341
2/3/2025 - Trump Orders Schools to Ease Sex Assault Rules
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
341 points (100.0% liked)
Keep Track
865 readers
1 users here now
Keeping Track of the 2nd Trump administration!
One thing Donald Trump and the extreme right were very good at doing is burying the track record of his first presidency from 2017 to 2021.
Keep Track is dedicated to literally keeping track, day by day, of the policy decisions made by the new Trump Administration.
That is not to say we're interested in the crazy things he says or tweets, he clocked over 30,000 lies the last time he was in office, I don't see how it's possible to track all of that. This is about POLICY. Nominees, executive orders, signed laws, and so on.
Subject line format should be {{date}} {{event}} so: "01-20-2025 - Trump is sworn in."
The international date format of 2025-01-20 is also acceptable!
Links should be to verifiable news sources, not social media or blog sites. So no Xitter/Truth/Youtube/Substack/etc. etc.
Project 2025 tracker here!
https://www.project2025.observer/
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
If your only argument is making up fake numbers and facts and calling me Trump supporter and rape supporter, then there is no point continuing here. I can't disprove every irrational fear you make up about lawyers in your head.
Actually, I made ten points, and you ignored almost all of them, as usual.
"Just" Nope, they're character assassination putting the victim on trial instead of the perpetrator. Saying it isn't doesn't change the reality. Read about it if you care, but you don't and won't.
Seems we either disagree on what "character-assasination" means or one of us has flawed understanding of how witness testimony in court works.
Considering how many actual court documents I read through and how many explanations from lawyers how various rules and procedures work I watched, I would be surprised if it was me with the flawed understanding but it is possible. I was never in court myself after all.
But you are still dodging a big issue with your argument. You are saying the same administrators that are so smart they can determine who is guilty on their own without any lawyers, proper process or cross examination are simultaneously dumb enough to be swayed by a character-assasination and would let 99 out of 100 rapists go.
I didn't say they would be swayed by it, I said it shouldn't happen.
I'm amused by your switch from how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim to less specific stuff including some videos from lawyers, but you still, as I predicted, have no intention of reading rape victims accounts because as you've made clear again and again, women's experiences aren't what you want to understand. I'm not sure the rapist defending lawyers made a lot of videos about how they harangue rape victims in court and drag their reputation through the mud as the standard defence technique. I don't know why you thought that the lawyers would admit to that on youtube.
Let's ignore you misreading what I wrote about court documents and procedures and suggesting I instead get information from the most biased and subjective source available.
Are you arguing the lawyers would do character assassination on rape victims for fun, even though they would know it does not help them win the case?
Because if it did not work, they have no real reason to do it. And if it works, back to my argument about administrators being incapable.
You're confusing court with school. I'm not.
So what actually is your argument? Why shouldn't be lawyers allowed or even required at the school hearings?
I was under the impression you were afraid they would do character assassinations to get rapists of the hook, further traumatizing the victims. Now you say that is not what you claim and you were just talking about actual courts for some reason?
The character assassination and sex life trashing that lawyers do in rape trials is unnecessary, harrowing for the victims, is based on an illogical argument that a woman who has sex with anyone wants sex with everyone, obstructs justice by letting the vast majority of rapists go free, and should not be allowed in school over an exclusion. Kids get excluded every week over far less, but you just care about the rich rapists being allowed to bring their expensive lawyers in to harass girls for speaking out over sexual violence and stay in the same dining hall as their victims.
Ah yes, so the exact argument I just debunked and unfounded personal insults and liabel. Sounds about right.
Let me repeat it for you one last time.
Really interesting that you call what I said libel!
The lawyers are what makes the situation worse, not better.
Making the whole thing an unnecessary ordeal that's just there to discourage girls from reporting it even to the school.
It's all about the victim shaming and humiliation of women. That's the point of it. And it sways juries.
You overuse the "your whole argument" misrepresentation debating technique. If only there were a phrase for that kind of fallacy.
You repeatedly ignore the fact that Trump is a rapist who has a track record of using expensive lawyers to harass women who speak out about it, and that you should have seventy times the skepticism about a rapist changing the rules in favour of rapists, but somehow you can't hear that without shreiking about bias or ignoring it completely.
Don't put the lunatics in charge of the asylum, don't listen to sex offenders proposing changes to how sex offenders are dealt with, and don't defend rapists who want to change how schools deal with rapists. It really stretches people's ability to see you as having any sort of rationality or objectivity on the issue when you can't accept this point.
Because you repeatedly refuse to state what you are arguing. Switching from argument to argument.
How is it unnecessary? Do you believe no false accusations are made? Do you believe the previous system was able to deal with false accusations? Or do you believe that falsely expelling innocent people does not matter?
You repeatedly refuse to answer the above, because you clearly know each one of the options can be easily disproven. So you just try to mix all the options together and throw in extra irrelevant statements hoping to create enough confusion that it can't be argued against.
That's why my previous comment had to have bullet points addressing different interpretation of your vague bullshit and it still does not seem enough.
And you keep throwing in ad hominem arguments and false claims about what I believe. Bringing in Trump who is irrelevant to the argument. Why is he irrelevant? Because I don't listen to Trump. I held the belief that this change should be done for years, ever since I read about 5 girls falsely accusing a boy of rape and being caught bragging about the false accusation. I read how he was kicked out of school. I read how he was under house arrest for months. I read how despite clear recorded admission that the girls made it up, prosecutor refused to charge them with false reports "Because it could discourage girls from speaking up". Yeah, no shit. It is supposed to discourage false claims. I read how the school administration despite clear evidence the claim was false refused to apologise or even just readmit him to the school. I tried to look up that case right now and google finds so many false rape accusation I can't even find the one that I read those years ago.
How many false claims are never included in any statistic, because the accusers are not dumb enough to send each other texts and voicemails admitting to it? So yes, I believe there should be more protections for the innocent people that are falsely accused.
So when I saw Trump actually made the change I believed should have been done for years, I find it ridiculous people will repeatedly shit on it just because of who enacted it. That people could not go a few messages without mentioning Trump is a fascist and rapist in a discussion that should have nothing to do with him. That people would repeatedly call me Trump supporter for happening to agree with single one of his policies.
I shouldn't be forced to write this. In any genuine good faith discussion about policy, individual politicians or parties should not be playing a role. Just the merits and demerits of the policy. But you refuse that. Instead of arguing why you think the policy is unnecessary, you again and again resort to personal insults and "Trump bad" statements that have nothing to do with it.
After writing this shit repeatedly, you have the gall to say I am the one using "misrepresentation debating technique"? Just because I am forced to divine what your argument is from the word spaghetti you keep throwing at the wall hoping for something to stick? So go and make a proper logical argument, without 20 non sequesters weaved in just to confuse everything. I am not able to read minds, so when you write vague statements instead of a full coherent argument, I have to guess what your argument could be.
So much protection.
You don't need to believe me about how harrowing rape trials are for the victims, you just need to read about it even a little bit and you would know, but you have no interest in women's experiences, or the statistics, you just want impunity for rapists.
If you don't like being called a Trump supporter, maybe don't spend so long online criticizing people for calling out the convict and Rapist in Chief for changing the rules to make it easier for his fellow rapists in school to use their wealth to not even get chucked out of the school where their victim is retraumatized every day.
Every time someone mentions that Trump is a rapist himself you start claiming that they only dislike this policy because they're biased against Trump, where in fact we're just not very keen on rapists making the rules about whether rapists can get away with rape in schools.