No, believe the victim actually, literally, does mean exactly the same thing in spirit as trust but verify. In the two different contexts they both mean:
People can lie
But with these people, we will act trusting toward them
But not abandon our process that checks their claims
In one case it’s a cultural policy around sexual assault claims, and in the other it’s a NKVD policy around receiving agent field reports, but it is literally (yes I know what the word means) the same policy applied to two different contexts.
Belief is attached to faith in something, despite lack of verification, evidence, or knowledge. To “believe the victim” is to accept their side of the story by filling any unverified gaps with good faith. “Trust and verify” is literally not this as it is to trust that they are telling the truth and so seek to verify it. If it cannot be verified, it cannot be verified, there is no plugging it with good faith.
You don’t have to trust an entire person to trust them with some things. You can trust someone to wash your car but not trust them with your credit card number.
But if you trust someone to wash your car, you don’t do it in degrees. You don’t 80% trust someone to wash your car. It’s binary. You either trust them to and allow them to, or you don’t trust them to and don’t allow them to.
I trust literally everyone when they say they’ve been raped. I believe them. But the world is complicated, people makes mistakes, and other people have rights. So you don’t just chuck someone in prison because you believe the victim. You verify. You have a trial. And if the victim was lying, then my trust and belief were misplaced. But I start out from a place of trust and belief. Because that’s what you do when someone has been hurt, and I’m not omnipotent to know what happened.
If you trust someone to tell you the truth on a topic, but don’t fully believe them, then you don’t trust them on that topic.
You actually almost got it, except that last bit kind of falls off what was being said again.
The car wash analogy is good.
If I believe someone can wash my car, they get to do it. Every time. I’m impartial to the quality of it.
If I trust someone to wash my car, they get to do it. But if I verify they sucked at it, they won’t do it again since I no longer trust they can wash my car and certainly don’t believe they can.
Claims can be so outlandish, like “Blue gnomes burst from the earth and made me rape her!” It’s unbelievable, it’s dismissable. But if it’s said by someone that’s never known to lie in their life, there’s an element of trust where the claim’s worth verifying, despite how unbelievable it is.
This links to the premise of “innocent until proven guilty” and loops us back to the article and the original comment @smotherlove left.
It shouldn’t need to be explained this much. I don’t care much for up and down votes, but in this case, I think they may be a useful indicator, at best, that you’re not grasping something commonly understood—except that last one where I said you’ve almost got it. Maybe it’s just simple misunderstanding. Regardless, in such cases, it’s better to reassess, reflect, and attempt to understand rather than distribute 100% of capacity into opposing, which obviously won’t ever conclude as much as you would like it to.
Saying to believe all victims has the added benefit of encouraging rape victims, who historically would stay quiet out of fear and shame, to speak up. This benefit drastically outweighs the “occasionally sometimes people make shit up” scenario. This is why we do not caveat the phrase. If we said, “believe all rape victims, but sometimes y’all are liars and you’re going to have to seriously prove this shit”, then we would go back to silencing real victims.
Of course some are going to lie, and you shouldn’t have trusted them, and you’ll know that retrospectively. But I’d rather be burned by a couple liars and help many victims.
Used as an intensive before a figurative expression.
this definition only applies to “literally”, not" literal" though
I think i remember some news about it being added to some small acclaim, but even leaving that aside, authors with a grasp of the language far better than you or me ever will have used ‘literally’ this way since before we were born. I think the earliest use was in the 18th century?
So now you know!
EDIT:
The use of literally in a fashion that is hyperbolic or metaphoric is not new—evidence of this use dates back to 1769. Its inclusion in a dictionary isn’t new either; the entry for literally in our 1909 unabridged dictionary states that the word is “often used hyperbolically; as, he literally flew.”
We (and all the other “craven dictionary editors”) have included this definition for a very simple reason: a lot of people use it this way, and our entries are based on evidence of use.
Furthermore, the fact that so many people are writing angry letters serves as a sort of secondhand evidence, as they would hardly be complaining about this usage if it had not become common.
An actual dictionary definition. Not the dictionary definition. And it’s because the dictionary is wrong in this one. Not factually incorrect, unfortunately; their goal here is to be objectively descriptivist, cataloguing use, and they are doing that. But this use is linguistically wrong on a fundamental level.
I’ve abandoned a great deal of the prescriptivist proclivities of my youth. I get it, language evolves. But I draw the line here. “Literally” means, specifically, in the literal sense. The whole point of the word is to make an explicit distinction from non-literal use. If you can use it to denote hyperbolic or figurative use, then the word literally loses all semantic purpose, it’s just a sound with no actual meaning. Sure, you can use words to mean their opposites sarcastically, but that requires an obvious tonal or contextual cues. The figurative use of “literally” is tonally the same as the literal use, all it does is add uncertainty.
It’s not even an effective intensifier, since that usage is less intense than the literal use. “I’m literally starving” is immediately less intense once it’s clear that it’s being used as an intensifier. It’s post-meaning gobbledygook.
It’s out of context. They have not understood where the word “literally” is being applied. Even if they did, the fourth definition they pulled does not apply. Which is a shame, considering all that effort.
My guess is because they’ve been feeling super-smart all these years laughing at people who use “literally” figuratively, and also i made no attempt to not sound like a prick.
But I don’t consider downvotes a bad thing here since they don’t hide the comment. I consider them engagement points.
I mean, yeah. His lawyer talked him into accepting a no contest plea deal. He accepted guilt even though he did nothing. He’s black, and they didn’t they could win.
All of that says nothing about the woman or how we should treat possible victims, and everything about how broken our ‘justice’ system is, especially for minorities.
If you want to get something fixed, focus on that, not on possibly silencing real rape victims.
I think it’s because what you’ve said makes it so the implication is that they’re probably lying. How isn’t that obvious? You do understand the context for the current situation we find ourselves, in which people are saying believe victims, right?
Better question: which do you think is more common? Dudes being wrongly punished for rape or rapists walking the streets because of how brutal it is for ladies to come forth with “accusations”? The answer to that directly highlights why people might feel the need to say we should believe rape/sexual assault victims.
Seriously, like 1 in 4 (or 5) ladies has been sexually assaulted or raped, what do you think the number for dudes that have been wrongly accused of rape?
Seriously, like 1 in 4 (or 5) ladies has been sexually assaulted or raped, what do you think the number for dudes that have been wrongly accused of rape?
Irrelevant. Blackstone’s ratio: It is better for the guilty to walk free than for one innocent to suffer. If it applies to murder, it also applies to rape. Rape isn’t worse than murder, I hope we agree there.
Especially in the context of the US’s excuse for a justice system which most of this seems to be rooted in that age-old principle doesn’t even begin to apply, with people getting coerced into plea deals, worse, “you’re black noone will believe you”.
To go ahead in such a situation and say “but think about the women he didn’t rape but others raped” is to bend the narrative to justify the US’ reneging on fundamental principles of justice, with the race angle involved it’s even worse.
Also, side note: Sexual assault isn’t rape, but combining both looks like a convenient way to pad statistics. A gal grabbing my crotch or slapping my butt is sexual assault never have I filed a criminal complaint… and neither get men asked such questions in polls.
Women are raped at a high rate, and often when they come forward they are defacto treated as if they’re lying. At every step, quite often- not just during the trial. The “believe women” political push was about women’s testimonies being taken more seriously, because currenty everyone expects a much higher burden of truth from them, and thus most cases are dismissed. Of course, conservatives with antifeminist motives chose to scarecrow the movement as they’ve done with literally every feminist initiative.
On the other end, black folks- black men especially- are also subjected to a much higher burden of proof than white folks. Juries regularly find black men guilty of charges with little to no evidence past testimonials from the victim. That’s ultimately why this guy took the plea deal- he and his lawyers figured he couldn’t win a fair trial.
These are still both issues with not just our justice system, but our society as a whole, and both need to be addressed.
Yeah it’s not like the accused gets sentenced automatically. There’s due process. No it doesn’t always work. Surely we all know that by now.
The flip side is that not all accusations result in charges pressed and a trial. I think the victim has to want to press charges and testify. Or in other words, they must be willing to be put through that additional trauma. (They may not report the attack at all).
That’s all assuming the laws actually cover what happened as rape, or sexual assault, etc.
For every case of an accuser lying and the accused being falsely imprisoned there are many more cases where the victim sees no justice whatsoever, unfortunately.
For every case of an accuser lying and the accused being falsely imprisoned there are many more cases where the victim sees no justice whatsoever, unfortunately.
And on top of this for every victim who reports the assualt many more never report it. The statistics surrounding rape are so incredibly depressing
That’s literally what it means already. It’s meant as a way to encourage victims to actually speak up. There’s still always a trial.
deleted by creator
English speakers broke the word literally anyway.
Literally!!
No, believe the victim actually, literally, does mean exactly the same thing in spirit as trust but verify. In the two different contexts they both mean:
In one case it’s a cultural policy around sexual assault claims, and in the other it’s a NKVD policy around receiving agent field reports, but it is literally (yes I know what the word means) the same policy applied to two different contexts.
God I hate people who say this. So cringe
I didn’t say that’s literally what it says. I said it’s literally what it means.
Like if I say “eat my ass”, I didn’t literally invite you to nom on my bussy, I literally meant to insult you.
I don’t think you know what literally means.
Belief is attached to faith in something, despite lack of verification, evidence, or knowledge. To “believe the victim” is to accept their side of the story by filling any unverified gaps with good faith. “Trust and verify” is literally not this as it is to trust that they are telling the truth and so seek to verify it. If it cannot be verified, it cannot be verified, there is no plugging it with good faith.
You trust people you don’t believe?
If you trust but verify, the trust part is already belief. Or you’re lying about trust.
Oh, dear. This has gone quite far over your head.
“Trust and verify”… Trust enough to… Anyone?.. Anyone?.. Anyone? Verify what they’re saying.
“Believe the victim” Believe… Anyone?..Anyone?..Anyone. What they’re saying without verifying.
You can’t exactly believe and verify.
You got to look at all the word people are saying, else you’ll end up stuck on some quite unrelated fallacy like…
The fuck’s that got to do with what’s being said? lol
This is nuanced so please bear with me.
You don’t have to trust an entire person to trust them with some things. You can trust someone to wash your car but not trust them with your credit card number.
But if you trust someone to wash your car, you don’t do it in degrees. You don’t 80% trust someone to wash your car. It’s binary. You either trust them to and allow them to, or you don’t trust them to and don’t allow them to.
I trust literally everyone when they say they’ve been raped. I believe them. But the world is complicated, people makes mistakes, and other people have rights. So you don’t just chuck someone in prison because you believe the victim. You verify. You have a trial. And if the victim was lying, then my trust and belief were misplaced. But I start out from a place of trust and belief. Because that’s what you do when someone has been hurt, and I’m not omnipotent to know what happened.
If you trust someone to tell you the truth on a topic, but don’t fully believe them, then you don’t trust them on that topic.
You actually almost got it, except that last bit kind of falls off what was being said again.
The car wash analogy is good.
If I believe someone can wash my car, they get to do it. Every time. I’m impartial to the quality of it.
If I trust someone to wash my car, they get to do it. But if I verify they sucked at it, they won’t do it again since I no longer trust they can wash my car and certainly don’t believe they can.
Claims can be so outlandish, like “Blue gnomes burst from the earth and made me rape her!” It’s unbelievable, it’s dismissable. But if it’s said by someone that’s never known to lie in their life, there’s an element of trust where the claim’s worth verifying, despite how unbelievable it is.
This links to the premise of “innocent until proven guilty” and loops us back to the article and the original comment @smotherlove left.
It shouldn’t need to be explained this much. I don’t care much for up and down votes, but in this case, I think they may be a useful indicator, at best, that you’re not grasping something commonly understood—except that last one where I said you’ve almost got it. Maybe it’s just simple misunderstanding. Regardless, in such cases, it’s better to reassess, reflect, and attempt to understand rather than distribute 100% of capacity into opposing, which obviously won’t ever conclude as much as you would like it to.
Saying to believe all victims has the added benefit of encouraging rape victims, who historically would stay quiet out of fear and shame, to speak up. This benefit drastically outweighs the “occasionally sometimes people make shit up” scenario. This is why we do not caveat the phrase. If we said, “believe all rape victims, but sometimes y’all are liars and you’re going to have to seriously prove this shit”, then we would go back to silencing real victims.
Of course some are going to lie, and you shouldn’t have trusted them, and you’ll know that retrospectively. But I’d rather be burned by a couple liars and help many victims.
I’m confident you don’t. :)
this definition only applies to “literally”, not" literal" though
I think i remember some news about it being added to some small acclaim, but even leaving that aside, authors with a grasp of the language far better than you or me ever will have used ‘literally’ this way since before we were born. I think the earliest use was in the 18th century?
So now you know!
EDIT:
From merriam-webster’s site
Give it a read, they’re more entertaining than i am
Why all the downvotes for the first to bring up the actual dictionary definition?
An actual dictionary definition. Not the dictionary definition. And it’s because the dictionary is wrong in this one. Not factually incorrect, unfortunately; their goal here is to be objectively descriptivist, cataloguing use, and they are doing that. But this use is linguistically wrong on a fundamental level.
I’ve abandoned a great deal of the prescriptivist proclivities of my youth. I get it, language evolves. But I draw the line here. “Literally” means, specifically, in the literal sense. The whole point of the word is to make an explicit distinction from non-literal use. If you can use it to denote hyperbolic or figurative use, then the word literally loses all semantic purpose, it’s just a sound with no actual meaning. Sure, you can use words to mean their opposites sarcastically, but that requires an obvious tonal or contextual cues. The figurative use of “literally” is tonally the same as the literal use, all it does is add uncertainty.
It’s not even an effective intensifier, since that usage is less intense than the literal use. “I’m literally starving” is immediately less intense once it’s clear that it’s being used as an intensifier. It’s post-meaning gobbledygook.
Because it is disingenuous.
It’s out of context. They have not understood where the word “literally” is being applied. Even if they did, the fourth definition they pulled does not apply. Which is a shame, considering all that effort.
My guess is because they’ve been feeling super-smart all these years laughing at people who use “literally” figuratively, and also i made no attempt to not sound like a prick.
But I don’t consider downvotes a bad thing here since they don’t hide the comment. I consider them engagement points.
deleted by creator
Kinda wild how the trial failed this guy then.
I mean, yeah. His lawyer talked him into accepting a no contest plea deal. He accepted guilt even though he did nothing. He’s black, and they didn’t they could win.
All of that says nothing about the woman or how we should treat possible victims, and everything about how broken our ‘justice’ system is, especially for minorities.
If you want to get something fixed, focus on that, not on possibly silencing real rape victims.
How did trust but verify become silence…
I think it’s because what you’ve said makes it so the implication is that they’re probably lying. How isn’t that obvious? You do understand the context for the current situation we find ourselves, in which people are saying believe victims, right?
Better question: which do you think is more common? Dudes being wrongly punished for rape or rapists walking the streets because of how brutal it is for ladies to come forth with “accusations”? The answer to that directly highlights why people might feel the need to say we should believe rape/sexual assault victims.
Seriously, like 1 in 4 (or 5) ladies has been sexually assaulted or raped, what do you think the number for dudes that have been wrongly accused of rape?
I believe the statistic was somewhere about less than 0.7% of rape charges are lies.
And that is only of the rapes that are reported. The real number is even lower.
It is awful that it happens, but not nearly prominent enough to conclude a problem with the system.
Irrelevant. Blackstone’s ratio: It is better for the guilty to walk free than for one innocent to suffer. If it applies to murder, it also applies to rape. Rape isn’t worse than murder, I hope we agree there.
Especially in the context of the US’s excuse for a justice system which most of this seems to be rooted in that age-old principle doesn’t even begin to apply, with people getting coerced into plea deals, worse, “you’re black noone will believe you”.
To go ahead in such a situation and say “but think about the women he didn’t rape but others raped” is to bend the narrative to justify the US’ reneging on fundamental principles of justice, with the race angle involved it’s even worse.
Also, side note: Sexual assault isn’t rape, but combining both looks like a convenient way to pad statistics. A gal grabbing my crotch or slapping my butt is sexual assault never have I filed a criminal complaint… and neither get men asked such questions in polls.
The exact same problem is cropping up twice here.
Women are raped at a high rate, and often when they come forward they are defacto treated as if they’re lying. At every step, quite often- not just during the trial. The “believe women” political push was about women’s testimonies being taken more seriously, because currenty everyone expects a much higher burden of truth from them, and thus most cases are dismissed. Of course, conservatives with antifeminist motives chose to scarecrow the movement as they’ve done with literally every feminist initiative.
On the other end, black folks- black men especially- are also subjected to a much higher burden of proof than white folks. Juries regularly find black men guilty of charges with little to no evidence past testimonials from the victim. That’s ultimately why this guy took the plea deal- he and his lawyers figured he couldn’t win a fair trial.
These are still both issues with not just our justice system, but our society as a whole, and both need to be addressed.
Yeah it’s not like the accused gets sentenced automatically. There’s due process. No it doesn’t always work. Surely we all know that by now.
The flip side is that not all accusations result in charges pressed and a trial. I think the victim has to want to press charges and testify. Or in other words, they must be willing to be put through that additional trauma. (They may not report the attack at all).
That’s all assuming the laws actually cover what happened as rape, or sexual assault, etc.
For every case of an accuser lying and the accused being falsely imprisoned there are many more cases where the victim sees no justice whatsoever, unfortunately.
The victim isn’t the one to press charges. That is for the DA to decide.
They can sue for damages in civil court but the idea of civilians pressing charges is movie Mumbo jumbo.
And on top of this for every victim who reports the assualt many more never report it. The statistics surrounding rape are so incredibly depressing
And look how fucked up the results of that trial can be!