#MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

Jia Tolentino for the New Yorker: "It will be said that Kavanaugh was confirmed despite the #MeToo movement. It would be at least as accurate to say that he was confirmed because of it. Women鈥檚 speech鈥攁nd the fact that we are now listening to it鈥攈as enraged men in a way that makes them determined to re毛stablish the longstanding hierarchy of power in America." newyorker.com/news/our-columni

#MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

It has nothing to do with men vs women, and the rag promoting this narrative should know better. They profit from conflict; don't waste your valuable time on their Drama of the Day.

A million "me too"s are meaningless without evidence. We do not owe it to anyone to just believe their words and allow public opinion to sway decisions that should be rooted in fact. Claims must be verifiable to have any credibility; there's nothing sexist about that at all and any group pretending that it is has an ulterior motive.

#MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@zlg @nev Man, why you gotta start off good and then veer off into BS like that?

Correlation does not equal causation but it sure nudges hard and says "look over there". I was skeptical of this sort of stuff too... and then my heckin' mother told me some *rather* disturbing stories. And my sister. And a girl I was dating. And others I trusted.

Claims have to be verified, but putting the SOLE burden of proof on the victim seems pretty unhelpful.

#MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@zlg @nev Put it this way. When your big sister, who can sure as heck take care of herself in life, comes to you and tells you about getting followed down the street by some creeper who kept trying to lay hands on her, are you still gonna say that's meaningless without evidence?

#MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@zlg @nev I don't want to live in a single accusation without support can torpedo my career forever. But I sure as fuck don't want to live in a world where cute black girls get groped on a bus and do nothing about it "'cause I didn't want to get hit".

re: #MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@icefox @nev I'll try to address your posts by number.

1) I do not believe accusations should be discounted out of hand. I think accusations should be reported to the correct authorities and due process should be followed. It's unimportant what I personally feel about someone's testimony unless I'm a juror.

If we want to talk about the troubles of dealing with authorities, I'll probably agree with you on that. That's a different discussion, though.

2) You're using people who one already has a relationship with as an example, and it's muddying your message. It puts a natural bias to believe someone due to your past relationship. For the record, no, I would not believe a family member just because they claimed something. But that's because some members of my family have a habit of stretching the truth or outright fabrication.

To make this question fair, the person telling you the story should be a stranger. In that case, I lack enough information to conclude, but will default to "Have they done what they should to get the ball rolling on a case? If not, give'em some suggestions."

3) I'm with you on that; I think it's possible to be skeptical and take appropriate action once guilt is established, not a moment before. Anything further is vigilante "justice" that has no place in society.

4) see the 2nd paragraph of number 1.

re: #MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@zlg @nev Thank you. I got a bit personal there. Let me return to your original post:

"A million "me too"'s are meaningless without evidence."

Do you not take this as evidence that there is *something* going on? Something that might be worth investigating, learning about, and making some sort of decision about, instead of just saying "well it's the victim's problem to do something about it"?

re: #MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@icefox @nev Not really, no. Are you aware of the sort of misinformation campaigns that have been used throughout history? I'm not going to claim that MeToo is such a campaign, but given the effectiveness of manipulating social media to suit political or commercial goals in recent years, it would not shock me in the slightest. The means are there. Astroturfing, dogpiling, phishing, doxxing, all sorts of ugly, high-charisma social strategies are vying for attention and momentum in society. It's fair to say "there's something going on", but I'm not inclined to blindly go along with it or agree with what that "something" is.

To assume one way or the other is reaching a conclusion with insufficient evidence. Additionally, it's not logically sound to assume "because X% of these claims were credible, the rest are, too." Each incident should be handled in its own context, not by "virtue" of sheer volume. MeToo appears to be about standing up and raising "awareness". What good does that awareness do? If we want to help these women, they need to be in touch with legal aid, not cheerleaders and echo chambers on social media. These social campaigns also have a chilling effect on the out group; in this case, men who do not wish to be seen as a threat. For this reason, some men refuse to be alone with women in their professional life. Is that fair to men? Is it fair to women? Nobody benefits from this except the rabble rousers. Why should a man automatically be assumed to be guilty of certain crimes? Why should a woman need a second man or woman with her in a room in order for her male colleague to feel comfortable around her?

I do not trust our justice system. It has many flaws, but it's really all we have to properly deal with crime that approaches anything resembling "fair". Sexual abuse is a crime, so it should be dealt with accordingly. That means the accused has the right to face their accuser and is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers. At least in America...

The alternative is what we see on social media: a mob of people who are more interested in vengeance than they are public safety or the integrity of justice as a concept. The Code of Hammurabi is thousands of years old, and we ought to be better than that by now. This is why we're supposed to choose people who will act and decide in impartial, reasonable, and humane ways when dealing with criminals. The public mob is not suited for the job.

I suspect we'll agree that choosing the right people to deal with these cases is difficult, but that's true of any government office, tbh.

re: #MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@zlg @nev One paragraph at a time...

1) Have you done some research? My research consisted of asking my mother and sister if they had any thoughts about it. ezpz. Turns out they had *no problem at all* believing that it was at least largely legit, for very concrete reasons. Surprised the heck out of me. If you're unwilling to blindly go along with any given "something", try to find out actual information instead of social media hype.


re: #MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@zlg @nev

2) I'm not assuming "because X% of these claims were credible, the rest are too". All that tells you is that X% of the claims are credible. Where do you draw the line of significance? If a million people say X, and 90% of them are credible, that tells you something. If 10% are credible, that tells you something very different, but you still have 100,000 victims.

If you discount all of them because some might not be credible, that's just bad science.

Web 1 0 0

re: #MeToo, Kavanaugh; column 

@icefox @nev I don't draw a line of significance. One stands to be wrong in either extreme. I just don't feel compelled to believe or disbelieve.

Mathematically we can claim anything over 50% is a majority of cases, but it doesn't account for false accusations. If we discount anything under 50%, we leave victims behind. Neither position is tenable.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!