Comments (25)
sorted by:
TheImpossible1 [S] 43 points ago +45 / -2

So many butthurt women in the comments.

God I hope they fucking lose.

TentElephant 31 points ago +32 / -1

Kav is going to play by the unwritten rules that democrats never agreed to or cared about and not risk jeopardizing the image of the court to leftists.

TheImpossible1 [S] 33 points ago +34 / -1

Of course he is. I swear they're all told to bend over and take this crap in case they lose 1% of the female vote.

Could have killed MeToo earlier and protected countless people from their cult if they just showed spine.

For all the accusations at Lindsey Graham of being worthless, he showed real spine there. That's why they've poured 10x the previous record amount into the Senate race against him.

BlazeHeatnix832 20 points ago +21 / -1

Remember when Jordan Peterson agreed this is what should be done? Christianity breeds cuckery to the left. Its why im worried about ACB

TentElephant 5 points ago +14 / -9

Progressivism is derived from Christianity. NYC, San Francisco, etc look like Anabaptist Munster.

Gizortnik 9 points ago +10 / -1

The downvotes can't ignore the problem of Social Justice itself. It was effectively invented by Catholicism. Social Justice acts like a religious institution because it is a religious institution. The Catholic Church was never going to be some conservative bastion that could resist progressivism, and it never will. That's not how Social Justice operates.

I predict SJW-ism is going to fully convert into Liberation Theology in the coming decades. It will be a full-on "Modern Christian" religious movement.

TentElephant 9 points ago +10 / -1

The Orthodox got something very important right somewhere.

Gizortnik 7 points ago +7 / -0

The sole priority of SCOTUS is to maintain the legitimacy of SCOTUS.

when_we_win_remember 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's up to him. The bullshit came up during his confirmation hearing. There was never any risk of his going to jail. There was never any risk of the claim being properly evaluated. It was safe, which is why it was made. If he doesn't feel it's in his best interest to seek damages from people who have defamed him, perhaps due to a Streisand-type effect, then he's not going to do it.

stanzololthrowaway 7 points ago +7 / -0

There was never any risk of his going to jail.

If their accusations had any chance of being true, he would have 100% been arrested.

5Cats 22 points ago +22 / -0

Women (or men!) who make false accusations should face the same jail or financial punishment that the one falsely accused was facing.

Falsely accuse someone of rape? Go to jail for 5+ years and get registered as a sex offender.


when_we_win_remember 9 points ago +9 / -0

You don't get exactly eye for an eye, but making false claims of rape is potentially a serious crime; a felony or multiple. It's just rarely if ever prosecuted as such.

5Cats 17 points ago +17 / -0

Ford made at least a cool, tax-free million bucks (I presume it's tax free?) so Kavanaugh should pry that from her the day after he leaves the bench.

The optics of a Supreme involved in a lawsuit would be ugly... I wonder what they're supposed to do if someone criminally defames them? They cannot actually wait because the limitation time is just 6 years (libel) and 2 years (slander).

What Ford did was Libel, because it was mostly on TV.

reidj 12 points ago +12 / -0

Also perjury.

when_we_win_remember 9 points ago +9 / -0

Defamation of a public figure is nearly impossible to prove in the US. It's rarely pursued. They're not "supposed to" do anything, but most are going to choose not to file a case that's very difficult to win.

APDSmith 12 points ago +13 / -1

One of the things feminists hate most about the UK is that the Crown Prosecution Service has prosecuted cases of perjury where a woman lied about a rape.

Eleanor de Freitas committed suicide after she was revealed to have lied to the court when accusing a man of raping her, leading to her prosecution for perjury.

It's sad that de Freitas committed suicide, no doubt, but let's not forget that this trouble arose because she was trying to ruin a person's life - and got caught doing so.

The feminist position in this appears to be that because she was discovered to be deceitful this time, no harm, let her loose to attempt Round 2.

NihilistCaregiver 13 points ago +14 / -1

It's sad that de Freitas committed suicide, no doubt,

Meh. People willing to make massive false accusations against someone really don't belong in a society. Trust is critical.

APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

Eleanor de Freitas did apparently have some mental health issues, so perhaps she wasn't entirely her rational self when making the accusations.

But that's something to be accounted for in the trial, which de Freitas killed herself before reaching.

Adamrises 3 points ago +3 / -0

Who doesn't have mental issues in 2020? Most people get by without destroying and ruining lives.

And of those that do, how many do you feel pity for? I'm sure every dude in prison probably is mentally warped, but they don't get a pass either.

APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

... that's why I said it's the sort of thing that should be accounted for at the trial, do you not think?

If her mental issue was "She was a sociopath" that's quite a different thing to a more benign option, agreed?

Adamrises 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think the only thing "mental issues" should get accounted for at the trial is what pit you get tossed in. Mental institutions or general prison, maybe even the special separate prison districts.

"Sociopathy" isn't even a real thing, its a fancy word for calling someone evil without sounding like a cartoon that reached memetic levels. It was made up because "pscyhopathy" was considered "invoking psychosis too much" when people wanted to call someone a bad person. Antisocial Personality Disorder is a real medical condition that sociopathy mostly relates to, and is considered nearly impossible to treat. Meaning if they are at the "destructive and dangerous" phase of it, they are never going to be safe to release into freedom.

Over 3% of the population meets the criteria for A.P.D., but most of them aren't trying to destroy people as far as we know. So that grants no excuse.

APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think we're arguing over something we actually agree on...

Adamrises 1 point ago +1 / -0

On most parts we probably do. What we are differing on is you are offering basic, token pity/sympathy to the dead and I am against the very notion.

... continue reading thread?