Let me preface by saying that I despised Ginsburg for all the same reasons that you all do.
So I'm not happy about what I'm about to say, but I do believe that truth matters most, and ultimately the truth is on our side.
After some serious digging on my own - because of a debate I was
having with a couple of more centrist aqcuaintances about the veracity
of the claim regarding Ginsberg's position on the age of consent - I
found that the passage in question has been and is still being taken out
of context to be used by people who may or may not even really be on
our side. I'll explain how it has been taken out of context shortly,
but I want you all to know that this sort of thing pisses me off because
whenever we use false claims as evidence to stake our positions, it's
anything but helpful to our cause. The truth is that there are so many
valid criticisms we could make about the left that we don't need to
depend on things which are untrue in the first place.
And it goes without saying that every time we spread false propaganda
and then the light is shone upon it, it makes us less effective in our
arguments overall, no matter how legitimate our cause is or how morally
superior our ideas are.
That said, let me explain how this has been taken out of context.
As the OP said, the alleged purpose of the "book" was to recommend
updates to the U.S. code so that, for instance, women couldn't get away
with things like rape (among other various criminal acts). And like the
OP, I personally have no problem with this particular concept as I
believe in equal justice under the law.
So it's a bit nuanced and honestly kind of difficult explain in
written form, but I'm going to try my best here (it would be much easier
if I were sitting in the same room with you and we both had the text
pulled up on the computer in front of us).
Ok, so the way that the recommendations were written was like:
Here's an example of text that needs to change in order to hold
people of both sexes equally accountable to the same lawful standards
And then, Here is an example of a statute which exists either as
an already passed law or a bill draft with the appropriate language to
serve the purpose of ensuring equal treatment under the law. So, model
the text which needs to change to be in the linguistic style of this
text which is appropriately updated to serve that expressed purpose.
Now, it took me several passes at this before I understood - because
if you read the page (I believe it's page 102 in the "book") and take it
at face value - it does read like "change the line that says blah blah age of 16" to "blah blah age of 12."
But what they were actually saying in the publication was to model the language of this existing statute to match the linguistic style of this example.
Apparently the "example" they chose in this instance was from a
proposed bill (which means it was written by congress at the time) in
which the line about "12 years of age" was present. But, they weren't
saying to change the age from 16 to 12, they were saying to change the
gendered part of the statute to match the style of the example statute.
Hopefully that makes sense, but you're likely going to have to read
it yourself to understand exactly what I'm talking about and how it was
taken out of context.
The truth is that both parties use and have used false propaganda.
Personally, I think it's been by design and serves some specific
purposes. In this case, because it is a convoluted situation unless you
really dig in to understand, it's easy to just take the charge at face
value from the politicians. And in addition, the more that both parties
can point to one another and cite false narratives, the more division
is sowed and the more people double down and dig in their heels.
But like I said before, we really don't need false talking points because the truth about those leftist bastards is bad enough.
Anyhow, I expect this won't be a popular comment but I wanted you all
to know the truth because we need to operate in the truth in
discussions and debates with others. And again to reiterate, knowing
what I know about this particular issue changes nothing about my
opinions about RBG. She was a leftist scumbag and her known positions
on other issues are bad enough to convey this anyhow.
And for what it's worth, the rightwing media has been making the same
mistake with that bill in CA - and it wasn't even necessary to do so
because there are despicable parts of that bill which do condone pedophilia.
So I'll explain that, too, since you're still reading and I want you
to know the truth so that you are an effective communicator of it.
So, a popular talking point regarding that bill is that it allows a
person to have sex with someone so long as they are no more than 10
years the person's junior. For example, I heard Rush Limbaugh cite the
hypothetical scenario in which a 22 year old has sex with a 12 year old
and gets away with it legally. That scenario actually wouldn't
be legal under that bill, and the reason why is because there is an age
cutoff on the low end of the spectrum at 14 years old.
However, the bill does provide for a worse case scenario
where a 24 year old has sex with a 14 year old. In such a case, it is
then left up to the judge to decide whether or not the 24 year old must
register as a sex offender. And that's because per the bill, the two
participants are within 10 years of age and the younger participant
isn't younger than 14.
Now, to me, that's still fucking terrible. No 24 year old has any business having sex with a 14 year old in any circumstance, as I'm sure we can all agree.
So my point is, why do we have talking heads citing the 12 year
old/22 year old example when it doesn't even apply? Especially when the
14 year old/24 year old example does actually apply and makes the same point?
Again, it almost seems like it's by design, like it's a built-in
attack vector for our enemies to exploit. We cite an example that
doesn't apply, and from that point on we lose the upper hand in that
argument and any other argument that may follow.
Ultimately, we live in a fucking world of disinformation coming from all sides all the time.
We need to be vigilant and it takes all of us watching out to keep
our peers informed. At this point, I've realized that I can't just
trust information coming from any side at face value, lest I end up looking like an intellectually lazy shill. I do
want to engage in this information war, but I only want to use the
truth as that doesn't provide an attack vector for my enemy to exploit.
At this point, I pretty much only trust POTUS and a few other people to
tell the truth at face value.
All of that said, if anyone has anything on RBG besides that "age of
consent at 12" which proves she is a pedo lover, please reply. I would love to be able to show my opponents something that they can't justifiably shoot down in this regard.
[–] 25687949? ago
Ever heard of plausible deniability? She didn't technically say it, but she didn't keep the number to 16 in the example for a reason.
And yes we need to be honest with ourselves and each other and avoid believing self serving lies.