Patrick Brown/CTV

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

My phone’s autocorrect has been typing like a drunken sailor all week for some reason.

Yeah, but it's a proper noun lifted from a somewhat obscure piece of poetical fiction written over 2000 years ago. Why on Earth is it even in your phone's dictionary? What possible piece of code could have led your phone to the conclusion that it would ever be what you really meant to type? Is this the first awkward, stumbling stage on the road to artificial consciousness? We must wait and see.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is the most obscure autocorrect I've ever seen.

I thought he was just trying to talk like a pirate.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We've obviously in a period of change and confusion around social norms. Some of it is a corrective of predatory behaviour by men. Some of it is a resurgent culture of conformity and shaming - though coming progressives and not conservatives this time around. And then you have the distorting effects of social media. The questions are:

• How can you have social norms when there's nothing close to consensus on what those norms are?
  
• How do we establish the truth in a social media environment where allegations can be made without any vetting, and where outrage and calls for action arise in a matter of hours?
  
• What response do we want for transgressions that fall short of criminal behaviour? Do we even have the capacity to make distinctions and apply proportionality, when the only social sanctions at our disposal seem to be public shaming and consequent total destruction of professional and social standing?

I think society is in chaos at this point, because of the speed and acceleration of the women's movement. I think things like honesty, accountability for one's actions, and punishment for crossing acceptable boundaries, for both men and women, will have to be weighed and addressed...in the courts if necessary. I see each organization working to establish acceptable limits of behaviour for both sexes...for a time with more emphasis on the men.

I also think having a sound footing in good old Christian values would help.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is the most obscure autocorrect I've ever seen.

Or, the Alex trade.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Makarov

My phone’s autocorrect has been typing like a drunken sailor all week for some reason.

Vodka?
Whiskey?
Beer?
Wine?

Moonshine for the win!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

One of the problems with this idea (no idea whether it applies in Thisbe particular case) is that the persons most likely to be sexually assaulted are the most marginalized (because they are vulnerable): children, persons in the Alex trade, persons with addictions, persons with mental health disabilities, etc. These persons, not by coincidence, are also the least likely to be able to give detailed, coherent accounts of what happened. So it is a very complex and difficult issue.

But that isn't the case here. The woman in question worked in politics, so presumably she's intelligent, high-functioning, and socially adept. And I don't know why we're even talking about sexual assault. Even if her claims are to be believed, they don't constitute sexual assault.

Some men are ######bags. Some women are ######bags. The way women act like ######bags tends to be different from the way men act like ######bags. But when it comes to anything to do with sex, there is just as much seflishness, malice, jealousy, and spite demonstrated by women as by men. I don't know how anyone with significant real life experience with dating and mating can believe otherwise.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I also think having a sound footing in good old Christian values would help.

Sure, maybe remind them of Romans 1:27, with a lead into 1 Corinthians 11:3. And if there is any protestation, some good ol' 1 Timothy 2:12 would surely take care of it.

Seriously though, you're kidding, right?

[Jacks]

He was probably referring more to the "do unto others" part.

[CaptainCrunch]

Here comes the lawsuit

https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...legations.html

[zamler]

Good.

[CaptainCrunch]

The other thing that CTV may have been caught in now is they framed a raise that the person got as hush money.

It sounds like she got a raise when a new group of paid interns were hired and got paid more then her. She was given a raise to get her to an equivalent pay grade to the new hires.

[GGG]

Here's what still bugs me and leads me to believe that Brown will not win here. His team abandoned him instantly. Weinstein, Spacey, Trump, Ansari, Franklin, etc all took at least a week before any action or resignation occurred. In this case he resigned within 12 hrs.

CTV asked him to comment before it came out and he declined to comment. His denile was abstract and not specific. He hires PR firms and investigators to dig through everything to discredit the accusers. Then 2-3 weeks later launches the attack.

So why did the team abandon him quickly
If he didn't remember these women why didn't his denile include that
If he did remember them why wasn't the she kissed me defense stated in the initial denile.
Why did it take weeks for all of this to come together?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Here's what still bugs me and leads me to believe that Brown will not win here. His team abandoned him instantly. Weinstein, Spacey, Trump, Ansari, Franklin, etc all took at least a week before any action or resignation occurred. In this case he resigned within 12 hrs.

CTV asked him to comment before it came out and he declined to comment. His denile was abstract and not specific. He hires PR firms and investigators to dig through everything to discredit the accusers. Then 2-3 weeks later launches the attack.

So why did the team abandon him quickly
If he didn't remember these women why didn't his denile include that
If he did remember them why wasn't the she kissed me defense stated in the initial denile.
Why did it take weeks for all of this to come together?

Ok just to try, and some of this is also based on an interview he did with Global..

Why did the team abandon him so quickly?

None of the other names were in the middle of a ramp up to an election campaign. As soon as the accusation happened, the party went into immediate damage control, they couldn't have their party leader getting dragged through the mud for weeks or months at a time.

Not sure what your second question meant.

I remember that he did a press conference and denied everything pretty quickly.

Why did it take weeks to come together?

Probably a smart strategy to make sure that he not only had recollection of what happened, but also had witnesses and a investigation. If he'd come out piecemeal the media would have eaten him alive. instead he basically kicked CTV's credibility out from under them. It was a smart move and he wasn't in a rush because frankly he didn't have to rush to save his campaign.

[Weitz]

Well I mean the team abandoned him because they have an Election to win. Have to get as far away as possible as quickly as possible or people will accuse you of nefarious things.

[PepsiFree]

What I find odd is that people find this indicative of throwing out the western legal system, as though it’s been the only thing around until just now.

Before we get too amped on progressives throwing out institutions, let’s remember that this has been around for basically ever. Consequences for actions have never in history been solely the realm of the court system.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

So why did the team abandon him quickly
If he didn't remember these women why didn't his denile include that
If he did remember them why wasn't the she kissed me defense stated in the initial denile.
Why did it take weeks for all of this to come together?

Hah, it's amazing how the whole script is now flipped onto the accused. "If she thought she was assaulted, why not go to the Police immediately?" You'll presume the accuser is truthful despite evidence that she made false claims, but go looking for holes in the accused's version of events. Motivated reasoning strikes again.

I mean, it's entirely possible that he had no recollection of these events but wanted to actually make sure he hadn't done something while drunk and forgotten about it, wanted to get others' corroboration on record before attempting to defend himself in an atmosphere that, at least for many of the louder voices in the mob, presumes the guilt of the accused under the guise of "believing victims". Maybe he recognized that regardless of any denial he couldn't possibly forestall the downfall of his leadership bid, and instead turned his focus to this inevitable point when he launched a defamation suit - if it was that, it was probably very smart; musn't say anything of any real substance on record until you have a well-defined legal strategy in place. Really, there are many reasons why he would wait.

Or it could simply be this.

Originally Posted by Claire Berlinski

For that matter, isn’t anyone else a bit spooked by the ritual tenor of the confessions that always follow? The most profound mystery of the Moscow Trials was the eagerness of the victims to confess. What prompted them to say things like this?

Torture, of course, forced many of these confessions. But something more profound was at work. As Lavrentiy Beria said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” Every man, in his soul, feels guilty. The confessions we are seeing now have been dredged from the same place in men’s souls.

They are all confessing in the same dazed, rote, mechanical way. It’s always the same statement: “I have come to realize that it does not matter that, at the time, I may have perceived my words as playful. It does not matter that, at the time, I may have felt that we were flirting. It does not matter that, at the time, I may have felt what I said was okay. The only thing that matters is how I made these three women feel,” said Representative Steve Lebsock. Now that is a remarkable thing to say. Why doesn’t it matter what he thought what was happening? Why would we accept as remotely rational the idea that the only thing that matters is how the women felt? The confession continues in the same vein: “It is hard for me to express how shocked I am to realize the depth of the pain I have caused and my journey now is to come to terms with my demons and I’ve brought on a team of therapists and I will be entering counselling and reflecting carefully on issues of gender inequality, power, and privilege in our society and—”

For God’s sake, why are these men all humiliating themselves? It’s not like confessing will bring forgiveness. They must all know, like Bukharin, that no matter what they say, the ritual of confession will be followed by the ritual of liquidation. If they said, “You’ve all lost your ####ing minds, stop sniffing my underwear and leave me the #### alone,” they’d meet exactly the same fate. Why didn’t Bukharin say, “To hell with you. You may kill me, but you will not make me grovel?” I used to wonder, but now I see. Am I the only one who finds these canned, rote, mechanical, brainwashed apologies deeply creepy? Isn’t anyone else put in mind of the Cultural Revolution’s Struggle Sessions, where the accused were dragged before crowds to condemn themselves and plead for forgiveness? This very form of ritual public humiliation, aimed at eliminating all traces of reactionary thinking, now awaits anyone accused of providing an unwanted backrub.

Or hell, maybe you're right and he's lying. I don't know. I don't see much reason to assume so though.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What I find odd is that people find this indicative of throwing out the western legal system, as though it’s been the only thing around until just now.

Before we get too amped on progressives throwing out institutions, let’s remember that this has been around for basically ever. Consequences for actions have never in history been solely the realm of the court system.

Yeah, that's not lost on anyone... and to the extent that consequences for actions haven't been solely the realm of the Court system, particularly serious, life-altering consequences, that's been almost universally a ####ing horror show.

I mean, what point are you trying to make here? That Torquemada and Robespierre had some good ideas? Go on, spell it out.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Consequences for actions have never in history been solely the realm of the court system.

No. But outrage and public shaming have traditionally been employed by the religious and the conservatives right to enforce conformity. And in recent decades, liberal people have pretty much ignored them.

Today, we have progressives employing those tactics. But liberals can't opt out because many of our formerly liberal institutions have been captured by progressive dogma. This is what it must have felt like to be a liberal in the 50s.

[GGG]

I don't see why people see the second story as discredited. The friend of Brown confirms everything except what happens in the room of which she has no knowledge

"I remember Patrick went upstairs at one point and I vaguely remember her following," said Patterson. "He almost immediately came back down and said he was driving her home."

Patterson said she observed no tension between the two. "There didn't seem to be anything wrong. She didn't seem upset, he didn't seem upset. It was just 'I'm going to take her home.'"

Patterson acknowledges she does not know what went on in the bedroom but said: "That's not the kind of person Patrick is. He's not forceful, he's not inappropriate."

And also why this person remembers this detail of this event is kind of odd. A drunk girl following brown upstairs and then them coming back down and her getting a ride home doesn't seem like a memorable event.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't see why people see the second story as discredited. The friend of Brown confirms everything except what happens in the room of which she has no knowledge



And also why this person remembers this detail of this event is kind of odd. A drunk girl following brown upstairs and then them coming back down and her getting a ride home doesn't seem like a memorable event.

Except that the whole premise of the room visit is funny. She said that her friend went up to the room with her to look at these photos of Brown's trip to asia (Going off of memory), However the friend said none of that happened, and then she followed him up to the room and Brown immediately came back down. But in her story, Brown kissed her forcibly and jumped on top of her and groped her for a period of time.

Basically her story's premise doesn't work, her witness turned against her, and the time line doesn't work.