#ibelieveher part II

bitofabind

conorhal wrote: »

This story sound like the delusional and disordered thinking of a paranoid schizophrenic. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the next you hear about this case is a statement from family that she's 'unwell' and under a Brittany Spears like conservatorship.

I think speculation like this is unhelpful, but what struck me when reading her essay was that she seems like someone who has significant mental health issues. Similar to the kind of thing you'd see from Sinead O'Connor when she was going through her darker days over the years.

It was just so rambling, directionless and incoherent in parts. This is clearly a troubled woman, and maybe all of this is a result of severe trauma, or maybe she's having some sort of episode, perhaps it's even both.

Rape victims are seldom believed and always torn apart on the details, which will often be sparse due to the nature of these crimes. That is a huge factor in both the trauma - many victims often report that the lack of belief is another trauma to them - and the lack of reporting around these crimes, so personally I wouldn't go down that route either because I don't want to be part of a wider problem.

I do hope she rolls back on this media engagement though and gets the right help and intervention from the specific people that can provide it.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you read that account and compassion doesn't even enter into your mind, then there's something wrong with you.

There’s nothing wrong with anyone who doesn’t express compassion but rather expresses disbelief at such an incredulous tale. I expressed an opinion in the other thread that given the way she was portraying her story, I wouldn’t be surprised if she went on to claim she had been abducted by aliens, so incredible was her tale already. I wasn’t that far off - she had been spirited out of the country at least, by plane, and no idea apparently how she escaped or arrived home?

If anyone were to believe such a fantastical account of events, and take it on face value without question, I’d suggest they were a bit gullible. That in itself isn’t completely harmless as it encourages the next person to go one better again in order to court the sympathy of their peers, which is why it ended up being the case that people were unable to take claims made on social media seriously.

Nobody is under any obligation to believe anything simply because of the circumstances involved, much less express compassion and sympathy when they do not feel either compassion or sympathy for someone who they believe is telling a rather far-fetched tale of misfortune.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If anyone were to believe such a fantastical account of events, and take it on face value without question, I’d suggest they were a bit gullible. That in itself isn’t completely harmless as it encourages the next person to go one better again in order to court the sympathy of their peers, which is why it ended up being the case that people were unable to take claims made on social media seriously.

Nobody is under any obligation to believe anything simply because of the circumstances involved, much less express compassion and sympathy when they do not feel either compassion or sympathy for someone who they believe is telling a rather far-fetched tale of misfortune.

Sure. If someone believed they knew what happened based solely on one story, would be gullible. If you think I've done that then be free to quote where I've done it.

On the other hand to pretend you know what's happened based on a single story, would be gullible and I think a lot of posters have decided that it isn't true. And I think diagnosing her with mental illness and psychiatric disorders (which has happened in plenty of posts including some I've quoted) is a sign of gullibility. Believing you can diagnose someone from such little evidence, is a sure sign they don't have a clue.

I don't know what happened - and that's the most honest sentence you'll see in this thread

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. If someone believed they knew what happened based solely on one story, would be gullible. If you think I've done that then be free to quote where I've done it.

On the other hand to pretend you know what's happened based on a single story, would be gullible and I think a lot of posters have decided that it isn't true. And I think diagnosing her with mental illness and psychiatric disorders (which has happened in plenty of posts including the one I'm quoting) is a sign of gullibility. Believing you can diagnose someone from such little evidence, is a sure sign they don't have a clue.

I don't know what happened - and that's the most honest sentence you'll see in this thread

That’s all well and good, but the only part of your previous post I actually cared to disagree with was this bit -

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you read that account and compassion doesn't even enter into your mind, then there's something wrong with you.

I’m being equally honest when I point out that there is nothing wrong with someone who reads a fantastic story and doesn’t feel any compassion for the person telling the story.

I don’t think anyone was actually offering a medical diagnosis, they were suggesting that based upon the evidence presented, she most likely has issues with her mental health, and given what she claims happened to her, it wouldn’t be unusual to arrive at that conclusion.

I don’t think anyone has claimed to know for certain what did or didn’t happen, but the point the original poster is making is a valid one - that there are a small group of people attempting to condemn people who do not automatically believe a person who claims to have been drugged, kidnapped and raped, as though there is something wrong with suggesting a person would lie about something like that.

We know that people do lie, and there is the classic moral tale of the boy who cried wolf. The circumstances in this case are a classic example of the phenomenon, with more holes in the story than a Swiss cheese, so many in fact in the latest update that even her previous defenders would find it difficult to suggest she should automatically be believed now.

The issue isn’t whether anyone does or doesn’t automatically believe her, the issue is that small group of people who suggest that anyone who makes such claims, they should automatically be believed. There is no reason anyone is automatically entitled to be believed, and there is no obligation on anyone to believe them. It doesn’t say anything one way or the other about people who don’t automatically believe what sounds like complete rubbish.

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know what happened - and that's the most honest sentence you'll see in this thread

None of us know for sure what happened but there is nothing wrong in questioning something that seems implausible.

I am one of those questioning if things happened as she described. That doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy for Duffy eitherways. She's either gone through a torrid experience that I wouldn't wish on anybody or she venturing down the rabbit hole of mental illness that I wouldn't wish on anybody either.

El_Duderino 09

Crazy Times wrote: »

Not at all. If the story was realistic, like she was walking home at night and some guy pulled a knife on her, there would be no disbelief. Why? Because such scenarios do happen.

If you wish to uncritically accept her story then you are welcome to do so.

"I've no idea if it's true or not". I've said that in every single post I've put in this thread. Why do you think you're a good judge of what Duffy wrote when you've missed that salient point made in each and every single post? I'm not certain comprehension and analysis are skills you should rely on.

But your first point is easily disproved if you spend any time on boards. Even if the case you outlined above the same posters would be pushing the same story - it didn’t happen and she’s mentally ill. I would still not believe it just because someone said it and I’m unlikely to ever have enough evidence to know one way or the other - the exact same position I take on the Duffy story.

Lonesomerhodes

How do you drug a World famous singer and get them through an airport undectected?.

Why she post of it on instagram of all places?.
Surely the most vacuous of all the social media platforms and certainly not the place to post about a rape.

BattleCorp

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

How do you drug a World famous singer and get them through an airport undectected?.

Why she post of it on instagram of all places?.
Surely the most vacuous of all the social media platforms and certainly not the place to post about a rape.

I'm not saying this is the case with Duffy but many world famous singers pass through airports drugged a lot of the time. Drugged doesn't mean unconscious.

Also, Duffy isn't world famous and would probably be unrecognisable to most. I certainly wouldn't pick her out of a crowd. Maybe someone did see her in the airport that day (if the event ever happened), but why would it stand out? Singers are often in airports as travel is essential in their trade.

Why is she posting on social media about the event? If the event really happened, then maybe she is traumatised from it or maybe she is suffering with a mental illness. Eitherways I think she needs a little bit more help than she is getting at the moment.

paw patrol

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Isn't this exactly the point? She's under no obligation to say anything to convince some online Columbo who thinks they've found the flaws in the story so it must not be true.
.

I don't agree I don't think anybody should blindly cheerlead everything we read on the net. We are born with a natural curiosity. Some of us have more , some less . Something should make some basic sense. This story is a stretch.

Don't be so obtuse as to suggest we all believe something just because..

Odhinn

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Only my two cents but I think it never happened.

Indeed. She may well have been raped or attacked in some fashion, but I doubt it occurred as she described it - there's far too many holes in the plot.

El_Duderino 09

paw patrol wrote: »

I don't agree I don't think anybody should blindly cheerlead everything we read on the net. We are born with a natural curiosity. Some of us have more , some less . Something should make some basic sense. This story is a stretch.

Don't be so obtuse as to suggest we all believe something just because..

If you've made any conclusions on the information that's out here, then it's not me being obtuse. Lots of posters diagnosing mental illness and psychiatric disorders.

I've said in every post in this thread that I don't know what happened. Neither does anyone in this thread know what happened (and I'll probably never know enough to reach a conclusion one way or the other). I'm honest enough to say it and I e no idea why people think they have to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

AllForIt

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont see any reason for her to lie?

Seems to have completly fcuked her up to extent she withdrew for a decade



Quite how someone could come to.conclusion such a person is an attention seeker is beyond me,

Would it been alot handier for her to appear on one those reality shows for attention??

She's a celeb. All news is good news for a celeb because it promotes them.

statesaver

#ibelieveTaraReade but Alyssa Milano doesn't.

splinter65

I believe something very bad happened to her. I believe that she herself is sure that this is what happened to her (she’s not deliberately spoofing). But there’s no way that this story is true. Her spilling this is worrying (or should be) for those close to her and if there’s not some kind of intervention then it’ll end badly.

SeanW

Clearly, we should #believeallwomen. What could possibly go wrong?

Oops ...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can. It’s no different to your suggestion that they shouldn’t. The whole point of a jury trial is that the accused is tried by a jury of their peers - ordinary members of the public, with all their own prejudices and biases. Of course one can ask them to put their prejudices aside and judge the accused in each case on the basis of the evidence before them, but that’s an idealistic notion rather than anything grounded in reality.

Umm ... a person who believes that an accusation cannot possibly be false, is by definition a tainted juror. It would be a fairly shoddy defense lawyer that does not try to determine the objectivity of potential jurors before a trial starts.

A "Believe All Women" type is no more qualified to be a juror in a rape/sexual assault trial than a Nazi is to be on a jury in a trial of a Jewish person or a member of the KKK to try a black person.

BTW should we believe Tara Reade? She's made some rather serious accusations against U.S. Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Do the #believeallwomen crowd want the same standards applied to Tara Reade, Juanita Broddrick et. al. as they apply to the likes of Christine Blaisey Ford?

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lots of posters diagnosing mental illness and psychiatric disorders.

Duffy's story seems a little implausable so people are rightly questioning it. I don't see anybody diagnosing mental illness, they are offering it as a hypothesis for the holes in Duffy's story.

I e no idea why people think they have to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

People form conclusions based on what they see and read. You punch me in the face, I form the conclusion you are a d1ck. I don't have 100% of the facts as to why you did it. You tell me a story that has loads of holes in it, I form the opinion you are either telling lies or you are mistaken. Same scenarion here. Duffy told a story that seems implausible and people are questioning it.

And I've no idea why you think people need to have 100% of the facts before they form an opinion on something. It isn't a court of law and people are perfectly entitled to form an opinion on the balance of probabilities based on the information provided. They may be mistaken, but hey, so be it.

Here's a question. Based on what Duffy said, do you think she is telling the truth or not? I know you don't know for certain, but if you had to pick one side or the other, what side would you pick?

Eric Cartman

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

How do you drug a World famous singer and get them through an airport undectected?.

Why she post of it on instagram of all places?.
Surely the most vacuous of all the social media platforms and certainly not the place to post about a rape.

instagram is a safe space for the crowd that believe any given man is more likely to be a rapist , and any other given man is more likely to be a willing accomplice to a rapist than any given woman is to exaggerate a story Or just flat out lie.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

And I've no idea why you think people need to have 100% of the facts before they form an opinion on something. It isn't a court of law and people are perfectly entitled to form an opinion on the balance of probabilities based on the information provided. They may be mistaken, but hey, so be it.

Here's a question. Based on what Duffy said, do you think she is telling the truth or not? I know you don't know for certain, but if you had to pick one side or the other, what side would you pick?

Who said anything about needing 100% of the facts? I know I didn't so I've no idea why you're pretending to know what I think.

As for your question "Based on what Duffy said, do you think she is telling the truth or not?"

I don't have enough information to even hazard a guess. The story sounds extraordinary but there's nothing impossible in it. No impossible accounts of the cow jumping over the moon or seeing Jesus. So, given the info I have, I would conclude very little except that it an extraordinary account and I have no way to test whether it's true or not.

Same question to you "Based on what Duffy said, do you think she is telling the truth or not?"

El_Duderino 09

For all the people jumping up and down and ironically saying they #ibelieveher, has anyone in this thread even said they absolutely believe the story 100%?

Loads of online Columbos with their Fisher-Price magnifying glass, pretending they know all about rapes and declaring what could and couldn’t happen. But I really don’t see the other side as the big scary behemoth that they’re making it out to be. Even being honest and saying that I don’t have enough information to reach a conclusion (and probably never will) seems to be far too balanced an approach for some people to comprehend.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

For all the people jumping up and down and ironically saying they #ibelieveher, has anyone in this thread even said they absolutely believe the story 100%?

Loads of online Columbos with their Fisher-Price magnifying glass, pretending they know all about rapes and declaring what could and couldn’t happen. But I really don’t see the other side as the big scary behemoth that they’re making it out to be. Even being honest and saying that I don’t have enough information to reach a conclusion (and probably never will) seems to be far too balanced an approach for some people to comprehend.

My personal bet would be theres a consensual sex tape or video of drug consumption coming out sometime soon or being held for financial ransom and this is the way of getting out ahead of it. Just such a stink of proactive PR off it.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

My personal bet would be theres a consensual sex tape or video of drug consumption coming out sometime soon or being held for financial ransom and this is the way of getting out ahead of it. Just such a stink of proactive PR off it.

Lol. And what’s this based on? Your extensive experience of sex tapes, drug use and working in the celebrity PR world?

Christ almighty. I thought we were discussing the situation based on the evidence. Your position is more bonkers than anyone who #ibelieveher.

CrankyHaus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

My personal bet would be theres a consensual sex tape or video of drug consumption coming out sometime soon or being held for financial ransom and this is the way of getting out ahead of it. Just such a stink of proactive PR off it.

For the moment it's all speculation.
She hasn't made a specific allegation against any particular person, so whether we believe her or not doesn't really matter as the presumption of innocence is not infringed upon.

I think most people are able to just take it as a strange story from someone who may have suffered a terrible experience and out of sympathy just leave it at that without jumping to conclusions or seeking to prove why it cannot be true.

El_Duderino 09

CrankyHaus wrote: »

For the moment it's all speculation.
She hasn't made a specific allegation against any particular person, so whether we believe her or not doesn't really matter.

I think most people are able to just take it as a strange story from someone who may have suffered a terrible experience and out of sympathy just leave it at that without jumping to conclusions or seeking to prove why it cannot be true.

Precisely. Well, that’s the position a rational person would hold.

2u2me

CrankyHaus wrote: »

For the moment it's all speculation.
She hasn't made a specific allegation against any particular person, so whether we believe her or not doesn't really matter as the presumption of innocence is not infringed upon.

I think most people are able to just take it as a strange story from someone who may have suffered a terrible experience and out of sympathy just leave it at that without jumping to conclusions or seeking to prove why it cannot be true.

If someone claimed they were abducted and raped by aliens would you also say 'let's just take it as a strange story from someone who may have suffered a terrible experience'

Wouldn't it be the right thing to get to the bottom of it? If not for the sake of the victim but for the sake of it not happening to anyone else.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

I believe something happened to Duffy and I have some sympathy for her. She sounds like she is in the midst of a mental health episode and possibly not many people around her right now.

I'm not being asked in a legal setting to believe her account and to be honest, from what I've read, I don't think it would hold up there. It does sound a bit implausible in parts. I'd say parts of it are true and the rest may be a case of her feeling she was taken advantage of and in the years since her memories of the event have become influenced by emotion.

El_Duderino 09

2u2me wrote: »

If someone claimed they were abducted and raped by aliens would you also say 'let's just take it as a strange story from someone who may have suffered a terrible experience'

Wouldn't it be the right thing to get to the bottom of it? If not for the sake of the victim but for the sake of it not happening to anyone else.

Aliens would be an actual element that couldn't, as far as we know, be true. But there isn't a reference to aliens or anything else that can't have possibly happened.

You're not the first one to mention aliens in spite of the fact that it actually draws the distinction between the case at hand and the case they think they're making.

dark crystal

jimmyrustle wrote: »

You can't seriously be suggesting anybody who thinks an account of a rape should never be questioned should be allowed sit on a jury.

Your outrage would be easier to swallow if you didn't seem so closed minded yourself.

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

Umm ... a person who believes that an accusation cannot possibly be false, is by definition a tainted juror. It would be a fairly shoddy defense lawyer that does not try to determine the objectivity of potential jurors before a trial starts.

A "Believe All Women" type is no more qualified to be a juror in a rape/sexual assault trial than a Nazi is to be on a jury in a trial of a Jewish person or a member of the KKK to try a black person.

They are though. Jury pools aren’t comprised of objective automatons free from all human biases. You’re doing the same as the people who suggest Judges should school juries on “rape myths”, only from the opposite identity politics perspective - both sides attempting to load the jury in their favour.

Of course it’s helpful if both the prosecution and the defence know what they’re dealing with beforehand, but biases or prejudices coming out during a trial won’t necessarily lead to a juror being dismissed -


Other tweets appear to suggest that Hart closely followed the Mueller investigation and criticized both President Donald Trump and those who had been convicted “in 45’s inner-circle.”

Hart and the rest of the jury convicted Stone on Nov. 15, 2019, on seven counts, including witness tampering and lying to Congress.

Although Stone’s defense knew of Hart’s background and previous political aspirations, they declined to strike her from the jury pool. Stone’s lawyers on Wednesday attempted unsuccessfully to seek a new trial by accusing a juror of bias, but the juror in question was not Hart.


Jury foreperson in Roger Stone case accused of bias after tweets surface

SeanW wrote: »

BTW should we believe Tara Reade? She's made some rather serious accusations against U.S. Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Do the #believeallwomen crowd want the same standards applied to Tara Reade, Juanita Broddrick et. al. as they apply to the likes of Christine Blaisey Ford?

The #believeher nonsense was always going to come back to bite it’s proponents in the ass in all fairness. I genuinely don’t know anyone who takes that shìt seriously :pac:

2u2me

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Aliens would be an actual element that couldn't, as far as we know, be true. But there isn't a reference to aliens or anything else that can't have possibly happened.

You're not the first one to mention aliens in spite of the fact that it actually draws the distinction between the case at hand and the case they think they're making.

You admitted a few posts up that no-one believes her story 100%. Hence why I said aliens, something most rational people clearly don't believe.

So come on and admit usually you would have more of a rational hat on here but because of the metoo and i believe her era you've become an activist for the side that is now losing the war on culture.

El_Duderino 09

2u2me wrote: »

You admitted a few posts up that no-one believes her story 100%. Hence why I said aliens, something most rational people clearly don't believe.

So come on and admit usually you would have more of a rational hat on here but because of the metoo and i believe her era you've become an activist for the side that is now losing the war on culture.

Yes, you got me. I'll admit that I don't know what happened. I don't have enough information to conclude one way or the other (and I likely never will have enough information to conclude one way or the other). So there. You got me