Sorrow and Pity

Andrew Sullivan writes:

And it is the distinguishing mark of specifically totalitarian societies that this safety is eradicated altogether by design. … You are, in fact, always guilty before being proven innocent. You always have to prove a negative. …
Perhaps gay people are particularly sensitive to this danger, because our private lives have long been the target of moral absolutists, and we have learned to be vigilant about moral or sex panics. For much of history, a mere accusation could destroy a gay person’s life or career, and this power to expose private behavior for political purposes is immense.
I’m not equating an accusation of attempted rape in the distant past with sodomy. I am noting a more general accusatory dynamic that surrounded Ford’s specific allegation. This is particularly dangerous when there are no editors or gatekeepers in the media to prevent any accusation about someone’s private life being aired, when economic incentives online favor outrageous charges, and when journalists have begun to see themselves as vanguards of a cultural revolution, rather than skeptics of everything.

42 Comments for “Sorrow and Pity”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    “And so when Lindsey Graham suddenly unloaded on the Democrats, I felt a wave of euphoria.”

    I’ve never seen him that angry, not even during the Alito hearings (and he was pretty hot then).

    Using the Arizona prosecutor as a wall against the eleven white men was a stroke of genius. It allowed Sen. Graham to be the leader, and as he said, he’s the only one whose hands are clean. There’s just one small problem: he’s still in office. He’s a little smarter than he is honorable.

    I missed everything but 45 minutes and had to watch clips of Kavanaugh (who wouldn’t stop talking) and Graham.

    Sullivan is a little to the right of me here. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to shame and destroy people for their teenage antics.

    When they’re still teenagers!

    Instead what we’re doing is turning loose our prisons and going after every white man with gray hair. I don’t have much that’s nicer to say than that.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      What shocked me most was not what happened in Congress but in academia: law students walking out to protest the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

      And of course it’s a heterosexual scandal that’s at the root of all this. What gives them any permission or the requisite moral and intellectual credibility to either tell us gays how to live or whom to vote for?

      Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    And so when Lindsey Graham suddenly unloaded on the Democrats, I felt a wave of euphoria. “Yes,” I said to myself. “Go get ’em, Butters!”

    I’m surprised Sully didn’t have an orgasm. Oh, shit. Maybe “euphoric” is a euphemism. Scary.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Meanwhile, I’m not surprised the Regressive Left showed how homophobic it is by using homosexuality as an insult to try and discredit Sen. Graham with. Gays and lesbians who condone this are Uncles Tom and Aunts Jemima.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Meanwhile, I’m not surprised …

      Well, Sully’s gushing says a lot about Sully, but nothing about Senator Graham. I doubt that Senator Graham cares what Sully thinks, assuming that he even knows who Sully is. Sully has long since jumped the shark as a serious thinker.

      BTW, Sully isn’t the only one this week to go all squishy inside this week:

      “And, you know, when I did it, and I was really being tough, and so was he. And we were going back and forth, and then we fell in love, OK. No, really. He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. And then we fell in love.”

      Ridiculous. If Republicans had any brains at all, they’d stuff a cork in the moron.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Sully has long since jumped the shark as a serious thinker.

        I agree.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Most people think Sully is a slightly less hairy character from MONSTERS, INC.

        Reply
  3. posted by Chang on

    —I’m not equating an accusation of attempted rape in the distant past with sodomy.

    Sounds to me like that is exactly what you are doing. Also the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” matters in a CRIMINAL case.

    What is happening now is an important job interview.

    I would not be inclined to hire a man who lies during the process, does not have the right temperate for the job and might just be guilty of rape. Now, maybe some quirky folks on the may be eager to hire people with such faults, but, aw shucks, I am not.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      A job interviewer would not be swayed by slander.

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        (A) If you have evidence that Ford is intentionally or maliciously lying (necessary to prove slander), then you should probably be talking to the FBI about it, not an online comment section.
        (B) Job interviewers are swayed by things like hand shakes, “black sounding” names, and your hobbies. But sure, they’ll never google you and see if your name has been in the news and what folks say about you, and if they shomehow accidentally did, they would never let un-verified accounts impact their thinking.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          (A) If you have evidence that Ford is intentionally or maliciously lying (necessary to prove slander), then you should probably be talking to the FBI about it, not an online comment section.

          Wish Christine Blaisey Ford had done so. Wish the Senators on the Judiciary Committee had exercised such wisdom. It took a Republican to make it happen. I am better than them.

          Give him the job.

          Reply
          • posted by Matthew on

            Well, I’m from North Carolina and I don’t trust a Tar Hole. I dated a UNC graduate once; his own roommates called him “a pathological liar.” That was the end of that.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Job interviewers are swayed by things like hand shakes …

        I’m sure that we all remember the time that he got belligerent during a job interview, trash-talked the interviewers, ranted on and on about how how unfair the hiring process was and that the interviewers were out to get us, wouldn’t answer questions, insisted that we deserved the job, and then waxed eloquently and at length about how much he loved alcohol, and still got the job, with a lifetime employment guarantee tossed in for good measure.

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      A job interviewer would not be swayed by slander.

      Slander: The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.

      It sounds like you have concluded that Dr. Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was a false spoken statement. If so, would you support criminal prosecution? A civil lawsuit for damages?

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        I would support removing the damage and giving Brett Kavanaugh the job.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        I would support removing the damage and giving Brett Kavanaugh the job.

        So do you believe that Dr. Ford lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee? You didn’t answer that part. If she didn’t lie, then she didn’t slander. If you are going to make a hit and run on Dr. Ford, then stand behind it or retract it.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Two words: Emmett Till.

          Women are capable of lying and do it all the time. Women commit murder. (Susan Smith) Women molest children. (Mary Kay LeTourneau) Women lead hate groups. (Anita Bryant) Women engage in violent behavior without being prompted by men (you can see them in YouTube ghetto/trailer fight videos).

          Misandry is real and it hurts gay men most of all.

          Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Women are capable of lying and do it all the time. Women commit murder. (Susan Smith) Women molest children. (Mary Kay LeTourneau) Women lead hate groups. (Anita Bryant) Women engage in violent behavior without being prompted by men (you can see them in YouTube ghetto/trailer fight videos).

        So, is it your opinion that Dr. Ford was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

        Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Chang is a racist who enables Chinese imperialism in Africa which includes the rape of black women by wannabe white men.

      Reply
  4. posted by JohnInCA on

    I still don’t understand why Senator Feinstein didn’t immediately forward her letter to the FBI, whose job it is to do a background check on Kavanaugh, while keeping strict confidentiality in the process. Such a referral need not have outed Ford.

    “Hello, FBI? I want you to investigate an accusation of attempted rape against the nominee. No, I won’t tell you who is accusing, who is being claimed that he attempted to rape, what decade this happened in, or any of the details that would actually allow you to investigate.”
    Does Sullivan think the FBI has a crystal ball that allows them to “investigate” without any actual information?

    Whether you were a good husband or son or wife or daughter, whether you had a temper, or could be cruel, or had various sexual fantasies, whether you were a believer, or a sinner: this kind of thing was rendered off-limits in the public world.

    When? I mean that seriously, when has any of that been “off-limits”? This sounds like more “good old times” nostalgia for a time that never actually existed, because politicians have always been publicly airing that stuff when they think it reflects well on them (see Kavanaugh’s Monday interview with Fox where he delves into that “off-limits” stuff to fluff his image) and publicly airing their opponent’s stuff when they think it reflects bad on them (see Kavanaugh’s work in the 90s trying to catch Clinton for anything).

    I’m not equating an accusation of attempted rape in the distant past with sodomy.

    Literally just did, Sullivan.

    This is particularly dangerous when there are no editors or gatekeepers in the media to prevent […]

    And now Sullivan wants a central censorship authority? Sorry dude, Free Speech is out of the bag.

    All-in-all, Sullivan’s article stinks of the same “they could destroy any man this way!” nonsense we’ve been hearing for weeks. Fact is, every man doesn’t get accused of attempted rape. Because most men aren’t rapists, most men weren’t embedded in the kind of environment where these kinds of sexual assaults routinely occur, and most men weren’t frat-boy drunkards who were either lying then or lying now about their sexual (mis)adventures.

    And further, this line of thinking is atrocious. You’re saying that even if he did it, Ford shouldn’t have said or done anything, because it “opens the floodgates” or some such rot. That it’s the burden of assaulted women to keep their mouths shut and protect the reputation of guilty men lest innocent men get accused.

    So to summarize… women should keep their mouths shut even when they’re assaulted, gays should sympathize with attempted-rapists because privacy-something-something-privacy, and the FBI has magical powers.

    I’ll have to beg forgiveness, but Sullivan is full of it.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I’ll have to beg forgiveness, but Sullivan is full of it.

      And has been for a long, long time.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Yeah, ever since he turned on the GOP he’s been nothing but a kiss-ass for the Regressive Left and others who project their mental health and personality problems onto the Right.

        The bastard called for an invasion of Israel. He’s just another Jew-hating goy piece of shit.

        Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      “Hello, FBI? I want you to investigate an accusation of attempted rape against the nominee. No, I won’t tell you who is accusing, who is being claimed that he attempted to rape, what decade this happened in, or any of the details that would actually allow you to investigate.”
      Does Sullivan think the FBI has a crystal ball that allows them to “investigate” without any actual information?

      First of all, the media found out all that and more, so drop the bunk.

      Second, you are excusing Senator Feinstein based on the premise that she did not have certainty about the information.

      THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN DEBATING THIS FURTHER? Confirm the nominee.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Heterosexual women rape men all the time by forcing us into sham “marriages.”

        Reply
  5. posted by Kosh III on

    Tell me again how Trump is oh so gay friendly?
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/02/trump-halts-visas-same-sex-partners-diplomats-un-employees/1495218002/

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Are unmarried heterosexual couples getting benefits? There’s your answer.

      You want the rights of marriage, they are inseparable from the responsibilities.

      Reply
  6. posted by Jorge on

    making marriage a requirement to be eligible for a visa.

    Well, duh! United States v. Windsor banned discrimination between gays and straights. We have to follow the law.

    Hookups and one night stands do not merit visa status for straights. Why should they for gays?

    Reply
    • posted by Kosh III on

      You didn’t read it?
      Foreign citizens cannot marry in their home country and if they marry here they may be committing a criminal act in their home country.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Then those homophobic shitholes need to be conquered, colonized, and civilized by gay people.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        I think it’s time to start using military force to spread gay rights internationally. If that’s what it takes, then so let it be written, so let it be done.

        Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Foreign citizens cannot marry in their home country and if they marry here they may be committing a criminal act in their home country.

        That’s the kind of situation that the asylum process is for. I bring you back to United States v. Windsor. We should not be encouraging people to make an end-run around the asylum process solely because they are gay or straight. That is a violation of US law. We should follow the law.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Laws that infringe on human rights don’t need to be followed.

          Reply
  7. posted by Chang on

    Old Chinese proverb say, “conservative have micropenis, much sorrow and pity.”

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Old Jewish proverb say, “Shut up, honky!” Why does your father hate black women?

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Like all Negrophobic imperialists, you’re just jealous because your father’s self-loathing racism and sexism against black women, along with PIV-rape fetishizing Western men’s sense of unearned entitlement to Eastern female bodies, is why your penis is smaller than it otherwise would be if you had two black parents.

      Reply
      • posted by Chang on

        Anytime you wanna say that to my face, let me and my family know.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Thanks for dodging the question and thus proving all my points. Why does your father hate black women?

          Reply
    • posted by Chang on

      ….

      Reply

Leave a Comment