This post came out of some comments I made on Twitter to someone replying to me on Alyssa Milano's twitter that, because Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was considered automatically believable, so too, should Tara Reade's.
I'm largely pretty left with an exception here and there and I'm blue no matter who even if it's Bernie, but I said from the beginning that aspects of the #metoo movement were leading down a dark path where even innocence is not a defense—and we saw that with the European and Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism.
Ford's story was actually credible Reade's is filled with so many holes that it's ludicrous. That said, I simply do not agree with those like Alyssa Milano (who I greatly respect overall) on their use of the word ”believe." Alyssa is in this mess because she set the stage of a logical box that was always going to lead to tales like Tara Reade's. They should have known this but the rhetorical meme of #BelieveAllWomen became more politically expedient that the actual evaluation of fact.
Belief belongs to religion and colloquial conversation as a substitution for the word, “think.” I THINK that we should listen to alleged victims with compassion not belief. People lie. Period. And the 5% to 10% of false accusations in court probably jump to 40% in the court of public opinion. As Hugh Laurie's fabulous character, Doctor Gregory House, points out. #EverybodyLies. However, since the greater percentage are telling the truth, we should also not #DisbelieveWomen, or anyone else, unless the story is so ridiculous as it is impossible to be believed.
I think the left has rhetorically boxed themselves into a logical corner with #metoo. If you #believeallwomen no matter what they say, and a woman today is anyone who declares themselves as such, because #transrightsarehumanrights (which I do … believe, colloquially speaking, of course), then, all I have to do is declare myself a woman for you to believe any story I tell, or at least anything regarding assault. Well, let's follow the logical bouncing ball. If Johnny Depp were suddenly to declare himself a transwoman, and both he and Amber Heard said that the other abused them, how can we #believebothwomen if both women's stories contradict themselves. And what about abusive lesbian relationships? If we must #believewomen without question, and both lesbians in the relationship say the other is abusive, what do we do?
Also, if we #believeallwomen, then why did so many on the left not trust Hillary? How can you distrust a woman if you believe her simply because she is one? If we assume a woman can't lie about sexual assault, can that argument not be made about anything? If a woman cannot lie, then we must believe her and trust her. How can the word #belief be granted the benefit of the doubt and not #trust?
I think that #metoo has truly been a net positive and a good thing for the world in that it has exposed predators, but it has also created a logical prison of political expediency where folks like Joe Biden and others are politically forced to say "we must believe women" only to be caught in a net when such accusations are fired at them.
What will happen if someone falsely accuses Bernie? Will the Berners suddenly turn their back on him? I highly doubt it and, frankly, I'm hoping some woman out there takes that bait so we can all see that particular hypocrisy come to light.
As a rule, I don't #believe or #disbelieve anyone nor do I automatically #trust or #distrust someone. I scrutinize everything that comes into my sphere of existence and if that offends people because I would even do so in emotionally sensitive situations, well, as the late Lady Chablis used to say, two tears in a bucket, motherfuck it.
= new reply since forum marked as read