|
Post by michaelw on Apr 15, 2020 22:15:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 15, 2020 23:40:20 GMT -5
medium.com/@greyson.vanarsdale/the-nyt-article-on-tara-reade-is-a-masterclass-on-journalistic-sleight-of-hand-bed7de4f901fThis is a pretty good take-down of the NYT story. This whole thing still leaves me with a nagging question, though. Why is it so acceptable that when powerful people are accused of sexual assault, it's only the accuser who should have any explaining to do? Why is it that (almost) nobody wants to press Biden to offer up anything more than a blanket denial through a spokesperson? To me, it's completely outrageous that--unlike Reade--Biden can simply ignore the whole thing and hope that it goes away. Which seems likely to be an effective tactic. And since he'll never have to offer up anything more than a blanket denial, we'll never know whose side of the story would've been the more credible one. I don't know, that Medium article is dripping with bias itself. It refers to Reade as a "survivor" when her claims have not been proven (also, it's a dumb label anyway given that, even by her own description, her life was never close to being in danger, so "survivor" seems like hyperbole), and it also states matter-of-factly that her claims are "largely credible," but never actually backs that up with any evidence. It also switches the burden of proof by pretty much claiming that, "yes, Reade hasn't proved it happened but Biden hasn't proved that it DIDN'T happen!" (e.g., "they were unable to prove that the assault never happened"). That's some expert-level fallacious apologetics in the same vein as the "you can't prove a negative" arguments made by many fundamentalist religious apologists when it comes to questions of God's existence. Reade's story has changed multiple times. Her only "witnesses" (i.e., people she claims she told about this nearly 30 years ago) are a mostly unnamed friend, her brother, and her dead mother, all of whom had mostly refused to talk to any press (the dead mother at least has an excuse) up until this past week. I find it hard not to believe that it took them this long to finally (weakly) support Reade's story because it took her this long to finally convince them to (whether her story is actually true or not). I don't like Biden. I think he's an idiot and has done some super creepy things with women and children. I also thought the NYT article was bad, but the Medium article is just pure "#BelieveAllWomen because I said so" partisanism (the fact that the author has published in super-woke Teen Vogue kind of proves my point for me). Personally, I don't believe Reade just like I didn't really believe Blasey Ford, though I felt sympathy for Blasey Ford and believed that she (possibly) believed her story. Mix the empirically well-documented reconstructive unreliability of memory in everyone - but especially older people and even more especially for memories that are decades old - with suspiciously convenient timing (she was a huge Bernie supporter and this story came to light around the time Bernie started losing to Biden) and the fact that they're partisan political bombshells, and it casts accusations like these under huge clouds of suspicion. Given all of these factors (and the incredibly tiny statistical probability of all of these factors happening at once) and it makes the burden of proof higher. Or, at least it should. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the other hand, "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" (Hitchens). I'm not convinced either way but, that's the point. I'm not convinced she's telling the truth but I'm also not convinced that something didn't happen. For the moment, though, I don't find her story credible, especially given how much it keeps changing and the sketchiness of the "witnesses" she has offered up and, while the Medium article made a few good points, it was also biased enough to not shift my position.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 15, 2020 23:52:24 GMT -5
Eh, Robinson is a HUGE Bernie supporter and has written several pieces in the past that I would consider hyperpartisan troll garbage. He made a few reasonable points in that article, but I didn't think his takedown was nearly as effective as he seems to think it was. The story is playing out in the press as essentially a "Bernie media" vs "Biden media" battle and neither is representing its side very well. This entire thing seems like a proxy for the petty axe-grinding they were doing previously during the primaries. And that's who's responsible for all of these stories and superficial think pieces; Bernie-supporting "journalists" are all supporting Reade and using it to attack Biden, and Biden-supporting "journalists" don't believe her and are attacking her credibility. Part of me feels, though, that the salivating with which the thirsty Bernie-loving media has gobbled up and pushed this story sort of stinks of sour grapes over the primary, at least a little, and Reade is just kind of caught in the middle because her story has been weaponized. I don't know whom to believe, but I know that for now I don't believe either of them.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 16, 2020 0:58:14 GMT -5
I don't know, that Medium article is dripping with bias itself. For sure. Probably not easy to find much that isn't, TBH. Perhaps, but I think the term survivor is pretty common in this kind of context. Time's Up even uses the term for people who experienced non-physical harassment, FWIW. I agree with you here. For me though, while I don't think Biden necessarily needs to prove anything here (whatever that would even mean, in this context), I'm still incredibly frustrated with the way burdens of proof are normally applied here, as I mentioned earlier. The way Van Arsdale frames this isn't much of an improvement, perhaps, but he has a point still. Look again at what the Times wrote in their piece. They (rather uncritically) quote Biden's spokeperson saying: "What is clear about this claim: It is untrue. This absolutely did not happen." Well, OK. If the Biden camp wants us to accept this idea that Reade's claim isn't just dubious but is actually clearly not true, then it seems fair enough to mention that they haven't quite carried their point. I think generally, reporting this kind of incident to a third party would be considered meaningful, since actual witnesses--in the normal sense of someone who saw what happened first-hand--are always pretty rare in rape or sexual assault cases (for obvious reasons). And to me, telling friends and family seems pretty normal, and not really much of a problem here. Ditto for the reticence to talk to the press, IMO. To be fair, I don't think "believe all women" is really what that piece is getting at, at all. Well, who is older than Biden himself, in this story? As for the rest, I'm not sure. I don't think she was as much of a Bernie supporter as some people want to make her out to be. It actually seemed possible that she became a Bernie supporter as more of a default, switching her support to him once it became clear that it was a two-horse race between him and Biden. (And it would seem pretty logical not to support the candidate who sexually assaulted you, don't you think?) As for the Hitchens quote, that actually makes me wonder what Hitchens would've made of this story. (You might recall that he was actually a major supporter of Juanita Broaddrick, FWIW. That was another case that seems quite similar to Reade/Biden in some ways, where everyone wanted to dissect the accuser's story ad nauseam, without bothering to wonder whether the accused could offer anything substantive beyond ignoring it.) Fair enough, but I don't think the main point of the article was to try to convince you that Reade is telling the truth. (Hence why the author didn't mention that he believes her until the end.) It was really more for the purpose of dissecting the NYT piece, and it sounded like you basically agreed that the Times piece was BS. Perhaps. You could be completely right that pro-Sanders/anti-Biden journalists are pushing this extra-hard because of bitter feelings about the primary. But you know, that seems like exactly what should happen, IMO. Petty axe-grinding aside, the accusation, in and of itself, isn't petty at all but rather quite serious (I know you weren't suggesting otherwise, but I feel it's important not to lose sight of that.) So, if forced to choose between two extremes, where one side salivates and one side wishes this would all just go away, I'm more than happy to come down on the side of the salivators. That doesn't mean Reade is telling the truth, but the salivators are right that this shouldn't just go away, just because some people really, really want Biden to get elected president. And as much as I'm trying not to inject my own biases here too much, I gotta admit, I have a hard time seeing some of these defenses of Biden as much more than politically expedient hand-waving. That, coupled with the fact of Biden's past comments about sexual assault accusers, has got me pretty frustrated w/ this story, and not very excited about the prospect of Biden as the nominee. Just my opinion, as usual.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 16, 2020 7:14:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 16, 2020 7:57:43 GMT -5
Yeah, that Medium piece is pretty good. In particular, it highlights how the NYT piece tried to make the story about Trump and his (many) transgressions, proven or otherwise. Pretty slimy, as far as journalism goes.
As to it's bias--which it certainly has--I find it to be more or less consistent with the precepts of the #metoo crowd. While that doesn't excuse it, it kind of serves to make a lot of that same crowd look like hypocrites with their defense of Biden.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 16, 2020 8:13:34 GMT -5
I'm not convinced either way but, that's the point. I'm not convinced she's telling the truth but I'm also not convinced that something didn't happen. For the moment, though, I don't find her story credible, especially given how much it keeps changing and the sketchiness of the "witnesses" she has offered up and, while the Medium article made a few good points, it was also biased enough to not shift my position. I'm kind of in the same place, though the one part of the Reade story that rings seriously true to me is her quote of Biden saying "Come on man, I heard you liked me." But accepting that quote is a long way from accepting her story in total, from accepting that Biden was "digitally penetrating" her when he said it. Maybe, just maybe, Biden made a pass at her, tried to kiss her or the like, and when she rebuffed him that's what he said. Because as Biden himself once noted: Maybe the essence here was just a clumsy pass from a guy with a pattern of being overly touchy-feely with women. And maybe Reade is using that essence--for whatever reasons--to make herself into a big story and/or to try to sink Biden.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 16, 2020 13:38:12 GMT -5
The fact that her story drastically changed from "he commented about my legs and that made me uncomfortable" to "oh, yeah, I just remembered that one time the threw me against a wall and shoved his fingers inside me" after she started getting more notoriety just screams bullshit to me.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 16, 2020 19:23:52 GMT -5
No doubt, Biden's side of the story would be a paragon of coherence and consistency, in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 16, 2020 20:00:51 GMT -5
Well as you said, Biden can ignore the whole thing or at worst have spokespeople to continue issuing blanket denials. If somehow Reade's story is 100% true or--the far more likely reality, imo--she's embellishing a much more minor incident (that could nonetheless hurt Biden), it's unlikely there will be any sort of proof. So, Biden has no real reason to say anything about this.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 16, 2020 20:49:12 GMT -5
Well as you said, Biden can ignore the whole thing or at worst have spokespeople to continue issuing blanket denials. If somehow Reade's story is 100% true or--the far more likely reality, imo--she's embellishing a much more minor incident (that could nonetheless hurt Biden), it's unlikely there will be any sort of proof. So, Biden has no real reason to say anything about this. Absolutely. I just find it absurd how anyone could be satisfied with that. I'll be very surprised if Biden even gets asked about this during the campaign. One question I would ask Biden, if I had the chance: Was it true that Reade was demoted during the time she worked for you, and if so, why? (But hey, as I said, I'm sure Biden's response would be perfect. In fact, I'm so confident of that, I don't even need to hear it. )
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 17, 2020 15:30:23 GMT -5
Well as you said, Biden can ignore the whole thing or at worst have spokespeople to continue issuing blanket denials. If somehow Reade's story is 100% true or--the far more likely reality, imo--she's embellishing a much more minor incident (that could nonetheless hurt Biden), it's unlikely there will be any sort of proof. So, Biden has no real reason to say anything about this. This is especially true as the media is ignoring it. It'll be up to Trump to bring it up, and well.... it's Trump. It's like me attacking someone who could lose 10lbs to be at a perfect weight when I have my own zip code. Well as you said, Biden can ignore the whole thing or at worst have spokespeople to continue issuing blanket denials. If somehow Reade's story is 100% true or--the far more likely reality, imo--she's embellishing a much more minor incident (that could nonetheless hurt Biden), it's unlikely there will be any sort of proof. So, Biden has no real reason to say anything about this. Absolutely. I just find it absurd how anyone could be satisfied with that. I'll be very surprised if Biden even gets asked about this during the campaign. One question I would ask Biden, if I had the chance: Was it true that Reade was demoted during the time she worked for you, and if so, why? (But hey, as I said, I'm sure Biden's response would be perfect. In fact, I'm so confident of that, I don't even need to hear it. ) A question I see batted around the Twitterverse is, was she lying. If he says no, then he's guilty. If he says yes, then why has he insisted women never lie?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 18, 2020 12:28:29 GMT -5
Hopefully this will past well, but this is a good tweet thread from KC Johnson who follows these matters.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@sengillibrand</a>'s Biden standard: believe accusers means only believe "to the extent that you then do an investigation."<a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@sengillibrand</a>'s Columbia standard: "I believe Emma"--even after police & TIX inv'ns went the other way.<a href="https://t.co/tfJ1tCWydi">https://t.co/tfJ1tCWydi</a></p>— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) <a href="https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1251561103387131905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 18, 2020 12:29:13 GMT -5
That might work better
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 26, 2020 21:01:49 GMT -5
theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/You guys have probably heard about the Larry King call by now, but here's a link, anyway. (The link includes the original clip from 1993, which most reports on this seem to be omitting.) My thoughts: 1. If nothing else, this call should really undermine the idea that the accusation was only a political ploy to hurt Biden and help Sanders in the Democratic primaries. It just goes back too far in the past, and even if the specifics came out relatively recently, whatever Reade told her mother in 1993 likely wasn't exactly trivial. 2. The University of Delaware should say whether or not they have the complaint that Reade says she filed. Biden's presidential run makes it a matter of public interest, and it would speak to something that the Biden camp has taken a hard position on. (They've said straight up that no complaint was ever received.) 3. I still don't really grok what the motivation would be, if Reade was just making this story up. She seems like the type who would be supporting Biden right now, if they were two people who had never met each other. (Obviously we can't say the same about Christine Blasey Ford + Kavanaugh). IMO, something probably did happen between them during the time she worked for him. Maybe that something is totally unrelated to a sexual assault, but there's nothing on the table here that strikes me as more plausible than what Reade is saying happened. 4. I still find it laughable that Time's Up is saying that its hands are tied, due to Biden's running for president. You know who else is running for president? Donald Trump. Would Time's Up be taking the same position if Reade was accusing Trump instead of Biden?
|
|