|
rare Magic card l00k posted:It's really loving horrifying to hear that happened to you, and I'm glad there was a period of time where you felt a little better about talking to people about it. Hopefully. It's hard to have this conversation with out acknowledging how much sweeping the whole thing under the rug - whether you believe it not - was hurtful to a lot of people.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
CYBEReris posted:The frightening thing about rape culture is that this is the moral calculus that it relies on to stay alive. There's always "more important things", always something more "serious" to prioritize. And when rape culture is at its most powerful, it is always its victims that are thrown under the bus first. All of the calculus is ugly. It's a powerful politician, so everyone has an agenda on the line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 05:01
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:All of the calculus is ugly. It's a powerful politician, so everyone has an agenda on the line. Could you elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
It's pretty relevant that Tara Reade was turned down by an organization for help with the case, purely because Biden was running for higher office. I read this article when it came out and I was particularly furious. I pretty much felt pretty solidly that anyone who saw this at the time had a responsibility to stop supporting Biden in any way since apparently his possible victim wasn't allowed to seek any real redress. https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/ quote:
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 05:14
|
|
|
CYBEReris posted:Could you elaborate? Ordinarily an elected politician you voted for (or would vote for) is your guy/gal and people are likely to confuse personal character with politics, which is always a serious mistake to begin with. When a presidential election could hinge on a sexual assault accusation, it's difficult not to see in every statement an ulterior motive. When the presidential election may be "some hope of survival" vs. "probably the end of the republic as we know it," people are going to be less willing to entertain an accusation unless it's absolutely indisputable, and even then many will hold out because politics is a team sport. It muddies the water on everything and the status quo indeed survives on these "what is the greater evil?" considerations. In 2016 the GOP collectively held its nose to vote for Trump and we watched people construct elaborate fantasies for why even if he was that bad it didn't matter. Similar things happened for Bill Clinton. This is for politicians where their history of misconduct is far more verifiable and repeated. So at this time with one serious allegation and a lot of people saying that Joe Biden is too handsy (which is serious, but less serious than assault), it's not going to generate much movement. But if X more women show up and say Joe assaulted them, you will still have people who keep riding the ship, because the alternative is letting the other guy, who they are convinced is more evil yet, win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:2016 was a very different time. I was raped in 2003 and I only felt comfortable even talking to people close to me once the whole MeToo conversation got going. Everything felt like it was moving in a good direction for a minute there It took me a very long time to process, let alone talk about the times I've been sexually assaulted. It's extremely uncomfortable at best and downright traumatic at worst. I hope you're doing better, as even time doesn't exactly take the edge off of being so victimized.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 05:58
|
|
Like my grandma and my aunts - we all talked about things that had happened to us through out our lives and it was a really good moment.
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Well, since you put in the effort to make this post (which I appreciate), allow me to respond. Regarding item 12, suppose you work for an organization and the CEO is one day accused of having raped someone. Do you quit immediately and on the spot, knowing that every minute of your continual employment will benefit the organization, and by proxy, the CEO? What if it's not just the CEO who is an accused rapist, but a significant portion of leadership? What if you're someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and you and your family's survival depends on you remaining employed? I know a lot of folks are aggressive on the "you should basically always take the action that does the least amount of evil unless you really really can't" thing, but I didn't intend to argue for that. I agree that all the aspects of survival you mentioned are (appropriately) the most important things in our minds as we go about trying to choose what we do in life. And I certainly think it is uh, extremely reasonable, to imagine Trump winning and things getting (more) horrific for many people. With the CEO/company thing, the distinction I intend to draw is not between the person that leaves vs the person that stays. It's between the person that is there reluctantly (whether they eventually 'escape' or not) compared to the person that tells themselves it doesn't matter at all whether they are there or not. The latter person will have more comfort but I argue is more disconnected from reality. I don't actually mean to argue that we all need to fully feel reality all the time either; it'd be hard to make it through a day. But when it comes up, you should be able to acknowledge your impact even if it is painful and even if you did it for good reasons. I don't blame or judge Biden voters as a whole. I've had conversations with people who believe Reade but voted for Biden about the horrific pain that being faced with that choice caused them; it is pretty monstrous to be in that context and then lecture someone. It should never be presented as black and white, yeah. But I don't think it is appropriate to shield people from the ways they can and do influence culture, especially if it is only to win their support for a cause? Like for the other side, sure I want to win people over and have them never vote republican again, but I don't ever want to pretend that Trump voters aren't responsible for Trump's impact on our country. One aspect of Trump vs Biden was "person who explicitly acknowledges sexually assaulting someone" vs "person with sketchy history and a credible allegation". If we agree on that, I find it hard to understand how participating in that can be argued to not be supporting rape culture, even if I understand why people did it. Many survivors saw this play out and saw the vast amount of support and protection that both of these men received from voters and from the powerful. That sends a message and we all have to acknowledge that (and our part in it) before we can ever move forward. navigation fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I can understand being agnostic towards both or believing both, but outside of partisanship, I don't understand why someone would believe Christine Ford and not believe Tara Reade (or vice versa). Each case seems to have about the same amount of evidence, both have 30-40 years between the event and the public accusation. If anything, Reade has more contemporary witnesses. I too wonder if anyone found Ford credible enough to hold up Kavanaugh's confirmation, without finding Reade much more credible. So Reade honestly misremembered a stairwell as an alcove. I say honestly, because what other possibility is there? A lying Reade, putting together her story, would have reconstructed the layout of the passage from memory . . . and still accidentally recalled a stairwell as an alcove. Someone cooking up a story surely has no reason to randomly lie about the layout of a passageway. Clearly, it's possible for the memory there to be wrong, purely by accident. Now with Ford, the same fallible memory is a much bigger problem; you really have to trust memory to know that this teen-aged "Brett" she met for 10 minutes 30 years ago is the same middle-aged "Brett" on the news. Reade doesn't have the problem of identifying which Joe it was, or knowing when or where it happened. (I don't think Ford remembered what town she was in or what year it was or why she was there or how she got there.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 06:28
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:I too wonder if anyone found Ford credible enough to hold up Kavanaugh's confirmation, without finding Reade much more credible. Kamala Harris, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 06:55
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:I too wonder if anyone found Ford credible enough to hold up Kavanaugh's confirmation, without finding Reade much more credible. Setting aside everything else, there were plenty of reasons not to vote for Kavanaugh even if you believed him. 1) Total George W. Bush/Kenneth Star flunky who was nominated because they hoped he would block investigations into Trump under the unitary executive president sun king theory. 2) Almost certainly had some help wiping out like a million in outstanding gambling debts when his name entered the hat for consideration. 3) Despite the fact that Feinstein foolishly waited until almost the last minute to bring the allegations forward, the Republicans bungled the response so badly that there was no political cover to vote for this guy in the name of unity. 4) Kavanaugh has character issues. Pointedly, it's pretty obvious that Kavanaugh was a drunk in college and the backdrop for the Ford accusation was that Kavanaugh was shitfaced. It's possible Kavanaugh indeed has no recollection of being a rapist. quote:But when it came to alcohol consumption, his answers became vague and his frustration showed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-likes-beer-but-not-questions-about-his-drinking-habits/ As far as Joe Biden, his accuser has credibility issues that scared away news agencies and some legal representation, and the circumstantial evidence is that he's too handsy. While that's not nothing, it's also not equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
Just got to memory hole all the other accusations and ignore the existence of that secret Congressional sex crimes settlement arbitration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 08:28
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:Just got to memory hole all the other accusations and ignore the existence of that secret Congressional sex crimes settlement arbitration. quote:I am excited to read about the valid proof that I have missed in the last 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 08:36
|
|
|
Joe Biden's accuser doesn't have credibility issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 09:07
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:The evidence against Ellison was significantly weaker than that against Biden. It wasn't just weaker, it was shadier. The woman's son said a video of him committing assault existed. The woman said that the video did exist, but she could neither produce it (because she'd misplaced it in a move) nor should she (because it was nobody's business. The accusations, the existence of the video, and its contents were everyone's business, since she confirmed all of that, just not the actual video itself). It looks way worse to claim you have something and fail to produce it than simply claiming not to have corroborating evidence in the first place. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:57
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Joe Biden's accuser doesn't have credibility issues. i dont think theres a human being on this planet that doesnt have credibility issues
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
The Republicans were actively mindful to be more sensitive towards Kavanaugh's accuser an absolute loving magnitude or two more than the Democrats were towards Tara Reade, it's not even a contest. Republicans knew they might actually get judged by their actions. Democrats knew an establishment approved candidate would get a free pass. And this was right about when they made drat well sure Bernie was ruled out, and after the 'body language expert' to prove Bernie was a secret Jewish rapist landed with a dull thud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Cloaked posted:Like for the other side, sure I want to win people over and have them never vote republican again, but I don't ever want to pretend that Trump voters aren't responsible for Trump's impact on our country. The reverse of this is that people who didn’t participate or didn’t vote against Trump are also responsible. The fact that Biden was the nominee sucks for about a half dozen reasons, the allegations among them and the fact that the choice for president came down to two probable rapists. I can’t say that it reflects on the people who voted for him though, because the alternative appears to have been letting the country and the vast majority in it crash and burn and I can’t see how that’s helpful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:The reverse of this is that people who didn’t participate or didn’t vote against Trump are also responsible. If this is the case I would expect significant pressure on him from them now that he is in the most powerful seat in the world. Apart from folks who already supported Reade there have been crickets and tumbleweeds. Catgirl Al Capone fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:The reverse of this is that people who didn’t participate or didn’t vote against Trump are also responsible. I haven't exactly heard people trying to get him to resign because of it now that the election's over. It's just been more rationalizations for why rape should be excused when it's politically expedient, and why it doesn't matter anyway because we can't trust Reade. One of the things that I've never gotten a straight answer about from folks who don't think it's disqualifying for a candidate to have sexually assaulted somebody is what behavior should be 100% disqualifying. And if there is none, then who else should get the halo of immunity to consequences?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:i dont think theres a human being on this planet that doesnt have credibility issues Yeah it's something that defines us as creatures, that we twist reality to our viewpoint, willfully or unconsciously. You're allowed (encouraged) to hold uncertainty about a stranger's report even while accepting what they say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Joe Biden's accuser doesn't have credibility issues. When your legal team quits when it comes out that some other lawyers are going to try to get their cases retried because you lied about your credentials to a jury, you certainly have a case of the nebulous credibility issues. That's above and beyond misremembering details of the assault, which is pretty much a given for any accusation, but especially when it's 30-40+ years ago. This is turn gave the papers ammunition to write long character assassination stories about her, dragging in a bunch of un-substantive poo poo like what a bunch of people not at all involved in the case think of her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:When your legal team quits when it comes out that some other lawyers are going to try to get their cases retried because you lied about your credentials to a jury, you certainly have a case of the nebulous credibility issues. That's above and beyond misremembering details of the assault, which is pretty much a given for any accusation, but especially when it's 30-40+ years ago. This is turn gave the papers ammunition to write long character assassination stories about her. Again, I really must insist that character assassination attempts like this horseshit should be grounds for an automatic probe/ban. Her lying 30 years later has NOTHING to do with her accusation of being raped by Biden, and it’s absolutely 100% disgusting to say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Again, I really must insist that character assassination attempts like this horseshit should be grounds for an automatic probe/ban. Her lying 30 years later has NOTHING to do with her accusation of being raped by Biden, and it’s absolutely 100% disgusting to say otherwise. Agreed. This is absolute poo poo. Can we not do this here? And, again, Joe Biden's first presidential campaign imploded due to plagiarism and lying. It's really loving telling when his word is gold to folks who won't even entertain Reade's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Agreed. This is absolute poo poo. Can we not do this here? Yeah, Tara could be a convicted murderer for all I care. Murderers can be raped just as much as anyone else. And I will go as far as to say that if anyone brings up Taras lying about her credentials they ARE being a rape apologist and should get an automatic probe or ban. That poo poo should be zero tolerance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Again, I really must insist that character assassination attempts like this horseshit should be grounds for an automatic probe/ban. Her lying 30 years later has NOTHING to do with her accusation of being raped by Biden, and it’s absolutely 100% disgusting to say otherwise. You might not realize it but you undermine your position when you post like this, you come across like a fanatic. It does harm to the discussion generally and Tara Reade specifically. Insanite posted:Agreed. This is absolute poo poo. Can we not do this here? That post didn't mention Joe Biden. edit: vvvv but why are you implying that the poster believes Biden's word is gold? indiscriminately fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
indiscriminately posted:That post didn't mention Joe Biden. While this is technically correct, I'm not a goldfish and I know what context is. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
indiscriminately posted:You might not realize it but you undermine your position when you post like this, you come across like a fanatic. It does harm to the discussion generally and Tara Reade specifically. I am more than happy to be labeled a fanatic when it comes to not tolerating character assassination attempts by bringing up poo poo that’s unrelated to her rape. Bringing up unrelated things like that is exactly what prevents people from coming forward and it’s disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
I think re-hashing for the thousandth time whether or not individuals believe Tara Reade is mostly pointless except as an exercise to ferret out who never actually believed in the idea of believing women or the MeToo movement, or only saw it as a useful cudgel for beating Republicans with, and I think those people will out themselves eventually anyway. I also think it's beyond clear that anyone who truly believes someone is using the Reade issue as a cudgel is telling on themselves big time. Plus, there's been more than enough time for the antis to come up with any reasons to disbelieve Tara that aren't bog standard rape apologia excuses, and they've come up with absolutely nothing. I propose that moving forward, we assume ITT that she's telling the truth, and move on to the uncomfortable questions that follow. What does it mean that Tara Reade was frozen out of mainstream media in the US? What does it mean now that the man who sexually assaulted her is now the most powerful man in the world, and what does that mean for other people who have been abused, assaulted, or raped by powerful men? If it was important to keep Tara Reade out of the spotlight for the sake of getting rid of Trump, why hasn't anyone picked her story back up now that the election is over? Was the skepticism truly about electoral strategy, or was that a fig leaf to cover for the fact that some people just don't want to believe women? Did electing Biden reinforce America's rape culture problem? Et cetera. The default position imo should be "We believe Tara Reade. What does this mean for our current situation?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:[a good post] This is where I hope this thread could end up. I don't really have good answers to these questions--I find it sort of depressing just to dwell on them. There are large swathes of politically aware Americans who don't seem to mind that their elected leaders rape women, cavort with human traffickers, or, hell, just disrespect children's personal boundaries. As long as they're on their team, anyway. Is that chiefly because political tribalism trumps all? I don't know. It helps, but the wealthy and the powerful, as a rule, get away with this stuff whether or not political control is on the line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The Republicans were actively mindful to be more sensitive towards Kavanaugh's accuser an absolute loving magnitude or two more than the Democrats were towards Tara Reade, it's not even a contest. I don't remember many Democrats saying anything about Reade either way do you have examples?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I don't remember many Democrats saying anything about Reade either way do you have examples? Their silence speaks volumes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
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. As far as "why believe Ford and not necessarily Reade," which is the point of this discussion, we're also skimming over the very important detail that Ford testified on TV and basically nailed it. quote:I propose that moving forward, we assume ITT that she's telling the truth, and move on to the uncomfortable questions that follow. 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.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
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. Not backseat modding, just trying to encourage this discussion to be more and better than the thousandth argument between people who believe women vs people who don't
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:This isn't C-SPAM. Could you not? This is why productive conversations go to hell. Treating "the other forum" as lesser is childish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
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. I thought #metoo was a line in the sand that said "yes, we've had our share of problems, and moving forward those problems will be dealt with, no matter how painful it is." And then they nominated a man credibly accused of rape, so actually none of that stuff mattered at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I don't remember many Democrats saying anything about Reade either way do you have examples? Here's some https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/30/biden-democrat-supporters-tara-reade-assault-allegation/3056685001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ent/3056450001/ quote:Pelosi went on to say that "there was never any record and nobody ever came forward to say something about it apart from the principal involved." quote:"So when we say believe women, it's for this explicit intention of making sure there's space for all women to come forward to speak their truth, to be heard. And in this allegation, that is what Tara Reade has done," Gillibrand said. quote:"I believed then and I believe now that women deserve to be heard because too often they are not," Abrams said on CNN. "And Tara Reade deserved to have her story listened to and investigated."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
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. - undermines her right to be heard - Is a character assassination attempt - Has absolutely nothing to do with her being raped - Isn’t relevant to the Joe Biden accusation - Prevents others from coming forward because they fear the same thing will happen to them. quote: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. Don’t bring up other forums as a crutch to silence discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
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. That is my stance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
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. RT wasn't her main outlet though ??? Like that came much later. Also If you were raped by a very powerful person and went to every outlet in the US and everyone turned you down, what other choice do you have? Just pretend it never happened? Also I can't believe I even have to say this but we know for a fact that powerful people in this country have literally done catch and kills on stories for years. silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
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. So if a victim supports the wrong person they can’t be raped?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 17:19
|
|