…for me is why that particular mob didn’t seem to take into account the evidence that it didn’t happen. Had there been a good case that Kavanaugh had committed that particular crime, or even a plausible path for investigation that would have been something besides a fishing expedition, I would understand—people denied justice through the jury box and ballot box will seek it, per Frederick Douglass, in the soap box and cartridge box. And some kind of destruction is precisely the kind of thing that would have happened.
The trouble I have is that these people didn’t seem to see the evidence which would indicate to most prosecutors that the case was going nowhere—one witness vs. four, no date, no time, crucial evidence (polygraph, medical records) not provided, changes in the accuser’s story, and finally every move the accuser and her handlers in the Senate made had clear political calculation. There wasn’t even a plausible mode of investigation—the only people she said were there had all denied it happened.
To me, that’s the big danger of saying “I believe you” instead of “I take what you’re saying seriously”. One will tend to accept any accusation uncritically, the other will take and weigh the data. And ironically, the former is actually going to endanger women because people watching prosecutors (e.g. Mike Nifong, Dianne Feinstein) work on “I believe you” are going to clue in to the fact that “I believe you” testimony is less authoritative because it’s simply not tested. The best people to manhandle that kind of thing are narcissists—precisely the same people most likely to rape.
Discussion
NewBigger question
…for me is why that particular mob didn’t seem to take into account the evidence that it didn’t happen. Had there been a good case that Kavanaugh had committed that particular crime, or even a plausible path for investigation that would have been something besides a fishing expedition, I would understand—people denied justice through the jury box and ballot box will seek it, per Frederick Douglass, in the soap box and cartridge box. And some kind of destruction is precisely the kind of thing that would have happened.
The trouble I have is that these people didn’t seem to see the evidence which would indicate to most prosecutors that the case was going nowhere—one witness vs. four, no date, no time, crucial evidence (polygraph, medical records) not provided, changes in the accuser’s story, and finally every move the accuser and her handlers in the Senate made had clear political calculation. There wasn’t even a plausible mode of investigation—the only people she said were there had all denied it happened.
To me, that’s the big danger of saying “I believe you” instead of “I take what you’re saying seriously”. One will tend to accept any accusation uncritically, the other will take and weigh the data. And ironically, the former is actually going to endanger women because people watching prosecutors (e.g. Mike Nifong, Dianne Feinstein) work on “I believe you” are going to clue in to the fact that “I believe you” testimony is less authoritative because it’s simply not tested. The best people to manhandle that kind of thing are narcissists—precisely the same people most likely to rape.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.