Biden admin proposes new Title IX rules,ending cross examination

[bagelman]

Idiotic. Brandon is such a fossil, I can't believe he's once again him or quasi-fascism.

[Ferguson97]

Did Biden wait until and now in his presidency because he thinks it's a winning issue or some other reason?

This isn't exactly the kind of issue that will grab headlines, so I imagine he just thinks it's the right thing to do.

[DaleCooper]

One of the unintended and darkly humorous consequences of this nonsense is that in the years since the #MeToo thing and all the 2010s Title IX crap, we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women. There have been so many high profile false allegations that the media (both alternative and mainstream) has jumped on only to be embarrassed later that a lot of people just shrug and assume it's all BS, which is of course terrible.

[Dan the Roman]

One of the unintended and darkly humorous consequences of this nonsense is that in the years since the #MeToo thing and all the 2010s Title IX crap, we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women. There have been so many high profile false allegations that the media (both alternative and mainstream) has jumped on only to be embarrassed later that a lot of people just shrug and assume it's all BS, which is of course terrible.

There is a deeper problem that the Obama rules tried to pepper over. We have two issues

1. What should the burden of proof be for sexual assault/harassment and the process of proving it?

2. What is it? -

 #1 had issues but the whole affirmative consent thing meant circumstances in which 90% of humans regardless of gender would have thought no assault took place got caught up. The problem was never a lack of evidence. It was that no jury/broadly representative committee was ever going to conclude voluntary intoxication negated consent, especially when individuals told multiple witnesses they wished to hookup and rebuffed efforts by friends to take them home.

The shift to administrators holding Star Chamber proceedings was because it was the only way to secure convictions for things almost no one outside of a weird academic circle considered to be crimes. And which legally were not actually crimes. Which the authors of these regulations know. That is why they cannot allow the judicial process to take its course, because the judicial process will correctly conclude that no assault took place. 

[darklordoftech]

One of the unintended and darkly humorous consequences of this nonsense is that in the years since the #MeToo thing and all the 2010s Title IX crap, we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women. There have been so many high profile false allegations that the media (both alternative and mainstream) has jumped on only to be embarrassed later that a lot of people just shrug and assume it's all BS, which is of course terrible.

There is a deeper problem that the Obama rules tried to pepper over. We have two issues

1. What should the burden of proof be for sexual assault/harassment and the process of proving it?

2. What is it? -

 #1 had issues but the whole affirmative consent thing meant circumstances in which 90% of humans regardless of gender would have thought no assault took place got caught up. The problem was never a lack of evidence. It was that no jury/broadly representative committee was ever going to conclude voluntary intoxication negated consent, especially when individuals told multiple witnesses they wished to hookup and rebuffed efforts by friends to take them home.

The shift to administrators holding Star Chamber proceedings was because it was the only way to secure convictions for things almost no one outside of a weird academic circle considered to be crimes. And which legally were not actually crimes. Which the authors of these regulations know. That is why they cannot allow the judicial process to take its course, because the judicial process will correctly conclude that no assault took place. 

The real issue is that Biden is a fundamentalist Catholic who wants to stop college students from having sex, but Obama wouldn't have gone along with Biden if he said that, so he claimed to be motivated by feminism.

[jojoju1998]

One of the unintended and darkly humorous consequences of this nonsense is that in the years since the #MeToo thing and all the 2010s Title IX crap, we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women. There have been so many high profile false allegations that the media (both alternative and mainstream) has jumped on only to be embarrassed later that a lot of people just shrug and assume it's all BS, which is of course terrible.

There is a deeper problem that the Obama rules tried to pepper over. We have two issues

1. What should the burden of proof be for sexual assault/harassment and the process of proving it?

2. What is it? -

 #1 had issues but the whole affirmative consent thing meant circumstances in which 90% of humans regardless of gender would have thought no assault took place got caught up. The problem was never a lack of evidence. It was that no jury/broadly representative committee was ever going to conclude voluntary intoxication negated consent, especially when individuals told multiple witnesses they wished to hookup and rebuffed efforts by friends to take them home.

The shift to administrators holding Star Chamber proceedings was because it was the only way to secure convictions for things almost no one outside of a weird academic circle considered to be crimes. And which legally were not actually crimes. Which the authors of these regulations know. That is why they cannot allow the judicial process to take its course, because the judicial process will correctly conclude that no assault took place. 

The real issue is that Biden is a fundamentalist Catholic who wants to stop college students from having sex, but Obama wouldn't have gone along with Biden if he said that, so he claimed to be motivated by feminism.

Biden is not a fundamentalist catholic. He doesn’t attend the Latin Mass….

[Dan the Roman]

I don't think it's Biden. It is that younger millenials in this policy area have become incredibly sex negative, and while they would hate the comparison, the functional end point of their position is not far off from fundamentalist Christians. Whether you believe sex outside of marriage is immoral for religious reasons, or that power dynamics of consent mean casual sex can never be truly consensual without signed affidavits and probably a recording, you end up attacking a culture of promiscuity.

And that is what these rules do. The Christians look at the party culture on campuses and say that is immoral. The gender theorists look at it and say that is coercive and encourages objectification.

[darklordoftech]

I don't think it's Biden. It is that younger millenials in this policy area have become incredibly sex negative, and while they would hate the comparison, the functional end point of their position is not far off from fundamentalist Christians. Whether you believe sex outside of marriage is immoral for religious reasons, or that power dynamics of consent mean casual sex can never be truly consensual without signed affidavits and probably a recording, you end up attacking a culture of promiscuity.

And that is what these rules do. The Christians look at the party culture on campuses and say that is immoral. The gender theorists look at it and say that is coercive and encourages objectification.

Yet it was Biden who pushed for Title IX rape policies as Vice President and it's Biden who pushes them as President. Why would he listen to what you called "a weird academic circle"?

[Dan the Roman]

I don't think it's Biden. It is that younger millenials in this policy area have become incredibly sex negative, and while they would hate the comparison, the functional end point of their position is not far off from fundamentalist Christians. Whether you believe sex outside of marriage is immoral for religious reasons, or that power dynamics of consent mean casual sex can never be truly consensual without signed affidavits and probably a recording, you end up attacking a culture of promiscuity.

And that is what these rules do. The Christians look at the party culture on campuses and say that is immoral. The gender theorists look at it and say that is coercive and encourages objectification.

Yet it was Biden who pushed for Title IX rape policies as Vice President and it's Biden who pushes them as President. Why would he listen to what you called "a weird academic circle"?

Biden seemed to be the one more receptive to the concerns of young Democrats, ironic though this was. Sometimes this was for good, when he pushed aggressively for SSM. Other times it's more mixed, in terms of the fixation on student loans. With the exception of Israel this has been a much more "woke" administration than Obama's, and I think some of that was Obama's genuine distrust of students/the campus world even as he admired senior academics.

So it really does not surprise me that Biden would go all in on whatever those activists convinced themselves of.

Really, Israel has been the major deviation, and I think there is also an internal generational/office discipline line within the White House driving that.

[Ferguson97]

we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women.

Perhaps among the men that you know.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women.

Perhaps among the men that you know.

I suspect that the men DaleCooper knows are more reflective of the general male populace than the men you know.

[DaleCooper]

we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women.

Perhaps among the men that you know.

I'd be shocked if a majority of American men assume that allegations against male public figures are true these days.

[dead0man]

we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women.

Perhaps among the men that you know.

I'd be shocked if a majority of American men assume that allegations against male public figures are true these days.

it's situational innit?  If there are 35 women with the same story, yeah, we believe them.  If it's 5 women and a really ugly dude with pull, yeah, we believe it.  If it's one lady with a checkered history accusing a group or one fella who clearly has no problem getting laid, yeah, we ain't buying that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A "me too" leader defended Andrew Cuomo. They're such hypocrites.

[DaleCooper]

we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women.

Perhaps among the men that you know.

I'd be shocked if a majority of American men assume that allegations against male public figures are true these days.

it's situational innit?  If there are 35 women with the same story, yeah, we believe them.  If it's 5 women and a really ugly dude with pull, yeah, we believe it.  If it's one lady with a checkered history accusing a group or one fella who clearly has no problem getting laid, yeah, we ain't buying that.

Right, but another issue I have, and not a lot of people talk about this for some reason, is that the MeToo movement very quickly turned into what was essentially tabloid gossip. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall MeToo took down the monster that is Harvey Weinstein, and a dozen or two other men who weren't as bad as him but were still clearly sexual predators. People like Cuba Gooding Jr., Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, etc. But for every one of them, there were two or three stories that were either about a guy making mean jokes to women, a guy making awkward or uncomfortable advances towards a woman, a guy that had a bad breakup with a woman, or things that frankly just seemed like misunderstandings, and none of those deserved the New York Times profiles that they were getting.

That's not even counting the stories that the press ran with that turned out to be complete fabrications, like all those fake campus rape stories, the fake Biden allegation, I think there was a fake allegation against Sulu from Star Trek, and a couple other older celebrities. A lot of those are forgotten now, but they got a lot of coverage without any serious investigation from the media at the time because journalists were lumping every single one of these stories together like they were all the same. And liberals can BS all they want in hindsight, but at the time, the philosophy was very much that every single allegation should be presumed true without evidence and without an investigation, and that was always going to result in a huge backlash.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women.

Perhaps among the men that you know.

I'd be shocked if a majority of American men assume that allegations against male public figures are true these days.

it's situational innit?  If there are 35 women with the same story, yeah, we believe them.  If it's 5 women and a really ugly dude with pull, yeah, we believe it.  If it's one lady with a checkered history accusing a group or one fella who clearly has no problem getting laid, yeah, we ain't buying that.

Right, but another issue I have, and not a lot of people talk about this for some reason, is that the MeToo movement very quickly turned into what was essentially tabloid gossip. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall MeToo took down the monster that is Harvey Weinstein, and a dozen or two other men who weren't as bad as him but were still clearly sexual predators. People like Cuba Gooding Jr., Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, etc. But for every one of them, there were two or three stories that were either about a guy making mean jokes to women, a guy making awkward or uncomfortable advances towards a woman, a guy that had a bad breakup with a woman, or things that frankly just seemed like misunderstandings, and none of those deserved the New York Times profiles that they were getting.

Yeah, most recently P. Diddy (which also included accusations against Cuba Gooding Jr) but again, that was several women, plus Lil Rod, and the dates for the accused activity range from around 1990 to only last year.

[DaleCooper]

we seem to have gone back to a point where not only are allegations not believed but they're pretty much all assumed to be false, at least among most men and most conservative women.

Perhaps among the men that you know.

I'd be shocked if a majority of American men assume that allegations against male public figures are true these days.

it's situational innit?  If there are 35 women with the same story, yeah, we believe them.  If it's 5 women and a really ugly dude with pull, yeah, we believe it.  If it's one lady with a checkered history accusing a group or one fella who clearly has no problem getting laid, yeah, we ain't buying that.

Right, but another issue I have, and not a lot of people talk about this for some reason, is that the MeToo movement very quickly turned into what was essentially tabloid gossip. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall MeToo took down the monster that is Harvey Weinstein, and a dozen or two other men who weren't as bad as him but were still clearly sexual predators. People like Cuba Gooding Jr., Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, etc. But for every one of them, there were two or three stories that were either about a guy making mean jokes to women, a guy making awkward or uncomfortable advances towards a woman, a guy that had a bad breakup with a woman, or things that frankly just seemed like misunderstandings, and none of those deserved the New York Times profiles that they were getting.

Yeah, most recently P. Diddy (which also included accusations against Cuba Gooding Jr) but again, that was several women, plus Lil Rod, and the dates for the accused activity range from around 1990 to only last year.

I was thinking about that the other day. How did all that stuff make it to 2024? I feel like MeToo focusing so much on what are basically bad relationships or HR dramas allowed real stories to fall through the cracks for another couple years. Who knows, though. It's probably unfair for me to speculate like that.