METOO Movement weaponised

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, Trausti agrees that a serial abuser of women should not hold public office.

 

[Playball40]

I'm trying to figure out what it is he did. Was he physically abusive in his relationships with these two women? Or did he have physical/aggressive type sex with these women? Was the sex non-consensual or just rough sex non-consensual? I'm just trying to get it clear in my heard.

I admit I never quite understood the mindset of men that do this either. Perhaps being raised by a single mom had something to do with it, I don't know.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Yes. Physical abuse. Apparently each woman thought she was the only one, until they realized the other was abused as well. The evidence is supposed to be pretty damning too, including examinations by a doctor that was found consistent with abuse. There was apparently also threats of violence as well. "If you ever leave me, I'll kill you."

A statement by the good attorney tried to point to role playing as being the culprit and not actual abuse, but no one seems to be buying that.

 

[Underseer]

Yes. I read the post.

He brought it up in the context of complaining about the #metoo movement, so unless he is given to interjecting completely unrelated topics mid-conversation, he must think there is some kind of connection between the Ouija board thing and other accusations.

If you think he is making a different connection than the one I identified, then say what you think that is.

I'd say that SOME connection, inside his head (because that's ALL he talked about), is not the same as making the sweeping statement for all accusations that you read from his post. That's entirely in your head.

There is no connection between the premise and this conversation that is remotely reasonable, and several possible connections that involve trying to justify things that should never be justified.

Since you find my sweeping generalization unreasonable, then fine. Tell us which conclusion would be reasonable and that makes the connection between his interjection and the ongoing conversation reasonable.

I don't see how there could be any possible connection between the interjection and this conversation that can be remotely reasonable, but since everyone keeps telling me how wrong I am about that, I am eager to hear the explanation of what reasonable connection I should be making between the interjection and the ongoing conversation (which he started, by the way).

Since my sweeping generalization is so bad, then get more specific. Give us the specific conclusion and logic that makes this connection reasonable, then I will see the error of my ways and admit that I was wrong. So far, all I can see is that a lot of people are very offended that I am trying to draw a connection between his interjection and the ongoing conversation that he started.

Should I just assume that he randomly blurts out "I was accused of sexually abusing children!" in totally unrelated conversations?

Maybe a normal conversation with EE goes like this:

Person A: How 'bout the local baseball team?
Person B: Gosh, I just don't know about the pitchers.
ElectricalEngineer: I WAS ONCE ACCUSED OF MOLESTING CHILDREN!

Any attempt to disconnect the interjection from the conversation just makes EE look like a lunatic.

Any connection between the interjection and the conversation makes EE look like someone who is trying to justify the unjustifiable or someone who is really bad at logic (I was once accused of child molestation, plus underpants gnomes, therefore this whole #metoo thing is unreasonable!).

- - - Updated - - -

So, Trausti agrees that a serial abuser of women should not hold public office.

That's probably dependent on the party of the abuser.

He's a conservative, so things are moral or immoral based on who does it, not based on what is does. I bet he will also tell you that he believes in "objective morals."

 

[Underseer]

Yes. Physical abuse. Apparently each woman thought she was the only one, until they realized the other was abused as well. The evidence is supposed to be pretty damning too, including examinations by a doctor that was found consistent with abuse. There was apparently also threats of violence as well. "If you ever leave me, I'll kill you."

A statement by the good attorney tried to point to role playing as being the culprit and not actual abuse, but no one seems to be buying that.

And what characterizes the #metoo movement is the tendency of society to not believe women when they make accusations like this.

A lot of people seem to be upset about the fact that people are starting to believe women when they come forward about various forms of abuse.

 

[Trausti]

Four Women Accuse New York’s Attorney General of Physical Abuse

After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose. She described this response as heartbreaking. And when Schneiderman heard that she had turned against him, she said, he warned her that politics was a tough and personal business, and that she’d better be careful. She told Selvaratnam that she had taken this as a threat.

How does he do that!?

You are beginning to suffer from Trump's lack of self reflection. If your man was a paragon of virtue you may have a point. As it is...well, most of us can see that Trump has a major problem with projection. So really the only thing you're left with is this: Trump's base has no interest in holding him to any klind of decent standard. As long as he makes with the racism, all will be forgiven.

Or, another male feminist turns out to be a creeper. And there is a Trump tweet for everything.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Or, Trump himself is a creeper extraordinaire. Maybe we should work towards having less creeps. One way to do that is for them to lose their positions of power once they are identified. I suggest we start from the top down. [emoji39]

 

[Underseer]

Or, Trump himself is a creeper extraordinaire. Maybe we should work towards having less creeps. One way to do that is for them to lose their positions of power once they are identified. I suggest we start from the top down. [emoji39]

You can't hold Trump accountable for something that he did. Only those dirty middle class people and minorities should be held accountable for their behavior!

 

[scombrid]

...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

/mod

 

[Underseer]

I apologize for my posts.

I don't see why changing "premise" to "interjection" and "conclusion" to "ongoing conversation" makes any of this sound more or less reasonable to anyone, since we still have the same problem with that comment/observation being inserted into this thread.

One of EE's defenders referred to the interjection as an anecdote, which brings up exactly what is wrong with EE's interjection and any attempt to link it to the discussion about #metoo.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what conclusion I am supposed to draw about the #metoo movement based on the anecdotal evidence presented by EE. Apparently the conclusion I drew offended everyone, so please tell me what conclusion I should have arrived at that would be reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -

You are beginning to suffer from Trump's lack of self reflection. If your man was a paragon of virtue you may have a point. As it is...well, most of us can see that Trump has a major problem with projection. So really the only thing you're left with is this: Trump's base has no interest in holding him to any klind of decent standard. As long as he makes with the racism, all will be forgiven.

Or, another male feminist turns out to be a creeper. And there is a Trump tweet for everything.

So your evidence proves that feminists beat women, therefore feminism is wrong?

Do tell us what your evidence proves about feminism.

 

[scombrid]

I apologize for my posts.

I don't see why changing "premise" to "interjection" and "conclusion" to "ongoing conversation" makes any of this sound more or less reasonable to anyone, since we still have the same problem with that comment/observation being inserted into this thread.

One of EE's defenders referred to the interjection as an anecdote, which brings up exactly what is wrong with EE's interjection and any attempt to link it to the discussion about #metoo.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what conclusion I am supposed to draw about the #metoo movement based on the anecdotal evidence presented by EE. Apparently the conclusion I drew offended everyone, so please tell me what conclusion I should have arrived at that would be reasonable.

You think you "catching" me using "anecdote" is some kind of gotcha?

I used that word for a reason.

Reason being precisely that I'm not generalizing to the broader MeToo movement.

"therefore all accusations are false" presents a false dichotomy. I would hate to think that we must believe all accusations unconditionally or none at all?


That type of ultimatum paints people into corners to the favor of the right wing propagandists from Heritage Foundations, Heartland Institute, Alex Jones, Mike Adams, (and now their IRA friends). You know these are the people that now control 36 state governments, The House, The Senate, The Presidency, and the SCOTUS. Those people are winning the war of rhetoric because they are able to frame the other side as unreasonable man (white people, pick your group) haters. They have even flipped the script to the extent that the marchers in Charlottesville are free speech defenders and liberals are evil oppressors. They've convinced enough of the population that they are right that Trump got elected.

Our culture of victim blaming is bad and may be a little less bad today but we see it all the time and it is obvious that Sneiderman Trump types use it to their advantage. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people out there that are fearful of false accusations. There are a lot of men that would never assault a woman that think that Weinstain and Cosby should be gut shot but that also are terrified of what a disgruntled employee or company rival could do to them. The fear may be irrational from a statistical standpoint in that the likelihood of a woman getting assaulted is way way way higher than the likelihood of a guy getting falsely accused, but the fear real and cannot be ignored. The other side exploits that fear you know. If we dismiss that fear and label someone a women hating misogynist because they harbor that fear then we aren't swaying them to our side; they can get driven to Trump camp. False accusations do exists and they are devastating. Everybody that expresses that fear isn't D-man and it isn't right to treat them like D-man. People are good at being terrified of statistically rate but devastating things like shark attacks and plane crashes. Rather than acting like the fear is a mortal sin how about we acknowledge the fear and move towards assuring that accusations with both be treated seriously by authorities and that accusations aren't an automatic death sentence to the accused.

I want universities, police departments, companies, etc... that look the other way in assault cases and that sweep things under the rug to be held to account. But what happens when you introduce an increased risk, however small, of someone being damaged or destroyed by a false allegation? You run into good old rational self interest. You are asking someone to incur and increased cost to themselves (even if it is very small) to benefit someone else. You know how that usually works out right?

 

[jab]

What is the deal with this specific type of white guy, same as Weinstein doing this crazy stuff? Do they have some kind of hidden privilege?

A couple of years ago a non-white Canadian Guy, Jian Ghomeshi--pop culture interviewer and onetime member of a rock/ pop band, lost his job and had other repercussions in his life due to similar behaviour.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to reports, Schneiderman would drink two bottles of wine then take a bottle of scotch with him to the bedroom. Sounds to me that he was just a mean drunk.

 

[scombrid]

Doesn't matter. Hitting is hitting. Unless he was possessed by a ghost or being control by HAARP Beams, his microwave, and chemtrails then he chose to get plowed and therefore chose to do whatever he did while plowed.

 

[Underseer]

Doesn't matter. Hitting is hitting. Unless he was possessed by a ghost or being control by HAARP Beams, his microwave, and chemtrails then he chose to get plowed and therefore chose to do whatever he did while plowed.

Yep.

If I get drunk and drive a car into a bus full of toddlers, I'm still responsible for what I did because I decided to get drunk and drive.

And lots of people (including some one might describe as "mean drunks") get plastered without beating women.

 

[Underseer]

I apologize for my posts.

I don't see why changing "premise" to "interjection" and "conclusion" to "ongoing conversation" makes any of this sound more or less reasonable to anyone, since we still have the same problem with that comment/observation being inserted into this thread.

One of EE's defenders referred to the interjection as an anecdote, which brings up exactly what is wrong with EE's interjection and any attempt to link it to the discussion about #metoo.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what conclusion I am supposed to draw about the #metoo movement based on the anecdotal evidence presented by EE. Apparently the conclusion I drew offended everyone, so please tell me what conclusion I should have arrived at that would be reasonable.

You think you "catching" me using "anecdote" is some kind of gotcha?

I used that word for a reason.

Reason being precisely that I'm not generalizing to the broader MeToo movement.

"therefore all accusations are false" presents a false dichotomy. I would hate to think that we must believe all accusations unconditionally or none at all?


That type of ultimatum paints people into corners to the favor of the right wing propagandists from Heritage Foundations, Heartland Institute, Alex Jones, Mike Adams, (and now their IRA friends). You know these are the people that now control 36 state governments, The House, The Senate, The Presidency, and the SCOTUS. Those people are winning the war of rhetoric because they are able to frame the other side as unreasonable man (white people, pick your group) haters. They have even flipped the script to the extent that the marchers in Charlottesville are free speech defenders and liberals are evil oppressors. They've convinced enough of the population that they are right that Trump got elected.

Our culture of victim blaming is bad and may be a little less bad today but we see it all the time and it is obvious that Sneiderman Trump types use it to their advantage. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people out there that are fearful of false accusations. There are a lot of men that would never assault a woman that think that Weinstain and Cosby should be gut shot but that also are terrified of what a disgruntled employee or company rival could do to them. The fear may be irrational from a statistical standpoint in that the likelihood of a woman getting assaulted is way way way higher than the likelihood of a guy getting falsely accused, but the fear real and cannot be ignored. The other side exploits that fear you know. If we dismiss that fear and label someone a women hating misogynist because they harbor that fear then we aren't swaying them to our side; they can get driven to Trump camp. False accusations do exists and they are devastating. Everybody that expresses that fear isn't D-man and it isn't right to treat them like D-man. People are good at being terrified of statistically rate but devastating things like shark attacks and plane crashes. Rather than acting like the fear is a mortal sin how about we acknowledge the fear and move towards assuring that accusations with both be treated seriously by authorities and that accusations aren't an automatic death sentence to the accused.

I want universities, police departments, companies, etc... that look the other way in assault cases and that sweep things under the rug to be held to account. But what happens when you introduce an increased risk, however small, of someone being damaged or destroyed by a false allegation? You run into good old rational self interest. You are asking someone to incur and increased cost to themselves (even if it is very small) to benefit someone else. You know how that usually works out right?

Fine.

Then tell us what the anecdote tells us about the #metoo accusations in general.

Explain the relationship between the anecdote and the conversation that existed when the anecdote was introduced.

Changing "all" to "some" will not turn this connection into something reasonable.

Either you can define "some" in a way that makes the interjection utterly meaningless and makes EE look like a nut, or anything else and anything else makes it sound like the anecdote gives us reason to doubt such accusations when they are made.

Now, if my understanding of what he said was unreasonable, then change the parameters in such a way that makes his interjection of that anecdote reasonable.

"All" was too broad? Great. Then get specific.

Change "all" into some, be specific about what you mean by "some," and show that your "some" makes his introduction of that anecdote into this discussion meaningful and reasonable.

 

[Underseer]

Perhaps I have been unclear.

• EE was once accused of molesting children
• (Logic goes here)
• Therefore, all of the accusations of the #metoo movement are invalid

Lots of people took offense to this and insisted that by changing EE's statement from "some" into "all," that I turned a perfectly reasonable statement into an unreasonable statement, and that therefore I was out of line in characterizing what he was trying to say by bringing up the child molestation accusation in the context of a discussion about whether or not the #metoo movement is a good idea at all.

OK, I am more than willing to accept that I am wrong about this. All I am asking is that one of you defenders of EE demonstrate that I actually am wrong here. There have been times when people on this forum demonstrated that I was wrong about something and I changed my mind (the effects of vaccines on children being the one that was most embarrassing for me).

So do it.

Demonstrate that I changed his reasonable statement into an unreasonable statement.

Show us the reasonable statement he intended or could have intended that became unreasonable when I changed the "some" into "all."

I've been making this same request for multiple pages now. I've gotten lots of responses, but no one seems to want to directly address my request here. I even laid out in great detail exactly how one could go about demonstrating that the original statement by EE was reasonable and became unreasonable by me changing the "some" into "all." Instead, everyone responds to repeat the claim that I turned EE's statement into something unreasonable by changing the "some" into "all," but without actually demonstrating that this is the case.

It's like trying to get a Muslim apologist to answer a direct question.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a way you can change the conclusion and add intervening logic that will make EE's original statement a reasonable interjection into this conversation. I'm pretty sure that no matter what people do when they change the all back into some, they will either show that EE was trying to justify what should not be justified, or they will divorce the interjection from the existing conversation to such an extent as to make EE sound insane for bringing up the child molestation accusation in a totally unrelated conversation.

But again, I could be wrong.

Please show that I am wrong.

Do not just repeat your claim that I am wrong. Demonstrate that this is the case.