The Fall of Harvey Weinstein

[Nesrie]

You keep saying you don’t know, except… you’re taking his word over hers for something you don’t know.

The idea that “the guys used to always be believed, so now we should always believe a woman” is nonsensical on its face.

Of course you’re doing the opposite and it’s… just okay? You’re taking his word over hers. For reasons you haven’t explained well, you seem to think one way is okay but not the other. This not a court of law. DNA and recorded evidence is not required. She is one case yes, but there were others who basically came out and said his behavior was not good and yes he has revenge in him but no, she must be lying.

And I am not going to stop saying this. We did it your way, for decades. As a result women and girls were victimized, repeatedly. It’s time to try the new way. These guys are not being hauled off to some hidden prison and disappearing. It’s case by case. And sometimes the guy will come out tarnished but not jailed, and sometimes, that is the correct outcome.

[Timex]

Of course you’re doing the opposite and it’s… just okay? You’re taking his word over hers.

No, not at all.
To quote:

in the absence of evidence, I don’t feel comfortable taking either side. I’m not going to call the woman a liar, but I’m not going to condemn the guy. I need evidence of some sort in order to pass judgement.

Isn’t this the rational, fair thing to do? Isn’t this what you would want people to do if you were accused of something?

[scottagibson]

Isn’t this the rational, fair thing to do?

The question is, do you hire him?

[Nesrie]

Isn’t this the rational, fair thing to do? Isn’t this what you would want people to do if you were accused of something?

People quit when he came back. I am not convinced nothing happened. It’s not as if evidence was presented to the public, testimonies laid out for anyone. You want to give him the benefit of the doubt, fine, go head. I suspect he doesn’t belong in jail, but that’s the low bar not the high.

[SlyFrog]

There has to be some standard of proof beyond people just saying stuff.

So basically if a guy says it doesn’t happen it didn’t happen, welcome to the state of the world prior to MeToo… worked out well for us, real well.

Yeah, I was interested to find that liberals apparently don’t “believe the woman” when its one of their darlings doing the beating. So now I get Keith Ellison as my possible next attorney general. Yay.

[Nesrie]

Unless the guy fits into our political beliefs.

I have no idea what political belief most these people have. It’s coming out of the Hollywood camp so it seems like many of them are liberal. Who they voted for has nothing to do with it.

[SlyFrog]

You’re missing the point. Here in Minnesota, good liberals affirmatively vote for people accused of beating the shit out of women.

Again, see Keith Ellison. Where the good liberal voters decidedly chose to “ignore the woman.” And vote for the guy who beat the woman.

I would say “allegedly beat the woman,” but we should believe the woman, right?

[scottagibson]

Here in Minnesota, good liberals affirmatively vote for people accused of beating the shit out of women.

I bet you’ve been waiting all week to make hay with that.

[SlyFrog]

Here in Minnesota, good liberals affirmatively vote for people accused of beating the shit out of women.

I bet you’ve been waiting all week to make hay with that.

No, I just chose to ignore it, because it does not fit into my ideology.

[Nesrie]

gain, see Keith Ellison. Where the good liberal voters decidedly chose to “ignore the woman.” And vote for the guy who beat the woman.

So you’re saying there was a private investigation of Keith Ellison, one that no one got to see the results of, he was cleared in that investigation, and then a bunch of people quit when he came back to work too? If that happened, I didn’t read about it.

[rowe33]

The Ellison issue would be a hell of a lot clearer if they would just make the alleged video public. If it exists then that’s pretty damning evidence. If they refuse to show it then that casts all sorts of shade on the accusation.

[SlyFrog]

gain, see Keith Ellison. Where the good liberal voters decidedly chose to “ignore the woman.” And vote for the guy who beat the woman.

So you’re saying there was a private investigation of Keith Ellison, one that no one got to see the results of, he was cleared in that investigation, and then a bunch of people quit when he came back to work too? If that happened, I didn’t read about it.

No, I’m saying absolutely none of those things happened in the case of Chloe when people were immediately being shouted at to “believe the woman” less than a day after she released her missive. There was no, “Believe the woman after an investigation proves it out.” Just “believe the woman.”

I don’t buy into the “believe the woman” thing. I agree with the, “How the fuck would I know, I wasn’t there,” theory, as I said before. Give some good evidence, I’ll possibly believe the evidence.

But it seems to me if you want to trumpet “believe the woman” as a liberal doctrine, you probably should stick with it, even when it is inconvenient.

[Nesrie]

But it seems to me if you want to trumpet “believe the woman” as a liberal doctrine, you probably should stick with it, even when it is inconvenient.

I am not talking about Keith Ellison so you have no idea what I think about it. But the whataboutism approach is nothing new. If you want to talk about Keith, go ahead. No one is stopping you. It has zero to do with Chris though.

Perhaps you saw the piece where I said this is a case by case approach. Hell there’s an entire article on the case by case approach posted right up there. And guess what Keith’s is, another case…

[SlyFrog]

But it seems to me if you want to trumpet “believe the woman” as a liberal doctrine, you probably should stick with it, even when it is inconvenient.

I am not talking about Keith Ellison so you have no idea what I think about it. But the whataboutism approach is nothing new. If you want to talk about Keith, go ahead. No one is stopping you. It has zero to do with Chris though.

Perhaps you saw the piece where I said this is a case by case approach. Hell there’s an entire article on the case by case approach posted right up there. And guess what Keith’s is, another case…

So believe the woman, but only on a case by case basis?

[Nesrie]

So believe the woman, but only on a case by case basis?

Did you read the posted article, linked above?

[SlyFrog]

So believe the woman, but only on a case by case basis?

Did you read the posted article, linked above?

Depends on which one you mean. This thread is pretty long.

[legowarrior]

If feel like you are cherry picking a bit. Al Franken was forced out, so there is evidence that Liberals do go after their own.

There doesn’t seem to be any on the conservative side. Now, if only Conservatives would do the same and force out Donald Trump then you can make that claim.

[Nesrie]

Depends on which one you mean. This thread is pretty long.

The one that references the case by case approach.

[scottagibson]

No, I just chose to ignore it, because it does not fit into my ideology.

It seems like a cheap trick, though. None of the people you’re shouting at voted for Ellison, and none of them have said they believe Ellison. You’re just engaging in a kind of guilt by association, where because some people on the left over there voted for Ellison despite the accusation, then some people on the left over here must be hypocrites.

[JonRowe]

Yeah, I was interested to find that liberals apparently don’t “believe the woman” when its one of their darlings doing the beating.

This is absolutely 100% true, how is Al Franken, your current senator doing?