This means he can be replaced with another Democrat
Graham Platner can be replaced as the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine if he withdraws from the race by next Monday, and state law would then give the state Democratic Party until July 27 to name a replacement.
Are you comparing a guy losing a very cushy, influencial job to getting murdered?
I’m providing a counterexample to the absolute, unconditional imperative “believe women” (i.e. in every case).
You want to claim women never lie or make false allegations, so we should always believe them no matter what? Here’s an example of why we shouldn’t. And you want to dismiss that because it’s too severe?!?
I don’t know who you’re making that argument against, but it’s not me.
There’s a big difference between “believe women,” a statement that evolved in a world where women are subject to embarassing exams, intense scrutiny and backlash all for a minimal chance their attackers might face justice, and “kill everyone a woman accuses.”
Believing women means supporting women who make credible accusations, especially ones backed by evidence, in a world where doing so carries a litany of repurcussions.
Your counter example doesn’t fit the context, it’s saying “if you believe this then you think this guy should have died.” No one is saying that. Stop making a terrible argument.
You apparently don’t understand what an absolute statement implies. “Believe women” as an unconditional statement is literally saying to never doubt them. And it’s enforced socially as well, as it’s basically taboo to say “Well hold on, slow down, let’s think about this and examine the evidence.”
In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Not so in the court of public opinion.
Sure, Emmett Till is an extreme example. But it is an example. A counterexample, actually. And if you can’t look at that and think “Well maybe there’s a point here, maybe we shouldn’t just automatically believe every accusation is credible,” then I dont see the point in trying to reason with you any further.
I know what an absolute statement is. I also understand that “believe women” does not mean “punish men.”
Believing an accusation is credible is exactly why we examine the evidence and eventually go to a court of law.
Unfortunately, the court of law is not the arbiter of truth. If you weren’t paying attention to the entire #metoo movement, or maybe don’t believe women, I expect we are done here.
In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. In the court of public opinion, the burden of proof is on the accused.
Elections are held in the court of public opinion. A stray allegation, whether or not there’s any truth to it, is enough to tank a political campaign (unless they’re a republican, of course, because their voters don’t care even if there’s proof).
Yet I can all but guarantee you this Platner case won’t go to a court of law, because everyone already knows there’s not enough evidence to prove a damn thing. The accuser knows this. Five years have gone by without her pressing charges. Why? If she had any evidence she would have done that immediately, right? If it really happened she could have gotten a forensics panel done and put someone away who would be a danger to women if allowed to walk free. But she didn’t do that, did she? So why should anybody believe her now, five years later, when it’s only a few short months to an election and the balance of the United States Senate is on the line, at a time when we’re already struggling as a nation with rampant and unchecked fascism, and atrocities beyond counting being committed with zero accountability, by the party that the accused was running against?
By the way, you know Susan Collins supports the Epstein class, right? You know that’s who’s gonna win now that Platner dropped out, right?
What does this have anything to do with your “counter example” of a dude getting murdered compared to a dude losing the chance at becoming a senator? The thing I said was a bad argument? The main point I was arguing against?
You’re all over the place here.
You don’t see that the common thread is that believing every accusation without question can lead to bad outcomes? Or are you deliberately ignoring that because it’s an uncomfortable truth that you don’t want to face?
Are you deliberately ignoring everyone trying to explain what “believe women” actually means in context of how society currently treats women.
You haven’t responded to that at all, and that has been my point since starting this conversation. Again, that believing women does not mean punishing men. I’m not going to restate every point you’ve conveniently ignored because you’re so dead-set on equating vigilante justice with support.
This debate is done. Enjoy the last word if you want it.