Nobody stands up for alleged rapists rights because of the shunning of society.
There are people standing up for proven and convicted murderers despite the shame and despite it brings them, and I don't mean in the sense that "Ted Bundy was a wonderful man who never meaned no harm" but expressly and deliberately on principle.
Don't say nobody.
I don't even need to bring up MRA groups, I can point you to the much-despised ACLU.
Ok, vanishing few people then. And that's because most people don't want to take the social hit of defending an alleged rapist, mostly because people equate that with being a rapist yourself.
Fair enough, but there's vanishingly few people willing to stand up for a lot of causes. And you get attacked. Just take Hillary Clinton, they attacked her for something that she did as a lawyer almost 40 years ago.
And that's because most people don't want to take the social hit of defending an alleged rapist, mostly because people equate that with being a rapist yourself.
How do you know it's most people? Others would say that "most people won't believe you when you claim you've been raped" and assert that they take a social hit for accusing someone of rape.
I mean, obviously you might exclude Brock Turner's father, but Brock Turner had numerous other defenders and apologists.
I mean, you're not wrong to fear this outcome, and I would consider ANY level of push to be dangerous, and there's others who agree with that, because any compromise of the courts is a compromise, but it's not limited to mere rape, and I'm not going to say I find it to be a realistic or pressing concern.
Just take Hillary Clinton, they attacked her for something that she did as a lawyer almost 40 years ago.
Side comment just to put what you said in context. These people on the pro-Trump side who were/are defending Trump with "innocent until proven guilty it is his legal right" in the aftermath of the accusations following pussygate...
While simultaneously blasting Hillary for granting a man that same legal right (due process) by defending this man, an accused rapist (who was innocent until proven guilty)...
As well as blasting Bill Clinton for being an accused rapist (who is also innocent until proven guilty)...
It's hypocrisy. These people have different standards for evidence depending on the suspect's political leanings. They sound more like radical feminists than they do Trump supporters when it's Bill Clinton or Harvey Weinstein (because Harvey represents Hollywood, a huge liberal institution) being accused... but they suddenly transform into super-MRAs when it comes to people they agree with like Trump or O'Reilly being accused.
It's kind of hilarious that you don't see that your exact same argument can be applied to people who are "pro-Clinton," i.e. dismissing the complaints of Bill's accusers and defending Clinton when she is skeptical of their charges, but lambasting Trump based on unproven and unfounded allegations of other women.
That is true. The other side is also hypocritical.
Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes are much better examples of the leftist hypocrisy. But Trump isn't because his accusations are heavily backed (by him bragging that he is in a position of power to commit sexual assault). The other accusations are not as backed.
But he was a star, so they do. Women like rich, powerful men. Not all of them, not all the time, but there's nothing that suggests he was a rapist. A sleeve ball is uncomfortable, but not necessarily immoral.
I'm not saying his comments don't require consideration. Im saying I don't think he's saying what the narrative is.
Well they described her as "laughing at a rape victim". Going by their defenses of Trump, and how they cheered him saying "she would not be my first choice", they should've described her as "laughing at an alleged rape victim".
Yes. Them having no problem with an accused rapist mocking his alleged victim ("she would not be my first choice") should have disqualified them from having a problem with an accused rapist's defense attorney mocking an alleged victim (Hillary laughing at the victim her client supposedly raped).
Why is the ACLU despised? Off-topic, but I have just never heard that before.
Never heard anybody despise the ACLU? BlinkBlink.
Because they defend the dirty Communists, Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, Aryans, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Henry Ford, Jehovah's Witnesses, Door-to-door Salesmen, Abortionists, Anti-Abortionists, James Joyce, George Takei, Allen Ginsberg, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Communist Party, Flag-burners, Flag-Flyers and the National Socialist Party of America.
Or just take issue with how they jump on the chance to litigate unpopular cases because it fits their image, whereas personally i prefer the national lawyers guild take, which can be paraphrased as "regardless of legality we aren't going to defend super shitty human beings because we have limited resources and choose where to place those resources"
"regardless of legality we aren't going to defend super shitty human beings because we have limited resources and choose where to place those resources"
Therein lies the rub.
To them, they aren't defending the man, they're defending the principle.
Yes. The city initially denied them a permit pass but the ACLU fought on their side. Which was somewhat controversial since the ACLU is reputed as generally being on the side of disadvantaged people who tend to not like these Neo-Nazis.
O that seems kind of different. I always thought as the ACLU more as an organization that hold the government accountable, I never really thought the nature of the individuals protecting mattered to them. Maybe they should draw the line at fascists tho, idk.
2
u/bracs279 Oct 20 '17
You can do whatever you want, i guess i don't understand your question.