3 ms·

>You're missing the concept of "credible accusations". I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. >The court of public opinion does no

>You're missing the concept of "credible accusations". I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. >The court of public opinion does not care about "beyond a reasonable doubt" because if we actually limited anything to that nobody would be punished for anything. Sure, but people don't need to go calling people rapists just because they got accused. >If you want "convicted" to be the bar before the public treats someone poorly, you're going to have a bad time, because it's terribly difficult to actually convict someone of rape because there's almost never any actual evidence, by the very nature of the crime I just want some level of evidence more than just having an accusation that something happened years ago. That just isn't enough for me to treat someone poorly. Maybe a couple accusations or weird behavior or the alleged suspect getting caught in lies about this issue or something. Eye witness testimony is very frequently inaccurate especially when the incident occurred decades before. And that is with the assumption they aren't making it up. An accusation especially against political people is just not trustworthy in my view to begin with. People lie for politics all the time. People slander/libel for politics all the time. Why should I trust an accusation without any corroborating evidence or additional accusations or anything of the sort? >Nevermind the fact that lots of people either cannot admit to themselves or don't remember or don't realize they were raped. That presumably wouldn't make a difference in this situation. If they won't admit it or don't remember then they won't be accusing justices of doing it. >Very few people who actually commit rape (whether they realize it or not) end up convicted. It's not a rigorous stat, because again, the reality of the situation is only truly known by the two involved, so it often comes down to who you trust I understand. I should have been more clear that I don't strictly need a guilty verdict. I want something more than a single accusation especially against political people. >Consider why you trust supreme court justices to not have raped people. I never said I don't think they raped anybody. They very well may have. I think people who are in positions of power probably on average have lower morals and are more likely to be a rapist. I just don't like going around calling people rapists without any real evidence other than just an accusation that came up years / decades after it allegedly occurred. I think we are getting to a point where people throw around allegations and various -ists and phobias too often. Every day somebody is called a racist or homophobe or is accused of being a traitor to the country. I think we need to cool it with decisiveness and stop with this type of language unless there is a reason to use in a specific case.

olliej 4y ago
> I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. Of course you don't, it's just the word of a woman, and as noted elsewhere you're clearly sexist. The FBI had more than 4500 tips, a multiple corroborating witnesses. They chose not to go anywhere due to it being the 80s and all rapes being the woman's fault. But I'm going to say: it's a very clearly credible claim if there were supporting witness statements even in the 80s. > I think we are getting to a point where people throw around allegations and various -ists and phobias too often. Every day somebody is called a racist or homophobe or is accused of being a traitor to the country. I think we need to cool it with decisiveness and stop with this type of language unless there is a reason to use in a specific case. If a someone's position is that trans and gay people should be de facto treated as criminals or at the very least denied equal protection under law they're clearly transphobic and/or homophobic. If you vote in support of those policies you are stating very clearly that you don't consider LGBT people to be, you know, people. Because the idea that treating them equally is just a "political position" is an explicit statement that they you do not consider them to be people. If someone supports groups that have explicitly stated white supremacist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic "talking points", then they are antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic. If someone is avoiding overt statements by using dog whistles ("urban youth", "globalist", "anti-family", etc) they are racist, antisemitic, etc. The only people driving divisiveness are conservatives. They're very clearly, and on the record, and proud of incessant statements attacking the right of large swathes of people just to exist, let alone have any kind of equal rights. They're aggressively pushing laws with the explicit intent of legalizing discrimination. A super common refrain of bigots is that if people would just be quiet and accept the bigotry, then "eventually" they'll get the equality they want. This has repeatedly been shown to be complete BS - the _only_ thing that causes change is making noise. While the bigots on the Supreme Court have been aggressively dismantling the civil rights act, that only passed after huge protests lasting years, in which many many protestors were beaten (often by police in the white power states), and quite a few were murdered. Rosa Parks sitting in the "white only" section of a bus and refusing to leave was a "crime" according to the white supremacist states. Similarly Mildred&Richard Loving. Demanding acquiescence is purely a tool of the people enforcing the bigotry.
- 4y ago

olliej 4y ago

> I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. Of course you don't, it's just the word of a woman, and as noted elsewhere you're clearly sexist. The FBI had more than 4500 tips, a multiple corroborating witnesses. They chose not to go anywhere due to it being the 80s and all rapes being the woman's fault. But I'm going to say: it's a very clearly credible claim if there were supporting witness statements even in the 80s. > I think we are getting to a point where people throw around allegations and various -ists and phobias too often. Every day somebody is called a racist or homophobe or is accused of being a traitor to the country. I think we need to cool it with decisiveness and stop with this type of language unless there is a reason to use in a specific case. If a someone's position is that trans and gay people should be de facto treated as criminals or at the very least denied equal protection under law they're clearly transphobic and/or homophobic. If you vote in support of those policies you are stating very clearly that you don't consider LGBT people to be, you know, people. Because the idea that treating them equally is just a "political position" is an explicit statement that they you do not consider them to be people. If someone supports groups that have explicitly stated white supremacist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic "talking points", then they are antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic. If someone is avoiding overt statements by using dog whistles ("urban youth", "globalist", "anti-family", etc) they are racist, antisemitic, etc. The only people driving divisiveness are conservatives. They're very clearly, and on the record, and proud of incessant statements attacking the right of large swathes of people just to exist, let alone have any kind of equal rights. They're aggressively pushing laws with the explicit intent of legalizing discrimination. A super common refrain of bigots is that if people would just be quiet and accept the bigotry, then "eventually" they'll get the equality they want. This has repeatedly been shown to be complete BS - the _only_ thing that causes change is making noise. While the bigots on the Supreme Court have been aggressively dismantling the civil rights act, that only passed after huge protests lasting years, in which many many protestors were beaten (often by police in the white power states), and quite a few were murdered. Rosa Parks sitting in the "white only" section of a bus and refusing to leave was a "crime" according to the white supremacist states. Similarly Mildred&Richard Loving. Demanding acquiescence is purely a tool of the people enforcing the bigotry.

4y ago