SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Fiye]

The Trump transcript was more legible.

LOL

[Mina]

I get doubt.
But using "why didn't she come forward immediately" to point to her as a liar is what I don't accept. Plenty of women don't come forward immediately. Just look at how the media and even the old senators treated Anita Hill for a near mirror example. It's the reason why they hired a female sex crimes prosecutor to question Ford. Shit was fucked up back in the day. There's a reason a lot of women were ultra hesitant about coming out. People weren't doing it and if they did when things went wrong you DEFINITELY heard about it. I know I did, I was terrified.

I'm baffled, what is a sexual assault victim called instead of a victim? A sexual assault accuser?

[Tyche]

Survivor

[shukudai]

Why does Ford have credibility issues? Don't like the reporting delay? If so, boy do I have some doi's for you. And a hell of a hashtag you can comb through.

For a whole myriad of reasons, if only because she quite literally can't prove any of it? At all? In any way, shape or form? That's kind of a huge blow to her credibility. Let's say -100 points. But she also fits an extremely common category for victims that demonstrably exists and cannot be denied, so let's give her +50 credibility for that. I'd have to be brain dead to not know that's true. Do any other categories exist? How about victims who blacked out the event, completely, and didn't remember until years later? Yup, those exist. What about victims who become abusers themselves? Yeah, those exist too. Victims who report right away, and go to therapy to deal with issues? Victims who have mental health issues and make things up? People who straight up lie about being a victim? Yup, ALL of those exist.

Just because she fits an extremely common type behavior demonstrated by 78% of legit victims does not prove her accusations. It does lend her credibility though, but it is not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[Mina]

Survivor

TBH you're right though. I will proceed as such.

[Tyche]

You, literally, don't understand or know what credibility is. You're conflating it with evidence.

[Xno Kappa]

People really fucking downplay how it's not uncommon at all for victims to report a sexual assault days, weeks, years, or even decades after the fact. Not vice versa with immediate reporting within 72 hours.

My oldest case came from an elderly woman who wanted to file that she was raped in 1970. After exhausting every investigative trick in the book, it turns out everything she provided to me in her statement was stunningly accurate. By then, unbeknownst to her, the subject was already dead anyways. Her motivation for reporting it? Her granddaughter had confided in her she was brutally raped recently and didn't know what to do.

The biggest god damn stigma of sexual assault and rape is that it's always the random boogeyman jumping out of the bushes in the dark alleys. Every other scenario, society will throw a question mark at the victim for having some fault in it. Either through drinking, flirting, previous consensual relations, whatever is convenient to disregard the victim.

This is always why you very seldom have victims go through the SANE kit process and police reporting within the preferred timeframe.

[Xno Kappa]

I've said it before and I'll say it again on this forum. I've investigated HUNDREDS of sexual assault cases.

I can probably count on one hand the amount of times they were completely fabricated.

[Tyche]

But hey, keep going with your arbitrary victim percentages and numbers. That's a hell of a foundation for an argument steeped in whataboutism.

[Mina]

I'm still trying to process this rating system for sexual assault survivors on their credibility like it's some sort of game review score you can deduct points from.

[Tyche]

We had a SANE nurse that we had to let go because she just wasn't utilized. We have one of the busiest EDs in the state. One out of every five women are raped. Let that sink in.

[Zealot]

Yes? There are bad actors on both sides, there are moral folks on both sides, but if I've got to chose between the side that's got conservatism vs the side that's got SJWs, I'm gonna bet on conservatives, just in case people are what they actually say they are

American political conservatives are a front for corporate shills and white supremacists. They don't give a shit about small government or controlling spending or whatever. They care about getting more money for their rich friends so those rich friends can give them more money back, and they'll empower whatever fringe groups they have to in order to perpetuate that cycle.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Xno Kappa]

But hey what do I know? MAGAtards are woke with their deep state knowledge led by the orange chosen one.

[Fiye]

But hey what do I know? MAGAtards are woke with their deep state knowledge led by the orange chosen one.

Pizzagaters: Democrats are pedophiles

Also pizzagaters: The women accusing Kavanaugh are liars.

[arus2001]

That both side shit doesn’t work when your party defends nazis.

Or fucking Garland because "will of the people!". Or gleefully obstructing Obama regardless of whatever benefits his policies would've enacted. Or trying to fuck Slick Willy over a BJ while turning the other cheek for El Pussygrabber and his bribes. Frankly, a bunch of dudes thinking they know women's bodies better than they do. Iraq and so many other god damn policies pretty much being the opposite of fiscal responsibility. The very notion of the trickle down farce festering from Reagan's corpse to this day. I didn't see the Dems callously breaking up immigrant families, and if anything strove for the opposite with DACA/Dreamer legislation. They're certainly not striving to improve education much, unless you count arming teachers because hurrdurr good people with guns. They're still pushing that myth about NFL kneeling being about disrespecting the flag/troops, too. Who needs an environment, anyway? Drill, baby, drill!

I was just driving my sister home today, who happens to be a Trumpster, when an ad of his popped on the radio. When it was over, she was like, "I know everyone hates him, but he's doing a good job!" I immediately countered with an inquiry of what and, for the life of me, couldn't get a straight answer out of her. I mentioned the effects of his tariffs and how we're going to really start feeling them soon, to which she blew off with the tired line of, "Everything was already expensive anyway!" This same sister has a laundry list of medical conditions and had no qualms bitching about Obamacare despite the fact it helped her get insurance when she couldn't before and that costs in that field were going to spiral upward no matter what. I brought up a few bills looking to attack preexisting conditions being on the ballot here and she just kind of shrugged, too. I know the bitch is racist, so I may as well chalk it up to that being the sole factor of her loathing Obama.

I wish I could just understand this spell so many republicans seem to be under, but the best I can deduce is that many are simply operating off principles like, "I got mine, so fuck everyone else!" or literally suffering from some societal equivalent of stockholm syndrome. Frankly, I can understand certain leftist policies seeming unattainable, especially with how things are right this moment, but I also don't see it as an excuse to not aspire toward them so that one day, maybe in the distant future, they might actually be feasible. Or this is just the long con of shitty education and there's no turning back. Just a few more election cycles and we may as well crown the Koch brothers kings of the far-from-united states.

[Tyche]

Victims who have mental health issues and make things up?

Well, like I said earlier, you type too much and I don't read half of it. But I just glanced at this when scrolling up. And this pisses me off. About 50% of survivors experience depression as a result of their abuse. About 80% show signs of PTSD. These aren't made up numbers. These people have mental health issues as a result of their abuse, and now it's going to be used against them as a means to diminish their credibility. You're part of the problem.

[Mina]

I'm a centrist and both the hard left and right are fucking nuts to me. I suppose most people would say I lean left but I also would never want the far left to have its field day with everything. I've never adored any single president nor have I considered any particular political player out there to be my Goldilocks of "just perfect and can do no wrong".

That-being-said. Trump is like next level what the fuck am I listening to? A lot of my conservative friends accuse me of being completely liberal but I am just purely Anti-Trump. No matter which team he would be going up to bat for.

[Xno Kappa]

I try to be open-minded on issues, because in all honesty I'm not well-versed on politics so I try to give everything a pragmatic approach. I don't really choose between Team Edwards or Team Jacobs. Something maybe people can learn if they dropped their fucking echo chambers with social media.

Why is Kavanaugh such a threat to democracy? Been tuning in and out the hearing here at work and the dude sounds pretty capable and strongly believes in precedent.

This was me a few weeks ago.

[shukudai]

I get doubt.
But using "why didn't she come forward immediately" to point to her as a liar is what I don't accept. Plenty of women don't come forward immediately. Just look at how the media and even the old senators treated Anita Hill for a near mirror example. It's the reason why they hired a female sex crimes prosecutor to question Ford. Shit was fucked up back in the day. There's a reason a lot of women were ultra hesitant about coming out. People weren't doing it and if they did when things went wrong you DEFINITELY heard about it. I know I did, I was terrified.

I'm baffled, what is a sexual assault victim called instead of a victim? A sexual assault accuser?

I don't see how your logic there holds up under serious scrutiny. To me, you've got two sentences in a row that are completely contradictory to each other.

I get doubt.

OK, so you understand that people can have doubt about the topic. I take this to mean that you believe I could doubt that the accusation she has made did not occur.

But using "why didn't she come forward immediately" to point to her as a liar is what I don't accept.

Doubting is OK, but doubting specifically the length of time it took her to come forward is not acceptable doubt? I think it's unfair to characterize yourself as getting doubt, then the first reason for doubt I provide is deemed unacceptable. You'd have to have some pretty strong logic for me to go "OK, you know what, he's got a point when he puts it that way, I think I was wrong about this." Right now, I think it's highly unreasonable to find using the length of time before coming forward as a reason (or metric, if you prefer) to assign doubt. I think we'd both agree that false accusations are both real -and- rare. For those who have made false allegations - proven false, beyond the shadow of a doubt - a very large percentage of them took a period of time before they made their allegations (for whatever the reason).

My logic is simple here, I'm making up numbers here to demonstrate what I believe. This makes this the weakest part of my argument, because I haven't done the research to prove the numbers I'm using, but hopefully I'll have articulated the point/possibility I'm trying to make. If Ford fits into a pattern that 78% of victims fall into due to the length of time it took her to report, she may also fit into a category: 58% of false accusers also often wait an excessive amount of time before reporting.

By my logic of 95% of allegations are true, and 5% are false allegations, let's use 1000 as the number of victims:

950 of them are true, and if 78% of them fit the same length of time as Ford that's a pretty strong logic that overwhelmingly when someone claims sexual abuse, even decades after the fact, they're probably telling you the truth.

50 of them are lying, and if 58% of those liars also fit the same length of time as Ford, that's also pretty strong logic as well. When you're looking for someone making a false allegations, over half of the liars wait a quite a length of time as well.

I understand the implications of the first point. It's a fairly binary situation, either Kavanaugh did what he was accused of or he did not do what he was accused of (happy to admit he might of done something, but also not what she says or remembers). I'm looking for the liars, because we know they exist even though we know were far more likely to encounter a non-liar. Length of time, I believe, lends both a certain level of credibility, and a certain level doubt, based on the logic above.

I'm baffled, what is a sexual assault victim called instead of a victim? A sexual assault accuser?

Honestly, it's an icky question. Because of false accusers, we cannot believe 100% of accusers are victims because we know this to be factually false. We also know an overwhelming number of accusers are actually victims. I think maybe a better term could be used, but not sure what that would sound like.

Also holy shit if you read all that. I appreciate that Tyche was all "I'm not going to read that!" then Day laughed, and Tyche went back and read it. That's a good trait to have, and shows maturity.

[shukudai]

Well, like I said earlier, you type too much and I don't read half of it. But I just glanced at this when scrolling up. And this pisses me off. About 50% of survivors experience depression as a result of their abuse. About 80% show signs of PTSD. These aren't made up numbers. These people have mental health issues as a result of their abuse, and now it's going to be used against them as a means to diminish their credibility. You're part of the problem.

Not reading is a poor excuse, but I can try to be more articulate and succinct. I don't believe your numbers are made up. People *LITERALLY* do develop mental health issues as a result of their abuse. Guess what else is true, and doesn't invalidate the first? People that *DO* have mental health issues can do some pretty fucking awful things too. Certainly you're aware of people with extreme Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as one example out of a probably at least twenty or so.

If you want to get really moral and ethical on it, let's boil it down to what what *you* value more: The damage that can be done to real, actual victims by asking questions that can further traumatize and stigmatize those looking to come forward vs. knowing that 5% of allegations are false, and if we don't ask those questions then there's a huge chance people who are completely innocent will get obliterated, will be jailed, possibly up for death sentences, etc. Presumption of innocence is in large part predicated on Blackstone's formulation, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". As a society, we believe that that it is *literally* better for ten guilty people to escape, than for a *single* innocent person to suffer. That's quite the scale, 10:1. What you seem to be in favor of is that your preference is that if a few good people get fucked over, that's a small price to pay to get all the bad guys.

It's not me who's part of the problem here. I don't see that you even acknowledge there is another side, even if it's super simple to pull up at least a hundred stories of proven false allegations, it's not like the Innocence Project hasn't gotten men out of jail years after their convictions when they could use DNA to prove things. Stop pretending there's only one side. I'm freaking happy to admit most allegations are true, I'm happy to agree that they cause mental health issues. But I sure as hell don't deny that there are people who make false allegations because the overwhelming majority are true. False accusers are by definition, false, what differentiates them, literally from people who are honest is that they -LIE-. How the hell do you catch someone who lies, who has at least some fair level of intelligence, without asking damn questions and using facts? You're going to piss off the legitimate victims, and you're not going to catch -all- of the liars even if you get to ask every question you want. But you'll catch some of them. How many? I don't have a clue, but those people should be caught just as much as actual sexual abusers, they can be just as bad.