~ archived since 2018 ~

Senator flake just demonstrated everything wrong

BitchesBHating · 2018-09-28T18:38:08+00:00

Men have been lied to and thinks their is something noble in being self sacrificing and going against their own interests. In reality it is Just a convenient...

BitchesBHating

September 28, 2018

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Senator flake just demonstrated everything wrong
Author	BitchesBHating
Upvotes	0
Comments	40
Date	September 28, 2018 6:38 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9jpkjz/senator_flake_just_demonstrated_everything_wrong/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/senator-flake-just-demonstrated-everything-wrong.893139 https://theredarchive.com/post/893139

Comments

[–]SirGoodSnail 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IHeartFemanons1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpandingHentai 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

They both told little lies to bolster their position. He to pretend he wasn't quite such a drunken snot, and she to pretend her 35 year old memory was something certain. Presumably they were afraid that if they told the truth as they understand it then they would have been penalized by having their words taken out of context and used politically --- and they would have been.

If she'd admitted to any doubts about her memory as she must surely have, her opponents would have leapt on it (which in this case would only be truthful because 35 year old memories are simply unreliable). So she lied and said she was 100% sure.

He felt if he admitted to being a party animal even if it was 30 years ago, his opponents would have said if he was a drunkard he must be a rapist too. Or possibly well if you blacked out sometime how do you know you weren't off raping women?

It's pretty fucked up they both felt they had to lie, but neither of the lies were particularly important.

[–]SirGoodSnail 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a doctorate of psychology she is well aware that long term memory is simply unreliable. This isn't controversial. She knows that regardless of how she feels her memory is not "100%" reliable and far from it. It doesn't matter if she feels certain either. Feelings are not facts. When she represented her thirty five year old memory as 100% accurate, that was a lie. ie She made a statement she knew was false.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/

it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-28037-001

Investigated 60 undergraduates' accuracy in testimony and identification following either a violent (mugging) or a nonviolent (direction-seeking) videotaped incident in which 1, 3, or 5 perpetrators participated. The relationship between Ss' objective accuracy and their subjective feeling of certainty concerning correctness was also examined. Testimony was less accurate following the witnessing of the violent incident, and the decrease in accuracy was a function of the increase in the number of perpetrators seen, especially under the violent condition. The accuracy of identification was very low, with only 27% of Ss making a correct identification

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/reading-eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-construction/

By the time the trial began, Jennifer Thompson had absolutely no doubt that she was raped by Ronald Cotton. She testified at the court hearing, and her testimony was compelling enough that it helped convict him. How did she go from, “I think it’s the guy” and it “Looks most like him,” to such certainty?

[–]DavidByron2 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron22 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Daddie02 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't see the issue either for the FBI investigation, if Brett has nothing to hide, which BTW I don't think he does. They did background checks on him before and turned up nothing. He's had enough people come forward on his behalf. If he was this serial rapist that these accusers are making him out to be, someone would have talked years ago.

As for Senator Flake, to be fair, he was blind sided with that today in the elevator. To have all those cameras on you and the whole fucking world watching that interaction and knowing one wrongly phrased sentence and your career / life is over? Can't say I can blame him.

Hindsight though what really should have been said to this women was.

"I don't know you, I have never met you until this very moment. I can't say I don't believe, or believe you, I do not have any information or facts. If you were sexually assaulted then you need to go to the police and start the process there." Brett Kavanaugh is not on trial, he has been accused of something that as not be proved or disproved. Based on the testimony I heard I believe he is innocent of the accusation. I did not hear any compelling evidence to back Dr Ford's statement / testimony"

I'm sorry, no I take that back, I'm not sorry, this whole you need to "believe women" #metoo narrative needs a major attitude adjustment. I do believe some of these women have suffered from some traumatic event in their lives, and they do have my empathy. Being raped has to be the most horrific thing for a women to endure and then live with. What I don't agree with is taking it, and projecting it onto into another situation that they were not involved in.

So this women corners a man inside an elevator and starts screaming at him over a accusation made by another women which has nothing to do with her? To be honest, how do we even know this women is telling the truth that she was raped? Yet there she is, and she shamed and emasculated him like he was the accused or an actual rapist. Basically saying "You're also part of the problem!" AGAIN IT AN UNPROVEN ACCUSATION at this point.

I saw an article on the news:

Outside the Dirksen Senate Office building on Thursday morning, Cameron Mixon, a 22-year-old Georgetown Law School student was sporting a T-shirt with the slogan: “Men Are Trash.”

“I love your shirt!” one woman told Mixon. “It’s amazing,” another agreed. By 9:30 a.m., Mixon said, about 20 people had asked to take photos next to her.

So here we go again, all men should shut up, all men are trash. Over a 30+ year allocation that has not been proved or disproved. One word against another one's word, she said / he said. She is telling the truth, most women don't lie, especially about rape. He is automatically a liar, there is noting he can say or do to defend himself.

If this is how the US is going to handle accusations going forward then we are in fucking trouble.

Patriarchy my ass, women have way too much power and it was on full display the last few days.

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherDAM 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You are being lazy BBH was using a shorthand.

All of the politically active and powerful people who "hate [white] men" (i.e. grievance politics aimed against SWM) happen to be Democrats or caucus closely with them.

Yes, the Republicans have their own subculture of grievance politics but it is less powerful and is not focused on hating a specific gender or color.

One simply has to look at Hillary's failed campaign to understand the impact of the Democrat's miscalculation. I know...."but muh'russians" ... no the Democrats lost the Presidential Election because of the fucked up feminist shenanigans of Debbie Wasserman Schultz et al. The fact that she is still in charge of the DNC should be sufficient proof that as a group Democrats are betting on the politics of hating straight white males.

[–]SirGoodSnail -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

He was making a ridiculous and unsubstantiated accusation against Democrats.

He COULD have written a comment like yours, and then I'd be inclined to take him seriously... But he didn't.

Regarding your comment. DWS is a piece of shit. We all know this.

Hillary represented the "establishment" at the exact wrong moment in history for that. There are many factors that lead her to defeat.

It's bullshit to say Dems hate white men because of a vocal minority. Using that logic one could say that Republicans endorse pedophiles because of Roy Moore.

Regarding "mah Russia..." You realize you're making light of a foreign adversary directly attacking the electoral system in the United States. As we speak active measures continue. They're still fucking with us.

the lack of Interest amongst Republicans in dealing with this is both concerning and suspect.

[–]AnotherDAM -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Regarding your comment. DWS is a piece of shit. We all know this.

We do? Then why is she still in control? She handed the Democrats their most unlikely loss in history.

It's bullshit to say Dems hate white men because of a vocal minority. Using that logic one could say that Republicans endorse pedophiles because of Roy Moore.

This is just lazy. Democrats "hate" men because of a controlling vocal minority.

Hillary represented the "establishment" at the exact wrong moment in history for that. There are many factors that lead her to defeat.

Well no shit Sherlock But listening to her advisors who insisted that pandering to wym'n was a winning strategy was her biggest. Apparently these were the same advisors who didn't know how the Electoral College worked, you know despite being the exact same system for the last 250+ years.

Regarding "mah Russia..." You realize you're making light of a foreign adversary directly attacking the electoral system in the United States. As we speak active measures continue. They're still fucking with us.

Yes, they are a foreign power. So the fuck what; do we then retroactively invalidate all of the foreign elections that the US has meddled in? If you think foreign meddling in our politics was the deciding factor (or even in the top 100) then you are woefully bad at maths.

the lack of Interest amongst Republicans in dealing with this is both concerning and suspect.

No, no it isn't. Countries, ALL countries at some point in their history, meddle around with the inner workings of other countries.

Jesus fucking christ - the Soviets had moles in the US for generations -- and we had moles in Russia. It is how the world works.

Newsflash: Utopia is a pipe dream, and a really bad one at that.

[–]SirGoodSnail 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherDAM -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're acting as if the United States and soviet Russia are are moral equivalents.

No... you are saying that I am acting a particular way so you can allow yourself to dismiss your cognitive dissonance. I am saying that nation states server their own interest and that the only reason that they would not is a legitimate threat of force.

If you believe that, you're neither a patriot or someone with an appreciation for American values.

Interesting how you project onto others; only on reddit could one set of asshats tell me that I am a boot because I am too pro-America while another asshat contends I am not American enough. Note how you use a lazy rhetorical technique of first putting words into another person's mouth and then immediately pretending the other person spoke them and beating your own chest.

Why are you representing the Kremlins talking points?

I am not representing any nation state's interests. I am telling you a fact of life. Only feminists believe that they can alter reality by pretending something isn't true.

[–]SirGoodSnail1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both US parties are the same party. It's just a big con. Democrats aren't even trying to stop Kavanaugh. Instead this is a big circus and an opportunity for both sides to shore up their base with two minutes of hate. Keeps the normies emotionally tied to one tribe or the other. Doesn't matter which. Just keep on funneling all political energy uselessly into one corporate party or the other.

In other words it's the same divide and conquer strategy the rich have used against the poor for thousands of years. Why do something new when this always works?

democrats have become the party of hate the man

Yeah they both are of course, because the rich cannot afford men to become uppity. Unlike women, men have to be tightly controlled or they might get some funny ideas and the next thing you know the peasants are revolting. But yes a lot of conservatives might have started to wonder about men's rights because of all this. Nobody gave a shit while poor men got fucked but now someone important got fucked it's a story.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link