Skip to main content

#MeToo and Truth


1. The "this" when they say "this could ruin his life" is an accusation.  This "it" when you say "without acknowledging it already ruined hers" is an attempted rape.  The two are not equivalent, therefore we have to temper the assumptions of both sides by examining a hypothetical under both conditions of possible truth values: If the accusation is true, most would say his life deserved to be ruined.  If the accusation is false hers was not already ruined, but deserves to be now.
2. The age of the perpetrator and victim rightly speak to both maturity level (which provides some context for why both were drinking, why both might not have the awareness to avoid a compromising situation, and why one might have impulse control issues compounded by alcohol) and level of accountability (we have special courts to determine guilt and sentencing for minors for this very purpose) but not to severity of crime or emotional impact of the events.  No one should excuse any male child for attempting to grope and/or silence a female minor in framing it as a youthful indiscretion.  This is the only fair charge in Marisa's litany.  No one should be "excusing" attempted rape on the grounds that it was some kind of youthful indiscretion because to do so denies the victim's equal right to context and minimizes the damage and impact.  However, we also have to keep in mind that this is all a giant hypothetical too.  The people "excusing" a youthful indiscretion don't actually believe the episode happened, and the people who are pointing up how terrible this "excuse" is are right, but only after drawing a currently baseless conclusion that the event happened.
3. The brevity of the event is something I've never seen anyone bring up.  Don't know where Marisa got the idea, but, again, there is a giant IF that she's not properly dealing with: If the accusation is true, no one would talk about how brief the encounter was but would instead be calling for the proper punishment for the act no matter its length; but if the accusation isn't true the claimed impact on the accuser's years is also fabricated.
4. The "this" in "he doesn't deserve this" is referring to a false allegation.  The "this" implied in "as if she does" is referring to attempted rape.  The two are not equivalent.  This rhetorical game can only be solved in light of a hypothetical entertaining both truth options: If the accusation is true, most would say he absolutely deserves this and deserves punishment to the full extent of the law, but if the accusation is false she deserves punishment for libel at the very least, and received no consequences from the never accomplished act in the first place.
5. "Boys will be boys" is a phrase parents use to understand the reckless behaviors they have difficulty teaching their boys to maintain self-control over, not an absolution of responsibility for those acts.  If it ever becomes an absolution, critics are right to point out that it is stupid and destructive, because all human beings need to learn self-control and society needs individuals to be responsible for their actions.  However, the phrase denies no girl her girlhood to admit that boys generally have a tendency for recklessness that deserves special attention.  Girls come with their own particularities and tendencies to behavioral norms.  The good ones deserve encouragement and the bad ones require discipline.  But acknowledging the differences of the challenges should never be an excuse to deny the reality of either one's challenges.  In the context of the accusation, again, the condition tense is required: if the accusation is false, the charge that an excuse is being made by the expression "boys will be boys" is devoid of any sense and no one would be saying it, but if the accusation is true, most people would teach their boys that attempted rape is not acceptable by condemning the attempted rapist and calling for appropriate punishment.
6. The implied "than this" from the expression "he deserves better" refers to a false accusation.  The "than this" implied from the expression "she does not [deserve better]" is an attempted rape.  the two are not equivalent.  Examining the two possibilities in light of the truth conditions upon the accusation yields the following: If the accusation is true, most would say he deserves exactly the scrutiny he's getting and deserves punishment on top of that, but if it's false, she is the one deserving of a fitting penalty for libel.
Look, this is brilliant rhetoric.  It does a fantastic job of demonstrating how pernicious defenses against rape allegations can be.  Blindly supporting a man accused seems to drudge up heinous excuses which dehumanize the victim.  If the accusations are true, everyone blindly supporting the perpetrator has a burden of guilt for the perpetuation of a sexist culture.  However, if the accusations are false, what appears to be excuses mostly aren't, but are merely tricks of rhetoric designed to impugn the character of the "excuse"-makers.  When revealed for the sleight-of-hand they are, systematically misplacing referents as they do, these statements reveal more about the accuser than the accused--they reveal Marisa as a libelous underminer of equality and justice, as the false prophet of a nonexistent sexism in society, and as a divisive and destructive force for a nation which should prize the weight of the evidence over the seriousness of the charge.  If the accusation is false, Marisa is wrong, but since we won't know that until further truth comes to light, she is currently operating as the voice of mobocracy, demanding action based on prejudice and prefabricated conclusions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the term “identity”

I didn't want to become one of those grad students who takes forever to find out what he wants to study, so I entered the Masters program at PITT with an idea what I wanted to do as a dissertation: national identity in the Ivory Coast. It sounds like a straightforward enough concept, but I encountered an article while I was taking a history course which looked at several case studies of the construction of racial, ethnic, and gender identities over a variety of geographical locations and historical periods that made me radically re-think the entire concept of identity . It's a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, I would imagine. It means who you are, right? The layperson could also probably understand quite readily that there seem to be many different levels at which our "identity" can be determined or constrained. A black person may feel more of a racial component to identity than a white person, for example. My religious identity takes primacy over my...

Abortion "Complexities" and Morality

It's just not that hard, folks.  Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living.  And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day.  I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights.  So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument...

Historical Malpractice

  Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends.  Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity.  I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality.  With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her...