Political Memes

[Alan V]

You don't think the Kavenaugh accusation and the Biden accusation are being treated differently by the media and Dem politicians in general?  Your position is the standard of believing the accuser and the standard of demonizing the accused is roughly the same in both cases?  I don't want to get too far afield with Bill Cosby, Jussie Smolett, etc.; we may not have enough grounding in mutual understanding of reality to continue much of a discussion.

Remember, most politicians were trained as lawyers.  Lawyers play different word games than regular people.  What would be hypocrisy for you and me is just business-as-usual for them: arguing as persuasively as possible for just one side of a case.

Yes, some Democrats were and are hypocrites about such cases.  Some were much more careful.  It depends on the specifics of what was said, the individuals, and the details of the cases, but if you went looking I bet you could find at least a few good examples.  The problem with tackling them in these discussions is that no one will likely have the patience to deal with specific cases in the detail required, and even then you would find inappropriate behaviors from some individuals only, but not for the party as a whole.

Perhaps Republicans can use this kind of thing against specific Democrats when they are up for reelection, but I doubt this could be generalized beyond that.

[jerry mcmasters]

You don't think the Kavenaugh accusation and the Biden accusation are being treated differently by the media and Dem politicians in general?

 
No they aren't treated the same, but the accusations aren't the same either. I do believe Reade allegations should be treated more seriously, but it would be also false to say they are exactly of the same type and in the same circumstances than those presented during the Kavanaugh hearings. Nobody has claimed or said that all accusations are defacto completely true, nor said that they were all equal in terms of credibility or evidential support.

 
So in no part of your explanation for why they weren’t and aren’t treated the same do you mention the unique political difference, one against a prominent conservative and one against a prominent Dem.  Yeah we may not be on the same planet here. 
 

Your position is the standard of believing the accuser and the standard of demonizing the accused is roughly the same in both cases?

 
I believe the standard is roughly the same yes. I can't say Reade as been has convincing as Blasey-Ford and I can't say Biden has been as poor as Kavanaugh to reassure us of his honesty and trustworthyness too. The standards of the #metoo movement and of the various other feminist movements is also consistent between the two cases.  

 
No doubt there were particular movement authors or speakers that have been consistent in their treatment of the two cases, so on their authority I suppose you can claim theirs is the “true” or authentic position?  I was speaking of general Democratic and progressive politicians and media/opinion writers/speakers and my perception is they were highly believing of Ford and damning of Kavenaugh, and now highly believing of Biden and skeptical of Reade, that attached to the general lesson to be learned that with Kavenaugh, believe all women (with some nuance of course, but generalizing) and with Biden, hang on now, let’s look into this and take it seriously but, come on, it’s Joe!  Do I have “facts” and “evidence” to support this, not really, it was a general thing we all lived through and experienced through media, politician’s speeches and comments, hearings, opinion pieces etc., for your perception to be so different and you so blind to the obvious partisan maneuvering going on, I can’t explain.  I don’t want to clog the post with links but a quick Google of “Double standard between Kavenaugh and Biden sex assault” or “hypocrisy Reade Ford” etc will provide various politician and opinion quotes and comments showing some of the differences between the two cases.
 

we may not have enough grounding in mutual understanding of reality to continue much of a discussion.

 
Does that mean that, in other words, you will not justify your last post using arguments and evidences to support your previous opinion?

 
I’m going to spend about as much time demonstrating to you that Democrats and progressives in general have treated the two cases differently (maximum deference to the accuser, then maximum deference to the accused) as I am demonstrating to you the sky is up.  It’s hypocrisy of the Democrats’ own making, pretending their double standard was cooked up by right wing trolls (as opposed to being pointed out and laughed at by the right) seems disingenuous.
 

[jerry mcmasters]

You don't think the Kavenaugh accusation and the Biden accusation are being treated differently by the media and Dem politicians in general?  Your position is the standard of believing the accuser and the standard of demonizing the accused is roughly the same in both cases?  I don't want to get too far afield with Bill Cosby, Jussie Smolett, etc.; we may not have enough grounding in mutual understanding of reality to continue much of a discussion.

Remember, most politicians were trained as lawyers.  Lawyers play different word games than regular people.  What would be hypocrisy for you and me is just business-as-usual for them: arguing as persuasively as possible for just one side of a case.

Yes, some Democrats were and are hypocrites about such cases.  Some were much more careful.  It depends on the specifics of what was said, the individuals, and the details of the cases, but if you went looking I bet you could find at least a few good examples.  The problem with tackling them in these discussions is that no one will likely have the patience to deal with specific cases in the detail required, and even then you would find inappropriate behaviors from some individuals only, but not for the party as a whole.

Perhaps Republicans can use this kind of thing against specific Democrats when they are up for reelection, but I doubt this could be generalized beyond that.

Yeah it's very difficult to pin down a single accurate narrative for such a broad comparison, and it's not a case of all Dems being hypocrites and no Repubs or right wingers being manipulative and exaggerating the hypocrisy.  Hell, Republicans are being hypocrites right back, suddenly demanding Reade be believed while demanding Blasey-Ford be discredited.  I think they're all political hacks, dogshit and garbage.  But there's some serious contortions involved to assert that there ain't actually any Dem hypocrisy going on, but if it seems there is it can only have come from right wing propaganda farms or whatever.

[Minimalist]

Blasey-Ford's complaint sounds like a reasonable thing that could have happened with a drunken frat boy but that was not the reason to resist his appointment to the court.  His judicial opinions make him just another pro-business conservatard asshole and he still seems to have that adolescent drinking problem.

We all did things when we were young that we should regret.   That's no reason to disqualify him for ever.

Being a drunken conservatard dick?  That's a reason.

[epronovost]

So in no part of your explanation for why they weren’t and aren’t treated the same do you mention the unique political difference, one against a prominent conservative and one against a prominent Dem.  Yeah we may not be on the same planet here

How is that pertinent. The #metoo movements and other feminist organisations who used and pressed for the slogan "believe women" aren't associated with the Democratic party. These movements and organisations are international for once, not stricktly speaking American neither are they promoting a particular party, only particular social changes and polices (which one party is willing to adopt more than the other I'll give you that). Why would I adress such a point since its irrelevent to the subject of #metoo, feminists organisations and the usage of the slogan "believe all women" vs "believe all women". That doesn't change the fact that "believe all women" is indeed a fake slogan used for gaslighting and discrediding a movement and a political opponent simultaneously.  
 

No doubt there were particular movement authors or speakers that have been consistent in their treatment of the two cases, so on their authority I suppose you can claim theirs is the “true” or authentic position?  I was speaking of general Democratic and progressive politicians and media/opinion writers/speakers and my perception is they were highly believing of Ford and damning of Kavenaugh, and now highly believing of Biden and skeptical of Reade, that attached to the general lesson to be learned that with Kavenaugh, believe all women (with some nuance of course, but generalizing) and with Biden, hang on now, let’s look into this and take it seriously but, come on, it’s Joe!  Do I have “facts” and “evidence” to support this, not really, it was a general thing we all lived through and experienced through media, politician’s speeches and comments, hearings, opinion pieces etc., for your perception to be so different and you so blind to the obvious partisan maneuvering going on, I can’t explain.  I don’t want to clog the post with links but a quick Google of “Double standard between Kavenaugh and Biden sex assault” or “hypocrisy Reade Ford” etc will provide various politician and opinion quotes and comments showing some of the differences between the two cases.

You have provided no evidence or argument to support the idea that those differences in opinion are due mostly or exclusively to political bias and not due to differences in testimony quality, coroborating evidence, quality of defense testimony, circumstantial evidences supporting the victim or the accused, etc. There probably are hypocritical Democrats as there are fair ones too. The fair one's don't necessarily believe Reade though.

Rejecting accusations because you find then unbelievable isn't a betrayal of the concept behind "believe women" as long the accusations were awarded a fair hearing and consideration, the victim was treated with dignity and were investigated properly. That's what the "believe all women" fake slogan is there for. Make it so that any rejection is a betrayal no matter the circumstances by framing the slogan in absolute term and divorcing it fom its context in an attempt not only to tarnish a political opponent, but an entire movement. The goal of "believe all women" isn't just to throw arrows at Biden. It's also to gaslight the #metoo movement and feminism in general by making it look like an insane cultish movement. When faced with the "believe all women" conundrum, if accepted by the layman, two position emerge. The first one, reject Biden and believe Reade, thus attacking the Democrat candidate. In that case, conservatives and Republicans win. The second, reject the slogan and the movement carrying it as unfair and anti-democratic, thus attacking feminism and more particularly the #metoo movement. In that case, conservatives and Republicans win too.    

we may not have enough grounding in mutual understanding of reality to continue much of a discussion.

 
You mean by that, that because I don't accept your opinion as factual, reasonnable and properly supported on face value, that you cannot convince me or anybody otherwise. That sounds like a weak and unreasonnable position. 

I’m going to spend about as much time demonstrating to you that Democrats and progressives in general have treated the two cases differently (maximum deference to the accuser, then maximum deference to the accused) as I am demonstrating to you the sky is up.  It’s hypocrisy of the Democrats’ own making, pretending their double standard was cooked up by right wing trolls (as opposed to being pointed out and laughed at by the right) seems disingenuous. 

A strongly eddited video that fits all the criteria of propaganda isn't an agument. That's basically just more gaslighting. Even if your position was to be the correct one, this video isn't a reasonnable way to prove it. All that you have there is two constantly cutting off speach by Pelosi on the subject of Kavanaugh and Biden's accusation that doesn't concerns itself for a single second about the accusations themselves, their context and the victims themselves. I do believe many democrats are hypocritical about the Biden scandal and I'm not trying to defend or protect the Democrat on this subject. I'm trying to defend #metoo and feminism. The "believe all women" fake slogan and campaign isn't just attacking Biden. It's also trying to attack feminism as a whole by trying to divorce it from a part of its political allies.

[Dānu]

[jerry mcmasters]

At least you haven't called me a douchebag recently.

[Rainy_D]

This is technically true. The slogan used by the #metoo movement was "believe women". The slogan "believe all women" is trending and originatin from right-wing media.

Opinion
The Limits of ‘Believe All Women’

By Bari Weiss

Nov. 28, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opini...women.html

Feminists Who Now Claim They Never Meant 'Believe All Women' Are Gaslighting Us
The central tenet of the #MeToo movement is being memory-holed.

Robby Soave | 5.19.2020 10:00 AM

In fact, some who speak for the movement aren't merely retreating on this point: They are pretending that feminists who wielded the #MeToo hashtag never claimed that all women should be believed. This is a transparent attempt to rewrite history and should be treated as such.

https://reason.com/2020/05/19/believe-al.../#comments

What Biden’s communications director said is true, media outlets do need to “rigorously vet those claims,” however, Biden has never made such an insistence until the allegations were made against him. When dubious allegations were made against political rivals, powerful businessmen and celebrities, or male college students, Biden sings a different tune.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-say...ccused-him

[airportkid]

Note to moderators:  Can the arguing in walls of text in this section pertaining to Reade/Biden be removed with strong pliers and installed in its own thread please?  This thread is supposed to be memes, not extended tit for tat yakkity yak.  Some memes do compel text response - so long as they're pithy and preferably more witty than the meme itself, not windy tiresome blather that this paragraph is unfortunately too much starting to resemble - Thank You from the observation gallery.

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

[M.Linoge]

[Aegon]

[jerry mcmasters]

So in no part of your explanation for why they weren’t and aren’t treated the same do you mention the unique political difference, one against a prominent conservative and one against a prominent Dem.  Yeah we may not be on the same planet here

 
How is that pertinent. The #metoo movements and other feminist organisations who used and pressed for the slogan "believe women" aren't associated with the Democratic party. These movements and organisations are international for once, not stricktly speaking American neither are they promoting a particular party, only particular social changes and polices (which one party is willing to adopt more than the other I'll give you that). Why would I adress such a point since its irrelevent to the subject of #metoo, feminists organisations and the usage of the slogan "believe all women" vs "believe all women". That doesn't change the fact that "believe all women" is indeed a fake slogan used for gaslighting and discrediding a movement and a political opponent simultaneously.  

 
Okay let’s pause for clarification so we don’t keep talking past each other.  I have been speaking of what I experienced as a single voice (generalizing of course) from “the Left” which came across as virulently pro-Blasey Ford and then a year later skeptically neutral about Reade, to me widely open to the charge of hypocricy and double standard.  So yes I have been conflating a number of sources- Dem politicians, sign-waving protesters, speakers, left-leaning opinion columnists and talking heads of the media- into that generalized voice.  So was none of that representative of the ideas and opinions of “The Metoo Movement” or “other feminist organizations”?  The message that gets out is the message that gets out.  If I have to search for particular Metoo literature or voices that aren’t what’s getting out, then maybe that’s just cherry-picking for an interpretation you favor rather than the interpretation that was prominent and dominant.
 
If the assertion is that the Metoo movement itself actually was consistent and non-partisan in their treatment of accuser and accused in both cases then they did a poor job of communicating this impartiality to the press and social media, which are the outlets from their mouths to our ears.  The Kavanaugh hearings brought mass protests, where are the similar protests against Biden?  (I suppose to answer my own question, Coronavirus could be partly to blame)  Of course the fig leaf is to say that objective people impartially look at both cases and condemn Kavanaugh but not Biden because of “differences in testimony quality, coroborating evidence, quality of defense testimony, circumstantial evidences supporting the victim or the accused, etc.”  I don’t buy it, not as fully explanatory.  The simplest answer is probably the correct one, one case involved putting someone on the SC that would be damaging to women’s rights, the other case involves putting someone in the the WH that won’t be damaging to women’s rights (comparatively).
 
Side note, can I ask how you have access to the True Message of the Metoo movement?  Is there an authoritative single voice or doctrine?  Is it not made up of individuals?  The idea that it doesn’t have women in it that didn’t treat the two cases differently for some of the reasons I explained is a bit far-fetched. 
 

No doubt there were particular movement authors or speakers that have been consistent in their treatment of the two cases, so on their authority I suppose you can claim theirs is the “true” or authentic position?  I was speaking of general Democratic and progressive politicians and media/opinion writers/speakers and my perception is they were highly believing of Ford and damning of Kavenaugh, and now highly believing of Biden and skeptical of Reade, that attached to the general lesson to be learned that with Kavenaugh, believe all women (with some nuance of course, but generalizing) and with Biden, hang on now, let’s look into this and take it seriously but, come on, it’s Joe!  Do I have “facts” and “evidence” to support this, not really, it was a general thing we all lived through and experienced through media, politician’s speeches and comments, hearings, opinion pieces etc., for your perception to be so different and you so blind to the obvious partisan maneuvering going on, I can’t explain.  I don’t want to clog the post with links but a quick Google of “Double standard between Kavenaugh and Biden sex assault” or “hypocrisy Reade Ford” etc will provide various politician and opinion quotes and comments showing some of the differences between the two cases.

 
You have provided no evidence or argument to support the idea that those differences in opinion are due mostly or exclusively to political bias and not due to differences in testimony quality, coroborating evidence, quality of defense testimony, circumstantial evidences supporting the victim or the accused, etc. There probably are hypocritical Democrats as there are fair ones too. The fair one's don't necessarily believe Reade though.

 
Addressed above, but to elaborate:  Overall humans are very tribal and political and adverse to careful analysis of the kind you are describing above, especially if it might contradict their gut tribal and political instincts.  To my mind the default motivation is that people’s initial view of the two cases was seen through their political and tribal prisms.  I suppose it’s possible that mostly or exclusively the reason why The Left favored Blasey-Ford and not Reade and The Right favored Reade and not Blasey-Ford is because of careful analysis of the testimony and evidence…but it seems unlikely based on what we know about American behavior in the current climate.  If the political contexts of both cases were hidden from view and the only evidence we had was the testimony and material evidence, I doubt Americans would be so cleanly divided on the issue as they are by political inclination.
 

Rejecting accusations because you find then unbelievable isn't a betrayal of the concept behind "believe women" as long the accusations were awarded a fair hearing and consideration, the victim was treated with dignity and were investigated properly.

 
That’s fine, that just seems to me the kind of qualification and nuance that we hear much more of now with the Biden case than I remember hearing with the Kavanaugh case.  But again that may be because I was just getting a loud but impure and false narrative while your ears were sensitively perceiving “the truth”?
 

That's what the "believe all women" fake slogan is there for. Make it so that any rejection is a betrayal no matter the circumstances by framing the slogan in absolute term and divorcing it fom its context in an attempt not only to tarnish a political opponent, but an entire movement. The goal of "believe all women" isn't just to throw arrows at Biden. It's also to gaslight the #metoo movement and feminism in general by making it look like an insane cultish movement. When faced with the "believe all women" conundrum, if accepted by the layman, two position emerge. The first one, reject Biden and believe Reade, thus attacking the Democrat candidate. In that case, conservatives and Republicans win. The second, reject the slogan and the movement carrying it as unfair and anti-democratic, thus attacking feminism and more particularly the #metoo movement. In that case, conservatives and Republicans win too. 

 
Of course the slogan is, as memes and political attacks from both sides are meant to do, an attack and designed to ridicule the other side.  My point is that a fake slogan could never take hold and be effective if it weren’t already in very fertile soil, and that soil was already there, i.e., a widely held perception that a double standard and hypocrisy was at play in the treatment of the two cases.  It’s kind of like the truth hurts!  The reason it stings is precisely because everybody instinctively feels, fuck, it’s kind of true, we did pretty much over-emphasize believing the shit out of women with that asshole Kavanaugh, and then suddenly not so much with Biden.  The wording difference between “Believe women” and “Believe all women” is just juggling to make a bad situation look less bad.  The better reaction is to just to be honest and admit, damn, we (generalized voice from the left; not just speakers and writers affiliated exclusively with the Metoo movement) really kind of treated the two cases differently and we’re going to have to swallow some memes and jokes over it for awhile.
 

we may not have enough grounding in mutual understanding of reality to continue much of a discussion.

 
You mean by that, that because I don't accept your opinion as factual, reasonnable and properly supported on face value, that you cannot convince me or anybody otherwise. That sounds like a weak and unreasonnable position. 
 

I’m going to spend about as much time demonstrating to you that Democrats and progressives in general have treated the two cases differently (maximum deference to the accuser, then maximum deference to the accused) as I am demonstrating to you the sky is up.  It’s hypocrisy of the Democrats’ own making, pretending their double standard was cooked up by right wing trolls (as opposed to being pointed out and laughed at by the right) seems disingenuous. 

 
A strongly eddited video that fits all the criteria of propaganda isn't an agument. That's basically just more gaslighting. Even if your position was to be the correct one, this video isn't a reasonnable way to prove it. All that you have there is two constantly cutting off speach by Pelosi on the subject of Kavanaugh and Biden's accusation that doesn't concerns itself for a single second about the accusations themselves, their context and the victims themselves. I do believe many democrats are hypocritical about the Biden scandal and I'm not trying to defend or protect the Democrat on this subject. I'm trying to defend #metoo and feminism. The "believe all women" fake slogan and campaign isn't just attacking Biden. It's also trying to attack feminism as a whole by trying to divorce it from a part of its political allies.

 
I just threw the video in there as an example of the kind of thing that’s easy to find to demonstrate the double standard at least from a politician, it wasn’t meant as anything definitive.
 
As I’ve been speaking about and criticizing what came from (my impressions) the general anti-Kavenaugh pro-Biden voices, let me say I’m not adverse to accepting your defense of #metoo and particular feminist groups or voices, in that they have not (if I understand you correctly) demonstrated double standard or hypocrisy between the cases and have been consistent in standards in what they seek as a just outcome in both cases.  I asked the question above, so same question, how do you tease out a single view or interpretation from what seems like a pretty wide ranging movement?  Whose voice is “the voice of the Metoo movement”?

[epronovost]

Okay let’s pause for clarification so we don’t keep talking past each other.  I have been speaking of what I experienced as a single voice (generalizing of course) from “the Left” which came across as virulently pro-Blasey Ford and then a year later skeptically neutral about Reade, to me widely open to the charge of hypocricy and double standard.  So yes I have been conflating a number of sources- Dem politicians, sign-waving protesters, speakers, left-leaning opinion columnists and talking heads of the media- into that generalized voice.

So basically you assume your perception of events is the most rationnal, balanced, neutral and, more importantly, critical version of those events.

So was none of that representative of the ideas and opinions of “The Metoo Movement” or “other feminist organizations”?  The message that gets out is the message that gets out.  If I have to search for particular Metoo literature or voices that aren’t what’s getting out, then maybe that’s just cherry-picking for an interpretation you favor rather than the interpretation that was prominent and dominant.

Are you implying that propaganda is truth. That it doesn't matter what is real or not, that what determines the accuracy and truth of a position is it's capacity to be heard by you louder than the others?
 

If the assertion is that the Metoo movement itself actually was consistent and non-partisan in their treatment of accuser and accused in both cases then they did a poor job of communicating this impartiality to the press and social media, which are the outlets from their mouths to our ears.

How come I know this then? These information were in the press. That you didn't see them because they were not in the outlets you consume or if there were not in the part you read doesn't mean those information were unavailable or even difficult to obtain.

The Kavanaugh hearings brought mass protests, where are the similar protests against Biden?  (I suppose to answer my own question, Coronavirus could be partly to blame)  Of course the fig leaf is to say that objective people impartially look at both cases and condemn Kavanaugh but not Biden because of “differences in testimony quality, coroborating evidence, quality of defense testimony, circumstantial evidences supporting the victim or the accused, etc.”  I don’t buy it, not as fully explanatory.  The simplest answer is probably the correct one, one case involved putting someone on the SC that would be damaging to women’s rights, the other case involves putting someone in the the WH that won’t be damaging to women’s rights (comparatively).

You are abusing the Occam's Razor and haven't demonstrated in what bias is a simpler, more correct assumption than people made reasonned decisions. I don't deny the existance of bias. there probably is some, but to argue that it's the main cause of the difference in treatment of Reade compared to Kavanaugh would require more than supposition that could betray your own bias (in that case, that you assume that most politicians are hypocrites drawn to power more than anything else and that media play their game). 
 

Side note, can I ask how you have access to the True Message of the Metoo movement?  Is there an authoritative single voice or doctrine?  Is it not made up of individuals?  The idea that it doesn’t have women in it that didn’t treat the two cases differently for some of the reasons I explained is a bit far-fetched.

The #metoo movement has an official twitter account for example. It's legal branch organisation Time's Up is charity with its own website and communication channel. There is numerous feminist publication on internet as well as an entire corpus of research on sexual abuse as well as entire philosophy essay on this subject. The idea that some outlying individual can represent a movement is fallacious. It's called nutpicking. It's the opposite of cherry picking. The preponderence of voices is better for such assesment as well as that of intellectual leaders.    
 

Addressed above, but to elaborate:  Overall humans are very tribal and political and adverse to careful analysis of the kind you are describing above, especially if it might contradict their gut tribal and political instincts.  To my mind the default motivation is that people’s initial view of the two cases was seen through their political and tribal prisms.

Than try to prove it using that frame of reference don't just suppose it's possible because it's indeed possible in the wide sense of the term, but that's a low bar to clear. 

I suppose it’s possible that mostly or exclusively the reason why The Left favored Blasey-Ford and not Reade and The Right favored Reade and not Blasey-Ford is because of careful analysis of the testimony and evidence…but it seems unlikely based on what we know about American behavior in the current climate.  If the political contexts of both cases were hidden from view and the only evidence we had was the testimony and material evidence, I doubt Americans would be so cleanly divided on the issue as they are by political inclination.

Correlation isn't causation. Can you point out a clear point where there is obvious signs of double-standards. There is probably one in that case. There is bound to be a completely biased person there opposing Reade and supporting Blasey-Ford (or the opposite), but can we say it's widesprayed, I rather doubt it. Several media figures have published OP to defend their doubt over Reade and their support for Blasey-Ford. Wouldn't the very existence of such OPs be a refutation that these people are purely following tribal affiliation instead of reasonnable objections? 
 

But again that may be because I was just getting a loud but impure and false narrative while your ears were sensitively perceiving “the truth”?

Well, you admitted not to make any research on the subject of women's right nor making any extansive press review on subject linked to women's right. I do. You don't have any advanced academical training on history or in some gender study field. I do. It stands to reason that I, as an academic in that field, would be better informed than you in the same way I expect a plumber to know his shit about plumbing far better than me.
 

Of course the slogan is, as memes and political attacks from both sides are meant to do, an attack and designed to ridicule the other side.  My point is that a fake slogan could never take hold and be effective if it weren’t already in very fertile soil, and that soil was already there, i.e., a widely held perception that a double standard and hypocrisy was at play in the treatment of the two cases.

A soil fertilised by the same people using similar technique. Fake slogans can take hold because some people don't have access to good information or enough information and buy into the rethoric and when shown new or good informations on the subject, will be far more skeptical of the new/better information than the initial one. That's a well known part of tribalist bias too. We priorise first information over information of quality. The quality of a propaganda machine is determine by two factors, it's capacity to reach first the audience to basically establish the terrain and the quality of the propaganda itself. The best propaganda looks at a distence like genuine information or like the propaganda of the opposing team so you can actually pretend it's from them. There is a reason why troll account are used so often by States who want to manipulate conversations. 

It’s kind of like the truth hurts!  The reason it stings is precisely because everybody instinctively feels, fuck, it’s kind of true, we did pretty much over-emphasize believing the shit out of women with that asshole Kavanaugh, and then suddenly not so much with Biden.  The wording difference between “Believe women” and “Believe all women” is just juggling to make a bad situation look less bad.  The better reaction is to just to be honest and admit, damn, we (generalized voice from the left; not just speakers and writers affiliated exclusively with the Metoo movement) really kind of treated the two cases differently and we’re going to have to swallow some memes and jokes over it for awhile.

No, the better option for you Jerry, is to stop assuming that you are an expert and listen to those who are. That you buy into propaganda is inevitable we all do at some point, but it's capital for you is to remember that you are not an especially critical consummer of media when it comes to subject where your education and professionnal experience is limited just like everybody else. 
 

As I’ve been speaking about and criticizing what came from (my impressions) the general anti-Kavenaugh pro-Biden voices, let me say I’m not adverse to accepting your defense of #metoo and particular feminist groups or voices, in that they have not (if I understand you correctly) demonstrated double standard or hypocrisy between the cases and have been consistent in standards in what they seek as a just outcome in both cases.  I asked the question above, so same question, how do you tease out a single view or interpretation from what seems like a pretty wide ranging movement?  Whose voice is “the voice of the Metoo movement”?

By consuming, studying and reading hours a day of information on the various positions adopted by feminist movements of which #metoo is only one of the latest for years. To be able to make a reasonnable assesment of the position of feminist movements or one in particular one needs training in relevent academic fields and dedicate a lot of time into studying them and reading other critical litterature on the subject. It's basically the same thing than any field of expertise. To be able to have a good undertanding of a field, you need to build an expertise on that field and that usually takes years.

[Chas]

You don't think the Kavenaugh accusation and the Biden accusation are being treated differently by the media and Dem politicians in general?  Your position is the standard of believing the accuser and the standard of demonizing the accused is roughly the same in both cases?  I don't want to get too far afield with Bill Cosby, Jussie Smolett, etc.; we may not have enough grounding in mutual understanding of reality to continue much of a discussion.

They are being treated differently not the least because they are different.

In Biden accusation is from one woman and has no corroboration, while in the Kavanaugh case there were multiple accusations and accusers.

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

[M.Linoge]

[Rainy_D]

[Rainy_D]

@JoeBiden: "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
@cthagod: "It don't have nothing to do with Trump, it has to do with the fact -- I want something for my community."

[Rainy_D]

[Rainy_D]

doun git it?

Show ContentSpoiler:

google:
Jaydon Hayden

[Rainy_D]

[Rainy_D]