So, this is another Rammstein adjacent post, but we often hear in relation to womens' sexual assault claims, that we have to "believe all women." I mean, why would they make it up? That might be true in a lot of situations, sure. I mean, women are generally very underbelieved when it comes to sexual assault allegations. And in a lot of situations they have zero reason to lie.
BUT...this Rammstein thing really does show the limits of that. It seems obvious that the accuser's narrative is falling apart, and she just got too drunk on her own accord. I mean, people who were there outright contradicted her. And her narrative is looking more questionable by the day.
I know normally, I take this strong, secular humanist standpoint of skepticism, and tend to view things through a lens of "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", and from a court of law standpoint, that is basically the mindset to have, but on believing sexual assault victims, there's generally a much lower standard SJWs like to push. They do so for good reason, most claims are probably legitimate even if not proven, but people can be wrong. And it seems like this is one of those cases.
This girl is basically crying wolf at this point and destroying her own credibility. I don't deny she thinks she was spiked, but she seems to be flat out wrong here. Sadly, this happens a lot, an NIH study into spiking accusations find that like 90% of people who suspected they were spiked were just WAAAY too drunk, and a good 35% of them still end up believing they were spiked regardless of the evidence.
That seems to be what's happening here.
It's also been noted that she may have been on medications that don't interact well with alcohol and could cause people to blackout as if spiked. Hmm, I wonder what happened there...
But yeah. It's not reasonable to BELIEVE all women here. It's valid to take their claims seriously, and to evaluate them and the evidence for them, but you dont have to BELIEVE them in all cases. Basically, if there's a motive to lie, which there often is in high profile celebrity cases like this, or if they have a reason to want to smear someone, then yeah it's perfectly reasonable to NOT believe women if they suddenly come out with a conveniently times accusation.
And if the person in question makes their case as public as possible, starts slandering the people they're accusing of spiking them, and the actual accusations are on shaky ground and have valid alternative explanations like "gee maybe you drank too much", and are NOT supported by evidence, then maybe you shouldn't.
Use your brains people. I know SJWs love to push feels over reals, but in a world where false accusations exist, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you gotta judge things yourself.
And honestly, in a lot of cases that are less public, it might be good NOT to judge at all. I know SJWs love to push this "believe all women" stuff, but honestly? I dont think it's the job of the public to judge cases of guilt or innocence, that's what the jury is for. And every time we have some sort of court case that becomes a public spectacle, we got all of these people thinking the people being accused are guilty AF, and then they get angry when it turns out they weren't. Remember the Kyle Rittenhouse thing? Yeah, I'm still salty over "my side" misleading me on the facts of that one. And then you have OJ simpson, casey anthony, need I go on? Same crap. "They're guilty", then the jury finds them not guilty, and then they get mad because obviously the issue is as cut and dried as it is in their head, and then they get mad and think they know better than the jury. My former criminology peers from college will know what I mean, as they too get angry every time social media blows up and the public thinks they fricking know it all and then are proven wrong.
So maybe for the most part, we people in the peanut gallery shouldnt even take a side for the most part. Because we really DONT know the facts and the legal standards. And when the SJWs want people to "believe all women", they really do seem to wanna bypass courts and legal proceedings anyway. They WANT to litigate things in the court of public opinion, because they dont believe in rule of law. They're extremists who want everything to bend to their ideology, and want to inspire mob justice in order to "cancel" people who they dont agree with.
So yeah, the more I think about "believe all women", the worse it gets for me.
I mean, it means well. And I do think we should take sexual assault claims seriously, but ultimately, it's the justice system's job to make rulings on that, not ours, and our opinions don't matter worth a crap.
No comments:
Post a Comment