422
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

He has a record. He also was convicted of ~~rape~~ sexual assault and also defaming said woman twice.

[-] soul@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

No, he had a sexual abuse charge, not rape. None of the above was a criminal charge, only civil.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago
[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 5 months ago

Whilst sexual assault is terrible we must remember that was determined only on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it's an important part of our legal system.

[-] soul@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Exactly. I'm not defending Trump in any way shape or form. But spreading misinformation, disregarding nuance, and ignoring factual details is dangerous and exactly what Republican politicians want. We need to be better than that as a nation.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Distinctions without a difference aside,

You know what seems like a distinction with a very important difference?

"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E Jean Carroll."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

They literally changed the legal code because of rape apologists since NY was one of the last states that didn't consider vaginal penetration without consent rape unless a penis was involved.

Which, after and not before you get shaeshanked in the dufrane, you can feel free to distinguish your differences.

Because of dumps vaginally penetrating someone without their consent, regardless of method, that is also legally considered rape in New York

Dumps is a rapist by most legal definitions, his crime is one of rape today because of the sexual assault he committed and was held liable for, and the judge made it perfectly clear that dumps is a rapist in case anyone was confused.

[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 5 months ago

Sure, it still isn't a criminal conviction. Perhaps there was sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction and perhaps there isn't. I don't know.

One may conclude that in all likelihood he has committed such a crime. However, we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime, because he wasn't (in the context of that civil matter).

Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable principle and politics is a trivial reason to dispense with it.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

I didn't say it was a criminal conviction, you're confused.

"we cannot claim he has been convicted for such a crime" - do not claim that. This was a civil case, not a criminal case, so when trump was found liable for rape, he was not "convicted", a legal term used to define guilt in a criminal case, not a civil case.

The likelihood of his guilt in raping Carroll in this civil case is called his "liability".

As a consequence of the evidence presented, trump was found liable of sexual assault that is defined as rape in most states, and the judge presiding over that case clarified that Trump was found liable(legal term for "responsible"), for the rape of Jean Carroll, since the only thing that differs between this sexual assault and rape was New York's antiquated legal wording that has since been updated.

[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 5 months ago

Yes, this is what I said. We all agree.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You are still confused.

I appreciate your backpedal, but no we do not agree.

  1. You disagree with the judge and jury that dumps was found liable for rape.

I agree with the judge and jury that dumps was found liable for rape.

  1. Parroting part of what I said, then pretending you said it first while you equivocate rape and bash straw men is much less agreeable than you appear to think it is.

If your greatest desire is pedantry, you should try it on someone who didn't supply you with your information.

[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 5 months ago
[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Don't play make believe if you aren't ready for the real world.

[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 5 months ago

You are very hostile. I'm not sure what your problem is.

There is no argument to be had here. We've both expressed the same points and we are agreeing.

Touch grass man. Life is good.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

I don't appreciate your attempts at manipulation and called you out on them.

You seem upset you got caught and upset you aren't being allowed to keep making things up.

We do not agree, you're attempting to equivocate your poor conduct with my straight talk.

Not how it works. By all means, "touch grass".

[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah man, look I'm sorry you feel that way. I wish you all the best.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

No you don't, or you would engage honestly instead of trying to manipulate the conversation and imply I've written something I haven't.

"I'm sorry you feel that way" is textbook gaslighting, a quick way to use the correct apology language to end an argument without having to admit fault” (Forsythe, 2021).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mental-health-revolution/202203/i-m-sorry-you-feel-way-and-other-gaslighting-tactics

  • Gaslighting is psychological abuse through verbal, written, and/or physical actions that cause the recipient to question their reality.

  • A non-apology is used to deflect, pretend to apologize, and ultimately win the disagreement by placing blame back on the individual.

  • The insensitivity of gaslighting often lies in the lack of self-awareness and self-inquiry to address control issues and avoidance of apologies.

[-] Hawk@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 5 months ago

Hey, I'm not that invested here. It's cool, we're good.

I don't have a horse in this race.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Another obvious affectation, are you trying to collect them all?

You're over a dozen comments deep into this conversation, using insults, equivocation, gaslighting and manipulation trying to avoid admitting your clear mistakes and errors in judgment.

It's natural that you would keep trying to avoid responsibility, but you are repeatedly trying way too hard to trick people and make up stories to pretend you don't care.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The TL;DR is that the jurisdiction in which the case happened has a very narrow definition of what constitutes rape; It requires penis-in-vagina insertion. Anything else is “only” sexual abuse.

Trump grabbed her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. All of it non-consensually. But where it happened, that isn’t enough to qualify as rape, because it didn’t involve PiV sex. The judge was clarifying that no, the case didn’t say he raped her, but that is only because of the incredibly narrow definition of the word “rape”. The judge was basically saying that in common parlance, (not the jurisdiction’s narrow legal definitions), most people would agree that what Trump did was in fact rape.

The judge’s statement was in response to Trump’s lawyers going “LoL wEll AkShuAllY hE nEveR RapED HeR”, like some sort of “it’s not actually pedophilia it’s ephebophilia, and that’s not as bad” argument. The judge’s statement is also in line with what psychiatric fields and the justice department define as rape, which includes penetration with any appendages or objects. But again, the local laws had a narrower definition.

Also worth noting that New York quickly changed their legal definitions following the lawsuit. Because the lawsuit was a giant beacon to the fact that they were one of the last places in the country to still strictly define rape as PiV penetration. So if it were to happen again today, the verdict would have said Trump raped her.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You might be intending to reply to someone else, I actually explained these exact points in a couple other comments.

Oh, are you just adding a general tldr for everyone who isn't aware? Got it.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The point of a TL;DR is to explain the link to third parties, and maybe add some context. I’m assuming you’ve already read the article, and it wasn’t directed at you.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think you might be intending to reply to somebody else, I just wrote that to you in the previous comment.

this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
422 points (98.4% liked)

News

23284 readers
3505 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS