I’m hoping you see the obvious flaw in your argument here

This may be true, but it’s not applicable in this case

Each and every one of these senators have demonstrated that they at least understand the standard that should be applied here they are just choosing not to do so because it is politically convenient for them to ignore them - that’s not stupidity

The issue here is that the first case should not have been allowed, not that the second case should be (this is the flaw btw)

*that we know of

Is this surprising to you?

That's letting them off the hook. It's far past stupidity and into the real of evil maliciousnes

No, but it is still worth mentioning

Agreed. Was just curious. I have given up giving the benefit of the doubt to nearly anyone anymore.

Maybe that makes me jaded, maybe that means they won. But it's true. Any benefit of the doubt from me is now earned, Not granted

I don’t think what you are describing is refusing to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think what you are describing is far closer to refusing to believe an addict when they say “this time will be different” while making no actual changes to their life that would indicate that anything has changed after they have already made and broken that promise hundreds of times in the past

At some point there is just no more doubt to give the benefit of

Vox’s The Weeds is absolutely slaying him over this, especially in relation to some guy (kuzinscky?) he used to clerk for. Compelling arguments he should be nowhere near the seat.

Edit: more accurately: he’s exactly the sort of person who should be nowhere near the seat and yet the system inexorably promotes towards it.

It is at least worth noting that all of this conversation has managed to distract us from at least two instances where he almost certainly committed perjury in order to avoid complications to his nomination which really shouldn’t be left out of the conversation since they are fairly directly relevant to the credibility of his denial in this instance, but that kinda feels like piling on at this point

From Lenin's Imperialism:

Yeah I thought it was good and agreed with what you said. Except for the last part—idk that in communism that the laborers work belongs to them. I would say in communism the labor belongs to society. In socialism the labor belongs to the laborer.

Yup. Part of vox’s argument was that his stance is that as a clerk he didn’t see any of the rampant sexual harassment in his office that was so legendary it was open knowledge in legal circles, and his response to its revelation is not introspection about how he could miss it, but confidence that he’s therefore got clean hands.

Senators, I agree. The idiot public at large? Meh, they’ll believe whatever they’re told to believe.

The question of which individuals are aware of the truth but knowingly parrot the lies/distortions/half-truths/cover stories and which people actually believe them is something I wonder all the time

I've been thinking about this. Because yeah, it doesn't really feel right somehow, like there's a certain asymmetry to things that makes what would otherwise seem like normal moderation feel wrong. It doesn't quite sit right. Note that this post isn't really intended to be a criticism of soah or anything. I was just reading this story and it crystallized some of these thoughts for me, so here they are, stream of consciousness style (but read the linked story):

I realize that, for myself, almost all of the political/social topics I'm interested in are fairly abstract for me. I am, as birdman would say, le petit bourgeois. I find it easy to practice and place value on notions of civility and discourse because of that. I am comfortably upper-middle class, white, male, and I recognize (although again, perhaps abstractly) that my ability to view these issues theoretically and abstractly is a privilege tied to all those statuses I enjoy.

That's true on most topics, but it's amplified on issues related to gender, at least as they are discussed in this forum, because almost all of the participants in the conversations here are likewise male. And I reads stories like the one linked above (and it's not the first I've read, and then there's other more scientific data) and I realize just how skewed my perception of the world is likely to be. It's not just a question of being privileged enough to be able to view these issues abstractly, it's that the experiences of many women, and thus the very justifiable sense of outrage that women like crossnerd feel, is mostly invisible in terms of my direct experience.

And yet the very bounds of what we take to be acceptable or civil discourse is informed by that same skewed perception that follows from the fact that we mostly all occupy such a similar social position with respect to these issues. By "we" I just mean the overwhelmingly male group that decides the bounds of civil discourse. We set those bounds on the basis of some assumptions about the world that are very open to challenge.

Realizing some of this over the last 4-5 years has made me more hesitant to criticize certain more "radical" attitudes than I would have been before. Radicalism in the face of some of the injustices of the world seems more justified, more reasonable, or at least understandable.

I don't know how that translates into trying to facilitate political discussions, exactly. But it inclines me to want to take into account those asymmetries I mentioned before, i.e. the fact that we a forum of men with one regular poster who is a woman. So if the one "radical" (or uncivil, if you prefer) voice on reproductive rights happens to also be the voice of the one person for whom those issues are especially personally relevant, that's something to pay attention to. In her other recent post about Ms. POG, crossnerd asked that men ought to listen to women on these issues. I think part of that probably necessarily involves being open to hearing expressions of outrage and disgust.

To be clear, I'm sure that everything above is subject to various caveats, qualifications, difficulties, or whatever. but I hope the general point was worth thinking about :P

I think that’s a very fair point, and I share your demographic limitations pretty completely and definitely realize the abstract nature of many of my political concerns. While I like to think that I am good at filtering my own self-interest from my beliefs I probably haven’t thought sufficiently about the way it may limit my understanding of how certain things viscerally impact others that don’t share my privilege

most def

if it was up to me cross would be boss

also, it might be helpful to think of other situations where we are affected personally... possibly jewish discrimination for mets, for example. i know i've experienced racism. maybe some of you were bullied for being nerds, or whatever. of course it's not exactly the same thing as being a woman and having that set of problems. but maybe it can help us relate.

thinking of someone you love in that situation is another route to better understanding... a lover, a relative, a close friend suffering from discrimination and physical and mental harm. that should be enough to send you over the edge with outrage.

In the real world it looks like they (Israel and France) are off trying to start WWIII in Syria again. Hopefully here in this thread nobody has had their feelings hurt recently.

i dont understand how it requires this to have empathy.

i'm a 6'6" white male lawyer former high school jock from a middle class or above nuclear family who has barely ever experienced even mild discomfort, and i can still see how i started from the 80 meter mark in the 100 meter sprint that is life...

I don’t think what I was talking about at least is a lack of empathy exactly, because while you have me slightly beat on some of the particulars I think our basic situation is similar enough and I too recognize my advantages and I think I do a good job of contextualizing that, but I don’t think even the most genuine and heartfelt empathy can replicate the reality of that being your life or affecting you personally - that experience is literally unknowable to me even if I think I can understand it intellectually

And this post represents a view that I reject pretty wholeheartedly. The idea that only “real suffering” is of any importance (especially when we are essentially powerless to do anything about it) is in practice a tool to absolve ourselves of any responsibility whatsoever to do what we can to make the world (or at least our little corners of it) more good and less wrong. I think it is a trite and callous perspective