~ archived since 2018 ~

Kavanaugh Accuser CONFESSED To Making False Accusation

TheAndredal

November 11, 2018

125 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=vnB6zmcmMrs&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DthD-NxQCKsQ%26feature%3Dshare

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

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	Kavanaugh Accuser CONFESSED To Making False Accusation
Author	TheAndredal
Upvotes	125
Comments	66
Date	November 11, 2018 4:17 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9w4zxh/kavanaugh_accuser_confessed_to_making_false/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/kavanaugh-accuser-confessed-to-making-false.1183919 https://theredarchive.com/post/1183919

Comments

[–]kmmeerts 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]InterruptingWifeProb 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]enjoycarrots 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]ckiemnstr345 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MayaMordle 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MayaMordle 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MayaMordle 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I have a particular bias for print and dislike for video based on how my own mind works, but my observation of people who get their info from TV or YouTube is ... let's just say Trump doesn't read and does watch TV a lot. I love films and will happily watch a panel discussion but I seldom see the point of investing in watching one person talking to camera. It would be different if I could do it as well as something else. I can drive and listen to someone talk IRL or on the radio, so long as the traffic is light and the route is obvious. Otherwise I go home to my old house nearby.

My experience of several guys who got their info from "wake up, sheeple!" videos has been depressing. Their knowledge was narrow, cherry picked, and they were prone to believing alarmingly wrong stuff.

Most men can multitask, but not nearly as well as they think. A psychologist did a study to try to find what attributes are important to effective multi-tasking. He called for good multi-taskers to come forward, and ran tests on various mental abilities that seemed likely to be involved. The results were surprising, basically they strongly under-estimated the impact on their performance.

I've seen this myself. People will imagine they are having an OK conversation with me as well as keeping up a txt convo on their phone. But their voice convo is affected far more than they think. They think it is still happening and that I've just ducked out to do something while they spend a few seconds on a text. The reality is I'm not coming back.

I'm particularly bad at it. Listening to music while cooking is nice but I take twice as long. No idea where the time goes.

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

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

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

[–]MayaMordle 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This video is nine days old.

I can read. I don't have time to sit through videos and have found the results dissapointing when I tried. I buy news from respected suppliers.

Also I have the traumatic experience of living with multiple guys over the years who got their information from Youtube ranters. Current one went the full Alex Jones, though he has recently decided he was a false prophet.

This author is presumably getting his info from the mainstream media I have already read, or else he has new information of such low quality no reputable site will print it, or else he is repeating crud from low-reliability sites.

For example the anonymous accusation letter from CA and the email repeating it from Kentucky were not reported by the NY Times or WaPo because they are junk stories - any jerk could have done those and it is irresponsible to print them. I don't think the email was covered even when the sender recanted publicly. Only when the Senate committee referred her to prosecution did the letter and email get mentioned by the Failing NY Times and the Lying Washington Post. I appreciate that kind of filtering.

I forced myself to sit through a bit of the video. WTF, he's reading aloud a newspaper article I read nine days ago. I give up.

To make a video attractive to watch I would want to know the duration, the date posted, the author, and what it is about.

[–]wackoman 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pick1already 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wackoman 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pick1already 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]KIKUDoll 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]pick1already 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Because people seek years of therapy to get over a fake experience that one might use as political leverage if that specific person happens to run for office one day. Either that is true, and it's a giant long-term conspiracy with an extremely high risk of irrelevancy, or it's evidence for Ford's allegation.

There is literally a paper trail spanning significant amounts of time stemming from trauma induced.

They were literally unsubstantiated accusations.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409760-attorneys-for-kavanaugh-accuser-fbi-will-receive-therapy-notes-if-it-agrees

This kind of lazy intellectualism is the exact reason headlines are propagandized that way. Ironically enough it's the same types of people that project the term 'low information voter' onto others. It's not that other people are ignorant it's that other people havn't bought the propagandized narrative hook line and sinker... and then interpreted/omitted facts through that lens.

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

[–]pick1already 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

It is absolutely insane.

No.

I'm saying that viewing things in such black and white terms, where either something is 100% proven or completely unsubstantiated is a dumb way to think. It's much better critical thinking to weigh things from a more Bayesian approach. Probabilistically instead of binary.

For instance which is more likely, there is a decade long conspiracy to create a paper trail through expensive therapy sessions and bring down a person just in case they happen to run for office one day, or the guy was a drunken asshole that did some immoral things in college? Ever heard of occam's razor?

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. It is supporting evidence. And when there is evidence it's not "completely unsubstantiated".

Unsubstantiated - something not supported or proven

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

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

Your Bayesian approach is called bias.

You don't know any of them, you have no idea about the circumstances. Your "Bayesian approach" is colored by your politics.

You have no idea if she made it all up from the start for attention, you don't know if she misrepresented something with someone else and then in her mind projected the judge face, you don't know if it actually happen what she said but with a different person (BTW a man came out describing a similar accident with her in the past, how do you compute that into your "Bayesian approach"?), you don't know if it actually was the judge who did that and she is bravely coming out now with it. You, and anyone else, have no idea. There is no logical way to assign probabilities to the possibilities other than political bias, because the accusation is completely unsubstantiated. Your Bayesian approach is bullshit.

And you are refusing to acknowledge it and refuge yourself in your pseudointellectual reasoning, but, again, what you are proposing is that anyone who has claimed abuse in therapy before can accuse anyone, should be believed and the accused should lose his job. If you are not saying this for political reasons and actually believe it, there is no other way to put it, you are absolutely insane.

Would you be OK if it happened to you and you lost your career because someone came with pseudointellectual bullshit about misapplied Bayesian approach?

[–]pick1already 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I lay out a case based on cost, time scale, motives, risk of irrelevancy, and probabilities vs black and white thinking and this is the drivel of a response I get back.

"That's just your political bias" "It's not certain so it's completely unsubstantiated" "Emotional appeal"

Lol. I literally cited the definition of unsubstantial and you still misconstrue the word.

Your Bayesian approach is called bias.

Your "Bayesian approach" is colored by your politics.

Probabilistic thinking is not bias. It's just a better mode of thinking that black and white thought. Simple modes of thought are for the simple minded. I don't even really give a fuck about the politics I just like toying with dumb people for sport.

And you are refusing to acknowledge it and refuge yourself in your pseudointellectual reasoning, but, again, what you are proposing is that anyone who has claimed abuse in therapy before can accuse anyone, should be believed and the accused should lose his job. If you are not saying this

I'm not saying that, you said that. STRAW MAN.

I said your claim that ford's case was completely unsubstantiated was bullshit.

pseudointellectual

Do you ever stop to think that maybe the reason why you run around calling everyone ignorant stupid and psuedointellectual is because you're projecting your shadow onto them? Perhaps it's you. Things about yourself you can't stand to accept or even acknowledge, so you rabidly spew accusations of them outward. I spotted your stupid from pretty far off, and the more I poke you the more comes out. Maybe it's your bias, your politics, and your psuedointellectualism that produced this series of dumpster fire replies I'm reading.

[–]destarolat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pick1already 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"It was just a joke"

Ah, the 5th grade save your ass bail really just makes it look more pitiful.

Well when you think the only kind of evidence is 100% certain proof, I see how you can get confused. Conflating evidence with proof, and treating evidence as a binary instead of a probability is black and white thinking. Our justice system functions on the principle of the 'preponderance of evidence'.

So I've got some definitions to give you for home work

preponderance - the quality or fact of being greater in number, quantity, or importance.

This deals with degrees and probabilities. There is a multi-facetedness to it, not a binary quality. When I cite you many different angles, like motive, time scale, risk of irrelevancy, and cost... this is building a preponderance of evidence.

unsubstantiated- not supported or proven by evidence.

Again there is an element of degree and probability.

BY DEFINITION SOMETHING WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS NOT "completely unsubstantiated"

You are literally changing the definitions of words to fit your black and white thinking. That's pretty damn psuedo-intellectual. Cultivate some god damn self awareness man so you can stop vomiting your shadow on people. If you're going to talk shit and be prejudiced towards a younger generation... at least have your own shit together.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

most accusers are ( AS YOU JUST POINTED OUT) are mentally I'll.

WTF?
Let me count that for you, not that the count is relevant:

Two serious claims.
Two obviously mentally ill women (one with a laughable claim that was immediately fully recanted, the other with a very dubious claim even if she did appear reliable, which she doesn't).
And one anonymous letter, of zero standing.

That is not "a majority", it is 2/4 with one undecidable.

Even if it was 9/10 mentally ill women, so what? It would not prove your claim most accusers are mentally ill. Hardly any rape allegations concern hyper-controversial public figures.

No spotlight is needed. It has long been known that some types of mental illness produce false claims, and are a significant portion of the false claims. (Not of all accusers though).
It is also well known mentally ill people are far more likely to be targeted by rapists and general abusers.
Just to be complete, it is also well known sexual abuse in childhood is a frequent cause of mental illness.

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

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

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It happens I've spent quite a bit of time with a common type of false accuser online. BPD and histrionic disorder are famous for being a high risk of false allegations.

The funny thing is they can be perfectly good or great people at the emotional distance of an online conversation.

IRL they can not regulate their emotions and commonly go into uncontrolled panic in response to fear of abandonment. It is an emergency, and in an emergency normal rules of behavior get suspended. I've not had anyone mention a false accusation but they have done some really awful things.
FA is not the worst of it, they tend to develop abusive relationships and their parenting can be terrible. This is the kind of crazy into which one's dick should not be stuck without great care.
As a society, not creating these people in the first place would be a smart move.

Fortunately detectives tend to identify them as unreliable quickly, they lack the organisation and consistency required for effective lying. Like Swetnick they tend to leave a trail of destruction behind them which can not be hidden.

I'd be more worried about the psychopaths, who would be looking for a payout or revenge.

With someone like Kav political motivations become a serious possibility. Psychopaths do not have strong political feelings (though that does not stop them gaining high office).
I think it would be rare for a mentally healthy person to sacrifice themselves for a political false allegation and be able to carry it off but there are a lot of people, it only takes one.

[–]KIKUDoll 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]MayaMordle 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KIKUDoll1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sikwidit05 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeilPatrickCharris 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dontcarehealthsystem -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Lupinfujiko -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Lupinfujiko -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link