- Atlanta, GA
- Last Active
akritenbrink said:You guys might be right, but i think a lot of people are taking the "believe all women" thing literally.
Yep. As we've observed with BLM, when given the choice to accept the nuance or take it literally and criticize... it's taken literally.
Or if you mean well-intentioned people trying to navigate these scandals, I'd agree with that too. I'm seeing a lot of anger directed towards anyone who wants to wait for due process, if anything is said at all.
Again: (1) Just my observation, (2) I'm not certain this is the right opinion to have. I just want to see more dialogue and less inane slogans.
akritenbrink said:I've said this before, but i think it should be "take accusers more seriously while still giving due process to the accused" ... But that's not catchy.
But at least it's not the most easily mocked thing. "Black Lives Matter" might have avoided a lot of shit by making it 33% longer and adding "Too."
And you know, I think Lena Dunham is a casualty of the radical liberal movement where you have to tow the party line or get the fuck out; no nuance. I don't think (my personal theory!) that Lena Dunham believes all of what she says she believes, and here it is, showing up. Whereas if people were comfortable expressing disagreement, if we created a safe environment to do that, maybe we could create actual change in individuals. Or maybe, horror of horrors, our minds might change.
"Believe all women." Okay, but what if a woman is lying? There isn't much dialogue about this, and there won't be even now. Lena will be cast out and no one will talk about it. She probably said, "Believe all women" at some point, and maybe she believed it but more likely -- given how quickly she didn't follow it -- she just towed the party line. I'm not saying we should hash out every single thing, but when people have questions (which she clearly did) there should be a safe place for that.
I'm glad we've talked about "Believe all women" here, some.