The progressive debate on this shouldn't be about where to order things on a list of "progressively" bad actions.
It should be about how we change society so that predators no longer have the power or influence to get away with this so that it stops happening.
The objective is to stop sexual assault, and the "progressive" approach is fighting the power structures that allow it to continue.
Microaggressions are bad, and have always been bad. But I don't think that focusing on microaggressions during the Civil Rights Act when people were getting hit with fire hoses is a good use of time. I also don't think it would have been a good idea for activists in the 1960s to expel anyone from their ranks who's ever committed a microaggression.
I remember reading a letter from MLK during the Rosa Parks incident. He was against the policy of black people being forced to give up their seats for white people. But the interesting thing is that he didn't challenge the practice of "white people in the front, black people in the back," because he understood that the country wasn't ready for that.
The problem with comparing Franken to Moore isn't that you're putting Franken in the same category as Moore. The problem is that you're putting Moore in the same category as Franken.
If someone says a racist joke, you're not going to reach out to him by calling him an irredeemable racist asshole who doesn't deserve to be employed anywhere ever again. You're just going to push him further to the right. If you want to change people's minds, then you need to focus on the criticizing behavior, rather than the individual. If you focus on criticizing, then you force them on the defensive, which pressures them to double town. But if you focus on the behavior, you give them a way out.
If you're trying to reach out to the people who already agree that Franken's actions were bad, then you're preaching to the choir. But you're not doing anything to convince people who don't already believe that, and you might actually trigger a backlash.
If Joe Schmoe average American grabbed someone's ass when 10 years ago, then you don't gain anything by comparing Franken's actions to Moore's. Because if you're forcing Joe to identify with Moore with no way out and no path for redemption, then you're not going to convince him to be opposed to Franken (and therefore opposed to himself). Instead, you're going to convince Joe Schmoe to be start defending Mooore.
+3
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
The progressive debate on this shouldn't be about where to order things on a list of "progressively" bad actions.
It should be about how we change society so that predators no longer have the power or influence to get away with this so that it stops happening.
The objective is to stop sexual assault, and the "progressive" approach is fighting the power structures that allow it to continue.
Microaggressions are bad, and have always been bad. But I don't think that focusing on microaggressions during the Civil Rights Act when people were getting hit with fire hoses is a good use of time. I also don't think it would have been a good idea for activists in the 1960s to expel anyone from their ranks who's ever committed a microaggression.
I remember reading a letter from MLK during the Rosa Parks incident. He was against the policy of black people being forced to give up their seats for white people. But the interesting thing is that he didn't challenge the practice of "white people in the front, black people in the back," because he understood that the country wasn't ready for that.
The problem with comparing Franken to Moore isn't that you're putting Franken in the same category as Moore. The problem is that you're putting Moore in the same category as Franken.
If someone says a racist joke, you're not going to reach out to him by calling him an irredeemable racist asshole who doesn't deserve to be employed anywhere ever again. You're just going to push him further to the right. If you want to change people's minds, then you need to focus on the criticizing behavior, rather than the individual. If you focus on criticizing, then you force them on the defensive, which pressures them to double town. But if you focus on the behavior, you give them a way out.
If you're trying to reach out to the people who already agree that Franken's actions were bad, then you're preaching to the choir. But you're not doing anything to convince people who don't already believe that, and you might actually trigger a backlash.
If Joe Schmoe average American grabbed someone's ass when 10 years ago, then you don't gain anything by comparing Franken's actions to Moore's. Because if you're forcing Joe to identify with Moore with no way out and no path for redemption, then you're not going to convince him to be opposed to Franken (and therefore opposed to himself). Instead, you're going to convince Joe Schmoe to be start defending Mooore.
Sexually assaulting a woman is always wrong. Moore and Franken both need to be removed from the power that they abused.
If one side doesn't care about individual abuses and is laser focused on changing laws/society in they way they want and the other side feels its better to "stand on principle" its gonna be a bad time.
I think each situation on both sides needs to be looked into individually with specific outcomes for that situation.
In Frankens case if he resigns we get a democrat in there anyways so I don't see any utility in him remaining. Get a new face in there.
My priorities would be:
1. Prevent harm to community / country
2. Not be a criminal
3. Be competent
If I need to vote for a Bill Clinton to keep some asshole who is fine supporting laws that kill poor people or destroy immigrant families from power I know how I'm going to vote and my conscience is going to be clear.
Fair enough. I would hope we keep this in mind in relation to the republicans who held their noses to vote for Trump (unless you want to say that our ideals are morally superior to tax cuts...which I'm obviously amenable to...and thus this is meritless "both-sidesing").
I would add that this isn't just taking a stand though- it's holding people accountable for being abusers and assaulters so that it happens less and society improves.
Like I get it- the ACA is still around because of one senator. But I also think there's a risk to being able to hold the liberal coalition together by not addressing this stuff that in the long run far outweighs the risks of losing individual races.
Anyway I certainly don't have the answers and I'm sure I'm not considering all appropriate perspectives. Maybe that's the takeaway- a high pitched/high decibel noise rumbling through the echo chamber to make us jump out for a second to re-evaluate things?
NEW: A woman says Sen. Al Franken inappropriately touched her in 2010, telling CNN that he grabbed her buttocks while taking a photo at the Minnesota State Fair.
Disappointing, but not surprising at this point.
Let's see what that investigation brings up, and wait for more accusations.
Honestly, my patience with completely unprovable allegations against democratic political figures, and the false equivalence being drawn to major crimes committed by other men is at an end. This is just hurting women who have real problems and are trying to come forward.
Al Franken didn't grab this woman's butt. He's at the damn state fair. There's hundreds of people with eyes and cameras on him at all times. He's surrounded by well wishers and staff and media. This woman just told her friends a story she made up at the time, and is now playing it for her moment in the sun.
Accusing a democratic politician of a non criminal sexual harassment incident when you are a Republican and your husband is too has NONE of the features which usually make women really not want to lie about even minor issues like this. The entire concept of believe women, which is backed by good and solid understanding of what people go through to make an accusation like this, does not apply when the person you are accusing is nearly a complete stranger who your 'tribe' hates. This isn't like a female singer coming out and accusing her powerful agent, or other issues of this nature.
I know that believe women is true and a good thing. But this sort of accusation? Its not governed by the same logic.
Your attitude is why victims don't report these things. Yuck, dude. Did you pay attention to Taylor Swifts case at all? Just because other people are around doesn't mean it's impossible to grope someone.
OK, I'm going to do my very best to try and explain where I'm coming from here. Firstly I apologize for my statement saying "It didn't happen, she was at a fair". That was instinctive and crass. People can clearly be abused in all sorts of places, and even in plain sight of other people. I have no evidence one way or another as to whether or not something did or did not happen.
To me, the reason why I am incredibly suspicious of this comes back to a discussion of why in almost every other case women don't make false allegations of sexual harassment. And there are both good reasons, and bad reasons. All of them add up into a VERY strong set of arguments as to why "No woman would ever want to lie about this stuff"
1) Most women are assaulted, harassed and raped by people they know. Family, friends and relatives. As such, the women have a MASSIVE incentive to not speak out, since they will often value the abuser in many other ways. There is a real cost to them of making the allegation. A cost that society, justice and everything else we might want to give them will never return to them. Uncle Steve will never be the guy who taught them archery again. In the best possible world, he will just be the man who sexually assaulted them. This cost is ENORMOUS.
2) Most cases occur inside a social or family network. Even if you hate Bill, or Cousin Danny, because of the time he pinned you down and kissed you. Bill is best friends with your boyfriend Pete, or Cousin Danny is the son of your mums favorite brother, or Bill is the guy who set up the softball league you play on. When you make that accusation, whether you win or lose, your social circle will be torn apart. That softball league is shutting down. Your mum is going to lose contact with her brother. Your boyfriend is probably going to dump you. This cost is even more enormous, and surrounds the woman with dozens of close friends who will all tell her not to speak out, to stay silent. To tough it out for the sake of the league, the family, or her relationship. The cost of breaking that social contract is even bigger. The degree of pain and suffering required to break that and speak out makes doing so for false reasons almost unimaginable.
3) Cases outside family and friends tend to occur in the workplace. John at the office might be a sexist pig, who is forever denigrating you in front of your team, and forced himself on you at a party once when you were drunk. You might want to speak out, but again you know that speaking out, regardless of if your co-workers and bosses support you will damage the ability of the team to get their work done. You know that even at the best company, John has friends, who even if they agree with you and now hate John will still have suffered by stopping being his friend. People around you will be literally incapable of getting over that shit properly, and you'll be surrounded by people who are worried, "What if I'm next, what if I'm the next John?" Those people may find the situation confusing and frightening, they might not be able to instinctively know the difference between joking around, and sexual harassment. So they will likely just isolate themselves from you and associate with people who are viewed as less of a risk to them. People don't like to rock the boat that way, they don't want to be isolated, and they know that it will be very hard for their friend Bill (whose jokes she finds hilarious and good natured fun) to understand that there's a big difference between John's sexist hateful rants, and Bills amiable and inclusive joking.
4) If you don't work at a good company, then the reason for not speaking out is clear, you won't be believed and John will find fifty buddies to immediately back him up and say that you actually pretty much forced yourself on him. You'll be fired at the next review board meeting, for 'performance' related reasons. This line is where you'll find all the corrupt power dynamics, with people being compelled into silence out of fear for their wealth and careers.
5) Harassment and assault and rape happens mainly to married and dating women, and is often very severe. People being raped on business trips, or groped in elevators by their bosses. And it happens to married and dating women because most women are married or dating someone. Women often don't want to make an accusation, or tell the truth, because for the best will in the world a large fraction of men (and women) highly desire monogamy and are very concerned about even a compelled violation of that trust. The woman will not want to reveal the truth, because her husband or boyfriend may treat her differently after she has been violated in this way. She just wants to get back to her life, and be viewed as normal and happy, and the way she knows to be sure that her husband, boyfriend or family does that is to not tell them, or ANYONE about the incident. So serious incidents change peoples perception of you. This happens to almost all victims of crime, whether violent assault, robbery, or witnessing a murder. People all report that it changes how others perceive them.
6) The standard of proof for actual criminal prosecution. The standard is (rightfully, to prevent the incidence of other abuses in the justice system) rightfully very high indeed. So John who assaulted and raped you 15 years ago when you were working as a maid at a hotel he was staying at probably doesn't have any evidence beyond circumstantial against him. Noone he knows cares about you, and noone you know really cares about him. You don't have anything to gain, and sending him to jail will be very hard. So there's no reason to lie.
7) Men in their lives who women accuse of non criminal transgressions don't just 'dissapear'. If John slapped you on the butt at work one day, then even in a very responsive company who believes you, then John isn't just going to be taken out the back and shot. He might be fired, but then you'll still have to see him at whole foods, and at the conference coming up because he's still going to need to get a job. This non criminal transgression won't, and shouldn't, result in the end of his ability to work in the field you are both in. And accusing him of this means that John might be angry enough to move on from slapping butts to a more violent assault, since you will (in the best case for you!) have taken away his job and left him ostracized by many of his friends.
8) People usually assume you are lying, or just re-interpretting the facts. (and don't jump on me here and say "This reason applies here too!")
So when a woman stands up and says, "John from accounting raped me" or "The captain of my basketball team wont stop grabbing me" or other statements she...
i) Stands to gain nothing but the ability to speak out
ii) Will lose an enormous amount even if she wins
iii) Faces additional risk from future encounters with the same man
iv) Faces a huge burden of proof to demonstrate that a crime actually occurred due to to the nature of the crime and the necessity of the legal system
v) Will need to extend a huge amount of personal effort to be believed by her friends and family who also know the accused, and may simply never believe her
vi) Faces the chance that even if she IS believed by her friends and family, that the accusation will not be viewed as serious enough to validate her complaint. Even if Cousin Danny DID hold you down and kiss you when you were 14, his mother may simply not believe that that is serious enough to validate you damaging his life, and your parents may agree
vii) Faces the risk of being defined as simply a victim of the crime, and of degrading her relationship with her partner.
So why would women lie in these cases? They stand to gain NOTHING, and to lose almost everything of value. Inside a social circle, inside a group of friends, inside a family or a business, there is no incentive to lie and there is nothing to gain. It's a horrible and terrible thing to have to do, and will remain so even if EVERY goal of the #metoo movement is met, and every goal of the current attitude in favor of speaking out happens. No amount of social pressure will ever make Aunt Rose forgive you for accusing her son of rape, EVEN if he did it. No social movement will give you back your volleyball league or whatever, and people value that stuff.
None of these good and real reasons apply when you accuse a hated and remote political figure of a minor crime which those in your social circle don't view as 'permanently damaging' to your morals. Everyone around you already hates him, the accusation isn't serious enough to warrant a criminal investigation, and so on and so on. There is a massive incentive to tell the lie both in the moment when 'it happened' (because you can lie to confirm someone elses pre-conception that Al Franken is a sexist pig) and now (because you can force Al Franken to resign and embarrass democrats). And why not lie right now, if we are going to place the standard of proof for demanding the resignation of a Senator at "A woman who we have never heard of till today says he grabbed her butt but can't prove any aspect of it"
Women rarely lie about being assaulted and raped not because they are inherently honest about these issues. They don't lie because levelling the accusation is a MASSIVE personal cost to them and those around them. Women and men are both equally comfortable with lying, and do it all the time about pretty much everything. To themselves, to other people, about their history, about almost everything they do. Our whole memory is just a skewed pile of lies and half truths we tell ourselves. If we create a situation where there are no costs to telling a lie, and huge benefits (real or perceived) to doing so then everyone will start lying. Thats what people do. Its what people do ALL THE TIME to democratic politicians.
People don't usually lie about say, receiving bribes in the workplace. Or hearing people use racial slurs. Or about financial corruption, or sex trafficing and pedophilia or dogfighting rings. 'Believe the accusers' applies pretty well in all those cases too. Other than when the accused are politicians and the accusers are supporters of the other side. it happens around the world. Why would this be different?
Side note: Republicans currently need 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill
If there is some delay between Franken resigning and his replacement being seated, they need 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill. It doesn't actually change the math.
+2
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
The progressive debate on this shouldn't be about where to order things on a list of "progressively" bad actions.
It should be about how we change society so that predators no longer have the power or influence to get away with this so that it stops happening.
The objective is to stop sexual assault, and the "progressive" approach is fighting the power structures that allow it to continue.
Microaggressions are bad, and have always been bad. But I don't think that focusing on microaggressions during the Civil Rights Act when people were getting hit with fire hoses is a good use of time. I also don't think it would have been a good idea for activists in the 1960s to expel anyone from their ranks who's ever committed a microaggression.
I remember reading a letter from MLK during the Rosa Parks incident. He was against the policy of black people being forced to give up their seats for white people. But the interesting thing is that he didn't challenge the practice of "white people in the front, black people in the back," because he understood that the country wasn't ready for that.
The problem with comparing Franken to Moore isn't that you're putting Franken in the same category as Moore. The problem is that you're putting Moore in the same category as Franken.
If someone says a racist joke, you're not going to reach out to him by calling him an irredeemable racist asshole who doesn't deserve to be employed anywhere ever again. You're just going to push him further to the right. If you want to change people's minds, then you need to focus on the criticizing behavior, rather than the individual. If you focus on criticizing, then you force them on the defensive, which pressures them to double town. But if you focus on the behavior, you give them a way out.
If you're trying to reach out to the people who already agree that Franken's actions were bad, then you're preaching to the choir. But you're not doing anything to convince people who don't already believe that, and you might actually trigger a backlash.
If Joe Schmoe average American grabbed someone's ass when 10 years ago, then you don't gain anything by comparing Franken's actions to Moore's. Because if you're forcing Joe to identify with Moore with no way out and no path for redemption, then you're not going to convince him to be opposed to Franken (and therefore opposed to himself). Instead, you're going to convince Joe Schmoe to be start defending Mooore.
I'm sorry, but you're using what turned out to be a watershed moment for the civil rights movement as a counterargument against making a stand over something considered "small"?
The other issue I have with that position is that it implies that we are not complex creatures, capable of standing up against both minor and major problems at the same time. As though our focus is laser focused, and to make an example out of an ass-grabber is to either put it on par with (or ignore) a child rapist. I just don't accept that as true.
Also, I hate using the term "microaggression" for things like this. In my mind a microaggression is that guy in your office who bottom-replies to all emails. Not the creep who grabs female co-workers asses. It's not a violent rape, but calling it a "microaggression" diminishes the fact that it is actually important.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
The progressive debate on this shouldn't be about where to order things on a list of "progressively" bad actions.
It should be about how we change society so that predators no longer have the power or influence to get away with this so that it stops happening.
The objective is to stop sexual assault, and the "progressive" approach is fighting the power structures that allow it to continue.
Microaggressions are bad, and have always been bad. But I don't think that focusing on microaggressions during the Civil Rights Act when people were getting hit with fire hoses is a good use of time. I also don't think it would have been a good idea for activists in the 1960s to expel anyone from their ranks who's ever committed a microaggression.
I remember reading a letter from MLK during the Rosa Parks incident. He was against the policy of black people being forced to give up their seats for white people. But the interesting thing is that he didn't challenge the practice of "white people in the front, black people in the back," because he understood that the country wasn't ready for that.
The problem with comparing Franken to Moore isn't that you're putting Franken in the same category as Moore. The problem is that you're putting Moore in the same category as Franken.
If someone says a racist joke, you're not going to reach out to him by calling him an irredeemable racist asshole who doesn't deserve to be employed anywhere ever again. You're just going to push him further to the right. If you want to change people's minds, then you need to focus on the criticizing behavior, rather than the individual. If you focus on criticizing, then you force them on the defensive, which pressures them to double town. But if you focus on the behavior, you give them a way out.
If you're trying to reach out to the people who already agree that Franken's actions were bad, then you're preaching to the choir. But you're not doing anything to convince people who don't already believe that, and you might actually trigger a backlash.
If Joe Schmoe average American grabbed someone's ass when 10 years ago, then you don't gain anything by comparing Franken's actions to Moore's. Because if you're forcing Joe to identify with Moore with no way out and no path for redemption, then you're not going to convince him to be opposed to Franken (and therefore opposed to himself). Instead, you're going to convince Joe Schmoe to be start defending Mooore.
I'm sorry, but you're using what turned out to be a watershed moment for the civil rights movement as a counterargument against making a stand over something considered "small"?
The other issue I have with that position is that it implies that we are not complex creatures, capable of standing up against both minor and major problems at the same time. As though our focus is laser focused, and to make an example out of an ass-grabber is to either put it on par with (or ignore) a child rapist. I just don't accept that as true.
Also, I hate using the term "microaggression" for things like this. In my mind a microaggression is that guy in your office who bottom-replies to all emails. Not the creep who grabs female co-workers asses. It's not a violent rape, but calling it a "microaggression" diminishes the fact that it is actually important.
Ass grabbing strangers is not acceptable behavior. It is sexual assault. The only people who try to downplay it and draw comparisons to rape are people trying to justify it. It isn't justifiable. It is wrong. Even more so when the person doing it is in a position of power and influence, thus making them feel like they are above the law and can get away with it. This needs to end.
+7
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
8) People usually assume you are lying, or just re-interpretting the facts. (and don't jump on me here and say "This reason applies here too!")
But you just wrote like 2000 words about why you assume she's lying (because she doesn't meet some sniff test you've devised about the reasons why women can legitimately be hesitant to come forward with sexual assault allegations).
So...
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Sexually assaulting a woman is always wrong. Moore and Franken both need to be removed from the power that they abused.
There's three levels of discussion you're trying to treat as one: a) is the behavior wrong, and b) is the behavior on a level worth resigning over, c) will resigning actually help.
Debating the first point does not prove the second or the third.
To me, the reason why I am incredibly suspicious of this comes back to a discussion of why in almost every other case women don't make false allegations of sexual harassment. And there are both good reasons, and bad reasons. All of them add up into a VERY strong set of arguments as to why "No woman would ever want to lie about this stuff"
Am I missing something here? The reason you're suspicious that this woman is lying is rooted in a list of reasons that women almost never lie about this?
1) Most women are assaulted, harassed and raped by people they know.
2) Most cases occur inside a social or family network.
3) Cases outside family and friends tend to occur in the workplace.
4) If you don't work at a good company, then the reason for not speaking out is clear
5) Harassment and assault and rape happens mainly to married and dating women, and is often very severe.
6) The standard of proof for actual criminal prosecution.
7) Men in their lives who women accuse of non criminal transgressions don't just 'dissapear'.
So....
1) She wasnt
2) This didn't
3) This didn't
4) N/A
5) This did, but wasn't
6) Not conclusive yet
7) He will
She only ticked of 1 and a half of your personal criteria, therefore....
So when a woman stands up and says, "John from accounting raped me" or "The captain of my basketball team wont stop grabbing me" or other statements she...
i) Stands to gain nothing but the ability to speak out
ii) Will lose an enormous amount even if she wins
iii) Faces additional risk from future encounters with the same man
iv) Faces a huge burden of proof to demonstrate that a crime actually occurred due to to the nature of the crime and the necessity of the legal system
v) Will need to extend a huge amount of personal effort to be believed by her friends and family who also know the accused, and may simply never believe her
vi) Faces the chance that even if she IS believed by her friends and family, that the accusation will not be viewed as serious enough to validate her complaint.
vii) Faces the risk of being defined as simply a victim of the crime, and of degrading her relationship with her partner.
Basically all of these still apply to her, regardless of how she did or didn't meet your criteria. It's almost as if a big part of the problem is how we treat the victims.
None of these good and real reasons apply when you accuse a hated and remote political figure of a minor crime which those in your social circle don't view as 'permanently damaging' to your morals.
This is goosey as fuck. I don't even know what to say.
8) People usually assume you are lying, or just re-interpretting the facts. (and don't jump on me here and say "This reason applies here too!")
But you just wrote like 2000 words about why you assume she's lying (because she doesn't meet some sniff test you've devised about the reasons why women can legitimately be hesitant to come forward with sexual assault allegations).
So...
Its not a 'sniff test I've devised'. It's a discussion of every reason I've ever heard of why 'believe women' is a real and valid thing to state with these accusations. Women are not inherently more honest than men, and they lie and tell the truth for real reasons. Those real reasons are why "Believe women" is a real and legitimate statement. Women hold back their accusations, because of the fact that they may not be believed and they will still face all the negative consequences of their accusations even if they aren't believed.
If there are few to no negative consequences (like accusing a remote and hated political figure of grabbing your butt) then the consequences of not being believed are minor, and thus, the fear of not being believed is irrelevant.
Are you trying to say that you think that women don't lie about sexual harassment/assault and rape because they are somehow inherently honest about this issue? Because that statement seems insane to me. Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
And that's pretty bad form to quote me out of context. Disagree all you please, but if you don't want to quote at least a representative section of my argument then just don't quote it. You don't have to quote me.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
Sexually assaulting a woman is always wrong. Moore and Franken both need to be removed from the power that they abused.
There's three levels of discussion you're trying to treat as one: a) is the behavior wrong, and b) is the behavior on a level worth resigning over, c) will resigning actually help.
Debating the first point does not prove the second or the third.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
Sexual abusers need to be fearful enough to stop their behavior of molesting people.
Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
How does him being a Democrat and her being a Republican remove reasons like not being believed, facing significant backlash, being unable to overcome a burden of proof, etc etc.
If anything all this does is bake in one more giant reason that her claim will be discarded out of hand, and make coming forward even less of an appealing option.
I mean, someone somehwere might assume she's lying for political reasons..
Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
How does him being a Democrat and her being a Republican remove reasons like not being believed, facing significant backlash, being unable to overcome a burden of proof, etc etc.
If anything all this does is bake in one more giant reason that her claim will be discarded out of hand, and make coming forward even less of an appealing option.
I mean, someone somehwere might assume she's lying for political reasons..
That's the current theory. That the GOP is trying to source out any and all democrats who have done anything like what Franken has to discredit them.
The internet is a weird place.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Sexually assaulting a woman is always wrong. Moore and Franken both need to be removed from the power that they abused.
There's three levels of discussion you're trying to treat as one: a) is the behavior wrong, and b) is the behavior on a level worth resigning over, c) will resigning actually help.
Debating the first point does not prove the second or the third.
Resigning will help in the sense that this behavior is frowned upon and perpetrators are not rewarded with bombass paying jobs.
Two points make a line (and this one has pretty iron clad corroboration as far as I know) and so yea he probably has some problems and should probably resign.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be skeptical in general. The issue of value to an accuser is correct and there is value in attacking politicians. We absolutely should be more skeptical of allegations against politicians because if we do not we will be in a position where it will be used against us in order to push the nation away from progress. On this issue and others.
We are unlikely ever to have perfectly pure people in congress. That is not how life or the game of politics works. We will lose the war if we purity test ourselves. We will prevent good people from running. We will prevent good people from winning. We will prevent good legislation from passing.
It will not clear the water either it will simply muddy them further.
Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
How does him being a Democrat and her being a Republican remove reasons like not being believed, facing significant backlash, being unable to overcome a burden of proof, etc etc.
If anything all this does is bake in one more giant reason that her claim will be discarded out of hand, and make coming forward even less of an appealing option.
I mean, someone somehwere might assume she's lying for political reasons..
Because of the enormous political and social division in this country, where republicans and democrats rarely interact and socialize. If 'Democrats' don't like you, then it really doesn't matter if you are a Republican and vice versa.
The accusation is also impossible to prove or disprove. So she doesn't need to ever prove it in a court of law, and if anyone ever takes active action against her because of it then she will have strong grounds to counter sue.
Hell, this is an anonymous web forum and I'm proposing that we might not believe her and that she doesn't have the same incentive structure as other victims who speak out, and that we might want to take a second look and I'm clearly making myself a pariah to do so. If I can't say it here, do you really think that there is some reasonable threat of a Democratic backlash?
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think equating what Moore did with what Franken did doesn't relate a gravity to Franken's crimes. It just minimizes Moore's. They are both unacceptable behavior, and Franken should resign, I think, but they are not of a piece.
What Franken did is, was, and will be, wrong.
There needs to be an investigation, resignation or not.
I think it would be best if he did resign, and then never run for office again.
If this gets any worse, then, yeah, i'm up for loudly demanding he quit, or get booted from the senate.
Also, i 100% believe all the accusations against him, i have no reason not to.
edit-
When is Frankens term over btw?
Assuming he refuses to quit if/when things get worse?
My line in the sand on this was "pattern of behavior". The first accusation I could believe, if I squinted a little, was an honest mistake of taking a gag too far--not predatory intent, but a one-off thing. In light of the second accuser, my view changes. We cannot and should not protect predators, if we want this to be a world, for instance, where my daughter feels safe snapping a picture with a Senator in a public place.
Franken's gotta go.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
It's really disappointing how fast things pivot from "we should believe the victims" to "she's lying to ruin him".
Because the first does not mean what you think it means and it never has. The science of probability includes conditional as well as unconditional probability. While false reports are rare false reports share characteristics with each other in such a way that knowing details of the allegation produces a higher or lower likelihood of fraud. Political allegations will produce a higher likelihood of fraud. You should be more skeptical of them.
Though in this case (Frankens second accuser) it doesn’t seem to meet criteria which would produce a higher fraud rate than the normal. It’s a second report not a first (harder to fake two than one), was independently reported at the time (5 years is a long time to set up a con), the person seems to be a political ally of the accuser (little to no personal value in making a false claim)
I think equating what Moore did with what Franken did doesn't relate a gravity to Franken's crimes. It just minimizes Moore's. They are both unacceptable behavior, and Franken should resign, I think, but they are not of a piece.
It can serve either purpose depending on your goal.
If you support Moore, you can whatabout Franken. If you support Franken, you can claim some relative moral high ground compared to Moore. Neither position actually addresses the problem.
It's really disappointing how fast things pivot from "we should believe the victims" to "she's lying to ruin him".
I think part of this comes from the idea being pushed that all accusations are legit, and any questioning is untoward. Humans are very good at rationalizing. In the absence of any sort of effective mechanism for detecting lies it's hard to not fall back on the default of saying that people you like are innocent and people you don't like are guilty.
In the case of Franken it is unfortunate that both his accusers are people who don't like democrats and could thus be seen as having an incentive to accuse him for political reasons. That being said, given their relative distance from the political scene and the collaboration available (photo, Franken's apology), it is much more likely that they are telling the truth. The evidence strongly suggests he did not respect personal boundaries when he was younger, and likely committed many lower level sexual assaults.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
How does him being a Democrat and her being a Republican remove reasons like not being believed, facing significant backlash, being unable to overcome a burden of proof, etc etc.
If anything all this does is bake in one more giant reason that her claim will be discarded out of hand, and make coming forward even less of an appealing option.
I mean, someone somehwere might assume she's lying for political reasons..
Because of the enormous political and social division in this country, where republicans and democrats rarely interact and socialize. If 'Democrats' don't like you, then it really doesn't matter if you are a Republican and vice versa.
The accusation is also impossible to prove or disprove. So she doesn't need to ever prove it in a court of law, and if anyone ever takes active action against her because of it then she will have strong grounds to counter sue.
Hell, this is an anonymous web forum and I'm proposing that we might not believe her and that she doesn't have the same incentive structure as other victims who speak out, and that we might want to take a second look and I'm clearly making myself a pariah to do so. If I can't say it here, do you really think that there is some reasonable threat of a Democratic backlash?
I mean first of all your proposal was worded vastly worse than this, so it sounded a lot more unreasonable and drew fire. Second of all everything that applies to any other victim still does apply to her. She isn't magically free of the burdens of judgement and ostracization just because she wouldn't vote for him.
It's really disappointing how fast things pivot from "we should believe the victims" to "she's lying to ruin him".
Because the first does not mean what you think it means and it never has. The science of probability includes conditional as well as unconditional probability. While false reports are rare false reports share characteristics with each other in such a way that knowing details of the allegation produces a higher or lower likelihood of fraud. Political allegations will produce a higher likelihood of fraud. You should be more skeptical of them.
Though in this case (Frankens second accuser) it doesn’t seem to meet criteria which would produce a higher fraud rate than the normal. It’s a second report not a first (harder to fake two than one), was independently reported at the time (5 years is a long time to set up a con), the person seems to be a political ally of the accuser (little to no personal value in making a false claim)
My statement was unfairly blanket sized and probably borne out of frustration. I feel that most people here aren't blindly in the first camp or immediately kneejerking to the second.
Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
How does him being a Democrat and her being a Republican remove reasons like not being believed, facing significant backlash, being unable to overcome a burden of proof, etc etc.
If anything all this does is bake in one more giant reason that her claim will be discarded out of hand, and make coming forward even less of an appealing option.
I mean, someone somehwere might assume she's lying for political reasons..
Because of the enormous political and social division in this country, where republicans and democrats rarely interact and socialize. If 'Democrats' don't like you, then it really doesn't matter if you are a Republican and vice versa.
The accusation is also impossible to prove or disprove. So she doesn't need to ever prove it in a court of law, and if anyone ever takes active action against her because of it then she will have strong grounds to counter sue.
Hell, this is an anonymous web forum and I'm proposing that we might not believe her and that she doesn't have the same incentive structure as other victims who speak out, and that we might want to take a second look and I'm clearly making myself a pariah to do so. If I can't say it here, do you really think that there is some reasonable threat of a Democratic backlash?
You can line for line swap this out and make it an apologia for Moore. Does that change your opinion any?
It's really disappointing how fast things pivot from "we should believe the victims" to "she's lying to ruin him".
Because the first does not mean what you think it means and it never has. The science of probability includes conditional as well as unconditional probability. While false reports are rare false reports share characteristics with each other in such a way that knowing details of the allegation produces a higher or lower likelihood of fraud. Political allegations will produce a higher likelihood of fraud. You should be more skeptical of them.
Though in this case (Frankens second accuser) it doesn’t seem to meet criteria which would produce a higher fraud rate than the normal. It’s a second report not a first (harder to fake two than one), was independently reported at the time (5 years is a long time to set up a con), the person seems to be a political ally of the accuser (little to no personal value in making a false claim)
She voted for Trump, its in the article, shes not a political ally. The accusation wasn't independently reported at the time, she responded to her sisters comment on Facebook which discussed how close they were standing together and stated..
"Sorry, but you two aren't Bibles (sic) width apart" - her Sister
"Dude -- Al Franken TOTALLY molested me! Creeper!" - herself
The molestation being described, could be the butt grabbing, however it seems more likely that what is being described is the fact he was standing closer than a Bibles width from her which her sister had just mentioned. She says that she mentioned it to her husband at the time, but that is not possible to confirm.
Its not about setting up a con over 5 years. Its about looking at past events in a new light and wondering how they can be exploited.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
8) People usually assume you are lying, or just re-interpretting the facts. (and don't jump on me here and say "This reason applies here too!")
But you just wrote like 2000 words about why you assume she's lying (because she doesn't meet some sniff test you've devised about the reasons why women can legitimately be hesitant to come forward with sexual assault allegations).
So...
Its not a 'sniff test I've devised'. It's a discussion of every reason I've ever heard of why 'believe women' is a real and valid thing to state with these accusations. Women are not inherently more honest than men, and they lie and tell the truth for real reasons. Those real reasons are why "Believe women" is a real and legitimate statement. Women hold back their accusations, because of the fact that they may not be believed and they will still face all the negative consequences of their accusations even if they aren't believed.
If there are few to no negative consequences (like accusing a remote and hated political figure of grabbing your butt) then the consequences of not being believed are minor, and thus, the fear of not being believed is irrelevant.
Are you trying to say that you think that women don't lie about sexual harassment/assault and rape because they are somehow inherently honest about this issue? Because that statement seems insane to me. Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
And that's pretty bad form to quote me out of context. Disagree all you please, but if you don't want to quote at least a representative section of my argument then just don't quote it. You don't have to quote me.
I didn't quote you out of context. I quoted an important condition of your argument that you contradicted in your own statement. I'm don't need to quote your whole essay about why politically motivated accusations are the ones that it's okay to disbelieve to get that point across. You don't seem to believe all the negatives that go along with every other woman who comes forward apply to these women because they're of a different political ideology and aren't friends/coworkers/family with the accused.
Women hold back their accusations, because of the fact that they may not be believed and they will still face all the negative consequences of their accusations even if they aren't believed.
...requires some mental gymnastics to believe these women face no negative consequences. I've already seen a shitload of vitriol aimed at them from all over the internet. I'm not sure how you think any woman would enjoy being subjected to that. Anyone who looks them up from now on will get 10 pages of search results about how their claim to fame is accusing Al Franken of sexual misconduct, followed by pages and pages of nasty internet comments about how they're evil undercover slut operatives.
Man, I don't even know how to approach this with you if you think that's all no big deal.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
It's really disappointing how fast things pivot from "we should believe the victims" to "she's lying to ruin him".
Because the first does not mean what you think it means and it never has. The science of probability includes conditional as well as unconditional probability. While false reports are rare false reports share characteristics with each other in such a way that knowing details of the allegation produces a higher or lower likelihood of fraud. Political allegations will produce a higher likelihood of fraud. You should be more skeptical of them.
Though in this case (Frankens second accuser) it doesn’t seem to meet criteria which would produce a higher fraud rate than the normal. It’s a second report not a first (harder to fake two than one), was independently reported at the time (5 years is a long time to set up a con), the person seems to be a political ally of the accuser (little to no personal value in making a false claim)
I also think that people are using statistics for sexual assault in the general populace to represent the niche area of celebrities and political figures. It's hard for me to believe that there aren't going to be significant differences for sexual assault in those communities compared to the average sexual assault in america.
Which isn't to say that we should throw our hands up and do nothing, but I think we need to acknowledge that the usual stats may not apply. In particular a few posters have been talking about how sexual assault is usually done by someone the victim knows. That does not seem to be the case for most of the examples in this thread.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
How does him being a Democrat and her being a Republican remove reasons like not being believed, facing significant backlash, being unable to overcome a burden of proof, etc etc.
If anything all this does is bake in one more giant reason that her claim will be discarded out of hand, and make coming forward even less of an appealing option.
I mean, someone somehwere might assume she's lying for political reasons..
Because of the enormous political and social division in this country, where republicans and democrats rarely interact and socialize. If 'Democrats' don't like you, then it really doesn't matter if you are a Republican and vice versa.
The accusation is also impossible to prove or disprove. So she doesn't need to ever prove it in a court of law, and if anyone ever takes active action against her because of it then she will have strong grounds to counter sue.
Hell, this is an anonymous web forum and I'm proposing that we might not believe her and that she doesn't have the same incentive structure as other victims who speak out, and that we might want to take a second look and I'm clearly making myself a pariah to do so. If I can't say it here, do you really think that there is some reasonable threat of a Democratic backlash?
You can line for line swap this out and make it an apologia for Moore. Does that change your opinion any?
No you can't? Moores accusers have accused him of Pedophilia and Child Abuse. They will be called upon to defend those claims in court, and face legal consequences in terms of a potential libel suit if they cannot.
What Franken did is, was, and will be, wrong.
There needs to be an investigation, resignation or not.
I think it would be best if he did resign, and then never run for office again.
If this gets any worse, then, yeah, i'm up for loudly demanding he quit, or get booted from the senate.
Also, i 100% believe all the accusations against him, i have no reason not to.
edit-
When is Frankens term over btw?
Assuming he refuses to quit if/when things get worse?
Sexual abusers need to be fearful enough to stop their behavior of molesting people.
So once again, we're back to the retroactive deterrence argument. Which isn't effective Because that's how deterrence works. In fact, it actually undermines the goal you're trying to achieve.
If I say, "I'm going to fire the next person who makes a sexist joke at work," and then someone makes a sexist joke and then I fire him, then that's a deterrence. Hopefully, your future employees won't do that.
But if I declare "I know hundreds of employees have made sexist jokes over the years so I'm randomly going to pick a random high performer for making one many years ago," then that is not a good deterrence.
The lesson your employees take from that isn't "making sexist jokes is sexual harassment and therefore wrong." instead, the lesson is "My boss is on a power trip and could for me at any time."
If the boss doesn't give the employees a way out (I.e., by demanding that they behave better in the future), then the employees will focus on critiquing the boys directly, rather than their own behavior. We've already seen this from the backlash to pc culture that got trump elected.
The problem is that you're deterrence is a utilitarian argument, but you want us to ignore whether or not it actually works because of deontology.
It's basically the same reasoning that parents use for spanking children. They'll insist that spanking is necessary because it produces better kids. But then they'll ignore you when you point to studies showing that it has the opposite effect. Because it was never really about producing better kids, it was always punishment for the sake of punishment.
Schrodinger on
+3
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
Sexual abusers need to be fearful enough to stop their behavior of molesting people.
So once again, we're back to the retroactive deterrence argument. Which isn't effective Because that's how deterrence works. In fact, it actually undermines the goal you're trying to achieve.
If I say, "I'm going to fire the next person who makes a sexist joke at work," and then someone makes a sexist joke and then I fire him, then that's a deterrence. Hopefully, your future employees won't do that.
But if I declare "I know hundreds of employees have made sexist jokes over the years so I'm randomly going to pick a random high performer for making one many years ago," then that is not a good deterrence.
The lesson your employees take from that isn't "making sexist jokes is sexual harassment and therefore wrong." instead, the lesson is "My boss is on a power trip and could for me at any time."
If the boss doesn't give the employees a way out (I.e., by demanding that they behave better in the future), then the employees will focus on critiquing the boys directly, rather than their own behavior. We've already seen this from the backlash to pc culture that got trump elected.
The problem is that you're deterrence is a utilitarian argument, but you want us to ignore whether or not it actually works because of deontology.
It's basically the same reasoning that parents use for spanking children. They'll insist that spanking is necessary because it produces better kids. But then they'll ignore you when you point to studies showing that it has the opposite effect. Because it was never really about producing better kids, it was always punishment for the sake of punishment.
Sexual abusers need to be fearful enough to stop their behavior of molesting people.
So once again, we're back to the retroactive deterrence argument. Which isn't effective Because that's how deterrence works. In fact, it actually undermines the goal you're trying to achieve.
If I say, "I'm going to fire the next person who makes a sexist joke at work," and then someone makes a sexist joke and then I fire him, then that's a deterrence. Hopefully, your future employees won't do that.
But if I declare "I know hundreds of employees have made sexist jokes over the years so I'm randomly going to pick a random high performer for making one many years ago," then that is not a good deterrence.
The lesson your employees take from that isn't "making sexist jokes is sexual harassment and therefore wrong." instead, the lesson is "My boss is on a power trip and could for me at any time."
If the boss doesn't give the employees a way out (I.e., by demanding that they behave better in the future), then the employees will focus on critiquing the boys directly, rather than their own behavior. We've already seen this from the backlash to pc culture that got trump elected.
The problem is that you're deterrence is a utilitarian argument, but you want us to ignore whether or not it actually works because of deontology.
It's basically the same reasoning that parents use for spanking children. They'll insist that spanking is necessary because it produces better kids. But then they'll ignore you when you point to studies showing that it has the opposite effect. Because it was never really about producing better kids, it was always punishment for the sake of punishment.
Sexual abuse should always be punished
Can the punishment reflect the severity, frequency, and time since the occurrence of the crime?
Resigning will help in the sense that this behavior is frowned upon and perpetrators are not rewarded with bombass paying jobs.
I think it'll have the opposite effect. Because it puts people more on the defensive than they would have otherwise been, which makes them less likely to listen.
Studies have shown that the best way to challenge racism is by encouraging empathy. Simply telling someone that they're being racist is a good way to force them on the defensive and double down. How far do you think they'll move to the defensive if you put their livelihoods at stake?
Now, if you want to make a deontological argument of "forcing them to resign is the right thing, consequences be damned!", then that would be one thing.
But instead you're arguing a utilitarian position of building the best outcome. And I have seen no data or research to support that claim.
Miming a boob grab and maybe touching a butt in a photo when leaning in to be in frame. We better hang him and mount his head on a pike as a warning ... to other people who make bad jokes and social mistakes?
I've accidentally touched a butt when going in for a hug or standing in line at the bank, or in an elevator. Worse still, my elbow has touched breasts a few times! Do I need to commit seppuku now?
I'm going to need actual evidence. I'm finding it difficult to demand blood sacrifice for something that happened (so far) once out of thousands of photos the man has had of himself.
It's like liberals are angry that a pussy grabbing rapist is the president and a child molester is running for senate. Obviously someone has to pay, we can't get those other guys so it may as well be Franken?
Slow your fucking roll and wait for evidence. No, vague Facebook posts don't count if it's your only data point. Some corroboration should be necessary, or a pattern of behavior.
Edit: The kiss thing is gross and seems like a strange sort of deal where he was forgiven. At some point more women may start coming forward with accusations he grabbed a handful of ass at photo ops. At which point go ahead and kick him from the Senate and charge him with a crime.
dispatch.o on
+1
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Miming a boob grab and maybe touching a butt in a photo when leaning in to be in frame. We better hang him and mount his head on a pike as a warning ... to other people who make bad jokes and social mistakes?
I've accidentally touched a butt when going in for a hug or standing in line at the bank, or in an elevator. Worse still, my elbow has touched breasts a few times! Do I need to commit seppuku now?
I'm going to need actual evidence. I'm finding it difficult to demand blood sacrifice for something that happened (so far) once out of thousands of photos the man has had of himself.
It's like liberals are angry that a pussy grabbing rapist is the president and a child molester is running for senate. Obviously someone has to pay, we can't get those other guys so it may as well be Franken?
Slow your fucking roll and wait for evidence. No, vague Facebook posts don't count if it's your only data point. Some corroboration should be necessary, or a pattern of behavior.
How many instances make a pattern, to you?
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Sexually assaulting a woman is always wrong. Moore and Franken both need to be removed from the power that they abused.
I don't see how the butt grab is an abuse of power. Generally abuse of power in this sense happens when one person has some amount of control over another person's life or future, but that's not really the case between a random citizen and a senator. Franken is not in a position to ruin their reputation or ensure they will never work in this town again.
Posts
Microaggressions are bad, and have always been bad. But I don't think that focusing on microaggressions during the Civil Rights Act when people were getting hit with fire hoses is a good use of time. I also don't think it would have been a good idea for activists in the 1960s to expel anyone from their ranks who's ever committed a microaggression.
I remember reading a letter from MLK during the Rosa Parks incident. He was against the policy of black people being forced to give up their seats for white people. But the interesting thing is that he didn't challenge the practice of "white people in the front, black people in the back," because he understood that the country wasn't ready for that.
The problem with comparing Franken to Moore isn't that you're putting Franken in the same category as Moore. The problem is that you're putting Moore in the same category as Franken.
If someone says a racist joke, you're not going to reach out to him by calling him an irredeemable racist asshole who doesn't deserve to be employed anywhere ever again. You're just going to push him further to the right. If you want to change people's minds, then you need to focus on the criticizing behavior, rather than the individual. If you focus on criticizing, then you force them on the defensive, which pressures them to double town. But if you focus on the behavior, you give them a way out.
If you're trying to reach out to the people who already agree that Franken's actions were bad, then you're preaching to the choir. But you're not doing anything to convince people who don't already believe that, and you might actually trigger a backlash.
If Joe Schmoe average American grabbed someone's ass when 10 years ago, then you don't gain anything by comparing Franken's actions to Moore's. Because if you're forcing Joe to identify with Moore with no way out and no path for redemption, then you're not going to convince him to be opposed to Franken (and therefore opposed to himself). Instead, you're going to convince Joe Schmoe to be start defending Mooore.
Sexually assaulting a woman is always wrong. Moore and Franken both need to be removed from the power that they abused.
Fair enough. I would hope we keep this in mind in relation to the republicans who held their noses to vote for Trump (unless you want to say that our ideals are morally superior to tax cuts...which I'm obviously amenable to...and thus this is meritless "both-sidesing").
I would add that this isn't just taking a stand though- it's holding people accountable for being abusers and assaulters so that it happens less and society improves.
Like I get it- the ACA is still around because of one senator. But I also think there's a risk to being able to hold the liberal coalition together by not addressing this stuff that in the long run far outweighs the risks of losing individual races.
Anyway I certainly don't have the answers and I'm sure I'm not considering all appropriate perspectives. Maybe that's the takeaway- a high pitched/high decibel noise rumbling through the echo chamber to make us jump out for a second to re-evaluate things?
OK, I'm going to do my very best to try and explain where I'm coming from here. Firstly I apologize for my statement saying "It didn't happen, she was at a fair". That was instinctive and crass. People can clearly be abused in all sorts of places, and even in plain sight of other people. I have no evidence one way or another as to whether or not something did or did not happen.
To me, the reason why I am incredibly suspicious of this comes back to a discussion of why in almost every other case women don't make false allegations of sexual harassment. And there are both good reasons, and bad reasons. All of them add up into a VERY strong set of arguments as to why "No woman would ever want to lie about this stuff"
1) Most women are assaulted, harassed and raped by people they know. Family, friends and relatives. As such, the women have a MASSIVE incentive to not speak out, since they will often value the abuser in many other ways. There is a real cost to them of making the allegation. A cost that society, justice and everything else we might want to give them will never return to them. Uncle Steve will never be the guy who taught them archery again. In the best possible world, he will just be the man who sexually assaulted them. This cost is ENORMOUS.
2) Most cases occur inside a social or family network. Even if you hate Bill, or Cousin Danny, because of the time he pinned you down and kissed you. Bill is best friends with your boyfriend Pete, or Cousin Danny is the son of your mums favorite brother, or Bill is the guy who set up the softball league you play on. When you make that accusation, whether you win or lose, your social circle will be torn apart. That softball league is shutting down. Your mum is going to lose contact with her brother. Your boyfriend is probably going to dump you. This cost is even more enormous, and surrounds the woman with dozens of close friends who will all tell her not to speak out, to stay silent. To tough it out for the sake of the league, the family, or her relationship. The cost of breaking that social contract is even bigger. The degree of pain and suffering required to break that and speak out makes doing so for false reasons almost unimaginable.
3) Cases outside family and friends tend to occur in the workplace. John at the office might be a sexist pig, who is forever denigrating you in front of your team, and forced himself on you at a party once when you were drunk. You might want to speak out, but again you know that speaking out, regardless of if your co-workers and bosses support you will damage the ability of the team to get their work done. You know that even at the best company, John has friends, who even if they agree with you and now hate John will still have suffered by stopping being his friend. People around you will be literally incapable of getting over that shit properly, and you'll be surrounded by people who are worried, "What if I'm next, what if I'm the next John?" Those people may find the situation confusing and frightening, they might not be able to instinctively know the difference between joking around, and sexual harassment. So they will likely just isolate themselves from you and associate with people who are viewed as less of a risk to them. People don't like to rock the boat that way, they don't want to be isolated, and they know that it will be very hard for their friend Bill (whose jokes she finds hilarious and good natured fun) to understand that there's a big difference between John's sexist hateful rants, and Bills amiable and inclusive joking.
4) If you don't work at a good company, then the reason for not speaking out is clear, you won't be believed and John will find fifty buddies to immediately back him up and say that you actually pretty much forced yourself on him. You'll be fired at the next review board meeting, for 'performance' related reasons. This line is where you'll find all the corrupt power dynamics, with people being compelled into silence out of fear for their wealth and careers.
5) Harassment and assault and rape happens mainly to married and dating women, and is often very severe. People being raped on business trips, or groped in elevators by their bosses. And it happens to married and dating women because most women are married or dating someone. Women often don't want to make an accusation, or tell the truth, because for the best will in the world a large fraction of men (and women) highly desire monogamy and are very concerned about even a compelled violation of that trust. The woman will not want to reveal the truth, because her husband or boyfriend may treat her differently after she has been violated in this way. She just wants to get back to her life, and be viewed as normal and happy, and the way she knows to be sure that her husband, boyfriend or family does that is to not tell them, or ANYONE about the incident. So serious incidents change peoples perception of you. This happens to almost all victims of crime, whether violent assault, robbery, or witnessing a murder. People all report that it changes how others perceive them.
6) The standard of proof for actual criminal prosecution. The standard is (rightfully, to prevent the incidence of other abuses in the justice system) rightfully very high indeed. So John who assaulted and raped you 15 years ago when you were working as a maid at a hotel he was staying at probably doesn't have any evidence beyond circumstantial against him. Noone he knows cares about you, and noone you know really cares about him. You don't have anything to gain, and sending him to jail will be very hard. So there's no reason to lie.
7) Men in their lives who women accuse of non criminal transgressions don't just 'dissapear'. If John slapped you on the butt at work one day, then even in a very responsive company who believes you, then John isn't just going to be taken out the back and shot. He might be fired, but then you'll still have to see him at whole foods, and at the conference coming up because he's still going to need to get a job. This non criminal transgression won't, and shouldn't, result in the end of his ability to work in the field you are both in. And accusing him of this means that John might be angry enough to move on from slapping butts to a more violent assault, since you will (in the best case for you!) have taken away his job and left him ostracized by many of his friends.
8) People usually assume you are lying, or just re-interpretting the facts. (and don't jump on me here and say "This reason applies here too!")
So when a woman stands up and says, "John from accounting raped me" or "The captain of my basketball team wont stop grabbing me" or other statements she...
i) Stands to gain nothing but the ability to speak out
ii) Will lose an enormous amount even if she wins
iii) Faces additional risk from future encounters with the same man
iv) Faces a huge burden of proof to demonstrate that a crime actually occurred due to to the nature of the crime and the necessity of the legal system
v) Will need to extend a huge amount of personal effort to be believed by her friends and family who also know the accused, and may simply never believe her
vi) Faces the chance that even if she IS believed by her friends and family, that the accusation will not be viewed as serious enough to validate her complaint. Even if Cousin Danny DID hold you down and kiss you when you were 14, his mother may simply not believe that that is serious enough to validate you damaging his life, and your parents may agree
vii) Faces the risk of being defined as simply a victim of the crime, and of degrading her relationship with her partner.
So why would women lie in these cases? They stand to gain NOTHING, and to lose almost everything of value. Inside a social circle, inside a group of friends, inside a family or a business, there is no incentive to lie and there is nothing to gain. It's a horrible and terrible thing to have to do, and will remain so even if EVERY goal of the #metoo movement is met, and every goal of the current attitude in favor of speaking out happens. No amount of social pressure will ever make Aunt Rose forgive you for accusing her son of rape, EVEN if he did it. No social movement will give you back your volleyball league or whatever, and people value that stuff.
None of these good and real reasons apply when you accuse a hated and remote political figure of a minor crime which those in your social circle don't view as 'permanently damaging' to your morals. Everyone around you already hates him, the accusation isn't serious enough to warrant a criminal investigation, and so on and so on. There is a massive incentive to tell the lie both in the moment when 'it happened' (because you can lie to confirm someone elses pre-conception that Al Franken is a sexist pig) and now (because you can force Al Franken to resign and embarrass democrats). And why not lie right now, if we are going to place the standard of proof for demanding the resignation of a Senator at "A woman who we have never heard of till today says he grabbed her butt but can't prove any aspect of it"
Women rarely lie about being assaulted and raped not because they are inherently honest about these issues. They don't lie because levelling the accusation is a MASSIVE personal cost to them and those around them. Women and men are both equally comfortable with lying, and do it all the time about pretty much everything. To themselves, to other people, about their history, about almost everything they do. Our whole memory is just a skewed pile of lies and half truths we tell ourselves. If we create a situation where there are no costs to telling a lie, and huge benefits (real or perceived) to doing so then everyone will start lying. Thats what people do. Its what people do ALL THE TIME to democratic politicians.
People don't usually lie about say, receiving bribes in the workplace. Or hearing people use racial slurs. Or about financial corruption, or sex trafficing and pedophilia or dogfighting rings. 'Believe the accusers' applies pretty well in all those cases too. Other than when the accused are politicians and the accusers are supporters of the other side. it happens around the world. Why would this be different?
If there is some delay between Franken resigning and his replacement being seated, they need 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill. It doesn't actually change the math.
I'm sorry, but you're using what turned out to be a watershed moment for the civil rights movement as a counterargument against making a stand over something considered "small"?
The other issue I have with that position is that it implies that we are not complex creatures, capable of standing up against both minor and major problems at the same time. As though our focus is laser focused, and to make an example out of an ass-grabber is to either put it on par with (or ignore) a child rapist. I just don't accept that as true.
Also, I hate using the term "microaggression" for things like this. In my mind a microaggression is that guy in your office who bottom-replies to all emails. Not the creep who grabs female co-workers asses. It's not a violent rape, but calling it a "microaggression" diminishes the fact that it is actually important.
Ass grabbing strangers is not acceptable behavior. It is sexual assault. The only people who try to downplay it and draw comparisons to rape are people trying to justify it. It isn't justifiable. It is wrong. Even more so when the person doing it is in a position of power and influence, thus making them feel like they are above the law and can get away with it. This needs to end.
But you just wrote like 2000 words about why you assume she's lying (because she doesn't meet some sniff test you've devised about the reasons why women can legitimately be hesitant to come forward with sexual assault allegations).
So...
There's three levels of discussion you're trying to treat as one: a) is the behavior wrong, and b) is the behavior on a level worth resigning over, c) will resigning actually help.
Debating the first point does not prove the second or the third.
Am I missing something here? The reason you're suspicious that this woman is lying is rooted in a list of reasons that women almost never lie about this?
So....
1) She wasnt
2) This didn't
3) This didn't
4) N/A
5) This did, but wasn't
6) Not conclusive yet
7) He will
She only ticked of 1 and a half of your personal criteria, therefore....
8) You did, and it does.
Basically all of these still apply to her, regardless of how she did or didn't meet your criteria. It's almost as if a big part of the problem is how we treat the victims.
This is goosey as fuck. I don't even know what to say.
Its not a 'sniff test I've devised'. It's a discussion of every reason I've ever heard of why 'believe women' is a real and valid thing to state with these accusations. Women are not inherently more honest than men, and they lie and tell the truth for real reasons. Those real reasons are why "Believe women" is a real and legitimate statement. Women hold back their accusations, because of the fact that they may not be believed and they will still face all the negative consequences of their accusations even if they aren't believed.
If there are few to no negative consequences (like accusing a remote and hated political figure of grabbing your butt) then the consequences of not being believed are minor, and thus, the fear of not being believed is irrelevant.
Are you trying to say that you think that women don't lie about sexual harassment/assault and rape because they are somehow inherently honest about this issue? Because that statement seems insane to me. Women don't lie about this for a huge structure of perfectly logical reasons. If you remove those reasons, then the prohibition against them lying is also gone.
And that's pretty bad form to quote me out of context. Disagree all you please, but if you don't want to quote at least a representative section of my argument then just don't quote it. You don't have to quote me.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
Sexual abusers need to be fearful enough to stop their behavior of molesting people.
How does him being a Democrat and her being a Republican remove reasons like not being believed, facing significant backlash, being unable to overcome a burden of proof, etc etc.
If anything all this does is bake in one more giant reason that her claim will be discarded out of hand, and make coming forward even less of an appealing option.
I mean, someone somehwere might assume she's lying for political reasons..
That's the current theory. That the GOP is trying to source out any and all democrats who have done anything like what Franken has to discredit them.
The internet is a weird place.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be skeptical in general. The issue of value to an accuser is correct and there is value in attacking politicians. We absolutely should be more skeptical of allegations against politicians because if we do not we will be in a position where it will be used against us in order to push the nation away from progress. On this issue and others.
We are unlikely ever to have perfectly pure people in congress. That is not how life or the game of politics works. We will lose the war if we purity test ourselves. We will prevent good people from running. We will prevent good people from winning. We will prevent good legislation from passing.
It will not clear the water either it will simply muddy them further.
Because of the enormous political and social division in this country, where republicans and democrats rarely interact and socialize. If 'Democrats' don't like you, then it really doesn't matter if you are a Republican and vice versa.
The accusation is also impossible to prove or disprove. So she doesn't need to ever prove it in a court of law, and if anyone ever takes active action against her because of it then she will have strong grounds to counter sue.
Hell, this is an anonymous web forum and I'm proposing that we might not believe her and that she doesn't have the same incentive structure as other victims who speak out, and that we might want to take a second look and I'm clearly making myself a pariah to do so. If I can't say it here, do you really think that there is some reasonable threat of a Democratic backlash?
There needs to be an investigation, resignation or not.
I think it would be best if he did resign, and then never run for office again.
If this gets any worse, then, yeah, i'm up for loudly demanding he quit, or get booted from the senate.
Also, i 100% believe all the accusations against him, i have no reason not to.
edit-
When is Frankens term over btw?
Assuming he refuses to quit if/when things get worse?
Franken's gotta go.
Because the first does not mean what you think it means and it never has. The science of probability includes conditional as well as unconditional probability. While false reports are rare false reports share characteristics with each other in such a way that knowing details of the allegation produces a higher or lower likelihood of fraud. Political allegations will produce a higher likelihood of fraud. You should be more skeptical of them.
Though in this case (Frankens second accuser) it doesn’t seem to meet criteria which would produce a higher fraud rate than the normal. It’s a second report not a first (harder to fake two than one), was independently reported at the time (5 years is a long time to set up a con), the person seems to be a political ally of the accuser (little to no personal value in making a false claim)
It can serve either purpose depending on your goal.
If you support Moore, you can whatabout Franken. If you support Franken, you can claim some relative moral high ground compared to Moore. Neither position actually addresses the problem.
I think part of this comes from the idea being pushed that all accusations are legit, and any questioning is untoward. Humans are very good at rationalizing. In the absence of any sort of effective mechanism for detecting lies it's hard to not fall back on the default of saying that people you like are innocent and people you don't like are guilty.
In the case of Franken it is unfortunate that both his accusers are people who don't like democrats and could thus be seen as having an incentive to accuse him for political reasons. That being said, given their relative distance from the political scene and the collaboration available (photo, Franken's apology), it is much more likely that they are telling the truth. The evidence strongly suggests he did not respect personal boundaries when he was younger, and likely committed many lower level sexual assaults.
I mean first of all your proposal was worded vastly worse than this, so it sounded a lot more unreasonable and drew fire. Second of all everything that applies to any other victim still does apply to her. She isn't magically free of the burdens of judgement and ostracization just because she wouldn't vote for him.
My statement was unfairly blanket sized and probably borne out of frustration. I feel that most people here aren't blindly in the first camp or immediately kneejerking to the second.
You can line for line swap this out and make it an apologia for Moore. Does that change your opinion any?
She voted for Trump, its in the article, shes not a political ally. The accusation wasn't independently reported at the time, she responded to her sisters comment on Facebook which discussed how close they were standing together and stated..
"Sorry, but you two aren't Bibles (sic) width apart" - her Sister
"Dude -- Al Franken TOTALLY molested me! Creeper!" - herself
The molestation being described, could be the butt grabbing, however it seems more likely that what is being described is the fact he was standing closer than a Bibles width from her which her sister had just mentioned. She says that she mentioned it to her husband at the time, but that is not possible to confirm.
Its not about setting up a con over 5 years. Its about looking at past events in a new light and wondering how they can be exploited.
I didn't quote you out of context. I quoted an important condition of your argument that you contradicted in your own statement. I'm don't need to quote your whole essay about why politically motivated accusations are the ones that it's okay to disbelieve to get that point across. You don't seem to believe all the negatives that go along with every other woman who comes forward apply to these women because they're of a different political ideology and aren't friends/coworkers/family with the accused.
This bit right here...
...requires some mental gymnastics to believe these women face no negative consequences. I've already seen a shitload of vitriol aimed at them from all over the internet. I'm not sure how you think any woman would enjoy being subjected to that. Anyone who looks them up from now on will get 10 pages of search results about how their claim to fame is accusing Al Franken of sexual misconduct, followed by pages and pages of nasty internet comments about how they're evil undercover slut operatives.
Man, I don't even know how to approach this with you if you think that's all no big deal.
I also think that people are using statistics for sexual assault in the general populace to represent the niche area of celebrities and political figures. It's hard for me to believe that there aren't going to be significant differences for sexual assault in those communities compared to the average sexual assault in america.
Which isn't to say that we should throw our hands up and do nothing, but I think we need to acknowledge that the usual stats may not apply. In particular a few posters have been talking about how sexual assault is usually done by someone the victim knows. That does not seem to be the case for most of the examples in this thread.
No you can't? Moores accusers have accused him of Pedophilia and Child Abuse. They will be called upon to defend those claims in court, and face legal consequences in terms of a potential libel suit if they cannot.
2020 I think?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
So once again, we're back to the retroactive deterrence argument. Which isn't effective Because that's how deterrence works. In fact, it actually undermines the goal you're trying to achieve.
If I say, "I'm going to fire the next person who makes a sexist joke at work," and then someone makes a sexist joke and then I fire him, then that's a deterrence. Hopefully, your future employees won't do that.
But if I declare "I know hundreds of employees have made sexist jokes over the years so I'm randomly going to pick a random high performer for making one many years ago," then that is not a good deterrence.
The lesson your employees take from that isn't "making sexist jokes is sexual harassment and therefore wrong." instead, the lesson is "My boss is on a power trip and could for me at any time."
If the boss doesn't give the employees a way out (I.e., by demanding that they behave better in the future), then the employees will focus on critiquing the boys directly, rather than their own behavior. We've already seen this from the backlash to pc culture that got trump elected.
The problem is that you're deterrence is a utilitarian argument, but you want us to ignore whether or not it actually works because of deontology.
It's basically the same reasoning that parents use for spanking children. They'll insist that spanking is necessary because it produces better kids. But then they'll ignore you when you point to studies showing that it has the opposite effect. Because it was never really about producing better kids, it was always punishment for the sake of punishment.
Sexual abuse should always be punished
Can the punishment reflect the severity, frequency, and time since the occurrence of the crime?
I think it'll have the opposite effect. Because it puts people more on the defensive than they would have otherwise been, which makes them less likely to listen.
Studies have shown that the best way to challenge racism is by encouraging empathy. Simply telling someone that they're being racist is a good way to force them on the defensive and double down. How far do you think they'll move to the defensive if you put their livelihoods at stake?
Now, if you want to make a deontological argument of "forcing them to resign is the right thing, consequences be damned!", then that would be one thing.
But instead you're arguing a utilitarian position of building the best outcome. And I have seen no data or research to support that claim.
I've accidentally touched a butt when going in for a hug or standing in line at the bank, or in an elevator. Worse still, my elbow has touched breasts a few times! Do I need to commit seppuku now?
I'm going to need actual evidence. I'm finding it difficult to demand blood sacrifice for something that happened (so far) once out of thousands of photos the man has had of himself.
It's like liberals are angry that a pussy grabbing rapist is the president and a child molester is running for senate. Obviously someone has to pay, we can't get those other guys so it may as well be Franken?
Slow your fucking roll and wait for evidence. No, vague Facebook posts don't count if it's your only data point. Some corroboration should be necessary, or a pattern of behavior.
Edit: The kiss thing is gross and seems like a strange sort of deal where he was forgiven. At some point more women may start coming forward with accusations he grabbed a handful of ass at photo ops. At which point go ahead and kick him from the Senate and charge him with a crime.
How many instances make a pattern, to you?
I don't see how the butt grab is an abuse of power. Generally abuse of power in this sense happens when one person has some amount of control over another person's life or future, but that's not really the case between a random citizen and a senator. Franken is not in a position to ruin their reputation or ensure they will never work in this town again.