3 ms·
Uh, that's completely the opposite scenario that I've seen over the past several years, where any accusation made against a white male are met by hoards of keyb
by sparkie 8y ago
Uh, that's completely the opposite scenario that I've seen over the past several years, where any accusation made against a white male are met by hoards of keyboard warriors quickly pointing the finger on social media, handing out a metaphorical death sentence before any trial has occurred.
The need to ask for somebody to go public before investigating their claims is so that you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person.
- pjc50 8y ago>you can attempt to discredit their claim by discrediting their person. Yes, that's the traditional way for the powerful to hide their misdemeanors. It absolutely does not help in getting any kind of truth.
- sparkie 8y agoThe larger problem is that there is information asymmetry between the weak and the powerful. The powerful know almost everything about the weak, and it becomes trivial to discredit any of them based on some past evidence they can dig up. The weak know nothing about the powerful because everything is top secret and they use the former tactic to deal with anyone who speaks out. The goal isn't necessarily to collect everything. It is just to convince the population that they're being constantly monitored. The fear that they'll be "silenced" for speaking in public about the wrongdoings of the powerful is enough for most people to submit to their demands. Anyone who claims they "have nothing to hide," is delusional. Once enough people are in that state of fear, the state can make up something you done wrong and nobody is going to risk their neck to try and defend you.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoSure it does. For example, with both Kavanaugh and Arrington, information about the accusers made the accusations infinitely less credible.