Deshaun Watson Soap Opera

[TyGuy]

Do you tell people they should "believe all women," and if you do, is this how you use it?

Or, are you trying to tell other people what they actually mean?




(@Jack Brickman is correct in that is the most popular usage. I'm sure there are some people who use it in the way you're referring to, and I would obviously disagree with those people because that's a stupid argument)

I don't tell people what they should believe. However, you could have asked Jack the very same question, but since you agree with him you obviously didn't. I disagree with both of you, and that's okay.

 

[N7RobBob]

I think "believe all women" is more meant to say that, if a woman makes an accusation about sexual misconduct, it should be taken seriously and investigated legitimately. That often wasn't the case in the past.

And is still currently not being taken as seriously as it should be.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

I don't have a problem with taking accusations seriously. Certainly nobody should dismiss accusations. Although we're seeing some dismissal going on here with it being labeled a smear campaign. I just think it's a bit hypocritical to consider one incident a smear campaign and the other it's believe all women. I'm willing to take all accusations seriously, but wait on evidence before I grab my pitchfork.

Can you find people saying, definitively, that this was a smear campaign?

Because, that's what you're claiming, and I did not see that.

I saw people talking about how it's very possible that with a suspect lawyer, an unprofessional, emotional instagram post, and a single accuser without teeth, that it could be just a smear campaign. Remember, the initial complaint wasn't nearly as severe or descriptive as what's come out in short order afterwards. It was a vague accusation.

I also think that sentiment has gone away, as with an increasing number of plaintiffs the likelihood of ALL of them lying becomes near zero.

 

[TyGuy]

Can you find people saying, definitively, that this was a smear campaign?

Because, that's what you're claiming, and I did not see that.

I saw people talking about how it's very possible that with a suspect lawyer, an unprofessional, emotional instagram post, and a single accuser without teeth, that it could be just a smear campaign. Remember, the initial complaint wasn't nearly as severe or descriptive as what's come out in short order afterwards. It was a vague accusation.

I also think that sentiment has gone away, as with an increasing number of plaintiffs the likelihood of ALL of them lying becomes near zero.

I never said anything was a smear campaign. I said using the same logic being used to dismiss the Deshaun Watson accusations the believe all women incident could also be considered a smear campaign.

 

[AZ_]

Can you find people saying, definitively, that this was a smear campaign?

Because, that's what you're claiming, and I did not see that.

I saw people talking about how it's very possible that with a suspect lawyer, an unprofessional, emotional instagram post, and a single accuser without teeth, that it could be just a smear campaign. Remember, the initial complaint wasn't nearly as severe or descriptive as what's come out in short order afterwards. It was a vague accusation.

I also think that sentiment has gone away, as with an increasing number of plaintiffs the likelihood of ALL of them lying becomes near zero.

Lots of hyperbole going on there.

“smear campaign”

“destroying lives without evidence”

“pitchforks”


All of which are purposely inflammatory and false, which is the point.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

I don't tell people what they should believe. However, you could have asked Jack the very same question, but since you agree with him you obviously didn't. I disagree with both of you, and that's okay.

Are both you and @Jack Brickman are coming from the same place, with the same exposure to the phrase, same level of engagement with people who use the phrase, and same likelihood to use the phrase?

I asked you if you use it, and if you do, if this is how you meant it, and you skipped right over that part.

This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. @Jack Brickman is explaining something to you. He is correct, in that this is the commonly understood meaning of the phrase. If you're uncertain, or don't believe us, just Google it. Here's the wikipedia entry:

Believe women - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Believe women" is an American political slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement.[1] It refers to the perceived necessity of accepting women's allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault at face value. Sady Doyle, writing for Elle, argues that the phrase means "don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones."[1]

Also, the exact wording both you and @MattyFos. use is also detailed...

the "believe all women" variant is "a bit of grammatical gaslighting," a straw man invented by critics so that it could be attacked, and that this alternative slogan, in contrast with "Believe women", «is rigid, sweeping, and leaves little room for nuance»

Makes one wonder...

 

[TyGuy]

Lots of hyperbole going on there.

“smear campaign”

“destroying lives without evidence”

“pitchforks”


All of which are purposely inflammatory and false, which is the point.

I'm not the one that called any of this a smear campaign. Pitchforks was used in jest. I'm not sure exactly what is false about any of this. I'm willing to listen to accusations and take them seriously. I just prefer to see more evidence before I take a stand one way or another.

 

[MattyFos.]

Are both you and @Jack Brickman are coming from the same place, with the same exposure to the phrase, same level of engagement with people who use the phrase, and same likelihood to use the phrase?

I asked you if you use it, and if you do, if this is how you meant it, and you skipped right over that part.

This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. @Jack Brickman is explaining something to you. He is correct, in that this is the commonly understood meaning of the phrase. If you're uncertain, or don't believe us, just Google it. Here's the wikipedia entry:

Believe women - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, the exact wording both you and @MattyFos. use is also detailed...



Makes one wonder...

Idk about y'all but I was asked to chill in here. So I respectfully bow out.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

we're seeing some dismissal going on here with it being labeled a smear campaign.

Can you find people saying, definitively, that this was a smear campaign?

I never said anything was a smear campaign.

You see the problem here, right?

 

[Jack Brickman]

I've said it could be a smear campaign, and it certainly looked like that at first. But I never flat out said it was. It's still suspicious, but that's what the investigation will be for.

 

[MattyFos.]

Soliciting is illegal, but not usually charged and its a misdemeanor. This is not a rape or abuse case, this is a weird sexual deviant who did some borderline minorly illegal stuff.

Yeah I'm in agreement here. I personally don't care if two consenting adults come to an agreement for a bhole oiling or a hand jibber.

But with the sex trade comes sex trafficking and that's a huge problem in this country and the world.

 

[TyGuy]

You see the problem here, right?

No, I don't see the problem. Once again, i'm not the one that labeled anything a smear campaign. I only brought up that you could use the same logic in another case to declare it a smear campaign. I'm also not very interested in continuing this discussion. We seem to be in agreement about taking accusations seriously, and i'm willing to in this case.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

I've said it could be a smear campaign, and it certainly looked like that at first. But I never flat out said it was. It's still suspicious, but that's what the investigation will be for.

Yep, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Discussing the qualities of an argument is valid. Changing one's opinions as new information is presented is a good thing.

If you don't want to form an opinion until you have more information, that's perfectly fine, respectable, and valid as well.

Painting a discussion like the one you refer to as people speaking in absolutes is where I draw a line, and how this topic turns into a mudpit really quickly

 

[DJTJ]

Well, I saw some frequent posts and thought there was new news.

Nope. The flood gates have opened, and it’s now time to question MeToo. Weird. Why does this frequently happen?

 

[Phills14]

Instead of going back and forth trying to trip each other in their words, take a break from the discussion. This is leading down a path no one wants.