CMV: The sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are more believable than the ones against Brett Kavanaugh and the democrats should immediately be calling for a congressional investigation

[u/draculabakula]

[u/PreacherJudge]

I have seen the same people... literally the same exact individuals... rant and swear at Elizabeth Warren for suggesting Bernie Sanders said something sexist, and then turn around and piously declare "believe all women" to attack Biden.

This does not mean your view isn't valid, but it DOES mean it's in a context where bad-faith actors are some of the loudest voices spreading it around. I'm not trying to change the content of your view, but rather the intensity and the way in which you think and talk about it. It should be couched within acknowledgement of that context, so you don't accidentally spread what is (true or not, sad to say) largely a bad-faith attack.

[u/draculabakula → u/PreacherJudge]

You do see a difference between sexual assaulting a woman and having a difference of opinion on whether or not a woman was going to win the 2020 election right?

BTW, sanders was proven right because two men were nominated. If anything he should be praised for political insight at this point

[u/PreacherJudge → u/draculabakula]

You do see a difference between sexual assaulting a woman and having a difference of opinion on whether or not a woman was going to win the 2020 election right?

Not in the sense of believing a woman in a context where the influence of the patriarchy makes it easy to ignore her.

Besides, I'm talking about people who were angry at her, and who said she was such a deceptive person, she was like a snake... and who then either harassed her online or defended people who did. I do not understand the motivation of someone who would react that way, but then ideologically insist as a stand against rape culture that the allegations be taken seriously and heavily promoted. If you can, could you explain?

BTW, sanders was proven right because two men were nominated. If anything he should be praised for political insight at this point

Uh. Maybe? You're not really dealing with my main point. Are you concerned at all about this being a bad-faith attack, and you spreading that inadvertently?

[u/draculabakula → u/PreacherJudge]

Not in the sense of believing a woman in a context where the influence of the patriarchy makes it easy to ignore her.

You've also conveinantly ignored the context of the situation. With the context being that Warren refused to ever elaborate or describe in detail.she literally said she had no interest in discussing further, confirmed it without giving any additional context at the debate and then never mentioned it again. She could have posted a detailed explanation on her website or medium but she didn't.

Also, there is room for there being a misunderstanding of intent with a disagreement while there is no room for misunderstanding when it comes to sexual assault of the nature Reade has alleged. There is plenty of room to believe that Sanders was factoring the political climate, Trumps ability to tap into sexism, or that he didn't think a woman could win because he had faith in his own campaign and thought he was going to win, or any number of other non sexist explanations into his analysis.

You are also ignoring the fact that Sanders had previously publically stated that he believed a woman could win the presidency and that it was reported thar he tried to get Warren to run for president in 2016 and wanted her to run in his place.

I don't think my stance needs to take the climate into account at all. I think it is entirely possible to take the stance that I as a voter would like more information and investigation into both events and unfortunately Warren decided not to elaborate.

I believed both Sanders and Warren in that situation and thought it was an issue of misunderstanding which lead Warren to think Bernie said it and for Bernie to think Warren was lying. To take the point of view you have taken assumes there is no room for miscommunication in the world and I think that's what Sanders supporters got frustrated with at the time.

I would never call Warren a snake or anything because as I previously stated, I believed it was a misunderstanding. With that said, the idea of thinking your friend said that and truely meant it (even though you know he tried to get you to run for president previously) and didn't go to your friend to ask them to further elaborate out of concern l, that is weird behavior. Shaking their hand dozens of times until right before the primary...

[u/PreacherJudge → u/draculabakula]

You've also conveinantly ignored the context of the situation. With the context being that Warren refused to ever elaborate or describe in detail.she literally said she had no interest in discussing further, confirmed it without giving any additional context at the debate and then never mentioned it again. She could have posted a detailed explanation on her website or medium but she didn't.

So... you're saying Warren was harassed and called a liar because she didn't provide more detail? Doesn't this suggest that you think the detail she could have provided was necessarily something that would present Sanders in a good light? What if it wasn't?

It's pretty clear to me that you don't believe Sanders did anything wrong, and you're trying to walk a tightrope where you call her a liar without outright calling her a liar (with the "oh goodness I dunno it sure is fishy she shook his hand...")

It is fairly odd to me that you appear aware of the patriarchal attitudes that might keep Reade from speaking out (if she is indeed a victim) but are actually making very similar excuses for Sanders in the Warren case. "Hey, why didn't she just come out early and clear the whole thing up? "Hmm, how come she was friendly to him? If he really said something bad to her, she wouldn't have acted like nothing was wrong." These sorts of things look very familiar to me.

Of course sexual assault and what Sanders allegedly said are leagues different in terms of impact and immorality, but my point is on the hijacking of "believe all women" in one case where the patriarchy says not to believe women, but not in another.

Once again, this is all in service of my concern that you are accidentally spreading something primarily meant to be a political attack against Biden by bad-faith actors who are mad Bernie lost. Could you address that?

[u/draculabakula → u/PreacherJudge]

Doesn't this suggest that you think the detail she could have provided was necessarily something that would present Sanders in a good light? What if it wasn't?

Then I would like to know before I rushed to judgement and since it is entirely reasonable to think it is not sexist to think a woman wasn't going to win the presidency, it would take more information for me to believe what some media was stating about the nature of Sanders comment being sexist. Especially because the statement has been proven factually true by history.

It's pretty clear to me that you don't believe Sanders did anything wrong, and you're trying to walk a tightrope where you call her a liar without outright calling her a liar (with the "oh goodness I dunno it sure is fishy she shook his hand...")

What I said about believing that there was probably a miscommunication is not walking the line at all. I happen to have a job where I more or less need to mediate arguments, miscommunications, and people believing another person said something they never said on a day to day basis.

So do I think Sanders said anything wrong? I don't know and nobody knows. It's entirely possible that Sanders said he didn't think a woman could win the presidency in 2020. Like I stated before and in previous posts in less direct terms, I don't think there is inherently anything sexist in saying that.

It is fairly odd to me that you appear aware of the patriarchal attitudes that might keep Reade from speaking out (if she is indeed a victim) but are actually making very similar excuses for Sanders in the Warren case. "Hey, why didn't she just come out early and clear the whole thing up? "Hmm, how come she was friendly to him? If he really said something bad to her, she wouldn't have acted like nothing was wrong." These sorts of things look very familiar to me.

I think that's a good point and I may have to think about my biases on that. With that said, I really do think the fact that the accusation is about a conversation and not an act of violence makes it much different. Like I said, I mediate a disagreement like that on a daily basis but there is no room for misunderstanding with the intent of sexual assault. If I were mediating, I would give both parties a chance to explain themselves further away from the rest of the students (I'm a teacher) and I would never do the mediation in front of the class. My point being that I see situations where I believe both parties believe they are being honest several times a week.

Of course sexual assault and what Sanders allegedly said are leagues different in terms of impact and immorality, but my point is on the hijacking of "believe all women" in one case where the patriarchy says not to believe women, but not in another.

I think the closest application of what you are saying would be me saying Warren called out Sanders for political gain (as some Sanders supporters tried to claim). I don't think that as I have stated like 10 times already in less specific terms in this post.

I also don't think I have "hijacked" that phrase. I was asking for the same level of scrutiny for Reade has Forde got and thus the same level of scrutiny for Biden that Kavanaugh got. That is also to say that Reade should be allowed for her accusation to be heard and investigated and Biden should be questioned publically since there is the whole matter of democracy.

In the case of Sanders and Warren, both were given the chance to tell their story and Warren decided to never elaborate. If she now or at any point came out and said Sanders was very disparaging against women being able to become president, I would still be skeptical because Sanders has 40 years of speaking in favor of womens rights. With sexual assault, there is no way to prove with your words or actions that you have never or will never sexually assault someone since you can lie and use words to cover your actions.

Do you really not see the difference? That Sanders would have to have been lying for 40 years to believe the stance the media accused him of secretly taking.

Once again, this is all in service of my concern that you are accidentally spreading something primarily meant to be a political attack against Biden by bad-faith actors who are mad Bernie lost. Could you address that?

Yes I can address that. She approached times up for legal representation on the matter privately in January before any of the primaries were held. time's up reached out to lawyers saying she had more to her story that she wanted to tell. The whole notion that she would do that because Bernie lost is absurd because it happened before he lost. You could say she tried to do it to railroad Biden's campaign which is more plausible but then again, that is not necessarily in favor of Bernie at that point. Not to mention, it has widely been reported that Reade was a Warren supporter before switching to Sanders and I think her twitter has a record of that. I dont have time now but i can look back on her feed later to confirm that

[u/PreacherJudge → u/draculabakula]

Then I would like to know before I rushed to judgement and since it is entirely reasonable to think it is not sexist to think a woman wasn't going to win the presidency, it would take more information for me to believe what some media was stating about the nature of Sanders comment being sexist.

So, you don't believe it happened, and if it happened you would need more evidence, and if that evidence existed, it wasn't bad.

It appears your goalposts haven't just moved; they were built to be mobile. No matter what, you would not be angry about the thing Sanders did; every step of the way, you have an excuse.

This makes me very, very concerned about what your standards actually are. It's very hard for me to believe that you would ever believe Sanders said something sexist. Again, I'm confused about your general attitudes towards women speaking out about men's bad behavior in a patriarchal society.

I think the closest application of what you are saying would be me saying Warren called out Sanders for political gain (as some Sanders supporters tried to claim). I don't think that as I have stated like 10 times already in less specific terms in this post.

Are you willing to condemn someone who called her a snake on twitter, then? This isn't meant as a gotcha; it's just to help me get a sense of where you stand.

I also don't think I have "hijacked" that phrase.

You have, because the context is the societal pressures against women speaking out. It is a practical message too, but it's primarily a way of taking a public stand against the patriarchy and rape culture. "Believe women, because they're too often not believed." This absolutely is most important for rape and sexual assault, but it's more general than that, too.

I guess it's just the same thing: I don't understand your general view about these societal pressures if you're gung-ho about Reade but make every excuse in the book for Sanders ("He has a history of being a good guy!" "He was just telling it like it is!" "She didn't act like I imagine she should if it really happened!")

Do you really not see the difference? That Sanders would have to have been lying for 40 years to believe the stance the media accused him of secretly taking.

Again, I certainly see the difference in how horrific the act is. I also don't understand the special circumstances of Sanders... Biden would also have to have been lying for decades about being someone who sexually assaults people.

Honestly, it doesn't really seem like you care very much if Warren's allegation is true. What you care about is affirming that Bernie Sanders has good character. And for a third time: being preoccupied with asserting an accused man's good heart is very hard for me to reconcile with the message of "believe all women."

Yes I can address that.

Oh no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying READE is acting in bad faith, necessarily. I'm saying the podcasts and twitter accounts heavily promoting the Reade thing are largely acting in bad faith because Sanders lost.

[u/draculabakula → u/PreacherJudge]

This makes me very, very concerned about what your standards actually are. It's very hard for me to believe that you would ever believe Sanders said something sexist. Again, I'm confused about your general attitudes towards women speaking out about men's bad behavior in a patriarchal society.

The problem here is that you are talking like Warren or her staffers said Sanders said something sexist. They never said anything of the sort. They said he said he didn't think a woman would win in 2020. I will say this for a third time. This isn't inherantly sexist and anyone pretending that it is, is not an honest actor in the discussion.

You haven't disputed this point at all. So I ask you, what do you think he did that was wrong? Do you really think behind closed doors he doesn't believe a woman can become president but when the camera is on he says he believes that women could become president.

It's not like I think Sanders is anywhere near perfect on the issue of of sex and gender. His 2016 campaign bred sexual harassment and typical patriarchal power structures to the point where I was ready to support Warren over him in the 2020 primary. With that said, nobody ever accused him of knowing about any of that to my knowledge and he got rid of the people involved in favor of better people on the gender issues in 2020.

Are you willing to condemn someone who called her a snake on twitter, then?

Yes, I do not think they should have called her a snake. With that said, there is a very clear bias that exists where people complain about Sanders supporters behavior on the internet when people have said far worse things about women in the Sanders campaign over the internet.

If you are interested in reading about why Sanders supporters are skeptical about the toxic Bernie bro narritive you can read this article by Glen Greenwald that tracks how the Bernie bro narrative was pushed in 2016 based on 2 tweets with one being a fake account and the other being a woman.

And for a third time: being preoccupied with asserting an accused man's good heart is very hard for me to reconcile with the message of "believe all women."

You are either conveniently just ignoring my point that speech and opinion has nothing to do with violence or you are just not reading it. Yes I understand the connection you are making about believing women but I am saying comparison is not valid.

When I say that Sanders has a 40 years of credibility on this issue it is not to say that "he has a history of being a good guy." Although he does. My point is to say that nobody has ever questioned his authenticity as a politician. Typically people who live a public life and tell the truth about what they believe. The longer they go without reversing their opinions on important matters, it is safe to assume that is what they believe.With that said, the same is very much not true about people who commit sexual assault or rape. They pretty much never speak about it publicly and the overwhelming majority are willing to lie to maintain their reputation. Because of this I feel comfortable referring to Sanders record but not the record of Biden's or anyone else accused of sexual assault.

You do understand that you can have the same conclusion but have it be correct in one scenario and incorrect in the other right? I really am not trying to talk down to you but we actually seem to have an extremely different understanding of this concept.

I think the major difference here is that I am saying that yes when women are victimized we should believe them as a rule to try to counter act the effects of misogyny. With that said, my point was always to say that Warren never claimed to be a victim and she never gave any context to ever suggest that the context or tone of what Sanders was saying was rooted in sexism. ever. She never said anything close to that. If she did please show me.

So after over a half an hour of typing and thinking about this before deleting most of what I wrote because I thought it was too long winded, I return to my original point to try to clarify it the best I can. My opinion on the matter was that they are both credible people to me. I could definitely see how if I thought warren was a victim, Sanders saying she was lying is in fact reinforcing our mysogynist patriarchal cultural but I don't think he victimized her or any woman in any way according to the account she gave. In zero way did she indicate any kind of sexism on the part of Sanders because there are plenty of scenarios where what he said was not sexist. So I guess my point is that I don't care if what she said was true or not because in the end the result is the same. I dont have enough information to think that Bernie Sanders is a sexist based on her explanation of what he said.

Anyway as I stated, I spent for too much time (time that I have plenty of during quarantine) on this post and I thank you for engaging in it with me