Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rooster Cogburn105's avatar

It has its twists and turns

Expand full comment
King Beauregard 👂's avatar

"Maybe if the accused was someone who didn’t have a habit of making women feel uncomfortable with inappropriate touching?"

This is a bad standard, because it clears every man who can maintain a respectable facade, which is probably most of them.

"She could be lying. I really don’t know."

We do know, though. She has contradicted herself in very fundamental ways on her account. If any one of those accounts is true, the others are false.

"I just see us doing to her what conservatives do to pretty much EVERY woman who comes forward with claims of assault. And I hate it."

Well, it's worth taking some time to think about what standards you believe make sense in weighing allegations like this. Bear in mind that we can expect a torrent of false allegations against Biden simply because that's how the GOP and Putin operate, so either we need to come up with some rules of thumb or else we are volunteering to be tools of the GOP and Putin.

For me, here are some rules to start with; feel free to agree or disagree, but most importantly, think about what rules make sense to you:

1) Ignore who the man is. Base none of this on your opinion of the alleged assaulter.

2) Does the woman's story sound like it could have happened?

3) Does the woman contradict herself in fundamental ways? I don't mean in term of "gotchas" like "why did she say it was a strawberry pie one day and a rhubarb pie the next day", I mean is she highly consistent about the assault itself. From what I hear, survivors of sexual assault don't have the luxury of believing different things happened different days; there is only the horrible and unwanted reality of what happened to them.

4) Are there any plausible explanations for why the woman might be lying? This generally isn't a show-stopper of a criterion, but it's one we need to take into account, especially when we're talking about the Democratic presidential candidate. Where Tara Reade is concerned, we really ought to ask why now and not, say, in 2008 when Biden was first being vetted. There might be a reasonable explanation, but thus far I have not heard it.

5) A subtle one: do you get a sense in the woman's account that she's trying to protect other women? A victim of sexual assault is going to be motivated, at least in part, by trying to protect other women. Look for signs. Christine Blasey-Ford stepped up not because it would be fun but because she was worried about putting a monster on the Supreme Court. That matters.

6) If there is corroborating testimony, does it seem to have come up just recently and seemingly out of the void?

Those are my spitball rules for how to process a single woman's allegations. Multiple women will serve to reinforce one another, and even if n-1 of them prove to be frauds, we still need to take the last one seriously.

You said that we're doing what conservatives are doing. What conservatives do is look for excuses to either believe the woman (if she's accusing a Democrat) or discredit women (if she's accusing a Republican). There are some people here who are doing the same thing -- like they did with Al Franken -- but then there are those of us who hear Tara Reade's story, find the differing versions contradictory and implausible, and that's why we don't believe her. Plus the timing is awfully suspicious.

Expand full comment
3493 more comments...

No posts