The Accusation Against Kavanaugh
Well, honestly, it does have some trappings of credibility.
But...false accusations are the very lifeblood of the PC left...well...along with the sophistical manipulation of language...so...I guess it's got two lifebloods...
A particular red flag, however, is that Kavanaugh allegedly did this with his friend in the room. That bit seems especially implausible, not only because the other guy is then a witness to the assault, but also because, well, honestly: kinda gay. Nobody wants to do anything even vaguely sexual in front of their friends. Well...I guess some guys must...but...can't be many.
At any rate, given that such false accusations now produce status on the left...and given that false accusations of many kinds are now used routinely as weapons/tools over there...I think I'm more-or-less bound by something like principle to simply ignore such unsubstantiated accusations.
This is, as I think I mentioned recently, a departure from a long-standing inclination of mine to err on the side of believing accusations of sexual assault. An inclination, incidentally, that more than one female friend of mine has derided...
Anyway. One might say: can't risk this with a SCOTUS nominee. That's worth thinking about.
Also anyway: more evidence might emerge.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:10 AM
10 Comments:
But... why is there evidence from 2012-2013? This isn't a last minute accusation, as her therapist notes have all the details the same. Unless she set this up with her husband on the off-chance Kavanaugh got the USSC nod 5 years later?
Yes, there are possible problems with the testimony. But it cannot be brushed off lightly anymore.
"Anyway. One might say: can't risk this with a SCOTUS nominee. That's worth thinking about."
Problem with that rule is its too easy to weaponize (which is of course why the Left weaponized sexual assault generally). The need for due process and innocence before proven guilty isn't just to eliminate false positives in criminal justice, it's also there because a false accusation is itself a harm to the person accused. There is no case in which you are relieved of the burden of proof.
Sidenote: one nice property about the betting antidote to bullshit is it allows people dealing with genuine uncertainty to capitalize their burden of proof. So maybe I can't get the evidence lined up right now, but I still have some conviction, so I'll trade my epistemic burden for a financial one. Either way, you still have actual skin in the game, and can't just land punches for free.
This is not the PC left. Nothing about this smacks of hysteria, and it's more than a little credible. Keeping silent for decade is normal, based on what I've read, telling a therapist and her husband in 2012 (Kavanaugh was not on anyone's radar for the supreme court). Letting Feinstein know in a letter asked to remain confidential...it leaked (not from Feinstein, probably), and now the accuser is willing to go public (having feared harassment or worse if she went public sooner). I dunno...this does not seem made up or part of the PC left.
This one took some parsing: 1) it's a credible accusation, 2) general rule is the left makes false accusations, therefore 3) it's not a credible accusation. That's a lot to ponder there, Wins.
I don't know where you're getting any of that Anon... That's not a reconstruction of my argument...so whose is it?
Not sure what you're saying then. If the accusation has "trappings" of credibility, what does the PC left have to do with its credibility at all? Much less giving people a reason to ignore/disbelieve the accusation?
Sorry, man, I just don't understand what you're asking/saying... We just seem to not be communicating here.
Not sure what the problem here is here. You wrote:
"At any rate, given that such false accusations now produce status on the left...and given that false accusations of many kinds are now used routinely as weapons/tools over there...I think I'm more-or-less bound by something like principle to simply ignore such unsubstantiated accusations."
What is the relevance of the left to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford's allegation? Are you saying she is part of the PC left? Are you saying that because some in the PC left are backing her up her allegation should be set aside or disbelieved? Hope this helps.
Yes, that does help.
And it's a damn fine question.
Answer: I don't know. I don't think I was presupposing that she's part of the PC left, but I seem to have been thinking about such unsubstantiated accusations generally, and thinking: given that the PC left now uses false accusations as weapons of political / social / cultural war, I have even less reason to believe them than I did before.
But, one way or another:
If we have information that Ford is *not* part of the PC left, then those considerations are irrelevant.
I've seen nothing to suggest that she is (except for the initial reports who confused her with someone else with the same name). I even heard something that might possibly suggest that she isn't.
Thanks for this comment, Anon. My bad for not grokking this more readily.
That clarifies things on my end, as does your most recent post. The political interests involved may be an extra reason to be cautious, but I'm not sure. The weight of the evidence in this particular case should be the deciding factor. Maybe comparing her sworn testimony to Kav's will help.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home