Jay

CatBus said:

Jay said:

Regardless of what the FBI finds, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, most Democrats will believe we have a sexual predator on the Supreme Court. I feel totally comfortable using the word “most”.

If the FBI finds nothing, but possibly because they were instructed not to look for certain things that would be reasonable for such an investigation, I’d have a hard time not joining that number, though I’m not a Democrat anymore. As I said, cover-ups scream “guilty” even when it’s not true. The “dirty defense” as you call it would be entirely to blame for people’s misperceptions if he’s actually innocent.

I don’t believe most Democrats would trust the results of the investigation regardless of its credibility. That’s just where we are now. The left has joined the right on the crazy train and people’s beliefs align more with their ideology than an honest assessment of the facts.

CatBus said:

Jay said:

Possessed said:

Warbler you should really have a beer man

Yeah.

CatBus said:

It’s hard not to conclude that both the Senate and the White House are working very, very hard to prevent people from actually performing the investigation that could be used to clear Kavanaugh, and to wonder what sort of advantage such a heavily biased process could possibly give to an innocent man.

What do you think they could possibly find at this point to clear him? Short of a plane ticket stub and passport stamp that shows he was out of the country that entire summer, I doubt there’s anything that would prove to any Democrat he’s innocent.

“Clearing” means finding no evidence of guilt (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). So by not finding anything, they clear him (that doesn’t necessarily disprove Ford’s accusation either, it just fails to prove it). However, if they don’t find anything because they were instructed not to investigate, that’s another matter entirely. That’s the difference between “not guilty” and “coverup”. And “coverup” just screams “guilty”, whether it’s true or not.

Innocent or guilty outside the legal definition is a partisan playground. The FBI cleared Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing with regard to e-mails, and most people are fine with that. And clearly there’s still a fringe of people who think she’s guilty of something. Certainly the same will be true for Kavanaugh. But “all Democrats”? That’s extreme. It’s like saying all Republicans believe in Mailghazi. It’s just not true.

The press and Democrats were particularly up in arms about this issue precisely because it wasn’t being investigated. With an investigation – one not circumscribed by the White House – people will go back to disliking his politics, or his propensity to commit perjury and spout conspiracy theories. They’re not going to start liking him, that’s fairly certain, and they will continue to say bad and even mean things about him, but this particular issue would fade in importance. If they actually find evidence disproving the accusers’ testimony entirely, the issue would drop to Pizzagate levels of support among Democrats.

I agree it’s unlikely they’ll find much. There’s a little more evidence to sift through in this case than a “he-said/she-said” scenario, but it is just a little more. Failing to find anything at all (most likely scenario), he’ll be cleared, but Ford’s accusation will remain plausible. There’s a legal distinction between “innocent” and “not guilty”, and people may have a hard time finding him innocent. But the legal process would nevertheless have found him “not guilty”, assuming that legal process is permitted to happen… which is unfortunately still very much in question.

I’ve seen very few Democrats, here or elsewhere, talk about Kavanaugh as if he’s an innocent man. Or even the possibility he’s innocent. There are always exceptions, but Kavanaugh’s guilt seems to be a very partisan affair.

Regardless of what the FBI finds, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, most Democrats will believe we have a sexual predator on the Supreme Court. I feel totally comfortable using the word “most”.

Possessed said:

Warbler you should really have a beer man

Yeah.

CatBus said:

It’s hard not to conclude that both the Senate and the White House are working very, very hard to prevent people from actually performing the investigation that could be used to clear Kavanaugh, and to wonder what sort of advantage such a heavily biased process could possibly give to an innocent man.

What do you think they could possibly find at this point to clear him? Short of a plane ticket stub and passport stamp that shows he was out of the country that entire summer, I doubt there’s anything that would prove to any Democrat he’s innocent.

There was zero presumption of innocence from the start and now the Republicans are running what’s probably a dirty defense to keep everything contained. The whole thing stunk from the beginning on both sides.

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

I am also pissed at being accused of offending victims of sexual assault and misogyny. No reasonable ration person should be offended by what I said earlier.

You don’t get to decide who your words offend.

I do have the right to have an opinion on what is and isn’t reasonable to be offended about. The mere mention that something that is possible is in fact possible is not something that should offend anyone.

What’s offensive and what isn’t is entirely subjective. You’re free to say what you want and others are free to be offended. Being offended that others are offended, which is what you seem to be, is hypocritical.

Believing in due process means assuming everyone’s innocence until proven otherwise. That includes the women who approached Sen. Flake in the elevator. You had no reason to suggest they might be paid actors and you’re being called out for it. As they say, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

Of course, what the stories those women shared have to do with a completely separate accusation, I have no idea. I’m saddened they were assaulted, but their pain isn’t relevant to Kavanaugh and Ford. One person’s unsolved murder doesn’t make someone else’s murder suspect guilty.

Handman said:

Right, but seeing as most seats up for re-election are held by Democrats… the chances are slim. I’m aware of the election, it just doesn’t make sense to push this guy through for any reason besides partisanship… it just makes me want to vote them all out now.

This post is not very articulate. It is very late and I am exhausted, but hopefully you get my meaning.

I think the longer they drag it out, the more it makes the Republicans look weak and clueless, so even if they don’t gain any seats after the election, it’s still a bit of a win. That’s if you believe the blue wave is inevitable. Possible they’re just stirring up more conservative angst (and therefore votes) with all the drama. We’ll find out soon enough.

Handman said:

Regardless of whether or not he did it, the fact that there is no definitive proof he didn’t do it, and his behavior during his testimony, gives a rather poor impression of his character. I do not know why the Republicans have to stick with Kavanaugh with all this controversy. It would be so much simpler to just pick someone else.

What’s ironic is that the most likely fallback (Amy Coney Barrett) is arguably more conservative than Kavanaugh, which is the only thing that makes me think at least some Democrats are pushing back on him out of genuine principles and not just payback for Garland, unless of course they’re sitting on some stuff to throw against her, too.

The entire point of all these delays is to push the hearings until after the election, at which point the Democrats can use the same play that Republicans did when they refused to hold hearings for Garland. At least then there’s a hope that Democrats will have more sway.

SilverWook said:

Politics is one thing. Invoking Clinton revenge conspiracies as an underlying cause of one’s confirmation woes is another.

“Revenge on behalf of the Clintons” sounds like a crazy conspiracy on the surface, but is it really that far-fetched that some in DC wouldn’t mind seeing Kavanaugh squirm after what he helped do to Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal?

Sounds like a bit of poetic justice to me, and not entirely undeserved. I’m not a fan of Bill Clinton and his womanizing is well-known, but I never thought it was the public’s business what he was doing in his private life, even if doing it in the White House exhibited extremely poor judgment. That was between him and his wife.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

Ignoring the he-said-she-said aspect of this currently, I’m simply stunned at how ridiculously partisan Kavanaugh sounded during the hearing.

I would expect anyone being considered for the Supreme Court to be a little less partisan.

I agree. As others have noted, most justices have political leanings in terms of liberal/conservative, as most people do, but what is surprising (though I guess shouldn’t be these days) is how openly opinionated he is in terms of party politics, which the position is supposed to be divorced from.

Beyond that, what struck me most was his demeanor. Maybe I have a high bar, but I don’t think someone who can’t conduct themselves in a hearing without being overly emotional and confrontational in this way should be on the Supreme Court. I don’t buy that “if he’s innocent he’s emotional because his life is at stake” excuse either. Perhaps if this was the first time he had heard the accusations it’d be excusable. But at this point, none of the questions in the hearing should have been a surprise. If he’s not guilty as he says he is, but he can’t give a straight answer to a very simple question about whether he’d support an FBI investigation without becoming histrionic, then that’s a problem. Whether he’s just overacting or easily flustered, it’s not a good look for him or the Republicans supporting him.

Pretending we know how people should behave under stress is a bit silly. I see cops do this same thing when they question suspects; they insist someone is acting atypically when there really is no “typical”, then they hammer them until they’re exasperated and suggest maybe they’re exasperated because they’re hiding something. I’d like to see the average American throwing shade at this guy deal with this kind of scrutiny and pressure and stay cool.

I didn’t say anything about him being exasperated because he’s “hiding something,” that’s irrelevant to my point (I was specifically looking at it from the perspective that he potentially isn’t lying). It’s not about how “people” behave under stress, it’s how a potential Supreme Court justice should behave. For what is ostensibly a job interview, I’d say he acted extremely unprofessional - to say the least - whether he’s hiding something or not. He’s not an average Joe suddenly under a cop’s microscope. He’s a judge, he shouldn’t have a problem in this setting, and let’s not forget this wasn’t even a trial.

Who’s to say how I’d fare in the same situation, but then again I’m not the one up for one of the most important positions in the nation.

I’m going to assume that none of your previous job interviews ever included defending yourself against rape allegations with your accuser testifying directly to your potential employer.

This wasn’t a typical Supreme Court nominee Senate hearing and calling it a job interview belies the immense pressure of the situation, even under normal circumstances without the rape allegation (most job interviews don’t happen in front of a committee and large audience with TV cameras broadcasting everything you say). Criticizing Kavanaugh’s demeanor doesn’t strike me as fair under the circumstances. I would’ve been suspicious if he’d been calm. I doubt he’d be this combative if they were simply asking him about his judicial record and thoughts on previous court cases, though he does strike me as someone who’d give whatever he got, in which case aggressive questioning would be met with aggressive responses.

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

Ignoring the he-said-she-said aspect of this currently, I’m simply stunned at how ridiculously partisan Kavanaugh sounded during the hearing.

I would expect anyone being considered for the Supreme Court to be a little less partisan.

I agree. As others have noted, most justices have political leanings in terms of liberal/conservative, as most people do, but what is surprising (though I guess shouldn’t be these days) is how openly opinionated he is in terms of party politics, which the position is supposed to be divorced from.

Beyond that, what struck me most was his demeanor. Maybe I have a high bar, but I don’t think someone who can’t conduct themselves in a hearing without being overly emotional and confrontational in this way should be on the Supreme Court. I don’t buy that “if he’s innocent he’s emotional because his life is at stake” excuse either. Perhaps if this was the first time he had heard the accusations it’d be excusable. But at this point, none of the questions in the hearing should have been a surprise. If he’s not guilty as he says he is, but he can’t give a straight answer to a very simple question about whether he’d support an FBI investigation without becoming histrionic, then that’s a problem. Whether he’s just overacting or easily flustered, it’s not a good look for him or the Republicans supporting him.

Pretending we know how people should behave under stress is a bit silly. I see cops do this same thing when they question suspects; they insist someone is acting atypically when there really is no “typical”, then they hammer them until they’re exasperated and suggest maybe they’re exasperated because they’re hiding something. I’d like to see the average American throwing shade at this guy deal with this kind of scrutiny and pressure and stay cool.

The accusations have gotten steadily more severe over the last week, with Kavanaugh heading into the hearing with the most recent accusation of gang rape hanging over his head, knowing that Democrats are openly hostile to his nomination and already assume he’s guilty. I don’t find his demeanor questionable at all.

Also odd is this game of pretend we play when we say that judges shouldn’t have politics. Everybody has politics, even if they don’t discuss them openly. There’s a reason why we can often predict quite reliably how Supreme Court justices are going to vote.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?

I think Jay put it well, but I also found this article that explains how that might be the case.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/09/27/32994451/i-believe-her-and-him

Both, I think, could be correct.

It is entirely plausible that a drunk Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge pushed Christine Blasey into a room, tortured her, and, soon after, forgot all about it. One of the other people who were allegedly at the house that day, Ford’s friend Leland, has said that she doesn’t remember the party or the assault either. And why would she? Ford says she didn’t tell anyone about the alleged attack until years later. For Leland, it would have been just another summer day.

And this, I think, explains Kavanaugh’s insistence that the attack didn’t happen as well. He’s not lying; he really just doesn’t think this attack happened. For Ford, it was an attempted rape that would haunt her for years. For Kavanaugh, it was fucking around, being a teenager, not a violent assault. How could two people have such different reactions to the same event? As the New York Times reported this week, while trauma is frequently seared into our memories, neuroscience research suggests that “there are scenarios in which someone could have committed an assault and yet also have almost no memory of it. If an assailant attaches little significance to an assault—for instance, if he doesn’t consider it an assault—his brain may only weakly encode details of the encounter.”

That, I think, is what happened: She experienced an assault that he didn’t realize he was committing. Ignorance, of course, does not make his actions okay. In fact, it’s almost more damning that two young men could be so cavalier with a girl’s body without even realizing their actions weren’t just harmful, but criminal. It’s a dark mark on us all that something so significant to a woman could be so easily forgotten by a man, but that is the world we live in. When Kavanaugh says the attack never took place, that’s because, for him, it did not. What is traumatic for her is, for him, less than nothing. This doesn’t mean Kavanaugh shouldn’t be punished for his actions, but it could help explain why he doesn’t remember them.

Granted, this is just conjecture, we have no idea what really happened.

I saw that article and the problem I have with it is that in the author’s mind, both of them being “correct” naturally means that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford and he doesn’t remember correctly. The flip side is that Ford was assaulted, but not by Kavanaugh because Ford doesn’t remember correctly. If the author were unbiased, she would’ve accounted for both scenarios.

Lots of conjecture by political parties attempting to hold on to power and journalists trying to get viewers and clicks, all with zero meaningful evidence.

dahmage said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?

No, but my lived experiences aren’t the sum total of all possibilities. It’s also important to remember that if Kavanaugh did get wasted and assaulted Ford, it’s possible that in his mind his actions weren’t out of bounds since alcohol messes with your reasoning, so he could’ve seen it as a sloppy attempt at getting laid rather than a forceful assault and not worthy of much study/contemplation.

This I agree with

For clarification’s sake, these are all hypothetical scenarios. This is the part where you’d normally say “only two people know what happened that night”, except it’s possible neither does, which literally means no one does (unless you believe Judge does and is lying).

Is that enough to convict a person? In the court of public opinion, Kavanaugh is already a guilty drunk rapist as far as most Democrats are concerned and an innocent man being railroaded as far as most Republicans are concerned.

As far as the FBI investigation goes, I’m guessing they say what they’ve been saying: lack of evidence, too long ago, would never make it to a jury, etc. I’d be surprised if they take the whole week they’ve been given.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?

No, but my lived experiences aren’t the sum total of all possibilities. It’s also important to remember that if Kavanaugh did get wasted and assaulted Ford, it’s possible that in his mind his actions weren’t out of bounds since alcohol messes with your reasoning, so he could’ve seen it as a sloppy attempt at getting laid rather than a forceful assault and not worthy of much study/contemplation.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Jay said:
It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

I didn’t say that Kavanaugh was an alcoholic. Rather, I said that he had a problem with alcohol. And I stand by that claim – a high school student frequently drinking until staggering drunk, becoming belligerent as a result of the alcohol, to the point of possibly assaulting people, is someone having a problem with alcohol, regardless of whether or not they are an alcoholic.

My response wasn’t directed at you specifically, sorry. I agree that someone who gets violent when they consume alcohol and continues to do so has a problem even if they’re technically not an addict.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh put his hands on Ford, got too rough and did things that were out of character for him, and had no recollection of it the next day.

The possibility isn’t evidence, though, and the reason I have difficulty with her story is that she remembers literally almost nothing else about the event. I’ve heard both “trauma makes you remember” and “trauma makes you forget”. Either (both?) can be true depending on the person. It’s just not reliable testimony, all due respect to Dr. Ford.

dahmage said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

Ahahahahaha holy shit Warbler.

The thread has been fairly civil. Don’t take it down this path again. Consider this an official warning.

I’m going to just go ahead and step in here since anytime Frink asks for clarification you ban him.

There are similar posts to this all over the Forum. Saying holy s*** (insert users name here) is literally an expression that is used all over the place to express incredulity.

Maybe the haha was a bit too much but seriously this is ban Worthy?

Yes. He’s been asked repeatedly, particularly in this thread, to provide more substantive responses. Even though it’s gotten testy on occasion, overall the discussion in here has been great for the last month or so and I’d like it to stay that way. I have zero tolerance for that junk creeping back in now that things are civil.

Participate in the discussion/debate or get out.

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

Ahahahahaha holy shit Warbler.

The thread has been fairly civil. Don’t take it down this path again. Consider this an official warning.

SilverWook said:

What could anyone gain from putting their life and that of their family in jeopardy on a false accusation? Ford is going to be watching her back possibly the rest of her life. The world is full of crazies who hold grudges, unfortunately.

I’m not saying Ford is a liar. I believe something happened to her. I’m just not as certain of who assaulted her as she is. She can’t remember anything else about that night. A party that happened at a house she can’t remember, attended by people who say they don’t remember being there, ending with a ride home she can’t remember. That’s what she’s given investigators to work with.

I’m no psychologist, but I’ve been researching a lot lately about memories and how the human mind works, and given the fuzzy details of the rest of Ford’s story, there’s no reason to believe she got the perpetrator right. People construct all kinds of memories they don’t actually have, especially when they’re traumatized. As soon as you realize that human memories aren’t like files in a computer, that we reconstruct and reimagine them as needed, and that plenty of innocent people have gone to jail over false recollections, you begin to appreciate real evidence over emotion.

I hate what we’re going through right now as a country and I don’t want Ford to suffer, but we already live in a world where people are being fired because their politics are wrong or they made a stupid joke on Twitter a decade ago. I don’t want to live in a world where an accusation without evidence is enough to undo a 30+ year career.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Trident said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

All I know is that activism is slowly replacing reason on the left

While that may be true, activism has already replaced reason on the right. Both sides demonizing each other and glorifying themselves, as though either side has a monopoly on reason, to the detriment of reason itself.

Consider that Rush and Hannity cater exclusively to the right and have done so for a long time; and how many on the right are quick to defame Obama or Hillary, but are extremely hesitant, or flat out refuse, to oppose Trump’s views or actions (except in secret) now that he’s the president.

To be clear, and I’ve mentioned this before, one should not infer that I approve of or don’t see actions on the right that I’m currently criticizing on the left. I’ve seen this in a lot of political discourse, and not just here. It’s almost like some kind of reverse whataboutism, where if you criticize one side for something, people point out that you’re not criticizing the opposite side at the same time, which means you must condone the same actions on the opposite side. It’s bizarre.

Speaking for myself, I’m not a leftist nor a liberal. I’m a moderate devout-Christian Democrat from Oklahoma who is increasingly disenfranchised with the whole political scene in general. To be sure, my intellectual beliefs line up a lot with those on the left side of the aisle, but my faith purportedly not as much.

And that’s a big beef I have with either side. The left often belittles faith in God, and Christianity in particular, as archaic superstitious nonsense; and the right uses (pretend?) “faith” as a political tool to garner votes. Though I find the latter much, MUCH more irritating than the former, since they bizarrely cite faith while doing things wholly contrary to what their faith teaches them were they actually familiar with it (which amounts to them being Pharisees).

Yeah. I’m pretty much lining up with this here.

With the slight sway in that I’m probably more right than left. I mean my religion’s at war with my heart even on the best days. So I give a nod to keeping a bit right on the social side? But then when it comes to fiscal policy I guess I’m more of a bit left there. I mean I don’t believe in wide open capitalism. I think stores are getting way the hell too big and guys with deep pockets are buying too many votes.

That said? I also think our county’s got a problem with emotion winning instead of reason. I mean you see it in the news. You see it in the universities. You see it just about everywhere really.

So that’s where I’ve gotten to be a bit of a Jordan Peterson watcher. I mean that guy’s videos are sometimes pretty good. I connect with the way he lays things out most of the time. I mean I’m hardly a disciple? But that guy has a way of talking that’s usually a class act. At least in the ones I’ve watched anyway. I mean sometimes he comes across a bit angry or maybe stubborn in places? But usually he’ll admit when he’s wrong in an argument. So that scores points with me.

He started out really angry and stubborn, and admits as much, which is why he adjusted his style as his exposure increased. Nothing wrong with recognizing a fault within yourself and making active attempts to improve your behavior.

Peterson tends to lose me when he starts talking religion, but I think he has genuinely good intentions and find most of his advice to be grounded in common sense.

The common sense that if you’re an atheist, you’re really just a Christian that doesn’t know it yet.

As if this is what Peterson boils down to and it’s all he has to offer.

I’m not religious and somehow I manage not to get butthurt over it.

chyron8472 said:

Trident said:

So that’s where I’ve gotten to be a bit of a Jordan Peterson watcher. I mean that guy’s videos are sometimes pretty good. I connect with the way he lays things out most of the time. I mean I’m hardly a disciple? But that guy has a way of talking that’s usually a class act. At least in the ones I’ve watched anyway. I mean sometimes he comes across a bit angry or maybe stubborn in places? But usually he’ll admit when he’s wrong in an argument. So that scores points with me.

I can’t get past that Cathy Newman interview where she kept saying “So what you’re saying is [not at all what he just said].” Peterson might even be crazy, but to strawman his words in such a comically farcical way makes it hard for me to take opposition to him seriously.

It’s fine to disagree with Peterson and even question him rigorously, but most of the venom directed towards him both in this thread and the media as a whole is misguided at best and dishonest at worst. Some left-leaning journalists blatantly lie about his positions and misrepresent him, which ironically has only fueled further interest in what he has to say. It’s backfired tremendously.

Peterson fans use that as an excuse to disregard all harsh criticism of him. How has most of the venom in this thread been misguided or dishonest? Pretty much all of it has come from me, so I think I can debunk these claims of it being dishonest if I hear some specifics.

I think you’re misguided and the media is largely dishonest when it comes to Peterson. There’s nothing to debunk because we’ve been over it repeatedly and we simply don’t agree. Anyone is free to review our older posts on the subject. I’m not rehashing it.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Impossible to know if Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh is true. Partisans are going to believe what they want.

Without calling witnesses, that’s certainly the likely outcome. That’s why I bemoaned how little time was spent on the details that could steer things away from he-said/she-said.

All other named witnesses have no recollection of any such behavior or events.

What people say to the press and what they say under penalty of perjury are sometimes two very different things. If he wants to say that under oath, that’s fine. Give him that opportunity.

one uncorroborated claim of assault

Corroboration has degrees–parts can be corroborated if not the whole. You can corroborate that the claim predates the nomination, for example, so while the public revelation may be political, the underlying claim certainly isn’t. There’s also a witness that I believe should be called to testify who may or may not provide more corroborating detail. I’d describe it as one partly-corroborated claim with a yet-to-be-questioned witness, and other uncorroborated claims. YMMV.

It’s not a good look for anyone, but this is apparently how our government operates.

Weird how under such a dysfunctional, dramatic environment, Gorsuch sailed through the same Senate recently without even a mention of him assaulting anyone. It may just be equally possible that government always works like it did for Gorsuch, but only when you studiously avoid assaulting people.

The Dems don’t care about Ford at all. I’m sure some of them believe Kavanaugh is Trump’s inside man on the court in the event the Russian investigation ends up before them and that’s why they don’t want him there.

The whole thing is a mess. I feel sympathy for Ford, but without even basic facts to back her claim, lack of intact memories from the event, and no corroborating witnesses, I’m not sold on Kavanaugh’s guilt. I also don’t consider his behavior today out of bounds for someone who’s spent the last week being accused of participating in gang rape of all things.

Fact is Ford’s story wouldn’t hold up in court and the FBI has already said that there’s nothing to investigate because there’s no data or evidence to work with. They’d just be digging up more foggy memories and innuendo from calendars and yearbooks.

I tend to believe Moore’s accusers, Trump’s accusers, and Clinton’s accusers. I tend not to believe Kavanaugh’s accusers.

Trident said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

All I know is that activism is slowly replacing reason on the left

While that may be true, activism has already replaced reason on the right. Both sides demonizing each other and glorifying themselves, as though either side has a monopoly on reason, to the detriment of reason itself.

Consider that Rush and Hannity cater exclusively to the right and have done so for a long time; and how many on the right are quick to defame Obama or Hillary, but are extremely hesitant, or flat out refuse, to oppose Trump’s views or actions (except in secret) now that he’s the president.

To be clear, and I’ve mentioned this before, one should not infer that I approve of or don’t see actions on the right that I’m currently criticizing on the left. I’ve seen this in a lot of political discourse, and not just here. It’s almost like some kind of reverse whataboutism, where if you criticize one side for something, people point out that you’re not criticizing the opposite side at the same time, which means you must condone the same actions on the opposite side. It’s bizarre.

Speaking for myself, I’m not a leftist nor a liberal. I’m a moderate devout-Christian Democrat from Oklahoma who is increasingly disenfranchised with the whole political scene in general. To be sure, my intellectual beliefs line up a lot with those on the left side of the aisle, but my faith purportedly not as much.

And that’s a big beef I have with either side. The left often belittles faith in God, and Christianity in particular, as archaic superstitious nonsense; and the right uses (pretend?) “faith” as a political tool to garner votes. Though I find the latter much, MUCH more irritating than the former, since they bizarrely cite faith while doing things wholly contrary to what their faith teaches them were they actually familiar with it (which amounts to them being Pharisees).

Yeah. I’m pretty much lining up with this here.

With the slight sway in that I’m probably more right than left. I mean my religion’s at war with my heart even on the best days. So I give a nod to keeping a bit right on the social side? But then when it comes to fiscal policy I guess I’m more of a bit left there. I mean I don’t believe in wide open capitalism. I think stores are getting way the hell too big and guys with deep pockets are buying too many votes.

That said? I also think our county’s got a problem with emotion winning instead of reason. I mean you see it in the news. You see it in the universities. You see it just about everywhere really.

So that’s where I’ve gotten to be a bit of a Jordan Peterson watcher. I mean that guy’s videos are sometimes pretty good. I connect with the way he lays things out most of the time. I mean I’m hardly a disciple? But that guy has a way of talking that’s usually a class act. At least in the ones I’ve watched anyway. I mean sometimes he comes across a bit angry or maybe stubborn in places? But usually he’ll admit when he’s wrong in an argument. So that scores points with me.

He started out really angry and stubborn, and admits as much, which is why he adjusted his style as his exposure increased. Nothing wrong with recognizing a fault within yourself and making active attempts to improve your behavior.

Peterson tends to lose me when he starts talking religion, but I think he has genuinely good intentions and find most of his advice to be grounded in common sense.

chyron8472 said:

Trident said:

So that’s where I’ve gotten to be a bit of a Jordan Peterson watcher. I mean that guy’s videos are sometimes pretty good. I connect with the way he lays things out most of the time. I mean I’m hardly a disciple? But that guy has a way of talking that’s usually a class act. At least in the ones I’ve watched anyway. I mean sometimes he comes across a bit angry or maybe stubborn in places? But usually he’ll admit when he’s wrong in an argument. So that scores points with me.

I can’t get past that Cathy Newman interview where she kept saying “So what you’re saying is [not at all what he just said].” Peterson might even be crazy, but to strawman his words in such a comically farcical way makes it hard for me to take opposition to him seriously.

It’s fine to disagree with Peterson and even question him rigorously, but most of the venom directed towards him both in this thread and the media as a whole is misguided at best and dishonest at worst. Some left-leaning journalists blatantly lie about his positions and misrepresent him, which ironically has only fueled further interest in what he has to say. It’s backfired tremendously.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

Did you forget the other rallies Trump inspires? The left rallies may be larger…

It’s interesting that rallies on the right make you think of white nationalists. Do you immediately associate rallies on the left with Antifa? BLM?

Anti-fascists and Black Lives Matter are not the equivalent of white nationalists. Interesting that you make that connection.

Antifa is a violent organization packed with “good” fascists who think they’re saving the country from “bad” fascists. Just as nuts as anybody on the far right.

Uh, they’re not fascists. They’re anarchists and communists. There’s a clear political difference. I don’t support Antifa, but I’ve made clear that I am in favor of some types of political violence. Not all violence is the same. I think that we need to remove all judges and representatives that are bought and paid for by corporations. If we can do that peacefully, then that’s great, but I’m not opposed to people doing it forcefully.

Antifa may label themselves as something they view as honorable and worthwhile—and obviously you sympathize with their views—but they’re lying extremists who want to suppress free speech and are willing to use violence to achieve their goals.

I shouldn’t have lumped BLM with them.

Of course you shouldn’t have, but I find it interesting that you did.

Just call me a racist and get it over with. I can see your eyelid twitching from here.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

What the hell are you talking about? Don’t you remember the Tea Party? What about the pro-life march every year? Of course they’re protesting less now, their side is in power.

And how the fuck is it nuts to march?

First of all, chill out. I didn’t say it was “nuts to march”. It was an expression.

You said they go nuts and march.

Yes, exactly. I didn’t say only nuts march. I also said conservatives stockpile guns, which is obviously hyperbole also.

I mean is it not obvious to anyone else I was exaggerating for effect? Was the little winky face not enough of an indicator?

Conservative protesters typically don’t turn out in the same numbers as liberal protesters, even at their own marches.

Why does that matter? People that want change tend to protest more. Go figure. Protest is often a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size

Do any of those look like conservative causes?

No, but to pretend that protest (especially crazy protest) is unique to the left is ridiculous.

Did I say protest was unique to the left? No. I said that conservatives don’t protest in the same numbers as liberals. I backed that up with data.

Yet another instance where you demonstrate that you read what you want into what I say rather than what’s actually written.

moviefreakedmind said:

I prefer antagonistic discussion.

No shit. I’d argue it’s mostly unproductive and largely designed to get a rise out of people rather than exchange ideas.

Handman said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

Did you forget the other rallies Trump inspires? The left rallies may be larger…

It’s interesting that rallies on the right make you think of white nationalists. Do you immediately associate rallies on the left with Antifa? BLM?

I’m not conflating white nationalists with the right in its entirety, but after I posted that I had a feeling it’d be interpreted that way. Sorry about the confusion there. They sure as hell ain’t lefties though, and Trump’s failure to condemn the white nationalists has done nothing to deter them. In fact, they feel like the president supports them.

Agreed. I think he was right to condemn violence “on many sides”, but it would’ve been pretty easy to tack on “…but obviously I don’t support white nationalists and Nazis”.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

Did you forget the other rallies Trump inspires? The left rallies may be larger…

It’s interesting that rallies on the right make you think of white nationalists. Do you immediately associate rallies on the left with Antifa? BLM?

Anti-fascists and Black Lives Matter are not the equivalent of white nationalists. Interesting that you make that connection.

Antifa is a violent organization packed with “good” fascists who think they’re saving the country from “bad” fascists. Just as nuts as anybody on the far right.

I shouldn’t have lumped BLM with them.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

What the hell are you talking about? Don’t you remember the Tea Party? What about the pro-life march every year? Of course they’re protesting less now, their side is in power.

And how the fuck is it nuts to march?

First of all, chill out. I didn’t say it was “nuts to march”. It was an expression.

Conservative protesters typically don’t turn out in the same numbers as liberal protesters, even at their own marches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size

Do any of those look like conservative causes?

Handman said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

Did you forget the other rallies Trump inspires? The left rallies may be larger…

It’s interesting that rallies on the right make you think of white nationalists. Do you immediately associate rallies on the left with Antifa? BLM?

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

All I know is that activism is slowly replacing reason on the left

While that may be true, activism has already replaced reason on the right. Both sides demonizing each other and glorifying themselves, as though either side has a monopoly on reason, to the detriment of reason itself.

Consider that Rush and Hannity cater exclusively to the right and have done so for a long time; and how many on the right are quick to defame Obama or Hillary, but are extremely hesitant, or flat out refuse, to oppose Trump’s views or actions (except in secret) now that he’s the president.

To be clear, and I’ve mentioned this before, one should not infer that I approve of or don’t see actions on the right that I’m currently criticizing on the left. I’ve seen this in a lot of political discourse, and not just here. It’s almost like some kind of reverse whataboutism, where if you criticize one side for something, people point out that you’re not criticizing the opposite side at the same time, which means you must condone the same actions on the opposite side. It’s bizarre.

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

flametitan said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It is too vague. I think they’re implying calls for genocide, calls for violence, or things of that nature. Either way, that’s a problem with hate speech laws in general, not C-16.

My understanding for why it’s vague is that if it’s well defined, it becomes easier to loophole either as prosecution or defendant. The law is worded such the way it is so that a judge and Jury can determine whether or not a particular incident falls under hate speech without having to set precedent.

Vague laws that affect what people can and can’t say are exactly my concern. I don’t want anyone to be harassed and I think you have to be a special kind of jackass to deliberately misgender a trans person, but the law should be absolutely clear about what is and is not okay so it can enforced properly and without too much interpretation.

moviefreakedmind said:

More vague generalizations with absolutely no clear evidence or examples to back it up. Notice how I actually provide concrete examples in my posts? When I talk about how awful Jordan Peterson is I quote him and reference his work. I try to do this whenever I make claims in this thread, and though I don’t always do that well, it’s something that I try to do. You should start doing stuff like that because I don’t even know how to respond to any of this. It’s just “some people say this, some people say that. This vague thing is happening. That vague thing is happening.” It’s a waste of everyone’s time. Not because I disagree but because it doesn’t say anything. It’s just a vague statement that no one can relate to because we don’t even know what the problem is. What’s happening in the tech industry? Are people getting fired for voting Republican? Are they being forced to participate in gender-reassignment activities? Are they being forced to renounce God? What’s happening? How are we supposed to respond to “what it’s doing to the tech community right now” when you don’t even tell us?

You get combative, complain I’m ignoring you, then make baseless accusations when I do engage that demonstrate you either didn’t read or simply disregarded what I posted earlier. What’s the point of reading these walls of text?

Read the several paragraphs I posted about the Linux CoC pages ago. That’s real and it’s happening now.

Read again about Damore. But as you said in your response to that incident, it happened a whole year ago so I guess it’s not relevant anymore.

Watch the Google company meeting video where senior management expresses their sadness and concern, to the point of tears in some cases, that Hillary lost the election. This is a company meeting where anyone in attendance who is conservative certainly had views that would not have been welcome during that discussion. Tell me after watching it that Damore’s memo was handled fairly.

Read something other than traditional media outlets if you want to know these things. I’m happy to share what I know and discover to a certain degree, but you’re responsible for your own knowledge. Take what you’ve been given and use a damn search engine if you care to know more. You shouldn’t rely upon what you read on a forum any more than I do.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Arch-hypocrite pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson sues university over comments made in private by employees of the university “in order to make academics more careful about what they say about him.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-laurier-university-asks-court-to-dismiss-jordan-peterson-lawsuit/

What a litigious, hypocritical fraud. For those of you that don’t know, Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is that he pretended that his freedom of speech was under attack, even though he was never fired, disciplined, or censored in any way by his university.

Peterson’s lawsuit against the university is legitimate. The university’s employees attempted to intimidate and punish Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student and TA, for showing a clip of a Peterson lecture (with whom she hardly agrees on anything, by the way) during her class. The university employees lied about having received complaints from students when they had received none and told Shepherd she was propagating hate speech. Thankfully, Shepherd recorded the entire exchange and it’s probably the only reason she’s still a student there.

The university deserves to be sued and their employees fired for being liars who tried to push an agenda, damage a student’s reputation, and label Peterson as an extremist with hateful views.

The only thing this situation has to do with free speech is Lindsay’s right to show a Peterson clip during her own class, upon which her university infringed. Peterson is suing to protect his character and reputation, which is valid.

She did play the clip and was brought into a meeting with professors who went against the university policy and she faced no disciplinary action from the university. In fact, the university condemned the meeting and defended her. How is that grounds for a lawsuit against the university? How are private comments that someone else made public comparing Peterson to Hitler, as ludicrous as that is, in any legal way “slander”?

What disciplinary action did those professors receive from the university?

Legally, I suppose it isn’t slander. What if this were a private conversation where some white professors referred to a black professor using a racist slur and a third party made the comments public? Would you defend the group because the conversation was private?

Peterson’s, and every other Canadian’s, free speech was under attack by the “pronoun law”. There’s nothing pretend about it and it had nothing to do with the university where he teaches.

I referenced this already, but here’s that claim being debunked:

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

“The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the
evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other
genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition.
The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and
federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or
gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine
privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.” - Canadian Bar Association

How in the hell, is that a violation of anyone’s free speech?

EDIT: I mentioned the connection to his university because he claimed that his university would use C-16 (which you inaccurately call the “pronoun law”) to deplatform him, which obviously never happened.

For every analysis that says C-16 is harmless, there’s one that says it isn’t.

I called it the “pronoun law” because it’s sometimes referenced that way. I understand it’s not literally about pronouns, but it has the potential to be used to defend their use and punish those who mis-gender.

All I know is that activism is slowly replacing reason on the left and seeing what it’s doing to the tech community right now is enough to make me leery of any law that encourages more of it.