I’m curious how you were able to form such strong opinions on these topics, when you largely punted on giving specific views of the pandemic by stating you weren’t qualified on medicine and following Fauci’s opinion would be an appeal to authority. I find it tough to believe you followed that same standard before diagnosing the lefts insanity.

Is the last sentence supposed to read "...didn't follow that same standard..."?

Not really sure what you mean. I know more about some areas than others, of course. I don't think I've made a strong argument using covid in particular, have I? Because I feel less informed on it. I guess you're referring to me commentating on the extant narratives?

I think it’s correct as written. It just sort of strains credulity. Maybe you’re some kind of gender theory and biology expert who is only vaguely aware there is a pandemic going on. Or maybe it’s way easier for you to pick out anti-left talking points than anti-right ones. Which is fine, but maybe should be acknowledged.

You seem to be getting emotional, but I never accused you of being pro Gohmert. I was just questioning your motivations in trying to punt so much on what I would have thought would be a clear issue for a group psychology expert.

I mean, sure, the NBA has shitty politics towards China, we don't disagree on that. Where we disagree is that you were using the NBA to advance a claim about "the Left" ("the Left denying ... the Uigher genocide in China") that was entirely untrue!

I don't think I misread anything. My ?????? was because I strongly suspect you are doing a massive butchering of the meaning of "due process" to arrive at your conclusion there. Whose due process was violated in the course of MeToo?

There is a group here who really dislikes ANY criticism of the left.

Anyone who is accused and enters a state of public disgrace or loses a career without due process. Are you asking me to go find examples? I haven't kept a log of them, but it looks like this guy wrote an account of his story dealing with a false accusation.

I think the increased accountability and awareness of abuse was a positive thing and still an incomplete process, fwiw. I'm just saying I think it is insane to throw out the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.

Yeah, not to get too emotional here, but if you're on the fence about the usefulness of facemasks it seems like this is something you ought to be looking into right now. There's a rather nasty virus going around, idk if any of your podcasts have mentioned it.

It does seem that way.

Yep, this is what I thought your issue was.

Here's the thing: there's no "due process" for losing your employment in this country, at least not in most states. Now, if that state of affairs bothers you, welcome comrade! Congrats on being a proud leftist. But if the only time you demand "due process" for someone getting fired from their job is on the occasion when that person was accused of sexually assaulting somebody, uh, yeah, gonna have to LOL heartily at your inconsistent demands for workplace protections.

"Due process" is a legal term. You're butchering its use outside the legal system because you think it makes your argument look better.

Is this forum some sort of training ground for novice undercover right wingers? None of you guys are particularly convincing, but I guess that's why you need the practice.

I think it's pretty clear what I mean: Simply being accused should not lead to extreme alteration of someone's life. And no, that's not the only time I would demand due process.

And anyways, Merriam Webster says due process is "a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles" That fits with my usage.

That’s a criminal standard that has NEVER applied to things like employment or career advancement. It’s definitely not a “ Me Too” specific thing. For generations the whole concept of gay men having beards was partly because not having a wife was detrimental to their careers as people would question their sexuality. Not to mention the whole red scare. So the idea that these protections existed and are now being thrown out is just historically ignorant.

Lol I was truly confused by this post until I googled it and found out what "beard" meant. I was sitting there for like 2 minutes trying to figure out how actual beards would work in this scenario.

I think the mods should be informed that ecriture is publicly disgracing a poster without following formal due process.

What are the "formal proceedings" with "established rules and principles" that are "carried out regularly" for firing someone accused of sexual assault? And what is your evidence that, whatever these things are, "the left" opposes them, besides the book you linked written by a fabulously wealthy and successful lawyer?

Maybe, but what was the poster wearing?

Irrelevant to my point, I'm simply saying I am for due process, not trial by public opinion, and that to be willfully against it is an example of gross ideology recently embraced by the left. I am pro-gay career advancement, if that needs to be said?

If you agree with the statement "A man/woman should not lose their career based on an unsubstantiated accusation." then we are on the same page, at least about that one point.

But again, you are pretending like these due process protections existed then ME Too came along. That’s just a fictional retelling of the story to cast Me Too as villainous and destroying real protections that actually existed when they never did

NLRB, OSHA, EEOC, tort law, et al., all say hi!

I think it’s sort of an outdated term. But I thought the phrase I actually hear my gay friends now jokingly use for their female friends wouldn’t get past the language filter.

Great - where are the rulings from those organizations ordering accused sexual predators to be restored to their positions when accusations against them were unsubstantiated? That would surely prove that due process was violated!

So since Me Too hasn’t got rid of any of that we should be all cool.

I’ve actually never heard right wingers reference it except to criticize the NBA and BLM, which is pretty crazy.

It's an objection to one facet of the new phenomenon which has empowered women to come out with stories of abuse. As I said, I think it's important that abuse gets reported, and the environments have been super toxic towards those who experience abuse in the past, so that needed to change. I also object to the mob ruining peoples' lives based on unsubstantiated accusations. We might disagree about the extent to which that's happening, but surely not whether that specific element is healthy, right?

Bleh, I just feel gross after all this. I feel like I'd probably get along with a lot of you guys irl, but man, either this format, or--maybe--the group dynamic involved in this discussion does not feel productive.

I don’t think there has been anything particularly heated about this discussion. This is probably what it’ll be like going forward given this is largely a politics forum. You can definitely ask the mods to lock if you don’t feel like continuing.