James Caruthers wrote:
It's happening, SJWs are trying to eliminate burden of proof for rape cases.
Stanford already uses the lowest burden of proof legally permissible, “preponderance of the evidence,†and young men now have fewer rights in college sex tribunals than illegals crossing the border, but for Dee, that's too many. She proceeded to mouth a hostility to due process that may be unprecedented in this blog's reporting, and that's saying a lot.
Stanford, Dee clucked, “puts so much emphasis on the burden of proof.†The school should not be focusing on “defending the perpetrator, because essentially burden of proof is a defense of the perpetrator.†Dee continued: “No one should have to†prove they’ve been raped. “You should take people at their word because nobody would lie about this kind of painful experience.â€
Thanks, SJWs. Thanks to you, I now believe ALL liberal/feminist women who claim to have been raped are lying unless and until they provide compelling evidence AND obtain a conviction in court.
Five years ago, I would absolutely have believed without question that a woman who claims to have been raped is probably telling the truth. But I have seen too much lying from SJWs and heard of too many cases in my own life of women (crack hos, disordered, mentally-ill women) lying about rapes to believe that nobody would ever lie about rape.
Can't help but notice the similarities between guys in college being accused of crimes and punished without evidence or a fair trial, and the plight of certain black Americans when accused of raping a white woman. Of course, since no ACTUAL witches are being burned or men being hung in the modern day, this is totes different. 8-)
The "nobody would lie about this!" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Lying, about anything, is incredibly easy. You just open your mouth and say something that isn't true. If you're particularly crafty you produce some fake evidence. People harp on and on how nobody would lie about this or about that, but it's only misplaced outrage for how much we don't like liars (or how much we're told we don't like liars, since when we lie we always have plenty of justifications for our behavior).
Lying about important things is actually easier than lying about petty bullshit, because if you say something that people deem important they're already eager to believe you. Lying is hard only for people who usually tell the truth and/or feel guilty about lying. If you practice your lies, and you think that your lie is actually a noble act or you just don't give me a damn, lying is the easiest thing in the world. Of course if you're dumb enough not to keep your lies straight, or if you're just plainly unlucky, you're going to get caught.
But if the punishment for your lie is a slap on the wrist or a stern warning, what's the big deal? If a man lies to his wife about not having any affairs, and after he's caught she forgives him, the message he gets (if he doesn't feel guilty) is "keep on lying, I'm actually fine with that".
Lying about rape is no different than lying about anything else.
The message that some people (like feminist blogger Catherine Pate) give to people who falsely accuse others of rape when they get caught is "Creating a safer space for people to retract their statements is nearly as important as creating safe space for actual rape victims. It’s incredibly wrong for people to give false rape accusations in the first place, but making it easier for people to retract false accusations can stop more damage from being done to all parties involved".
Which, for people who don't feel very guilty about lying, boils down to "If you falsely accuse someone of rape, retract your accusation and just say you're sorry, you're off the hook and nothing bad should happen to you. So keep on lying, we're kind of okay with that".
What do you think would happen in a world where the narrative is "always believe the accusers" and "false accusations aren't a big deal"? I suspect that we would have a huge spike in the number of false rape accusations, and if the system ditched the "innocent before proven guilty" principles, a large number of innocent people convicted of rape.
Even PZ and Lousy Canuck would have been convicted if we adopted Dee's standards. After all they were accused of rape/sexual assault, and according to Dee nobody would ever lie about that. Of course Dee is an extremist, but even the more "moderate" preponderance of evidence is a huge opportunity for people who want to make false accusations.
Every time a false accusation of rape is revealed to be fake SJWs bleat about how the real problem is the "rape epidemic", that if you're falsely accused you should take the false accusation as an opportunity to think about your life, that people who makes false rape accusations need "a safe space", etc.. Basically what they say is that false accusations aren't a big deal, they're actually kind of a noble act at times, and most importantly that people who make false rape accusations won't be punished.
It's a very ugly truth, but sadly there are some people who for one reason or another (mental illness, drug addiction, jealousy, bitterness about being cheated on, bitterness about a bad breakup) already want or even plan to false accuse someone of rape. When the SJWs tell those people that they're going to be believed no matter what, and even if they get caught they're getting away with it, some of those people will go ahead and do it, because the potential payoff of hurting people they hate is huge, and the risks of getting punished in a meaningful way are low.
That said I don't completely agree with James. I don't automatically disbelieve accusations of rape, I simply suspend my judgement on the truth of an accusation unless there is significant evidence and a conviction unless I personally know and trust the accuser.
Agnostic skepticism is sometimes mistaken for fence-sitting, but in the case of serious criminal allegations it's probably the best choice. I want accusations of rape made to the proper authorities to be taken seriously, to be investigated with thoroughness and professionalism.
If people aren't going to report their accusations to the authorities, if they're not going to let others put the accusations to test, I'll remain cautiously agnostic.They might be telling the truth, or they might not. If they're keeping the details and the evidence to themselves, we'll never know for sure.
