Mostly, the original response I'm paraphrasing was this:
Utilitarian morality requires that I turn my face away from the people I propose to sell out: Monica Lewinsky, Tara Reade. This is agonizingly hard for me to do. Pretending not to believe the complainants — which is what is taking place with Ms. Reade — or that they’re loose nobodies, which is what much of the media did to Ms. Lewinsky, is just an escape from the hard work of moral analysis.
And it adds to the harm. How is feminism advanced by casting a reasonably credible complainant as a liar? Better to just own up to what you are doing: sacrificing Ms. Reade for the good of the many.
...
Today, the Trump-Pence ticket looks even worse. Mr. Trump, credibly accused of rape [wrong] and a confessed grabber of women’s genitalia [with consent], and Mr. Pence, who will not dine alone with a woman other than his wife [possibly the opposite of rape] (whom he calls “Mother”), combine both Mr. Starr’s and Mr. Clinton’s belief systems [dozens of trips to Epstein's Island, and a painting of him in Monica's dress], offering voters in one ticket the full spectrum of misogyny. Mr. Biden, that relic of the good-old-boy Senate years, seems positively benign by comparison.
I will remind you that Tara Read accused, and has been accusing, Joe Biden of digitally raping her with force for several decades. Not just "I regret us fooling around", but him being a creep (impossibru); her rejecting his advances; then him grabbing her arm, forcing her against a wall, shoving his fingers inside of her, and telling her that she liked it. So, you know, actual rape. She made an initial police report and everything. The author believes Tara Read was raped; but did you know that Pence doesn't have sex with other women? That's even worse.
This is also a reminder that Utilitarianism is evil, and barely a valid ethical framework.
Sort of, the original response I'm paraphrasing was this:
Utilitarian morality requires that I turn my face away from the people I propose to sell out: Monica Lewinsky, Tara Reade. This is agonizingly hard for me to do. Pretending not to believe the complainants — which is what is taking place with Ms. Reade — or that they’re loose nobodies, which is what much of the media did to Ms. Lewinsky, is just an escape from the hard work of moral analysis.
And it adds to the harm. How is feminism advanced by casting a reasonably credible complainant as a liar? Better to just own up to what you are doing: sacrificing Ms. Reade for the good of the many.
...
Today, the Trump-Pence ticket looks even worse. Mr. Trump, credibly accused of rape [wrong] and a confessed grabber of women’s genitalia [with consent], and Mr. Pence, who will not dine alone with a woman other than his wife [possibly the opposite of rape] (whom he calls “Mother”), combine both Mr. Starr’s and Mr. Clinton’s belief systems [dozens of trips to Epstein's Island, and a painting of him in Monica's dress], offering voters in one ticket the full spectrum of misogyny. Mr. Biden, that relic of the good-old-boy Senate years, seems positively benign by comparison.
I will remind you that Tara Read accused, and has been accusing, Joe Biden of digitally raping her with force for several decades. Not just "I regret us fooling around", but him being a creep (impossibru); her rejecting his advances; then him grabbing her arm, forcing her against a wall, shoving his fingers inside of her, and telling her that she liked it. So, you know, actual rape. She made an initial police report and everything. The author believes Tara Read was raped; but did you know that Pence doesn't have sex with other women? That's even worse.
This is also a reminder that Utilitarianism is evil, and barely a valid ethical framework.