[SpecialOlympian]

To be fair, the idea of facing repercussions for his actions probably did drive Kavanagh and his supporters batshit crazy. The idea that some liberal elite fucking woman would ever dare to pipe up and say that this crying, drunken problem gambler had a serious mark against him was basically rocket fuel for the reactionary persecution complex. Which, even in its least agitated state, perpetually runs white hot.

The GOP was going to place some kind of sociopath onto the SCOTUS to rule in favor of voter disenfranchisement, big business, and Christian fascism. The idea that anyone would dare to say, "Maybe it can be someone who isn't a rapist?" fucking infuriated them because even the barest disagreement removes the reactionary fantasy of wielding absolute power for the express purpose of sadistic, performative bullying.

Notice how none of the Kavanagh supporters care about anything other than the strictest definition of criminally prosecutable rape. It was obvious to everyone that Kavanagh is an unstable weirdo who can barely handle simple questions, despite the immense amounts of preparation the GOP apparatus forced him to sober up long enough to study. They can't defend him as a candidate, so they substitute this arbitrary and irrelevant legal standard as the base minimum for SCOTUS candidacy.

Hell, I've never been successfully charged with rape. Put me on the SCOTUS because that's literally the only standard Kav supporters have. I don't see them piping up to talk about how his brilliant legal mind found justification for torturing enemy combatants in pointless wars started on false premises, so obviously the legal aspect isn't important. In fact, I'm a better candidate than Kavanagh because I have successfully fought women in court and won, and also I can cry louder than him. And I mean I physically punched my accusers in court in addition to being found not guilty. I'm like the GOP dream candidate for the SCOTUS.

I think the reason they continually default to a criminal prosecution standard might be because they feel some sense of shame in openly admitting, "Yes, I support the rapist because it owns da libz." Although I know that can't be the answer, because shame requires an inner life, or a soul or whatever you would like to call it. Perhaps a lack of programming now that the right wing noise machine has dropped the subject?

[colliric]

In fact, I'm a better candidate than Kavanagh because I have successfully fought women in court and won, and also I can cry louder than him. And I mean I physically punched my accusers in court in addition to being found not guilty. I'm like the GOP dream candidate for the SCOTUS.

??

Is this legitimate? Or sarcasm?

I can never tell with you anymore.

[SpecialOlympian]

I think all of my fellow Kavanagh supporters will agree with me that dumb lying bitches deserve to be punched. That's all my lawyers will let me say.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes it is.

You and Godstud are very mistaken, and are only thinking with an extremely limited dogmatic interpretation you pulled from a dictionary.

I doubt either of you have seen the movies(because there's the original 1940 UK version, and the 1944 Classic American Remake) that inspired the term, and depicts the full nature of this abuse technique.

You are assuming that I pulled this out of a dictionary and my knowledge ends there. This is an incorrect assumption.

You are also using an old movie as your sole source of information for an abusive psychological technique.

It is an important aspect of the abuse that the surrounding society be used to attack the individual being victimised.

No.

First of all, Kavanaugh was never attacked by the surrounding society. The entire Republican establishment and all the MAGA supporters and people like you were behind him.

Second, the target if gaslighting cannot believe that the person lying is doing so. If the target believes that the gaslighter is lying, it does not work. Gaslighting works best when the target trusts the abuser. Kavanaugh believed his accuser was lying, and did not trust her.

Third, it has to be covert. If the target knows that the gaslighter is lying, it does not work. The target then knows to trust their own senses and memories. Kavanaugh’s accusers did so publicly, knowing that their accusations would be picked apart in the media.

Bergman's character comes under severe attack from her surrounding circle of close aquaintences believing his fake accusations that she is mentally ill. He threatens to chuck her in a mental institution(literally threatens to have her forcably removed), and have the key thrown away. She is forced to defend herself from his fake public accusations she is mentally unstable, but it only makes the situation worse as the housemaids refuse to believe her due to how emotional and "crazy" she is.

She is only saved when the Police Detective played brilliantly by Joseph Cotten(who was a former childhood admirer of her late Aunt, an opera singer) grows suspicious, suspects he is lying about her, is a wanted criminal, dangerous to her safety and investigates to try and find the truth.

The pertinent scene:

The best definition of Gaslighting is the ORIGINAL MOVIE THAT GAVE A NAME TO THIS VERSION OF ABUSE.

I've watched both versions of the film....

Here's the full UK original:

Both of you need to watch at least one version of it.

All of this is irrelevant.

[colliric]

I think all of my fellow Kavanagh supporters will agree with me that dumb lying bitches deserve to be punched. That's all my lawyers will let me say.

Stop being so funny dammit. Can't you ever post non-sarcastic posts?

[Big Steve-3]

I can't help but wonder why Kavanaugh's detractors are so averse to Ford producing actual evidence to back up her claims.

Why is the idea that her claims should be accompanied by evidence so offensive to the left?

[SpecialOlympian]

Why are you continually trying to make appointment to the SCOTUS a simple pass/fail test on rape? You seem to treat this as if the only qualification for being on the SCOTUS is "not being a convicted rapist."

I don't know about you, but I love America. And I demand more from SCOTUS candidates than them simply not being legally convicted rapists

Lets ignore the rape. How many times do you think a SCOTUS candidate has to sob, "I love beer" to be qualified for a lifetime appointment to the highest federal court in the land? Is there a minimum number of times you should shout how much you love beer through the tears and snot clogging your pipes? A maximum? Is there a sweet spot in the middle of how many times someone should cry while professing their love of alcohol during a job interview?

Because I am the sole proprietor of a chain of successful sports bar/restaurants whose name I will not disclose for reasons of privacy. And I will tell you this: I do not hire bartenders who continually scream at me about how much they love alcohol. But I guess I just have higher standards for my below minimum wage + tips positions than the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

We are basically Gay Hooters and you can see the server's ballsack sticking out their tight, tight underwear. Are you seriously telling me my chain of 17, and growing, restaurants have higher standards than the nomination process for lifetime judges on the SCOTUS?

[SpecialOlympian]

Honestly, this entire conversation should be illuminating for everyone interested in understanding the reactionary mindset.

When Kavanagh was nominated the GOP controlled all three branches of government. There was no way they weren't going to get a SCOTUS nominee through.

The average reactionary is so dead set on treating politics as a team sport that they would never think to ask for a nominee who isn't a drunken rapist with mysterious "baseball ticket" debts. They just take it upon themselves to defend it by repeating talking points gleaned from their favorite programs. It never occurs to them that, as a supporter of the party in complete control of the government, they can ask for someone with no credible rape accusations to represent them. Possibly even someone whose judicial career was not founded on justifying torture (lol jk this is a huge bonus to them).

Instead, while having firm control over all levers of power, they instinctively flee toward anything that will let them feel persecuted. Because in doing so they can grant rapists access to the halls of power to spite their enemies.

[Big Steve-2]

Why are you continually trying to make appointment to the SCOTUS a simple pass/fail test on rape? You seem to treat this as if the only qualification for being on the SCOTUS is "not being a convicted rapist."

I don't know about you, but I love America. And I demand more from SCOTUS candidates than them simply not being legally convicted rapists

Lets ignore the rape. How many times do you think a SCOTUS candidate has to sob, "I love beer" to be qualified for a lifetime appointment to the highest federal court in the land? Is there a minimum number of times you should shout how much you love beer through the tears and snot clogging your pipes? A maximum? Is there a sweet spot in the middle of how many times someone should cry while professing their love of alcohol during a job interview?

Because I am the sole proprietor of a chain of successful sports bar/restaurants whose name I will not disclose for reasons of privacy. And I will tell you this: I do not hire bartenders who continually scream at me about how much they love alcohol. But I guess I just have higher standards for my below minimum wage + tips positions than the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

We are basically Gay Hooters and you can see the server's ballsack sticking out their tight, tight underwear. Are you seriously telling me my chain of 17, and growing, restaurants have higher standards than the nomination process for lifetime judges on the SCOTUS?

How about let's not ignore the rape. That's a bullshit cop out for you.

Why are you so offended by the idea that someone claiming to have been raped should not be expected to provide some sort of evidence to back up that accusation?

I'm not treating this as though the only qualification is not being a convicted rapist. But I am treating this as though someone who makes such an accusation should be prepared to back that accusation up. I see no harm there.

Why do you?

[SpecialOlympian]

Lets assume Kavanagh was unfairly accused. 100% innocent, we're taking the rape he totally did off the table.

Do you think that him crying before the entire nation about how much he loves alcohol and promising vengeance against all his enemies makes him a qualified judge who is, nominally, supposed to lay down judgments in an impartial manner in accordance with the Constitution and the law?

Because it's OK if you do. You can stop pretending that you actually care and just say that you want a committed partisan on the SCOTUS. It would be a lot more dignified than the dumb bullshit you're spouting now.

[Big Steve-2]

The average reactionary is so dead set on treating politics as a team sport that they would never think to ask for a nominee who isn't a drunken rapist with mysterious "baseball ticket" debts.

In 2005 I attended a baseball game in every major league stadium and a football game in every NFL stadium, including the AFC Championship game and the Super Bowl. I went into debt because of it, maxing out credit cards along the way. In hindsight it was far from being the smartest thing I'd ever done (although it was fun to the nth degree) because not only did I have to buy the tickets, I had to buy airline tickets, rent cars, pay for hotel rooms and food, etc. When all was said and done, I'd spent just over $60,000 for me and my then brother in law to do that.

People wondered about everything from why I was doing it to where I was getting the money. To them it was "mysterious" as to why I would ever do such a thing. But the bottom line is that it was legal and those questions weren't anyone's business.

I see no nefarious cause or intent in Kavanaugh spending what he did. Like me, he now probably thinks it wasn't the smartest thing he's ever done, but that's no one else's concern.

[SpecialOlympian]

In 2005 I attended a baseball game in every major league stadium and a football game in every NFL stadium, including the AFC Championship game and the Super Bowl. I went into debt because of it, maxing out credit cards along the way. In hindsight it was far from being the smartest thing I'd ever done (although it was fun to the nth degree) because not only did I have to buy the tickets, I had to buy airline tickets, rent cars, pay for hotel rooms and food, etc. When all was said and done, I'd spent just over $60,000 for me and my then brother in law to do that.

People wondered about everything from why I was doing it to where I was getting the money. To them it was "mysterious" as to why I would ever do such a thing. But the bottom line is that it was legal and those questions weren't anyone's business.

I see no nefarious cause or intent in Kavanaugh spending what he did. Like me, he now probably thinks it wasn't the smartest thing he's ever done, but that's no one else's concern.

Haha

[Big Steve-2]

Lets assume Kavanagh was unfairly accused. 100% innocent, we're taking the rape he totally did off the table.

No, let's not.

Taking it off the table let's you off the hook for defending your position, which you and I both know you can't do without looking foolish.

You want to assume that he was unfairly accused and 100% innocent?

Well, there's no reason to "assume" anything. He is 100% innocent of the charges made against him.

[Big Steve-2]

Haha

Are you just going to giggle like a little girl or are you going to make a comment?

[SpecialOlympian]

No, let's not.

Ok, a weird request, but I grant you that the rape allegations were legitimate.

Are you just going to giggle like a little girl or are you going to make a comment?

Whom amongst us hasn't accumulated six figures of mysterious debt?

[Big Steve-2]

Ok, a weird request, but I grant you that the rape allegations were legitimate.

There's not a single thing to serve as a basis for such allegations. The accusations were made and then NOTHING was presented to support them.

Whom amongst us hasn't accumulated six figures of mysterious debt?

I remember when I made $3.35 an hour as a busboy. What I spent was appropriate for someone making $3.35 an hour. When I had my first "six figure year", what I spent was appropriate for someone making over $100K a year.

But here's the thing: He didn't go into debt. He was paid back for those tickets by the people he purchased them for.

But you really need to stop dodging the question.

Why are you so offended by the idea that someone making such heinous accusations, as Ford did, should be expected to provide some sort of evidence to back up such claims?

Why is that such a ridiculous notion?

[SpecialOlympian]

I haven't dodged the question. Unlike you I have made myself clear: the Kavanaugh hearing was not a criminal trial. Blasey-Ford's testimony did not constitute criminally prosecutable evidence for rape.

But what I saw was a woman, who still receives death threats from Kavanaugh supporters such as yourself, give stoic testimony to her own sexual assault.

That was then contrasted against a man who sobbed and cried and shouted about how much he loves alcohol.

Because the hearing on the qualifications of Mr. Brett Kavanagh for his appointment to the SCOTUS did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he could be convicted of rape you think it was right and just and a heroic triumph in spite of Blasey-Ford's testimony. That is what you are saying. You are saying that literally any fucking loser who looks like he showed up drunk to an AA meeting is worthy of being on the SCOTUS. And you're saying this because, as a Republican, you feel you have to say it.

It's pathetic. You don't even feel comfortable enough to say, "Lol, owned, we got our dipshit on to the court and there's nothing you can do." On some level you are uncomfortable with this and you need me to admit your drunken, sobbing loser isn't a rapist because somehow that will make you feel ideologically whole.

Listen, buddy: If you feel the need to run around trying to convince people that, "No, he wasn't LEGALLY a rapist, he was just a crying drunk" then maybe you ought to do some reflection on your beliefs. Because that is a shit position to be in and you have nobody to blame but yourself for being in it. You're literally winning, you are placing people sympathetic to your beliefs in power. But they are drunken, crying losers and instead of demanding more from yourself and your party you prefer to attack anyone who rightfully points out that the drunken sobbing rapist is a fucking loser.

[blackjack21]

Because I am the sole proprietor of a chain of successful sports bar/restaurants whose name I will not disclose for reasons of privacy. And I will tell you this: I do not hire bartenders who continually scream at me about how much they love alcohol.

So your penthouse investment firm gig didn't work out?

We are basically Gay Hooters and you can see the server's ballsack sticking out their tight, tight underwear. Are you seriously telling me my chain of 17, and growing, restaurants have higher standards than the nomination process for lifetime judges on the SCOTUS?

It sounds more like the nomination process for the Democratic Presidential nominee. "Oh Cheston, you're the love of my life. I couldn't do it all without you!"

It never occurs to them that, as a supporter of the party in complete control of the government, they can ask for someone with no credible rape accusations to represent them.

Yeah, it's totally credible to wait 30 years and then spring the accusations at the United States Senate when there is no statute of limitations in Maryland, where she hasn't sworn out a complaint against him. Yeah, totally credible. Can't remember where, can't remember when, can't remember who was there, ostensible friendly witnesses all deny it. Sure... credible... totally believable. Nothing politically-motivated or self-serving there...

Ok, a weird request, but I grant you that the rape allegations were legitimate.

Yea, because it's totally common for rape victims to wait 30 years and then spring the charges on the United States Senate when someone is appointed to a high office, while not simultaneously swearing out a criminal complaint under oath when there is no statute of limitations. Totally normal...

[SpecialOlympian]

OK Boomer.

[Big Steve-2]

I haven't dodged the question. Unlike you I have made myself clear: the Kavanaugh hearing was not a criminal trial. Blasey-Ford's testimony did not constitute criminally prosecutable evidence for rape.

But what I saw was a woman, who still receives death threats from Kavanaugh supporters such as yourself, give stoic testimony to her own sexual assault.

That was then contrasted against a man who sobbed and cried and shouted about how much he loves alcohol.

Because the hearing on the qualifications of Mr. Brett Kavanagh for his appointment to the SCOTUS did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he could be convicted of rape you think it was right and just and a heroic triumph in spite of Blasey-Ford's testimony. That is what you are saying. You are saying that literally any fucking loser who looks like he showed up drunk to an AA meeting is worthy of being on the SCOTUS. And you're saying this because, as a Republican, you feel you have to say it.

It's pathetic. You don't even feel comfortable enough to say, "Lol, owned, we got our dipshit on to the court and there's nothing you can do." On some level you are uncomfortable with this and you need me to admit your drunken, sobbing loser isn't a rapist because somehow that will make you feel ideologically whole.

The fact that you're going to such lengths to avoid answering my question makes it clear that you're afraid to because you know I'm right.

I'm sure if someone made such accusations about you that you'd just roll over and capitulate, right? You wouldn't demand any evidence be presented to show your guilt. You'd just sit there and say "Well, if someone said it, it must be true.", right?

I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter. I'm a supporter of right and wrong. What the Democrats attempted to do to him, and the way they tried to do it, was wrong, and it shouldn't have been allowed. Kavanaugh means nothing to me. Right and wrong, and an understanding and appreciation for fairness matter to me.

I do not believe anything Ford said. Nothing. Why? Well, not because I support Kavanaugh. I don't believe her because nothing she said; NOTHING was corroborated by the very people she insisted would corroborate it. They not only didn't corroborate it, it was also pretty evidence they didn't know what the Hell she was talking about.

If Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault, I'll lead the chorus in demanding his resignation and his prosecution. But that's going to take a lot more than just accusations from a woman who can't remember a single thing about the party where she insists she was raped.