That just seems like more classic patriarchy.
Calling it psychopatriarchy makes it seem badass and gives it subversive appeal.
I could easily imagine right-wing social media running with it and squawking “pSyChOpAtRiArChY!!” with gusto like dumbass Beavises going “fire! fire! FIRE!”.
Not sure what that’ll do for public discourse.
Calling it before it happens.
Anytime someone brings up paradox of intolerance in the fediverse, the chance is very high they’re completely wrong about it and are regurgitating shit they read from some dumbass on social media.
From the article (you didn’t read or understand) quoting Karl Popper (extended with the rest of the passage)
[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
The type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.
The quote comes from a footnote in the book The Open Society and Its Enemies, whose thesis is that an open society (ie, liberalism) has stronger merits than the newer, trendier totalitarian political theories of the day predicated on teleological historicism. They approached this from their background in philosophy of science (emphasizing enterprises controlled by skepticism and free inquiry) to argue that liberal democracies are not inevitably doomed by totalitarian systems of power, because liberal institutions have an overlooked strength
Only democracy allows an institutional framework that permits reform without violence, and so the use of reason in political matters
and to keep totalitarian systems like fascism or communism at bay, we need to sustain institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments.
Even with the best rulers, unchecked power is likely to err and cause unbound damage. Instead of focusing only on selecting the best rulers, a better system of government might determine
How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?
They resolved that such a system should include strict limits on the power of the state and a special emphasis on intellectual freedom.
They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not less of it, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage. That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.
Their discussion on public policy has no bearing on the democratic consequences accepting code that “solves the problem” from people we disagree with. It’s pretty much accepting charity and doesn’t imply you promote or agree with their views at all. Philosophers generally scoff at purity policing bullshit and genetic fallacies, especially those who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society.
Don’t you think it’s fucked, though, in terms of accountability & integrity of government authority? Some people might assume police authority belongs exclusively to the government and ultimately answers to the public through elected officials, yet here we have unelected private employers setting their conditions of employment and directing policy with no inherent duty to the public. That scheme seems at odds with basic premises of liberal democratic governance. Private employment of police officers isn’t necessary to assign public officers to beats at campuses with specialized policies.
Law enforcement is bad enough when accountable to the public. Despite the results, severing that accountability & governance is in principle unsound.
Did the statement say “calling other people to the room”? She was offered a foursome and said “no” to that. That doesn’t imply “no” to taking turns or an audience. The rest is your embellishment.
An argument showing the relevant legal standard for “lack of consent” (stated in the DA’s statement) is satisfied would be compelling. This isn’t.
Failing to review transcripts is substandard practice: serious fault in the DA there. However, unless significant allegations in the transcript are absent from the statement, it’s unlikely to resolve the statement’s contradiction of a crime.
A confident claim is not a conclusive legal determination drawn from alleged facts. According to the reported transcript, she was confident about the statement, too:
On the second day of the interview, Jane Doe reviewed the revised six-page statement. The transcript shows her adviser asked if she wanted her and another adviser to review the statement.
Before signing, the transcript shows Jane Doe said, “I’m very confident about this.”
When the only allegation recommending a criminal charge alleges facts that not only fail to support that conclusion but negate key statutory elements of the crime, that eliminates every prosecutable theory and legal basis for an investigation. Such a contradiction is not resolvable through further investigation. At least some plausible basis for a crime needs to be articulated for an investigation to justifiably proceed.
The DA gave the complainant notice of his determination and an opportunity to review it together. That was another chance to raise any allegations the DA could have missed & explain how they arrived to their conclusion when alleged facts reviewed so far didn’t support it. The complainant apparently waived the opportunity.
The “multiple things indicating lack of consent” are worse than you wrote, yet they don’t satisfy the element of the crime. A feeling lacking clear expression is not a fact supporting the legal standard; she had the liberty to reject, exercised it, and was met with compliance
According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, the sexual conduct stopped.
Shutting down events and distasteful language in snapchat obviously don’t qualify.
Much that you mention or that comes up in these stories is already in the statement, too. Some allegation that actually meets the legal standards is needed.
Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent. The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent.
She alleged cognitive capacity (understood what she’s doing), volition (willing choices), not incapacity to control her conduct, compulsion, inability to communicate willingness, expression of nonconsent, etc. Throughout the recollection, she was understanding, rejecting & accepting requests, choosing offers, conducting choices. She exercised autonomy.
The legal standard of “mental incapacitation” isn’t an incapacity to recall, it’s an incapacity to control one’s own actions (with conditions). Memory‑formation failure is not a loss of volitional control. People are still responsive to stimuli, can have full on conversations, can conduct willful choices. Their failure to recall it later is retrospective. That does not mean people weren’t cognizant at the time and making willful choices. The law doesn’t say black-out drunks lack a choice when they commit a crime. Dumber, less inhibited choices aren’t a lack of willing choice.
I doubt the structure of the law & its standards would support your suggested interpretation of “mental incapacitation”. It explicitly rejects voluntary intoxication, and she alleges legally significant capacity to understand & choose her conduct. New York already rejects intoxication as a defense for criminal liability. Consistency with that is unlikely to support constructions for consensual intoxication as a substantial incapacity to understand and control one’s own conduct (which would excuse liability).
It’s easier to get enraged without the burden of relevant facts.
Individuals who are accused of committing a crime must be prosecuted based upon evidence and not public opinion, especially not public opinion based upon false information.
Public opinion is easily misled, and reading the DA’s statement entirely changed my opinion on this matter.
I think any logical person would be compelled to draw the same conclusion in the DA’s position when presented the same facts & laws.
I suggest everyone read it before indulging superficiality.
Jane Doe’s account objectively determined criminal charges unviable.
The DA’s statement makes it quite clear that the facts alleged in Jane Doe’s signed, 6-page statement to police did not support “lack of consent” as defined in New York’s penal law.
Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.
Under New York State Penal Law 130.05, every sexual assault offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. As it relates to this case, lack of consent can result from 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, 3) physical helplessness of the victim, or 4) with certain criminal charges where the victim clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. See N.Y. Penal Law 130.05.
Under New York State Law, “forcible compulsion” requires proof of the use of physical force to compel someone to engage in sexual conduct.
Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent.
Under New York State Law, “physical helplessness” occurs when a victim is unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness to act.
Finally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe’s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act.
Her account (described in detail) eliminated every one of those possibilities.
No prosecutor’s going to pursue charges that don’t legally fit and reasonably expect a conviction.
Moreover, anyone who reads the account might be reasonably unpersuaded the events described constitute a crime.
Starting from a counterfactual isn’t a strong argument. El-Sayed won the primary for a reason and gets massive support in similar comment sections from Democrats overwhelmingly agreeing that Stevens can go fuck herself.
How you divine who is & isn’t “the Vote Blue No Matter Who brigade” is the real mystery. Supporting commentary looks the same no matter who writes it, and it’s hardly needed when an upvote will do. Are you a mindreader? Do you consort with a higher power? Please show us your mystical, sagely ways.
It’s especially comical because Vote Blue No Matter Who unsurprisingly means doing that regardless of whom blue is. It doesn’t necessarily imply broadcasting commentary everywhere about it to your satisfaction.
It seems you’re agitating for some poorly articulated conflict in your deluded fantasy when the “Blue No Matter Who” crowd is embracing your candidate.