hilzoy Profile picture
Oct 2, 2018 12 tweets 4 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
1/ Reading this piece was a total waste of time, except that it prompted me to try to check out something I've been curious about: are there, in fact, a substantial number of progressives who say that we should believe ALL women?
2/ My normal operating assumption is that there is not view so stupid that you can't find SOMEONE who holds it, so I assume that there are people who believe this one. But *lots* of them?
3/ I checked out the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen . It's almost entirely people on the right, being sarcastic. Random example:

4/ I saw a couple of tweets that seemed to be from people on the left, but for the most part they used this hashtag as part of a long list, including #BelieveSurviviors , #BelieveWomen , and more.

(I hate tweets that are just lists of hashtags. Grrr.)
5/ This is the view most people on the left that I follow, or have read articles by, or know irl actually hold:

6/ The idea is: for ages, people who report sexual abuse have not had their claims taken seriously. This is wrong. We should listen to them, and evaluate them with the same attitude that we take towards, say, people who claim that they have been robbed.
7/ If someone claims to have been robbed, no one would think that we should start out being massively skeptical. "Can you prove you actually had any money to begin with? Do you have a history of giving money away? Were you drinking when this "robbery" occurred?"
8/ No: we hope that law enforcement will look, dispassionately, for evidence of the robbery, and try to figure out who did it.

Sometimes the person who claims to have been robbed will turn out to have lied. Sometimes not. But we do not BEGIN with skepticism.
9/ Same with sexual assault. Sometimes people fabricate accusations of sexual assault, but lots of sexual assault actually happens. If you don't BEGIN by doubting the accuser, you can figure out what's going on in the case at hand.
10/ This is what I take #BelieveWomen to mean: not "believe all women, no matter what", but "take what women say seriously, rather than just discounting it at the outset."
11/ This is not a rejection of fairness; it's an essential prerequisite for it.

PS: Greg Sargent is good on this:


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with hilzoy

hilzoy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hilzoy

Sep 28, 2018
Dear God.

1/ If you want to understand why liberals are so upset, read this and marvel at the assumption that Kavanaugh is an example of someone who is just "seeking to do right." An assumption made in the face of his abundant lies on a variety of topics ...
2/ the contrast between his obvious motive for lying and Prof. Blasey Ford's lack of one, the Republicans' absolute refusal to have an investigation or to subpoena witnesses (e.g. Mark Judge) whose testimony is obviously relevant, etc., etc.
3/ And add to that their determination to ram his confirmation through even though he gave abundant evidence that he doesn't have the temperament to sit on any court.
Read 11 tweets
Jul 13, 2018
Media tidbit: I was driving home today when the NPR segment linked below came on. At 2:30 on the linked audio file, @bdomenech says (about the indictment):

"Much of it is taken up by the numbers of times that people were posting memes on the internet."

@bdomenech 2/ Now: I rad the indictment. How much of it concerns memes? None, as far as I can recall. It's about Russians first hacking computers and then disseminating what they found. Not about memes.

I suspect @bdomenech got punked by this:

@bdomenech 3/ However: to be fooled by that, you'd have to either not have read the indictment at all, or have read it so carelessly that you didn't think: memes? Huh?

You'd then have to not check against the original, which is easy, since you just have to scroll to sec. 48.
Read 7 tweets
Jul 1, 2018
This is a genuinely fascinating question. Some people are saying: Fox News. That (and talk radio) are obviously crucial, but it's worth asking why crazy media people got so big on the right rather than the left.
As of, say, 1970, I think there were more crazy people on the left than on the right. (This stuff is cyclical.) So I don't think there's some sort of special conservative susceptibility to strange cult-like thinking.
3/ Antecedents present in the 60s on the right: as I just said in a reply, southern Dems (who became GOP) taking for granted that what their politicians said and what they meant were two very different things. Doublespeak was standard there.
Read 24 tweets
Jun 18, 2018
Thread. -- A couple of predictions, which I really, really hope are wrong.

(1) Some kids are going to get very sick. They might die. Even with good medical care, some of them will already have medical conditions. Their parents know about them. ICE does not.
2/ Their parents would know what to look for, what their medical history is like, etc. Whoever is looking after them now will not. Even leaving aside the heat, crowding, etc., they would be at risk even given good medical care. Which I would not bet on their getting.
3/ The same holds for psychiatric care. These kids are traumatized, and I would not bet on their getting good, humane, competent psychiatric care.
Read 10 tweets
Jun 15, 2018
1/ Let's think about this passage a bit. The most obvious point: "the authorities over us" include the First Amendment, which forbids the establishment of religion. So this passage, by its own lights, tells our leaders not to justify their conduct solely by appeal to the Bible.
2/ ("Solely" means: when the Bible says something that most people believe in any case, e.g. that murder is wrong, one can cite the Bible in support of that view. But one should not try to enact policies for which the Bible is the only justification, e.g. mandatory baptism.)
3/ Next point: I would have a lot more respect for conservatives citing this view had they shown the slightest inclination to apply it to, say, Barack Obama.

Read 29 tweets
May 6, 2018
1/ I've read @imillhiser 's thread (advocating serious/extreme procedural measures) and this thread, and I am torn.

If @BrendanNyhan knew me, that should give him pause. I am as procedural and institutionalist a person as one is likely to find outside SCOTUS.

But I am torn.
2/ Moreover, I've spent significant chunks of time in countries without entrenched norms of conduct. And I am torn.

Some of what @imillhiser suggests I favor without qualms. DC/PR statehood is right on the merits.
3/ The filibuster should be nuked. Whatever the arguments for having a "break glass in case of emergency" filibuster, it is now just a requirement for a supermajority.

I favor abolishing it because I think it impedes democratic accountability.
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!