|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 22, 2018 22:11:01 GMT -5
Vince, I have not disputed any or all of your examples. Can happen, or allowed to happen - that's not the point at all, and it doesn't matter in the context of my post. You've miscast my statement. Sure, investigate - that would only make sense - but there is a big difference between possible, plausible, and likely. If someone's been convicted of a crime in the past, it may well be worth questioning them about a new crime, but it's nothing like grounds for conviction. It's not even evidence.
If something happened once, can you conclude, without any other evidence, that it was deliberately allowed, or done willfully, as opposed to process failure, oversight, or anything else? No.
Again, that is nothing to do with my point, and I will not pursue a debate on it. I'm only establishing, for a second time, the scope of my original statement, because the response was to a different proposition altogether.
All I said is that one instance does not establish likelihood. It means that it has happened, and that's all.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 22, 2018 21:28:33 GMT -5
But the reason I'm bringing it up isn't to show it- the false allegation itself- happened. It's to show that in places like colleges where there's been political push to always believe and use 'victim centered investigations, that a false allegation is likely to result in expulsion. Not to disagree with the thrust of the argument, except that an anecdote - one instance - shows that something can happen. To be precise, an anecdote shows that it has happened once. It doesn't show that something's likely to happen. Likelihood would require a significant sample of instances.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 21, 2018 19:05:28 GMT -5
That's a mighty clean desk for someone who's working.
Caption: "Where the hell are my eight hundred blank pages? GET ON IT, SPICER!"
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 17, 2018 20:27:29 GMT -5
As I just said, I know that happens, so I don’t need to be persuaded or explained to. I already agreed.
As for your example, the writer could’ve avoided the problem by not mentioning her sons in the essay. Even if she didn’t use their names, it’s her byline, so “my children” is as good as naming them.
I’d imagine that should be a cardinal rule of journalism.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 17, 2018 19:58:14 GMT -5
In related news, Washington DC shops report a run on their supply of straws.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 17, 2018 19:54:17 GMT -5
So, the question is whether the overblown accusations are part of the #metoo movement, or whether they are the result of others hijacking and perverting the movement, extending it beyond its purpose, and bringing it into disrepute.
I wasn't of the view that #metoo was a conversation itself; I thought it was a movement that prompted a conversation that needed to happen.
And yeah, people hijack movements all the time (eta -- or zealous members of the movement act beyond their remit, claiming the end justifies the means): people riot in the name of #resist, Antifa or BLM, and then others point to those examples in an attempt to discredit the whole movement. IMO, if you're going to take the high road and claim it, you can't kick rocks onto those below.
But (again, IMO) that's just semantics, and arguing semantics isn't the main point. So I'll step back from it.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 17, 2018 18:04:56 GMT -5
Nope - mea culpa. I read Political Forums for Dummies, and just finished the Strawman chapter.
Hat tip to both of you, and when I finish the Flouncing section, I’ll figure out what to do next.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 17, 2018 16:27:59 GMT -5
Well, that's not what I said and certainly not what I meant. Anyone should be able to speak openly about an assault they suffered through, without shame. But when we talk about this in general terms, we should be careful to make sure were speaking about the people who commit such crimes and not lumping all men into the same category. When men as a whole feel threatened, they tune out. What I quoted, you said. I’m glad that it didn’t mean what it looked like to me. But all I’ve seen of #metoo is people speaking out about what happened to them, personally. I haven’t seen any “all men” accusations, and if some are appropriating the movement to victimise innocent people, that’s hardly the movement’s fault.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 17, 2018 0:21:15 GMT -5
I agree that we should have a change, but I don't think the current #metoo movement is helping. Too many men feel as if they're under attack, and when that happens people tend to block out the overall message. So, women should keep quiet about having been assaulted, because men who weren't involved don't want to hear it? And it's women's responsibility to speak out less, to make sure the message isn't blocked out? That line of reasoning sounds familiar, and not in a good way at all. I really hope that's not what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 21, 2017 22:36:21 GMT -5
Is this whole argument based on anecdotal evidence?
If so, why does one side have to be right and the other wrong?
Not only do different people respond to (or have different success with) different approaches, but the same person may not even respond the same way all the time. Hell, they may not even *want* the same thing every time; in fact, I'd say that the most auspicious beginnings I've had (whether torrid flings or happily-ever-after relationships) happened when I wasn't even looking. As efficient as it would be to have a success formula, how boring life would be if it were that simple.
What's more, the traits that attract one on the first meeting might not even be the same ones that keep the interest in months and years to come.
I don't believe there's one answer, and I'm happy for it to be that way. But it's fun to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 21, 2017 18:54:03 GMT -5
I can get behind supporting a stance because one believes it's right.
I cannot get behind threatening other nations if they don't vote our way.
[eta: And aren't the Arabic peoples Semites too?]
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 19, 2017 19:07:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not really sure why it's so hard to differentiate when something is appropriate and when it's not. It may be hard to legislate, and it surely varies with actor, recipient, and situation, but goddamn.
I guess there's the rub (or there it isn't). Do you do what's right, what's good, what's legal, or what you can get away with? And not everyone makes the same choice there.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 19, 2017 0:31:48 GMT -5
Huh. I thought it was the logo for the Monorail at Disney World.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 14, 2017 1:18:56 GMT -5
The idea that the race was close enough for write-ins to be significant is itself telling. The Republican losing in Alabama, then blaming write-in votes, would be like 'Bama losing to, say, Georgia Tech* and blaming it on officiating. It should never come down to that. There's no one to blame but themselves.
Speaking of which, I wonder how many of those write-in votes were for Nick Saban.
*: Those of you who speak Southern football, feel free to substitute a suitable team if this isn't apt.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 13, 2017 20:16:11 GMT -5
So yeah, some of this stuff is pure mud-slinging by Trump and company. And yet, there's been some funny business in the bureau and I have a hunch that it's all going to lead back to Comey. You reminded me of this 'FBI is Trumpland' article from what seems like ages ago: Was Comey pro-Hillary at the head of a Trump-aligned FBI? If so, were these two in the minority? (Yes, I know, it's a Guardian article, so it's surely left-leaning.) And what of Trump's subsequent comments regarding Putin's word vs. American intelligence agencies? If Comey was really so pro-Hillary, why did he resurrect the email issue a week before the election? Is he that excruciatingly, paradoxically honorable, or does he just have apocalyptically poor timing? Wasn't there a time recently when things could be made sense of?
|
|