new Reade/Biden thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

Nope. Wrong. Serial liars can also be sexually assaulted. That you're denying that only makes *you* look sleazy, dishonest, and women-hating. Oh, and a poor excuse for a human being. Gotta cover all those clichés.

Sure, serial liars can be raped. But when their rape stories themselves appear to be riddled with lies, nobody is “obligated” to believe them. You need to stop pretending that’s how it works.

You’re trying to undermine legitimate rape victims and for political reasons. That’s why you’re a sleazy woman hater.

Wow. Pot meet kettle x a million. How soon we forget.

DP here. Whether you like it or not, millions of people legitimately believed the other person and thought it was the Senate's duty to investigate. The thing about Reade, almost nobody is actually defending her. It's all about using her story to undermine a different story.

Regardless, it'll certainly be interesting the next time a woman with a sketchy background accuses a Republican of sexual assault. I guarantee you we'll see Democrats running to her defense, insisting her lies/inconsistencies, etc. don't matter, etc. And anyone who disagrees will be called a "sleazy woman hater," just as they were in 2018. Should be eye-opening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this thread still going? There is no "reade/biden" scandal. It was all made up.

If you're not interested, why did you click on it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the Politico piece. Reade has no credibility. That along with the timing is too much for me to believe her. If she was concerned about him being a leader, when he ran for VP would have been the time to come out.

Huh. Does it bother you when other women wait decades to allege sexual assault? Or just Reade?

DP. You need to read the Politico piece, and the NPR piece. They’re about how she was fired from her Senate job for poor performance, nothing else. They're about how she ripped off people who were kind to her for decades.

And that has exactly what to do with a sexual assault? Are you the kind of person who discredits and dismisses hair stylists, strippers, waitresses, low-income women who might be down on their luck or come from less-than-ideal circumstances - if they dare to come forward after sexual assault?

Not a good look.

Do you really not see the difference between (a) direct accounts from people who knew her who say she did not tell the truth in dealings with them, and (b) jackasses who respond to sexual assault allegations with "What was she wearing?" "Was she drunk?" "Why did she meet with him ?" or any of the other ways that rape apologists say that a woman was asking for it?

The point, which you keep dancing around, is that for decades we've been told that not only does it not matter what an accuser was wearing, doing, drinking at the time of the alleged assault, but her (or his) personal life, trustworthiness, etc. should have NO bearing on whether or not s/he was actually assaulted. This is what victim advocates have preached for years and years and years. So here we have a classic example in which to practice what you preach. An imperfect woman with a fairly sketchy history - who claims she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. None of the rest should matter, right? Isn't that what you've always said? Yes, yes it is.

DP. You seem to have comprehension problems. Or you hate women, it’s hard to tell.

The point you don’t want to understand is that a serial liar—a serial liar with an ever-changing story, no less—is very different from a woman who was attacked while amusing herself by drinking or dancing.

Stop with the sleazy and dishonest misrepresentation of victims advocates. They don’t claim that serial liars should automatically be believed. They do advocate for women who were amusing themselves innocently, say at a bar. If you can’t see the difference, you’re a poor excuse for a human being.

Nope. Wrong. Serial liars can also be sexually assaulted. That you're denying that only makes *you* look sleazy, dishonest, and women-hating. Oh, and a poor excuse for a human being. Gotta cover all those clichés.

Sure, serial liars can be raped. But when their rape stories themselves appear to be riddled with lies, nobody is “obligated” to believe them. You need to stop pretending that’s how it works.

You’re trying to undermine legitimate rape victims and for political reasons. That’s why you’re a sleazy woman hater.

Wow. Pot meet kettle x a million. How soon we forget.

DP here. Whether you like it or not, millions of people legitimately believed the other person and thought it was the Senate's duty to investigate. The thing about Reade, almost nobody is actually defending her. It's all about using her story to undermine a different story.

Regardless, it'll certainly be interesting the next time a woman with a sketchy background accuses a Republican of sexual assault. I guarantee you we'll see Democrats running to her defense, insisting her lies/inconsistencies, etc. don't matter, etc. And anyone who disagrees will be called a "sleazy woman hater," just as they were in 2018. Should be eye-opening.

No, it won't be interesting. Many people from both parties will do the same thing they do on every other issue. It doesn't matter if it's a rape accusation, emails, dementia or the economy. They will take the position that benefits their side and call the other side names.

That's where.our politics is right now. If you don't like it, stop doing it.

[Anonymous]

Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

Go ask your third grade English teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

Go ask your third grade English teacher.

Can't explain it, can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

"Believe Women" means "don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones (Sandy Doyle, 2017)." It asks you not to dismiss us out of hand, to seriously consider that we might be telling the truth about sexual assault and rape and abuse. "Believe women" is a necessary slogan because for millenia, no one did.

Conservatives have recently added the word "all" to the phrase. "Believe all women" is used almost exclusively by Republicans, the same way they say"Democrat" Party instead of the actual "Democratic" Party. Or the way they watered down "Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter." It's a deliberate attempt to twist a powerful idea into something they can use to play "gotcha" with liberals.

Monica Hesse wrote an excellent article about it in the Washington Post, if you are genuinely interested. She writes:

"Believe all women,” on the other hand, is rigid, sweeping, and leaves little room for nuance. It would imply that every single woman, everywhere, has always told the truth, on every occasion, about everything....Believe all women” isn’t a good slogan, but it’s a great straw man. It’s a punched-up setup line that enables pundits to play-act as Columbo, swanning around in a raincoat, rubbing his head and delivering a case-closing zinger: “Just one more thing — I thought you believed ALL women!”

I don't think you really wanted an answer, though, did you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

"Believe Women" means "don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones (Sandy Doyle, 2017)." It asks you not to dismiss us out of hand, to seriously consider that we might be telling the truth about sexual assault and rape and abuse. "Believe women" is a necessary slogan because for millenia, no one did.

Conservatives have recently added the word "all" to the phrase. "Believe all women" is used almost exclusively by Republicans, the same way they say"Democrat" Party instead of the actual "Democratic" Party. Or the way they watered down "Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter." It's a deliberate attempt to twist a powerful idea into something they can use to play "gotcha" with liberals.

Monica Hesse wrote an excellent article about it in the Washington Post, if you are genuinely interested. She writes:

"Believe all women,” on the other hand, is rigid, sweeping, and leaves little room for nuance. It would imply that every single woman, everywhere, has always told the truth, on every occasion, about everything....Believe all women” isn’t a good slogan, but it’s a great straw man. It’s a punched-up setup line that enables pundits to play-act as Columbo, swanning around in a raincoat, rubbing his head and delivering a case-closing zinger: “Just one more thing — I thought you believed ALL women!”

I don't think you really wanted an answer, though, did you?

Good explanation, pp. But it’s wasted on top pp.

Susan Faludi’ op-ed in the New York Times from 2-3 days ago says much the same thing: that Cons inserted the “all” to undermine women’s claims of sexual harassment/assault. She says “Believe all women” is basically the negation of “believe women” or “listen to all women.” Faludi got a Harvard librarian to count tweets of “Believe all women” and it’s mostly used by Cons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

DP. You keep braying about the Faludi piece. The link has already been supplied - you don't have to keep reminding us. Here's a good rebuttal to that specific piece.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

DP. There really is no difference. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

[Anonymous]

Holy shit has this opened a Pandora’s box for Reade and for all the people she lied to, including judges.

“Prosecutors and defense attorneys reviewing scores of cases where Tara Reade appeared as an expert witness and potentially misrepresented her credentials.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/tara-reade-credentials.html#click=https://t.co/A2jzQUhmcr

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

DP. There really is no difference. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t sound like she actually read the piece. Nor do you. Or perhaps you’re not capable of understanding it. It’s a toss up.