Posted on 05/19/2020 11:35:01 AM PDT by Enlightened1
And he has that look of sagacity, somehow.
I belive all women.....except the lying bitches! Since you cant tell the difference, I error on the side of caution and choose the latter first.
All those words but no explanation of WHICH women #BelieveWomen applies to, if not all women? Why, for example, believe Christine Blasey Ford?
Let’s not pretend men don’t lie just to cause a woman misfortune.
#believeallwomenexceptthosewhoaccusedemocrats
The crux of the author’s “thesis” seems to be the word “all”. She is trying to argue that the original quoted intent of #MeToo thinking did not contain the word “all”, saying just “believe women”. This somehow lets out leftists and feminists of their obvious hypocrisy demonstrated in the Ford-Reade comparison.
What the clarification of the politically correct intent poured out upon the country during the Kavanaugh hearings was really “believe women’s politically correct accusations of sexual wrongdoing, without the need or requirement of proof or due process, as long as the goal fits the leftist agenda”.
This says what leftist “feminists” want to say, but cannot voice, as it results in an even more hypocritical fraud than before. Here, semantics might have been tweaked, but the difference is irrelevant. The problem is not in the wording, but in the complete lack of honesty, logic, ethics, and regard for unforeseen circumstances.
“Believe” anyone in such a damaging and destructive context, without even a shred of proof, results in an act of corrupt tyranny, the norm for today’s “leftist feminists”. To not “believe women” who may have undeniable corroboration for their accusations, due to ideology or political convenience, as in the Biden-Reade case, results in an act of obvious hypocrisy, another norm for today’s “leftist feminists”.
Susan Faludi cannot wriggle out of this trap, as the trap is of her own side’s construction, and honest people who believe in truth and fairness, are not obligated to provide the key. She may have rationalized this affair to herself and her unthinking readership, but her thesis is meaningless to anyone else.
ROFL
“Our hypocrisy isn’t really hypocrisy because .......umm.... reasons”.
Men lie about/to women, women lie about/to men.
BUT...... guess who they lie to the most !
I am just naturally skeptical I guess but I just don't believe everything people tell me even if they actually are a victim or survivor.
And the longer it has been since the incident happened the less I am inclined to believe everything they say.
There were a couple of experiments run where they had a group of people go through an experience, asked them leading questions during the interview, let them talk to each other then did a follow up interview. Their stories changed in significant ways and it did not match up with what was on the tape. Now I am not saying that they are lying. I am saying that over time our memories shift as they are influenced by other people and events.
None of those people were actually lying. They believed that they were telling the truth.
Except that they were not.
I was trying to show how vacuous the “believe all...” statements are. They’re an example of the logical fallacy of “begging the question”. Someone claims they’ve been assaulted. That would make them a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’ — but, only if that statement were actually a true fact (not a lie or a confabulation). It’s a circular argument, a tautology, and logically absurd. So, we’re pretty much saying the same thing, but I tried (and failed, it seems) to say it in a brief, snappy quip.
Shifting memories, confabulating, differences in perception or other tricks of the mind, no doubt explain a lot of those instances — but, none of that rules out actual lying as well.
I just meant nobody can claim innocence. We’ve all been lied to &
we’ve all lied.
It’s not an attack.
Truly amazing. Thanks for the ping.
> They’re an example of the logical fallacy of “begging the question”.
Thank you SO MUCH for being the first poster in months to use the phrase “begging the question” correctly. 99% of the time it’s used to mean “suggesting that the question ought to be asked”. Drives me nuts.
Back to the on-topic comments...
It’s one of my pet peeves too. Another is the misuse and ruination of ‘decimated’.
Or, "Women will explain what "all women" means.
And feminists have long held that “all women” should be believed when the “all” refers to all categories of women — i.e., equal regardless of race, religion or economic status. This is what Anita Hill meant when she said in a CNN town hall in 2017, “And until we can believe all women, every woman’s voice has value, none of us really will be seen as equal.”
100%
Just use it 10 times in succession, that way you get 'em all. :-)
Oh wait, no, that's just Xeno's paradox with a different factor...
In Spanish “diezmado.” Historically, you punish a group by killing 1/10 of them (more or less).
“Femsplaining” rather than “Mansplaining.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.