Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration battle the #metoo movement

[Seano]

I think this is a good thing. Its wrong that men are just ruined if some woman decides to accuse him of something.

 

[nac386]

I think this is a good thing. Its wrong that men are just ruined if some woman decides to accuse him of something.

I agree, it's a very difficult line to walk when deciding how to handle accusations of sexual assault. If I have a daughter or a son, it will be a topic that we begin discussing pretty early on. Even in your high school years, you're constantly in situations when you could be sexually assaulted or accused of sexual assault if you are not being very aware.

 

[Rygu]

No she's crazy

Manspreading is literally rape.

 

[FedorGOAT]

No she's crazy

Manspreading is literally rape.

3rd wave feminism can suck my dick & so their protests against retarded topics like Wage gap, Mansplaining, Manspreading, Patriarchy, Rape culture. Did I miss anything?
Edit: Yeah forgot about Toxic Masculinity.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

What if your daughter is a slut who falsely accuse innocent people?

People talk about lying sluts, vindictive liars, and sexual assault hysteria, etc., but it’s rare that an accuser is crying wolf, and most victims don’t come forward as it is. A good investigation doesn’t require cross examination from the accused's hired lawyer.

 

[Wet Blanket]

3rd wave feminism can suck my dick & so their protests against retarded topics like Wage gap, Mansplaining, Manspreading, Patriarchy, Rape culture. Did I miss anything?
Edit: Yeah forgot about Toxic Masculinity.

You're really sticking it to them.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

There is no such thing as "smart vigilante justice". That never existed and never will. The very implication of vigilante justice means a subjective application of extrajudicial punishment without oversight or regulation. Widespread vigilante justice means the state institutions had failed to maintain order in society, which would make such an environment quite volatile (i.e. parts of Mexico). You got exposed as an idiot and continues to demonstrate ignorance with every new post. I love the fact that you try to say I'm trying to save face. You're simply embarrassing yourself at this point arguing for a regressive practice. Unfortunately, rule of law and duo process must be constantly defended from blood thirsty mobs such as yourself.

I'll let it go when you stop making it so easy to beat your silly notions into the ground.

Look at you abandoning your witch trial example, hoping I wouldn’t notice.

And why are you now babbling about widespread vigilante justice in Mexico as if it has anything to do with what we are talking about? You just sound idealistic with your quixotic world view, and your romantic view of the justice system.

 

[FedorGOAT]

You're really sticking it to them.

I would think twice before sticking into them. Might catch herpes. Nah I would rather leave those cat ladies alone.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

Seems like standard stuff, innocent until proven guilty and whatnot. Not sure why it’s even controversial.

 

[Wet Blanket]

I would think twice before sticking into them. Might catch herpes. Nah I would rather leave those cat ladies alone.

I'm sure they feel the same.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

How would an independent investigator be much different? The claim will be scrutinized all the same.

I'm not against that, but I don't see how it doesn't run into similar resistance from the #BelieveAllSurvivors folks.

You really don't think an independent investigator would have a different agenda than an attorney hired by the accused? I am all for experts scrutinizing the claim, as a young person suffering the devastating consequences of false accusation is horrifying, but subjecting every accuser to the grilling of a hired attorney is just going to make accusers be less likely to come forward. I think allowing independent investigators to interview the accuser, the accused, and then to come up with their opinion of what occurred, knowing then that they will need to their investigation and opinions stand up to any holes that the accused's attorney could possibly find, would be a much more sane option.

 

[HereticBD]

You really don't think an independent investigator would have a different agenda than an attorney hired by the accused? I am all for experts scrutinizing the claim, as a young person suffering the devastating consequences of false accusation is horrifying, but subjecting every accuser to the grilling of a hired attorney is just going to make accusers be less likely to come forward. I think allowing independent investigators to interview the accuser, the accused, and then to come up with their opinion of what occurred, knowing then that they will need to their investigation and opinions stand up to any holes that the accused's attorney could possibly find, would be a much more sane option.

I see the difference in agenda, and I think it would be totally fair.

What I'm saying, is that I don't see there being a difference in response by the #Metoo folks to this, and it will still be looked at as a cruel and unnecessary hurdle for victims. They are against pretty much anything resembling due process. Listen, believe, condemn, is their motto.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

What if your son gets accused of sexual assault?

Falsely accused?

 

[cooks1]

"Believe all victims" may come to an end on college campus.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...s-college-sexual-assaults-20181114-story.html






My opinion, listen to both sides, there's 2 sides to every story. Weigh the evidence. The accused should be able to know who is accusing them. And the accused have a right to question their accusers. Good for Betsy DeVos and good for the Trump administration.

Discuss

Can't stand Betsy. But this is an issue that needs addressing. But I am not sure college campuses are the place to do it. The whole sexual assault arena is so murky now, I don't think people even know what sexual assault is or isn't anymore.

Sexual assault is defined in many areas now as any unwanted sexual contact. This is simultaneously too broad and to narrow.

Say you have a couple of kids making out...... Things are going fine so the fella decides to grab some boob. No reticence incoming........good.





So now he slowly moves the hand downstairs to test the waters.......then.........

Suddenly the girls hand comes down and pulls his wayward hand back up to the boobs!!!!

Oh well, win some lose some. The fella feels some more boob, walks the girl home, and says his good nights.

Guess what? According to many college campuses, this poor lad just committed sexual assault. The downstairs contact was not wanted.

Some may think I am trivializing or bringing up a non-relevant issue given the real problem with legitimate sexual assaults. But men on college campuses have been called before tribunals, had their names outed publicly, and been expelled for doing precisely this. Even when the womans and his accounts of the events are nearly identical.

When things like that happen, it undermines the whole issue in a real way.

We should have a consistent, clear, unambiguous, fair definition of sexual assault before we try and do anything else. And this is coming from the father of 2 daughters.

 

[Seano]

Falsely accused?

How would you know?

If your son was accused, do you think he should have a right to face the accuser and the charges?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

I see the difference in agenda, and I think it would be totally fair.

What I'm saying, is that I don't see there being a difference in response by the #Metoo folks to this, and it will still be looked at as a cruel and unnecessary hurdle for victims. They are against pretty much anything resembling due process. Listen, believe, condemn, is their motto.

There are always going to be irrational people, and you obviously can't build rational policy around their irrational objections. The policy obviously can't be the accuser said it, we believe it, that's that, but on the flip side forcing the accused (and we are talking about 18-22 year old college students) to be grilled by a professional attorney, hired to attempt to undermine the accuser's claims in real time, is not much more rational. Many police departments have officers trained in how to interview women who are claiming to have been sexually assaulted, and having independent investigators who have received this training doing the interviewing (with the interviews having been recorded for scrutiny by the accused's attorney) is much more rational.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

You have no way of knowing that for sure. In fact, that's largely based on misleading studies performed by ideologues where they used a very loose definition of sexual assault to give them an overestimate of the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses. This is what happens when postmodernists are allowed to run wild at universities.

Even if it is overestimated by a lot (which you are not supporting with any evidence, and you have not supported what you said earlier in the thread about sexual assault hysteria) it is still abysmal, no?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

That's a poor excuse for crippling the defense for the 2-10% falsely accused.

allowing an independent investigator to interview the accuser is "crippling the defense"?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

How would you know?

If your son was accused, do you think he should have a right to face the accuser and the charges?

Within reason, but there are parents (e.g., Brock Turner's) who don't give a shit if their boy raped someone, and would hire an attorney with the only purpose of getting their boy out of trouble. Forcing 90-98 girls who have been sexually assaulted to endure the grilling of a professional attorney who has been hired to tear her apart for every 2-10 mentally ill or sociopathic girls who are fabricating a story is obtuse. An independent investigator who is functioning more like a judge (who of course should have his/her investigation be subjected to scrutiny by the accused attorney) is a much more rational and humane way of dealing with this issue.

 

[HereticBD]

There are always going to be irrational people, and you obviously can't build rational policy around their irrational objections. The policy obviously can't be the accuser said it, we believe it, that's that, but on the flip side forcing the accused (and we are talking about 18-22 year old college students) to be grilled by a professional attorney, hired to attempt to undermine the accuser's claims in real time, is not much more rational.

I don't see how it's any less rational than taking a case to trial, and having the accuser cross examined. What does their age matter? They're adults making very serious, potentially life ruining allegations. At that point, you've put on your big girl pants, and you should be prepared for whatever comes with making such an allegation.