If the Kavanaugh accusations are true...

[Kaon]

I've head some pretty disturbing defenses, both on the news and around here re: Kavanaugh. Not so much "She's lying"; I expected that. It's the "It doesn't matter" defenses that concern me. "Boys will be boys," "just a kid," "Nothing actually happened," "just a little groping..."

I'm curious about which way the wind is blowing on this one.

Thoughts?

They tried this with Anita Hill. They learned these cases work well to distract people from a war and recession (like in 1991), so they have pulled out all of the civil right motifs for the population to focus attention.

It is inconsequential whether it happened or not, he will get the appointment. This is a psychological test on the public to see where everyone stands morally, and which groups are allied. It is for our entertainment, not to be taken seriously.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well our society revolves around jurisprudence and has since the Roman Empire. It is what kept mob justice a la guilty until proven innocent out of our founding.

Many a woman was burned at the stake in Europe by false testimony and hearsay putting the woman in a position to prove innocence instead of the accusers presenting evidence.

That’s why we have a process and it is just.

This isn't about trying Kavanaugh as a criminal (since the statute of limitations has expired), it's about making sure that individuals with no regard for women's bodies don't end up on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh is going to get the opportunity to explain his actions. That sounds fair enough to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

They tried this with Anita Hill. They learned these cases work well to distract people from a war and recession (like in 1991), so they have pulled out all of the civil right motifs for the population to focus attention.

It is inconsequential whether it happened or not, he will get the appointment. This is a psychological test on the public to see where everyone stands morally, and which groups are allied. It is for our entertainment, not to be taken seriously.

Just one question, do you believe her?

 

[Kaon]

Just one question, do you believe her?

The joke is it doesn't matter.

I dont have an opinion on whether Anita Hill put herself through hell for a long con, even considering she has more against her than being a woman. She was an academic, so she knew what she would be faced with: clearly she thought that was important enough to pursue.

But, I also know nothing happens by coincidence, and most everything has a recognizably exploitable purpose.

 

[mark kennedy]

The joke is it doesn't matter.

I dont have an opinion on whether Anita Hill put herself through hell for a long con, even considering she has more against her than being a woman. She was an academic, so she knew what she would be faced with: clearly she thought that was important enough to pursue.

But, I also know nothing happens by coincidence, and most everything has a recognizably exploitable purpose.

I dont consider it a joke, its either true or its not. She is alone in this allegation, its not like no one else was involved. I would like someone to be held accountable, especially if its not true. I get tired of unsubstantiated accusation sucking all the air out of the room.

 

[Kaon]

I dont consider it a joke, its either true or its not. She is alone in this allegation, its not like no one else was involved. I would like someone to be held accountable, especially if its not true. I get tired of unsubstantiated accusation sucking all the air out of the room.

The point is to do precisely that - desensitized you. The joke is on us.

This way, we come complacent when hell and lawlessness saturates our lives: to get us comfortable with chaos.


What came out of the Anita Hill show on either side?

How is this different from "Me Too" movements almost three decades later?

 

[mark kennedy]

The point is to do precisely that - desensitized you. The joke is on us.

This way, we come complacent when hell and lawlessness saturates our lives: to get us comfortable with chaos.


What came out of the Anita Hill show on either side?

How is this different from "Me Too" movements almost three decades later?

I remember Clarence Thomas saying he had tore his guts out and racked his brain to think of when he might have done such a thing. I believed him, men deserve to be believed some times. I think this whole thing is contrived, I would rather we were talking about something real. Sure, t he jokes on us, but no punch line.

 

[Kaon]

I remember Clarence Thomas saying he had tore his guts out and racked his brain to think of when he might have done such a thing. I believed him, men deserve to be believed some times. I think this whole thing is contrived, I would rather we were talking about something real. Sure, t he jokes on us, but no punch line.

But people lie; Thomas could have had the time of his life.

Hill likewise.


The entire thing was a psychological operation on the American Public, and ultimately serves the role of the research objective: vectors for which dehumanization can be maximized. Division works well in general, but the division of men and women is a valuable psychology. It all works for dehumanization, and getting used to living in chaos. The joke is on us.

 

[Archivist]

Not necessarily. According to the reports about her therapist sessions, she has experienced ongoing trauma over the attack. She surely has some right to be protected in that regard...?

And yes, it’s not a criminal caae

And what about his rights?

 

[Allandavid]

And what about his rights?

Are you suggesting that he would find it traumatic if she were in the same room..??

 

[Allandavid]

I remember Clarence Thomas saying he had tore his guts out and racked his brain to think of when he might have done such a thing. I believed him, men deserve to be believed some times. I think this whole thing is contrived, I would rather we were talking about something real. Sure, t he jokes on us, but no punch line.

What motive would Dr Ford have in contriving such a story...

 

[Archivist]

Are you suggesting that he would find it traumatic if she were in the same room..??

Try reading what I wrote, because I never said what you are saying.

 

[mark kennedy]

But people lie; Thomas could have had the time of his life.

Hill likewise.


The entire thing was a psychological operation on the American Public, and ultimately serves the role of the research objective: vectors for which dehumanization can be maximized. Division works well in general, but the division of men and women is a valuable psychology. It all works for dehumanization, and getting used to living in chaos. The joke is on us.

I dont buy it, some things are true or false. I dont feel dehumanized, I feel like I'm left with a dubious accusation I will never kno w is true or false.

 

[mark kennedy]

What motive would Dr Ford have in contriving such a story...

A professional achademic who will get a ground swell of support and attention, gee nothing I can think of.

 

[Allandavid]

Try reading what I wrote, because I never said what you are saying.

You asked about his rights, in response to my comment about her rights to be protected from the trauma of confronting her would-be rapist...

 

[Allandavid]

A professional achademic who will get a ground swell of support and attention, gee nothing I can think of.

A professional academic who already has achieved a very successful, well-published career. An intelligent woman who would understand the psychology behind public reaction to her claims. A family woman who would know the risks to her family.

What motive again...?

 

[Archivist]

You asked about his rights, in response to my comment about her rights to be protected from the trauma of confronting her would-be rapist...

You claim that she has a right to not be traumatized was in response to my statement that he has a right to face his accuser.

Where does the Constitution give anyone a right to not be traumatized?

 

[Allandavid]

You claim that she has a right to not be traumatized was in response to my statement that he has a right to face his accuser.

Where does the Constitution give anyone a right to not be traumatized?

And you forget, once again, that this is not (at this point) a legal issue...

 

[Kaon]

I dont buy it, some things are true or false. I dont feel dehumanized, I feel like I'm left with a dubious accusation I will never kno w is true or false.

That is how you dehumanize someone - leave them with never knowing the truth, and feeling uncertain about things that should be straight-forward and clear. The consequential incredulity is a seed.

In other words, you are fed misinformation in order to skew your very qualified mind from making decisions and judgments about certain things unless there is authorization. It is your right to be prejudiced, and to be presumptuous; often times those are necessary, but it would take maturity to execute those properly. For example, having a prejudice against witchcraft may be good for you as a Christian; it keeps you safe. Should you burn all witches at the stake? That is for you as a sovereign individual to decide.

Morality is the way humans justify their degeneracy; the high level of subjectivity in morality allow us to feel justified even when we aren't.

 

[Archivist]

And you forget, once again, that this is not (at this point) a legal issue...

Wrong. It is a legal issue. Actions of Congress are based on law. Congressional actions are based on the Constitution, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

It is not at this point a matter of criminal law. I said that in my first post. I have not deviated from that statement, so I don’t know whay you are claiming that I’m forgetting something “once again.”