Too much, all or none, humans sometimes lie. Especially if they are 'always' believed. So it has never been none and should never be all.

I was getting after Flannagan about this on twitter this week, too. She's often said that 'These women should be believed'... But she won't say exactly what that means. Does it mean we can skip trials and go straight to punishment as due process? The woman has a teenager new at college, and I bet she'd have some reconsideration if a mere accusation caught up with her son.

Look, sexual misconduct is bad, and the worst of it is horrible indeed. But there's no shimmering new smartphone app or reconfiguration of legal procedures that's going to give us better results than what we already have, frustrating as it might be.

Also, see this from Sommers.

I mean, Amy has well-documented (or at least generously-linked) the idiocy of those in contemporary society who imagine that free speech can be constrained without horrible consequences... These younger generations think everything is up for grabs, and that their virtue & judgment should never be bothered with chores like courage or persuasion. And even though they've never built anything with their lives —no businesses, charities or even families— they're nonetheless certain that they're just kinder than any generation heretofore.

Quoting this a second time:

And if something feels abundant, whether it’s liberty or oil, human nature dictates that its value will fall. Maybe that explains the current vogue among students for banning, removing and silencing.

Again!— I hate sexual misconduct, as I hate all personal crimes of that sort. My hatred doesn't mean there's a better response than jurisprudence.

I hate sexual misconduct, as I hate all personal crimes of that sort. My hatred doesn't mean there's a better response than jurisprudence.

This is exactly right. Sommers, too.

We have a legal system instead of a "hang 'em all!" system because people may or may not be guilty of what they're accused of.

People screeching that we should "BEEEELIEVE!" would be the first to howl if they were denied due process.

Of course, when I point this out to the rampant accusations that are coming forward, that these people are being denied due process, the response "But we're not talking about a court of law! The statute of limitations is past!"

My response to that is that our laws should reflect the values that we have as a society. And that I refuse to participate in the ruining of someone's life because of an accuser than came forward decades after the supposed victim when that victim has no evidence.

"Well, I didn't come forward when I had evidence, but you should believe me now, when I don't have evidence."

Contrary to what Hillary Clinton says she believes (but in reality knows better), you do not have a right to be believed.

But when I respond that way, I'm usually told that I hate women. Evidently, the same standard that we apply to every other crime in existence doesn't apply to people (and not always women) who cry "Sexual assault!" Otherwise, you're a misogynist.

People screeching that we should "BEEEELIEVE!" would be the first to howl if they were denied due process. ~ Amy Alkon at November 19, 2017 5:56 AM

They're also the ones howling the loudest when the neo-Puritanism they helped establish gets to them.

These kids have no accomplishments. When they finally get around to learning how difficult it is to move a society forward, they'll already have seen how pathetic they were for trying to flatter themselves from comfortable chairs. ~ Crid at November 19, 2017 2:47 AM

We've done them no favors, tailoring our political system, our corporate marketing, and our pop culture around the monsters under their beds, to the sum of their fears.

Advertisers tailor their campaigns to them, refusing to support any medium not targeted to them. Politicians pander for their votes.

Their parents copy their clothing styles and musical tastes. "Cool" is now what Millennials say it is, not what it was in "the old days."

We've told them they matter most, that the opinion of anyone older (and, presumably, wiser) does not matter. So, why should they listen to their elders when Hollywood, K Street, and Madison Avenue have all told them that the only opinion that matters is theirs?

They live comfortably in a civilization built by their forebears, but disparage the building methods and the builders themselves. They enjoy the fruits of the scientific labors of smarter people who came before them, but decry the lack of acceptable diversity within the ranks of the discoverers.

Why are we surprised, then, that they know nothing of struggle and what it took to get the world to this point; when all they have to say is "you screwed up the world, now go sit in the corner while we fix it." And when you ask how they'll fix it, their answer is vague on details and light on reality, but high on assurances that it will be better because they'll be the ones doing the fixing. Trust them, they'll be silencing the Nazis and not holding women and minorities down. That Grandpa actually silenced a few Nazis is of no relevance to them.

Get off my lawn!

I'm wondering if there'll be an upgrade in female talent in Hollywood...

if all the actresses whose careers took off after they kept silent about being molested by powerful skanks like Weinstein...

are... believed...

and the success of actresses in the future depends more on their talent, and not so much on what powerful men can get away with doing to them.

Um, under human decency and due process, we look at the evidence and come to conclusions; we don't just "BELIEVE!"

If you were a resident of Alabama, and you were on a jury that was deciding the fate of Roy Moore, then yes, you'd treat him as innocent until proven guilty. But, in the situation as we have it -- where Moore is running for office, not on trial before a jury -- voters are going to pretty much have to go on their belief: either their belief that the women are telling the truth, or a belief in Moore. They're not required to vote for Moore unless the women prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conan: "Cool" is now what Millennials say it is, not what it was in "the old days."

Sure, but that's nothing specific to Millennials. When the Baby Boomers were ascendant, "cool" was what they -- or, I should say, we -- said it was, not what those squares** used to think it was.

** As a related note, my parents never dressed that well: lots of polyester double-knit stuff, etc. When my father passed away back in 2004, we were going through a bunch of old photos from his younger years that we had never seen. There was one photo of him, probably in his late teens, standing outside his father's store in a small North Dakota town. His clothes were sharp and he was leaning against the store in this kind of insouciant way. "My God," I remember thinking, "my Dad was James Dean!" It was fascinating to see a photo of him where he looked so....so cool.

When the Baby Boomers were ascendant, "cool" was what they -- or, I should say, we -- said it was, not what those squares** used to think it was. ~ JD at November 19, 2017 10:50 AM

True, but society didn't reinvent itself around the hippies until after they became adults. Hippies were a phenomenon, not an economic driver. And they were counterbalanced by people in the same generation that did not become hippies.

Corporate America had not yet experienced a baby boom with the technology it has now, so it did not have a blueprint on handling it. Niche marketing when the Baby Boom was ascendant was still limited to Oldsmobiles vs. Buicks.

Television shows that catered to an older generation were interspersed with ones that catered to the younger generation. Even CBS's "rural purge," driven as it was by age, was still limited by technology - 3 networks that everyone watched. Young people (hippies) simply did not have the ability to radically separate themselves from older generations.

To appeal to today's Millennial boom, corporate America has all but abandoned older America. With more affluence than the Baby Boom had at the same age, Millennials have the economic influence the hippies lacked.

With tools like the Internet, Millennials are not limited to the economic marketplace of their parents. They can opt for shows, stores, etc. not widely available and not also patronized by older generations. They're not limited to getting their jeans at Sears or Penneys alongside the older generation buying polyester pants at the same stores.

However, with the leading edge of the Baby Boom heading into its seventies, that generation's purchasing power and advertising appeal are declining rapidly. Brand loyalty is established early and discretionary spending declines with age, so advertisers feel targeting an audience in an advanced age range is futile - except for a niche of specialty products specifically aimed at that age range.

And the succeeding generation (Gen X) is simply too small to move the needle. Millennials dwarf Gen X in overall size and advertisers and politicians are switching directly from Baby Boomers to Millennials, skipping over the much smaller generational cohort in between.

It's really the technology driving this corporate and political migration to a younger age target. But the side effect is that it has given the Millennials an outsized view of their influence on and importance to society.

But the side effect is that it has given the Millennials an outsized view of their influence on and importance to society. ~ Conan the Grammarian at November 19, 2017 12:11 PM

And it has led them to think they are wiser and more worldly than they actually are.

If you "believe" accusers you get mob justice. On some blog a guy told about being in a market in Nigeria somewhere when a merchant yelled out "thief" as a guy ran away. The crowd closed around the guy and beat him to death. Then they all just casually went back to shopping. This is what happens when you "believe". And this is what the internet mob does--maybe not beatings but plenty of innocent people have lost their jobs and some have killed themselves.
Among the #metoo claims I have heard several women complain about unwanted sexual advances. This is not assault. When society has glorified anything-goes sex, and men find that they can often enough get a woman to come home with them just by asking, and there is no longer any concept of dating or chastity or chivalry, then what do you expect but lots of guys trying to get laid? That is the world the Left created and now they aren't happy with it.

I think Lena is having a rough time - she's hanging on to the VICTIMIZED OVERWEIGHT UNATTRACTIVE LESBIAN label and all the tut-tut-you-poor-thing feels she gets from her sisbros, but now she's familiar to the planet at large as HIT-SHOW-POPULAR-RICH-FAMOUS-ACTRESS.

This dichotomy of privilege and victimization is obviously having a deleterious effect on her emotions. Let's hope she doesn't go full Roseanne on us.

There was one photo of him, probably in his late teens, standing outside his father's store in a small North Dakota town. His clothes were sharp and he was leaning against the store in this kind of insouciant way. "My God," I remember thinking, "my Dad was James Dean!" It was fascinating to see a photo of him where he looked so....so cool. ~ JD at November 19, 2017 10:50 AM

Going through my dad's stuff, after he died, I came across stuff from before his married with children life: custom suits from a high-end men's shop, a silver cigarette case, cufflinks, and other accoutrements of a stylish young bachelor on the make. The suits were definitely older since they would not have fit his "dad" physique and a quick Internet search revealed that the origin-store of the suits had closed decades before.

As a father of three, he dressed in polyester, drove station wagons, and watched shows like Matlock. I wonder what he was like as a young bachelor loose in the big city.

Interesting to think that the people we know only as our parents were not always our parents and may once have actually been cool.

Interesting to think that the people we know only as our parents were not always our parents and may once have actually been cool.

I love that too. Our family photo albums look like something out of "Mad Men" — Dad is dashing and Mom a bombshell.

Dad eventually succumbed to the Haband polyester collection, but Mom adapted to the times without becoming a caricature; she's now the kind of old lady who dresses smartly and makes strangers smile.

"My response to that is that our laws should reflect the values that we have as a society. And that I refuse to participate in the ruining of someone's life because of an accuser than came forward decades after the supposed victim when that victim has no evidence."

I'm the one here who keeps saying that law can't be morality; law can only be a minimum set of standards to prevent civil disorder. However, the working premise for the Left, for decades, has been that law is morality; they are one and the same. We can see, then, where this is going: morality will be law, and law will be whatever the ones in power want it to be at the moment. (This, of course, makes a mockery of the definition of the word "law", but nobody cares at this point.) Extra-judicial proceedings for the politically incorrect? No problem. After all, because of their political incorrectness, the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Their speech is hate speech, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. They are accused of heinous crimes, so the Fifth and Sixth Amendments don't apply. And the Second Amendment doesn't apply, just because.

@JD: "...in a small North Dakota town." and "...so cool."

Being from that part of the country, I'm surprised to see those two phrases in the same paragraph.

"Interesting to think that the people we know only as our parents were not always our parents and may once have actually been cool."

No. At least for me just plain no. No one of my lineage has been 'cool' for over 200 years. All the way back to my ancestor who slipped off of Plymouth Rock and fell into the sea after getting off the Mayflower. As tragic as it may be we've all been nerd for centuries. And probably longer if we had the records to prove it.

"All the way back to my ancestor who slipped off of Plymouth Rock and fell into the sea after getting off the Mayflower."

My ancestors were on the second boat, saw that misstep, and adjusted their footholds accordingly. Thank you!

fear, anger, self pity turned into the victim religion is not a good way to go forward into a rational and tolerant, not to mention polite society. Do we have a way forward? I have charming friends who now no longer believe that free speech matters when the speech is "hate speech." It seems that the very basis of civil society: law and politeness are in jeopardy now. Many people act as if when we disagree, we have an emotional duty to condemn. This feels like religion-a desire to create control where none exists, or at least the fear that not "enough" control exits. I have read that religion comes into being when unexpected bad things happen. We hope that by believing in a Greater Being, who can be bribed by prayer and offerings and sacrifice, we will exert control over the future suffering.

Many people act as if when we disagree, we have an emotional duty to condemn. This feels like religion-a desire to create control where none exists, or at least the fear that not "enough" control exits. ~ vickichang 1 at November 20, 2017 1:32 PM

People don't seem to understand the the most brutal and repressive regimes in history started with the best of intentions. Yes, even the Nazis. All of them were going to do "good."

Their cruelties were done for the good of the people, the race, the workers, the nation - the Fatherland, Mother Russia. Cruelties were never done out of hate, but love; never out of greed, but sacrifice. They weren't enslaving the people, they were liberating them, saving them. They were building a bright future for all.

And they all started with the certainty that their chosen way was righteous, the enlightened should control society to guide it to salvation, and deviant behavior should be eliminated.

We do what we can Gog. Glad it helped. Similarly as long as birth control glasses have existed my ancestors have worn them. I can only hope it served as a warning to others.

Though our past is not filled with only glorious self sacrifice. We are responsible for bringing math to the US by translating the first math text books into English in the US. (I think they were Latin or some such before then.) Hence the wails and tears of millions of children stain my soul to this very day.

For some reason, I keep confusing Lena Dunham with Amy Schumer. I don't know why. They don't look at all alike.

Lena Dunham's quote: "...our insider knowledge of Murray's situation makes us confident..."

In a nutshell, this is the "Liberal Elite" talking down to us, telling us that they are "more educated" and "more knowledgeable" than everyone else and that anyone else's opinion is not as "informed" as theirs is.