miri, the professional downer (seriously, even the picture looks emo to me) has a post on
neutrality, and which naturally is against Woody Allen. Not really concerned by what she wrote - too tired to bother reading it, but a quick skim showed this bit, quoted from nut job marcotte (who is completely unbiased in situations like this, naturally):
P.S. My favorite commentary on the Woody Allen situation is a comment from this post by Amanda Marcotte:
Occam’s Razor:
Thesis 1: A mother who otherwise loves and cares for her children chooses to deliberately implant a memory of painful molestation to get back at her partner, and was so good at memory implantation, better even than Korean War interrogators, that the memory persisted into adulthood and was powerful enough that the daughter felt the need to be dragged through the mud and called a liar just for expressing it.
Thesis 2: A guy who has admitted to having sex with another minor, and who makes movies about how fun it is to fuck minors, actually abused a minor.
Wow. Such leap of logic. Much unlikely. So irrationality.
Never mind the bizarre sentence structure at the end - I think she's talking about the people who want to wait for evidence - but...wtf? Marcotte's thesis one has quite a few holes in it, and the whole hyperbolic memory implantation is just....umm...crazy talk. She really has no clue about how memory works, or how an abusive mother can influence the children (or father, but we're talking about Farrow, who apparently has her own issues). Children are manipulated like this all the time by one side or another. No need to make such a slanted and logically false "thesis". As for #2 - when has he admitted to having sex with a minor or made any movies about it? I admit I mostly ignore Allen and have no real idea of what he has done recently, but Soon Yi (I assume this is the minor) was, according to what I've read, of age (18+) at the time, or perhaps close to it, as near as they could figure out. I'm going by the recent article, not any other memory, so maybe I'm wrong. Is there something else, or are they naturally slanting the case?
Anyway, looking at Miri's piece a bit more, she does seem to be less on the side of rationality and more on the side of SJW witch burners with this piece. This comment alone -
(“Innocent until proven guilty!†is a lovely battle cry until you’re far from a court room and the question is whether or not to believe a woman who says very convincingly that your hero sexually abused her.)
is really misleading, and doesn't apply to many people. I have no stake in the Allen controversy, and really don't care either way - he's no hero of mine. But, the evidence needs to be looked at as neutrally and as unbiased as possible, including all the material (such as the fact that the evidence was not sufficient decades ago, but now that there is more time for memories to be manufactured, it somehow becomes more reliable?). You need to stay neutral and unbiased especially if it involves someone you know or care about/idol-hero worship/etc. She does make some good points, but in other cases seems to swing and miss completely while claiming it was a home run. Even the "convincingly" part is fallacious - how many people convincingly thought that Satanic groups were abducting and abusing babies, or that they have been picked up by UFOs and given the old anal probe, or how many are convinced they saw their dead grandmother...
:doh: