Indeed. High profile setbacks like this are just uuuuuuuuuuuuugh. Like, yay, consider a grift, but consider ruining it for literally every other woman trying to tell her story. It's an S-tier form of selfishness.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tara Reade appears to have lied under oath about her education, defense lawyers seek to get convictions overturned in cases where she testified
- Thread starter infamous5445
- Start date
Claims getting "dissected" doesn't seem like an issue to me? Being silenced due to power, money, or threats is a big problem, yes. But the fact that claims get reviewed under scrutiny, in an objective, logically sound manner, shouldn't be seen as a problem. The review process includes both persons - the accuser and accused are held under scrutiny. How is that wrong? A sexual assault claim is a serious, serious thing. Of course it should be held to high scrutiny, otherwise the minor chance of something like Reade's accusation happening occurs, along with all the damage that incurs. And in the case of accusing a presidential candidate, it's obviously an even bigger deal - millions of people's livelihoods are affected by the validity and perception of the claim.
It is unfortunate that women are underreporting sexual assault due to fear of threats and use of power, but that should not mean we need to halt objective discussion on these claims. There has to be a better solution.
Last edited:
There really needs to be a seperate thread to discuss the seperate issue of how we as a community and individually respond to something like this. The thread has been massively derailed and is going all over the place.
My main take is that this is yet another lesson on why waiting to hear the full story before making assumptions is so important. Also make sure you have the facts before insulting people and making accusations.
There has been a lot of nastiness flung in all directions.
My main take is that this is yet another lesson on why waiting to hear the full story before making assumptions is so important. Also make sure you have the facts before insulting people and making accusations.
There has been a lot of nastiness flung in all directions.
The mods have already declared that saying you want to wait for more information is tantamount to saying the victim is lying.
Yeahhhhh, but it feels like this should have a bit more attention given it, if only because it'll prevent people needlessly posting and endangering their accounts.
We're often entrained to view things like a criminal court of law. The criminal justice system is designed around two things:
1. The focus is not on the victim, but on the criminal. The idea is to catch the bad guy, and the victim is a tool by which you get information that can catch the bad guy.
2. If you are not absolutely certain that someone is guilty, you're entirely entire willing to let them go even if you concede that they're probably guilty.
This makes total sense for, say, a mugging. You don't know or care about the criminal and they probably won't run into you again. But it falls apart when the activity hides along the lines of normal social behaviour, where the accused has a relationship with the victim and approaching them the wrong way can cause disruptions, and so on.
What full story? This changes nothing about how we approach rape and its victims.
I'm generally curious how much these cases will stay in the limelight on a national scale. If a minimum of 6 cases and a maximum of 20 might be impacted, that's quite a story. Of course, there's more pressing things going on, but still, I hope this doesn't completely vanish in a week or two.
No, ignoring things like backing up people's claims and gathering info is a bad idea.
Mob justice/Inquisition styled courts is a dark path for legal reasons let alone public opinion.
Did I say anything about mob justice? There are more than two options here, like restorative justice. I'm just outlying why the mindset of "get the bad guy" is not universally the correct option.
And, in fact, we already use slightly different systems for different purposes, which is how you get things like OJ Simpson being charged for wrongful death even though he could not be found guilty of murder; you don't need to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt for wrongful death because it's not a crime.
Part of "believe women" in that you're believing them in a context that is stacked against them, and every effort will be made to disprove what they say from there.
Last edited:
Thanks for making this post, you echo my thoughts perfectly. Very demotivating to see so many people here devalue investigative journalism as "character assassination." If the allegation is found to be false, then I'm going to be even more disappointed that a spotlight was shown on this. Allegations of sexual assault are given such a high degree of scrutiny that I'm afraid that, if this is indeed a false accusation, it might set back public perception of what #MeToo originally aimed to accomplish.
Exactly. This is going exactly the same way Amber Heard did, where her case is used to handwave other claims of sexual assault because the women are "just as bad" or "too unstable". Heck, look at how much shit Stormy Daniels got and how quickly everyone moved on from her story. Men will historically look for any excuse to defend each other and the whole point of the MeToo movement was so that women could be heard and not ignored.
With cases like these, the same shit always happens. Someone earlier called it a smear article before being banned for it and the fact so many people (who I assume are mostly men given this website's demographic) immediately jumped to defend the integrity of the article is kinda proof of that. It's like people magically forget all the news organisations racing each other to dig up dirt on Tara Reade are owned by old white men who are either friends with Biden or donate to his campaign.
A woman accuses a high profile man of sexual harrasment or assault and now her entire life is being picked apart to find every little flaw and every little mistake to throw doubt on her claim. Men don't want to believe what she says is true so they look for any excuse they can to justify saying it isn't, a tactic made even more prevalent due to the current political climate.
All this is going to do is silence women. Which, let's be honest, is exactly the plan - as it always has been. Men like Harvey Weinstein are merely scapegoats, a way to fool women into thinking that things are changing while men pat themselves on the back and call themselves "progressive". Those same men who think as long as they let one guy go down every so often the rest of them will be left alone.
Well, whatever. I still believe Tara Reade. They can attack her character and dig up as much dirt on her as they want but, in the end, I don't trust politicians as far as I can through them. Especially if that politician was an old, white man who doesn't care if you think he's innocent or not because he knows you still have to vote for him and is very, very well connected. If we didn't live in a world where sexual assault was normalised and excused on practically a daily basis, this circus wouldn't even be necessary.
Can't read NYT, but from the threadmarks i'm understanding that she did not qualify to be an expert, or the experience she quoted to earn being an expert was exaggerated? Is that all? The thread is a mess to read.
Oh damn this is a bit messy.
But what is weird is that she somehow got into and finished Law school without a Bachelor's? Hard to believe that wasn't checked. With regards to the "Expert testimony" aspect I am not too worried, because she still has a law degree. But yeah you probably shouldn't lie about having a degree when you don't.
But what is weird is that she somehow got into and finished Law school without a Bachelor's? Hard to believe that wasn't checked. With regards to the "Expert testimony" aspect I am not too worried, because she still has a law degree. But yeah you probably shouldn't lie about having a degree when you don't.
That's a really good way to put it. I found myself going to *shudder* Reddit instead when a new development broke just to read the discussion.
Last edited:
The problem is she committed perjury while under oath as an expert witness. Even if you don't think lying about having a degree is that bad...perjury is still perjury and can mess up cases.
I get that, but you still need basic vetting and info gathering.
Like just taking people at their word and nothing else is a bad idea unless you personally know that person.
And even then you should still do it.
More or less, but a bit more devastating at this juncture:
-Reade doesn't have a degree she said she did have (at this point in the reporting).
-At least 6, but it appears as many as possibly 20 cases involving her expert opinion in court have been called into question which could lead to mistrials etc.
-This would also likely mean she committed perjury on the stand for said cases.
This is proof that a) people are fine jumping on news organisations when it's something that doesn't fit their own preconceived notion of a story, and in doing so reveals their own bias, b) people are comfortable posting conspiracy theories on Era, and c) no article on Earth can convince people into accepting that maybe Reade doesn't have a lot of credibility here (which, by the way, is not the same as saying it definitely didn't happen).
Meanwhile, I finally put my finger on what it was that bothered me about this:
If we take it as read that people read/watch the news to find out about the world, and that they have favoured news organisations not just because of their political views, but also because of the respect they afford the staff, then what "I want to wait for more info" is really saying is this:
I want to wait until a person who is skilled at reporting and verifying facts, and who belongs to an organisation I trust, gives me more information on this subject. I do not have enough information to form an opinion and/or judgement that satisfies me.
And saying that that is tantamount to calling someone a liar is... Well, it's not good, shall we say?
Last edited:
She claims she did an undergrad degree and then studied law, but the university she studied her undergrad at has no record of her graduating and she has offered no proof she graduated.
She also claimed she worked as a legislative aide who worked with Biden on the Violence Against Women Act, this also appears to be untrue as she was not a legislative aide at all, she managed interns in Biden's office.
Given the above, she has been used as an expert witness in many court cases and has lied about her education/experience on the stand. At least 6 of these cases are now being reexamined.
I was fully in the Biden did it camp but after all this I don't think she has a shred of credibility. Embellishment on a resume is one thing but she's so far past that with these lies.
I'm not confident enough to say that the rape definitely didn't happen or anything like that but for me this is enough to dismiss her.
I'm not confident enough to say that the rape definitely didn't happen or anything like that but for me this is enough to dismiss her.
See this take being posted on here a lot and it makes zero sense. "Technical" terms or concepts that exist within the legal framework are not just confined within it. The basis of any legal framework is morality. As a clear example; the definition that murder is being "bad" is enshrined within law, but no one's turns around and says "we're not in court so we can't use the idea that murder is bad". No. Murder being bad comes from mortality which in turns feeds into the legal system. The legal system is simply a way to technically apply morality. So when someone says "innocent until proven guilty", no that is not just a technical legal term only used in court. It's a moral concept that's been deemed so critically fundamental that it's been universally applied to basically every society in history and in turn every legal system. It's always so extremely bizarre to me how people think they can just brush it off as a court term and think that's it they've successful dealt with that object, like no, it doesn't work like that.
If in terms of your entire moral outlook, if you don't believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilt" at all then fine say that. Then that can be another discussion all together.
Last edited:
Honestly, I think people like Halper, Grim and Robinson need to be held accountable for this mess. I'm not even getting into the merit of Reade's accusation, but if they had done anything to vet her before pushing her and her claims out into the world to serve their own political agenda, she would've been spared a whole lot of pain. There was always a reason major publications never came too close to her story, and it's not because they are an arm of the DNC propaganda machine.
That makes no sense. Waiting for more info literally means you'll withhold to make a judgement on either side.
This specific situation is not proof of that at all. This is a very serious issue.
Dismissing this as a smear article is crazy.
Tara Reade appears to have committed perjury. She also committed check fraud and defrauded a charity. She conned landlords into renting her properties for low fees and then fucked them over. She lied about the position she held at Biden's office and used that lie to further her interests. It's insulting to victims to paint Tara Reade as anything other than an outlier in the "hey, every time they look into her, they find either a lie or a crime" department. That's absolutely 100% not usual in these cases. It didn't happen when people looked into Blasey-Ford, for instance, nor Weinstein's victims.
She is emphatically a public figure at this point. As well, things like committing a massive amount of perjury is extremely relevant to her accusations against Biden because committing perjury is a person legally and officially saying that their words cannot be trusted, even under oath.
And she did it at least 20 times.
Honestly, this enrages me. Poor people don't go around conning landlords and screwing them out of rent while trashing the property. Poor people don't defraud charities. This idea that it's normal for people who are struggling financially to lie, cheat and steal is ridiculously insulting.
With all due respect, this is one of the least nuanced and narrow-minded posts I've seen in a long time.
It's important to keep an open mind and wait for more concrete information to come to light. Take such accusations seriously and be willing to believe it, naturally, but there is no shame in someone not being sold wholly one way or the other nor does it mean that they automatically assume the person is lying.
However, the legal system does not view innocent until proven guilty as universal, particularly for civil cases. So the morality forming laws also states that, no, we don't always want to start with the assumption that the accuser is wrong - which innocent until proven guilty logically requires - and work from there.
That poster laughed off perjury then disappeared until they saw a new angle to work.
Not worth the effort.
This is my hope.
The thought that someone innocent got locked up is probably worst case scenario in my mind right now.
Basically. 'Attacking her character' in this case seems to be exposing a pattern of verifiable falsehoods. In this very specific instance, that consists of the university and its then-president Ms Murdoch -who Reade says gave her a secret degree but without providing the degree because Reade didn't ask for it (???) - stating that she did not have a degree. Dismissing this is basically saying 'fake news' because it goes against the narrative you would want.
I don't think that's quite right. In a civil case, guilt must still be established via trial before any financial judgement is made. That burden is still on the plaintiff. I believe the main difference is that in a criminal case guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case the burden of proof is lower.
Agreed. And if Reade's testimony did put an innocent person away... God, I really don't want to think about that possibility. It's too infuriating.
What is "enthusiastic doubt"? You're basically confirming that questioning these stories in good faith is a bannable offense. This is a really weak response to legitimate criticism of your team imo.
Last edited:
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, yes, but they're proving damages. "Innocent until proven guilty" principle is specifically a principle of criminal law.
The fact of the matter is that when people using legal principles to argue or define their moral stances outside of the court of law, it's usually legal principles as they absorb them through pop culture, which are often presented in ways that are meant to be more exciting than to represent reality or educate.
Seems to me like there's plenty of reason to doubt Reade even if this particular story ends up not being true.
No, innocence is still assumed.
You don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
When you get away with decades of lies you do it more and more, not less. That's universal. Expecting women and minorities to be different denies them their agency. Equality means anyone can be capable of bad things.
Yeah, totally agreed there. I'm just surprised how this slipped through the law school vetting.
The truth is we speak of moderation like it's a hive mind but it's not. Some moderators are great. Some moderators are incompetent. Some moderators are fair-minded, others are not. Some are too easily outraged, some are more chill. They're human.
So in the end, getting banned or not is too often a luck of the draw thing. And if you're a mod and you see your "comrade" ban someone for something you wouldn't, you're not going to side with the poster about it. You'll let it go. Again, it's human. Even if we give cops shit about the thin blue line thing. Cops are human.
Some places over-ban, some places under-ban, no forum is magical. This place definitely over-bans. Yes there are lots of assholes, nazis out there but there are also people with bad hair days. There are also misunderstandings. This place definitely needs a smarter approach to its moderation system. Thread quality has gone down from where it was as a result of smart, yet abrasive people leaving. I've seen people say sensible things and be banned.
I think Ya'll need to try and innovate. Come up with better forms of punishment, or more granular forms of muzzling people out of line. Just relying on current policies and best judgement is not enough. I feel there is a whole technological aspect to this that is being woefully under-used.
For example. Some people post very low quality content. One liners. Old shitty memes. They do nothing ban-worth but they clutter threads with time-wasting filler. Why not limit those people's post number per day to encourage longer posts instead of one-liners? Quota system in general seem like something worth exploring. Both for creating threads and posts.
Last edited: