Thread by @zunguzungu

That Bret Stephens column is the usual mix of bad faith double standards, slippery rhetoric, and calculated omissions

But there IS something clarifying in the meant-to-be startling revelation that, in this case, Bret Stephens Approves of Trump, which is that "a man is being accused of sexual assault" is the point at which #nevertrump becomes #actuallytrump

This, however, is the most stunning rhetorical move: three women who have are testifying have become--without the benefit of "corroboration"--an accumulation of hearsay.

I struggle for an interpretation that isn't "Women can't witness without someone vouching for them"

Even if you put aside his highly tendentious understanding of corroboration and the wildly unequal standards he's using, the use of the word "hearsay" is just wildly, flagrantly, and offensively wrong.

Hearsay is when you heard someone else say it. How can you confuse women saying "this happened to me" with that? Unless you are saying that sexual assault claims are, as such, to be doubted (until a Real Witness comes forth to corroborate)?

The easy and correct answer is that Bret Stephens is a lazy hack who slops out wish fulfillment pseudo-arguments for bad people who want to be confirmed in their very bad beliefs and prejudices.

But the shape of the pseudo-argument that is desired--and that he provides--is instructive: what is wanted is an argument for why women cannot reliably witness their own sexual assaults. And so he provides it: it is not evidence, it is merely "hearsay."

The question I have is this: why are all of these fuckers going BEYOND the usual denialist playbook? Why aren't they simply DARVOING through it? dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARV…

Instead it's "well all boys assault women at 17" and "women can't legally witness their own assaults"

We're about two moves away from rape being defended on the grounds that the government has no business regulating sexuality