Virginia Democrats Sucks

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby cphite » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:48 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I think this goes back to the first point about policing yourselves out of power and pragmatism vs princple. The ones more likely to resign are presumably the ones who may actually feel bad or regret doing it. Those who think its ok are going to be far less swayed to resign since they feel they did nothing wrong. Compare Roy Moore and Trump himself to Al Franken. It just makes me think of Spaceballs and the line "Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." Not precisely the same thing but its close enough to make this type of thing infuriating.


I think you have to look at the person and what they've done, as a whole, over the course of their political career. The photo of Northam is offensive and insensitive, and he absolutely ought to apologize for it. But when you look at his political career and public life over the years, he isn't a racist - he's just someone who made a really dumb mistake 40 years ago.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26531
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:02 pm UTC

solune wrote:The event happened in 1980. 39 years ago.

16 years after the Civil Rights act. 12 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. A year *before* the lynching of Micheal Donald.

On the one hand, you are right - it's been decades and people do grow and change.

On the other hand, the time to bring it up would have been... five years ago, maybe? Maybe earlier? It's certainly something that should have been discussed with various members of your political party prior to running for Governor if for no other reason than the assumption that your opposition will find it during the campaign and use it against you, and you'll need to know how to deal with that.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:26 pm UTC

solune wrote:Ok, I've read the whole thread to make sure that nobody has pointed this out before. My first reaction is this:

The event happened in 1980. 39 years ago.

In France, the statute of limitations for first degree murder is 20 years. 30 years for terrorism or human trafficking.
In the US it's more confusing, but the few states who have a statute of limitations on murder are about 10 years. For regular felonies most states have it at between 3 and 6 years.

How about we state that the man commited a hate crime in the past and then we forgive him ?

Now, I understand that what the man did in the past may be a clue about his current personnality and you might want to be cautious about the intentions behind his actions as AG, but I don't believe that demanding a resignation is appropriate.
Just because the statute of limitations expired doesn't mean you're now "forgiven" for whatever it is you did. It just means that the government can't prosecute you for it.

Statute of limitations are a check on the balance of the government's power. They have nothing to do with how people should feel about what you've done, nor how what you've done informs your conduct going forward. For example: A man shouldn't stop by to have dinner with the family who's children he murdered twenty years ago, and they certainly shouldn't be expected to invite him over for tea.

solune
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:58 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby solune » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:36 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Statute of limitations are a check on the balance of the government's power.


But they are not just that. Laws are a reflection of the philosophy of the people who make them. We made murder illegal because we thought it was a bad thing ; and in the same way I think we made statutes of limitations because we realised that being angry about old misdemeanors was not conducive to a healthy life.

SecondTalon wrote:
solune wrote:The event happened in 1980. 39 years ago.

16 years after the Civil Rights act. 12 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. A year *before* the lynching of Micheal Donald.


I'm not making the historical argument here. I'm totally ok with judging past events with the morals of today.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby Thesh » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:43 pm UTC

Who's "we"? Those laws have been around forever.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:47 pm UTC

solune wrote:But they are not just that. Laws are a reflection of the philosophy of the people who make them. We made murder illegal because we thought it was a bad thing ; and in the same way I think we made statutes of limitations because we realised that being angry about old misdemeanors was not conducive to a healthy life.
There's laws on the books right now that outlaw sodomy. Does that mean consenting adults have a moral duty to not perform sodomy?

I don't think you should treat the configuration of laws in the US as a moral guidebook. I certainly don't think you should insist people hold themselves hostage to the moral philosophies of whomever wrote those laws -- even in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with illegal behavior.

Otherwise, it sounds like you genuinely do think I should invite my wife's murderer over for tea. It's been twenty years, right? Why can't I just let the past go?

solune
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:58 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby solune » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:00 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:There's laws on the books right now that outlaw sodomy. Does that mean consenting adults have a moral duty to not perform sodomy?

I acknowledge your argument that there can be a large gap between what the laws say and what we want them to say. Still I suspect that the sodomy laws remain in the book because there are in fact a number of people who believe they have a moral duty not to perform sodomy.

The Great Hippo wrote:Otherwise, it sounds like you genuinely do think I should invite my wife's murderer over for tea. It's been twenty years, right? Why can't I just let the past go?

I luckily have never had my wife being murdered, and neither am I a psychiatrist, but I think that after 20 years you might consider getting a new wife. If you read more into my position, you're just strawmanning.

My apologies if you actually have known a murder in your life

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:10 pm UTC

solune wrote:I acknowledge your argument that there can be a large gap between what the laws say and what we want them to say. Still I suspect that the sodomy laws remain in the book because there are in fact a number of people who believe they have a moral duty not to perform sodomy.
There are a number of people who believe that they have a moral duty to stop me from engaging in sodomy with consenting adults. The law backs them up.

Are they right? Am I wrong? Should they stop me from having sex with consenting adults? Do I have a duty to not have sex with consenting adults?

Do we have a duty to respect and obey the law no matter what it says?
solune wrote:I luckily have never had my wife being murdered, and neither am I a psychiatrist, but I think that after 20 years you might consider getting a new wife. If you read more into my position, you're just strawmanning.

My apologies if you actually have known a murder in your life
? You're the one who brought up murder as an example.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby Chen » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:24 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:16 years after the Civil Rights act. 12 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. A year *before* the lynching of Micheal Donald.

On the one hand, you are right - it's been decades and people do grow and change.

On the other hand, the time to bring it up would have been... five years ago, maybe? Maybe earlier? It's certainly something that should have been discussed with various members of your political party prior to running for Governor if for no other reason than the assumption that your opposition will find it during the campaign and use it against you, and you'll need to know how to deal with that.


If the person even remembered doing it. With all this yearbook stuff I started looking back over various photos I have of myself and friends for Halloween's from back when I was in school. Fortunately no blackface or other highly visible, offensive costumes. But I did find one I wore during university of me as a Samurai. I'm not japanese. I had a sword in the back of my closet and some hakama pants from when I tried kendo so it was a cheap easy to put together costume. I didn't have any second thoughts of appropriation or the like. But looking back on that now, it certainly comes to mind. I'm certain if I look back towards when I was a child I'm sure I'd find an Indian costume somewhere between myself and my friends. Sure that would have been our parent's choice at the time but I doubt they too had a second thought on the harm they may be causing with their appropriation. I mean I'm not even sure the term was in any type of common (or any) usage at that time.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:11 pm UTC

Wow, you're such a chill guy. Do you remember the Japanese Nanjing massacre in WW2? Would you forgive a jap if he showed you his yearbook about pillaging China back then? Because he's gonna get beat down if he shows me that. If people seem sensitive, it's cuz horrible things happened back then.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby Chen » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Wow, you're such a chill guy. Do you remember the Japanese Nanjing massacre in WW2? Would you forgive a jap if he showed you his yearbook about pillaging China back then? Because he's gonna get beat down if he shows me that. If people seem sensitive, it's cuz horrible things happened back then.


What? SecondTalon asserted the person should have brought this issue up before running for governor. I responded that if he remembered it, sure he should have. The example I gave afterwards was of myself dressing in a manner that would be considered cultural appropriation at a time in the past. The only reason it even came up was because I actively went looking. After seeing it I did recall the circumstances. But it's not something I just remembered doing before I started looking and hence wouldn't have been able to pre-emptively "get ahead of" if I wanted to make sure my past was squeaky clean. And that was comparatively recent at 15-20 years ago rather than the almost 40 in the governor's case.

I am in no way diminishing (or even commenting) on the harm that example or the child dressing up as an Indian example caused. I was using it more to explain the mindset of how that was more "normal" in the past and how someone could easily not remember doing it because of it not being something extraordinary.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:34 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
ObsessoMom wrote:
Kit. wrote:"It is offensive because if was once used by white actors to represent black characters" is not an explanation.
The black characters of minstrelsy were deliberately grotesque, demeaning caricatures of black people.
That's the part some of us didn't know.


Yes, there are lots of people with the power to influence education who don't want American history to be about anything other than White Hero-Worship, so it's not surprising that such things aren't widely known. That's why I thought providing more explanation would be helpful.

Jim Crow laws--laws which relegated non-whites to second-class citizenship--were named after one of the ridiculous, subhuman characters in minstrel shows. The implication was that African Americans were as unsuited for self-rule as the fictional Jim Crow was, so laws were needed to keep such people in their (inferior) place, for the good of the whole community.

To me, the connection between Jim Crow and institutionalized racism shows a pretty clear connection between demeaning people for entertainment and demeaning people for real.

Spoilered for wandering farther and farther from the subject at hand:
Spoiler:
Edited to add: Perhaps I should mention that the reason I know so much about minstrelsy is that I am part of a senior sing-along group that performs familiar tunes at local memory care facilities. A lot of the songs that older people know and love from their childhoods come from the minstrelsy tradition. Some of these I feel comfortable singing, and others I don't. I always research them to make sure I'm not inadvertently perpetuating negative racial stereotypes.

<< stuff about particular songs snipped--no need to wander THAT far off topic. >>

idonno
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby idonno » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:08 pm UTC

Does anyone who thinks the blackface might be defensible have a defense to overlook the fact that it is happening right by someone dressed as a KKK member? That is not a picture of someone harmlessly dressing up as a black person without a clue about the historical context.

solune wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote wrote:Statute of limitations are a check on the balance of the government's power.


But they are not just that. Laws are a reflection of the philosophy of the people who make them. We made murder illegal because we thought it was a bad thing ; and in the same way I think we made statutes of limitations because we realised that being angry about old misdemeanors was not conducive to a healthy life.

Are you under the impression that the proper measure for qualifying to run the government is whether or not a court would convict? Because that bar is substantially lower than the bar for most jobs and I would say a high government office deserves a higher bar than most jobs.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:50 pm UTC

There is a time when blackface is acceptable; when you are a 1920's actor/musician who is active in the black community and the only way to introduce greater to society to black culture (and thus begin the long road to acceptance and embrasure of black people) is to pretend to be black.

Are you a 1920's actor or musician who is active in the black community? If not, then no, blackface is not acceptable.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby natraj » Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:36 pm UTC

lmao that's hilarious because even then blackface is not acceptable like! are you a white jewish person profiting off of black art and music in a way that is inaccessible to black people, by performing in blackface bc black art is more palatable to white audiences when coming from a white person?

guess what that's also harmful! it's in fact just one of the many ways blackface is gross and has always been gross. "softer" blackface that is only there to steal and repackage and commodify black art for white audiences is perhaps a different aspect of "why has blackface always been disgusting" than blackface that was specifically and intentionally done to ridiculous and dehumanize black people, but it is all there on the spectrum of the ways that blackface has contributed to the degradation of black culture, life, and humanity.

and it's extra funny to see it held up as an example of Good Blackface because i've just been involved in some pretty intense discussions bc of black history month, about the specific ways that racism has been enacted and perpetuated in the jewish community in the us throughout the years. black jewish people weirdly enough generally do not look at this as Helpful and Affirming Supportive Blackface and these are conversations that are pretty long overdue. anyway this article talks about some of the complicated history more eloquently than i do but like, it's not nearly so cut and dry as "this is/was totally okay" and citing it today as like Acceptable Blackface is weird! "this person was doing something that at the time he thought was being supportive by bringing recognition to black art, even though it simultaneously contributed to actual black performers continuing to be shut out of the industry, but at the time they were perhaps not thinking through the wider effects and ramifications of normalizing minstrelsy rather than helping to forefront real black art" has more nuance perhaps than "this is the fine and totally acceptable way to Do Blackface"

(and its inaccurate to pretend that minstrelsy was the only possible way to showcase and highlight black art and that's why it was Fine; there were white performers even then that used their race / prestige to do things like refuse to play in locations if black musicians weren't allowed, bring black artists onto stage with them, etc. its just easier and more palatable for white people, even now, to pretend that nobody saw the problems with How Things Were and therefore people in the past should be totally forgiven for not doing more.)
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:11 pm UTC

If he was so "damaging", then why were so many black actors and musicians present at his funeral? And no, they weren't there to dance on his grave.

As you say, he may have been "profiting off of black art and music in a way that is inaccessible to black people", but without him those ways would have remained inaccessible to black people. More importantly, by exposing white people to black culture, it proves to white people that black people are people, that they have the intelligence necessary for art, that they can contribute to society, that they aren't "alien" or "other"; there's a reason old conservatives fought so hard to keep the next generation away from "jive" music like Rock and Roll, Jazz, Blues, etc.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby natraj » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:27 pm UTC

me: "there's more nuance to this issue than a binary of "this is completely fine" and "this is completely evil"; even while helping on one axis there's ways that this still contributes negatively on others, and there would also have been ways to make those contributions by forefronting black musicians rather than stereotypical impersonations of them; i'm also glad that in my specific community we are beginning to have these discussions about how these relationships were complicated"

cu: "i hate any kind of nuance when it comes to race issues and i especially hate thinking that black people themselves are capable of looking at these issues with nuance, so i'll pretend what you said was that this person only did harm and was so terrible that people should have been dancing on his grave."
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:37 pm UTC

Uh, no, we aren't disagreeing on whether there was nuance, but whether he did more good than harm or harm than good.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby natraj » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:55 pm UTC

yeah except funnily enough i never actually gave an opinion on that, and again, it comes down to your habit of refusing to engage with race issues in any way other than this binary of, if a black person is critiquing something obviously they're saying it's 100% terrible and evil and they're too simplistic to have nuanced opinions. which is how you treat basically every conversation here always. you're "disagreeing" with a position you fabricated in your own mind, which is a very consistent pattern of yours on these forums when it comes to reducing talks about race to one-dimensional nonsense.

i never said anything about if he did "more harm than good" or "more good than harm", i said that there were, even at the time, other ways to do good that did not involve using blackface, and the fact that he used blackface while trying to good doesn't make doing blackface itself perfectly acceptable. it means he was using an imperfect tool which had its own harmful negative effects to do something good, and doesn't magically erase the negative aspects of using blackface.

(there's a whole longer discussion to be had about the reasons why jewish people in vaudeville & entertainment were often pushed by their nonjewish agents to use blackface, too, because being jewish was also viewed negatively and was unpalatable but coopting black experience appealed to racist white people so it was often easier than trying to find acceptance as jewish people but like. that's definitely a conversation for people more willing to engage with the issue than you are!)
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby sardia » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:27 pm UTC

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... ff-1164055
Couple of rapist's staff members have resigned as rats flees from a sinking ship.
In all seriousness, this guy has 2 accusers now, if another one appears he's done for sure.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby Chen » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:55 pm UTC

sardia wrote:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/justin-fairfax-resign-staff-1164055
Couple of rapist's staff members have resigned as rats flees from a sinking ship.
In all seriousness, this guy has 2 accusers now, if another one appears he's done for sure.


Eh once its at 2 even, it should be enough. The possibility of a single person making something up, while statistically still remote, is still there. But once you have two people, the odds of them trying to coordinate to make up false accusations gets into stupid conspiracy theory territory.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby ucim » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:15 pm UTC

Chen wrote:But once you have two people, the odds of them trying to coordinate to make up false accusations gets into stupid conspiracy theory territory.
Uh... no coordination is required for two people to make a false accusation, especially if one goes first.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:37 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Uh... no coordination is required for two people to make a false accusation, especially if one goes first.
Right, but it's hard to imagine two strangers deciding to accuse someone falsely, particularly when there is little to no incentive to do so. The alternative is that they're coordinating, which is equally (if not more) ludicrous.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:53 pm UTC

Not that hard to imagine, actually. There was a frame up of Ralph Nader back in the day, because you don't mess with Big Auto, but it unraveled pretty quickly. But, it is extremely rare to be "conspiracy" when it's multiple accusations, and really I'm going to need to see some serious counter evidence for reasonable doubt at that point.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby ucim » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:27 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:it's hard to imagine two strangers deciding to accuse someone falsely, particularly when there is little to no incentive to do so.
Perhaps true of a nobody, but not at all true of a person who is at the focus of anything of interest, political, financial, or otherwise. It's also easy to imagine situations where one can advance one's own agenda by piggybacking on an existing train wreck.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby sardia » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:36 am UTC

ucim wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:it's hard to imagine two strangers deciding to accuse someone falsely, particularly when there is little to no incentive to do so.
Perhaps true of a nobody, but not at all true of a person who is at the focus of anything of interest, political, financial, or otherwise. It's also easy to imagine situations where one can advance one's own agenda by piggybacking on an existing train wreck.

Jose

Except you know, all the other corroborating stuff that happens when passionately involved people start digging into your life for any mistakes. But yea, feel free to claim how easy it is.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:20 am UTC

sardia wrote:
ucim wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:it's hard to imagine two strangers deciding to accuse someone falsely, particularly when there is little to no incentive to do so.
Perhaps true of a nobody, but not at all true of a person who is at the focus of anything of interest, political, financial, or otherwise. It's also easy to imagine situations where one can advance one's own agenda by piggybacking on an existing train wreck.

Jose

Except you know, all the other corroborating stuff that happens when passionately involved people start digging into your life for any mistakes. But yea, feel free to claim how easy it is.
To be fair, ucim wasn't talking about circumstances where corroborating evidence confirms the accusations as true; they were just talking about situations where accusations have been made.

But to be doubly fair: Intelligent people aren't going to falsely accuse politicians of sexually assaulting them in exchange for political capital. And unintelligent people aren't going to make accusations that stand up under significant scrutiny.

It's absolutely NOT easy to imagine situations where one can advance one's own agenda by piggybacking on an existing train wreck -- not in this case. I challenge you to find one instance where someone successfully advanced their political agenda via falsely accusing a politician of sexual assault.

And if you say "Kavanaugh", I'm going to eat a cat.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby ucim » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:01 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:And if you say "Kavanaugh", I'm going to eat a cat.
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.

Now, for all these accusations, I do not know which are true and which are false. It's just not something I follow. But politics is what it is. Not very neat, clean, or orderly. I absolutely can see it happening, in both directions.

The Great Hippo wrote:Intelligent people aren't going to falsely accuse politicians...
Are you seriously proposing that, if somebody makes an accusation, and they are intelligent, that that accusation is true? Sheesh, we could save so much money skipping all those silly trials.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:14 am UTC

ucim wrote:Are you seriously proposing that, if somebody makes an accusation, and they are intelligent, that that accusation is true? Sheesh, we could save so much money skipping all those silly trials.
? Of course not. Why would you presume that I want to abolish trials? What do you think 'stand up to scrutiny' means? Trials involve scrutiny! Besides: We're not talking about trials. We're talking about elections and the court of public opinion.
ucim wrote: I absolutely can see it happening, in both directions.
The sort of people who make false accusations that can withstand scrutiny aren't typically the sort of people who falsely accuse someone of sexually assaulting them. Especially not for mere "political gain".

Let's be very clear, here: Accusers gain nothing from these accusations. Accusers are not running against these politicians. And most of them aren't going to put themselves at risk -- financially, politically, emotionally, and even physically -- to lob false accusations at a target so that they can achieve political capital on someone else's behalf. Especially since, if they did? And were found out? The resulting fallout would be catastrophic.

This whole narrative of how "false accusations" can be used to achieve political capital is one steeped in paranoia, cynicism, and yes -- misogyny. No, you don't need to assume every accuser is telling the truth. Scrutinize the facts. False accusations happen. And sure, maybe someone out there did lob out a false accusation because they wanted to "help" a politician out. But this person isn't actually helping, and their accusation will almost certainly not stand up to rigorous examination.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:30 am UTC

I would expect that if someone were to levy a false accusation, it would not be with the goal of helping a rival politician per se, but just to hurt the target politician. Anything to tear down a dirty {political epithet}, right?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby ucim » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:48 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:? Of course not. Why would you presume that I want to abolish trials?
Because it's the logical conclusion following through on your rather strong statement above: "Intelligent people aren't going to falsely accuse politicians of sexually assaulting them in exchange for political capital. And unintelligent people aren't going to make accusations that stand up under significant scrutiny."

I suppose we'd need trials (or scrutiny, in any case) to cover the unintelligent people who make accusations. But for smart people? It would be a given: If they accuse, they cannot lose.

Now I do agree that many political accusations come at significant personal cost. But that cost is lowered when it's a pile-on. And the court of public opinion doesn't really care much about the facts of the matter. The public will in addition apply whatever context it takes to support their own position or objective. Case in point - judging past actions by present mores. There are many things that we do today that are perfectly acceptable in society (eating meat, keeping pets, worshiping (and taking direction from) imaginary beings, living in single family houses...) which the future may judge us harshly for. Would the future be right to do so?

While I, too, may be swayed by multiple accusations, I am not a priori convinced simply on that basis. And none of us should be. The call that "Intelligent people aren't going to falsely accuse..." however, is a call to do just that. It's a rallying cry, not an appeal to considered thought.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:51 am UTC

ucim wrote:Because it's the logical conclusion following through on your rather strong statement above: "Intelligent people aren't going to falsely accuse politicians of sexually assaulting them in exchange for political capital. And unintelligent people aren't going to make accusations that stand up under significant scrutiny."

I suppose we'd need trials (or scrutiny, in any case) to cover the unintelligent people who make accusations. But for smart people? It would be a given: If they accuse, they cannot lose.
I think it's pretty clear from the context that I didn't mean it the way you're taking it. My point wasn't that we ought to abolish trials for 'intelligent people'; my point was that false accusations typically do not stand up to scrutiny.

There's certainly room to criticize me using 'intelligence' as a metric to how well an accusation will stand up to scrutiny -- I probably should have phrased that differently. But you don't sincerely believe that I want to abolish trials based on some arbitrary metric of intelligence, do you?
ucim wrote:Now I do agree that many political accusations come at significant personal cost. But that cost is lowered when it's a pile-on. And the court of public opinion doesn't really care much about the facts of the matter. The public will in addition apply whatever context it takes to support their own position or objective. Case in point - judging past actions by present mores. There are many things that we do today that are perfectly acceptable in society (eating meat, keeping pets, worshiping (and taking direction from) imaginary beings, living in single family houses...) which the future may judge us harshly for. Would the future be right to do so?
I'm not seeing the relevance? My point is that false accusations rarely stand up to scrutiny, and accusers don't gain political capital by making them (regardless of whether or not they're true).

(Also, I'm also not talking about 'political accusations'; I'm talking about accusers accusing politicians of having sexually assaulted them.)
ucim wrote:While I, too, may be swayed by multiple accusations, I am not a priori convinced simply on that basis. And none of us should be. The call that "Intelligent people aren't going to falsely accuse..." however, is a call to do just that. It's a rallying cry, not an appeal to considered thought.
This... seems like hyperbolic strawmanning? At the very least, it is increasingly hard for me to imagine that you're arguing in good faith. I'll clarify, and we'll see where it takes us:

No, I'm not suggesting we stop scrutinizing the facts surrounding an accusation. I'm also not suggesting we presume guilt based solely on the volume of accusations (and without regard to their content). I'm saying that false accusations of sexual assault tend not to work out for the people who make them.

Heck, even the ones backed with plenty of corroborating evidence tend not to work out.
Pfhorrest wrote:I would expect that if someone were to levy a false accusation, it would not be with the goal of helping a rival politician per se, but just to hurt the target politician. Anything to tear down a dirty {political epithet}, right?
I can see how someone might level a false accusation not to help, but to destroy; however, I also suspect that the sort of people who are comfortable using false allegations of sexual assault to destroy lives aren't the sort of people who's allegations will typically stand up to scrutiny. When this happens, it's usually pretty clear what's going on.

I'm certain false accusations of sexual assault have slipped through and stuck -- but I'm unconvinced that this is nearly as big of a problem as our utter inability to take credible, corroborated accusations seriously (particularly when we find them to be politically 'inconvenient').

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Virginia Democrats Sucks

Postby ucim » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:01 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote: My point is that false accusations rarely stand up to scrutiny... [...] Heck, even the ones backed with plenty of corroborating evidence tend not to work out.
Well, this is assumed to be universally the case - it's the whole point of trials and investigations. However, false accusations do stand up to a lack of scrutiny based on knee-jerk acceptance. I suspect that people who level false accusations, especially where the mere hint that someone might be guilty is a show-stopper, are counting on a certain lack of scrutiny. Remember, proof is hard to come by, and public opinion is fickle (and partisan).

That said, I personally know of more cases that turn out to be true than that turn out to be false. These things do happen, and they are serious.

The Great Hippo wrote:But you don't sincerely believe that I want to abolish trials based on some arbitrary metric of intelligence, do you?
No. But you are moving uncomfortably close to "guilty unless shown to be innocent". That said, there's a big difference between a trial and a job interview. Kavanaugh should not have been confirmed because he did not affirmatively show that he was (morally) suited for the job. However he should not be convicted because it wasn't shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did the things he was accused of. (In a real trial that might have happened, but this wasn't a trial - it was hardly even an investigation.) And if he were already confirmed and an active Supreme Court Judge before any of this came out, it's not clear that he should be removed because of it (though a thorough investigation should be performed, with results depending on the outcome).

The Great Hippo wrote:(Also, I'm also not talking about 'political accusations'; I'm talking about accusers accusing politicians of having sexually assaulted them.)
If it's a false accusation, I'm hard put to not consider it a political accusation. (And if it's true, it may or may not be politically motivated; that doesn't affect its validity.)

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm not seeing the relevance [of the future-context examples]
The relevance has to do with the court of public opinion. Recent example being blackface, earlier example being sexual conduct accepted at the time which is no longer acceptable, there are others. The court of public opinion often uses today's standards to judge past behavior. I was illustrating the problem I have with this.

The Great Hippo wrote:...as our utter inability to take credible, corroborated accusations seriously...
They absolutely must be taken seriously. But that's not the same as "they must be believed a priori", which it sounded like you were saying.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests