Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Toni]

The accusations is quite out there for one. Then there is her "sexy rape" rambling to Anderson Cooper.

No, her accusation is quite...common, frankly. Oh, probably no more than a 100 or so women have been sexually assaulted by Trump and Carroll was the only one that we know of assaulted in a Barney's dressing room but Trump himself has described multiple sexual assaults, although that's not what he called them.

I have no idea what you are talking about re: Anderson Cooper/sexy rape.

I am NOT assuming that. I am merely saying that we CANNOT ASSUME that it is a reporting of an actual event because she MIGHT WELL have decided to accuse him because she heard of those other accusations. If the accusations are not independent, you cannot use the number of them to decide that the accusations are credible.

Sure, and I might well be the long lost great granddaughter of the Emperor of Russia but I don't think so.

Accusations were independent. The fact that there are so many of them does not taint the accusation of any one person. Rather, it gives additional weight to other accusations.

There is no evidence that Carroll is 'nutso.' Your bias in any rape accusation is that the woman is lying.

And your bias is that any woman is telling the truth. Except for that lying bitch Tara Reid. She is an exception that proves the rule that women don't lie about rape, right?

No, I pointed out reasons that Tara Reid's tale seems not as credible as other accusations against other people. I certainly have not dismissed them outright. As for the lying bitch remark: that's your speed, not mine.

I don't believe Carroll because I dislike Trump. I tend to believe Carroll because there is no possible motivation for her to come forward now, so many years later---

I can think of at least two:
- she was selling a book, and this accusation gave her yuuuge spike of publicity.
- she is a Democrat who wanted to damage Trump politically.

I realize you may not have heard of her, but she is a very well known and well published author. The fact that she was publishing a book at all was sufficient publicity to garner a lot of interest.

Lots of women have accused Trump. One more accusation from an incident decades ago certainly made no greater impression. Besides, if it were for 'political purposes' she would have timed it for closer to elections, say, in September or October 2020.

But her claim that he pushed her against a wall, shoved his hands inside her clothing and digitally penetrated her? Seems both out of character and difficult to accomplish given how she describes her clothing that day.

Besides, Biden does strike me as an old fashioned, analog kind of guy.

On the other hand, we are all old enough to know that a finger is a digit.

I won't write her off as crazy and I don't totally dismiss her accusation as fiction but I find it more doubtful.

You should use that sense of doubt for more cases, instead of believing a woman's claims just because a woman makes it, even if there is zero evidence it is true.

You should perhaps not attempt to read my mind or cast false aspersions about what I do or do not consider.

 

[Metaphor]

The problem with this language is the idea that we must "believe" Tara Reade - part of the same "believe women" idea pushed by feminists. To believe her means you think the events happened and if you did, there'd be no need for investigation.

"Take accusations seriously" is a much fairer standard.

You may call it "Take accusations seriously,” if that helps. That’s what I mean when I say “I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered.”

Well, no. That isn't what "believe" means.

believe

/bɪˈliːv/
Learn to pronounce



verb
verb: believe; 3rd person present: believes; past tense: believed; past participle: believed; gerund or present participle: believing


1.
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"




Nobody should believe something without evidence (though sometimes someone's word can be evidence enough, usually in the context of trivial utterances of no consequence, like saying 'I had a coffee this morning'.)

Stop saying "believe women", because you don't believe women, or this woman. You mean: take accusations seriously.

 

[Arctish]

The problem with this language is the idea that we must "believe" Tara Reade - part of the same "believe women" idea pushed by feminists. To believe her means you think the events happened and if you did, there'd be no need for investigation.

"Take accusations seriously" is a much fairer standard.

You may call it "Take accusations seriously,” if that helps. That’s what I mean when I say “I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered.”

Well, no. That isn't what "believe" means.

believe

/bɪˈliːv/
Learn to pronounce



verb
verb: believe; 3rd person present: believes; past tense: believed; past participle: believed; gerund or present participle: believing


1.
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"




Nobody should believe something without evidence (though sometimes someone's word can be evidence enough, usually in the context of trivial utterances of no consequence, like saying 'I had a coffee this morning'.)

Stop saying "believe women", because you don't believe women, or this woman. You mean: take accusations seriously.

I can't speak for Rhea but this is what I mean by it:

Believe the victim is truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Do not disbelieve them for no reason.

Do not fail to diligently and conscientiously investigate their report.

Do not prejudge the outcome.

No one is suggesting we should blindly accept that an allegation is objectively true and accurate in every detail. No one is suggesting we do away with investigations. There are a few extremists who say it's the only possible interpretation of "believe the victim" but even they understand that police will only conduct an investigation when they believe some kind of incident actually happened.

 

[Metaphor]

I can't speak for Rhea but this is what I mean by it:

Believe the victim is truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Your response already begs the question by using the language of "the victim". You haven't established the truth of the events, so you can't call the complainant a victim.

Do not disbelieve them for no reason.

Do not fail to diligently and conscientiously investigate their report.

Do not prejudge the outcome.

No one is suggesting we should blindly accept that an allegation is objectively true and accurate in every detail. No one is suggesting we do away with investigations. There are a few extremists who say it's the only possible interpretation of "believe the victim" but even they understand that police will only conduct an investigation when they believe some kind of incident actually happened.

Stop using the language of "believe women" if you don't want people to believe women, but instead want allegations taken seriously. The difference is very important.

When you choose to believe a complainant, do you also choose to believe the accused denials? You cannot logically believe both if they are contradictory.

 

[angelo]

Sleepy Joe a sex pest ? Nooooooooooo, say it isn't so !!!

Only when he remembers where he is, or whether he realizes it's not his sister or wife!

 

[Arctish]

I can't speak for Rhea but this is what I mean by it:

Believe the victim is truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Your response already begs the question by using the language of "the victim". You haven't established the truth of the events, so you can't call the complainant a victim.

Just how wordy does my explanation have to be before you guys stop picking nits and address the point?

Believe the self-identified victim and/or alleged witness and/or alleged informant, tipster, gossip-monger, and/or person allegedly in-the-know about the alleged incident is truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

There. Does that clarify things for you?

Do not disbelieve them for no reason.

Do not fail to diligently and conscientiously investigate their report.

Do not prejudge the outcome.

No one is suggesting we should blindly accept that an allegation is objectively true and accurate in every detail. No one is suggesting we do away with investigations. There are a few extremists who say it's the only possible interpretation of "believe the victim" but even they understand that police will only conduct an investigation when they believe some kind of incident actually happened.

Stop using the language of "believe women" if you don't want people to believe women, but instead want allegations taken seriously. The difference is very important.

I don't use the language of "believe women". There are all too many men who have reported being the victim of sexual assault only to have their reports immediately discounted and dismissed by the police.

But if someone uses the language of "believe women" and then immediately follows it by saying reports of sexual assault should be duly investigated, I don't jump to the conclusion they are saying investigations aren't needed or that no woman, ever, could be lying or mistaken, because that would be ridiculous.

When you choose to believe a complainant, do you also choose to believe the accused denials? You cannot logically believe both if they are contradictory.

I can logically believe that both are truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Al might genuinely believe Bert raped him. Bert might genuinely believe Al is overreacting to a misunderstanding and making it sound like a crime. Or one of them could be lying. How are you going to figure out what happened and whether it was a crime if you don't investigate?

 

[Rhea]

Stop saying "believe women", because you don't believe women, or this woman. You mean: take accusations seriously.

Yes, dear.

Believe the self-identified victim and/or alleged witness and/or alleged informant, tipster, gossip-monger, and/or person allegedly in-the-know about the alleged incident is truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Exactly. He know what we mean, Arctish. His attempts to make it not meaningful are not accepted.

 

[laughing dog]

Believe has more than one connotation:

rb
verb: believe; 3rd person present: believes; past tense: believed; past participle: believed; gerund or present participle: believing

1.
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"
h
2.
hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
"I believe we've already met"

So, it is linguistically possible and proper to use the term "believe" without implying something is true.

The key is to look at the entire context of the statement. It was obvious from Rhea's entire statement that she meant the equivalent of "take it seriously and investigate".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Her MOM??? BWAHAHAHA!
That's your "evidence"?
I mean it's not like Sleepy Joe was caught on tape bragging about "moving on her like a bitch" or grabbing pussy or anything.
And certainly not like TWENTY different women whose moms would defend them, all accusing him in unison...

I'm willing to believe that was her Mother. The trouble I see is that the way she is talking, what she is vaguely addressing sounds very much like a 'civil court' matter, and not about sexual assault. Reade ran out of favor with Biden, it wasn't fair, who can she talk to. Not, my daughter was sexually assaulted and my daughter feared going to the police. The police aren't even raised in her comment, only 'respect' for the Senator.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, because "nutso" is right there in DSM 5.

So you know it’s not a clinical term. Which means you are deliberately slandering her.

If you heard or saw somebody being raped in a changing room, would you not do anything?

Non-responsive to the question. So you do not know whether or not anyone heard or saw anything.

So you think the only reason people believe Carroll is because they dislike Trump?

Yes.

Baseless prejudicial position.

Could you provide evidence for that? No, of course not. So you are forming a conclusion that is NOT based on evidence, just your belief.

EJC offered zero evidence for her claims.

Non-responsive to the question. So you are, in fact, forming a conclusion that is NOT based on evidence, just your belief.

Iow, you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.

Do you know what a petard is?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am inclined to believe the accuser such that evidence will be heard and considered. Kavanagh should have been actually investigated. This accusation from Tara Reade should be investigated. So that if there is any additional evidence, or analysis of evidence, that makes it more believable than it currently seems, we should know that evidence exists.

In the Kavanagh case, for example, there was evidence from multiple sources, multiple women AND multiple men that he behaved in a predatory manner. There were witnesses that were not interviewed or questioned. That was absolutely wrong.

The Ford case was interesting because it wasn't exactly compelling evidence as there was just her alleged hearsay. Then we get to her testimony, which went painfully through the timeline of her come out in the open, which felt organic. And then she went through what she alleges happened. That sounded realistic. Then she went into falsifiable testimony about how it affected her including seeking help with a psychologist. Her testimony was nothing short of incredibly convincing. So much so, the GOP changed direction from get professional woman to break Ford into a piss and shit fling fest to muddy the waters.

I agree. An investigation wouldn't be inappropriate here. It certainly is much more recent (relatively speaking). Her original complaint was backed by multiple people. The later complaint was not. I believe the CNN video points towards her being a victim of sexual harassment, not sexual violence. It certainly isn't appropriate, however, his opponent is allegedly guilty of much worse.

 

[Metaphor]

Just how wordy does my explanation have to be before you guys stop picking nits and address the point?

The word "believe" should stop being promoted and used when that is not what is being asked for.

Believe the self-identified victim and/or alleged witness and/or alleged informant, tipster, gossip-monger, and/or person allegedly in-the-know about the alleged incident is truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Well, you can choose to "believe" the complainant, but that seems to me unjustified.

I don't use the language of "believe women". There are all too many men who have reported being the victim of sexual assault only to have their reports immediately discounted and dismissed by the police.

But if someone uses the language of "believe women" and then immediately follows it by saying reports of sexual assault should be duly investigated, I don't jump to the conclusion they are saying investigations aren't needed or that no woman, ever, could be lying or mistaken, because that would be ridiculous.

They should stop using and promoting "believe women" if what they mean is "take allegations seriously". They are very different.

I can logically believe that both are truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Al might genuinely believe Bert raped him. Bert might genuinely believe Al is overreacting to a misunderstanding and making it sound like a crime. Or one of them could be lying. How are you going to figure out what happened and whether it was a crime if you don't investigate?

You should take allegations seriously, like any allegation of a crime. That does not entail "believing" a complainant.

This is not a pedantic point. Belief is not some state that you can simply will yourself into. You could offer me $100m dollars on the condition that I believe the lights are on in my room right now. But they're not on and I can't will myself to believe it.

"Take allegations seriously whether you believe the complainant or not" would be a far, far better idea to propagate. I'll admit it isn't as catchy a hashtag.

 

[Metaphor]

Stop saying "believe women", because you don't believe women, or this woman. You mean: take accusations seriously.

Yes, dear.

Believe the self-identified victim and/or alleged witness and/or alleged informant, tipster, gossip-monger, and/or person allegedly in-the-know about the alleged incident is truthfully reporting what they genuinely believe happened.

Exactly. He know what we mean, Arctish. His attempts to make it not meaningful are not accepted.

By all means, continue promoting the term "believe women" when in fact you mean something else, and continue to alienate people who don't already agree with you.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The entire reason why "believe women" became a thing is precisely because so many men--police officers in particular--would NOT believe them a priori and would therefore not investigate their allegations or otherwise not do so with much or any forensic vigor.

Iow, the whole point you are trying to make Metaphor--take accusations seriously--is the exact message behind the "believe women" meme. You are--ironically--arguing in its favor, not against it. It is you that evidently thinks it means something else.

As to alienating people who "don't already agree," how the fuck is that the responsibility of the person using the phrase and not merely the ignorance of those misconstruing it? You may as well have said that it's women's fault that misogyny exists. Or, to put it more bluntly, women's fault that men rape so they should stop wearing certain clothing or not go out at night etc., etc., etc.

 

[Elixir]

It is lamentable that in modern day Trumpistan, society's default position when someone speaks is to assume some level of deceit. They're spouting propaganda, fake news or maybe just a choice of words to express something true, that is slanted to embed some questionable or false assumption into the truth.
I got by for a lot of decades assuming that if I had no reason to suspect otherwise, people were speaking to me in a forthright and honest way. Now, unless I have reason to know otherwise, I tend to assume that they have some agenda not related to the meaning of their words.
#SAD

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is lamentable that in modern day Trumpistan, society's default position when someone speaks is to assume some level of deceit. They're spouting propaganda, fake news or maybe just a choice of words to express something true, that is slanted to embed some questionable or false assumption into the truth.

That is a deliberate tactic, of course, used prominently by the mafia, perfected by Putin and employed by Trump because of Putin (either directly, as I believe, or, at the very least, indirectly, via the clear emulation of both Putin and the mafia).

 

[Derec]

The entire reason why "believe women" became a thing is precisely because so many men--police officers in particular--would NOT believe them a priori and would therefore not investigate their allegations or otherwise not do so with much or any forensic vigor.

Accusations of crimes should be investigated, but that does not mean women should be believed a priori. That means that you disbelieve the accused (most often a man) a priori. Demanding that a woman should automatically be believed and the man automatically be disbelieved is sexist on its face.

Iow, the whole point you are trying to make Metaphor--take accusations seriously--is the exact message behind the "believe women" meme.

No, it is not. Saying that women should be believed automatically goes much further than that. See for example this feminist screed.
No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims

Or, to put it more bluntly, women's fault that men rape so they should stop wearing certain clothing or not go out at night etc., etc., etc.

That is a cliche that is heard more much more often from feminists like you decrying it than uttered with any sort of sincerity. The converse, however, that men who are falsely accused of rape somehow deserve it, is uttered in all sincerity way too often in feminist circles.

 

[Toni]

Accusations of crimes should be investigated, but that does not mean women should be believed a priori. That means that you disbelieve the accused (most often a man) a priori. Demanding that a woman should automatically be believed and the man automatically be disbelieved is sexist on its face.


No, it is not. Saying that women should be believed automatically goes much further than that. See for example this feminist screed.
No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims

Or, to put it more bluntly, women's fault that men rape so they should stop wearing certain clothing or not go out at night etc., etc., etc.

That is a cliche that is heard more much more often from feminists like you decrying it than uttered with any sort of sincerity. The converse, however, that men who are falsely accused of rape somehow deserve it, is uttered in all sincerity way too often in feminist circles.

Victims should be believed. Accusations of wrong doing should be investigated as fully and as objectively as possible. In the case of Reade’s accusation it is simply impossible to have any real evidence of the veracity of her claims decades later-as it is in the case of most of Trump’s accusers. There is no chance of sufficient physical evidence still existing to prove an assault took place or who committef the assault—although if I am not mistaken, Carroll maybe claims to still have the garment she was wearing.

So we are faced with a number of accusations against both candidates for POTUS. Trump’s own words give a great deal of credence to the dozens of claims against him. If we disbelieve Carroll, there are many other credible accounts of sexual assault. For Biden, we have a much smaller number of women alleging that he made them uncomfortable to varying degrees. We have Reid whose accusation seems a little improbable because it seems out of character and not in keeping with accounts provided by other women—and on the face of it, seems difficult to have been accomplished. But it’s possible.


The whole : believe women came about because that’s an enormous barrier for women (and men) who are sexually assaulted. It’s not the same as police not bothering to investigate if your home is burgled even if you have all the serial numbers and track things down at the pawn shop yourself. For one thing, police usually investigate burglaries. Victims are rarely accused of making it up or of having agreed that the stranger who broke the house via the back window could have their grandmother’s pearls and all the electronics they could carry no matter how many drinks she had had.

 

[J842P]

Aannnnnd now we have neighbors and friends of Tara Reade corroborating that she told them about the assault back in the 90s, soon after it happened. This isn't looking great for Biden...

https://www.businessinsider.com/former-neighbor-corroborates-joe-bidens-accuser-2020-4

 

[Metaphor]

The entire reason why "believe women" became a thing is precisely because so many men--police officers in particular--would NOT believe them a priori and would therefore not investigate their allegations or otherwise not do so with much or any forensic vigor.

Iow, the whole point you are trying to make Metaphor--take accusations seriously--is the exact message behind the "believe women" meme. You are--ironically--arguing in its favor, not against it. It is you that evidently thinks it means something else.

I'll say it's ironic. "Believe women" is bullshit. "Take allegations seriously" is not.

I do not "believe women", or "believe" anybody. Belief is not something you can decide for yourself.

As to alienating people who "don't already agree," how the fuck is that the responsibility of the person using the phrase and not merely the ignorance of those misconstruing it?

The person using the phrase should realise its meaning, and that it is either hypocritical to use it (since they don't mean believe women, they mean take allegations seriously), or they are delusional about what it is they are advocating. It is not a misconstrual to understand the word 'believe' to mean what it actually means. For reasons I've already explained, the phrase is worthless.

You may as well have said that it's women's fault that misogyny exists. Or, to put it more bluntly, women's fault that men rape so they should stop wearing certain clothing or not go out at night etc., etc., etc.

The people who go around saying "believe women" (like Elizabeth Warren) should get their heads read. It's an idiotic sentiment which they themselves do not believe.

Fuck "believe women". You can't will yourself to believe something. "Take allegations seriously" would be the language feminists used, if they actually cared and weren't punch-drunk with their own hashtags.