I'm not saying this is good. I've never said that. But it is better than innocent people being wrongly judged, if one bad thing has to be chosen.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Eva Murry's harassment accusation (14-year-old) against Biden shown false by ABC reporter Sasha Pezenik
- Thread starter Syriel
- Start date
I'm not saying this is good. I've never said that. But it is better than innocent people being wrongly judged, if one bad thing has to be chosen.
This.
Is.
Not.
A.
Court.
Room.
For the love of God please stop talking about this as if when I judge Joe Biden, he's going to be jailed for life.
The most that people have been calling for to happen to Joe is that he not be made the nominee so he doesn't get to be the fucking president of the united states. Even if that happened, thats not his life being ruined, as he isn't automatically entitled to become the president just because he wants to.
If ABC News says they have proof Biden wasn't at the 2008 at the Delaware Gridiron Dinner, it really doesn't matter what she may have told her friends years ago about what happened at the 2008 Gridiron Dinner, or what they claim she told them. Biden wasn't even at the event.Didn't two of her friends say her story was true?
Nicole Alexander Fisher on Twitter
“My classmate, Eva, has just come forward with her story about an inappropriate exchange with Joe Biden when she was fourteen. This has been incredibly hard for her to do. I commend her for her bravery, and for helping other women potentially come forward. https://t.co/0VAnXNBjXl”twitter.com
This is a great post, many MANY have posted the exact same in other forms here over the past half year or so. Its always typically skipped over or ignored and nothing changes. Some people desperately want it to be the bolded; and continue to weaponize it that way intentionally.
Last edited:
Why come up with a fake story when there is video footage of Biden being a complete creep to teenage and younger girls ?
I remember some folks being angry at the NYT and WaPo for not immediately running Tara's claim, so, yeah, apparently not.
It's a pretty bad post since it strawmans the people who believe Reade not only based on her accusation alone, but on the evidence surrounding it and Biden's history. It lumps the everyone into the same boat with people who are only interested in political sport.
The best lies are the ones that have a little bit of truth in them.
Also, assuming it does turn out that this accuser was lying, it's really, really, really hard to understate the amount of damage this single person has dealt to actual victims of abuse or harassment, both past and future.
It's depressing to think about, actually. We can't correct every mistake of the past, but #MeToo carries the hope that things can be better in the future. To twist that hope for your own personal agenda is unfathomably callous.
It's depressing to think about, actually. We can't correct every mistake of the past, but #MeToo carries the hope that things can be better in the future. To twist that hope for your own personal agenda is unfathomably callous.
Last edited:
Lots of deleted tweets and lots of deleted content. And everything's moving way too fast, personally.
But in the end, this is just one thing? This doesn't change the fact that we have video of him being inappropriate towards women and minors. And it doesn't change the fact that we knew the kind of person Biden was, but somehow didn't have enough common sense to push him out.
This is a problem that didn't need to exist. At all.
But in the end, this is just one thing? This doesn't change the fact that we have video of him being inappropriate towards women and minors. And it doesn't change the fact that we knew the kind of person Biden was, but somehow didn't have enough common sense to push him out.
This is a problem that didn't need to exist. At all.
Yup. Just remember: this doesn't discount Reade by proxy. No matter how much some people may fervently wish it so.
I don't understand why people keep saying 'believe women' or 'believe victims'. Why not 'listen to women' or 'take accusations seriously'?
Yup. It doesn't help that moderation in Era doesn't crack down on such things like they should.
Discussion of allegations, and details of them, is fine -- and great -- but shit like posting context-free trimmed clips should be moderated, as should throwing out of blanket accusatory statements like "he's a rapist", or "he's a creep". None of that serves to move discussion, and is just lobbing grenades into what should be civil and fact-based discussion -- instead of bias-confirming witch hunting.
Because "believe" allows them to run wild with any accusations that confirm their personal biases, while allowing them to shout down anyone who dares to critically analyze it or otherwise doubt the accusation.
To some people, that's a feature - not a bug.
That's a real good way of dismissing those who used the hashtag, yeah. Also not true.
The false accusation is one thing, but that Aunt knowingly lying in a deliberate fashion with entirely invented quotations of what was said is a whole other thing. If this happened to me I'd sue the ever living hell out of them but I doubt that'd happen as you can't be seen to be punishing people coming forward even if one of them proves to be a liar.
Pretty much. People wanna go back to the halcyon days of "now, hold on, hold on-- let's hold this victim's retraumatization in telling their account to a reasoned, sober light that permits me to not change my opinion on an abuser when it's inconvenient." Ignoring the fact that Believe Women was meant to fight back against that exact sort of rhetoric.
The title is misleading, I believe. Judging by the OP, what we have is just the statement of the organizers of the event, and the circumstancial evidence of Biden's illness. As far as i'm concerned, this doesn't "show" anything. It's yet another case of her vs him. And people, predictably, are all too eager to dismiss the accusation and side with Biden.
Also, the title is in very poor taste. The name of the accuser is sufficient, we don't want her to be known as the "nice boobs" woman.
Also, the title is in very poor taste. The name of the accuser is sufficient, we don't want her to be known as the "nice boobs" woman.
What's not true? We've had people talking about wanting to withhold judgement until more facts came out, and some would say, Why can't you believe women? That if you want to let the facts come out, that means you don't Believe women.
Staff has already come out and said that stating that you want to let the story come out/play out doesn't necessarily mean you are being dismissive of sexual allegations, although some have taken it that way
1) we have the statement of the organizers and the fact that Biden teleconferenced in and apologized for being unable to attend.
2) we have the fact that Biden was recovering from superhero.
3) we have the fact that his schedule showed an aide named John would be attending.
That's not just what we have. Biden has far more evidence in his favour than the accuser does in hers.
What circumstantial evidence? Biden had surgery and sent a representative in his place.
1) the video was meant to be shown in his presence, as clearly stated by the organizers
2) and 3) go together. He may have recoverd, and he may have gone himself instead of the aide.
Pointing out a false generalization doesn't justify the other false generalization. We've had people that have believed Tara Reade and some would accuse them of being Trump supporters and Russian spies.
yes? So your assertion is that the woman is lying?
Believing men is always easier, is it not?
No, it's an attempt to keep the "believe all women" from becoming a blind bludgeon instead of the precise tool it began as.
"Believe all women" is supposed to fight against the sadly default position of not believing women, and sweeping accusations under the rug. It is a reminder of systematic and cultural biases against victims, and the need to be aware of those biases and to actively fight them.it is not supposed to be a "gotchya" that shuts down reasonable discussion and investigation around accusations.
Attempt to discuss accusations here in a manner that is not 100% confirmatory of the accusation, and people will start attacking you for not "believing all women".
We need to be careful that a greatly useful tool is not highjacked to become a weapon that can shut down discussion and thinking -- because then that tool loses the usefulness and progress it has given us.
"Believe all women" is a great bit of social marketing, but taken as a statement it is imperfect. It ignores non-women victims, and "believe" is sometimes taken by some to mean "blindly believe without applying or allowing criticism or questioning".
We should absolutely #BelieveAllWomen, where that means we initially believe anyone who alleges any sort of harassment -- but we should still apply the tools of formal skepticism, and be willing to temper or drop our belief as new evidence or arguments become available.
Sadly that does not fit in a Twitter hashtag, or sound as catchy.
Last edited:
"people in power", will that do?
But you raise a good point, perhaps "believe victims" as opposed to "believe women" would be more appropriate. Anyway, you are deflecting the point, ie believing the organizers vs the accuser
that's an incredibly dangerous precedent your setting. Basically, anyone can claim anyone did anything even if there's verifiable evidence the person wasn't there because maybe the business owner, host, etc is lying/doctored their own records.
That's pretty much where I'm at, at this point. Believe women was never meant to be a blind acceptance of any and every claim, more-so a statement on the unequal weights of accuser vs accused and how easily this accusations can be shuffled under the table. It was about giving a voice to people who previously did t have one to tell their story about their trauma/assault/harassment. One can believe that someone truly believes the claim they make while also looking at the relevant facts and then making determination from there on how believable/reasonable it is. Not to immediately jump to the conclusion that it is 100 percent true and any attempt at the contrary(even introducing new evidence) is seen as somehow victim blaming and a bannable offense. I understand that we want to create a safe space for people to come forward, but we can do so with nuance and at least attempt to come up with a framework that allows for the weighing of facts to be a part of the conversation as well.
You mean other than the organizer looking through the files that show which invitees were actually present.
Now i feel like shit for giving that site clicks. :/ The original tweet thread debunking this was deleted. Why?
Because the reporter was getting absolutely destroyed by other reporters for effectively, 'burying the lede'
She ran with the falsehood with two long tweets, before the 3rd tweet, which exonerated Biden.
Official definition:
Last edited:
Because it was worded poorly. It was basically:
"On the heels of one sexual harassment accusation, Biden is now accused of sexually harassing a 14-year old by telling her she has 'nice boobs.'"
- 5 tweets later -
"...which we have proved false."
People called them out on it so they deleted it. They'll probably try again later.
User Banned (2 weeks): antagonizing other users, thread derail
imagine if certain lefties stopped helping the right gain power, if only for a little while.
This should be obvious to everyone thanks to the deepfakes last year.
I'm still waiting for something along those lines to be released within a month before the election.
Imagine if certain liberals worked with us to build a better world, if only for a little while.
(see how that sounds?)
Did I miss something? I didn't see any reason given for the deleted tweets.