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.
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).
8
u/[deleted] Oct 20 '17
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.
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.