There's a point I keep wanting to make which just happens to have come up again last night. It's the idea that if a number of women accuse a man of harassment, then it must be true because they can't all be lying. It's rotten logic, but the feminist left pushes it.
The specific issue this time comes up in the context of NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson. He's been accused of sexual harassment by 22 women who were hired over a several year span to give him professional massages. They tried to have him charged criminally and several prosecutors in Texas refused to pursue the cases. With that failing, all 22 have sued him civilly. Last night, Watson's attorney was asked on HBO why we should believe "one man over 22 women." Of course, leftist feminists were hallelujahing all day about this, but the truth is, this is a crap argument.
Why?
Here's the thing: if you believe that 22 people won't lie about the same thing, then this argument makes perfect sense. But anyone who thinks that is a fool.
Let's start with this: would 22 people lie about a thing? The left likes to think that massive numbers of cops will lie about a suspect's guilt, so yes. So why are cops different than 22 masseuses? The left believes millions of Americans lie about being racist. They believe all men lie about being rapists. They believe corporations lie about everything. Why would 22 masseuses be different? Mainly because the left <i>wants</i> to believe this. That's it. They want to believe criminals too and I can tell you, having done criminal work, <i>every</i> criminal lies. Every one. It's part of who they are.
But would a woman lie something like <i>THIS</i>? Sexual harassment? Of course. First, I'm not sexist enough to think that women are incapable of lying and I'm not Victorian enough to think they are unwilling. Women lie, just like men. Feminists dogma doesn't accept that, but it's true. But would they actually lie about sexual violence? Yup. What proof do I have? How's this: depending on who you believe, <u>up to 25% or rape claims are false</u>. There were 127,000 reported rape claims last year, that means 32,000 women lied about being raped last year. Even feminist literature admits that 2% of rape claims are false, meaning 2,500 women lied about being raped last year. Is it really hard to believe that 22 women lied about something less than "rape-rape" (as Whoopie famously said)?
"By why would they lie? What could be their motive?!" squeal the leftist journalists. Money. These women sued for money. I have worked on several large cases in my life (like Fen-Phen defense). And while many people were very badly hurt (or even died) there were also millions of claims by people who simply never took the drugs or felt no effect but claimed all kinds of fake injuries. They lied. Where money is on the table, all bets are off. My neighbor uses a wheelchair when he sees disability or his doctor, but never uses it around the neighborhood. He's lying.
But what are the chances they are "all" liars? High actually. It's called adverse selection. Adverse selection means that people who can exploit an opportunity will seek out those opportunities. See, the idea promoted by the phrasing ("how can they <i>all</i> lie") is that it would be an impossible coincidence that every woman involved is lying. But that's misleading. Watson had over 90 masseuses. These 22 are the ones who sued. Around 70 did not. They denied seeing anything like these women claimed. So a more accurate question is not "how can they <i>all</i> be lying" but "how can 22 out of 90 women be lying?" In that regard, note the interesting coincidence that 22/90 works out to 24%... the same number who lie about rape.
The specific issue this time comes up in the context of NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson. He's been accused of sexual harassment by 22 women who were hired over a several year span to give him professional massages. They tried to have him charged criminally and several prosecutors in Texas refused to pursue the cases. With that failing, all 22 have sued him civilly. Last night, Watson's attorney was asked on HBO why we should believe "one man over 22 women." Of course, leftist feminists were hallelujahing all day about this, but the truth is, this is a crap argument.
Why?
Here's the thing: if you believe that 22 people won't lie about the same thing, then this argument makes perfect sense. But anyone who thinks that is a fool.
Let's start with this: would 22 people lie about a thing? The left likes to think that massive numbers of cops will lie about a suspect's guilt, so yes. So why are cops different than 22 masseuses? The left believes millions of Americans lie about being racist. They believe all men lie about being rapists. They believe corporations lie about everything. Why would 22 masseuses be different? Mainly because the left <i>wants</i> to believe this. That's it. They want to believe criminals too and I can tell you, having done criminal work, <i>every</i> criminal lies. Every one. It's part of who they are.
But would a woman lie something like <i>THIS</i>? Sexual harassment? Of course. First, I'm not sexist enough to think that women are incapable of lying and I'm not Victorian enough to think they are unwilling. Women lie, just like men. Feminists dogma doesn't accept that, but it's true. But would they actually lie about sexual violence? Yup. What proof do I have? How's this: depending on who you believe, <u>up to 25% or rape claims are false</u>. There were 127,000 reported rape claims last year, that means 32,000 women lied about being raped last year. Even feminist literature admits that 2% of rape claims are false, meaning 2,500 women lied about being raped last year. Is it really hard to believe that 22 women lied about something less than "rape-rape" (as Whoopie famously said)?
"By why would they lie? What could be their motive?!" squeal the leftist journalists. Money. These women sued for money. I have worked on several large cases in my life (like Fen-Phen defense). And while many people were very badly hurt (or even died) there were also millions of claims by people who simply never took the drugs or felt no effect but claimed all kinds of fake injuries. They lied. Where money is on the table, all bets are off. My neighbor uses a wheelchair when he sees disability or his doctor, but never uses it around the neighborhood. He's lying.
But what are the chances they are "all" liars? High actually. It's called adverse selection. Adverse selection means that people who can exploit an opportunity will seek out those opportunities. See, the idea promoted by the phrasing ("how can they <i>all</i> lie") is that it would be an impossible coincidence that every woman involved is lying. But that's misleading. Watson had over 90 masseuses. These 22 are the ones who sued. Around 70 did not. They denied seeing anything like these women claimed. So a more accurate question is not "how can they <i>all</i> be lying" but "how can 22 out of 90 women be lying?" In that regard, note the interesting coincidence that 22/90 works out to 24%... the same number who lie about rape.
Moreover, most of these women did not claim what you might think. While the case is being sold by the media as Watson forcing himself on these women, what most are actually alleging is that he propositioned them. That's not a crime except in feminist circles. That's why the prosecutors refused to prosecute, because asking someone for sex is not a crime. Nor does it support claims of improper touching. What they've done is tried to support the one or two genuine claims of improper touching with 20 or so bullship claims of "he asked me out." Suddenly, the "how can 22 women be lying" argument seems a little dishonest, doesn't it? Not to mention, we're down to "why would a couple women out of 90 lie?" See why this argument is crap?
It gets worse.
There's a ringleader. These women were found by an attorney who tried to shake down Watson and has waged this campaign in the newspapers rather than the courts. In fact, when Watson's attorney was asked why we shouldn't "believe 22 women", her answer was that the attorney had orchestrated it. This is the reason the rules of ethics actually forbid attorneys to solicit lawsuits, because unscrupulous attorneys will talk people into joining suits for a quick shakedown.
And for those who think attorneys can't coordinate witnesses, one the biggest problems preventing the legal system from disciplining cops for decades used to be that they would all get the same attorney who would keep them from breaking ranks. This is part of the "blue wall of silence" which courts finally ruled was obstructive of justice. Yet, here, leftist feminists think nothing of a single attorney coordinating these women -- women whose interests are actually adverse when it comes to (1) weeding out lying hangers-on and (2) dividing Watson's resources if they win, meaning it's actually unethical for the attorney to represent them all together.
Do you see the problem?
This is the same crap the left has been using for all sorts of identity politics arguments. Whenever you hear someone argue "how could so many people be lying," the reality is they probably are, especially when these same people refuse to allow the accused to make the same argument... or defend themselves (see Duke rape case). Think about all the hundreds of totally false sexual harassment claims made against every Republican nominee. Think about the pathetic evidence the left accepts in those cases: "she told her best friend who would never ever ever lie for her about it two weeks ago"). So if a liar repeats the lie, that's proof it's true? And if many people repeat it, that's proof of truth? A lie is a lie no matter how many millions of people believe it. Or think about "so many scientists say globalcooling warming change is real"! So? Believe does not create truth. Etc. Etc.
Don't fall for this.
And for those who think attorneys can't coordinate witnesses, one the biggest problems preventing the legal system from disciplining cops for decades used to be that they would all get the same attorney who would keep them from breaking ranks. This is part of the "blue wall of silence" which courts finally ruled was obstructive of justice. Yet, here, leftist feminists think nothing of a single attorney coordinating these women -- women whose interests are actually adverse when it comes to (1) weeding out lying hangers-on and (2) dividing Watson's resources if they win, meaning it's actually unethical for the attorney to represent them all together.
Do you see the problem?
This is the same crap the left has been using for all sorts of identity politics arguments. Whenever you hear someone argue "how could so many people be lying," the reality is they probably are, especially when these same people refuse to allow the accused to make the same argument... or defend themselves (see Duke rape case). Think about all the hundreds of totally false sexual harassment claims made against every Republican nominee. Think about the pathetic evidence the left accepts in those cases: "she told her best friend who would never ever ever lie for her about it two weeks ago"). So if a liar repeats the lie, that's proof it's true? And if many people repeat it, that's proof of truth? A lie is a lie no matter how many millions of people believe it. Or think about "so many scientists say global
Don't fall for this.
A couple asides:
ReplyDelete1. Blowout loss for Trump in Georgia. Good sign.
2. Democratic politicians are happy as pigs in sh*t that they have a mass shooting to talk about so they can look tough. Nothing is so sickening it can't be exploited. Hollywood too, which is ironic since they are a huge part of the problem. Stop promoting gun violence as cool.
3. It's funny how far they are going out of their way to avoid saying the word "gay" when it comes to Monkeypox. Soon they'll out ads telling heterosexual old couples to wear masks to stop its spread.
Hey Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI had heard about this case with Deshaun Watson. I assumed it was an open & shut case. When 22 accusers come forward, it seems pretty open & shut to me.
However after reading your article It turns out I may be mistaken. I never knew there were *90* in total masseuses that had worked with Deshaun… that means 68 people had no issues with him. Factor in the manipulation from the Attorney/media, and add to the fact that most of the 22 masseuses don't even claim he touched them (they claim he just made a verbal proposition)… it really cast doubt onto this whole case.
I figured I was decently well informed but clearly I was not. I should have known better than to trust ABC at face value (It was through ABC that I heard about the case and got the impression Deshaun was guilty).
Thanks for sharing, I honestly would have never given this story a second look and would have just gone on assuming it was as bad as it looked. I will have to keep this case in mind for future manipulative news articles that I come across.
-Kyle
Hi Kyle, I've followed it for a while and it really is not what people think. It began with a couple women coming forward. They got an attorney and he basically advertised for more claimants. Then he tried to shake Watson down. Watson refused. So he tried to get the NFL to shake him down. When that failed, he tried to get criminal charges file. That failed too. So now they're stuck pursing the case.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have seen, there are only 2-3 who claim he did anything that should be considered sexual assault/harassment. A couple claim he exposed himself, but their claims have not been detailed enough to know if he intended it to mean something or it was just a loose towel. The rest are in the "he 'pressured' me for sex" category.
Most of the other 70 have said he was always a gentlemen. And lots of women who do this say that the ones claiming harassment failed to act they way they're trained to act... and should have left if he refused to follow their instructions. These other women have actually provided pretty brutal assessments of the claims.
Ultimately, I don't know if he did anything. All that interests me is this "how can 22 people lie" claim which you see all the time. Getting groups of people to lie is really easy. And keep in mind when you have really good evidence, you use that, not the "how can 22 people lie" type arguments.