|
Just generally the whole poo poo about "oh well the story wasn't totally consistent and we can't verify the exact specifics of X and Y" is just... like... yeah that's how witness accounts work, literally everywhere and always, you wouldn't expect things to be consistent all the time or even with material things like building layouts, memory isn't exact, it's a series of emotional impressions, but you as a memory haver don't need to know the finely calibrated specifics of an event to know that it happened. And it is difficult to know if people are just genuinely unaware of how unreliable memory is re: specifics, whether they are deliberately pretending not to know to discredit her, or whether they do know but are not making the connection because they are subconsciously skeptical of her for whatever reason and end up finding reasons to discredit her without realizing that's what they're doing, as if the problem of covering up or denying allegations is something only conscious conspirators who are overtly evil can do, rather than being an institutional effect created by a thousand little cognitive biases.
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
I would suggest it also very easily constitutes point 7, if a man can have unresolved sexual assault claims and still be elected president, that's a problem whether that person is trump or biden. Voting is a very quantified form of social advocacy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
You could apply this attitude with regards to any 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.
|
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
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Oh yea, of course I understand the concept of that approach. But the last part of DoomTrainPhD's post could have easily been left off, instead of having the unsaid part of it saying to other people "it's such a low bar, why don't you do it unless you support rape I also think that is entirely understandable given the common position of basically "well it's him or trump so let's not think about this any further" As I said, that doesn't finish the train of thought, it invites the question of why that was the choice, and I think there are certainly people out there who do not feel sufficiently uncomfortable about making the decision to ask that question, and they could do with being made uncomfortable. As I said earlier there is a mix of opposition to Reade that is comprised of people who don't get it, people who don't want to get it, and people who on some level get it but are still faltering when it comes to actually following through with that understanding, so it is quite difficult to adopt a single personal attitude that doesn't make one of those groups feel like they're being unfairly maligned. And personally I am more inclined to give people who have the right basic idea the greater leeway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 21:20
|
|
"
|
Putting him in the office is, materially, saying that it doesn't matter. Like that is what it does, I don't see how it is possible to say that it isn't what it does because he is now president and has all the powers and privileges attendant to the office. That it is entirely possible to say that the alternative was worse and even that you are not making the wrong decision by voting for the lesser evil, does not make that not true, it is necessary to keep reminding people that it is true because if you don't it's going to be 2024 and there will be another presidential race and that uncomfortable knowledge will be buried under new and old arguments and progress will not be made.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
I don't think it is particularly surprising that a decentralized movement was not capable of literally overthrowing the US political machine on the first go, especially when part of its prominence was reliant on support from the party under scrutiny. What it suggests is that the combined power of the entire US political system, and its media, is hard to overcome, not that it is inherently a limitation of the desire or even the method to do so. The idea that people can come out and receive support from other people without relying on the favour of some powerful group or person or other to win the right to put the truth out, is a pretty new thing. That it was (as seems clear now) cynically weaponised for partisan purposes and then sabotaged when it threatened the wrong people sucks poo poo, but that's on the people who did that, not on the people who tried to make it work, and I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with how they did try to make it work either. I hope that if people keep doing it it's gonna change attitudes, the more people are exposed to it and the more people are outed as pieces of poo poo the more I think we'll come to expect those institutional power structures to bend to that collective desire, the more they'll have to be openly hostile to people who want justice rather than just trying to keep it quiet. If people lose trust in outlets that don't cover important stuff like this then that's good, they deserve not to be trusted, that's how you build better networks of information. Every community and every institution that proves vulnerable to that march of truth helps to normalize it, and makes it more likely that one day it might be able to take on the biggest, most corrupt ones. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Or at the least, let it not be forgotten that there is a particular group of people who decided that it was sufficiently important to put him up as the candidate in the first place which is the reason why you're now having that discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Why not? Well at the very least he's still the sort of person that does that, which means he's likely to do it to other people, he is a public hazard and shouldn't hold office where he can misuse his authority, regardless of whether any individual people might accept apologies from him. Is this guy such a wonderful public official that you can't possibly replace him with someone who isn't a creep?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
If you think he shouldn't have resigned but he is a danger in a public office then you're continuing to make very little sense. Either he should be in the office or not. You can't have it both ways. If he's really sorry as you are so bound to think he is then he should see resignation as the proper thing to do. Being sorry isn't just making a frowny face while facing no consequences.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
If only it were possible to do both.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
You seem to be coming at this from the idea that the greatest wrong is that the guy could be unfairly maligned by gangs of women rather than that if a bunch of people come forward to say a dude sexually harassed them then his holding a public office is pretty untenable. The point of an investigation, if you are so fixated on having one, is to hopefully lend credence to the accusers or, in the unlikely event that they were all lying, clear the name of the accused. But this is in no way incompatible with the idea that given the power imbalance involved in sexual misconduct allegations that they should not be holding the office effective immediately. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
There are plenty of people whose primary contribution to this thread has been "oh wow reade likes putin isn't that weird makes you wonder not saying anything just saying wink wink" There is quite clearly a very strong current of thought that cannot abide the idea that their preferred set of rich rear end in a top hat politicians might do many of the same bad things as the other set of rich rear end in a top hat politicians. See also: we must be thankful that president biden is very humanely putting children in cages, unlike when the evil president trump does it. There is no real concern about the issues, not when it comes down to it, it is entirely about the people and the branding. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2021 15:02
|
|
|
Justice is an end, not a process, or rather the process is not inherently just or unjust independent of the end. If the end is unjust then the process that arrives at it, is unjust, and the converse is also true. I think the issue with trying to imagine that there is one true process of justice and that straying from it is wrong whatever happens and more importantly, that holding to it is right whatever outcomes it produces, is to entirely ignore the fact that the outcomes are so clearly unjust. A guy is free who should be locked up, people are locked up who should be free, and it is the same process that produces both of those things. You can not rightly expect people to not find it contemptible in light of that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
I feel like there is a commonality between how biden's creeping gets ignored and how the media treated trump while he was incumbent, simply being in the office affords people a degree of deference and unwillingness for the press to call them on their bullshit, which itself is just a microcosm of how power works. The people in charge who make the decisions get to make them unilaterally and everyone else can either go along with it or get shut down and shut out. And the way they are treated serves to build credibility, everyone else's deference makes their actions have more weight, whether it's trump's insane rambling being ignored because the president can't be a raving nutcase, or biden's behaviour being ignored because the president can't be a disgusting creep. It's far more magnified when it's their guy, of course, but they were still craven even when it was a target as easy as trump. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:I'm really loving sick of having to share this site with rape apologists. This is at least a 2 year problem at this point and it's only going to get worse as the Biden administration rolls on. Mods need to get off their loving asses and do something about the culture they fostered. I also find myself thinking this a lot and the only reason I don't post it very often is because I don't have any faith whatsoever that it will change. Instead I expect more empty platitudes and/or threats but nothing changing, because why would it? But you aren't alone in thinking it, if that means anything.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
From context I am assuming the phrase "catch and kill" refers to running some sort of disinformation campaign against people who come forward?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:The phrase is quite literal- it refers to a cul-de-sac, say an org like Time's Up that advertises and fundraises as 'the people who will help you get justice against your abusers' that attracts big money and names, crowds out the field so they're the only game in town, and then quietly shuts down anyone who comes to them with accusations against anyone on their side. In the case of Time's Up, 'their side' is the Democrat establishment. Ah right I see, that makes sense, monopolising the "respectable" places people can go and only publishing when it suits them. Disgusting, but appropriate naming.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
Isn't a central point of the critique of institutional misogyny that you don't have to be doing it intentionally? Like yes you've got poo poo like blizz/activision being run by frat bro stereotypes but you can still end up with a culture that effectively shuts out victims of violence through a thousand little biases at every step, whether or not it is "incompetently run" seems academic if it is still serving to monopolise and curate what is an "acceptable" person to accuse. In either case the structure and leadership of the organization is unfit for the purposes of the people who go to it for help.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
I hope they got shitcanned for it but I am not optimistic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
I mean it taints the concept of "official" organizations for decentralized social trends.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
It makes sense for people to want for there to be some good guys that can sort it out within the system, but when the problem is the entire system, they are going to keep being disappointing until people get sick of them too. Like, orgs springing up to capture, monetise, and co-opt people's pain is itself a symptom of the system that hurts them to begin with. It just means the battle is more wide reaching than it might initially have seemed. Which sucks poo poo yeah but the need for victory is still there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
I thought the idea was more that the security services probably knew and were involved because they are usually involved in all the worst poo poo, not because they necessarily start it but because that at the very least is the nature of a clandestine organization with a gigantic amount of money to throw around and zero accountability.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2021 01:17
|
|