Is Political Correctness toxic?

#41
I agree that starting the formal criminal charging process requires a woman to review the moment over and over again. The cops, after all, don't know because they weren't there and they MUST get the story right to bring it to the district attorney who will have to prosecute the case. The DA will have to decide whether the complaint is well founded and that means reviewing complainant testimony to determine credibility. If no one will support the story as a witness, then the concept of "equality before the law" WILL require acknowledgment of a "he-said, she-said" situation where there will be no clear answer and the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" will kick in. Then, if the case moves forward, the story has to go before the judge and jury. So yes, the woman has to relive the experience many times.

Is this fair to the woman? Believe it or not, that question is immaterial in isolation. The more important question must be "Is it fair to all concerned parties?" As Bee points out, false accusations can turn lives upside down in a heartbeat. A friend of mine and I had a debate on this once. One of the things on which we agreed is that if you are going to bring down the power and majesty of your government to impair the rights and freedom of an individual, you owe it to that person (and all others in the same situation) to dot every "i" and cross every "t" in that process. It is not fair to the accused to be sloppy in prosecuting the case for fear of false imprisonment. It is not fair to the VICTIM to be sloppy in prosecuting the case for fear of letting a perpetrator go free. If you don't follow procedure, you effectively "screwed the pooch." (It's another thread, but witness the O.J. trial for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. DEFINITELY screwed that pooch.)

According to many therapists (and I've had a couple myself), reliving the moment might bring it painfully into focus but it is also a type of therapy because you can bring it into an analytical context and thus gain some control over it. As you see it for what it really was, you can make the feelings diminish with each retelling. You can take the blame from yourself and assign it where it belongs. At least, that's how my traumatic childhood moments were approached, and the result allowed me to put the past behind me. That's the only personal experience I have with this concept, so I cannot think about it in any other way than through my own experiences.

But this is still a binary decision. Either you file charges or you do not. (Quoth Yoda: "There is no try... there is DO or NOT DO.")

Public allegations that are not backed up by formal charges are grounds for "Defamation of Character" lawsuits. The legal system doesn't CARE about anything except whether a criminal act has been charged because that is a requirement of the "Due Process" concept. An end-run around the entire process to smear Brett Kavanaugh denies HIM of his rights and gives HIM counter-options for denial of HIS rights of due process.

AI: "Please consider that and see if your opinion changes."

I did. It didn't. With no disrespect intended to any woman who thinks of herself as a victim, the solution is to speak up immediately. There can be no closure without action. There will be no peace in her psyche without closure. Sitting there alone in darkness, reliving the event and fearing the memory, is a form of self-torture that is undeserved. Silence is the wrong answer.

Bee: "So many men have been falsely accused"

This is exactly the point. I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford is lying. I am saying that by failing to follow up at the time and by waiting silently until the expiration of the statute of limitations, she forfeited the right to publicly accuse Mr. Kavanaugh of something of such a devastating nature.

One thing on which I think we might agree is that the #MeToo movement might encourage a change in viewpoint for future generations who will face the traumatic experience differently. They will be quicker to call someone down for wrongdoing of this type. That would be a good result. But to use it as an excuse for public defamation of character on something that was inherently an uncharged criminal action? That's TWO "wrongs" which - as we know - does not make a "right."
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#42
Because of what I consider a toxic #metoo movement, which is inherently sexist, there is this call to believe the women who come forwards. Hillary (for prison) herself says the women must be believed, unless of course they are the accusers against her own husband, and they should definitely NOT be believed. Oh, and let us not forget she quietly kept on her team an advisor who was accused of sexual harassment. But that was all very hush hush and a mere irrelevance.

So by saying the women should be believed, they are saying the men should be disbelieved. Is this not sexist? Additionally, the #metoo movement pushes for the destruction of men's lives before evidence is presented. A mere accusation is enough to destroy them. And there are plenty of cases where the woman is just seeking revenge, money or a political assasination. Look at Ken Barlow (actor) in the UK who was accused by about 4 women of sexual assault going back donkeys years. One claimed he drove her around in his gold Rolls in the early 70's. Her testimony lost its credibility when they found out he only got his rolls in the 80's!! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

To say a woman should be believed based on her gender is discriminating unfairly against men. The feminists must be up in arms about this, because they seek equality and this is clearly the opposite of equality. Thank God for feminism!
 
Last edited:
#43
I don't consider the entire #MeToo movement toxic, but some of its side effects easily could be.

Making accusations and airing out the dirty laundry is good. Waiting 30 years before airing out that laundry means 30 years of self-doubt, of self-diminution (of self-worth), 30 years of festering emotions. How is this good for ANYONE?

I don't give extra credence or diminished credence to the claims. They are unsubstantiated allegations that ARE worthy of investigation. That they are over 30 years old and have been hidden all this time is the part that makes me have issues. The timing is suspect as well.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#44
I think the #MeToo movement may have started on well intentioned grounds, but was quickly weaponised for political agendas, power grabs and the demonisation of men.

If these allegations are substantive grounds and the FBI have done 6 comprehensive background checks, does that mean the FBI process is flawed? How could they miss 3 accusations against this obvious sexual predator. Unless of course one of the accusers gets a highly political attorney and has been on plenty of anti-Trump marches (I think that was the case). What are the chances? And what are the chances that all the accusers are Democrats?

One of the accusers was talking about a plastic man thing, was blind drunk on the floor and then complained about them poking it in her face. "It's fake", she says. But wait, this has now been explained as it wasn't fake at all! Fake news or fake fallace?

It seems rather odd to me that 3 women have all come forward within 7 days of one another for something that allegedly happened over 30 years ago. They are all Democrats. One went to the Washington Post with her story I believe. One got an attorney. Forgive the cynic in me but this is beyond pale.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#45
Bee, you know my thoughts about anonymity for all. We are perfectly aligned on this. Considering that only about 1/3rd of serious sexual assault cases in the UK result in conviction, that could mean that up to 2/3rds of mens cases are innocent. However, they will have already been condemned in the court of public opinion, regardless of their innocence or not.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#47
It is predominantly saying that women should be believed and men shouldn't. That is not due process. There is no default position in law where you say you believe the accuser based just on accusation.
 
#48
To me, the #MeToo movement is inherently sexist but only in the sense that it is competing against the "good old boy" Hollywood and political networks, which are also inherently sexist. If you want to achieve balance, you have to add equal parts of opposites. So counter male sexists "stuff" with female sexist "stuff." And that doesn't bother me.

Where I have a problem is, as Jon points out, anything can become "weaponized" in a way that will really seriously impede civil dialog. When that happens, BOTH sides have lost. In other words, I don't see anything wrong in having a sexist viewpoint to counter a sexist viewpoint. However, once a better balance is achieved, it is time to tone down the attitudes.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#49
The problem is, once something becomes weaponised, it is no longer used for its original purpose. There is a coup of sorts.
 

Bee

Founding Member
#50
It is predominantly saying that women should be believed and men shouldn't. That is not due process. There is no default position in law where you say you believe the accuser based just on accusation.
I don't see it that way. Hillary might be saying women should be believed, but I don't think that's what #MeToo was about (originally). Of course, what it's turned into is something else entirely - and I'm in full agreement with Jon and Doc on the weaponizing of the issue. The original concept was to highlight the sheer numbers of women (yes, I know men have been subjected to unwanted sexual attention too) who can't even go about their daily lives without the office lech pawing at them - or worse.

As I said elsewhere, survey your friends and I think you'll be amazed at the number of women who have experienced this.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#51
Essentially Bee we are saying the same thing. It wasn't about that originally, but it has become that and the demonisation of men.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#53
I agree with much of what she is saying. It is interesting that not only 1/4th of women are affected, but also 1/6th of men. There is not much difference. Yet, the whole movement has morphed into a demonisation of men, completely omitting that men are frequent victims of sexual assault.
 

Bee

Founding Member
#54
I also agree with what she is saying. I posted this to show how #MeToo has been hijacked and weaponised.

And it's really bloody sad.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Founding Member
#57
I don't think people have changed or will change. To me, political correctness is just another way for somebody to make themselves right, better than, somebody else. And in the extreme it's a sort of bullying.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#58
Yes, I agree with you Uncle. Personalities are largely set from a young age. Any change takes enormous effort. I like the perspective you have of seeing political correctness as being on a continuum, which of course it is. And yes, when it is extreme, it becomes moral bullying. I like that viewpoint.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#60
Uncle, it looks like you and I seem to watch a few similar things, like the Ray Kurzweil thing and Stephen Fry. He is an immensely intelligent man and I concur with many of his views, except his political views. He has also done some great documentaries about traveling across America in a London taxi!
 
Top