The Coddling of the American Mind

[deleted106747]

There are security costs involved whenever there is a protest. By default, it seems to fall on the local municipality to be prepared to handle any public events.

The alternative is to restrict protesting somehow, which would violate the constitution. We could complain about all of the costs associated with the "protest culture" we live in - the security for the Women's March, the March for Science, for all of the shut down streets and lost economic productivity when people protest immigration policies, etc. Occupy probably got very spendy. I would imagine the sheer amount of protesting that happens on a very regular basis drives up costs quite a bit. So I don't buy that cost is a valid reason not to bring in an under-represented viewpoints into an academic setting.

Universities could implement policies that could help contain the costs through limiting protests to particular spaces on campus, just as one example.

All of that said, I don't mind seeing protests. I just hate it when they disrupt other citizens.

I see what you're saying. I guess it mostly just makes sense to me that if universities are expected to give space to viewpoints that polarize and create potentially dangerous protest (e.g. far right & far left - say, Richard Spence and Antifa) that the organization bringing them to campus help foot the bill to preserve safety.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pragma]

I see what you're saying. I guess it mostly just makes sense to me that if universities are expected to give space to viewpoints that polarize and create potentially dangerous protest (e.g. far right & far left - say, Richard Spence and Antifa) that the organization bringing them to campus help foot the bill to preserve safety.

Sure I think it is great if an organization can kick in money to help defray security costs. But I am not sure how much a University can expect. What if a student group wanted to bring someone from Antifa to campus to speak but didn't have any budget?

I'm sure a part of this discussion happens when University administrators are looking at their budgets. Perhaps they don't encourage bringing in controversial speakers if they aren't flush on the security line item, although choosing how they decide to utilize their security budget and for what events/speakers seems like it has plenty of political implications as well. If the students at my university wanted to do some sort of "occupy" campout at the university, we'd be obligated to provide things like porta potties and other safety measures.

But cost aside, I think I am responding to what I perceive as a skew in higher education. I think it's pretty ridiculous that other faculty at my institution support students shutting down protests and preventing speakers from speaking, and don't want any of our policies to get in their way. I think it only supports what the authors of the book are saying (from my OP) and demonstrates that faculty at institutions are playing a role on this phenomenon.

 

[deleted106747]

Sure I think it is great if an organization can kick in money to help defray security costs. But I am not sure how much a University can expect. What if a student group wanted to bring someone from Antifa to campus to speak but didn't have any budget?

I'm sure a part of this discussion happens when University administrators are looking at their budgets. Perhaps they don't encourage bringing in controversial speakers if they aren't flush on the security line item, although choosing how they decide to utilize their security budget and for what events/speakers seems like it has plenty of political implications as well. If the students at my university wanted to do some sort of "occupy" campout at the university, we'd be obligated to provide things like porta potties and other safety measures.

But cost aside, I think I am responding to what I perceive as a skew in higher education. I think it's pretty ridiculous that other faculty at my institution support students shutting down protests and preventing speakers from speaking, and don't want any of our policies to get in their way. I think it only supports what the authors of the book are saying (from my OP) and demonstrates that faculty at institutions are playing a role on this phenomenon.

I thought it was an excellent article. I think the skew starts pretty young these days, as the parent of young children. I liked this part with regard to PTSD:

Lukianoff: It’s kind of funny because contrary to the stereotypes people have of the argument we were making, I actually think we’re not taking the mental-health issues seriously enough. If you really mean someone’s going to have a medical event in a classroom due to PTSD, you’re not doing enough for them if you’re going to have a content warning. You need to take your mental-health situation much more seriously than that. The one study that's been done about content warnings is not conclusive, but it showed that they increased anxiety. In the name of mental health, we’ve done a number of things that make mental-health outcomes actually worse.

 

[deleted480308]

I think it's tough. I also get it from a liability perspective. College approves speaker who incites hate, incited audience member drives a car through the counter-protestors... who is the family going to sue? I was also a paralegal in a formal life. First rule of torts: look for someone with deep pockets.

Except it is more common today that group invites speaker that angers those with opposing views. Those angry opposing students then mob the event, block physical access to the room, seize the stage or mic and use their aggression and numbers to shut down the event because the campus is too cowardly to arrest the protesters as the aggressive party

 

[deleted480308]

I see what you're saying. I guess it mostly just makes sense to me that if universities are expected to give space to viewpoints that polarize and create potentially dangerous protest (e.g. far right & far left - say, Richard Spence and Antifa) that the organization bringing them to campus help foot the bill to preserve safety.

Maybe add fines to those arrested instead, why should the speaker essentially be fined just because someone else can’t be an adult

 

[PsyDr]

Title VI and IX have been applied to harassment deemed as discrimination on college campuses and learning environments.

Crap, I had not thought about that. Thanks!

 

[deleted106747]

In my opinion, yes the weight of power does shift with words like white priv and with aspersions like “angry white male.” Certainly when you’re being mocked on a national stage for being white and male, that’s a pretty loudly powerful exercise of the power of racism and sexism. Aside from national settings, This is Especially so in environments like a university where the predominant ideological viewpoint is effectively feminism. You have job advertisements for academic jobs that outright state preference for minority candidates. People will freely state things like “I am looking for a Latino person to fill xx position. Let me know if you have any good candidates.” This is casually commonplace. I get why. But, it’s dangerous in my opinion.
There’s truth to many stereotypes on an epidemiological level. Applying those ideas to an individual is where you can get into serious trouble.

Okay, but then what do you suggest instead? Walk through any university library that shows founders' portraits and you'll see row upon row of white males. Without specifically opening the door to others, this would continue to happen. How do you resolve that? Leave it as it is?
I agree that stereotypes when applied individually are problematic, but at the same time, the dagger of those stereotypes was thrust at others for so long, that it's a bit of "well, welcome to the club" in my eyes, when men complain. As for the mockery on a national stage - well, to some degree that's what happens when you go for a position like that and you have skeletons in your closet. I'm no Clinton fan, but look what questions BK had lined up for him, so he should at least expect it. Also, I find it surprising that this is the sexism that men find so enraging, when their wives, sisters and daughters can't safely walk outside their houses at night and they get assaulted on the subway, on planes, buses, people's houses. I also think that lack of diversity shortchanges white men and white women; see again Lincoln and the value of alternative perspectives.
I also think that the current climate a power grab on the parts of other groups, disguised as a noble cause. But why shouldn't power be grabbed by others - ? Power grabs have always been couched in noble terms, so it's really a very human thing ultimately.

 

[deleted106747]

This is the sexism currently under discussion, yes? I am not a huge fan of sexism in any context.

I don’t think the rode to an equal opportunity society is paved by generational revenge. A lot of men have worked to help eliminate sexism. A lot of white people have worked to help minorities. The answer here is not to then f white people because Andrew Jackson killed Indians.

I think power grabs based on racial and gender identity are ill advised and ultimately harmful.

Straw man, Dr. Snow. I never said we should undergo generational revenge. I asked how do you propose it be addressed, in the absence of specific hiring policies?

 

[deleted106747]

I’ve hired many women and minorities. I’ve never done so because of a hiring policy. I did so because they were smart, ambitious and had the skill to do what was needed.

Opportunity in education, strong legal consequences for detecting racial/gender bias generationally changes these things. Affirmative action was never intended to lead to specific positions ear marked for someone based first on their sex or race. And recruiting by sex and race first.

Well, I disagree with specific positions earmarked first on race/gender. Although that has unofficially been the case for white males for a long time. When my father went to the university where I hold my faculty appointment, women were not allowed in the student union. The viewpoints that led to that situation have not fully - and sometimes I think not even partially - vanished.
That being said, I'm glad that you have made those hires. That also being said.... it hasn't been the case that people hire that way (both genders). It still isn't. If it were, I'd be far less concerned.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Okay, but then what do you suggest instead? .

Honestly, I think it’s time for a change. Running stuff is hard, and, IMHO, we (white, hetero, cisgender, males) aren’t doing too good a job lately. Let’s let somebody else give it a go. Maybe they’ll do better (which will be awesome), or maybe they’ll suck at it too, which would hopefully lead to some dialogue about how we can work together to make things as good as can be for the most people possible.

 

[Pragma]

A professor apparently.

(((Christine Fair))) (@CChristineFair) on Twitter

Look at the mix of privilege and outright violently racist:sexist thought process.




This level of vitriol would be right at home in a kkk rally. Instead, she’s a professor.

This is pretty ridiculous.

 

[WisNeuro]

It would appear that there is plenty of lack of corroboration going on for both accounts made under oath.

 

[deleted106747]

Honestly, I think it’s time for a change. Running stuff is hard, and, IMHO, we (white, hetero, cisgender, males) aren’t doing too good a job lately. Let’s let somebody else give it a go. Maybe they’ll do better (which will be awesome), or maybe they’ll suck at it too, which would hopefully lead to some dialogue about how we can work together to make things as good as can be for the most people possible.

Personally I don't think they would do any better, but I think overall leadership is better when there's a diversity of background and viewpoint... so the overall picture would be better, inclusive of white, hetero cis males and everyone else.

 

[WisNeuro]

And, tie goes to the accused....

Not sure I would call it a tie at this point, considering credibility is what's at stake. On one side, someone with an account which is not corroborated as of yet, but with no refutations. On the other side, multiple casual lies under oath, some refuted by several accounts, and one big one that may be confirmed by text evidence. Not looking good for BK. Hardly at tie at the moment.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

Curious about people's thoughts on this thread:

 

[deleted480308]

Curious about people's thoughts on this thread:

Some people actually do get falsely accused

Presumption of innocence for all criminal accusations is a really important principle

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Some people actually do get falsely accused

Presumption of innocence for all criminal accusations is a really important principle

Agreed, there are instances of false accusations, but the prevelance of this happening is faaaaaar less than the number of rapes that are committed, but not reported.

Here is how 99% of men can avoid being accused of rape:

1. Don’t rape.
2. Don’t get black out drunk and/or lose control of your actions.
3. Don’t be physically or sexually aggressive towards other people.
4. Go back to the top and review 1-3 again.
5. Seriously though...not even a little bit of rape is okay. Not in high school, college, etc.

As for Kavanaugh...it was a HEARING...not a trial. Having senators purposefully conflate hearing and trial was incredibly disingenuous. There are no charges, no judge, no jury, etc. The presumption of innocence does NOT apply.

This was a televised job interview for one of the most powerful positions in the country. Boards for many Fortune 100 companies would have cut bait long ago if this was a CEO candidate, but instead a seat on the Supreme Court is a much more powerful and influential position than being a CEO. A CEO position is not given for life.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Man. I’ve never once set out to get black out drunk. That’s never been my goal. Still it happens sometimes.

Some people may purposefully drink to excess, which can often include blacking out. I’m glad that you don’t because I hear it can put you in some really uncomfortable positions and it might interefe with getting promoted.

 

[WisNeuro]

A friend of mine excitedly reported to me one of kav’s “casual lies.” Namely, the lie went that kav stated he didn’t have legacy connections to Yale. But, kav’s grandfather went to Yale! That’s perjury. Except, when I read the transcript, kav stated he had no connection to Yale law school. His grandfather did not go to Yale law school.

That was not one of the comments I was referring to.

 

[foreverbull]

I agree in general. But, encounter the wrong cluster b with the right motivations and you’re roadkill anyway. The false report data is in my opinion, inaccurate at best and purposefully misleading at worst. Given that most rape accusations deal with some degree of doubt, it is very hard to know what is false and what is not. Unreported rapes don’t really factor into the equation as there is no accusation to be true or false. And, even if you go wth the most aggressive false report stats, Ie 2 percent, that’s 10s of thousands of false reports per year.

To some extent, presumption of innocence should still apply in my opinion. Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but benefit of the doubt, if you will.

Also, I don’t think false accusation stats likely apply on this stage. There’s a lot different about it. Media coverage. Speaking opportunities. Attention. Validation and hostility.....drama. Political goals. The national political stage is a crazy place.

A lot of crazy to sift through too.

The definite statements from the Yale students that kav got blackout drunk. That’s blatantly not falsifiable. Lots of people get very drunk and never “blackout.”

Then you have all of the “creative” noise, spin and innuendo greatly amplified by social media.


Ronan farrow ran a piece in which he interviewed a former Yale student who claimed they heard a story from someone they knew about Kavanaugh’s college exploits. The person didn’t recall it. So, they’re running third hand decades old smear pieces where the alleged original 2nd hand source didn’t remember talking about it or the incident in question. That’s irresponsible journalism, yes? But, it creates smoke. It’s just another 5 minutes of negative reporting about a candidate the democrats don’t like.

The bottom line here is that democrats are saying a lot of bad things about a republican nominated sc justice. This is very different from a ceo or other private world position. If the narrative was written by democrats, Ronald Reagan would be remembered as a developmentally delayed, senile, racist murderer. George w would be remembered as a developmentally delayed, racist war criminal. Romney hated the poor, was racist and abused dogs. Rinse repeat. It’s part of the democratic platform. So, when democrats try to execute their political smear strategy, there should be benefit of the doubt.


Edit: note. Republicans do the same things in different emphases. But, in this situation that’s not particularly relevant.

False accusation stats are likely to be inflated, actually, because some investigators/law enforcement bodies label claims without enough evidence as “false” when there isn’t enough evidence in general to say either way. Which doesn’t mean that assault didn't happen, but that there’s a lack of clear evidence to support, not that it’s definitely false.

All kinds of accusations fly from both sides. I have yet to see any studies or citations for Republicans using this tactic LESS than Democrats.

Again, this is a job interview. Not a trial. If someone yelled during a job interview, gave dirty looks, blasted one entire political party for a conspiracy relating to the Clintons, answered some of your questions by repeating them back to you, and not answering directly a fair amount of the time (“I went to Yale!”) do you think this is a nonpartisan, appropriate temperament, calm and collected person who should be ruling on our highest court for decades in an unbiased manner? Regardless of the assault claims and their veracity.

It makes me wonder why Republicans are digging in their heels so much when there are several other qualified candidates without allegations who haven’t behaved like children throwing a tantrum.

 

[foreverbull]

Speaking to your concern about cluster B traits, this is a complicated issue. It is true that sometimes folks with certain personality traits might make false accusations.

Let’s look at the facts: Dr. Blasey Ford told her therapist in 2012 that she had been assaulted. She also told her husband and a few friends about the experience prior to 2018, although she didn't necessarily name him to those she told. If she had cluster B traits, this would mean that she has been quiet and not trying to gain attention for several years, yet planning to take Brett Kavanagh down (really playing the long game), while risking destroying her reputation because public opinion is fickle and folks historically have sided with the accused. This would also mean that she could accurately foretell the future that Brett Kavanagh would be on the national stage at some point so she could get attention later.

I suppose a second scenario could be that she reported assault without naming someone in 2012 to her therapist, planning to eventually make her move against someone at some point in the distant future. This scenario also does not seem logical, because again, she would have to be really playing the long game to sit in waiting like a fox in a foxhole until six years later when someone she interacted with a few times decades ago was nominated to the Supreme Court.

If she had a cluster B traits, why wouldn’t she have told everyone she knows from the start to get attention? If we are to believe that she had cluster B traits, she would be one of the most Machiavellian people in the world, able to plan and make herself look credible and not push the issue too much or tell too many people to avoid looking attention-seeking for decades, and backing up her accusation with a note from her therapist in 2012. She would also have to be an amazing actress, looking terrified and quivering in front of members of congress in order to help convince them that she was telling the truth.

Or maybe the simplest explanation is the truth: that she was telling the truth, and tried to forget about it, not telling many folks about it throughout the years, but then found out that the man who attempted to rape her could possibly end up sitting on the supreme court for decades, and so thus reported it to the people directly responsible for hiring him so they'd take it into consideration.

The Democrats had nothing to do with any of this until after she reported it in July.

 

[foreverbull]

Stats relative to veracity of accusations are difficult. If you took the stance that all claims that don't result in a guilty verdict are false, yes that would be inflated. But, it's a fact that most cases are difficult to prove. Thus, you have no idea if the stats are inflated or deflated.

Regarding, temperament. What was his temperament before the accusation? What was his rating on the DC court? Did anyone complain about his temperament as a judge?

Yes, after he was accused by democrats of gang rape, attempted rape, and bullying behaviors from 30+ years ago along with questions about his yearbook entries, breathless 4th hand 30+ year old stories about college drinking, being questioned by a grand standing admitted sexual assaulter (booker), someone who apparently held on to and then perhaps leaked an uncorroborated sexual assault claim (feinstein), a stolen valor senator (blunmenthal), attempts to paint him as basically a blackout drunk alcoholic in high school/college in the media and senate. . . after all of that he showed some emotional reactivity. Gee. So horribly inappropriate and inhuman. I frankly don't get the criticism. Since there's a new movie coming out. He didn't draw first blood.

I haven't claimed democrats do it less or more than republicans, though I'd bet you're more likely to get a sexual/racism claim from democrats than republicans. The rate of such claims isn't particularly relevant to today's issue.

As to why republicans are digging in their heals, this is all about timing. It's likely why Feinstein waited to release the accusation. It's why they asked for the FBI investigation. None of them expect they'll find anything corroborating in my opinion. It is the source of all of teeth gnashing about the one week limit. . .. they want the nomination to go past midterms to prevent the seat from being filled. This has already been explicitly stated by democrats. That's why this is perceived as a political ploy. That's why republicans aren't budging. It's totally reasonable.

True. We can't say for sure, but regardless, very few claims are false. That's what we do know from what research we do have.

"Some" emotional reactivity? How about walking in the courtroom and yelling during his opening statement even before they asked him those questions? So you're saying that it's okay that he didn't simply say "no" to questions he didn't like and answer them directly in a cool, collected way. It's okay to not take the moral high road out of frustration yet be charged with sitting on the highest court making moral decisions? This is a bit of a disconnect, don't you think?

Dr. Blasey Ford endured all kind of questions, negative attention, death threats (moved out of her house), etc. and I didn't see her blasting senators or yelling because some people didn't believe her and she felt indignant. Dr. Blasey Ford should have as much reason to be furious as well, but she didn't respond in the same way that Kavanaugh did.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

I had no problem with his disposition in the defense of claims ripping his moral character to shreds coming from one side of the aisle and I think it’s a silly position to assert otherwise.

Dr. Ford was in the accusation role. No one attacked her in the meeting. The senators on both sides of the aisle were deferential to her. The attorney was friendly in disposition. And, further, people are different.

How about the fact that he clearly lied under oath regarding the severity of his past drinking? I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt but the "evidence" we do have shows he was a major drinker in college (his friend wrote a book saying exactly that). His drinking in college isn't so much the problem, it's how he answered the questions. In fact, many of those questions he tried not to answer and instead turned them around (i.e. Well do YOU like beer?). His behavior was bad enough he felt the need to apologize for it. He did not demonstrate any humility or self-awareness, which ultimately makes me concerned.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[LadyHalcyon]

He said he liked beer, sometimes drank too much, that he had a weak stomach and would occasionally puke and that he did things he wasn’t proud of in hs and college. He was trying to argue that his drinking wasn’t a problem as evidenced by his scholastic performance. That’s logical, yes? He answered the same questions several times. Clearly got tired of it, and tried to turn it around. He realized he should not have done that and offered an apology acknowledging the error. So, even in the midst of a group actively attempting to destroy his character to the point that republicans wouldn’t vote for him to be confirmed and also to the point that people were discussing that he should be impeached from his current job, he had the presence of mind to apologize.

I don’t think it’s fair to say he clearly lied. Nor do I think attacking his temperament given what has been done to him over the past few weeks is at all reasonable. I get that people are rooting for their team but the lack of humanity is palpable.

So Boof is supposed to mean flatulence? What about the Devil's triangle, are we really supposed to believe it was drinking game and not a term for a threesome? Also, I don't think Renate alumnus is an attempt "to show affection." Other classmates of his have said that he lied about these explanations. I understand the frustration with how the democratic party is using this information to stall, but it appears he lied under oath. Yes these are "stupid high school things" but it still looks like he is lying. I am frustrated many don't want to acknowledge these inconsistencies simply because of the "timing." Yes it was a shady move by the DNC but the information has been revealed and people should be able to critically examine the information, regardless of party affiliation. Are you saying it is reasonable to believe Kavanaugh's explanations for these terms? I don't think it is and therfore am not comfortable with his appointment to the Supreme Court. Sure, everyone has a past and has made stupid mistakes. Be honest about them and take responsibility. Or maybe don't take a job where your past will be scrutinized to this degree.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[deleted106747]

So Boof is supposed to mean flatulence? What about the Devil's triangle, are we really supposed to believe it was drinking game and not a term for a threesome? Also, I don't think Renate alumnus is an attempt "to show affection." Other classmates of his have said that he lied about these explanations. I understand the frustration with how the democratic party is using this information to stall, but it appears he lied under oath. Yes these are "stupid high school things" but it still looks like he is lying. I am frustrated many don't want to acknowledge these inconsistencies simply because of the "timing." Yes it was a shady move by the DNC but the information has been revealed and people should be able to critically examine the information, regardless of party affiliation. Are you saying it is reasonable to believe Kavanaugh's explanations for these terms? I don't think it is and therfore am not comfortable with his appointment to the Supreme Court. Sure, everyone has a past and has made stupid mistakes. Be honest about them and take responsibility. Or maybe don't take a job where your past will be scrutinized to this degree.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

THIS.

This is my first exposure to the word “boof” a movie geared to teens in the 1980s.



The story from the director was that this was the name of his girlfriend and the character was inspired by her.

People can have different understanding of words and usage.

I find it comical that we are trying to get insight into the mind of a 17 year old writing in a yearbook page.

You can’t possibly falsify what kav says he meant or understood by these terms. Teens often have different understandings of phrases even if other kids might be thinking something else. I am saying it is reasonable that he meant flatulance, that he was referencing a stutter and that he played a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle. Hell, they could have named the drinking game after a 3 way. You don’t know. I’ll also note it was the early 80s. No internet. The national commonality was effectively what would be g to pg rated television content. A hs student maybe had access to playboys... maybe an occasional vhs porn tape. But to assume extensive hs casual references to anal sex and three ways seems less probable than fart jokes and drinking games. Just sayin.

RENATE ALUMNUS

Just a pg rated television term eh?

Covfefe.

 

[deleted106747]

Did he have sex with her? Not by his report nor hers. What do you think it means?


Could mean several people went out with her. Could mean they all thought she was hot. People are projecting what they want to in these things because they have no data.

I could care less whether he had sex with her. That's not the issue.

it's getting late/you need a date/call Renate (paraphrased).

come on, already. If he acknowledged its meaning and apologized, that would say something very different about his character. But don't piss on my leg & say it's raining.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I don’t think it’s fair to say he clearly lied. Nor do I think attacking his temperament given what has been done to him over the past few weeks is at all reasonable. I get that people are rooting for their team but the lack of humanity is palpable.

Things he has lied about:

1. His drinking. There are multiple former classmates that have painted a very different picture. Remember he said he NEVER drank in excess to black out, that he never was aggressive while drinking, etc.

2. The terms in his yearbook. Anyone under 40 most likely knows at least some of those terms. The Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game? Really?

3. His choir boy recitation in the face of his own “evidence” and many outside parties. How about him signed Bart in the recently surfaced letter? He clearly denied the name and association during the hearing and yet....he signed a letter with the name? I consider purposefully misleading the panel equal to lying. His full denial...a straight up lie.

He lied mostly about small things. What if he is lying about bigger things too? The pattern and ease of ability to purposefully mislead is NOT the type of behavior we want on the bench. Even if the sexual assault allegations weren’t found to go anywhere, his behavior, lying, and CLEAR partisanship are problematic.

 

[traumamama]

More to the issue, I think that campuses are not free/safe spaces, but rather more consumer-focused spaces. As college tuition rises, students are getting more savvy about the fact that they are the customer to be pacified rather than the student that is judged . There are a lot of issues besides free speech on campus, such as being barred from failing students, that contributes to them being coddled. The issues being discussed seem like sx of that customer-centric attitude.

Ummm YUP. I feel like an egregiously underpaid concierge psychologist. Its all about getting Ct's seen TODAY. And if they don't they will have mum and papa call up to complain.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

I could care less whether he had sex with her. That's not the issue.

it's getting late/you need a date/call Renate (paraphrased).

come on, already. If he acknowledged its meaning and apologized, that would say something very different about his character. But don't piss on my leg & say it's raining.

That's an amazing analogy. Bravo!

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[LadyHalcyon]

Did he write the poem? Could he possibly have a different disposition than others on the issue? Why should he acknowledge anything he can’t be pinned down on in this terrible process?

I guess I'm curious as to why you are hell bent on coming up with other explanations than the one that seems most reasonable. If this were a client I would highly doubt their self-report if I had all this additional collateral information

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[deleted480308]

Agreed, there are instances of false accusations, but the prevelance of this happening is faaaaaar less than the number of rapes that are committed, but not reported.

Here is how 99% of men can avoid being accused of rape:

1. Don’t rape.
2. Don’t get black out drunk and/or lose control of your actions.
3. Don’t be physically or sexually aggressive towards other people.
4. Go back to the top and review 1-3 again.
5. Seriously though...not even a little bit of rape is okay. Not in high school, college, etc.

As for Kavanaugh...it was a HEARING...not a trial. Having senators purposefully conflate hearing and trial was incredibly disingenuous. There are no charges, no judge, no jury, etc. The presumption of innocence does NOT apply.

This was a televised job interview for one of the most powerful positions in the country. Boards for many Fortune 100 companies would have cut bait long ago if this was a CEO candidate, but instead a seat on the Supreme Court is a much more powerful and influential position than being a CEO. A CEO position is not given for life.

Investigating criminal accusation away from protections on evidence/process/jury/etc is inappropriate and this whole thing should never have happened

 

[LadyHalcyon]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...brett-kavanaugh-boof-definition-supreme-court

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[Pragma]

I can’t help but wonder how things would have gone had this process begun right after it was reported, like it should have, instead of being held to advance a political agenda.

Wouldn’t be surprised if DT had decided to ditch BK if there was enough time to vet another nominee. Ah, calculated political moves and their messy impact on what should be a straightforward process.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can’t help but wonder how things would have gone had this process begun right after it was reported, like it should have, instead of being held to advance a political agenda.

Wouldn’t be surprised if DT had decided to ditch BK if there was enough time to vet another nominee. Ah, calculated political moves and their messy impact on what should be a straightforward process.

This hasn't been a straightforward process in quite some time. It's been calculated political moves for all of our lives, at least.

 

[Pragma]

This hasn't been a straightforward process in quite some time. It's been calculated political moves for all of our lives, at least.

Sure. But sitting on a sexual assault claim seems particularly noteworthy.

That said, I’m curious if any data are compiled somewhere on the duration of time between the exit of a SCJ and the next nomination. Wondering how “rushed” BKs may or may not have been relative to all previous nominations made in the modern era.

 

[WisNeuro]

Sure. But sitting on a sexual assault claim seems particularly noteworthy.

That said, I’m curious if any data are compiled somewhere on the duration of time between the exit of a SCJ and the next nomination. Wondering how “rushed” BKs may or may not have been relative to all previous nominations made in the modern era.

No more noteworthy than some of the shenanigans of Miers, Marshall, Fortas, and several others. It's just that this one is recent. The SCOTUS nomination process has never been apolitical, the partisan nature is just more transparent.

As to the timeline, I thought fivethirtyeight did something a while back in the Garland debacle about time frames. May be a good place to start a search on that front.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

I can’t help but wonder how things would have gone had this process begun right after it was reported, like it should have, instead of being held to advance a political agenda.

Wouldn’t be surprised if DT had decided to ditch BK if there was enough time to vet another nominee. Ah, calculated political moves and their messy impact on what should be a straightforward process.

Not sure if this is legible but I find this timeline very suspect for the DNC

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[Stagg737]

I don't think it is and therefore am not comfortable with his appointment to the Supreme Court. Sure, everyone has a past and has made stupid mistakes. Be honest about them and take responsibility. Or maybe don't take a job where your past will be scrutinized to this degree.

Your above post about timeline presents a problem with this quote.

I think there were enough legitimate things about BK (some mentioned earlier in this thread) that should have been brought to the table and pushed a lot sooner. The problem with not going through with a confirmation at this point is that it legitimizes the tactic of shaky accusations as a means of blocking a nomination.

So it's been turned into a catch-22. If you nominate him then you've nominated someone who has some legitimate question marks (outside of recent accusations/events) and who displayed questionable temperament for a SCOTUS member in a senate interview on national television. If you don't nominate him then you're showing that anyone can come forward with an accusation with no actual evidence other than their account and shut down a nomination. Either way the result is poor and has major ongoing political implications. You also have the social spin which will come off this either way. If he's nominated the left will scream that it's just another example of the patriarchy shutting down victims (with or without due process). If he's not nominated you'll have the right screaming about the end of due process as well as ongoing attacks towards Ford. Again, no good outcome.

This is what happens when you turn the process into a political (media) circus instead of actually giving a crap about the potential victim and the process.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

Your above post about timeline presents a problem with this quote.

I think there were enough legitimate things about BK (some mentioned earlier in this thread) that should have been brought to the table and pushed a lot sooner. The problem with not going through with a confirmation at this point is that it legitimizes the tactic of shaky accusations as a means of blocking a nomination.

So it's been turned into a catch-22. If you nominate him then you've nominated someone who has some legitimate question marks (outside of recent accusations/events) and who displayed questionable temperament for a SCOTUS member in a senate interview on national television. If you don't nominate him then you're showing that anyone can come forward with an accusation with no actual evidence other than their account and shut down a nomination. Either way the result is poor and has major ongoing political implications. You also have the social spin which will come off this either way. If he's nominated the left will scream that it's just another example of the patriarchy shutting down victims (with or without due process). If he's not nominated you'll have the right screaming about the end of due process as well as ongoing attacks towards Ford. Again, no good outcome.

This is what happens when you turn the process into a political (media) circus instead of actually giving a crap about the potential victim and the process.

Oh I completely agree that the DNC handled the the wrong way. I'm not happy with them one bit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

....as a means of blocking a nomination.

What the Dems did with holding back information until the 11th hour was irresponsible and hurt their overall case.

That said...the folks across the aisle blocked Garland for months...without more of a reason than “he isn’t on our team”. Making/Confirming nominations a campaign promise highlights much of what is wrong with the current process.

Both sides deserve blame...and this goes back multiple decades.

 

[WisNeuro]

Both sides deserve blame...and this goes back multiple decades.

Yeah, but looking at the historical record would go against our confirmation biases

 

[Stagg737]

Oh I completely agree that the DNC handled the the wrong way. I'm not happy with them one bit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile

I think it's gone beyond "handled the wrong way". They've created an unwinnable situation for all parties and put a potential victim of sexual assault in the media circus against her will in a desperate attempt to prolong a SCOTUS nom past mid-terms which looks bleak for them. I'm not a fan of either party, but after this s*** storm I'm currently loathing democrats.

What the Dems did with holding back information until the 11th hour was irresponsible and hurt their overall case.

That said...the folks across the aisle blocked Garland for months...without more of a reason than “he isn’t on our team”. Making/Confirming nominations a campaign promise highlights much of what is wrong with the current process.

Both sides deserve blame...and this goes back multiple decades.

True, but at least with the GOP they were transparent they were doing it for political reasons and didn't parade a victim on national tv at the last minute when she had stated multiple times she wanted privacy. What the dems did, Feinstein in particular, in this case was not just irresponsible. It was vile.

So yes, both sides deserve blame for the postponement of the political process but the degree and type of blame are on different levels there.

 

[Pragma]

Maybe we can tie together the topics of this thread?

Peaceful pro-Kavanaugh demonstration met with violence

Doesn’t have appeared to have escalated much beyond tearing up signs but they seem to have shut down the event.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think it's gone beyond "handled the wrong way". They've created an unwinnable situation for all parties and put a potential victim of sexual assault in the media circus against her will in a desperate attempt to prolong a SCOTUS nom past mid-terms which looks bleak for them. I'm not a fan of either party, but after this s*** storm I'm currently loathing democrats.

To get all up in arms about how especially democrats handled this, but throw a "meh" to their lukewarm and minimal condemnation of Trump's mocking of common PTSD symptoms during a national rally is a bit disingenuous, especially given his recorded admissions of his own sexual predation. the leaders of both parties are handling the issue terribly and using it as a political football. Singling one out in particular is just willful ignorance.

 

[Stagg737]

To get all up in arms about how especially democrats handled this, but throw a "meh" to their lukewarm and minimal condemnation of Trump's mocking of common PTSD symptoms during a national rally is a bit disingenuous, especially given his recorded admissions of his own sexual predation. the leaders of both parties are handling the issue terribly and using it as a political football. Singling one out in particular is just willful ignorance.

They've been condemning Trump for his inflammatory statements since he won the primary, so I won't blame them for not focusing on one statement when there are so many others they have jumped on (often past the point of exhaustion, though sometimes this was warranted). I will blame them for being the ones shoving a victim into the spotlight, basically exploiting her, purely for political gain. I fail to see how separating that from calling someone out for inflammatory statements is being willfully ignorant.

 

[Pragma]

What the Dems did with holding back information until the 11th hour was irresponsible and hurt their overall case.

That said...the folks across the aisle blocked Garland for months...without more of a reason than “he isn’t on our team”. Making/Confirming nominations a campaign promise highlights much of what is wrong with the current process.

Both sides deserve blame...and this goes back multiple decades.

Yeah, but looking at the historical record would go against our confirmation biases

Well I am glad that you said "our" Wis. Because it's all over the place.

The SCOTUS confirmation is obviously a political process. I'm not pretending that political moves haven't been made in the past on both sides since the constitution originated. But to deny that this is an entirely new and dangerous political precedent for handling the process is also willful ignorance.

Also, in the spirit of the original post, I'll just mention that I live and work in a political echo chamber. There is no tolerance for non-leftist viewpoints and active efforts to shut down other opinions that don't fully align with the ideology. This daily experience is a part of how I view the discussion.

 

[Pragma]

Regarding BK, even if he is confirmed, I wouldn't be surprised to see impeachment efforts in the future. If there's a good case for it, I would not oppose it.

 

[WisNeuro]

They've been condemning Trump for his inflammatory statements since he won the primary, so I won't blame them for not focusing on one statement when there are so many others they have jumped on (often past the point of exhaustion, though sometimes this was warranted). I will blame them for being the ones shoving a victim into the spotlight, basically exploiting her, purely for political gain. I fail to see how separating that from calling someone out for inflammatory statements is being willfully ignorant.

I would hardly calling it condemnation. It's usually "I wish he hadn't said that" and then happily defending him in their next breath. It's easy to single one side out when it's the one we happen to disagree with.

Well I am glad that you said "our" Wis. Because it's all over the place.

But to deny that this is an entirely new and dangerous political precedent for handling the process is also willful ignorance.

I'd hardy call it new in it's entirety. There are definite parallels to the Clarence Thomas proceedings. The outrage just happens to be convenient at the current time for both parties to capitalize on in the weeks leading up to the midterms.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Also, in the spirit of the original post, I'll just mention that I live and work in a political echo chamber. There is no tolerance for non-leftist viewpoints and active efforts to shut down other opinions that don't fully align with the ideology. This daily experience is a part of how I view the discussion.

That is one thing I *do not* miss about academia. I’m in the minority in my political beliefs (as a constitutional libertarian), and I was reminded frequently by the constant barrage of far-left leaning comments; it was like death by paper cuts.

I can now be more vocal about my concerns, but I have serious issues with both parties in our two-party system, so it often feels like i’m trapped in someone else’s echo chamber, regardless of which party is talking.

 

[Stagg737]

I would hardly calling it condemnation. It's usually "I wish he hadn't said that" and then happily defending him in their next breath. It's easy to single one side out when it's the one we happen to disagree with.

Are you talking about dems or GOP? I was referring to dems in my previous response. GOP has been implicit in their lack of speaking out against some of Trumps rhetoric and they've sold their souls as a party with what they've allowed him to do. Regardless, the sins of the GOP and the actions of the democrats in handling Ford are not the same thing and trying to paint them as equivalent is disingenuous.

I can now be more vocal about my concerns, but I have serious issues with both parties in our two-party system, so it often feels like i’m trapped in someone else’s echo chamber, regardless of which party is talking.

I feel similarly as this. I'm a centrist with libertarian leanings, so a lot of my perspectives get painted as the opposite of whatever party the person I'm talking to supports. This past presidential election was a special kind of hell in the sense that the majority of people disliked both candidates but still managed to find a way to lambaste those whose views did not align with their own.