MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Authenticity and Truth in the #MeToo Era

You'll never know for sure what's in someone else's heart. But forgiveness can be as much about what we owe ourselves as what someone else deserves.

Kavanaugh image: Saul Loeb/Pool/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Smith image via Twitter; Buruma via IanBuruma.comKavanaugh image: Saul Loeb/Pool/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Smith image via Twitter; Buruma via IanBuruma.comSupreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct ranging from flashing to attempted rape. Some of the accusations were the subject of widely televised testimony in the Senate last week. Conventional wisdom now holds that it was Kavanaugh's personal performance during this testimony—not the believable but unprovable allegations of his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford—that tanked the judge's credibility among the persuadable.

Those who have been swayed against Kavanaugh cite his vague and sometimes implausible answers about his high school and college life outside of the alleged assaults. They argue—in tweets, essays, explainers—that his shiftiness should serve as a mark against him, even if it's not necessarily evidence that he's guilty of sexual violence. That he may not have lied outright, but his evasive and emotional performance was still potentially disqualifying.

Whatever more serious things Kavanaugh may or may not be guilty of, his antics inspired suspicion that the perfectionist public persona was but an exquisitely constructed mask. Kavanaugh's credibility crisis isn't about belief (or lack thereof) in any particular set of facts but a perceived absence of authenticity in the nominee overall.

Perception Is Everything

What exactly is authenticity? For some time, it's been a powerful buzzword. Social media marketers, millennial whisperers, politicians, and restaurants all touted it. We were told that authenticity was what hot demographics were craving and missing—in their lives, their processed meats, their travel experiences, their "news brands." It was the key to selling yourself as an "influencer." It was the key to winning elections.

But authenticity is a fuzzy concept. Hillary Clinton has always suffered from a lack of perceived authenticity, even among people who would also describe her as honest. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is often credited with an abundance of authenticity—a man who calls it like he sees it—even among those who admit that he's not always 100 percent truthful. Instagram stars can have authenticity even while shilling and staging and posing. So too for celebrities whose stage-managed endeavors strike the right notes.

Authenticity isn't related so much to universal truths as loyalty to your inner truth—an honesty about who you are and where you're coming from. Being authentic only implies being worthy of belief that you are indeed authentic.

Authenticity is as authenticity is perceived.

The Anatomy of Gray Areas

Authenticity—or a lack of it—lurks in many recent "gray area" discussions around sex and relationships. Take this recent piece, published by the feminist site Jezebel, about a former editor at the millennial progressive publication Mic.

The editor, Jack Smith IV, had built a high-profile career exposing right-wing "fascists" and championing social justice causes. But the article alleges that in private, Smith was far from the feminist-minded good guy he had built his public brand on. Shortly after the article came out, Mic placed Smith on temporary paid leave; he was fired a few weeks later.

The author of the Jezebel piece, Julianne Escobedo Shepherd, lays out a litany of Smith's alleged abuses against women he dated or hooked up with, including telling one woman he wouldn't have sex with her unless she wore specific eye makeup and berating another for hours because she said she was slightly younger than she was. For the most part, it's the kind of stuff that falls into the category of caddish, lame, or unsavory behavior without being criminal—the so-called gray areas.

Only two of the article's many allegations about Smith include claims of non-consensual acts. One woman accuses him of foregoing a condom without her permission during (otherwise consensual) sex. She also says that during the sex, Smith "wrapped his bicep around my neck and restricted my breathing," ignoring her when she asked what he was doing. In neither instance, however, did she tell him to stop, according to this article. Their relationship continued "for several months."

One of the charges lobbed against Smith is that he had sex with a woman after she explicitly consented to it, told him to get a condom, and told him to be rougher. She alleges that she only did those things because she was feeling insecure and guilty. This is presented not as a story about women struggling with sexual assertiveness but as a failing on Smith's part.

Throughout the piece, Shepherd pivots between positioning it as a big-picture story about sex and power and a particularized case against Smith. Ultimately, both frames feel incomplete. What can we really take away here, other than that Smith seems like a drag to date? The author shies away from providing a coherent model of consent and good sexual etiquette. "Manipulative behavior and sexual coercion of the type Smith is accused is notoriously difficult to define," she writes.

Ultimately, Smith's real sins seem to be less about specific boundaries crossed than about how his alleged treatment of women doesn't match the feminist airs he put on in public. It's an alleged authenticity deficit that doomed him.

At least some jerks have the honor to be authentic about who they are. Perversely, these types are generally better positioned to weather exposure of bad behavior. Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of sneakier jerks adds fuel for the flaming pitchforks.

The Wisdom of Villains

Another recent authenticity-crisis casualty was Ian Buruma, editor until last month of The New York Review of Books. This time, it wasn't Buruma's own authenticity that was called into question; it was an article he published by the former Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi.

In 2014, Ghomeshi was fired from his job and declared a pariah in the media after nearly two dozen women accused him of not respecting boundaries during sexual encounters. A court indicted, then acquitted, him on charges in six of these cases. He settled with one accuser out of court.

Buruma said he accepted the Ghomeshi essay because he was interested in hearing from someone on the far side of public disgrace. But it failed to include some key facts and was widely seen as an inauthentic attempt at rehabilitation that The New York Review of Books should not have published.

In post-publication interviews, Buruma posited that we need neither moral purity nor authenticity from someone to learn from them. Buruma told Slate he was interested in what it was like being "at the top of the world...and then finding your life ruined and being a public villain and pilloried. This seemed like a story that was worth hearing—not necessarily as a defense of what he may have done." Critics retorted that no form of the essay would have been acceptable.

Personally, I agree the piece left much to be desired. But I also think Buruma was on to something. There can be value in the wisdom of villains.

Around five years ago, a person who helped get me through one of the roughest periods of my life was concurrently going through his own Jack Smith IV–style fall from Male Feminist hotshot to disgraced creep. Unlike Smith (who has been basically missing online since the Jezebel story came out), this man couldn't shut up about it, chronicling his job losses, marital breakdown, and mental-health decline in an alarmingly public and realtime fashion.

I never suffered any delusions about his moral culpability—most of the things causing crowd consternation came from his own past writing. He had been given a pass for past transgressions by confessing them and claiming to be redeemed. But this redeemed self was at best an idealized vision he tried and failed to live up to, at worst a calculated deception designed to optimize his online brand and predatory potential. The feminist internet in which I lurked and worked then was in a tizzy over which it was, how he pulled off the con, and who had enabled him.

I reached out directly. I wanted to know something beyond the tweets. I wanted to understand, or at least glean more data for my analysis about how someone could so loudly preach one thing and live another. I was curious, supremely bored, and going through a career, relationship, and all-around rough patch. I was feeling down. Then depressed. Then worse.

For a brief but intense time, we struck up a strange long-distance friendship. What started as an amused bid to ascertain his authenticity became something darker, weirder, more desperate. He slipped in and out of the hospital, headlines, and social media mobs. I imbibed him as a much needed distraction, puzzle, mentor, monster, and cautionary tale.

I never did make much headway on getting to any truth about him. But that had ceased being the real point. I had needed help and (though I didn't consciously think of it like this then) seized upon him because I supposed he had both experience and no room to judge.

In the five years since I watched along online as he lost almost everything, I've watched him build a new life, one that revolves around his kids, therapy, working at a grocery store, adoring his new girlfriend, staying out of the spotlight, and staying humble. Is this the work of a master sociopath, or a once-again redeemed man?

We all like to think we can tell the bullshitters from the genuine believers and repenters. We use these wispy calculations to get to what's often considered the crux of the redemption issue: Have they earned it? Do they really deserve another chance? Certainly, no one is owed an opportunity to plead their comeback case. Yet "platforming" them isn't really the problem so much as failing to put what they have to say in proper context.

I want editors, curators, and gatekeepers who are better and smarter than the con men. But also ones open to the possibility that sometimes, the con men can still teach us about ourselves.

Authenticity vs. Truth

There's much talk lately about who deserves a second chance and how to tell when they do. Some folks almost everyone agrees do not deserve it—your Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys. Those who commit violent or myriad crimes. Whether Brett Kavanaugh falls into this category remains an open question.

But what about Jack Smith IV? Aziz Ansari? Louis C.K.? Al Franken? Avital Ronell? These "gray area" perpetrators present more room for debate. Here, authenticity becomes central, perhaps even more so than the truth of the specific accusations. Is their repentance really sincere? How do we square the now with the then?

Not even those specifically trained to tell truth from lies—judges, police, etc.—do much better than anyone else at it. What hope, honestly, do the rest of us have? Outside the cases where someone is caught in the act of contradicting his own redemption narrative, it's an unfalsifiable proposition.

You can drive yourself crazy trying to know for sure what's in someone else's heart. You'll still fail. Luckily, forgiveness can be as much about what we owe ourselves as what someone else deserves.

Forgiving someone—friends, lovers, public figures, internet strangers—doesn't mean you need to hang out with them or support their work. It's a means of letting go of the corrosiveness of harboring hatred. Relinquishing the idea that there are tell-tale gives about the state of someone's soul if you just watch closely enough.

Accountability and authenticity are important, but they're not everything. And whether we're talking about personal growth or social change, focusing too much on parsing particular motives and taking down individual enemies can get in the way.

A more productive moral imperative is getting at the underlying systems that allow bad actors in your own world or the world at large to thrive. But this is hard to come by in a culture intent on making people pay in perpetuity for their interpersonal failings. Right now, the media are too eager to draw lines in permanent marker around both villains and victims, while the rules for each category are scribbled in disappearing ink.

Photo Credit: Kavanaugh image: Saul Loeb/Pool/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Smith image via Twitter; Buruma via IanBuruma.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sam M||

    Wait. You say it's about authenticity? Seriously? You say there are people who like authenticity, and people who don't? Or something?

    OK. Let's say Trump had nominated Elizabeth Warren. She has authenticity issues. If this is about authenticity, do you think the vote for Warren would have come out the same way, with the same people voting for and against? No? Then maybe authenticity has nothing to do with it?

  • LarryA||

    Authenticity is founded on reputation, and reputation is in the eye of the beholder.

    What the Democrats never understood about the Trump presidential campaign is that when they tried to destroy him with revelation after revelation, he could simply say, "Hell, yeah, I did all that. So What? It's who I am, and who my followers are voting for."

    Judge Kavanaugh's problem was that he wore a white suit to a food-fight.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Which is why it's time to punish the democrats.

    Fuck forgiveness. What the democrats did to Kavanaugh amd his family was unforgivable.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    Get over yourself, it's obvious he was guilty they just couldn't prove it which is why I always say, to Kavanaugh's credit, if someone can get away with the perfect crime then more power to them!
    I will be authentic to my Libertarian beliefs and say that if some are worried about their reproduction rights they have nothing to worry about. The law has no control over the abundance of coat hanger medical procedures!

  • WhatAboutBob||

    ....it's obvious he was guilty....

    And to the majority of Americans it's obvious he's innocent.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    You being the majority? Cool!

  • Fancylad||

    You being the majority?
    Oh shut the hell up you mendacious demagogue. Guilty of fucking what. Not even Ford accused him of rape.

  • Conchfritters||

    Who didn't drunk wrestle in school?

  • Wearenotperfect||

    I said nothing about "rape" you ignorant fuck!

  • BigT||

    "it's obvious he was guilty"

    You were there? Why didn't you come forward and testify?

    Oh, right, you're just an internet bullshiter.

  • a tandem||

    It was actually obvious that he was not guilty. In the other cases you had four friends saying the accuser was nuts, and the other accuser admitted it was probably not Kavanaugh.

    This was a McCarthyite hearing which is why Kavanaugh credibly ROSE in the polls

  • Quixote||

    Clearly he is innocent, even if he did hold his hand over this woman's mouth, just as any distinguished gentleman is always innocent of inappropriate charges. These hoaxers should be put on trial for what they did to such an honorable man. A basic principle in American law holds that the "truth" is not a defense if the method used to make an allegation is illegal, as it clearly was here. Compare the inappropriate means used to bring a charge of alleged "plagiarism" against a reputable member of the academic community in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case, documented at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Sevo||

    Wearenotperfect|10.7.18 @ 5:40PM|#
    "Get over yourself, it's obvious he was guilty they just couldn't prove it which is why I always say, to Kavanaugh's credit, if someone can get away with the perfect crime then more power to them!"

    You may imagine you're getting away with the perfect stoopid, but you're not.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Are we facing another Hihn sock?

  • Sevo||

    Possible but some of the tells are missing and this piece of shit has posted before with similar piles of bullshit.
    The 'wearenotperfect' suggests s/he is a lefty asshole hoping for a sympathetic reading of his/her crap, since it is true.
    But 'notperfect' =/= stoopid, and that's what we've got here.

  • DesigNate||

    No, he's not named after an Ayn Rand character.

  • Lester224||

    This has to be satirical. "Coat hanger medical procedures?"

    The repubs won't overturn Roe V. Wade. That will have too much blowback. What they will do is allow state laws that make getting an abortion practically impossible.

    My hope is that medical abortions will be come so easy to get that all the religious intrusions will become irrelevant for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy anyway.

  • Truthteller1||

    You sound like a cuck.

  • k2000k||

    Obvious he was guilty? Are you fucking brain dead. There is not a wit of actual evidence supporting that stance nor does the testimony of Ford stand up under scrutiny.

  • JesseAz||

    Up until a month ago kavanaugh had one of the best and most temperament reputations of any judge. He had endorsements from both sides such as Obama's white house legal council. Democrats don't give a shit about reputations. They'll tear down a good man to get their way.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I just found it awfully suspicious how he denied all the allegations. Denials like that and protestations are exactly the sort of thing that guilty people do all the time. He's also a man who has spent time in court, and almost every convicted felon I've ever met has also been in a courtroom.

    If he's so innocent, why does he feel the need to tell the Judiciary Committee that he's innocent, huh? There's clearly a lot more going on here than we've been let to know.

  • mlwjr||

    Is this comment real? I really feel like I am living in the twilight zone

  • John||

    Me too. Surely he was being sarcastic

  • prolefeed||

    That was almost certainly sarcastic.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Sorry, I guess I ran afoul of Poe's Law.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Me too. Surely he was being sarcastic

    He was, and don't call me Shirley.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Why not call you Shirley ? You hate mulsims or something ?

  • mlwjr||

    Thank God. It's honestly hard to tell as this could easily have been sincere. I've seen worse

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If he's so innocent, why does he feel the need to tell the Judiciary Committee that he's innocent, huh?

    What a hilariously stupid take. Stop huffing glue, it's warping your mind.

  • k2000k||

    Your denial of the crime you are being accused of is proof of your guilt....me thinks your handle is a misnomer.

  • BambiB||

    I think he's saying authenticity is mostly fake.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Trump doesn't have authenticity issues because everyone knows he's liar and tax cheat and he's too dumb to be able to hide it well. He does well at living up to that role. thus his perceived authenticity. the others hide it a lot better but we still know, that's being inauthentic.

  • Kirk Solo||

    Cant wait for the dumb Tony, REV, and Butt plug comments!

  • TuIpa||

    Well, Hihn is here with his "David Nolan" and "Ellis Wyatt" socks, any second he'll bust out "Robert" for the full trifecta.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Ellis Wyatt - Hihn = Sock Puppet

  • JesseAz||

    You forgot chemjeff.

  • Hooha||

    Personally, I am excited to see what OBL does with this fresh canvas.

  • Nardz||

    I thought this might be a piece in which the author, on behalf of herself and colleagues, asks forgiveness for assaulting a man's reputation, attempting to destroy his life and family, and falsely accusing him of heinous crimes without regard for veracity, logic, or basic facts.
    Instead, it's merely another lament and exercise in psychotic self indulgence.

  • Cy||

    I saw the 'graphic' attached to it and knew it would be another bullet in the hit job that the Reason staff is continued to wage even after they've already lost.

    There're are victims in all of this, sadly, it's a man and his family.

    SNL didn't get the disgusting irony of poking fun at Kav. Reason is happy to go right along with them to "Full Retard."

  • Eddy||

    ENB, whatever dilemmas and confusion you're facing, it certainly takes confidence to put them before the H&R commenters like this. At least you'll be met with sensitivity and understanding!

  • Cy||

    Yeah... like anyone the left opposes, including their own.

  • lap83||

    "But authenticity is a fuzzy concept"

    Therefore it has no place in a conversation about basic principles of due process and rule of law that prevent this country from turning into a corrupt tribal shithole

  • JoeBlow123||

    Due process you say? I have a tried and true method. Burn them, if they burn they are truthful. Tie them up, throw them in water. If they sink, they are truthful. Let God sort out the rest. Best yet, we can look for more authenticity perpertrators and have their coworkers, relatives, friends answer to the Authenticity Brigade so we can sniff out any new crimes/perps.

    IF IT WORKED BEFORE IT CAN WORK AGAIN! Make America truthful again.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Due process is easy.

    If he weighs the same as a duck, then he's made of wood, and he's a rapist.

  • BigT||

    Authenticity is what one does when no one is watching or no one is expected to know about. Kavanaugh's charitable work fits. Trump's tweets. Teddy Kennedy's swim. Obama's comment to that Russian. Hillary's foul mouth and tantrums. Bill Clinton's Lolita express rides ( and cigar gynecology), Bill Cosby's cocktails, etc.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    " Conventional wisdom now holds that it was Kavanaugh's personal performance during this testimony—not the believable but unprovable allegations of his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford—that tanked the judge's credibility among the persuadable."

    "Believable, eh?

    Still peddling nonsense I see.

    The judges credibility hasn't been "tanked" any more than you can prove anything any of the accusers claimed was "believable",

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Swetnick's tale was also technically believable, but like Ford she could point to no evidence that it happened or that she at the time acted in a manner most people believe they would in a similar situation. (Of course, on top of that, Swetnick couldn't put forth a consistent story on what she kind of claimed happened.) Ford's story was believable, if more unlikely than some Reason contributors would like to admit.

  • SIV||

    Ford's story of what she claimed happened, some time in the early/mid 1980s was not only inconsistent but, as best I can tell, wasn't a story at all until a rough draft appeared possibly as early as 2012.

    She never claimed she "always knew but didn't tell anyone". She implied she didn't even know it until she was under therapy.

    What is most "believable" is she first made the whole damn thing up and later cast Associate Justice Kavanaugh in the leading role.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    From a National Review Article by Andre McCarthy on National Review Online:

    "Or maybe a 36-year-old claim of sexual assault by an alleged victim who cannot remember basic details or keep straight the details she claims to remember; whose named witnesses do not back her account; who declines to address whether her accusation has been influenced by the controversial psychotherapeutic process of "recovered memory"; who refuses to disclose highly relevant therapy notes and polygraph information; and who is a Democrat advised by a prominent Democratic strategist and represented for free by Democratic activist lawyers, who were recommended to her by a senior Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat even as that Democratic senator concealed the sexual-assault claim from her Republican counterparts."

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Andrew McCarthy

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That pretty much covers it. McCarthy is right to the point as usual.

  • SQRLSY One||

    The take-away is that it is OK to lie loudly and often, but be forceful and self-convinced and "authentic" when you lie. Lie as if you believe it yourself, and heartily so! Lie often enough and forcefully enough, and in the minds of those easily swayed, and your lies become truth! And you'll even convince yourself that your lies are truths! Case in point: Donald Trump.

    (And just like Donald Trump, threaten lawsuits against those who counter your lies with truths).

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    I look forward to your upcoming book:

    "How to Become a Successful and Prominent Politician"

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's not a lie, if you believe it.
    -- The Wit and Wisdom of George Costanza

  • Nardz||

    Aka: America's Confucius

  • Eddy||

    To paraphrase an old saying, the main thing is authenticity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Excellent, I like it!

    In a more positive, related take, "Fake it till you make it". I am not happy, but I am going to pretend to be happy. Eventually "you become the role that you play", and you will BE happy! Or at least happier, and not seed sadness all around you, infecting people with your downer-isms...

    The dangerous side of "you become the role that you play" has been illustrated by the experiment conducted long ago by Philip Zimbardo... See http://www.prisonexp.org/ ...

  • SQRLSY One||

    There's another area where role-playing can go too far. Far less well known, though, is the fact that NASA conducted similar training exercises. Train the astronauts not to sexually harass each other, sure, yes, but even more so, to not dehumanize each other, either. Being at a very high-tech and rule-following organization, and all, NASA employees might tend to start regarding each other, sometimes, as "productivity units", see, so in the role-playing games, they weren't Fred and Susie and Alan, they were Astronaut A, Astronaut B, Astronaut C, and so, on and on. So they could SEE just how bad dehumanization is, of course, was the noble goal.
    So then go check out Astronauts Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein , see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak . Would you be surprised to learn that when they had taken their dehumanization-etc. role-playing NASA exercises, they had both been assigned to play "Astronaut-E"? They became the roles that they had played, and they became astronaughty indeed!
    As soon as all this happened, NASA discontinued this kind of training altogether. They are still running in fear of what happens when "Astronaut-C" gets carried away and does HIS thing (in public even)! It was, I am quite sure, Astronaut-C, role-playing-run-amok, AKA AstroNAZI, that taught The Donald to talk about the (good people on both sides of the prtests", to include White Nationalists! Let it be known that I figured it out first!

  • Dariush||

    I know everybody started shitting on you down thread but I get your main point. I recall the Milgram experiments on authority and the robbers cave study dealing with conflict theory. I think the common thread is if you put people in questionable or extraordinary positions they'll do things they otherwise couldn't have imagined in normal circumstances, hence, your experiences in the military. There's a book called Ordinary Men that will make your skin crawl dealing with these very topics. Btw, I think you're a fine commenter.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Thank You Dariush! I was thinking about Milgram. I did not know about "Ordinary Men"! I will have to buy the book!

    Again, a big and hearty "Thank You"!

  • SQRLSY One||

    For anyone thinking of buying this book, here you go:

    http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary.....B01G1F0F84
    Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland Kindle Edition
    by Christopher R. Browning (Author)

    Christopher R. Browning's shocking account of how a unit of average middle-aged Germans became the cold-blooded murderers of tens of thousands of Jews—now with a new afterword and additional photographs.

    Ordinary Men is the true story of Reserve Police Battalion 101 of the German Order Police, which was responsible for mass shootings as well as round-ups of Jewish people for deportation to Nazi death camps in Poland in 1942. Browning argues that most of the men of RPB 101 were not fanatical Nazis but, rather, ordinary middle-aged, working-class men who committed these atrocities out of a mixture of motives, including the group dynamics of conformity, deference to authority, role adaptation, and the altering of moral norms to justify their actions. Very quickly three groups emerged within the battalion: a core of eager killers, a plurality who carried out their duties reliably but without initiative, and a small minority who evaded participation in the acts of killing without diminishing the murderous efficiency of the battalion whatsoever.

  • SQRLSY One||

    While this book discusses a specific Reserve Unit during WWII, the general argument Browning makes is that most people succumb to the pressures of a group setting and commit actions they would never do of their own volition.

    Ordinary Men is a powerful, chilling, and important work with themes and arguments that continue to resonate today.

    (Above stolen from Amazon web page)

  • TuIpa||

    Yeah, that experiment was total horseshit. The people participaiting said as much at the time and when questioned about it afterwards. They were told to play roles, and behave in certain ways.

    Sorry to burst that bubble.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well, I was once a "prisoner" in a simulated POW camp, and then later on, a "guard" at the same kind of thing, in the military. They warned us about this exact same thing, citing this exact same study. No, the Zimbardo study wasn't perfect; nothing ever is... With the probable exception of Tulpa, in His Own Mind.

    I did indeed have to watch myself, and some of the "guards" did get out of hand, and had to get called down by the commanders.

    In short, if we are told to act like mild to moderate assholes, in a simulation, many of us will grab the excuse to let our inner full-blown, no-holds-barred, uber-asshole come tight out!

    So I know what I'm talking about, and you don't, I strongly suspect. Do you have a problem with ego and self-righteousness maybe? Take a look in the mirror, for your own good please...

  • TuIpa||

    Read the reports about it. That giant wall of bloviating supidity you posted doesn't change it.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I have experienced some of what Zimbardo has documented, personally. So in your mind, then, I was hallucinating, or some such? Have you ever personally seen the Indian Ocean? And then maybe it doesn't exist, because some of the old ancient maps showed mythical sea creatures in the Indian Ocean? Do you also believe that the moon landings were faked?

  • TuIpa||

    Why are you still talking to me about your experiences like I give a fuck?

    It is what it is, and what it is is debunked. I didn't do it, and talking to me about it and your experiences won't change anything.

    "I have experienced some of what Zimbardo has documented, personally"

    That's called an expectancy effect. Zimbardo didn't control for those any more than you did.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You are a stupid and arrogant asshole, whose mind can't be changed about anything. If you don't believe Zimbardo about some of the dark natures of some of us, who will act like assholes when we can get away with it, take a long, good look at yourself and your trolling behaviors on the internet. Your anonymity lets you be an asshole w/o consequence, so you get off on riling people up, getting their goat, on the internet. You're not getting my goat; you are getting my pity. It is really too bad that only karma (getting back what you dish out) is going to teach you a danged thing. Don't be whining about the fact that supposedly "no one told you" when your bad karma comes right back to you.

  • TuIpa||

    "You are a stupid and arrogant asshole, whose mind can't be changed about anything"

    You're the moron defending a debunked study with your... Ahem... experience.

    Don't blame me because you're making a fool of yourself.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    SQRSLY, you appear to believe in a bunch of soft headed bullshit. Kind of like Little Jeffy.

    That shit is tiresome for adults.

  • SQRLSY One||

    The entire Zimbardo matter was first brought to my attention by the US military, both when I was a simulated POW and when I was a simulated guard. The military's warnings held true, as I personally experienced... They didn't really care about the fine points of scientific methodology, either. They care about results!

    So is the US military an example of adherence to "a bunch of soft headed bullshit", generally, in your mind?

  • Dace Highlander||

    A long time ago in a country far far away, there was accepted fact that the earth was flat and that sailors would fall off of the edge of the earth. And before that there were scientists that said the earth was the center of the universe and that every thing revolved around us. Maybe you could cite those scientists and facts as reasons to accept what Zimbardo claims.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, thank you!

  • A Thinking Mind||

    SQRLSY: Do you even science? Your own personal experience, when presented as such, is actually not evidence, it's anecdote. An anecdote is a single data point and not a reality.

    The issue with the Stanford Prison Experiment, as someone who has actually studied the damn thing, is that it was not at all an experiment. It was unscientifically conducted, there was no hard date being collected, there was no control group, there was no attempt to isolate variables. It was basically, "Okay, we're setting up a process so you guys need to play these roles."

    It devolved into madness because someone said, "This is for science!" without attempting to actually do science, and many of the people involved in the experiment intentionally wanted to do wild shit just to see how far he'd let them push it. It was a farce.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So your opinion, your birth, and your existence? Have all of them been statistically or scientifically studied? Ideally with a double-blind method, and with statistically valid number of you (high enough sample size)? If "no", then you'll have to dismiss yourself as being just an "anecdote"!

  • A Thinking Mind||

    What the actual fuck was that response?

    I'm tired of people citing that bullshit experiment as if it proved anything when it was just a big pile of nonsense that happened. The conclusions were baked into the methodology, and a whole bunch of nonsense happened because he was a quack.

    I'm willing to be skeptical of the event of my own birth as well, by the way. Given the odds, though, and that there's never been any corroborated evidence of any human existence that didn't start with birth, I'll accept some things as basic assumptions when there's a dearth of contra-indicators.

  • TuIpa||

    I kind of love how you are trying to rebunk a long debunked study so you can use it as cover for your own sadistic impulses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So you really don't believe that some prison guards (real or simulated) don't run away with the opportunity to act like assholes? Have you ever spent time in prison, real or simulated?

  • TuIpa||

    I believe that you are looking for cover for your own sadistic impulses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You can believe that if you want to, it's all A-OK with me. I am going to go with thinking that you are making up for a pathetic and meaningless life, where you have nothing accomplished or being accomplished, so you make up for it by trolling.

  • TuIpa||

    You haven't given anyone any reason not to believe it.

    Fuck, you threw a tantrum when you found out your experience was useless and your stupid pet study was debunked.

    If anything, your tantrum and total unwillingness to accept reality proves me correct about my obaervations of your sadistic impulses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Threw a tantrum? Sorry to bust your bubble, mindless troll, but my heart rate and blood pressure remains unperturbed. All you got out of me was my pity, that you lead such a meaningless life. I hope you wake up before karma bites you good and hard.

  • TuIpa||

    "Threw a tantrum? "

    "You are a stupid and arrogant asshole blah blah blah tantrum blah i believe a debunked study blah more tantrum blah"

    Yeah tantrum. Like that one. That you are currently throwing.

    "Threw a tantrum? Sorry to bust your bubble, mindless troll, but my heart rate and blood pressure remains unperturbed"

    That's what someone who realized they got caught throwing a tantrum would say tantrum thrower.

  • JesseAz||

    SO, go watch the Bullshit!t episode on hypnosis. It talks directly to this study as well as fake comedic hypnotists.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, you were clearly upset.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Philip Zimbardo

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • TuIpa||

    IKR?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Internet trolls who say nothing, and then walk away smugly from the keyboard.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • TuIpa||

    You use a debunked study to justify your own sadistic behavior.

    I can see why you hate people pointing that out.

  • TuIpa||

    "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

    HE MAD!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    TulpaLand exists nowhere other than in your stunted brain, you know. Try to look around you and believe the evidence of your senses. It will work better for you, really!

  • TuIpa||

    OH HE SO MAD!!

  • TuIpa||

    "Try to look around you and believe the evidence of your senses"

    Ok, you're throwing a tantrum and you believe a debunked study and use it to justify your sadism.

    AND YOU MAD!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, and some people have debunked the moon landings, as well, right? So how do you take this "debunking" of Zimbardo? There are no such things as prison guards who cross the lines, in prisons, real or simulated? Do you read the news, or are all accounts of sadistic prison guards all made up? What all planets have you inhabited, besides Planet Smug and Planet Troll?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    There are no such things as prison guards who cross the lines, in prisons, real or simulated?

    Nobody is this stupid. Nice try though.

  • TuIpa||

    The fucking retard is straight up ignoring reality, and then trying to gaslight people.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Tulpa is actually this stupid.

  • TuIpa||

    "Yes, and some people have debunked the moon landings, as well, right? "

    No, not right.

    Sorry to burst that stupid fucking bubble too.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yes, and some people have debunked the moon landings, as well, right?

    Actually, no. No one has ever 'debunked' the moon landings. They can't. Because they happened.

    With a strong enough telescope, you can SEE the crap we left on the moon.

    But idiots tell stories, and believe them despite evidence to the contrary.

    Just like you're doing.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    SQRSLY, why do you continue to embarrass yourself? You should approach Tulpa hat in hand and beg his forgiveness. Then you can go away and let the adults talk.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Aliens Guy has more credibility than Zimbardo. WTF is your problem?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Sadistic Finch and Tulpa:

    In days of old,
    When knights were bold,
    And toilets weren't invented,
    We stopped by the road,
    And dropped our load,
    And walked away contented!

    The days of old are over now... We have toilets now. Please be considerate of others, and drop your loads there, instead of a nice, clean, rational web site like Reason.com!

  • TuIpa||

    Cry more about being outed as a sadist who doesn't understand science and believes a long debunked study.

  • Keegan Vickers||

    You are discussing a Psychological study ( known for their accuracy those...) and you wrote a poem and made up silly names for your antagonists.

    I really don't think you get to talk about (or even imply) other people are shitting up the thread.

    From Wiki

    Some of the experiment's findings have been called into question, and the experiment has been criticized for unscientific methodology and possible fraud.[5] Critics have noted that Zimbardo instructed the "guards" to exert psychological control over the "prisoners", and that some of the participants behaved in a way that would help the study, so that, as one "guard" later put it, "the researchers would have something to work with." Variants of the experiment have been performed by other researchers, but none of these attempts have replicated the results of the SPE.

    People had to be instructed to behave in a way that you admit you behaved voluntarily. That would terrify me if I were in your place, so your blanket refusal to even acknowledge it isn't at all surprising.

  • SQRLSY One||

    All I said is that one should beware, lest one should "become the role that one is playing". I have seen it myself. Zimbardo is not wrong about that. Given the chance to play a sadistic role, some of us will take it to extremes. Those of us who have been in real and / or simulated prisons, know this.

    Psychology is way-way to fluffy and non-replicable. So new studies expected the "guards" to be all sweet and nice, and they were then nicer? So they, too, became the roles that they were expected to play! We are back to, for good or for bad, "we become the roles that we play".

    I wonder how many internet trolls abuse anonymity in their role-playing of internet trolling, and then play the role as well, when driving their autos? The auto gives us a bit of anonymity as well... We aren't being assholes, our cars are being assholes! There, once again, we "become the roles that we play".

  • SQRLSY One||

    I read the Zimbado study way back when. Zimbardo ended the experiment before he expected it to end, when it got out of hand. The write-up raised the alarms about how badly some of us will act when allowed to, or expected to. So the guards were embarrassed about their "beasts within", after becoming aware of just how badly they were looking, for how they had behaved. "Well, you expected me to behave this way, so I gave you what you wanted". One heck of an excuse and cover-up for their behaving badly!

    At the end of the day, it is very closely related to what the NAZI prison guards said after Treblinka and Auschwitz and so forth: "I was just following orders".

  • JesseAz||

    SO, the experiment never got out of hand... That's what tulpa is trying to tell you. Discussions with the participants a few years later said the stories we're all bullshit. They were acting up and playing around put of boredom, both prisoners and guards. My god man.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Such awful word salad.

    Quit shitpostimg.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    HAHAHAHAHA You're literally doing the "fake but accurate" bit.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Western European map from 600 years ago shows Indian Ocean, but shows mythical sea monsters. Fake but accurate, the Indian Ocean really exists, and they knew of it, 600 years ago!

    They were not totally correct or accurate, so we will blow off the opinion of anyone who cites the ancient map of the Indian Ocean... The Indian Ocean exists, you say? I don't believe you!

    A butt-load of human knowledge or tastes or good-v/s-bad knowledge falls totally out of the scientifically testable realm.

    "Losing my wife really hurts".

    Libertarian autistic Science Geek: "I don't have a degree in psychology, and your feelings are totally subjective. I don't feel comfortable with your lack of scientific rigor. I can't validate or invalidate your feelings. Talk to a professional grief counselor about your loss, because I might blow it, when I sympathize with you."

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Seek help.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, could you PLEASE help me to be more evil and stupid?

  • Nardz||

    I usually skip your posts - like I do for Hihn, Rev, and Hank Phillips; that is all - because they're formulaic (if you've read one, you've read them all) and have little value.
    I'll continue to do so.
    But damn dude, this was extremely cringeworthy.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well I see you are not succeeding in ignoring me then... And then AFTER that failure, you ALSO cannot resist the temptation to tell me how worthless my posts are!

    Do you have no self control? Or do you REALLY get off on telling people how worthless they are, without giving any intellectual, factual, or thoughtful reasons why they are worthless?

    I find your lack of thoughtful content to be cringewormy also! So here is a comment you might be able to comprehend: I am rubber, you are glue, what shit you post, bounces off of me, and sticks to you!

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    But you must admit they are all very authentic

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I would say that your own personal experiences mixed with your politics are what determined if you believed Kavanaugh or his accusers. If you were desperate to keep a man who was going to singlehandedly drastically degrade women's health choices for the next 40 years, or if you believe yourself to be a survivor of sexual assault, or if you were a man with daughters, sisters or wives you would empathize with, then you believe Ford.

    If you were a woman with sons, brothers or husbands you would empathize with, or anti-abortion, or a man who could put yourself in the shoes of someone whose life was being destroyed over an unprovable accusation, or if you were someone who believed that Democrats pulled a sleazy tactic and journalists are abetting them in it, then you did not believe Ford.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Good summary!

  • lap83||

    Collins apparently believed that Ford was a victim but still argued that there was not enough evidence to put the blame on Kavanaugh. You can empathize with possible assault victims without checking your brain at the door

  • BigT||

    THIS^

    And thanks for not checking your brain at the door.

  • Eddy||

    There's also the fact that unlike libertarians, who focused on his Bill of Rights deficiencies, most of K's opponents were against him because he wouldn't use his position to legislate prog results. Meaning that rejecting K would mean, not getting a better judge who respected the B of R (as some libertarians might have preferred) but risking a worse judge who wanted to do to the Constitution what K was accused of doing to the professor.

    And in the course of molesting the constitution, a prog judge would hurt real people, as in stealing the house of those like Suzette Kelo, or even green-lighting the killing of living human beings.

    Originalists might consider giving a human face to their philosophy by giving even more coverage to the victims of bad constitutional law. Reason and some of its contributors have actually done some good coverage in this regard.

  • MoreFreedom||

    "If you were desperate to keep a man who was going to singlehandedly drastically degrade women's health choices for the next 40 years..."

    Except you've ignored the fact that Kavanaugh has stated Roe vs. Wade is settled precedent law. In other words, you're calling him a liar. Who's being authentic here? You'd do better saying "If you were desperate to believe Kavanaugh was lying about Roe vs. Wade being settled law and would ... degrade women's health choices".

    The reality is Democrats wanted women to believe Kavanaugh was a liar about all things, and that they aren't liars. Who's being authentic (again)?

    When Nolan writes "Accountability and authenticity are important, but they're not everything" she's right. EVIDENCE matters the most here regarding accountability. And on that measure, all the evidence supports Kavanaugh - read Mitchell's report. Then read about Ford's ex-FBI friend Monica McLean who likely helped with her polygraph test examiner selection, who wrote a letter calling Ford's ex-boyfriend a liar (how would she know?), and who pressured witnesses to change their sworn testimony. Will Ford be held accountable? I doubt it, as Ford wouldn't provide her therapist notes or the polygraph test to the Senate, which by itself if problematic since she claimed it supported her story.

  • Ben of Houston||

    I believe that was sarcasm, my friend. He was echoing what was said by their respective positions.

  • LarryA||

    There was also an industrial size helping of opposition that had nothing to do with how Judge Kavanaugh might rule. It was simply, "O.M.G. He was nominated by TRUMP!!!"

    I think, had President Trump nominated a pro-abortion, anti-gun, flaming socialist, that Sens Feinstein, Schumer, et al would have said, "Let's delay until midterms just to P.O.POTUS."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ted Kemmedy opposed a national healthcare plan floated by Nixon because Kemmedy himself,wouldn't get the credit for it.

    Democrats are trash.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    Ted Kennedy seems to have been opposed to anything that can "float"... ;-)

  • Nardz||

    [Golf clap]

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    Ted Kennedy seems to have been opposed to anything that can "float"... ;-)

  • David Nolan||

    Ted Kemmedy opposed a national healthcare plan floated by Nixon because Kemmedy himself,wouldn't get the credit for it.

    Obamacare opriginally included a bipartisan private alternative to a public option. (He campaigned as a moderate on health care in 2008, killed Clinton and Edwards in the primaries by opposing a mandate, as detailed in Gary Johnson's 2012 campaign ad.)

    It was totally private, praised by the New York Times, and endorsed on Daily Kos. It would have killed single-payer forever, with MUCH lower costs and consumer choice.

    Republicans killed it, because Obama would have got credit. This forced Obama to his far left, so Obamacare was created by dumbfuck Republicans, who CONTINUE screwing up healthcare.

    Before the GOP went stupid, they worked with Kennedy on tax cuts, which were strongly opposed by the far left and AFL-CIO. Kennedy's cuts were later copied by Reagan -- and supported by Ted Kennedy. The two tax cuts, by Presidents from each party, launched the only two postwar booms in t80 years.

    Now we're stuck with the Stupid Party and the Liar's Party ... both supported by a minority of Americans who are, combined, a shrinking minority of puppets, ignorant on almost everything, both spouting robotic sound bites.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga

  • THCorCBDthatistheQuestion||

    As a man with a daughter who has been falsely accused of "rape" as a teen, these allegations served to sway me to want Kav to be confirmed.

    If someone is actually attempting to rape you, you tell someone immediately. You don't wait 30+ years after going through "therapy".

    I am not a fan of Kav's professional history ( the Bush connection is enough for me to be against his appointment), but the fact that Dems tried to use fake allegations to destroy him made me sympathetic and wanting him to be confirmed.

    The Dem plan backired for someone like me, who would literally beat someone to a pulp if they tried to sexually assault my daughter.

    Politicizing these types of things is wrong and will only serve to hurt them in the long run.

  • k2000k||

    If you thought Kavanaugh was going to degrade a women's health choices in direct contradiction to his judicial record and statements on the matter...then you may be the victim of indoctrination.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Um, neither Kavanaugh nor any other SCOTUS justice is going to "singlehandedly drastically degrade women's health choices for the next 40 years …." Do I really need to remind you that it takes at least a plurality of Supreme Court justices in favor of a given result to bring that result to fruition? I mean, get a grip for once already.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I will not.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Kavanaugh's credibility crisis isn't about belief (or lack thereof) in any particular set of facts but a perceived absence of authenticity in the nominee overall."

    The "perceived absence of authenticity" was purely a product of a politically motivated determination to believe evidence free accusations. Kavanaugh doesn't have a credibility crisis, he just has a fanatical opposition without much in the way of integrity.

  • Don't look at me!||

    ....Christine Blasey Ford—that tanked the judge's credibility among the persuadable gullible.
    FTFY

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Indeed. Only a total moron could buy into her bullshit.

  • geo1113||

    "What can we really take away here, other than that Smith seems like a drag to date?"

    That there are a lot of fucked-up chicks in this world.

  • SIV||

    Sky is blue. Water is wet. The sun will set tonight and rise tomorrow morning.

  • Nardz||

    "Conventional wisdom now holds that it was Kavanaugh's personal performance during this testimony—not the believable but unprovable allegations of his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford—that tanked the judge's credibility among the persuadable."

    Conventional wisdom = D/progressive talking points

  • David Nolan||

    "Conventional wisdom" now ASSUMES- with- no-evidence, the less believable but unprovable denials of Kavanaugh's blackout drinking in high school and college.

    Conventional wisdom = R/Trumpster talking points.

    Tribal warriors, left and right, versus the voiceless majority.

  • Nardz||

    Hihn, you're irrelevant.

  • TuIpa||

    God is he ever, and he's so old that he'll be dead from old age any minute

  • rudehost||

    I find the blackout denials perfectly believable. I had 1 year of my life where getting hammered was a typical weekend. That was really just my first semester at college. I got throwing up stumbling drunk numerous times but never once have I blacked out. I think Kavanaugh was probably lying or embellishing about how much he drank as I think Ford was lying about the whole thing but neither could ever be proven.

    In other news:
    Hibamajibber = zero

  • TuIpa||

    There's supposedly a genetic predisposition to blacking out, some people don't black out no matter how much they drink, and blacking out isn't the same as passing out.

  • Cy||

    "blacking out isn't the same as passing out."

    This seems to be something A LOT of people don't understand.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    But they are not mutually exclusive.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off Hihn. TRUMP BEAT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AGAIN!!!!!!!!

    Zero-Hihn=Zero

  • DesigNate||

    You could be that voice, Hihn!

  • Incredulous||

    Yeah, I found this incredibly annoying as well. It's not conventional wisdom. It's total bullshit. Kavanaugh's a human being who reacted as such to the destruction of his reputation and life. That, apparently, is his crime. And, oh yeah, maybe he shaded the truth a bit when they asked him all manner of off topic questions in an attempt to personally embarrass him. Again, that means he's a human being.

  • Sunnyvale||

    Well said, Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Thank you.

  • David Nolan||

    A very thoughtful essay on ... tribalism. As shown by the tribal comments here. Tribal robots believe their own tribe, solely because it's their own tribe, with no regard for the facts. Like a loyalty oath.

    They can sneer and ridicule about Dr. Ford's provability, while ignoring the failure to investigate. And by rejecting the obvious notion that Kavanaugh's blackout drinking is totally relevant -- and that he REFUSED to deny the only proven incident, Mark Judge's classmate who puked in a car and passed out ... named "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink, wink). Why did he REFUSE to deny that was him, twice, and even attack the second question? What was he afraid of? And why?

    So, Trump's tribe fabricates a typically lame excuse, and repeats several lies, to claim she was assaulted, but by somebody else.

    It's far more likely, IF we assume Kavanaugh was such a heavy drinker, that he could have assaulted her in an alcohol blackout, with no memory that he had done so, and honestly believe he hadn't. But nobody is allowed to know.

    The only honest (non-tribal) conclusion is that we were denied an investigation, or any way to judge Kavanaugh's denials.
    Thus, nobody can reach an honest conclusion on the truth here, left or right. Because facts and truth have no meaning to tribal warriors.

    Proving, yet again, that Left - Right = Zero.

    America need a reboot.

  • Rockabilly||

    You need a reboot....

  • David Nolan||

    Why?

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Why?

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Eddy||

    "failure to investigate"

    Sure, let's go with that.

  • David Nolan||

    ... with no regard for the facts ... Because facts and truth have no meaning to tribal warriors.

    "failure to investigate"
    Sure, let's go with that.

    Nolan for the win.
    Proving, yet again, that Left - Right = Zero.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Sevo||

    "Nolan for the win."

    1) Make stupid comment
    2) Get busted on it
    3) Claim you "won!"
    =fucking ignoramus

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    ... with no regard for the facts ... Because facts and truth have no meaning to tribal warriors.

    =fucking ignoramus

    Wyatt for the win.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Sevo||

    "Wyatt for the win."

    1) Make stupid comment
    2) Get busted on it
    3) Claim you "won!"
    =fucking ignoramus

  • Ordinary Person||

    "Memory says, 'I did that.' Pride replies, 'I could not have done that.' Eventually, memory yields."

    Nietzsche

  • JoeBlow123||

    Good quote.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Why are you buying into the story from an author who has a confirmed drinking problem?

  • David Nolan||

    Sorry if I was unclear. It's not possible to honestly buy either story as fact, only to follow either tribal version, on blind tribal faith not evidence.

    Or to say we cannot possibly know which was truthful. And I even showed how they could both have been 100% truthful.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Sounds similar to saying I'm sure there are good people on both sides.

  • David Nolan||

    a) Depends what the two sides are.
    b) I wasn't lying

    The initial assault, Charlottesvile-- Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
    "Alt-Left" standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
    Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
    Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence
    Shame on Trump and the party who defends him
    Who will deny this absolute proof.

    These are Nazis, Racists and Jew-Haters. Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
    Trump threw his own daughter under a bus, playing to the very worst in his base .

    Because Left - Right = Zero

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    He killed your sorry ass. With absolute proof.

    So you keep bellowing. With nothing.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Naaman Brown||

    There were more people there are Charlottesville that the few on both sides who came spoiling for a fight.
    And there were good people for removing the monuments and good people for keeping them who weren't there to crack heads.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    'Mark Judge's classmate who puked in a car and passed out ... named "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink, wink). Why did he REFUSE to deny that was him, twice, and even attack the second question? What was he afraid of? And why?'

    If he puked and passed out in a car in high school, then he must be a rapist. QED.

  • David Nolan||

    Why did you lie about my words?

    And by rejecting the obvious notion that Kavanaugh's blackout drinking is totally relevant -- and that he REFUSED to deny the only proven incident, Mark Judge's classmate who puked in a car and passed out ... named "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink, wink). Why did he REFUSE to deny that was him, twice, and even attack the second question? What was he afraid of? And why?

    And the part which proves you also a liar.

    It's far more likely, IF we assume Kavanaugh was such a heavy drinker, that he could have assaulted her in an alcohol blackout, with no memory that he had done so, and honestly believe he hadn't. But nobody is allowed to know.

    Evasion is an act of cowardice ... when the truth is so inconvenient.
    Because Left - Right = Zero

    And thanks for proving my point!

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Indeed!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Why did you lie about his words?

    "Evasion is an act of cowardice ... when the truth is so inconvenient.
    Because Left - Right = Zero"

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • TuIpa||

    "his words"

    Ahahahahahah this stupid delusional fuck is talking about himself like we don't know it is him!!!

    Ahahahahaha

    God damn Hihn how have you not put the world out of your misery!!!

  • David Nolan||

    Diversion. He lied about my words. And all you have is another bat-shit crazy conspiracy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ellis wyatt is hihn is david nolan is troll...

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Ann NY||

    I want to know if he punched a girl on the playground in third grade.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    What does stupid taste like? What color is it? Does it have a smell? I ask only because extreme high IQ people often describe the other ways they perceive logic. Is the same effect in place on the other side of the spectrum?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    What does stupid taste like? What color is it? Does it have a smell?

    Among other things, it consists of asking totally retarded questions.
    Especially when they have nothing to do with what one responds to.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    Do you have a keyboard macro for this or just c&p?

    Either way I approve...

  • Incredulous||

    Yes, you need a reboot.

    "Denied an investigation? What? Where have you been for the last few weeks?

  • David Nolan||

    "Denied an investigation? What? Where have you been for the last few weeks?

    Not being brainwashed.

  • DesigNate||

    Are you saying there wasn't an investigation?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off Hihn. TRUMP BEAT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AGAIN!!!!!!!!

    Zero-Hihn=Zero

    Now off to hospice with you, bitch.

  • David Nolan||

    Cowardly diversion.
    Because he lost on the topic.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off Hihn. TRUMP BEAT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AGAIN!!!!!!!!

    Zero-Hihn=Zero

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nolan is hihn. Is some other troll.

  • Toner Cartridge||

    Reading the title, I thought we would learn something for the author about the age-old question as to what truth is. She didn't even discuss how decision-makers in a political system claiming to be based on the rule of law should go about evaluating uncorroborated evidence, weighing up statements for credibility, coherence, cogency and relevance. Instead she peddled gossip and talked about herself. How disappointing.

    On another note, I am still unclear how Dr Ford managed to flee through a locked door. Anyone got any suggestions?

  • David Nolan||

    I am still unclear how Dr Ford managed to flee through a locked door. Anyone got any suggestions?

    She would have had to unlock the bathroom door. .. (as impossible as that may seem) ... after what she described as the two assailants "ping-ponging down the stairs."

    how decision-makers in a political system claiming to be based on the rule of law should go about evaluating uncorroborated evidence, weighing up statements for credibility, coherence, cogency and relevance.

    Conduct a thorough investigation, which is how it's been done for the past 4-5 centuries.
    How did you conclude anything, when the seeking of relevant evidence was denied?

    Anything else?

  • TuIpa||

    Yeah, you could fuck off Hihn.

  • Toner Cartridge||

    And we are looking for a bathroom with a bed in it.

    That should narrow down the search.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Well you only have to check houses that were built in Maryland before 1983. The FBI could have taken Mrs. Ford to every such house in the state to see if any of them jogged her memories. Probably would have taken only a few years, right?

    TL;DR: Hihn's a dipshit.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    And we have to force everyone to put their houses back to the exact state they were in back in 1983. Kind of like a Stranger Things episode.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Yes, Virginia, they are THAT crazy.

    Where the house was, and what it looked like, are about as relevant as the distance from here to the moon.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    And we are looking for a bathroom with a bed in it.

    Even more stupid, but irrelevant.
    The way one gets out of a locked bathroom is to ... unlock the door.
    Because bathroom doors lock from the inside
    And residential bathrooms aren't large enough to hold a bed.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off Hihn. TRUMP BEAT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AGAIN!!!!!!!!

    Zero-Hihn=Zero

  • sarcasmic||

    You either support the Affordable Care Act believe Kavanaugh is telling the unvarnished truth and all his accusers are blatant liars, or you are racist hate Trump.

    There is no other possible explanation.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well it is the only way anybody could be stupid enough to be,Ive their bullshit stories.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    While I'm not that old chronologically, I'm increasingly feeling like I don't get the current mindset. The judge has been confirmed—what matters now, at least to me, is not how he will behave around women or even whether he will partake of iced beer in his chambers, what counts is how he will rule on cases involving the 4th Amendment.

    I hear nobody talking about that and barely a whisper about it during those drawn out and farcical proceedings.

    Since I don't date, or marry, or even befriend or hang out with any public officials, I don't give a rat's ass about their private lives, their drinking habits, and especially not their sex lives. I don't have high hopes for the ethics of ANY people who seek positions of power, so I incline toward assuming they are all probably a bit sleazy in various ways.

    What counts is what they do. That's it. You work on justifying and increasing the snooping on everyone in the name of the war on terror? Then I don't like you even if you are a virginal saint when it comes to women! Do you hate free trade? Then I think you are an economic idiot even if you were able to display refined, articulate, and literate speech patterns every time you opened your mouth or Tweeted.

    Actions speak louder than (authentic) words, to modify an old saying.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Well , yeah. But the other stuff is more fun.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I hear nobody talking about that and barely a whisper about it during those drawn out and farcical proceedings."

    When it wasn't clear whether the witch hunt would succeed, the only principle that really mattered may have been opposing witch hunts.

    Now that we see that the witch hunt failed, the Fourth Amendment becomes more important again.

    I should add, however, that this wouldn't have been the case if the witch hunt had succeeded, opposing further witch hunts may have been more important than the Fourth Amendment.

    This is probably as it should be.

    What's more important, fair trials or punishing murderers? Don't we believe in letting murderers go free rather than subjecting them to an unfair trial? It's not that punishing murderers isn't important. It's that the principles involved are even more important than that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And I think the principles involved in this were more important than most people really appreciate. If the Anita Hill accusations are ultimately responsible for every sexual harassment seminar we've ever been subjected to, what hell might be unleashed on all of us and meritocracy if we can be disqualified from any position of authority because of something stupid we wrote about women on Facebook during Gamergate 35 years ago when we were minors?

    The arguments about the Fourth Amendment will still be there awaiting our attention next week, but the witch trial had to end. If Kavanaugh hadn't been confirmed, the social justice warriors who run the Democratic party would be looking for what's next instead of surveying their losses, both in terms of the Supreme Court and the damage they've done to their credibility with the American people.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Good points, as per your usual.

    But I'm afraid witch hunts are now an established tactic. There seems to be a lack of rationality among some.

    For example, I have friends who still seem to believe Trump is a reincarnated Hitler, despite that he has so far failed to fulfill their initial dark expectations. For those who paint everything as an absolute black or white, life or death, winner take all struggle, I don't think they can ever compromise or employ any critical thinking that runs against the accepted narrative.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    what counts is how he will rule on cases involving the 4th Amendment.

    The rest of the Constitution is secondary?

    I hear nobody talking about that and barely a whisper about it during those drawn out and farcical proceedings.

    It has not a single shred of relevance. Compared with the Constitution.
    And we do allow different people have different parts of the Constitution as the most critical to themselves.
    I like to call it individual liberty.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Ann NY||

    What's a Hihn?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    A dumbfuck drama queen with a pathetically sad Enemies List.

  • David Nolan||

    The rest of the Constitution is secondary?

    It has not a single shred of relevance. Compared with the Constitution. And we do allow different people have different parts of the Constitution as the most critical to themselves. I like to call it individual liberty.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano burps out another cheeseboard hot take.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn is one of the elite to not only get banned but get his comments removed.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Kegger in BK's chamber after court!!!!!!!!!!!

  • THCorCBDthatistheQuestion||

    Stop making sense!

  • JeremyR||

    That's probably the worst of this. I am celebrating the election of a pretty meh judge (from my point of view) simply because if he had been defeated or withdrawn, it would mean the left would pull this against any non-leftist nominee

  • Trigger Warning||

    What is this post even about?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Read the last paragraph. She says it's time to forgive and just let it go, regardless of whether or not anything happened 35 years ago. She says the rules about what makes a villain or victim these days are too inconsistent and vague, while being cast in either role is far too permanent.

    Those who choose to dump on Reason (yet are always still here) will ignore that paragraph, or probably not read the article beyond the headline anyway.

  • Trigger Warning||

    I read it. I like me some ENB. This belongs on a personal blog. It's not journalism. It's not a cogent argument. Not everybody can be Gay Talese.

    I dump on Soave, because he sucks. Reason is made less for publishing his crap. ENB is pretty good. The BK bullshit has driven good, perceptive people to distraction.

  • SIV||

    Bitches is crazy

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Word, bro.

  • TuIpa||

    It's Ok I know this article is about me, and I forgive you for totally losing your shit and verbally assaulting me because I pointed out the flaws in one of your articles.

    I still think it means you don't have the constitution to be a writer here at Reason though.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Whoa...You're KMW!!

    But that means you have the authority to can her if you think she's not good enough to write here.

    Wait, is that why you brought on those new contributors? To groom her replacement?

    (FWIW, you have a very nice radio voice. I like those podcasts.)

  • TuIpa||

    No idiot, try to keep up.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I was joking, FFS.

    I've been here a while, and virtually none of the writers reply to comments. Ron Bailey does fairly often, and I've seen ENB do it once or twice. But I doubt anyone working at Reason could be bothered to write an entire piece as a result of what any commenter said. I suspect most them don't even read any comments unless some unhinged US Attorney contacts the magazine.

  • TuIpa||

    Oh no not only did she read it she came in the comments and threw a hissyfit at me about it.

  • TuIpa||

    You...don't realize that you have no idea what the fuck is going on and that she ACTUALLY DID lose her shit about a comment I made in morning roundup whatever fucking stupid name she uses for it.

    Lol that makes this "doubt anyone working at Reason could be bothered to write an entire piece as a result of what any commenter said" look even more retarded.

  • Nardz||

    I've seen several pieces that seemed, in timing, content, and tone, to be direct responses to comments.

  • TuIpa||

    ENB is supposed to be a professional journalist but she behaves like child throwing a tantrum.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason writers come in hard via socks and blast commenters that criticize their articles.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Welch responds to commenters sometimes. I would actually like to meet him at some point and find out what the hell is wrong with him. Before he goes full progtard on us. It must be a beltway thing, to want all the leftist turds to like them so much.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How good is her voice? I need something new for the spank bank.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well I suppose this fits your persona of Tulpa. Not only do you imagine that all the comments should be about you, you imagine that the articles should be about you too.

  • TuIpa||

    And here we have chemjeff proving once again that he is an idiot who doesn't actually have any idea what the fuck is going on.

    Thanks for that jeff, I always enjoy watching you fall down on your face.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, our Little Jeffy is quite an idiot.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    He's right about one thing: ENB did address him directly in a comments section. I went back and found it. First, she thanked him for reading when he called her posts garbage. Then, when he commented that he pissed her off, she replied that it's clicks that counts, so his opinion of her work doesn't matter to her.

    Good for him for getting her attention, I guess. It's a bit like the elementary school kids who get a girl's attention by pulling her hair.

    Generally speaking, I like what the contributors here write. That's why I come to this site daily. The commenters are more of a mixed bag. Some are brilliant, some are entertaining, some are obnoxious, and most (myself included) fall somewhere outside of those three areas.

  • TuIpa||

    We already had some people do the sycophant thing for ENB, but go ahead if it works for you.

  • TuIpa||

    "First, she thanked him for reading when he called her posts garbage. Then, when he commented that he pissed her off, she replied that it's clicks that counts, so his opinion of her work doesn't matter to her."

    Yeah,she was so mad that she admitted she was a clickwhore writing for reaponses.

    Everyone knew it, but she was stupid enough to admit it because she got upset wirh me pointing out how shitty her takes were.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's sad that in her own mind all her writing is worth to her is clicks. She must not really stand for anything.

    Personally, I take shit pretty seriously, considering how genuinely close we are to losing this country to a modern form of Marxism. So many people here don't get that, and don't take it seriously. Just imagine someone like atony, or AmSoc in a position to control your life. This is why I want them gone. Their stench is incompatible with our constitutional republic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I come for the Libertarians that post insightfull comments.

    And john and ken, who are not libertarian but provide insightful non-lefty comments.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Conventional wisdom now holds that it was Kavanaugh's personal performance during this testimony—not the believable but unprovable allegations of his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford—that tanked the judge's credibility"

    Of course, Elizabeth's dipstick for 'conventional wisdom' is:

    - 'consensus opinion of a handful of fellow millenial-journalists on Twitter'.

    Dwell for a moment on the combination of hubris and naiveté needed to believe that.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Hahahahah.

  • Bearded Spock||

    The Kavanaugh donnybrook has illustrated just how insular the Reason staff writers are. They are thoroughly steeped in Beltway Conventional Wisdom, and are completely oblivious to the possibility that any alternate opinions might exist among respectable persons.

    It was clear from the many articles written here in the past two weeks that Kavanaugh's guilt was an axiom that could not be questioned, no matter how ridiculous and unsupported the allegations against him became.

  • David Nolan||

    Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

    1) He claims the drinking age was 18, so his drinking was legal. A lie. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

    2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have "denied" the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

    Plus all his evasions and REFUSALS to answer key questions, or attack the questioner -- which I doubt he'd tolerate in his own courtroom.
    ,
    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the passed out, puking drunk depicted in Mark Judge's book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

    Check the sources.

    Left - Right = Zero
    Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking.
    Their time has expired.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano haz a sad that someone had a better social life than he did in college.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off Hihn. TRUMP BEAT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AGAIN!!!!!!!!

    Zero-Hihn=Zero

  • TuIpa||

    Why are you trying to rewrite the narrative here?

    You lost your shit over an obviously false claim. You wanted to believe it becauss of your politics. You wrote about it, stupidly, over and over, until you lost and your opinion was discarded.

    The ACTUAL conventional wisdom wonders what the fuck is wrong with you that you'd behave like a partisan idiot and go full retard over this.

  • Rich||

    Authenticity and Truth in the #MeToo Era

    Hey, whatever happened to Gravitas? Remember Gravitas?

  • Johnny B||

    Lost, along with control over "the narrative"

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There's much talk lately about who deserves a second chance and how to tell when they do. Some folks almost everyone agrees do not deserve it—your Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys. Those who commit violent or myriad crimes. Whether Brett Kavanaugh falls into this category remains an open question."

    I'm having two ongoing conversations with two types of people.

    1) Those who see the question of Kavanaugh's confirmation as a question of politics, policy, justice, civil society, etc.

    In my circle, these people are almost exclusively men--and I mean on both sides of the question of Kavanuagh's confirmation.

    2) Those who see the question of Kavanaugh's confirmation as a question of his character, his temperament, etc.

    In my circle, these people have been women. When pressed for what they were talking about when they were criticizing his character, they wanted to see him apologize for misbehavior. Even if he's acknowledged drinking too much in high school--and apologized for that--it might have helped Kavanaugh with women--not that it mattered in terms of his confirmation.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Always confess. What's the worst that could happen?

  • BigT||

    Execution?

  • Ken Shultz||

    ENB is absolutely correct to bring up authenticity. It's a core American value. Populist politicians going back to Andrew Jackson established their authenticity with claims of having been born in a log cabin, etc. We still crave authenticity. Disco died because lounge lizards in polyester suits lacked authenticity when punk rock was oozing the stuff. We want out country music stars to speak with an authentic twang. 50Cent was so authentic, he was shot seven times. Vanilla Ice? Not so authentic.

    Women, in particular, seem to gauge authenticity by listening closely to an apology. As a man, have you ever found yourself apologizing to a woman for something that wasn't your fault? Women may want you to apologize for spending three whole hours watching football today! Even if you have nothing to apologize for, letting a woman hear that apology gives her the opportunity to reestablish the authenticity of your intentions and her own feelings. On the Jerry Springer show, after the cat fight, listening to the man apologize for cheating is the climax. Does she judge his apology authentic, yes or no? Once that's decided, it's time for the next segment.

    Kavanaugh never made an apology, and I think that deprived a lot of women of the chance to gauge and feel his authenticity. I don't know what we're supposed to do about that. Maybe he should have found something to apologize for. A lot of men may have been gauging his authenticity by his refusal to apologize.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Most people missed it, but Kavanaugh actually did sort of apologize for his sharp tone and demeanor during some of the questioning. He even said something to the effect of "I said some things that I shouldn't have said."

    Of course the attempted sexual assault that never happened, that of course he did NOT apologize for. A man should never apologize for something he didn't even do. It's tantamount to an admission.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A man should never apologize for something he didn't even do. It's tantamount to an admission."

    He couldn't apologize for sexual assault, even if it happened and he were a sociopath, because it would have disqualified him. But I'm not talking about what he should have done in order to be confirmed. I'm really talking about why so many people feel the way they do about him.

    Sometimes, it can be hard to find something authentic to apologize for, but if you cohabitate with a woman long enough, you'll eventually find yourself apologizing for something you may think you shouldn't have to apologize for--as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

    Afterwards, breaking up can feel like awakening from a dream.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Well, I am EXTREMELY sorry that you feel that way about it! I am really, really, REALLY sorry that you feel that way about it! Mistakes were made!"

    There, you feel better now?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I believe they genuinely experience the world differently for all sorts of reasons.

    I once read a feminist describe taking hormones and experiencing testosterone fully for the first time as she was transitioning from female to male. It read like she'd arrived in a parallel universe. All the people were the same, but somehow they were all different than they were before. She wrote it like a missive to the fellow feminists she'd left behind.

    Suddenly, he was a feminist who kept catching himself starting at women's breasts while he was talking to them and couldn't keep his eyes off their asses as they walked away.

    We're not talking about rational or irrational stuff, here. It's mostly about how men and women tend to fill in the blanks, how things like hormones and genes help shape our perspectives, not to mention cultural attributes. I'm not sure women the authenticity of our statements by listening to the sincerity of our apologies is any less rational than men staring at women's breasts and asses.

    When we look at in animate objects like forks, I'm sure we all see the same thing.

    When we're trying to gauge other things like the authenticity of each other's feelings, maybe we don't all see the same things the same way.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes! There! My feelings have been validated! I hope that your feelings have been validated as well!

  • Ken Shultz||

    You get the difference between pointing out the way things should be and pointing out the way they are, right?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Oh yeah, gotcha... I like my sarcasm. At the end of the day, a butt-load of the stuff you post, I find to be thoughtful and true!

  • Cy||

    If only there were a guide out there for people to follow when they're dragged in front of the US Senate and the entire US Media to defend themselves against allegations so enraging, thin, obvious and politically motivated.

    How would any person react to that? The crucifixion would've continued regardless of which emotion he reacted with.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If only there were a guide out there for people to follow when they're dragged in front of the US Senate and the entire US Media to defend themselves against allegations so enraging, thin, obvious and politically motivated."

    Adam Smith might tell us that, over the centuries, custom, tradition, culture, etc. have woven together a tapestry of standards that are more complicated and function better than anything some government might inflict on us from above.

    I think that's what we're talking about when we're talking about standards of proof, corroborating testimony, the necessity of corroborating evidence, our sense of fairness, the presumption of innocence, etc. We'd like to think these things come to us by way of the Constitution, and they do, but they also come from the Magna Carta and from Roman law--from back when London was an outpost of the Roman empire. Ultimately, we're talking about what the American people think and why.

    That's both reassuring and alarming.

    It's reassuring to see the people stand by American standards despite a concerted attack on those standards by the media. It's alarming to realize that if we want to really change things, what we really need to do is change the thinking of our fellow Americans--and that's a daunting task.

    Start with your friends and family and be advised that some of the people we need to persaude may be women.

  • lap83||

    "ENB is absolutely correct to bring up authenticity. It's a core American value."
    No, it's a marketing gimmick. In order for something to be a core national value there has to at least be consensus as to what it means and why it's important. Also, you never hear the term coming from non-journalists....which to me is the biggest indicator that it is not a core value of everyday Americans.

    "Women, in particular, seem to gauge authenticity by listening closely to an apology."
    I think you're talking about "sincerity" now, but that's only relevant if you know the person. Most women don't react to or expect apologies from public figures the same way they do from a significant other.

    "Kavanaugh never made an apology, and I think that deprived a lot of women of the chance to gauge and feel his authenticity. "
    Just no. In general, women don't have emotional needs that they look to be filled by random political figures. If they do, there is something wrong with them psychologically.

  • lap83||

    "Also, you never hear the term coming from non-journalists....which to me is the biggest indicator that it is not a core value of everyday Americans."

    I take that back, you also often hear it from advertisers. It's a nice-sounding term that people use to sell products and ideas but it has little substance.

  • CLM1227||

    I don't know about this.

    A lot of people judge authenticity based on projection - I wasn't like that and no one I knew was like that, so there's no way he was like that, so he's faking it.

    Behaving like the peer hive is not real authenticity. But that seems to be what people mean by authentic. Consider how we treat genuinely happy people in our society. We act like they are faking it because no one can be that happy all the time... it's projection.

  • AlmightyJB||

    A few things. Most people do not behave the same at a job interview or even at work as they do at home or out with friends. Does that make them not authentic? For someone who lacks authenticity he certainly has a lot of friends and supporters. One could certainly say that his anger toward the Senate for their despicable tactic was the height of authenticity but of course that behavior was proof that he didn't have the temperament for the job so damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Lastly, regardless of the validity of the points made in this article, this has absolutely nothing to do with opposition to Kavanaugh. The Left doesn't want Trump appointees on the bench and will stop their confirmations "by any means necessary". That is their mantra and I believe them. It's too bad that the left doesn't support the Constitution, because there were plenty of things they could have gone after Kavanaugh concerning that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I want to say one more thing about my last point and authenticity. No one was more inauthentic during this circus than the politicians who created this mess. They got up on their high horse and laid the sanctimony and false outrage on thick. None of them gave a damn about Ford of what Kavanaugh did or didn't do 35 years ago. It was all a lie. Ford was nothing more than another weapon for them to wield to get what the want. I would say that there are many people on the left other than the politicians who were just as disingenuous.Talk about inauthentic.

  • Qsl||

    There is a certain school of libertarianism that holds an employers' right to hire and fire at will and for the most arbitrary and capricious of reasons sacrosanct, even moreso a lowly public servant who should be denied collective bargaining because, pffft, who ever heard of brass in government ever abusing their power?

    I mean Kavanaugh could have withdrawn from the confirmation hearings at any time if he didn't like having his character questioned. Nobody owes you a job!

    I just want to be certain which abridged version of libertarianism is currently in play. I mean all this talk of a distinction between public and private is just riveting (which I'm certain Kavanaugh will have much to comment on at a future date), but wonder how how a potential Supreme Court judge should be held to a lesser standard than libertarians hold a fastfood worker?

    Shouldn't he at least piss in a cup to verify his drinking habits? Don't you realize the potential liability of an inebriated ruling?

  • Bearded Spock||

    "I just want to be certain which abridged version of libertarianism is currently in play. I mean all this talk of a distinction between public and private is just riveting"

    I personally can't wait for the next "poor minority college student had his life ruined by false accusations" story from Robby, or the upcoming "innocent black men were railroaded by a racist justice system using mistaken witness testimony" written by Shackford.

    It will help me know if Reason really is cool with the destructive effects of fake allegations of rape or sexual assault, or if it's only acceptable to them when it happens to a White Male Republican Judge Who Might Overturn Roe.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "There is a certain school of libertarianism that holds an employers' right to hire and fire at will and for the most arbitrary and capricious of reasons sacrosanct, even moreso a lowly public servant who should be denied collective bargaining because, pffft, who ever heard of brass in government ever abusing their power?"

    Politicians aren't the employers of government workers - the specific individual citizens who pay the taxes that fund they paychecks are.

    The interest's of those taxpayers is supposed to be paramount - not the interest of politicians who want to recycle their money though labor unions into campaign contributions for themselves.

    "I mean Kavanaugh could have withdrawn from the confirmation hearings at any time if he didn't like having his character questioned. Nobody owes you a job!"

    Nobody owed it the Democrats or the women who they put up to accusing Kavanaugh to give them the time of day either.

  • Qsl||

    Ah.

    So the tyranny of government is actually the tyranny of the citizenry who employ them. And every foible from the My Lai Massacre to even this congressional hearing is the result of an inattentive employer. Even eminent domain is nothing more than an employer claiming back what is theirs.

    Always nice to see the collectivism of libertarians at work. Hell, how can there ever be opposition to government since by you they are merely agents of the citizens who employ them?

    Brilliant!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Get back to me if you're ever capable of addressing what I actually said instead of burning straw men.

  • Qsl||

    Which part exactly? The bit where you can't differentiate between a republic and a direct democracy? The part where you deny anyone in government their first amendment rights? Or perhaps how libertarians can justify corporate donations (I'm certain the approval of every shareholder took place beforehand) because group rights!, but somehow falters for any other organization? Or, to put it bluntly, your position as a tax payer affords you absolutely no super-secret citizen award short of voting and bitching and moaning like everyone else. You could try working for for the GOA, but then you'd have to bear the incessant idiocy of folks such as yourself.

    "I thought I told you to run the computations."

    "But Gilbert Martin said it was a waste, and since he pays my salary..."

    See how well that works for you.

    Oh, and taking the logical extension of your position (all of the authority, none of the responsibility) isn't strawmanning.

    It's calling you out as a hypocrite.

  • DesigNate||

    Swing and a miss.

    You're gonna have to step up your game if you want to take on OBL or Hihn.

  • lap83||

    "Most people do not behave the same at a job interview or even at work as they do at home or out with friends. Does that make them not authentic?"

    This. The term is utterly subjective and, at its worst, it usually means someone is trying to sell you something.

  • JFree||

    These "gray area" perpetrators present more room for debate. Here, authenticity becomes central, perhaps even more so than the truth of the specific accusations. Is their repentance really sincere? How do we square the now with the then?

    This sounds a bit like a Stalinist show-trial to me.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I have a feeling she will realize this later and come to regret writing this.

    I read a super long book on early Soviet times, The House of Government by Yuri Slezkine, and this whole article reads like some sort of apologia for show trials that I would expect in a nicer Pravda. Throughout the book Slezkine makes a big point of showing the twists and turns of the Bolshevik party from expelling rightists to then expelling the leftists under Trotsky to then expelling the the rightists under Bukharin who just pruged the leftists. Then the faceless bureaucrats who purged the rightists were then purged before the Terror finally peaked, stalled, and WWII started to finally end it. While the Bolshevik Party (by extension Stalin) essentially led the Terror, our baby Terror is more insidious (if much less fatal) in that it is some amorphous cultural standards upheld by an unnamed collective of big name celebrities, news outlets, corporations, and politicans. Those outside the bounds are purged.

    Also similar is that in Bolshevik times, Slezkine notes, is that since it is impossible to know what is is someones heart, where their loyalty lies, they are all purged equally. It does not matter if you are an Old Bolshevik or New Bolshevik or true believer or conman, all were purged because who can know someones heart? Only death solves the matter.

    This path to search for authenticity has been paved with blood before, I think it is best to avoid it.

  • Trigger Warning||

    /thread

  • Hank Phillips||

    Just one more bump, plus maybe a non-looter history read, and BlowJo here will realize that ENB is way out there, outside the Soviet-Socialist-cum-National Socialist box that bounds what passes for thinking among mystics of both altruistic stripes. I suggest comparing "We the Living" with "My Lives In Russia"... Both books cover the same events, differing only in slant and comprehension of reality.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In some ways the USA is more susceptable to attacks to its constitutional republic because freedom is intristic in our system.

    In other ways, we always seem to weather the storm because most Americans know what the alternative is. Socialist camps and wealth confiscation.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    I wish Tom Wolfe was still alive, or conversely Patrice O'Neal. Narrators who, comically and unapologetically, tend to identify the trending cultural sizzle from the steak. Our social media-driven culture seems to be dominated by fear which takes authenticity and wrenches it quietly about the neck with tweets. Fear doesn't produce authenticity, it produces inauthenticity and distortion.

  • ||

    There are people out there still willing to do the work. O'Neal's friend Nick Di Paolo for example. Of course, he has been largely black balled but hey....fuck 'them' anyway.

  • BigT||

    H L Mencken

  • Bearded Spock||

    "There's much talk lately about who deserves a second chance and how to tell when they do. Some folks almost everyone agrees do not deserve it—your Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys. Those who commit violent or myriad crimes. Whether Brett Kavanaugh falls into this category remains an open question."

    The fact you even consider Kavanaugh to possibly be equal to Weinstein and Cosby speaks volumes about you, ENB.

  • TLBD||

    I defended ENB last time she wrote about Kav.

    I think I need to take it back after her saying that the consensus is that the issue with Kav is authenticity.

    Moving the goalposts and having no fucking clue what the actual issue with this charade is shows that ENB is at the very least too damned lazy to step out of her bubble.

    The issue is that the Democrats created a binary choice of rewarding absolutely fucking disgusting behavior or not. Behavior that is now a well documented pattern. Fuck anyone who apologizes for these people or moves the goalposts on their behalf.

  • DajjaI||

    I agree but I think part of the problem is that we're litigating these situations in some cases several decades after they happened. Well it will be almost impossible to figure out what really happened. It would be far better to figure out why we haven't been attacking these cases as they occur. Why don't victims feel empowered to speak out and how can we change this? I think we need to make a public call: "If you were abused please speak out and we will listen with compassion." If we were better at this then we could actually solve the problem before perpetrators accrue decades of mischief. But if not then people like Kavanaugh only become scapegoats (often for crass political arbitrage) and the problem will only persist.

  • TuIpa||

    "Why don't victims feel empowered to speak out and how can we change this?"

    Well, in this case it was because nothing happened and we can't.

  • CLM1227||

    So I get why a child wouldn't speak up. First, fear. After time and maturity, not really seeing the point in bringing it up or you seem well adjusted and it must not have been that serious. Some problems later in life? Comes up in therapy. Suddenly, someone makes a bigger deal out of it than you did and convinces you it was a serious crime.

    30 years later, what do you do? For the healthy, it would be forgive and move on. For the grievance industry and therapists who thrive in it, its instigate, push, and exaggerate.

  • Longtobefree||

    " my analysis about how someone could so loudly preach one thing and live another."

    It is called being a hypocrite. Look it up in any dictionary not published by a democrat.

  • ||

    Politicians acting as arbiters of authenticity? Lol. Yeh, good luck with that bucko.

    When that happens they call those gulags.

  • ||

    "...Conventional wisdom now holds that it was Kavanaugh's personal performance during this testimony—"

    How come I'm never part of the 'conventional wisdom'?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Consider it a compliment. A lot of people out there are idiots. A somewhat low level of intelligence and common sense is the norm. So if you find you're flouting convention and falling we'll outside the norm, Rufus, that bodes well.

  • Trigger Warning||

    The term can only by definition refer to the middle of the normal distribution.

    "Conventional" is just...the wrong word. ENB's social media circle, and journolist like-minders, do not represent "conventional" wisdom. Conventional wisdom says this whole thing was a carefully engineered delaying tactic, packaged as a soap opera and horse race. It was scummy, nasty. It was attempted ruination of a man's reputation by way of rank politics. It was nothing more than the status quo for DC.

  • ||

    "...Those who have been swayed against Kavanaugh cite his vague and sometimes implausible answers about his high school and college life outside of the alleged assaults."

    Hurl vague accusations, you get vague implausible answers. I guarantee you anyone facing false or dubious accusations will sound 'implausible' because there's no good way to answer a claim possibly made in bad faith.

    You will always look bad.

    Think this. Imagine a girl lies and claims you had sex with you and tells your wife. It's possible you'll probably be grinning because the lie is so obvious but it won't be to your wife. You're on the defensive. So explain to me what's the 'authenticate' way out of that?

    And the last fucken assholes to answer this question are the jerkoffs in the Democrat party for their disgusting behaviour. Ellison? Meh, right? Which proves they don't give a rat's ass about Ford or rape. All they cared about was getting that Irish sot and rapey-rapist off the seat because the left can't stand losing the balance of power in SCOTUS.

    Their banana republic behaviour directly threatened the basic ideas who make up the foundation of Western law like due process and the presumption of innocence.

    How's that for authenticity?

    /kicks cripple next to me.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Not to mention their siding with Bill Clinton over Paula Jones.

  • Ann NY||

    The biggest problem with this article is the assumption that only men behave badly in sexual encounters or relationships. Should a woman lose her job if she is the "unauthentic" party?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You will never get an concensus on that.

    Women are too good at the game to lock themselves into that trap.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I think a painful blowjob could be grounds for termination.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "that tanked the judge's credibility among the persuadable."

    It's morbidly fascinating to watch the Left's insanity. Disturbing, because they live here too, and are a clear menace, but fascinating to watch the crazy.

    Anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion they do on a he said/she said accusation was simply not "persuadable."

    Demonstrating once again, SJWs Always Project.

    Always there's the ad hominem immunization strategy. Anyone who disagrees is simply written off personally as defective, and their arguments written off with them.

    A "Libertarian" publication decries the victim of politically motivated character assassination, who, under penalty of perjury, and while responding to criminal allegations, seems a little "shifty" in his answers.

    Funny, I seem to recall this is the place where I first learned about the "Don't talk to the Police" video. Though I suppose that was prior to the post modernist takeover of Reason.

    The best bit of crazy I saw was Brett Weinstein's wish fulfillment fantasy of Kavanaugh immediately resigning, because somehow, someway, giving the lynch mob exactly what it wants would somehow be a great and noble gesture for Kavanaugh to make. That it is exactly what Weinstein wishes would happen is a mere coincidence.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If the state still ran looney bins, many Lefties would have already been admitted. Via voluntary or involuntary.

  • DaveKunard||

    I thought this was interesting and well written.

    A lot of commenters seem to miss that it's a meditation about complexity, and can't detach themselves from the hyper-partisan mentality.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I just feel that it's attempting to wrap up the story while not really nailing the core issues. What is required for an accusation to be believable? It needs to go beyond "I like the way she talks and I dislike the way he talks," and it definitely needs to go beyond, "I'm predisposed to believe Person X because their politics are agreeable to me."

    Additionally, we should be seriously talking, since we're all about rationality and reason here, what is a realistic standard of proof required to deny a position? Most people in the comments will agree that CBF failed to meet that standard, but what exactly is the standard? Is it "more likely than not?" Is it, "preponderance of the evidence?" Is it "Consistent and plausible?"

    These are legitimate questions and would be a great take. Given that ENB was mostly on the anti-Kavanaugh side, but has also taken positions in the past that are favorable to sexual offenders (and potential sexual offenders), it might have been interesting to read that. Instead, it's back to the discussions about demeanor and attitude which will ultimately result in confirmation bias. And we should all understand confirmation bias by now.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Most people in the comments will agree that CBF failed to meet that standard, but what exactly is the standard?

    "Not constantly changing their story" should probably be a cornerstone.

  • John||

    The standard is having more than one person's word about an incident that was never reported at the time and is over 30 years old

  • A Thinking Mind||

    You're missing the point. That's extremely vague. Obviously there's no way we should endorse this witch hunt.

    The question is, what's the objective bar that needs be cleared that makes something NOT a witch hunt? We can decide someone shouldn't be on the Supreme Court without requiring the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but where is that standard met? It's better than basing it on subjective things like evasiveness, body language, and all the other shit that came out during this.

    She didn't have corroboration. If she had been more devious and had a few devious friends, they could have faked corroboration. "My friend Christine confided this in me 30 years ago. It was tearful. We were young girls and scared of the Kavanaugh family so we didn't report anything," etc etc.

    It might be worth at least the discussion about how we can get beyond our own prejudices to see what level of establishment is required for us to clear the bar.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I have asked similar questions myself. I doubt you will get a coherent answer.

    Truth of the matter is, we don't WANT a world in which every interaction between people is governed by an "innocent until proven guilty" standard. I should have the sovereign power to decide how I judge people in my day to day interactions, using whatever standard that I wish, fairly or not. That is a part of self-ownership of my own conscience. If I want to judge Trump as a Nazi, or Bernie Sanders as a Marxist, I should have every right to do so, and heaven knows those types of judgments are made in these forums on a daily basis.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Very true, I render harsh judgements on many of your more inane posts on a regular basis.

  • DesigNate||

    Nobody has said that every interaction requires that standard. But if you accuse someone of a fucking crime, then it absolutely does.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But to more fully answer your question, insofar as SCOTUS judge is a political position and Senators/Presidents are elected representatives of the people, the only real answer to your question is "the standard is whatever the people decide", whether it be fair or not. If politicians want to take the high road and impose a very high legalistic standard, then that is their prerogative. But if politicians take the low road and use very dubious standards to judge candidates, because the people want an ends-oriented result rather than a fair process for evaluation, then that is also their prerogative.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    "Whatever the people decide" is an unsatisfactory answer. We establish legal standards so that the passions of the people, and of the moment, can't create an injustice. When we allow standards to be defined based on what people feel is proper to the moment, we end up with lynch mobs.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Given that ENB was mostly on the anti-Kavanaugh side, but has also taken positions in the past that are favorable to sexual offenders

    we must conclude that ENB always takes the degenerates' side.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She is a useful idiot or active conspirator of propaganda.

    Either way, ENB is not a libertarian...advocating libertarian positions nor ideals.

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    Additionally, we should be seriously talking, since we're all about rationality and reason here, what is a realistic standard of proof required to deny a position?

    It's not a background check. It's a fundamentally political process. Just as the president doesn't have to prove that his nominee is right for the position in order to nominate, the Senate doesn't have to prove that the nominee is unfit in order to refuse confirmation. The Senate could reject the nomination because they don't like his hairstyle if they want.

    I don't think anybody faults the Dems for voting against Kavanaugh. There was a time when it was an unwritten rule that Senators would vote to confirm any qualified nominee who wasn't radically out there (a la Bork). Recall that flaming leftist Ruth Bater Ginsburg got 90+ votes in a GOP senate.

    But that time is long gone. People fault the Dems and the media (I repeat myself) for being incredibly disingenuous and dishonest during the process, and using mob tactics to intimidate witnesses and senators.

  • Hank Phillips||

    ENB should know that the key to winning elections is drumming up a platform that earns enough spoiler votes to repeal bad laws. This is exactly what the LP did with Antonieta Nathan and John Hospers. With fewer than 4000 votes (and one courageous electoral vote) our candidates handed the Supreme Court the Roe v. Wade decision that--on the heels of Griswold--secured for American (and by example Canadian) women some control over their own reproduction. That repeal of bad laws was a defense of individual rights such as we are about to see again. Canada is repealing murderous prohibition laws against plant leaves first pushed during the Coolidge-Hoover administrations. THAT is winning!

  • John||

    Hey dumb ass, overturning Roe would not ban abortion. I know you are dumb as a post, but surely even you understand that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Do you ever wonder if Hank actually talks like this to other people? I seriously consider whether he is institutionalized.

  • John||

    There are no deeper issues. There's is just the Democrats' attempting to destroy a man with nothing more than an accusation. That is it. If you believe Ford's accusation should have destroyed Kavanaugh, then no accusation short of one that is recanted by the accessor should ever be dismissed as untrue. The fortunate fact is that no one outside of the media bubble ENB inhabits believes that to be the case.

  • TLBD||

    That is why ENB had to move the goalposts. They need cover for their disgusting smear. You'd think a libertarian magazine would have people with courage, but no, they cover for their progressive peers like clockwork.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That is the point of of these puff pieces. Even the beginning narrative of "tanking" requires spin:

    In choosing who is telling the truth, 45 percent said Ford is, up from 32 percent ahead of her Sept. 27 testimony. A third (33 percent) said Kavanaugh is the one telling the truth, up slightly from 26 percent before he testified but not as much of a rise as for Ford.

    So the groups started out already biased in favor of Ford by 6 points, and she gained another 13, while he gained another 7. Is that "tanking?"

    Regardless, this is nothing but an appeal to emotion, supposedly something that the "smart" libertarians don't engage in. There are no facts to support the accusations. Full stop. All of these questions about "believing" are missing the most important word: "wanting." Do you WANT to believe, or do you WANT to disbelieve? In the end Reason WANTED to believe. You might as well argue over the best flavor of ice cream.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Her story was clearly bullshit. I don't a single extra fuck out of my bag of fucks, to give for any soft headed moron that can't see that. Nor do I care how many of the idiots there are. I'm right, they're wrong.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    I'd love to read a libertarian magazine sometime.
    Any ideas?

  • Longtobefree||

    I understand that all the copies are carried on the backs of unicorns.
    So find a unicorn and read the magazines it is carrying.

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    Hustler

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    In that case, that is not a horn on that hirse's head.

  • geo1113||

    And these dumb fucks just don't get that someone could do that to their husbands, fathers, and sons, and, by their own admission, the charges would have to be believed.

  • ||

    That would make for awkward dinner talk.

    Son: But mom! I didn't do it.
    Mom: I know. But I have to #believerher! More sloppy joe's?

  • Sevo||

    Noted D stalwart Willie Brown:

    "Trump is right: Men are scared. He knows how to exploit their fear."
    [...]
    "I'm talking about men. Your husband, perhaps, or your brother or son.
    It's a "very scary time for young men" in America, Trump said at a rally last week. "My whole life I've heard you're innocent until proven guilty, but now you're guilty until proven innocent. That is a very, very difficult standard."
    [...]
    The slightest questioning of Christine Blasey Ford's testimony is tantamount to being a Trump supporter. Raising any point in Kavanaugh's defense is just as bad.
    [...]
    "When they go into the voting booth, with no one watching, there's a good chance they'll vote their fear. They won't be voting for Trump — they'll be voting to curtail the power of those they feel may be coming after them next."
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/
    article/Trump-is-right-Men-are-scared-He-knows-
    how-to-13286032.php

    Willie might be surprised about his last paragraph, but he's writing about SF, for pete's sake. If you've lost SF, well...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There are these laws called libel and slander laws that protect private individuals from unfounded accusations.

    Unless your husbands, fathers, and sons are planning to become a SCOTUS judge, that's not much of a realistic concern.

    And by the way, false allegations were JUST AS MUCH of a concern pre-Kavanaugh as it is now. So why wasn't there some epidemic of false allegations against fathers, sons & husbands then?

  • Sevo||

    chemjeff radical individualist|10.7.18 @ 11:53PM|#
    "There are these laws called libel and slander laws that protect private individuals from unfounded accusations."
    No, there are not. They are not 'laws'; they are a license to sue

    "Unless your husbands, fathers, and sons are planning to become a SCOTUS judge, that's not much of a realistic concern."
    Bullshit.
    Prove your assertion, asshole. PROVE it. I want to see proof of your bullshit assertion, asshole. Let's see it.
    You made the claim, prove it.

    "And by the way, false allegations were JUST AS MUCH of a concern pre-Kavanaugh as it is now. So why wasn't there some epidemic of false allegations against fathers, sons & husbands then?"
    Why is it that fucking lefty ignoramuses always make assertions as it they were arguments, lefty ignoramus?
    Fuck off, liar.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because the standard for successfully suing for libel/slander/defamation/etc. is much higher for public figures than it is for private ones.

    And nothing about the law about libel/slander has changed pre- and post-Kavanaugh. Where were all of these false accusations against men before Ford's public performance? If it is so easy to get away with, why wasn't there an epidemic of it occurring?

    The answer is: most people don't do that sort of thing, and those few that might be tempted to, are deterred by the law which protects private individuals from being defamed.

  • Sevo||

    So, no, you have no proof? Just more bullshit?
    Thanks for keeping the lefty sting intact.

  • DesigNate||

    You obviously weren't reading any of Robby's Title IX posts...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There are these laws called libel and slander laws that protect private individuals from unfounded accusations.

    Unless your husbands, fathers, and sons are planning to become a SCOTUS judge, that's not much of a realistic concern.

    And by the way, false allegations were JUST AS MUCH of a concern pre-Kavanaugh as it is now. So why wasn't there some epidemic of false allegations against fathers, sons & husbands then?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh Little Jeffy, so unable to see more than a few feet in front of him.

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    Yeah right. With the possible exception of mothers and sons, women will throw their male relatives under the bus as soon as they stand to personally benefit from it. Watch video of a family court sometime. Watch women laugh as their ex-husbands are thrown in jail for not being able to earn enough to pay what the radical feminist judge thinks they should pay in child support. I suggest securely locking up any guns or other potential suicide implements during the viewing.

  • Rob Misek||

    The argument this article is trying to make is based on faulty logic.

    "Authenticity is as authenticity is perceived"

    Here is the definition of authentic "not false or copied; genuine; real:"

    Reality is not defined by perception. Perceptions can be faulty while reality can't be.

  • Longtobefree||

    OK. if the name of the game is accuser must be believed, how does this one play out?
    Woman claims to have been abducted by aliens a decade or so back, but does not know the exact date or even year.
    The point is that while on the alien spaceship, she saw Bill Clinton rape Nancy Pelosi.

    Do you believe she was abducted?
    Do you believe Bill Clinton was on the ship?
    Do you believe Nancy Pelosi was on the ship?
    Do you believe the rape took place?
    Why the hell not?

  • JeremyR||

    While you are joking, that's actually a good parallel. I used to be semi-professionally into UFOs (long story) and knew many, many, many people who claimed they were abducted by aliens. Virtually all of them were sincere and their stories were even more credible than Fords (since there were no witnesses that denied it ever happened).

    Do you take them at face value? Or is it more likely that their memory/brain came up with an incident for some strange reason, probably to cope with some other trauma? For a woman like Ford, into politics, an encounter with the Bogeyman of the moment (Kavanaugh) might fit very much like an alien.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefties are letting their mask slip. Their religion is based on faith alone.

    It is impossible to independently test their theories and have them work out.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maybe women should not write about people they have an emotional bias against.

    Like judges, maybe people who aspire to be journalists should recuse themselves hwne they are too emotional to write factual pieces about people. The stakes are too high.

    Until then we have Reason's propaganda they put out every week.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Very good article, ENB. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

    As a commenter above said, too many people want this to be strictly about just Kavanaugh, but it is more about the complexity of certainty and authenticity.

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    It's not complex at all. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" seems perfectly sufficient to evaluate this situation. Or do you take issue with Dr. Sagan's principle?

  • Echospinner||

    +1

    The story is teacher says to the student "when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras"

    Student thinks and asks at the next lesson "I looked and found there are places in the world where zebras are more common than horses"

    The teacher says "aha"

  • Tony||

    Extraordinary appointments to high office require zero credible attempted rape allegations.

  • Sevo||

    "Extraordinary appointments to high office require zero credible attempted rape allegations."

    Fine.
    Every D standing for office has raped someone!
    My allegation is as 'credible' as her's

  • Rorschach||

    Well, there were zero credible attempted rape allegations, so by this standard, Kavanaugh is qualified.

  • Tony||

    Also extraordinary amounts of non-rants about the Clinton conspiracy.

  • Sevo||

    chemjeff radical individualist|10.7.18 @ 11:52PM|#
    "Very good article, ENB. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this."

    Very stoopid comment, jeff. Thanks for proving that you are an ignorant lefty asshole

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well well. I have another groupie! You'll have to compete with Skippy for my attention though.

  • Sevo||

    chemjeff radical individualist|10.8.18 @ 1:20AM|#
    "Well well. I have another groupie! "

    No, asshole. You have someone else calling you on your constant bullshit

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    Kagan and Sotomayor question SCOTUS "legitimacy" with Kennedy replaced by Kavanaugh

    Unbelievable. They're willing to torch their own institution because the left lost the chance to control it.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    This is how all Saul Alinsky new leftists are. They're the spoiled little brat kid who would rather smash his own toy than ever share it with another kid, every last one of them.

  • DesigNate||

    I don't remember the legitimacy being questions when Kagan, with no judging experience, was put on there only to NOT recuse herself from the Obamacare decision.

    Funny that.

  • U. R. Huyulov||

    Dershowitz

    So why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee? The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor.

    The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties.

    The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen's office was raided by the FBI and his clients' files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.

    When the ACLU's national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, "People have funded us and I think they expect a return."
  • JeremyR||

    But what about all the things Ford said that proved not to be true?

    What about the fact that all the other people she mentioned were witnesses, said they didn't know what she was talking about. When someone says something happened, and not one, but the 4 people she says was present deny it, it didn't happen unless there's some conspiracy.

  • MasterThief||

    It's worth considering they could be conspiring in Kavanaugh's favor or the favor of the establishment. It's worth considering there is possibly a conspiracy on either or both sides. What has been presented as "evidence" certainly makes Ford's testimony less reliable. From there we must question if such evidence is reliable and if not then who is it being tainted to favor.
    I find it likely that Ford and Democrats are guilty of knowingly pushing a false accusation in order to benefit their political initiatives. I also think Kavanaugh lied about stupid details in his testimony to avoid embarrassment. I don't know early 80s prep school slang, but the only definition of "devil's triangle" I'm aware of is a 2 guy 1 girl threesome. In his Fox interview he also dodged whether he knew Ford. While it is understandable for an innocent person to dodge such questions to avoid embarrassment it doesn't do any favors to his credibility.
    Putting the confirmation behind us, I am curious if there will be any followup on any of this. My suspicion is that the allegation will be held over his head in perpetuity sans additional corroboration. It's interesting that after sexual allegation smears we never seem to hear anything after the the political effect has been resolved. Did we learn anything more about Moore after he became politically irrelevant.

  • Heraclitus||

    Trump authentic? Hmmm. I suppose in the winking con-man sort of way. This author seems to assume that everyone is in on the con and that there are no marks. Well, maybe Liberals are the marks because he gets them so outraged. No, I don't believe that. I think Trump is a genuine con and his "tell it like it is" shtick is theater. This is not authenticity. It's something, but it is not authenticity.

  • Benitacanova||

    Good lord woman - what?

  • Fooseven||

    Stream of consciousness...does reason pay by the word?

  • Tony||

    This world will never find its way until the American rightwing media falls into a sinkhole and all of its victims see the light or die.

  • Sevo||

    Die in a fire, asshole.

  • Tony||

    Tucker Calrson is not the font of all wisdom, in case you couldn't figure that out by his face, you stupid fucking retard.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    No Tony, Rev. Kirkwood, Michael Hihn, et al: We deplorable bitter clingers will never see "your" light; no, we are going to stand fast in the way of your ever seeing the culmination of your dreams, being a "rational" progressive paradise where the self appointed elite rule and the rubes just shut the fuck up and do as they are told.

    This is what you are here to hear, right?

  • TxJack 112||

    Authenticity is a buzzword. It is no different that riveting or compelling which were used to describe Dr. Ford's testimony. The problem is, none of these words are accurate when describing the truth. They are words more suited for a critic's review of a movie or a book. When you are talking about truth, you should be seeking FACTS, not authenticity. The danger of the #MeToo movement is they are no concerned with facts. They only want people to focus on the authenticity or the compelling narrative of a story. They want to convict men of crimes when no actual evidence exists ignoring the fact when you make it acceptable to punish some without due process, you make it much, much easier to punish ALL without due process. For people who claim the world has changed, they are actually trying to take us back to the McCarthy era of the 1950s. All they have done is replace "communist" with "sexual predator".

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I totally agree, but I think we are headed to the 11th Century, before the Church outlawed trial by ordeal in favor of jury trials in 1215.

    I'm sure there are many who would have happily thrown Kavanaugh into a pot of boiling oil; guilty or not they would have gotten their way, which is pretty much what the past couple of weeks [metaphorically] have been about.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Some folks almost everyone agrees do not deserve it—your Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys. Those who commit violent or myriad crimes. Whether Brett Kavanaugh falls into this category remains an open question."

    And you must leave it at that? Somehow or other Kavanaugh is sort of kind of in the same category, a committer of "violent or myriad crimes" as Bill Cosby? By all means please explain this position, other than that is just how you want it to be.

    Not credible at all. By any possible stretch of an imagination.

  • Ben1234||

    A lot of women operate in gray areas sexually.... Men just don't whine about every last distasteful thing a woman has done.

  • a tandem||

    There is as much evidence that Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a drunk, accuser or rapist as there is that Kavanaugh is

  • Dadlobby||

    Welcome to (anti) family and matrimonial courts, http://nymensactionnetwork.org.....dangerous/

  • Marshal||

    But what about Jack Smith IV?

    When will women treating men like shit in their personal lives become a fireable offense?

  • styopa||

    If he responded with a human level of anger at 100+ million people and several news networks pillorying him in a clearly POLITICAL attach for being a rapist, he "was partisan" or "too emotional".
    If he didn't respond with any feeling, he'd have been attacked for being an emotionless robot.

    I don't feel that ANYTHING good comes from validating these political punji stakes as anything but what they are - primitive and feces-smeared traps from which there is no escape, particularly when the perpetrators have the majority of professional media as (at least) philosophical fellow-travelers if not outright pawns.

    Lindsay Graham is right in calling out this crap for what it is.

  • seahorsedan||

    When did this issue become exclusively a one-way proposition? Pardon the pun.
    Am I the only person that sees the irony that all the women that ever offered sexual favors to weak men for advancement or a bigger paycheck and were shunned in polite society are now victims, not to mention "survivors"? I concur with McGowan's conclusion. The MeToo movement is sitting on a goldmine they have long since played out by choice. Weather it was for a pay raise or a movie part it was their option to use their assets however they chose in the moment. Actually what Kris Long said about the "facts of life" is what Ford's allegation was the response it was intended to generate. Brett Kavanaugh never even bit on the bait. He never once attempted to rationalize that "17-year-old boys are going to misbehave from time to time as they begin to attempt relationships with the opposite sex," for one second. The path he chose exposed himself to the perjury trap that if anyone could link him to Ford in any way, shape or form from his high school years his goose would be cooked. No one made any connection what so ever. That is how he was exonerated and then confirmed.

  • Jim82||

    From Day 1 Kavanaugh had 48 confirmed votes against him just because Trump had nominated him. 48 dedicated resistance voters who would not have cared if he had been Jesus Christ, Mohatma Ghandi, Fidel Castro, Mother Teresa, Josef Stalin, or Ho Chi Minh - they were not concerned about his qualifications, only the opportunity to score political points.

    It would have been fun to see the Democrat strategy if Kavanaugh had been forced to withdraw and Trump submitted Amy Barrett's name just prior to the November elections - talk about frightened politicians scrambling for cover!

  • ||

    I think those 48 would have voted YES for Josef Stalin.

  • Tionico||

    When Ford's accusations first surfaced, I was not too surprised or shocked... but as the story unfolded, I became not shocked but angry... SHE was on a mission, guarding her own hand and playing just enough to put Kavanaugh in a bad light and raise questions about his suitability for office. Then word got out about Feinstein's handling of the whole debacle on her part. Hooboy, we've got a thinly veiled plot unfolding here... a whole lot like the "russian collusion" charade other operatives are pressing. As the specific details kept coming from Ford, her "authenticity" was revealed as wholly lacking, along with DieFie's. Then her lies began to roll.. the fable about "the second door", (and how the dates did not even make her claim possible) the fact that NONE of her "friends" remembered anything she was asserting, her false claim she'd never coached anyone on how to beat a polygraph (when one of the women she had coached sat right behind her as she lied), her connexions with GPS Fusion, changing details of her fable....... now she needs to be authentically charged with her perjury, defamation, character assassination, and the waste of a huge pile of our tax dollars and time. Perhaps she can authentically repent and make at least a lahf hearted attempt at "redeeming" herself as she whiles away the days in the place she deserves to occupy for some time into the future.

  • Rob Misek||

    I thank Trump for being unconventional.

    His opponents don't have a valid playbook and their schemes are obvious.

    The media has lost all credibility.

    The bimbos actually opposed due process.

    It's perfect.

  • Socialmisfit||

    Is it ironic that the add spaces on this site around this very article are full of images of sexually suggestive women as click-bait?

    It seems to me that a lot of males and females have their morality corrupted by media and our "anything goes sexuality liberal progressive march", and that the politics of the left have exploiting this in the PC correctness and identity politics space of holding men to a performance expectation that is a funky form of weird puritanism.

    How does #MeToo jibe with Spring Break?

    Sexual assault and rape... these seem to me a pretty bright line. But sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances... it seems we have gone extreme in what we are accepting as persecute-able.

  • Rob Misek||

    In case you haven't noticed these sex clowns have the advantage.

    Look how close they came to denying a Supreme Court judge due process.

    They get away with the murder of 750,000 innocent children every year in the US alone.

    They have established the denial of equal opportunity to white men through affirmative action.

    Society isn't on a slippery slope, it has fallen down the stairs.

  • MSimon||

    They get away with the murder of 750,000 innocent children every year in the US alone.

    I wouldn't take it too seriously. It is mostly Democrats.

  • Penny_Worth||

    Authenticity is a hard thing to come by. The left and right are so polarized (just look at our last two presidents if you wonder about this!) that it is turning off a large part of the electorate. Part of the authenticity described here does involve forgiveness, as Ms. Nolan Browne aptly points out. Just as none of us, according to a Stanford-Milgram study are either qualified to lead or follow without a strong moral compass (and I do *not* mean either a conservative or liberal one), so we are doing ourselves as well as those we forgive a favor when we choose to forgive them. But then, my favorite libertarian said as much when He described the bind we put ourselves in when we choose not to. (As well as when he forgave those who called for his death) (libertarianvindicator.com) (not the full link)

  • Rob Misek||

    Authenticity is the easiest thing there is.

    You are the ONLY one responsible for your authenticity. Nobody can take it from you.

    Here is the definition of authentic "not false or copied; genuine; real:"

    Reality is not defined by perception. Perceptions can be faulty while reality can't be.

    If you are phoney, you aren't authentic and no amount of forgiveness will make it so.

    If you are true, you are authentic.

  • MSimon||

    Always be sincere whether you mean it or not - Flanders and Swann.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    I agree but if someone is genuinely phoney doesn't that make them authentic in their falsehoods? Just asking.

  • Rob Misek||

    I think that if a genuinely phoney person existed they would be ridiculed as irrational.

    A little like Trump.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    Bingo!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online