spurgistan wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:spurgistan wrote:NomadPatriot wrote:Symmetry wrote:The believe all women position is a difficult position to take until you see the position it opposes, which is to disbelieve all women.
I think Sym banged his head againist the wall way too much while he was banned..
the opposite position is --> People are innocent until proven guilty.
Nah, the opposite position of #metoo is slut-shame the women and call them crazy until they stop. You know, the same shit that's been going on for most of human history. Don't knock it, it works.
This is so mind-bogglingly stupid it really makes me sad. You're arguing against due process in essence. I got into this argument with neoteny a while back and i just don't understand how the left, who pride themselves on being for the people, can toe the line in such a short-sighted manner.
It's funny because you believe all women with sexual assault allegations, but only when it's white men doing the assaulting. When i brought up the numerous false allegations against black men that result in lynchings or recently the athlete expulsions you just ignore it or avoid it because it doesn't fit your narrative.
What's that saying, "if the left didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any at all."
Hey bud.
#1 Long time, how ya been?
#1a starting off with "mind-bogglingly stupid" isn't a great way to start a discussion, especially when I'm literally describing a constant historical recurrence, but let's continue.
#2 I'm not arguing against due process; that's a legal situation. What #believewomen means is that we should listen to them, and they should be unafraid of retaliation for talking about things men do to them. Quick reminder that due process is for legal ramifications, not general society.
#3 OK pal ease up, how many white men have been literally lynched lately? Are you actually comparing a lynch mob to a hashtag? Even Weinstein is literally alive right now. Not to mention Brock Turner, who is doing fine despite actually being convicted of felony sexual assault. This is, to quote somebody, "mind-bogglingly stupid."
#4 "Athlete expulsions?" If you're talking about powerful men who get accused of sexual assault, uhh who do you think is defending them? It is usually ownership (powerful rich men) who fights to let them play. Unless (as I read now) you're acting off the assumption that women are just accusing them for no real reason? Which, again, people don't usually sign themselves up to be slut-shamed and dragged through the internet for a cheap payday. According to the most comprehensive study (by the British Home Office in the 2000s), this happens about 2-10% of the time.
#1 Doing okay, you? #1a sorry i came off strong
#2 I have no issue with the general push behind metoo where allegations are dismissed outright by police or when rape kits are just shoved into a warehouse somewhere a la Raiders of the Lost Ark. That isn't justice and I agree that's a problem. What i do have an issue with is your last sentence in #2, because as i remember, when the Kavanaugh proceedings were going on you went on this same spiel. False allegations (like the ones levied against him) are treated as criminal trespasses for a reason-- because they negatively impact one's life based on lies. It's called libel and slander. How is it justice to allow crimes to affect one person at the expense of another? You're not dispensing justice situation in that scenario, you're appealing to emotional populism by letting crimes like slander slide because you'd rather be part of a twitter movement. It's no different than cops unfairly treating blacks to appease an unfair justice system driven by profit prisons. The truth is you wanted to levy slander against a possible supreme court judge because you didn't like his positions, and that isn't justice.
#3 I didn't say white men were lynched. There's a movement among the progressive left to entertain intersectionality as anything other than the bogus academic sniveling that is, ie an excuse by racists or white guilt uncle toms to rationalize their racism. What i said is that we are told to believe sexual assault and rape allegations no matter what, yet out of the same mouth they'll say Emmet Till was killed by racists. So you're position necessitates that either Till sexually assaulted a woman or he was killed because of racism, not that he was killed because a woman spread a lie. That is to say, you'll believe that Till's accuser was lying because she accused a black male and since you place the bogeyman of racism above justice this is fine, but you'll believe kavanaugh's accuser because women don't lie. There's a discrepancy there and you don't believe in your own message.
#4 I was talking about e.g. the miscarriage of justice in your position similar to #2, where slews of college men are expelled from college, losing scholarships based on nothing more than accusations and not tried in court (effects of slander) like the case of the white girl who claimed she was gang-raped by black football players when in reality she didn't want a possible (white) boyfriend to know she willingly had a threesone. But since title ix laws are on the books, those men were booted from school and lost their athletic scholarships and probably their chance at career sports. And she later was only charged because she admitted her lie.
Basically i can boil down my argument to: the refrain that we should "believe all women" is a reactionary one, a hypocrisy of the left since it means that they believe it's better that a thousand innocents go to jail than a single guilty person be set free, where innocents are subjected to either real jail time (false conviction) or suffer the effects of libel and slander (both crimes). Saying due process here doesn't apply because they aren't criminal proceedings is am empty rationalization at best, unless you're arguing libel and slander aren't criminal concerns.
And i mean, sure, the instances of false accusations are a probably disappearing fraction of true ones, but then again, see above.