End of #metoo

Kermit.de.frog

The highly likely acceptance of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would appear to mark the end of #metoo.

Why?

Because a lot of people sided with him against what they saw as what was turning in to a witch hunt against men. Even liberal women friends of mine were undecided on this one after the hearings.

That and the movement made it even more easy for accusations to be made that could ruin someone's career and life even if those accusations were completely false.

Then you had the backlash against actors from Hollywood (Liam Neeson for example) for merely suggesting, whilst there are many genuine cases of sexual assault, there was a witch hunt against men and it was getting out of control. Guilty until proven innocent.

I'm glad Kavanaugh will join the Supreme Court even though I oppose his politics because it has put an end this "movement".

Canis Lupus

A lot of it is just twitter noise. Don't use twitter or work in an environment where no importance is placed on it and the movement means little.

So when the situation is an actor is accused the twitter folks can get whipped up, studios for whatever reason back off because of PR and all sorts of dumb reasons

Nomination for supreme court? A judge and the like are going to want actual evidence and witness testimony and no amount of online rabble rabble from bleeding twitter users changes that fact.

sabat

What will really bring it to an end is when a high-profile prosecution gets thrown out of court because the scale of unsubstantiated (not necessarily untrue) accusations will make it impossible for an individual to receive a fair trial. I wouldn't be surprised if Harvey Weinstein, for example, doesn't spend a day in prison. The existing legal system, for all its flaws, is where civilised societies deal with these things, not over the internet.

leggo

I don’t know if Kavanaugh is the guy to bring down the movement: I mean you’ve got a highly credible accuser (even Fox News say as much and you know they’d love to slate her if they could) versus a lad who’s supposedly willing to do ‘anything’ to prove his innocence but refuses point blank to say he’d be happy for an FBI investigation to happen. Why wouldn’t an innocent man who knows the rigours of justice and wants to clear his name wish to submit to a process that would have to suppose him innocent until evidence of guilt arose, unless he knows there might be said evidence out there? I believe her tbh in this case and think any subsequent appointment of his here would be another damning indictment into the frailty of America’s justice system.

As a lad, I get that other men are threatened by this and terrified a skeleton in their closet may arise so pray for an ending, but I don’t think it’s ever going to get to a stage where it ‘ends’ and things go back to how they were. If you used to get away with slapping your secretary’s bottom in work, I’m sorry but I don’t think that’s going to fly again. However I do think it’ll level off eventually and people en masse won’t just believe everything they read on Twitter sans evidence, and that’s a good thing too (like I know women personally who posted emotional stories slating people but I’ve also witnessed tell HUGE lies or be sexually aggressive towards men themselves, so it definitely wasn’t a zero-sum process). I think this period has been, and continues to be, perhaps an overdue over-correction, which is what happens whenever you oppress a segment of society and don’t offer a viable solution in its place: you get an angry, emotional reaction rather than a logical one that’s fair on all sides. I get where it came from and I think once it balances out we’ll have a better, more equal culture for it, which I’m happy with since I’ve a sister and loads of other women in my life that I care about and want that for.

NIMAN

It needs to find a balancing point, and lets hope it comes soon.

A quote from that hearing in the USA the other day stood out for me.

"...I thought he was going to rape me".

Is that enough to convict someone on? Or ruin their career?

For some, sadly, it seems it is.

_Brian

NIMAN wrote: »

It needs to find a balancing point, and lets hope it comes soon.

A quote from that hearing in the USA the other day stood out for me.

"...I thought he was going to rape me".

Is that enough to convict someone on? Or ruin their career?

For some, sadly, it seems it is.

I think your possibly quoting out of context there which isn’t fair.

If nothing happened and she said she thought that you might have a point.

But I think as part of a sexual assault that’s a very real and appropriate line of thinking and is relevant to the evidence being given.

batgoat

NIMAN wrote: »

It needs to find a balancing point, and lets hope it comes soon.

A quote from that hearing in the USA the other day stood out for me.

"...I thought he was going to rape me".

Is that enough to convict someone on? Or ruin their career?

For some, sadly, it seems it is.

Two men pinned her to a bed, covered her mouth and tried to remove her clothing... I would say it's reasonable to assume that's attempted rape...

Canis Lupus

batgoat wrote: »

Two men pinned her to a bed, covered her mouth and tried to remove her clothing... I would say it's reasonable to assume that's attempted rape...

Jesus if you were there why the hell didn't you make yourself known before now?! Quick, call the FBI they'll want to talk to you.

batgoat

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Jesus if you were there why the hell didn't you make yourself known before now?! Quick, call the FBI they'll want to talk to you.

That's from her testimony, the only thing that is being disputed by the GOP is that it was Kavanaugh. She has spoken about the incident in counselling in the past. Do you think she's invented it cause the only ones making that claim is The_Donald on Reddit...

listermint

It appears the OP has zero clue about Hill and the impact that had on women voting or going into political careers.

If kavanagh gets through it will 100% mirror what happened there and we will have a massive female push to vote and entering politics.

I doubt the op knows any liberal women whatever they are. Do they wear a headband ?

Kermit.de.frog

batgoat wrote: »

Two men pinned her to a bed, covered her mouth and tried to remove her clothing... I would say it's reasonable to assume that's attempted rape...

Guilty until proven innocent?

Kermit.de.frog

listermint wrote: »

It appears the OP has zero clue about Hill and the impact that had on women voting or going into political careers.

If kavanagh gets through it will 100% mirror what happened there and we will have a massive female push to vote and entering politics.

I doubt the op knows any liberal women whatever they are. Do they wear a headband ?

I know liberal women and they don't believe her.

What do you have to say about that?

batgoat

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I know liberal women and they don't believe her.

What do you have to say about that?

Plenty didn't believe Hill at the time either, still didn't change the fact that the majority of women did and it motivated a huge vote. Her credibility has been shown to be perfect to date, not so much for Kavanaugh.

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I know liberal women and they don't believe her.

What do you have to say about that?

I say you just made it up to start this thread.


I'm just going on history here to back up my thoughts

BeerWolf

Social media "justice" of guilty until proven otherwise, were mere accusations, is a fall back to the days akin to Salem... witch hunting.

I honestly cannot fathom this backward mentality when liberals are supposedly progressive.

Misandry has taken the helm! And for some reason that is acceptable? Why is this blatant sexism, as well as racism (towards whites) allowed?

The media just enjoys to stir up **** with hypocrisy...

Mookie Blaylock

#istillbelieveher

Cabaal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I know liberal women and they don't believe her.

What do you have to say about that?

I'm sure you do.

Is this sort of like the NO campaigners during the repeal the 8th ref who had many, many close friends and random people who would come upto them on the street and tell them that they regretted having abortons?
:pac:

meeeeh

This has nothing to do with end of #metoo. The conservative judge needs to be put in place before mid-therm elections. Republicans would drop him like a hot potato if they could get another candidate through.

In the same way democrats would make less of a show out of hearing if they weren't desperate to stop him. American politics at the moment is a joke.

listermint

meeeeh wrote: »

This has nothing to do with end of #metoo. The conservative judge needs to be put in place before mid-therm elections. Republicans would drop him like a hot potato if they could get another candidate through.

In the same way democrats would make less of a show out of hearing if they weren't desperate to stop him. American politics at the moment is a joke.

He needs to go in for reasons far more than being conservative.

There is federal pardons at stake in this election. These sorts of appointments are bigger than Wade v roe. In fact it's dewarfed by the reason for appointing kavanagh specifically

Cabaal

The most disturbing thing here is Trump and others refusal to even entertain any investigation initially.
In any normal situation or company if a person was going into such a high power role and claims were made against their character there would be and should be investigations.

For the role he's being put forward for his character means everything, Trump and many Republicans blindly supporting him isn't enough to show he's a good person....I mean for feck sake they previously backed Roy Moore even after him not denying he had a thing for teenager girls (even ignoring the sexual misconduct stuff). In fact it was well known he had a thing for them.

Dick Swiveller

I got the impression from the very start that this so-called movement was, like feminism, the preserve of wealthy middle class women crying out for attention on social media. I doubt many of the women in the working class area I live in have even heard of '#metoo'.

But it is much more sinister than a whinge-fest. What we have been seeing, in the Paddy Jackson case in the North, and in the recent hearings involving Brett Kavanaugh, has been, among many people, a discarding of the presumption of innocence and a presumption of guilt being put in its place. Stupid slogans like #ibelieveher. What do you mean you believe her? Do you know her? If I accuse you of assaulting me will you believe me, even though you know you haven't done anything wrong? The person who accuses someone of sexual assault is a complainant - NOT A VICTIM - and an accused person is the accused. It is up to a jury in a court of law, having been presented with evidence from the Defence and prosecution, to determine the outcome of such an assault - not a twitter mob who are more interested in partisan ideological point scoring.

SharpshooterTom

The era of white (and particularly white male) dominance is finally coming to and end, and that's essentially what the 21st century democrats and liberals across Western Europe are building for a lot of this century.

To many Americans, and certainly to the likes of CNN etc, Brett Kavanaugh represents arrogant white male entitlement, and all over twitter amongst liberal activists I always read "I'm fed up of white people" "I'm ashamed to be white" "No more white men!" amongst the American left, some of it is quite powerful and very passionate.

Its interesting economics don't play much of a part in modern day progressivism as much anymore and rather social issues are at the forefront, it certainly seems to be that way in American politics anyway.

I think Democrats will run on #MeToo in 2020 against Trump, and keep on calling him racist sexist misogynist racist sexist misogynist etc etc. I don't think they'll concentrate too much on economics, and certainly not Bernie style economics.

leggo

meeeeh wrote: »

This has nothing to do with end of #metoo. The conservative judge needs to be put in place before mid-therm elections. Republicans would drop him like a hot potato if they could get another candidate through.

In the same way democrats would make less of a show out of hearing if they weren't desperate to stop him. American politics at the moment is a joke.

This. Nobody involved in the political side really cares about the sexual assault aspect, Republicans have the opportunity to control the Supreme Court (with jobs for life for those involved) for the first time in yonks and that may change by the mid-terms with a potential kicking for Donald Trump coming, Democrats have seized upon this scandal to stop that from happening. All the moves involved are politically motivated and the impassioned pleas on both sides are just grandstanding to suit an end, it’s pretty disgusting and nothing at all to do with #MeToo.

Malayalam

It's a circus. The false plot is the battle of the sexes but the real plot is power struggles among the elite classes while the plebs look on in awe and become more divided. In this circus either one side or the other is telling the most despicable lies - and due process lies dead on the sawdust.

I don't know who I believe, in this theatre. Two things though - it's a recovered memory on her part, those are notoriously unreliable, and I watched his full 40 minute testimony before questions - I was honestly moved by it. Either he is an outstanding and psychopathic liar or his life has been ruined by amoral disgusting people. At the moment I am leaning towards the latter.

On the bigger point regarding metoo my background is in law and the movement has trashed the presumption of innocence which is the foundation of our judicial system. It's a vigilante mob rule shambles. I don't support it in spite of the numerous assaults in my own history.

Cabaal

Malayalam wrote: »

I watched his full 40 minute testimony before questions - I was honestly moved by it.

That was why he cried and went on about his child praying etc, it was to do just that.
If she cried as much as him they'd be people claiming she was hysterical.

Dick Swiveller

Cabaal wrote: »

That was why he cried and went on about his child praying etc, it was to do just that.
If she cried as much as him they'd be people claiming she was hysterical.

And if he didn't get emotional people would say he was cold and uncaring. Silly partisan point scoring

SharpshooterTom

Stoolcup wrote: »

And if he didn't get emotional people would say he was cold and uncaring. Silly partisan point scoring

A lot of democrats in America are using it to suggest because he got emotional it proves he's far too unfit/emotionally unstable to get onto the court.

Kermit.de.frog

listermint wrote: »

I say you just made it up to start this thread.


I'm just going on history here to back up my thoughts

WTF? Are you a stalker?

Stalker!!!!!!

#metoo

Cabaal

Stoolcup wrote: »

And if he didn't get emotional people would say he was cold and uncaring. Silly partisan point scoring

So you agree with me then?
If she cried as much as him she'd been called a hysterical woman.

I think we both know that to be true.

As it is she and the other women get called skanks.

batgoat

Stoolcup wrote: »

And if he didn't get emotional people would say he was cold and uncaring. Silly partisan point scoring

He also incorporated an elaborate Clinton conspiracy into it. He didn't behave remotely professionally. This included lying about the meaning of certain things he wrote, Devil's Triangle being switched into a drinking game for example cause that gives him a better image. He was under oath...

Dick Swiveller

Cabaal wrote: »

So you agree with me then?
If she cried as much as him she'd been called a hysterical woman.

I think we both know that to be true.

What do you mean agree with me?

Yes, some idiots would call her a hysterical moron, but not me. You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing.

It really says something about how society is unfolding when you know exactly what any of the prominent posters will think and believe about cases like this. I don't have to post anything for some people on here to know exactly what I think about this case.

Stop pretending you care about the details of the case. You don't. All you're doing is looking at the case and matching it to your views.


I will give my thoughts for the people who don't know me. This is a political farce and it should be settled out of the public eye in a courtroom if required. Anyone who says something like #ibelieveher is dangerously stupid, like all those who did it for the Belfast case. Anyone who thinks this social justice is remotely ok is dangerously stupid.

Innocence before guilt and if you think otherwise, you are a piece of shlt.

Dick Swiveller

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

A lot of democrats in America are using it to suggest because he got emotional it proves he's far too unfit/emotionally unstable to get onto the court.

Of course they are. It's all politics. The Democrats, from the beginning, said they were going to oppose his nomination with every fibre of their being.

SharpshooterTom

batgoat wrote: »

He also incorporated an elaborate Clinton conspiracy into it. He didn't behave remotely professionally. This included lying about the meaning of certain things he wrote, Devil's Triangle being switched into a drinking game for example cause that gives him a better image. He was under oath...

He's been accused of attempted rape and likely has heard nothing but an onslaught of negative press which threatens to ruin his entire career and his name, what do you expect him to do?

Also, saying he's not fit for the court, well he's been a judge for a couple of decades at least now, and he's just another typical conservative judge, you might not agree with him, but he seems competent and his record at lower court levels show this to be the case, he's not some rookie the way Trump is as a "politician".

Oh btw, I actually believe Dr Ford and think there's a chance he did do it, its just that there's a reasonable chance he doesn't probably remember it given how intoxicated he was.

Malayalam

I saw him struggle to remain composed, I saw no hysteria. This person has been accused of molestation, facilitating gang rape and suggestions of paedophilia have been thrown into the mix for good measure. His family have been vilified and received death threats. He was attempting to defend himself not only before the senate but also knowing a huge national and international audience would witness him trying to defend himself against accusations that are as low as one can be accused of. I didn't begrudge him his emotions. It's of zero consequence to me who is appointed, I'm only going by what I saw in that testimony.

Cabaal

Stoolcup wrote: »

What do you mean agree with me?

Yes, some idiots would call her a hysterical moron, but not me. You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing.

I never said you would call her that.
I said people would call her that and clearly you agree with me on that too,

Dick Swiveller

Cabaal wrote: »

I never said you would call her that.
I said people would call her that and clearly you agree with me on that too,

Oh right. Yes, I agree people would say that and that is wrong. Sorry, I thought you were criticizing Kavanaugh for getting emotional.

leggo

Deleted User wrote: »

It really says something about how society is unfolding when you know exactly what any of the prominent posters will think and believe about cases like this. I don't have to post anything for some people on here to know exactly what I think about this case.

Stop pretending you care about the details of the case. You don't. All you're doing is looking at the case and matching it to your views.


I will give my thoughts for the people who don't know me. This is a political farce and it should be settled out of the public eye in a courtroom if required. Anyone who says something like #ibelieveher is dangerously stupid, like all those who did it for the Belfast case. Anyone who thinks this social justice is remotely ok is dangerously stupid.

Innocence before guilt and if you think otherwise, you are a piece of shlt.

Ridiculous post. Of course people are allowed have an opinion of an issue where the arguments are being unveiled before our eyes, it'd be weirder not to given the entire process is being held in public for that exact reason. Same reason they do public debates ahead of elections. Some people get so weird and touchy about sexual cases and start spewing crap like "You're not allowed think things or you're stupid!! If you didn't SEE the sexual assault how do you know?!"

I wasn't with OJ Simpson the night his wife got murdered, but I have thoughts about that too, as does everyone and their mother. You probably do too. The only difference with that and this is there's a sexual assault component here and that's making you weird and say things that just aren't true.

Donald Trump

#mebollix

Dick Swiveller

leggo wrote: »

Ridiculous post. Of course people are allowed have an opinion of an issue where the arguments are being unveiled before our eyes, it'd be weirder not to given the entire process is being held in public for that exact reason. Some people get so weird and touchy about sexual cases and start spewing crap like "You're not allowed think things or you're stupid!! If you didn't SEE the sexual assault how do you know?!"

I wasn't with OJ Simpson the night his wife got murdered, but I have thoughts about that too, as does everyone and their mother. You probably do too. The only difference with that and this is there's a sexual assault component here and that's making you weird and say things that just aren't true.

You can have your own private thoughts on the matter but when #ibelieveher starts trending on twatter, that's dangerous.

backspin.

For those who say.. #ibelieveher .. where is the logical end point of that. If that's the new standard will we even need the courts to adjudicate anymore or are we to just go straight to sentencings, sackings etc. without any investigation.

#roxannepallet #ibelieveher .. ??

meeeeh

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

A lot of democrats in America are using it to suggest because he got emotional it proves he's far too unfit/emotionally unstable to get onto the court.

His very partisan rant made him unfit for the role. I don't know who to believe but when a potential supreme judge goes on party political speech about Trump then it makes a mockery out of separation of executive and judicial system.

Cabaal

Mookie Blaylock wrote:

One or 2 people may... but you're being disingenuous and your posts suggests it's a widespread thing.

Are you typing that with a straight face?

you honestly think only 1 or 2 people in all of the media, internet etc would refer to her as hysterical if she cried as much as he did?

[EDIT]Clearly you know your claim to be disingenuous because I see you've since deleted the post :pac:

Stoolcup wrote: »

Oh right. Yes, I agree people would say that and that is wrong. Sorry, I thought you were criticizing Kavanaugh for getting emotional.

Nah, just making a comparison to if it was a women crying and the types of comments they'd likely get.

Regardless of if he is innocent or guilty he'd going to be upset, I wouldn't be critical of him over that.

Mookie Blaylock

Cabaal wrote: »

Are you typing that with a straight face?

you honestly think only 1 or 2 people in all of the media, internet etc would refer to her as hysterical if she cried as much as he did?

[EDIT]Clearly you know your claim to be disingenuous because I see you've since deleted the post :pac:




Nah, just making a comparison to if it was a women crying and the types of comments they'd likely get.

Regardless of if he is innocent or guilty he'd going to be upset, I wouldn't be critical of him over that.

Deleted it because I no longer believe your post was worth the time or effort to reply...

givyjoe

Cabaal wrote: »

That was why he cried and went on about his child praying etc, it was to do just that.
If she cried as much as him they'd be people claiming she was hysterical.

Some people WERE claiming he was hysterical. Alyssa Milano for one. She was behind him taking snaps on her mobile. She also implied his hysterics made him less credible.

Ursus Horribilis

It's not the end of #metoo. It is showing the world, yet again, what a seething, corrupt cesspit the American political system is. It's yet another low.

suicide_circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaS5VIGsS0E

Cabaal

givyjoe wrote: »

Some people WERE claiming he was hysterical. Alyssa Milano for one. She was behind him taking snaps on her mobile. She also implied his hysterics made him less credible.

So?
As I've said if it was a women crying that much they'd be claiming she was hysterical too.

As for her taking snaps on her mobile, unless its illegal to do so I'm not seeing the relevance here.

dark crystal

Malayalam wrote: »

I saw him struggle to remain composed, I saw no hysteria. This person has been accused of molestation, facilitating gang rape and suggestions of paedophilia have been thrown into the mix for good measure. His family have been vilified and received death threats. He was attempting to defend himself not only before the senate but also knowing a huge national and international audience would witness him trying to defend himself against accusations that are as low as one can be accused of. I didn't begrudge him his emotions. It's of zero consequence to me who is appointed, I'm only going by what I saw in that testimony.

Eh, same goes for Ms. Ford. Her life has also been turned upside down and for what? So she can lie under oath about an alleged sexual assault in her teens? What benefit is she getting from making these accusations?

givyjoe

leggo wrote: »

Ridiculous post. Of course people are allowed have an opinion of an issue where the arguments are being unveiled before our eyes, it'd be weirder not to given the entire process is being held in public for that exact reason. Same reason they do public debates ahead of elections. Some people get so weird and touchy about sexual cases and start spewing crap like "You're not allowed think things or you're stupid!! If you didn't SEE the sexual assault how do you know?!"

I wasn't with OJ Simpson the night his wife got murdered, but I have thoughts about that too, as does everyone and their mother. You probably do too. The only difference with that and this is there's a sexual assault component here and that's making you weird and say things that just aren't true.

This oj nonsense again. They real difference there is.. there was OVERWHELMING evidence of his guilt.

This is literally he said, she said.

batgoat

Stoolcup wrote: »

You can have your own private thoughts on the matter but when #ibelieveher starts trending on twatter, that's dangerous.

While there was no twitter in 1991, it was pretty clear that most believed Anita Hill at the time and it directly affected senate elections the following year. So this isn't really new, the intent of the GOP was for the hearing to be a show, they didn't ever intend for the allegations to face an investigation. It backfired on them and the likes #ibelieveher probably substantially impacted it to the point where now an investigation is actually occurring.