first and foremost, because they have nothing to gain from lying about this," which was making some serious headway everywhere. People were beginning to believe it, more victims were coming forward, and it really looked like it might be a watershed moment. how many people in general even know about tara reade, though - isn't that one of the points in this thread, that the media didn't cover it? it was never a front page news story, it never really appeared on CNN or MSNBC, and none of the Republican outlets covered it or ran attack ads based on it
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
I think people absolving themselves of any culpability because "oops its late stage capitalism!" is a mistake and a big part of where we are right now as a society. I don't personally see supporting Biden as any different than continuing to buy Bill Cosby's comedy shows after women had started coming forward. You are knowingly supporting someone, whether it be giving them power or money or essentially both since money is power, who clearly hurt people. Even if you don't entirely believe Reade, at least 8 other women made it clear that he has violated personal boundaries in ways that made them uncomfortable for years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:I think people absolving themselves of any culpability because "oops its late stage capitalism!" is a mistake and a big part of where we are right now as a society. i think there are a million things that should disqualify biden from ever holding public office, including many personal things, but i do think its important to recognize that people are forced to make terrible decisions every single day to simply exist in america in 2021, and the real conversation should focus on people who have actual power to change things, i.e. politicians, media outlets, and not individuals. we're posters on a dying message board in 2021. culpability, responsibility and expectation are on a big, big, big sliding scale, and i imagine most of us are on the very end of it. Malleum posted:rationalizing your complicity is something you have to do yourself, absolutely, but if you're going to post in public "i think we can forgive a little rape because i believe biden's going to do some things that make me feel good sometime in the future" its a lot loving different good thing i didn't post that, then, right? i am saying i care a lot less about what individual posters on SA did or think, and i care a lot more what, for example, other democratic politicians think, because they, not us, are in a position to actually impact things. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
I don't even think it is difficult to square your personal moral compass with supporting biden, but if your morals are important to you I think the question then becomes why were you in the position where your choice was between him and trump, what structure is it that made you complicit? Because much like there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, it appears there is no ethical voting under... what? What do you identify as the system that limits your choices between varying forms of horror? Which organizations and people are working to preserve that system and why, why was it necessary that that system delivered the choice it did? The idea that there is no "good" choice does not simply terminate the thought process, it invites more questions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
I voted third party because I refuse to vote for a rapist republican. It doesn't seem like a huge moral problem to me. Don't vote for rapists is an incredibly low bar to clear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Even if you think Tara is 110% lying you should be for an actual investigation so you can be proven right and because all accusations deserve an investigation. If you think Tara is lying and there also shouldn't be an investigation you're lying about the first part. Then you're just mad she accused someone you want to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
I voted 3rd party because I personally believe when you vote for someone you are voting for them and endorsing them and their actions. You are saying "I believe this person is the right person to lead this country because their views align with my own and I endorse their actions" and alot of people clearly don't have that view. Which is fine I suppose but its not something I can personally square with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Aruan posted:i think there are a million things that should disqualify biden from ever holding public office, including many personal things, but i do think its important to recognize that people are forced to make terrible decisions every single day to simply exist in america in 2021, and the real conversation should focus on people who have actual power to change things, i.e. politicians, media outlets, and not individuals. we're posters on a dying message board in 2021. culpability, responsibility and expectation are on a big, big, big sliding scale, and i imagine most of us are on the very end of it. Fair take. What, then, is the strategic benefit to leaving rape apologia unchallenged? The idea that calling out rape apologia as rape apologia is somehow strategically counterproductive has been raised, and I am curious what goals would be advanced by allowing smears of rape victims to go uncontested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't even think it is difficult to square your personal moral compass with supporting biden, but if your morals are important to you I think the question then becomes why were you in the position where your choice was between him and trump, what structure is it that made you complicit? Because much like there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, it appears there is no ethical voting under... what? What do you identify as the system that limits your choices between varying forms of horror? Which organizations and people are working to preserve that system and why, why was it necessary that that system delivered the choice it did? i never said i support joe biden, i am saying that i don't think its fruitful to try to interrogate each individual goons specific choices and instead talk about the choices of people who have actual power in our society, and the institutions that have placed them into positions of power. things like culpability, responsibility and guilt are exist within the context of ability to influence the conditions that lead to these awful choices - its the same conversation we have had on this website many times about the personal culpability of individual soldiers vs. the culpability of, say, military leadership, or the president of the united states. also, i don't think its particularly surprising to anyone (or shouldn't be) that the very systems which force someone to decide between trump or biden also precludes a non-biden or non-trump option from being a realistic candidate. i imagine that is also true in the UK, where i believe you live.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:If you think Tara is lying and there also shouldn't be an investigation you're lying about the first part. Then you're just mad she accused someone you want to succeed. This describes a frustratingly large proportion of Dems. There was little tolerance for the story in the spring among traditional team blue audiences: #FireChrisHayes trends after MSNBC host covers Biden sexual assault allegations
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:Like it or not, Tara Reade's treatment in the media, and everyone who unflinchingly swallowed and repeated the smears, have directly contributed to rape culture's perpetuation in this country. And people are right to be angry about that. And not only to perpetuate a broken and rightfully maligned system out of any sincere belief or tautology, but instead, simply because they were the marching orders given. No spine and no resolve to stand up against something that, on its face, is repugnant in every sense of the word. One can argue against the necessity of promulgating the status quo in that they have livelihoods to protect, but if this is your livelihood, this is what you find acceptable to keep hearth and home, the point crumbles and falls apart as you show yourself willing to repeat anything and everything that may stand in the way of your survival.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Don't vote for rapists is an incredibly low bar to clear. This is the shaming attitude that makes me  You could apply this attitude with regards to nearly any action and/or product purchased in our society as well. And unless you believe that you are a perfect person that does not contribute to any harm (hint: it's not possible), having this smug of an attitude doesn't help anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
Dett Rite posted:Fair take. What, then, is the strategic benefit to leaving rape apologia unchallenged? i don't think calling out rape apologia is strategically unproductive, but i think its probably more useful to talk about rape apologia as it exists among people with power and authority, instead of individual posters on this website. if you'd rather focus on the latter, i guess thats fine, too, but that doesn't really seem to be a conversation that's going to lead anywhere. i don't really care how anyone here voted (or honestly, how people here think about tara reade, or trying to litigate details here at all), i care much more about how, say, the democratic caucus thinks about tara reade, or what progressive politicans think about reade, or what does it mean that bernie sanders supported biden. this thread is ostensibly supposed to about wider ranging conversations, but instead its people arguing back and forth about details of court cases. i also agree there should have been an investigation, because why not? Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
Insanite posted:This describes a frustratingly large proportion of Dems. There was little tolerance for the story in the spring among traditional team blue audiences: Yep and it's why I focus on an investigation. Even if you absolutely don't believe her you should want an investigation because that's how the system should work and that's how we decide guilt and innocence and no one should be above the law. Yet a bunch of team blue thinks there shouldn't be one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Dett Rite posted:Fair take. What, then, is the strategic benefit to leaving rape apologia unchallenged? If your party lacks a bench, you need apologia when many of the men in your highest echelons of power did bad stuff that was lazily covered up because the fashion at the time was to let boys be boys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This is the shaming attitude that makes me It is not remotely surprising that people adopt a personal-focused moral approach about things that are very personal to them. I do it all the time and I would be very surprised if you don't as well. I know that consequentialism is the more technically useful way to do it but I experience personal focused ethics more viscerally, especially when it is something that matters a lot to me. Saying people shouldn't do that is as useful as shouting at the tide, people are not obligated to be perfectly cold, calm and collected about things that matter a lot to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yep and it's why I focus on an investigation. Even if you absolutely don't believe her you should want an investigation because that's how the system should work and that's how we decide guilt and innocence and no one should be above the law. Yet a bunch of team blue thinks there shouldn't be one. I wouldn't have much faith in an investigation since rich people facing actual consequences under capitalism is insanely rare unless they pissed off someone richer, but I agree that one needs to happen nonetheless
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:I wouldn't have much faith in an investigation since rich people facing actual consequences under capitalism is insanely rare unless they pissed off someone richer, but I agree that one needs to happen nonetheless Seems like all reasons why someone who supports Biden would be cool with an investigation yet none of them are. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This is the shaming attitude that makes me My family member was sexually assaulted, so when people say stuff like this, it makes me feel like you are rolling your eyes at her sexual assault and that if the person who sexually assaulted her ever ran for office, I should ignore what he did. I'm sorry that "don't vote for people who have committed sexual assault" is somehow a slippery slope to you. Somebody fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is not remotely surprising that people adopt a personal-focused moral approach about things that are very personal to them. I do it all the time and I would be very surprised if you don't as well. I know that consequentialism is the more technically useful way to do it but I experience personal focused ethics more viscerally, especially when it is something that matters a lot to me. Saying people shouldn't do that is as useful as shouting at the tide, people are not obligated to be perfectly cold, calm and collected about things that matter a lot to them. I think you're missing the point: I don't think interrogating your specific personal ethics is particularly useful, because your ethics and your choices, SA user OwlFancier - regarding Tara Reade or even voting for Joe Biden (which from my understanding wasn't a choice you had to make, because you're not American) or anything else - have, for practical purposes, no impact on me. What I do care about is interrogating the choices and ethics of people who do have an impact on my life, which are people like politicians, media figures and CEOs of large corporations. If you want to live your life as a dyed in the wool Kantian, or if you want to sing "this is the best of all possible worlds", thats fine, thats your choice. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:I wouldn't have much faith in an investigation since rich people facing actual consequences under capitalism is insanely rare unless they pissed off someone richer, but I agree that one needs to happen nonetheless Makes me think of a certain DuPont heir that was left off the hook related to a certain someone currently in office, but that's neither here nor there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:Makes me think of a certain DuPont heir that was left off the hook related to a certain someone currently in office, but that's neither here nor there. I would hope that it wouldn't be particularly surprising or revelatory to anyone here that the political and capitalist class aren't particularly interested in interrogating the elements of our society which cover up sexual assault, because those same elements are part and parcel of their power. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:My family member was sexually assaulted, so when people say stuff like this it makes me feel like you are rolling your eyes at her being sexually assaulted. I'm sorry that "don't vote for people who have committed sexual assault" is somehow a slippery slope to you. As I mentioned upthread, I know multiple people who were sexually assaulted who themselves voted for Biden in the general because their calculus included other things, they had to weigh it all, and because of the way they look at politicians there's almost nothing that could have been an uncrossable line. It's not that simple. Somebody fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:As I mentioned up-thread, I know multiple people who have sexually assaulted who themselves voted for Biden in general because their calculus included other things. They had to weigh it all. Because of the way they look at politicians, there's almost nothing that could have been an uncrossable line. It's not that simple. And I am telling you that it is for me. Being a decent human being and not sexually assaulting people is a shallow bar to cross. It's not just a line in the sand for me, and it's a gigantic wall. Edit* What's even shittier is the Dems forcing sexual assault victims to vote for a person who is a sex-pest, that's an INCREDIBLY lovely thing for the Dems to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:And I am telling you that it is for me. Being a decent human being and not sexually assaulting people is a shallow bar to cross. It's not just a line in the sand for me, and it's a gigantic wall. It can be a simple issue for you, but you should also be able to understand it it isn't for everyone, or even for most people. Attacking them underhandedly with statements like "don't vote for rapists is an incredibly low bar to clear", which implies that voting for Biden is some sort of moral failing, is how you lose your audience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:It can be a simple issue for you, but you should also be able to understand it it isn't for everyone, or even for most people. Attacking them underhandedly with statements like "don't vote for rapists is an incredibly low bar to clear", which implies that voting for Biden is some sort of moral failing, is how you lose your audience. Anybody could have voted 3rd party. Nobody was forcing them to vote for Biden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Anybody could have voted 3rd party. Nobody was forcing them to vote for Biden. Didn't you just say that Dems did? DoomTrainPhD posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
I think people who voted for a rapist should be held to account for it not out of some sick desire for punishment but in the hope that in having to confront it instead of memory hole it away they're galvanized to prevent such a choice from having to be made again
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
That depends on whether you prioritize the act of not voting for a rapist, or affecting which rapist takes office. Which depends broadly on how you do your ethics in that instance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Didn't you just say that Dems did? You're right. I should have said: What's even shittier is the Dems nominating a person who is a sex-pest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:What's even shittier is the Dems forcing sexual assault victims to vote for a person who is a sex-pest, that's an INCREDIBLY lovely thing for the Dems to do. Right. This was not a choice that voters should've had to make. This was supposedly a party aligned with Me Too. The Dems were happy to use the movement as a weapon against the GOP, but took it behind a barn and shot it as soon as it endangered their 'safe' presidential candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:One of the most uncomfortable questions and situations we find ourselves in thanks to Biden's election is that as far as I can tell, we seem to have lost nearly every inch of progress made by MeToo. Even though MeToo was a movement mainly for wealthy white women, it was still having positive effects in turning around peoples' attitudes by making it clear that apologetics such as smearing victims with unrelated accusations, JAQing off about past indiscretions, etc. were no longer acceptable. Apologetics like that used to be the norm, and for a while some progress was made towards making the norm "Believe women first and foremost, because they have nothing to gain from lying about this," which was making some serious headway everywhere. People were beginning to believe it, more victims were coming forward, and it really looked like it might be a watershed moment. Organized pushback to #metoo began gaining real traction in my view when it was given cover from celebrities widely seen as leftist or "equal opportunity"/"apolitical," particularly comedians, where hosed up backstage personal interactions are the coin of the realm from the dive bar up to the late night writers' room. People with accusations are still doing far more than they were before #metoo, however, so it's not accurate to say it's dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 21:04
|
|
