💭💭One more thought about Kavanaugh/Ford..

in #kavanaugh5 years ago (edited)

If a woman tells you she's a victim of rape, you don't need to be super skeptical. If she's your friend or family or co-worker, you don't need evidence to decide she deserves the benefit of any doubt and that you should believe her.

[You should need proof to convict someone in a court of law, but not to generally support and believe someone.]

But when someone shows up on television and YouTube, you don't have a personal relationship with them. So (1) you don't have any way to know they're good and deserving of trust and (2) your support isn't relevant or nourishing to them anyways.

You shouldn't see her as a friend or something and then project the way you'd give unfettered support to a friend.

She's a person in the public spotlight, and you should start from the standpoint of being skeptical and seeing the motivations in play.

I've worked a little for poker/gambling sites before. When we design promotions/bonuses, we always have to assume the player will be angleshooting it to structure their bets in a way that's profitable to them. We have to do our best to set it up in a way where this can't be done.

It doesn't mean we think the typical player would angleshoot it. That's not the point. If we set it up where it can be done, then the few people who do behave that way will emerge. They'll find us and strike.

If you "set it up" where an allegation carries huge weight (and potentially could flip an important political thing), then someone will make the allegation.

But it doesn't reflect how you should view the typical person who alleges sexual assault, and how believable they're likely to be.

When it's in the public spotlight and could sway major political things and outside of the circle of people who have earned your trust, it's different standards. You don't blindly believe them. It needs to be based on facts and hard evidence, or else anyone that someone doesn't like could be taken down at the flip of a switch.

But it doesn't mean you should be skeptical about your sister or friend etc.

Different standards. Different things. Don't conflate them.


Are women believed?

I recently said this in a comment, but IMO it's worth highlighting.

Suppose I called up the newspapers and said a politician (or judge candidate or whatever) attacked me with a hammer and broke my arm 20 years ago. And without evidence that showed this, is there any chance that on my word alone it gains traction and becomes a national story and interferes with a big political process?

Lol.

Like just by saying it, I'm at the hearings and on TV and the nation is caught up talking about it?

Some people look at this whole thing as women not being believed. Wildly backwards. Measured against other types of allegation inserted into the same scenario, seems people are super hungry to believe a female's claim of sexual assault.

It's just that you can't realistically expect allegation alone to go to the point of changing who gets to have big political positions. (My allegation about the hammer wouldn't change it either.)

You have to not personalize it and accept the dynamic and how it works when it's a national, political, impersonal, high stakes thing.

Sort:  

When it's in the public spotlight and could sway major political things and outside of the circle of people who have earned your trust, it's different standards. You don't blindly believe them. It needs to be based on facts and hard evidence, or else anyone that someone doesn't like could be taken down at the flip of a switch.

Now that I think about it, this could have happened the other way. We could have a judge nominee we really like facing a rape allegation. I'm sure I'll be emphasing on evidence if that happened.

Maybe we're just blinded by sentiments and scared of how Kavanaugh would influence the judiciary landscape once he gets there.

If a woman tells you she's a victim of rape, you don't need to be super skeptical. If she's your friend or family or co-worker, you don't need evidence to decide she deserves the benefit of any doubt and that you should believe her.

I know a few over here. The fact that a woman trusts you enough to confide in you in something.

That's it.

I'm out!

But when someone shows up on television and YouTube, you don't have a personal relationship with them. So (1) you don't have any way to know they're good and deserving of trust and (2) your support isn't relevant or nourishing to them anyways.

again this is just amazing the way you elucidate your point and try to examine from as neutral a standpoint as possible. I definitely agree with the above.

Like I said I haven't really been following the affair cos headache prevention lol so i don't know what evidence has been provided or whatnot, (only thing I know the judge had a hysteric breakdown or something), but definitely the first thing anyone should do is examine shit from a skeptcical place. Seriously that's the way every thing should be approached. Even sometimes with family haha.

Also...great casino allusion!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70638.80
ETH 3565.34
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.73