samiam
27d ago
Most of your post made some excellent points but I feel the final paragraph was not necessary, kind, nor true.
an infographic they made (and which doesn't render for me on the archived page—possibly a skill issue)
Yes, the infographic was removed from that page over the years. Here’s a picture of the infographic. As an aside, when Amanda Marcotte (a radical left-wing feminist, if you ask me) says the infographic is wrong, there probably are methodological issues with it.
Yes, I linked to that study, but since I linked to a contradicting study, I think it’s more fair and reasonable to conclude I don’t have an opinion either way than me making an “implication of equivalent credibility”. My general view is that I am not qualified to have a strong opinion on the issue, [1] although like you I think concluding only 0.2% of rape accusations are false is probably an emotional appeal which doesn’t survive cold logic (and even Amanda Marcotte feels that way, for the record). But I credit the Enliven project for at least showing their homework; most social media graphs like this are completely made up.
The only opinion I have is that there are enough false rape accusations out there that people accused of rape deserve due process and presumption of innocence, not this “believe all women” nonsense.
Something about that study, however, elicited a very intense emotional reaction from you, as evidenced by the bad faith accusations such as “throwing out links without reading them”.
When I read the entire PBS article, as I did when it first came out, my impression was that it discredited Reade’s accusation because, logistically, it just wasn’t possible for Biden to assault her that way in the place she claimed to have been assaulted.
The sense I get from other posters is a negative emotional reaction to PBS, since PBS is a “blue tribe” source of information, and some people here have a negative emotional reaction to any and all “blue tribe” sources. In the particular case of the Reade accusations, PBS had to present a strong case that Reade was full of it, but they had to, since their audience when they wrote that article had a large number of “believe all women” readers, do so in a way without directly contradicting the “believe all women” mantra, which is why the article presents a lot of evidence without making stronger conclusions.
Indeed, one thing I notice is that when I support the red tribe here, I get upvoted, but when I support the blue tribe, I get downvoted. I don’t think it’s helpful to be an echo chamber for either side, but since most places default to left-of-center opinions (where I often get downvoted and/or buried when I question blue tribe talking points), I also come here to try and get a balanced world view, ideally without excessive emotion.
[1] I do have strong opinions on other issues, such as the claim that 80% of the women sleep with 20% of the men, but that’s an issue I have researched deeply enough to have a strong opinion about.
She claimed in the complaint he wanted her to serve drinks. Other people said Biden wouldn’t ask a woman to serve drinks at a fundraiser in that manner, so the supposed complaint would clearly have false statements in it. Therefore the evidence points to there being no complaint. My argument was reasonable.
There were other arguments one could make that Reade's complaint was false, yes, which are also valid—you presented a different but also valid argument.
what happened to Tara's contemporaneous sexual harassment complaint?
There was no complaint because, as per the PBS article, people who worked with Biden did not corroborate Reade’s claim in the alleged complaint that she was asked to serve drinks.
What makes you think I didn’t read the article?
samiam
28d ago
Thanks for brining up the allegation against Kavanaugh, who, yes, is a supreme court justice today—we didn’t have a bunch of right wing political colleagues asking Kavanaugh to withdrawal after the allegation was made the way Platner right now is having a bunch of his left wing colleagues asking him to step down.
I actually have already directly addressed the allegation against Kavanaugh, as well as the allegations against Trump in this thread:
If he were a Republican, there’s a good chance he would still be standing (Kavanaugh, Trump, etc.) since conservatives are more inclined to believe in due process and presumption of innocence w.r.t. rape accusations.
Asking a bunch of people who worked or work for Biden if they thought he was a rapist while he is running for president is not a deep or serious investigation.
What constitutes a “serious investigation” in your book?
Keep in mind, the accusation happened in 2019, the alleged event happened in 1993, so we’re looking at a 26-year gap. They interviewed a bunch of people who were there, they checked out the architecture of the place where the rape supposedly happened.
What else could they do to investigate an event that supposedly happened 26 years before?
Now, if you ask me, if someone said “he raped me 26 years ago”, I would be very skeptical unless the person making the accusation had solid evidence backing up their claims. But, today in the post-woke era, there’s the notion that a man needs to prove his innocence if accused of any kind of sexual misconduct.
samiam
28d ago
I feel it was a through and honestly done investigation of what it was like at the time when Reade worked for Biden, and why her alleged sexual assault would had been just about impossible.
The layout of that route and building [where Reade alleged she was sexually assaulted by Biden] has not changed. A recent walk through that area showed the subway tunnel contains no out-of-view areas, like an alcove. The remaining portion of the route includes multiple stairwells as well as corridors lined with offices. It is a main thoroughfare for senators and staffers.
Some former staffers told the NewsHour that if Biden did assault Reade in any of these places, it would have been a brazen attack in an area with a high risk of being seen.
“When I worked in the Senate, it was always crowded [and] packed with lobbyists, staff and tourists,” said Sheila Nix, who was Biden’s chief of staff on the 2012 presidential campaign and previously worked as chief of staff to two other Democratic senators.
samiam
28d ago
There was a credible accusation against Biden and no one cared.
Ms. Reade’s accusation was taken very seriously and thoroughly investigated. One deep investigation concluded the “rape”, as described by Ms. Reade, was not feasible.
Whether it was necessary to go to that depth to prove Biden’s innocence is another question for another day.
samiam
28d ago
Just because Ms. Racicot said that Platner had non-consensual sex with him doesn’t mean that he did, of course. Right now, it’s a “he said—she said” situation, and there’s no way a prosecutor could charge Platner with no more evidence than her testimony, [1] but since there is a leftist “believe all women” streak in the Democratic party, since she has made the claim, Platner’s career is ruined. If he were a Republican, there’s a good chance he would still be standing (Kavanaugh, Trump, etc.) since conservatives are more inclined to believe in due process and presumption of innocence w.r.t. rape accusations.
About that “believe all women” streak, it’s an open question what percent of rape accusations are false rape accusations. I will list two sources with different conclusions:
- Source 1 claims 0.2% of rape accusations are false.
- Source 2 claims 28.8% of rape accusations are false.
Both sources show their homework, so people can look at them and see which source is more reasonable in its methodology.
[1] If she made a complaint right away after the 2021 alleged rape, they could had used a rape kit to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they had sex. It would then be a discussion about whether the sex was consensual, but police could had looked for signs of force being applied in the crime scene when it was still fresh. Five years after the fact, proving it happened is nay to impossible.
While the post the parent links to is not a Gish Gallop, I will give an example of a Gish Gallop a leftist publication posted last year and how I rebutted it.
Context: Charlie Kirk was a conservative activist who was assassinated by a leftist last year for his conservative beliefs. After he died, many leftists smeared his name and attacked him. I responded to one particular attack against Kirk which, yes, was a Gish Gallop: Making a bunch of weak arguments, and implying the other person needs to refute each and every weak argument.
In my response, I only addressed one weak argument:
Now, I haven’t looked at every single claim made against Charlie Kirk made in these Gish Gallops of attacks against him, so I will look at just one claim used to attack him: The claim that he advocated stoning gays.
This claim was made out of content; Charlie Kirk was making a rebuttal to the claim that “Love your neighbor” (Luke 10:27) means we must not consider gay pride marches sinful. He himself was not saying gay people should be stoned to death. This claim is so inaccurate, Stephen King apologized for making it
[...]Based on the one claim I have taken the time to investigate, they seem to be lying [...] when going after Charlie Kirk.
samiam
1mo ago
One can do what we do on Ycombinator: link to the other discussion
I think there are two issues here which I will only touch on:
- Has antisemitism become a cause which leftists support? If so, that’s anything but classical liberalism, which believes in tolerance towards all and opposed racism as much as prejudice against someone for their religion. The parent post makes the case that people on the right oppose antisemitism, and while DailyKos (far left progressive) hasn’t touched on this particular issue, Reddit (leftist) also appears to oppose his antisemitism
- Is cancel culture OK for the right to do? We discussed this nearly a year ago in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death, and my attitude is that since the radical left played dirty pool with cancel culture, the right responded in kind. Leftists should never had gotten people fired in 2020 for saying things like “post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote”.
samiam
1mo ago
The workarounds don’t always work. It’s a cat and mouse game and sometimes NYT is able to block archive.today.
samiam
1mo ago
Since the NY Times article linked in the parent post is paywalled, here is an AI summary of the article’s contents:
AI Generated Text Follows
Detailed Summary
This article examines allegations and personal accounts from several women who dated Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maine. The story emerges amid growing scrutiny of Platner's personal history, including reports that he exchanged sexual messages with women while married, previous controversial online comments about women and rape, and questions surrounding a tattoo associated with Nazi symbolism.
Central Theme
The article presents a divided portrait of Platner. Some former partners describe him as kind, caring, and supportive, while others recount relationships they characterize as emotionally damaging, volatile, and, in one case, physically intimidating. The piece explores how these accounts complicate Platner's campaign narrative of personal redemption following struggles with PTSD, depression, and alcohol abuse after military service.
The Women Who Raised Concerns
The most critical accounts come from three women who were involved with Platner over extended periods.
Lyndsey Fifield
Lyndsey Fifield dated Platner between roughly 2013 and 2015 while both lived in the Washington, D.C., area.
She described the relationship as passionate but deeply unhealthy. According to Fifield:
- Platner often drank heavily.
- He was repeatedly unfaithful.
- He displayed contempt toward women and their emotions.
- He sometimes became physically aggressive during arguments.
While she explicitly stated that he never punched or hit her, she alleged several incidents involving physical force:
- Grabbing her shoulders hard enough to leave marks.
- Pulling her out of a taxi by the wrist during an argument.
- Twisting her arm behind her back and forcing her into a room, then holding the door shut until she calmed down.
Platner's campaign strongly denied allegations of physical intimidation or abuse.
Fifield also described behavior that she found disturbing:
- Keeping an AR-15 rifle in his apartment.
- Frequently sharpening an axe while watching television.
- Expressing fascination with violence.
- Making repeated comments about rape as an act of dominance rather than sexuality.
She recalled him saying that if someone broke into his home, he would rape them to establish dominance. The campaign did not directly dispute that he made such remarks.
Fifield said she came away from the relationship believing Platner held deeply misogynistic attitudes. Years later, she recorded in a diary that he was "the most toxic literally abusive man on earth who destroyed my life."
The article notes that Fifield is politically conservative and has worked with Republican-affiliated organizations. Platner's campaign emphasized this fact, suggesting political motivations. Fifield rejected that characterization, insisting she would speak out regardless of his party affiliation.
The Anonymous Maine Woman
A second woman, a Democrat from Maine who requested anonymity, described an on-and-off long-distance relationship with Platner that lasted for years.
Her description echoed themes raised by Fifield:
- Charisma mixed with emotional instability.
- Heavy drinking.
- Frequent womanizing.
- Relationships that left emotional damage.
She summarized her experience by saying she felt like "collateral damage to the world that is his."
Although the article provides fewer specific allegations from this woman, her account reinforced the image of a man whose personal relationships were often chaotic and harmful.
Jenny Racicot
Jenny Racicot, a Maine Democrat, dated Platner intermittently between 2019 and 2021, a period that overlaps with what Platner describes as his post-trauma recovery phase.
Racicot said that revelations about Platner's past online comments regarding women did not surprise her.
According to her:
- The comments matched aspects of his personality she had personally witnessed.
- She believed he did not respect women.
- In 2021, he arrived at her home intoxicated after she had told him not to come.
Although she declined to discuss details of that incident, she described the behavior as reckless and unsettling. Afterward, she ended contact with him.
Women Who Defended Platner
The article also includes testimony from women who had positive experiences with Platner.
Caroline Lemp
Caroline Lemp, who dated him briefly in 2013, described him as:
- Kind
- Fun
- Respectful
- Safe to be around
She called him a "gentle giant" and said she never saw signs of aggression or instability.
Two Anonymous Former Partners
Two additional former partners, interviewed through Platner's campaign, also offered favorable assessments.
They said:
- He never physically threatened them.
- They felt safe around him.
- While one noticed problematic drinking habits, neither experienced abusive conduct.
These women support his Senate candidacy and reject the negative portrait painted by other former partners.
The Tattoo Controversy
A major section of the article focuses on Platner's controversial tattoo.
The tattoo is a skull-and-crossbones image known as the Totenkopf, historically associated with Nazi SS units.
Platner's Explanation
Platner has repeatedly said:
- He got the tattoo while stationed in Croatia with fellow Marines in 2007.
- He believed it was simply an intimidating skull-and-crossbones image.
- He did not realize it was widely recognized as a Nazi symbol until reporters raised concerns during his Senate campaign.
- Once informed, he moved to cover the tattoo.
Fifield's Contradictory Account
Fifield strongly disputes this explanation.
She claims:
- Platner referred to the tattoo as "my Totenkopf."
- He explicitly discussed its Nazi origins years before the campaign.
- He explained that Marines in his unit selected the image because they saw parallels between themselves as a combat unit and the historical military reputation associated with the symbol.
Platner's campaign categorically denied her account.
This dispute raises broader questions in the article about Platner's credibility and whether he has been fully transparent regarding the tattoo's origins and meaning.
Platner's Narrative of Recovery
Throughout his Senate campaign, Platner has framed his life story as one of struggle and redemption.
He has openly discussed:
- Combat service in the Marines.
- PTSD.
- Anxiety.
- Depression.
- Alcohol abuse.
- Difficulty maintaining relationships after military service.
According to his account:
- He was emotionally damaged after leaving the military.
- His early post-service years were characterized by heavy drinking and personal instability.
- He returned to his hometown of Sullivan, Maine, in 2016.
- Through therapy and support from the Department of Veterans Affairs, he rebuilt his life.
- He eventually took over an oyster farm and became active in local community life.
The article acknowledges these efforts at recovery but questions whether his personal growth has been as complete as his campaign portrays.
Evidence of Continued Problems
The article points to more recent events suggesting ongoing issues.
Reddit Posts
Journalists reviewed more than 1,400 Reddit comments made by Platner between 2016 and 2021.
The posts reveal:
- Continuing struggles processing military experiences.
- Discussions of politics and social issues.
- Statements reflecting a transition away from his earlier worldview.
By 2021, he described himself as a socialist, gardener, and psychedelic user who no longer embraced the patriotic ideals that motivated him to enlist.
However, some of his older posts also contained remarks about women and rape that became politically damaging once uncovered during the campaign.
Dating-App Allegations
The article describes a 2024 discussion in a private Facebook group called "Are We Dating the Same Guy."
A woman posted that:
- Platner had previously ghosted her.
- He later appeared on another dating app.
- She suspected he might have a significant other.
Multiple women reportedly responded, noting that he was married.
Racicot confirmed the discussion was genuine.
Marriage and Sexting Revelations
Further pressure on Platner's campaign emerged when reports revealed he had exchanged sexual messages with multiple women while married to Amy Gertner.
The revelations:
- Alarmed Democratic Party leaders.
- Threatened his image as a redeemed and stable family man.
- Created questions about whether more undisclosed information might surface.
Platner acknowledged causing marital problems but disputed parts of the reporting.
Gertner publicly defended him, stating that while their marriage was imperfect, she wanted to remain married to him and support his candidacy.
Overall Conclusion
The article presents Graham Platner as a deeply polarizing figure whose personal history has become a major issue in his Senate campaign.
Supporters and some former partners describe him as compassionate, intelligent, and transformed by years of therapy and self-reflection after military service. However, several long-term former partners paint a darker picture, describing patterns of misogyny, emotional volatility, heavy drinking, infidelity, and, in one case, physical intimidation.
The reporting does not conclusively verify all allegations, and Platner disputes many of the most serious claims. Nevertheless, the accounts challenge his campaign's central message that his troubled years are entirely behind him. As Democrats view Maine's Senate race as strategically important, the controversy has intensified scrutiny of whether Platner's personal conduct aligns with the image of growth and redemption he has presented to voters.
samiam
2mo ago
Another option, albeit commercial, is SoftMaker Office, and they do make a free beer version of an older version of their office suite. I myself use the free beer version of the 2006 release of the office suite for document writing; it’s lighting fast in a modern computer and works really nicely.
If I need a newer feature, e.g. ODF (or DOCX) support, Color fonts, etc. I reach to Libre Office. But SoftMaker’s 2006 free suite works really well for my needs 99% of the time I need to edit a document.
samiam
2mo ago
more women are into BDSM than men are
Yes, and based on women’s porn preferences, we have solid scientific studies backing up that claim.
samiam
3mo ago
"Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.". Likewise the suspension of Habeas Corpus under Lincoln.
samiam
3mo ago
See my sister post.
samiam
3mo ago
I think the difference is a semantic one. Whether this post is a “joke”, a “celebration”, or what not, it’s definitely a (submarine) endorsement of the assassination attempt.
There is probably a name for this specific rhetorical gambit, where someone says something imprecisely and their interlocutor interprets it in the most dumbass literal fashion possible and pretends to believe that is how they meant it and play gotcha, but it's very tiresome.
It’s a version of the “straw man” fallacy. The “straw man” here is that he’s pretending I said “it’s a problem when people start killing people under any circumstance”, even after I clarified to him I didn’t mean that, and even after multiple other posters told this poster his interpretation of my words is incorrect.
So using a fallacious rhetorical gotcha appears to be him trying to dunk on someone he sees as a political opponent. Or maybe he’s just really stubborn and unwilling to admit he thought he read something that wasn’t actually there.
The point I am making is this: Once we condone political violence, whether it’s the assassination of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk, or the multiple attempts to assassinate Trump, we are going down a very dark road which, if we continue down, will result in a lot of innocent people being killed and the possible dismantling of our political systems which have been working very well for well over two centuries.
samiam
3mo ago
I will not respond to you further until you answer this question someone else has already asked you:
Are you taking as a given that Democrats think of the opposition party the same way that right-wingers think of a hostile foreign nation that has been calling for Death to America for 50 years?
samiam
3mo ago
the parent poster specifically said "celebrating the deaths of people they don’t like"
It’s clear looking at the context of that posting that I meant “Trump”. As I said elsewhere in this thread, Trump was democratically elected in 2024 by the majority of the voters. This is a far cry from the leaders of the authoritarian regime in Iran, who have killed thousands of peaceful protesters in Iran. In other words, it’s a false equivalence.
samiam
3mo ago
the parent poster's criterion for being "lost completely" was "celebrating the deaths of people they don't like", not "celebrating the deaths of democratically elected leaders" or "celebrating the deaths of objectively good people" or even "celebrating the deaths of their countrymen"
Since you asked for clarification: “they don’t like” clearly means “Trump” here, since it was Trump who this person was trying to kill. Trump is a democratically elected leader; he is president because, in 2024, the majority of the voters wanted him to be president again. Trump has not killed thousands of protesters; even if the two people killed in anti-ICE protests was somehow killed because of Trump, that is nowhere near the 30,000 or so people massacred in Iran for protesting this year. There is a world of difference between not liking someone because of their politics and committing mass murder of peaceful protesters and other crimes against humanity.
For the record, I am opposed to the war in Iran for the same reason I opposed the second war in Iraq (in retrospect, Desert Storm was needed to stop Hussein from terrorizing the entire Middle East) and the war in Afghanistan: It would seem that people in Middle Eastern countries want to have oppressive authoritarian regimes. It’s telling that 2011’s “Arab Spring” did not result in sustained free democratic countries.
samiam
3mo ago
As an aside, Amaden, the main points brought up by the crowd that believe in 80/20 (some form of the false notion that 80% of the women sleep with 20% of the men) have been extensively studied and refuted by one Maximus.
What both him and I have found, after looking closely at the research, is that about 20% of the men have 80% of the female sex partner count, but, likewise, about 25% of the women have 80% of the male sex partner count.
There is no polygyny. It’s just that the most promiscuous men tend to attract the promiscuous women.
On a personal note, I know I have a lot of recovery, because I’m no longer attracting only ultra promiscuous women. They’re still around in my life, as platonic friends, but that as far as it goes now that I have a very good girlfriend.
I’m really sorry you had to go through that.
As someone posted in a sister post, Scott Alexander wrote an article about false rape rates over 12 years ago and I will quote the relevant parts of that article as they apply to your life:
Some questionable methodologies claim that all false rape accusations are reported as real rapes to the police, but that kind of thinking comes off as motivated reasoning to me, and the false accusation you have had to endure shows that a lot of false accusations aren’t filed with police.
More options
Context Copy link