We only know what the respective parties said. — Hanover

But you demonstrably don't...

Corroborating yourself with your own prior comments seems a bit flimsy doesn't it? There was a supposed attempted rape at a party, yet exactly one person has any recollection of it. Am I to believe that a there was a party filled with sociopaths, some of whom were aware of the goings on at the party, but none of whom were at all alarmed by the behavior? No one recalls what would have been an extremely distraught young woman literally running from the party? What have her parents said or her best friends said of that night? Wouldn't someone somewhere have seen or heard something or would have been a confidant at the time of the incident?

So, could there have been a woman silently almost raped in the midst of a party filled with people, with the only witnesses being extremely loyal to the rapist and refusing to turn him in? Yes, could be, I guess, but this approach I'm taking is the flip side of the coin you're taking, where you try to make the other person's story seem incredible.

It's no more crazy to question why Ford would tell her therapist about an incident decades prior that didn't happen than it is to ask how a violent crime occurred in a crowd of people where no did anything, said anything, or can remember anything. — Hanover

You clearly didn't even read Ford's account of what occurred. The rape attempt didn't take place in the middle of a crowded fucking room.

I also don't really trust Avenatti that much.

Only liquor and math require proof. Here corroborative credibility will suffice, and there is sufficient credibility to justify an independent investigation. Otherwise, if the GOP had a sense of propriety they would drop Kavanaugh and replace him with clone.

lol it's "annoying" that women are speaking out about credible allegations to make sure a repeat sexual miscreant, an attempted rapist at worst, isn't sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States for a lifetime position where he will be upholding/overturning laws that will affect 300 millions of Americans.

What we are supposed to do is to go through an independent investigation (which shouldn't be problematic since the GOP didn't give Garland a hearing for months upon month), or the GOP, or Kavanaugh himself, should withdraw the nomination and they can just choose another cardboard cutout Originalist shitbag that will uphold the laws they want upheld, or strike down the laws they dislike. Otherwise, every decision Kavanaugh makes on his lifetime position will have a very large asterisk next to his name.

Story broke two hours ago

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

Even if Feinstein did withhold the allegations until they could have the greatest impact, for purely political purposes, the Republicans only have themselves to blame. They didn't even give Garland a hearing.

Y'all just ignoring this second allegation that I just posted?

Not too long ago drunk driving was pretty much a joke. Now, of course, it's no joke at all. — tim wood

I'm not really understanding this line of reasoning. I'm also not discounting or downplaying the fact that he openly lied before, which would be enough to disqualify him. Anyway, I thought Ben Wittes had a good article in The Atlantic several days ago, in which he outlined why the burden of proof is arguably on Kavanaugh to confirm his innocence.

Well, outside of the fact that getting rid of a politician who has had a history of sexual misconduct is simply the right thing to do, Dems also tossed out a tu quoque liability.

The Dems tossing Franken out was incredibly smart.

So Senate Republicans became aware of new allegations last week, and nevertheless still tried to "plow through" to nominate Kavanaugh. They could literally pick any cardboard cutout Originalist swine, but they, for whatever reason, have to nominate this Originalist, who is a sexual miscreant.

Btw, another sexual misconduct accusation was just reported by the New Yorker:

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University.

One of the biggest standouts of the article:

Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

He was drunk and jumped a girl - that's according to the girl. It's not very nice, and these days it's a serious crime, though not so much then. But it's nothing to wreck a life over, and that seems to have been the judgment of the girl and the woman she grew to be. — tim wood

In any day it's a serious crime. It's gravity isn't diminished simply because it occurred during a time when people didn't take women seriously (at least, less than they do now). Brett Kavanaugh's life isn't "over". His life isn't "wrecked". He merely shouldn't be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, just like 99.99% of all Americans. He should withdraw his nomination as quickly as possible, and I guarantee he will be offered other lucrative, entitled positions.

Kavanaugh would have been a minor at the time, that is true, but calling him a "child" incorrectly assumes he was merely morally clueless, or inept, despite having been 17 years old at the time, and was a year away from attending one of the most most prestigious universities in the world (Yale).

There have been a lot of comments from conservative media essentially saying, well he didn't do it, but if he did do it, he was only 17! Imagine telling a teenage girl today that one of her peers could rape or attempt to rape her, and could still potentially sit on the highest court in America.

:up: for Cioran and AF

Capital V2 by Marx

I am not familiar with that charge but if you have a link I would be interested in reading it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've been fairly busy with work, so it's not a digression I really have bandwidth to get into, but it's easy to google and read up on for yourself

Looking at you quizickly... how many decades ago, were they both underage or consenting of age? Have you ever personally been involved with or a friend who was with a partner who is making allegations like these? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't see why how long ago it occurred matters. It's grotesque regardless of when it occurred, or whether they were of age, or underage. Her account is clear: he attempted to rape her. And to my knowledge I don't know anyone who was raped or almost raped, although I've no doubt that it has happened to someone I know.

That and the knowledge that a man or woman should be judged on a totality of their actions not on one alone. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Generally this is true, but someone who attempted to rape someone else should not sit on the highest court in America.

I mean he sucks for multiple reasons including openly lying to the senate in 2006, opposing allowing a minor immigrant an abortion, etc. but regarding the sexual assault allegation, I do think there is enough credibility to the claim to justify stalling the vote and holding an investigation.

A large portion of conservatives have expressed...interesting positions on it, but I'll hold my tongue on that until I hear your response.

So we just gonna not talk about the Kavanaugh accusation or what

Big day for NY politics tomorrow

The op-ed was awful for multiple reasons. Should never have been published

Streetlight's reference

Consult Nietzsche

Elizabeth Warren may likely run for president in 2020. The Boston Globe just published this exceptionally excellent report on how little, if any, effect, her native American ancestry claims had on her professional career. In fact, she never made any such claim until after he professional career was established.

Good riddance, fuck that guy

What are inequalities of natural endowment, @gurugeorge? Say them.

And just say it @gurugeorge. Just say that you think black people are, inherently, intellectually inferior to whites. Just fucking say it. We all know you think it.

As I've pointed out twice in this conversation, both things are possible: inequalities as a result of systemic imbalances and oppression, and inequalities as a result of different natural endowments. You are the one who's ignoring an important factor, I'm acknowledging both. — gurugeorge

And as I pointed out previously, the Left is interested in socially-made injustices. That's the focus of the conversation I'm trying to have with you, but since you are intellectually incapable of grasping that concept and since the lines between socially constructed inequalities and inequalities that are the result of "natural endowment" are blurred for you, you continually digress into sciamachy with strawman.

Well then it should be easy for you to knock down then, shouldn't it? — gurugeorge

It's simple: even given complete equal opportunity, the Left doesn't assume that outcomes will be equal, or that potentials are equal. No one believes that given equal opportunities, anyone can be a professional basketball player. Read Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum and spare me of your stupidity and your strawmen.

Yes there is, they were called "liberals" - and as I said, Hayek used the term "classical liberal" to distinguish that older strain of liberalism from the social democracy that had come to be called "liberalism" in the US — gurugeorge

You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, but as I pointed out it's mistaken to apply any umbrella term to a diverse range of thinkers that spans over 100 years.

To be honest, both the left and right have a habit of trying to rebrand themselves, find again their roots and try to sell their ideology to a new generation that is totally ignorant of the past. — ssu

Seems to occur more on the Right, who just re-package immoral positions for a modern age.

But that's what's yet to be demonstrated. If you simply pre-judge that every observed inequality of outcome is the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances," then all you've got is a pseudo-science, because you're denying empirically obvious and evident differences in endowment for the sake of a fantasy idea of what human beings are like.

IOW, you are effectively starting with the unexamined assumption that people have equal potential, therefore any observed difference in outcome must be the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances." — gurugeorge

Inequalities that have resulted from structured oppression, historically and up to the modern day, have been well studied and documented. Feel free to read The New Jim Crow, Stamped From The Beginning, The Color of Money, and more. You are simply more interested in pseudo-science which suggests that these inequalities are the result of inherent genetic dispositions of gender and ethnicity. Your pseudo-science also doesn't explain wealth inequality, worker oppression, LGBT oppression etc.

Your whole spiel about "equal potential" and that the Left wants "equal outcome" is a tired strawman that I would expect from a high school student.

Those thinkers did represent a "branch of political philosophy" - it used to be called "liberalism" until the term was hijacked by more socialist-influenced liberals (people who would have been called "social democrats" in Europe) who pushed the liberal faction in the US further to the Left in the course of the 20th century, so Friedrich Hayek (I believe it was, in the 1960s) coined the term "classical liberal" to denote the older form of liberalism. The term has been used that way among conservatives and libertarians since then, but it wasn't invented by them as some sort of grand cover-up plan, far less by the IDW people. — gurugeorge

Mill considered himself a socialist, Jefferson was influenced by Locke, but also by Paine, who was radically different from Locke. While Adam Smith strongly favored pro-worker regulation. My point is is that there is no 'umbrella' term with which to fit these diverse set of thinkers. To place them under a single political philosophy is ahistorical, and yet that's exactly what modern classic liberals attempt to do. Regardless, my main point is that classic liberalism today is just a right-wing marketing ploy.

Hey, blame the journo who invented it in an attempt to mock/smear them — gurugeorge

According to Bari Weiss, who is a fan of and has written about the IDW, the term was coined by Weinstein.

Faith in humanity restored (until I read the Gurugeorge's next post).

I think that some of those concerns are or may be noble and valid, but not as matters of any kind of justice. — gurugeorge

Curiously (but unsurprisingly), your examples of "injustice" are strawman that the aforementioned movements aren't targeted, but rather injustices that are the results from systemic oppression, or structural imbalances, e.g. black wealth inequality, worker 'unfreedom' and the resulting wealth inequality, reproductive rights and the opportunity for reproductive freedom. But since you believe in *cough*pseudoscientificgeneticdeterminism*cough*, I'm not surprised you think certain systemic inequalities cannot be eradicated or even mitigated.

They're not "Right," most of them are ex-Leftists who have become classical liberals (e.g. David Rubin), and some of them still consider themselves on the Left (e.g. Bret Weinstein)- but of course I understand that everyone to the right of Mao is now a "Nazi" these days :) That was a name given to them by a journalist, but it's amusing so they ran with it. — gurugeorge

"Classical Liberalism" is merely a re-brand for those of a libertarian-conservative persuasion, who don't want to use their terms because of the toxicity often associated with them. Libertarian is often considered too radical, and conservative too geriatric to be considered as an attractive, "reasonable" political position. Further, the term "Classical Liberal" is erroneously considered to be a branch of political philosophy under which, (per Rubin) John Locke, Adam Smith, and JS Mill, Jefferson, et. al. in the pitiful attempt to give it an air of intellectualism. Make no mistake, classical liberalism, as espoused by the "Intellectual Dark Web", is just a re-branding of conservatism. Brett Weinstein can call himself whatever he wants, but he's certainly not a Leftist. There's nothing "amusing" about the name, it's just cringingly stupid.

From the New York Times: A long-awaited analysis of Hurricane Maria’s deadly sweep through Puerto Rico prompted the government on Tuesday to sharply increase the official death toll. The government now estimates that 2,975 people died as a result of the disaster and its effects, which unfolded over months

Never forget that the Mayor of San Juan repeatedly begged Trump for additional help and resources in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, and Trump lashed out and her. He called Maria, "not a real catastrophe" and infamously threw paper towels to Puerto Ricans. He praised relief efforts for doing a wonderful job, and told a Puerto Rican family who showed him their damaged house to "have a good time".

In the second place, "social justice" is an Orwellian oxymoron. "Social justice," like many other Left-wing buzzwords, actually reverses the meaning of a commonly-understood term - IOW, it means, precisely injustice. — gurugeorge

I sincerely doubt that Orwell, a left-anarchist who fought Fascists, would consider 'social justice' "Orwellian". The fact that movements for LGBT rights, worker rights, minority rights, women's rights, etc. were, and continue to be, fought for under the placard of justice, demonstrates how daft your opinion is.

And you wonder why we laugh. — gurugeorge

The reigning intellectual movement of the modern right calls themselves, in earnest, the "Intellectual Dark Web".

Some people are obviously ethically oblivious.

If you've actually ever taken an IQ test, you'd probably be aware that they are an exceptionally selective, insufficient measurement of "intelligence", and as such, determines very little outside the tautology of how you performed on an IQ test. As a matter of fact, those with higher education tend to lean more liberal. Personally, I would say, libertarianism is one of the dumbest contemporary political philosophies out there.

I didn't read this thread beyond the opening post, but I don't understand how it has lasted 4 pages when the answer is obvious.

It's fascinating to me that people use the term 'Social Justice Warrior' as a derogatory appellation, because it assumes that caring about social justice, whether through talking about it and the ways in which to secure it, and/or securing it through direct action, is somehow meaningless, or misplaced, as if obtaining social justice was impossible or futile or unnecessary etc., when, historically (and presently), that stance is wrong and misguided.

The only mitigating circumstance I can think is that was a reaction to the communist terror. — Andrew4Handel

The irony is, is that Ayn Rand actually personally benefited from Bolshevik rule. She attended University for free (and as a Jewish woman she wouldn't have been able to attend at all). She was also able to attend subsidized Russian operettas, which influenced her play-writing and appreciation for theater.

I don't appreciate being demonized by people who are so all-fired sure of their position that they prejudicially view anyone who disagrees with them as evil, stupid, deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it — gurugeorge

......

Human beings are (rational) animals, and like other species, we are divisible into sub-species by means of both plain observation and more recondite scientific investigations (into relative genetic closeness or distance). For humans, there are 3 broad and about 7 or 9 more refined sub-species, or "races," — gurugeorge

It turns out that of the three main races, Asians tend to be the least promiscuous, Blacks the most, with Whites inbetween — gurugeorge

The breakdown of the Black family and the atomization of the Black middle class in the 1960s, and the connection of that breakdown to crime is well documented — gurugeorge

The sexual behaviour of both males and females is "enforced" extra-legally in traditional societies, but in different ways (and in different ways in different cultures - again, this is the result of both biological and memetic evolution). The focus on females is just an artifact of the difference in the relative abundance of the two sexes' gametes, and the balance, or division of reproductive labour between the sexes in our markedly sexually dimorphic species. Females have to be much more careful about reproduction because they have less potential shots at it, so they bear more risk than males, and there's more pressure on them to get it right, e.g. to take care to choose a good mate, who'll both provide good genetic material and stick around to help them raise the child (especially during the period of greater vulnerability during pregnancy and their children's early development). — gurugeorge

The whole foofaraw about trans stuff is beneath contempt, it's just another attempt by the PC cult to silence ideas it doesn't like and gain institutional power. It's a mind-virus. — gurugeorge

Yeah dude, totally not racist, sexist, transphobic...

Corey Robin, in his fantastic work The Reactionary Mind, writes, "Saint Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin, and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but she thought she was both."

Was Ayn Rand a philosopher? If she was, she was a terrible one, and the work she produced was no more unique or profound than what can be found on a typical internet forum.