And honestly how can a take seriously a paper that reports a woman making an accusation against Trump when that paper has a daily article about how evil he is
Well, I think it was "slightly" more recent that it become so ingrained with almost every journalist. Used to be that you still at least had a reasonably large margin at more local and some national levels where some journalists showed some integrity (80's-90's being the tail end of this), but that number shrank to almost nothing within the last 20 years.
We shouldn’t “believe” anyone. We are a divided society with no hope of cultural reconciliation or compromise. So every claim and accusation should require empirical evidence. Because you cannot trust the word of someone who wants you dead.
I agree with that, but I’m saying that the absolute reverse of “believe all women (even without or against evidence)” is “believe no women (even when they do have evidence).” Neither is a position I want to adopt, but I think if I had to choose one of the two, the latter would be less destructive overall.
There has always been social power behind these claims which attracted certain groups however many places around the world have added financial incentives to such claims which unsurprisingly causes an increase in said claims being made.
It's like if you were to pay the boy who cried wolf every time a cry was made but put no effort into verifying any factual integrity regardless of the frequency increase and sudden bankruptcy it caused the funding body.
I’m at the point where if I had to pick an absolute in the modern era, I honestly think that “believe no women” would be better.
Obviously, both are shit in practice, but damn, fake allegations seem out of control in the past few years.
And you have newspapers that run with these stories before even looking at proof
They solicit and create these stories.
And honestly how can a take seriously a paper that reports a woman making an accusation against Trump when that paper has a daily article about how evil he is
They've held the opinion for about 20 years at least that pushing the narrative > the truth.
It's been much longer than that, but the people running things were much smarter and better at hiding it than they are now.
Well, I think it was "slightly" more recent that it become so ingrained with almost every journalist. Used to be that you still at least had a reasonably large margin at more local and some national levels where some journalists showed some integrity (80's-90's being the tail end of this), but that number shrank to almost nothing within the last 20 years.
We shouldn’t “believe” anyone. We are a divided society with no hope of cultural reconciliation or compromise. So every claim and accusation should require empirical evidence. Because you cannot trust the word of someone who wants you dead.
I agree with that, but I’m saying that the absolute reverse of “believe all women (even without or against evidence)” is “believe no women (even when they do have evidence).” Neither is a position I want to adopt, but I think if I had to choose one of the two, the latter would be less destructive overall.
There has always been social power behind these claims which attracted certain groups however many places around the world have added financial incentives to such claims which unsurprisingly causes an increase in said claims being made.
It's like if you were to pay the boy who cried wolf every time a cry was made but put no effort into verifying any factual integrity regardless of the frequency increase and sudden bankruptcy it caused the funding body.