new Reade/Biden thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't uncommon for people to only give a few details at a time. This is true for people who are victims of sexual violence or domestic violence. They might even deny it happened or is happening. Often they will only want to share a little - they may see how people react or respond and if they feel safe and ready to add more. This can make it seem like they are lying or changing their story but it is very common to only share some details.

I have worked with women who have experienced trauma and they have denied x or y happened only to tell me years later that actually x and y did happen but they felt too ashamed or too scared or they just weren't ready to tell those details then. I guess to some people they are just dishonest liars but if you have a better understanding of trauma, these reactions make sense. Also there isn't one reaction. Some people are at the police station the morning after an assault and giving every single detail - but some aren't and that doesn't mean it didn't happen, they are just processing it differently. It isn't uncommon for people to take decades to talk about sexual trauma. That doesn't mean they lied.

I have no idea what actually happened or didn't happen - I don't know enough to come to any conclusion. Honestly right now, no one does, but there is nothing so far that would make me conclude that there is no way this happened. Trauma isn't textbook, it isn't linear, it isn't straightforward, it isn't the same experience for everyone. It can b messy and dark and the person often knows they may not be believed, they may be efforts to discredit them, to make them prove it...and it can take people a long time to feel strong enough to put themselves out there to take that. That is the case even when the person they are alleging hurt them isn't a public figure. To put yourself out there to be scrutinized by family and friends is one there - by a nation and media - you really have to be sure you are strong enough and in the right place to handle that. And you have to do it in a way and at a time that you think your voice will be heard, that you won't be silenced or pushed under the rug and you got up the nerve for nothing.

Nobody is disputing how trauma works, but in this case there is concrete evidence to indicate there simply was no trauma.

DP. There is no "evidence" of the sort. How bizarre that you would say this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

So? You've heard of Stockholm Syndrome, yes? Just because someone has been assaulted (or kidnapped, etc.) doesn't mean the victim hates the attacker. None of this has to follow an orderly, logical progression. Remember? Isn't that what you lectured us all on recently? How soon we forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

There is no proof that every Weinstein victim acted exactly as they did only because they needed jobs. No one knows what was really going on for Tara. People are making some real rigid, concrete conclusions here - a lot of cognitive distortions at play. No one here can say with authority what any victim was or wasn't thinking or why they acted as they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

There is no proof that every Weinstein victim acted exactly as they did only because they needed jobs. No one knows what was really going on for Tara. People are making some real rigid, concrete conclusions here - a lot of cognitive distortions at play. No one here can say with authority what any victim was or wasn't thinking or why they acted as they did.

+1
And these are the very same people who insisted exactly that. Funny how they've changed their tune so completely.

[Anonymous]

Why not open a formal investigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

So? You've heard of Stockholm Syndrome, yes? Just because someone has been assaulted (or kidnapped, etc.) doesn't mean the victim hates the attacker. None of this has to follow an orderly, logical progression. Remember? Isn't that what you lectured us all on recently? How soon we forget.

OK, now you’ve moved into speculative territory that goes way beyond what the facts in front of us suggest. Are you a licensed therapist? I doubt it.

But anyway, I bet you have a great excuse for why she stole from the horse charity—let’s hear it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not open a formal investigation?

Because there is insufficient evidence to do so, and would be a ridiculous waste of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not open a formal investigation?

Because there is insufficient evidence to do so, and would be a ridiculous waste of time and money.

I thought it was because the statute of limitations had run out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

DP. I understand trauma, I understand how stories can drip out over time in ways that raise questions about their credibility, and I can understand how certain details of an assault while others that seem like they should be memorable can fade over time. I can tell you I was raped in the spring of 1997, but I can't tell you for sure which month it was anymore. Probably May, but maybe April. I remember generally what part of campus it happened on, but I don't remember anymore which dorm it was. I don't remember what I was wearing and I don't remember what I did after I left his dorm. I can remember his name, but I don't remember the name of his roommate that introduced us, even though I'd been hanging out with the roommate and other mutual friends all semester.

But I do know that if I was going to make that accusation public today, I would make sure I'd gone over everything I do and don't remember with a fine-tooth comb before putting my story out there. I would gone over and over whether I made a report and whether that report mentioned sexual assault, because I would want to make sure I was as accurate as possible for the sake of my own credibility, and if I couldn't remember whether I made a report, I would tell the truth about that rather than lying about something that could so easily trip me up. Reade comes across as just throwing random stuff out there to see what sticks, and when she gets caught in a lie, she seemingly tries to brazen her way through it. It's like she doesn't take her own story seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not open a formal investigation?

Good idea. Let’s formally investigate the 24 accusations against Trump, while we’re at it. Fun for all the kids this summer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

So? You've heard of Stockholm Syndrome, yes? Just because someone has been assaulted (or kidnapped, etc.) doesn't mean the victim hates the attacker. None of this has to follow an orderly, logical progression. Remember? Isn't that what you lectured us all on recently? How soon we forget.

OK, now you’ve moved into speculative territory that goes way beyond what the facts in front of us suggest. Are you a licensed therapist? I doubt it.

But anyway, I bet you have a great excuse for why she stole from the horse charity—let’s hear it!

I have no interest in why she stole from the horse charity. Why? Because it has NOTHING to do with her rape accusation. And no, I'm not a licensed therapist any more than the rest of you are. And yet, you're the same group of twits who think they can armchair diagnose Trump when he sniffs, or walks slightly crooked, or slurs a word or two. Funny how you can't (or won't) even admit your complete hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

Didn’t someone already tell you... Stockholm Syndrome.