Tucker, everyone in this business is screwing up. The GOP is giving Blasey Ford a free pass. Everyone is accepting the notion that Kavanaugh is credibly, allegedly, (and consequently, probably) guilty, and then reinforcing that presumption of guilt by going on the defensive. Meanwhile the Democrats or starting from the presumption of guilt and the Republicans are letting them get away with it.
This can be turned around. Someone needs to grow a set and do the obvious: GO ON THE OFFENSIVE. Start with the assumtion that Blasey Ford is GUILTY. Assume that she is a "fabricator". Assume that her "sexual assault" narrative is a complete and monstrous slanderous fiction, a deliberate and well-crafted campaign aimed at intentionally destroying Kavanaugh's life and reputation. She wasn't assaulted at all. Exactly the opposite. It is she who is assaulting Kavanaugh,
In a situation like this, where two stories conflict, one fact stands out as indisputable: there are two possibilities, one that Kavanaugh is lying, and one that Blasey Ford is lying. So let's look at this from the perspective that ***BLASEY FORD IS THE "LIAR"***. (But I'm going to use the term "fabricator" from here on out in the place of "liar", for reasons that will become clear.)
A "theory of the crime" that Blasey Ford is making the whole thing up is quite a bit more difficult to believe than the "drunken teenage high school boys jump a girl at a party" theory of the crime". Everyone accepts that rowdy drunken teenagers, charged up with hormones, are wild sexual creatures in need of adult supervision, and thus it is easy to believe Blasey Ford's story. In contrast, challenging any woman's accusation of sexual assault is a real challenge: for cultural reasons, "respect for women" reasons, sympathy for women's indisputable experience of abuse at the hands of sexually-aggressive often violent men, and first and foremost, in light of all these factors, the ***presumptive*** unlikelihood of untruthfullness in a sexual assault accusation.
Despite the difficulty that confronts us in making the case that Blasey Ford is a fabricator, let's give it a try.
First, we need to note that the ongoing discourse characterized by endless repetitions of the phrases "the party" and "the sexual assault" has already created in the minds of everyone watching this event, a presumptive "narrative" which has created a sense that these things are real and factual. So we are back on our heels from the start. We have to struggle against an already established "narrative". No matter that might be fictional.
That said, I will have at it and present the case that Blasey Ford is in fact a "fabricator".
The question simply put is: "Why would a woman make up such a story?"
Here are the elements in the case:
Ford goes to high school in toney, upscale Maryland. She is entering adolescence, her teen age years, with all that that implies of the challenge of developing adult maturity. She faces raging hormones, emotional volatility, peer pressure, social group acceptance, and "courtship/dating". Who can dispute that this is a very challenging time in a person's life for anyone, even a person emotionally stable with strong family support? Which brings me to point number one: Blasey Ford appears to be an emotionally fragile person, someone who has suffered from mental instability all her life. And I would suggest that this emotional instability plays a major role in her descent into "obsession" and derangement from which the "fabricator" eventually emerged.
Blasey Ford of course blames this on Brett Kavanaugh, around whom she has built the narrative to justify that blame. But is Brett Kavanaugh's role in this, her "truth", of which she accuses him, or is his role completely different, something else entirely?
I recently, and entirely coincidentally, watched a YouTube video by Jordan Peterson where he discussed the difference between how men and women express aggression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyKGv7zjMs8
At 13 seconds into the video, Peterson says, of female aggression: "It takes the shape of reputation destruction, innuendo, and gossip."
So note this as point one: "REPUTATION DESTRUCTION"
So now, since you're a bright guy and can put the pieces together yourself, let me condense/summarize my argument, stating it almost but not quite, as a bullet point:
She's a teenager, somewhat fragile emotionally. She goes to high school and starts to engage in the natural activities of socialization and emotional development. She sees Brett Kavanaugh, young, handsome, athletic, brilliant, well-behaved, of high social standing, and so she identifies him as "The Perfect Mate". She obsesses on him -- some people would call it "falling in love" -- in the way one might expect an emotionally fragile, hormonally-driven, and immature young woman to obsess. She goes a little crazy, in a teenage sort of way. But then, when he pays no attention to her, ignores her, rejects her, "assaults" her sense of self and worth, she crosses over into genuine pathology. Her "love" -- obsession actually -- turns to hate. In the following years this trauma exacts a terrible price on her ability to function. This is the period where she said she had great difficulty coping "because of the assault". But there was no physical assault, there was only the self-inflicted emotional damage brought on by her obsession and her inability to process through that teenage event.
It further appears that her inability to process that event continued throughout her life. Unable to let it go, she fed her obsession, revisiting the trauma and reinforcing her hatred every time she saw Kavanaugh's name in the public discourse.
In short, "Hell hath no fury..." Christine Blasey Ford is a real life example of Glen Close's character in "Fatal Attraction".
It doesn't really matter whether this is precisely the reason, the explanation, that resolves the conflict between the two competing narratives. What it does accomplish is it provides a plausible explanation for what is otherwise seemingly unexplainable: "Why would a woman make a false accusation?" And that provides reasonable doubt of Brett Kavanaugh's otherwise "presumptive" guilt. That doubt is what is needed to secure Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.
It's up to you Tucker to make that argument in the court of public opinion and secure Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court.
This can be turned around. Someone needs to grow a set and do the obvious: GO ON THE OFFENSIVE. Start with the assumtion that Blasey Ford is GUILTY. Assume that she is a "fabricator". Assume that her "sexual assault" narrative is a complete and monstrous slanderous fiction, a deliberate and well-crafted campaign aimed at intentionally destroying Kavanaugh's life and reputation. She wasn't assaulted at all. Exactly the opposite. It is she who is assaulting Kavanaugh,
In a situation like this, where two stories conflict, one fact stands out as indisputable: there are two possibilities, one that Kavanaugh is lying, and one that Blasey Ford is lying. So let's look at this from the perspective that ***BLASEY FORD IS THE "LIAR"***. (But I'm going to use the term "fabricator" from here on out in the place of "liar", for reasons that will become clear.)
A "theory of the crime" that Blasey Ford is making the whole thing up is quite a bit more difficult to believe than the "drunken teenage high school boys jump a girl at a party" theory of the crime". Everyone accepts that rowdy drunken teenagers, charged up with hormones, are wild sexual creatures in need of adult supervision, and thus it is easy to believe Blasey Ford's story. In contrast, challenging any woman's accusation of sexual assault is a real challenge: for cultural reasons, "respect for women" reasons, sympathy for women's indisputable experience of abuse at the hands of sexually-aggressive often violent men, and first and foremost, in light of all these factors, the ***presumptive*** unlikelihood of untruthfullness in a sexual assault accusation.
Despite the difficulty that confronts us in making the case that Blasey Ford is a fabricator, let's give it a try.
First, we need to note that the ongoing discourse characterized by endless repetitions of the phrases "the party" and "the sexual assault" has already created in the minds of everyone watching this event, a presumptive "narrative" which has created a sense that these things are real and factual. So we are back on our heels from the start. We have to struggle against an already established "narrative". No matter that might be fictional.
That said, I will have at it and present the case that Blasey Ford is in fact a "fabricator".
The question simply put is: "Why would a woman make up such a story?"
Here are the elements in the case:
Ford goes to high school in toney, upscale Maryland. She is entering adolescence, her teen age years, with all that that implies of the challenge of developing adult maturity. She faces raging hormones, emotional volatility, peer pressure, social group acceptance, and "courtship/dating". Who can dispute that this is a very challenging time in a person's life for anyone, even a person emotionally stable with strong family support? Which brings me to point number one: Blasey Ford appears to be an emotionally fragile person, someone who has suffered from mental instability all her life. And I would suggest that this emotional instability plays a major role in her descent into "obsession" and derangement from which the "fabricator" eventually emerged.
Blasey Ford of course blames this on Brett Kavanaugh, around whom she has built the narrative to justify that blame. But is Brett Kavanaugh's role in this, her "truth", of which she accuses him, or is his role completely different, something else entirely?
I recently, and entirely coincidentally, watched a YouTube video by Jordan Peterson where he discussed the difference between how men and women express aggression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyKGv7zjMs8
At 13 seconds into the video, Peterson says, of female aggression: "It takes the shape of reputation destruction, innuendo, and gossip."
So note this as point one: "REPUTATION DESTRUCTION"
So now, since you're a bright guy and can put the pieces together yourself, let me condense/summarize my argument, stating it almost but not quite, as a bullet point:
She's a teenager, somewhat fragile emotionally. She goes to high school and starts to engage in the natural activities of socialization and emotional development. She sees Brett Kavanaugh, young, handsome, athletic, brilliant, well-behaved, of high social standing, and so she identifies him as "The Perfect Mate". She obsesses on him -- some people would call it "falling in love" -- in the way one might expect an emotionally fragile, hormonally-driven, and immature young woman to obsess. She goes a little crazy, in a teenage sort of way. But then, when he pays no attention to her, ignores her, rejects her, "assaults" her sense of self and worth, she crosses over into genuine pathology. Her "love" -- obsession actually -- turns to hate. In the following years this trauma exacts a terrible price on her ability to function. This is the period where she said she had great difficulty coping "because of the assault". But there was no physical assault, there was only the self-inflicted emotional damage brought on by her obsession and her inability to process through that teenage event.
It further appears that her inability to process that event continued throughout her life. Unable to let it go, she fed her obsession, revisiting the trauma and reinforcing her hatred every time she saw Kavanaugh's name in the public discourse.
In short, "Hell hath no fury..." Christine Blasey Ford is a real life example of Glen Close's character in "Fatal Attraction".
It doesn't really matter whether this is precisely the reason, the explanation, that resolves the conflict between the two competing narratives. What it does accomplish is it provides a plausible explanation for what is otherwise seemingly unexplainable: "Why would a woman make a false accusation?" And that provides reasonable doubt of Brett Kavanaugh's otherwise "presumptive" guilt. That doubt is what is needed to secure Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.
It's up to you Tucker to make that argument in the court of public opinion and secure Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court.
Comments