New Allegations Surface
March 27, 2020 8:01 AM   Subscribe

Joe Biden Faces Sexual Assault Allegations From A Former Staffer CW: Sexual assault. Yahoo News reports on new allegations about Joe Biden's behavior toward a female staffer 26 years ago.

After Lucy Flores accused Biden of inappropriately touching her, Reade was one of seven other women to come forward and accuse Biden of similar behavior in April of 2019. In January 2020, Reade tried to come forward again. However, the The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund would not pursue her claim. The public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker, whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden’s presidential campaign.

Tara Reade tells her story to Kate Halper. Listen here.

Ryan Grim reports in The Intercept on how Time's Up said that they could not fund an allegation against Joe Biden, citing their nonprofit status.
posted by MisantropicPainforest (47 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Okay, sorry, we tried to thread the needle on this but I don't have time right now to try and make this work. -- cortex



 
Anita Dunn is also notorious because she helped Weinstein strategize before the NYT story about his disgusting behavior.

So, the people involved in quashing the story certainly gives it a bad look, but Reade also gives herself a bad look by praising Putin.

Now, that being said, if we don't want to be complete fucking hypocrites, we should be believing her and at least trying to find evidence that this is true or not one way or another. With how the Democrats handled Kavanaugh, they would look extremely hypocritical if they didn't. They would look even more hypocritical if they used her weird statements about Putin to discredit her... because even unsavory people can be abused and assaulted.

ESPECIALLY this needs to be nipped in the bud before the general. If it isn't, expect Republicans to run wild with all the "creepy Biden" videos that are easily discoverable of him being WAY too handsy with women of all ages.

I'm not saying its true, but I'm saying we need to find out if it is before the general, because we're looking down the barrel of four more years of Trump otherwise, because I don't see how Biden can fight the Republicans hitting him with this in the general.

Weirdly, it doesn't matter to Trump supporters that Trump is a serial rapist because they don't actually care about that, but they LOVE to prove that Democrats are hypocrites. It's one of their favorite ways to "own the libs."

I desperately don't want it to be true, because I don't think the party can handle dropping their frontrunner right now. Not facing it is risking everything, though.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:24 AM on March 27 [13 favorites]


tl;dr we should be believing her
posted by chavenet at 8:33 AM on March 27 [9 favorites]


This story originated with The Intercept, and however you might feel about Glenn Greenwald, the Intercept might not be mainstream but their reporting is rigorous.

Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as extremely left wing bias with high factual reporting.

They're not mainstream, but their journalism chops aren't really up for debate here, they're good at research.

Original Intercept Story
posted by deadaluspark at 8:34 AM on March 27 [8 favorites]


The story is being syndicated from Refinery29, it's not a Yahoo News story.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:34 AM on March 27


[This is something where there's no real good moderator option, and for the moment I'm going to lean toward the compromise of (a) keeping this post up so people can discuss whatever is directly relevant to the content of this post but (b) expecting people to make a real concerted effort not to treat this as an excuse to get up to every brand of infighting and primaries horseshit that tends to come out in any discussion tangentially related to US politics.

If there is something to discuss that isn't a proxy for just arguing about the primaries or the election or how you feel about candidates or fans of candidates or any other "this just goes to show that [unrelated hobbyhorse]", fine, do that. If you're just gonna jockey about shit you've been jockeying about for months already, I'm gonna delete comments and give days off.]

posted by cortex (staff) at 8:40 AM on March 27 [35 favorites]


and it's notable that The intercept isn't actually reporting the allegation itself rather some other goofy side business about the times up organization. It's almost as if they couldn't substantiate the underlying allegation.
posted by factory123 at 8:46 AM on March 27 [4 favorites]


Right, the Intercept isn't engaging in "factual reporting" here as deadaluspark posts, they are simply providing a forum for the allegations. That is not evidence _for_ or _against_ the accusations themselves, but it does mean that The Intercept's propensity for real factual reporting isn't relevant.
posted by Justinian at 8:48 AM on March 27


Her experience with Times Up, and that of Trump’s many accusers, Or Kavanaugh’s, makes me think she’s not likely to get anything approaching justice if her accusation is true. Most likely she’ll face nothing but more abuse. It’s true her accusations could be political, but that seems to be the go-to defense for all political affiliates of those accused of rape. I think if politicians were serious about this issue, we’d have an expectation that all accusations would be investigated in as transparent and unbiased a way as possible.
posted by callistus at 8:49 AM on March 27 [5 favorites]


and it's notable that The intercept isn't actually reporting the allegation itself rather some other goofy side business about the times up organization. It's almost as if they couldn't substantiate the underlying allegation.
posted by factory123 at 11:46 AM on March 27 [+] [!]

Right, the Intercept isn't engaging in "factual reporting" here as deadaluspark posts, they are simply providing a forum for the allegations. That is not evidence _for_ or _against_ the accusations themselves, but it does mean that The Intercept's propensity for real factual reporting isn't relevant.
posted by Justinian at 11:48 AM on March 27 [+] [!]


Yeah but you personally brought up the lack of real news reporting?

Women have been having their accusations of sexual assault gatekept by shitty news people for decades and if you've been paying attention at all you'd know this. If your standard for believing women is, idk, getting a front page story in the NYTimes that's all well and good, but it's a shit standard.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 8:57 AM on March 27 [21 favorites]


Reade also gives herself a bad look by praising Putin.

Citation please?
posted by eviemath at 8:58 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


The Intercept links to this story from last year, which has more detail and did confirm with at least one person Reade's accounts of talking to people at the time about Biden's behaviour and the blowback she received.
The friend in whom Reade confided at the time said they discussed Biden. Reade asked her friend if she should take any action. Being young and relatively new to D.C., she wondered if anything was wrong with Biden’s behavior.

The confidant said she asked if Reade would let her younger sister work in the office. When Reade said “no” to the hypothetical question, her friend said Biden’s actions weren’t appropriate.

Reade said she spoke to U.S. Senate personnel about her concerns. Word got back to Biden’s office.

“My life was hell,” Reade said. “This was about power and control.”

“I couldn’t get a job on the Hill,” she added.

In June 1993 Reade found herself in an office without windows. Two months later she left Biden’s office, she said.
I cannot speak to the factual reliability or political bias of the Nevada County Union, which was reporting on the story because Reade is a resident of Nevada County.
posted by clawsoon at 8:59 AM on March 27 [2 favorites]


I can recall some, "yikes, that's a creepy way to embrace someone Joe" comments here the past year or two. There's probably a supercut of all the not-quite-inappropriate-but-clearly-toeing-the-line moments for him.

But I guess we (and the Democratic party generally) are starting at "discussing MeToo 101" because they aren't the perfect accusers.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:59 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


The fact that the people reporting on this are focusing less on the accusations themselves and the PR firm angle is gross as hell. Like if she was assaulted- I believe her- but the folks pushing this don’t seem to care about her, they seem to care about the political points they can score with her and that is fucking gross. And that focus- not the allegations but the fact that the focus is on the PR firm- is what gives me pause.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 9:03 AM on March 27 [4 favorites]


It should be noted that the Katie Halper interview is with Reade herself, so everyone can go listen to her story first hand.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:06 AM on March 27 [13 favorites]


I don't know why people expect newspapers to be arbiters of some sort of truth in cases like these. That's hard enough to do in a much more controlled situation like a court.

It's fact that she's come forward. The newspapers are correct and factual in reporting her statements without distortion or omission. It's also factual to report any responses to the allegations from other named parties, like Biden. It's factual to report on civil or criminal actions that result. It would be factual for a reporter to try to get more background from potential witnesses, but that does have to be done with care and disclosure.

It's opinion, not news, to start "analyzing" statements, to start divining truth or credibility based on some personal interpretation.
posted by bonehead at 9:06 AM on March 27 [8 favorites]


[A few comments removed. 1. This is not a catch-all politics threads. No one needs to hear your general thoughts on the election. Stop. 2. I really need folks to not let the totally okay "I want to talk about structural issues tied to how these things get talked about" bleed over into "I will now inform you of what I have decided your motivations and thoughts are" territory. Y'all know better, please do better.]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:21 AM on March 27 [8 favorites]


The fact that the people reporting on this are focusing less on the accusations themselves and the PR firm angle is gross as hell. Like if she was assaulted- I believe her- but the folks pushing this don’t seem to care about her, they seem to care about the political points they can score with her and that is fucking gross. And that focus- not the allegations but the fact that the focus is on the PR firm- is what gives me pause.

This is, unfortunately, standard for women accusing others of sexual assault. It's often objectified or used to score political points in one way or another. It is awful.

That said, it also has zero to do with the credibility of the underlying accusation. I don't think you're implying this, but I wanted to put it out there because sometimes you do see people making those kinds of leaps of logic.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 9:34 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


It’s true her accusations could be political, but that seems to be the go-to defense for all political affiliates of those accused of rape.

In fairness, it's one of the few arenas in life with enough sociopaths with a real incentive to fabricate allegations. Remember that hit job on Robert Mueller? Or how about that Adelson-owned pro-Netanyahu newspaper that ended up having to pay out in court for printing an unsubstantiated claim against Benny Gantz in the Israeli election? Hell, the far right even tried smearing Elizabeth Warren as an abusive sex fiend. If blackmailing a country to invent dirt on Biden isn't beyond them, I don't see why inventing or exaggerating sexual harassment claims would be.

That said, she shouldn't just be discounted out of hand and her story should be investigated. And I certainly wouldn't be disappointed if Biden had to step down (hopefully not in favor of Bloomberg or someone equally problematic). But "believe women" never meant "automatically assume all sex assault claims are unquestionably true and punish accordingly"; the latter just creates a nuclear-grade political veto for anybody cynical enough to abuse it.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:34 AM on March 27 [12 favorites]


For those who can't/don't want to watch a video or listen to a podcast in order to understand the allegation, this was a writeup I found that summarizes her story as she tells it to The Hill (CW for sexual assault): link

As a survivor myself, I am profoundly saddened by every aspect of this story.
posted by Ouverture at 9:36 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]




One thing that sticks out to me from The Intercept story is that Time's Up is possibly being too cautious about losing their 501c3 non-profit status:
Ruling out federal candidates marks as off-limits any member of Congress running for reelection, as well as President Donald Trump. Ellen Aprill, a professor of tax law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that Time’s Up’s analysis is too conservative, and the group wouldn’t be putting its tax-exempt status at risk by taking a case involving a candidate for federal office as long as it followed its standard criteria for taking on cases. “As a legal matter, if the group is clear regarding the criteria used as to whom it is taking to court, show that these are long-established neutral criteria, and they are being applied to individuals completely independent of their running for office, it would not be a violation of tax law. Groups are allowed to continue to do what they have always done,” she said.
I'm curious what other legal experts think about this.

The article was also updated today with more information about the sexual assault and the aftermath:
Reade has given an interview with podcast host Katie Halper, describing her time in Biden’s office, and what she described as a sexual assault in 1993. At the time, she told her mother, brother, and a friend who worked in Sen. Ted Kennedy’s office about the incident. Her mother has since passed away, but both her friend and brother told The Intercept they recalled hearing about it from her at the time. Reade’s friend, who asked to remain anonymous so as not to be part of the public blowback, said she discouraged Reade from coming forward at all, concerned that she would be attacked and would never get the apology she was hoping for. Reade and her brother, Collin Moulton, both said that their mother urged her to call the police, but her brother urged her to move on instead. “Woefully, I did not encourage her to follow up,” he said. “I wasn’t one of her better advocates. I said let it go, move on, guys are idiots.” (Moulton, who lives in Georgia, said he voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 and has no intention to vote for either Biden or Donald Trump.)

The experience in Biden’s office derailed her life, Reade’s friend said. “Back then people assumed girls just get over it,” she said. “But no, it plants a seed and lives can spin out of control. Yes, everybody’s an adult, but guess what, so is he.” At the time, there was just no way that Reade’s effort to right the wrong could succeed, her friend said, but this time, she’s determined to be heard. “It was the ‘90s,” she said. “There was no Me Too. There was no Time’s Up.”
posted by Ouverture at 9:43 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


Citation please?

All right, since we're doing the thread I guess we're doing the thread.

First, let me say (in general, not to you) that using "What happened to believe all women lol" as a cudgel is nothing but a false gotcha in the same vein as the folks who are all like "and yet you participate in society lol!" to people who think society needs to be restructured.

Believing women means that disbelief should no longer be the default position. That we shouldn't dismiss things out of hand. It does not mean that we can't look at context and evidence. We know this and everyone acknowledges it. It's why mainstream places like NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc reported all the time about Bill Clinton's accusers, why they finally ran the Weinstein stuff, why they reported on the Kavanaugh accusations... but simultaneously did not give space to the Blumenthal accusations. Because they looked into it and made a judgment that it did not rise to the level of their reporting.

That's where we are now. That could change and, if so, I expect NYT and WaPo and CNN and MSNBC and all the rest will jump on it. But right now not even Fox News gives this much of a shake. If you think that's because they like Biden, well.

So anyway. Citation. Reade has scrubbed her online presence (which can be for good or for bad reasons) so most everything is screenshots and such. But she has a long history of being a Putin apologist, a conspiracy theorist for Russian propaganda, and so on. Here is a screenshot of an article titled "Why a Liberal Democrat Supports Vladimir Putin". Here is a screenshot of a blog post where she writes "President Putin scares the power elite in America because he is a compassionate, caring, visionary leader. Here is a screenshot of a blog post she wrote in Russian in which she is pushing Putin's mocking of Mueller.

I mean, I could go on, but you get the idea. There's plenty of other stuff.

And the fact that we should take things like this into account would not be controversial in other cases. It goes without saying that many of the same folks who will take issue with this comment are people who still feel like Al Franken was railroaded and it was a hit job?

The bottom line is you have to take context into account. As Rhaomi says, this is one of thew few arenas where "what would someone have to gain?" about accusations actually has a real answer, and we have to take that under consideration.
posted by Justinian at 9:45 AM on March 27 [13 favorites]


And look, if there's more there then NYT and WaPo will be all over this story like white on rice. You know that. It'll either explode all over the news or it'll disappear like the Blumenthal stuff, except among the far right and far left.
posted by Justinian at 9:46 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


So, just to be 100% clear, you think the motivation for this accusation is what?
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 9:48 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


I think that we should wait for the actual reporters whose job is to vet this to vet it, as they have been doing, and consider it then. But apparently we are doing it now instead.
posted by Justinian at 9:49 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


Rhaomi, two out of three of of those were from the same guy who, if anything was trying to muddy the waters with poorly constructed false accusations in order to take attention from credible ones.
posted by Selena777 at 9:53 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


I can give a shit about "politics" and "optics".

The question is, if you have a moral principle and object:
Do you believe women who claim to be assault victims and demand they deserve full respect and a fair hearing of their views without being smeared or don't you?

All other layers beyond that are irrelevant.

My roomie who is no Biden supporter in any way (and has been grossed out fully by his previous behavior), trotted out the "why not earlier" and I said "Really? you realize you sound just like 'them'? Literally that's what people said about Cosby... "

So I don't get it. And again, she's not a Biden fan in the least, and I know in he heart she doesn't actually say he's innocent, but... WHY? What is this reflex we seem so ready to activate when it's 'our' guy.

I admit the Putin thing ain't a good look - and I'm able to understand both solidarity with the Russian People and complexities about the US/Russia relationship, but that was straight up aggrandizing the guy - so it's a bit bad look, certainly. And maybe it DOES suit his purposes. So do protests against police brutality serve, IDK, Soros' purposes. That doesn't mean you're in someone's thrall, and turning Putin into the left's version of Soros is also not a good look (but again: that article from her was crinnnnnnnnge).

But in the end, again. It comes down to - do you believe the victim or not. Do you give them space and leeway to tell their story? Yeah the organizational bullshit is bullshit, but again - that's another layer on top. Just like the socialist orgs who have had similar issues in their ranks, we must not be afraid to stand up against our own leadership, even if their "our" team. This edifice of patriarchy and abuse needs to fall and not be reinforced. Respect for women and their autonomy and their rights and dignity need to come first. Even if it hurts "your side"...
posted by symbioid at 9:56 AM on March 27 [4 favorites]


What, specifically, are Reade's comments about Putin supposed to show about the credibility of her accusation?

I can imagine several theories, obviously, but I don't want to put words in people's mouths. So for those pointing out the Putin stuff, what does it mean to you about Reade's allegation?
posted by Beardman at 9:58 AM on March 27 [8 favorites]


I would personally love to hear out her defense on the Putin stuff. It's pretty damning. Pussy Riot, homophobia, the Balkans, political dissidents being disappeared, silenced, imprisoned, or poisoned with radiation, lifetime self-appointment, oligarchs, etc. I just don't understand how anyone could have glowing, fawning things to say about Putin. It's definitely something worth exploring to understand her state of mind, and unfortunately missed in the interviews I've seen.
posted by Christ, what an asshole at 9:59 AM on March 27 [2 favorites]


And look, if there's more there then NYT and WaPo will be all over this story like white on rice. You know that. It'll either explode all over the news or it'll disappear like the Blumenthal stuff, except among the far right and far left.

Sharon Waxman, a former correspondent for both the NYT and WaPo claims that pressure from Weinstein lead to the NYT tanking her attempting to go after the Weinstein rape story in 2004.

Waxman's story seemingly hasn't been corroborated (or at least I can't find any other news sources with other people corroborating her story), but if it is true (I don't see why a respected journalist would lie, but many do), it certainly calls into question the narrative that the "NYT and WaPo will be all over this story."

Political power and political pressure are real things news organizations deal with.

Also, thank you for providing the citation, Reade really has said some pretty wild stuff about Putin/Russia. No, it shouldn't disqualify her from being heard, because horrible people can also be abused, and it doesn't make abuse somehow okay.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:04 AM on March 27 [5 favorites]


Time's Up is possibly being too cautious

On its face this looks less like excessive caution by the legal defense fund, and more like the tactical use of an imaginary legal concern to justify avoiding politically inconvenient action. (Is there a less wordy term for this? This isn't the place to list examples, but it sure happens a lot.)

If they actually had a standing policy of not taking any cases involving political candidates, that would be one thing. But I don't see anything to that effect in their application. To the contrary, this case appears to meet at least one of their priority criteria:
The matter involves sexual harassment and/or retaliation by an especially high-profile, prominent, or powerful individual. These matters are a priority because of the large power disparities that leave individuals experiencing such harassment or retaliation uniquely vulnerable.
posted by Not A Thing at 10:04 AM on March 27 [2 favorites]


[Comments removed - this post kinda sucks because we're waiting for more there there. Please be mindful if you are taking up too much room in this thread.]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:06 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


tactical use of an imaginary legal concern to justify avoiding politically inconvenient action.

As someone whose part of their job is to read a year's worth of NonProfit board meeting minutes almost weekly, I don't see anything that leads me to believe that's not exactly what this is.
posted by avalonian at 10:09 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


Reade said she “didn’t feel sexualized” by Biden when she made this accusation last year. I’m sure this is part of the reason the mainstream outlets are being cautious at this point.

The NYT had to retract an article about an R. Kelly accusation a few months ago, and then there’s the Roy Moore/WaPo thing...I hope they have learned and are investigating.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:10 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


To play Devil's Advocate here real quick, let's try to be more charitable in our assumptions here:

tactical use of an imaginary legal concern to justify avoiding politically inconvenient action.

We are just assuming that the reason they trotted out an imaginary legal concern was to cover up a politically inconvenient action. Maybe it was instead to not cause distress to an obviously distressed woman when they have several very valid, very reasonable, very-not-having-anything-to-do-with-Biden reasons to give her a fake legal reason they couldn't help her.

As others have pointed out, Reade's statements have been inconsistent, and since we don't actually know the internal politics of TimesUp, there's a possibility their internal reason for rejecting her had less to do with Biden and more to do with lack of strong standing (feeling like they couldn't prove the case in court), which isn't something that is nice to say to someone who feels they were assaulted. So they chose a made up legal reason in an attempt to not hurt her feelings.

This has been me playing Devil's Advocate, thank you.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:13 AM on March 27 [4 favorites]


I was about to make a comment about whether Biden would or wouldn't be someone you'd expect to do something like this, and then I remembered Jean Vanier and that whole line of thought collapsed.
posted by clawsoon at 10:18 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


Justinian, that last link says tweet unavailable. What are the sources of those screenshots? Are they reputable (eg. not doctored)? What are the political motivations of whoever took and posted those? How come I'm not seeing anything about this in reputable news sources? Kind of seems like there's maybe no story to report on there, doesn't it?
posted by eviemath at 10:37 AM on March 27 [3 favorites]


You're not seeing anything about any of it in reputable news sources, no.
posted by Justinian at 10:37 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


Reade said she “didn’t feel sexualized” by Biden when she made this accusation last year.

Well yeah. Sexual assault is about power, not sex.
posted by eviemath at 10:39 AM on March 27 [8 favorites]


i'm not sure how I feel about allowing un-verified screenshots that can't be corroborated stand, especially since they're not entirely relevant. Last I checked rapists didn't research your political affiliations before committing a crime.
posted by FirstMateKate at 10:39 AM on March 27 [5 favorites]


You're not seeing anything about any of it in reputable news sources, no.

So by your arguments, none of us should listen to your claims or concerns about Reade, and maybe they shouldn't even be posted on Metafilter?
posted by eviemath at 10:40 AM on March 27 [6 favorites]


I’m wouldn’t be surprised at all, true or false. It’s election season. Certainly, the VRWC machine/media is hard at work on both the “handsy” and “dementia” fronts but, then, neither attack is totally without some basis. And, the political and PR operatives of both parties are often reading from the same playbook.

A more interesting question is whether you, the readers, consider this behavior, as attested to by multiple women not just Ms. Reade, is disqualifying. I see Biden as just an old-style - and old - slightly corrupt, somewhat misogynistic politician of which Washington is full. Compared to Trump, he’s practically a moral paragon, but that’s a mighty low bar. But then, who doesn’t have feet of clay?
posted by sudogeek at 10:41 AM on March 27 [2 favorites]


A more interesting question is whether you, the readers, consider this behavior, as attested to by multiple women not just Ms. Reade, is disqualifying. I see Biden as just an old-style - and old - slightly corrupt, somewhat misogynistic politician of which Washington is full. Compared to Trump, he’s practically a moral paragon, but that’s a mighty low bar. But then, who doesn’t have feet of clay?
posted by sudogeek at 1:41 PM on March 27 [+] [!]


This behavior, if true, should be met with jail time immediately.
posted by FirstMateKate at 10:44 AM on March 27 [5 favorites]


Well yeah. Sexual assault is about power, not sex.

Yes, but when asked why she didn’t specify this last year, that wasn’t her reason—she said she didn’t want people to think she was a Russian operative, which people think anyway.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:49 AM on March 27


But then, who doesn’t have feet of clay?
Ah yes, who among us *hasn't* committed serial sexual assault?

...

Turns out a surprising number of people. Maybe we should give any of them a shot.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:50 AM on March 27 [6 favorites]


I mean, just throwing this out there, but inconsistency of statements from sexual assault survivors is pretty fucking common due to the pressure of going through the process of charging with someone for sexual assault. It's psychologically horrifying, and as much as her inconsistency can make her look bad, well...

That can be said about a litany of real survivors of sexual assault as well.

So personal opinion, this argument should be tossed out the fucking window, post-haste.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:52 AM on March 27 [5 favorites]


Well yeah. Sexual assault is about power, not sex.
Yes, but when asked why she didn’t specify this last year, that wasn’t her reason—she said she didn’t want people to think she was a Russian operative, which people think anyway.
posted by girlmightlive at 1:49 PM on March 27 [+] [!]

There has never been a case of a "perfect victim", and yet people really like playing this game every. single. time. someone comes forward. I feel like i'm going mad constantly combating these comments. It's akin to trying to reason with comments of nearly any other widely-held but scientifically disproven phenomenon. It's flat-earth talk!
posted by FirstMateKate at 10:55 AM on March 27 [14 favorites]


« Older "as in the best it is"   |   helps with convergent thinking but not divergent... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments