A Scary Time for The Presumption of Innocence

'A Scary Time for Boys' is a song the video of which went viral in October 2018, before the USA midterm elections. It is a response to some remarks made by the US President Trump after the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, a nomination favoured mainly by Republicans. With typically clumsy syntax, the president's remarks express concern regarding the cultural and political climate favouring the disregard of the liberal principle of the presumption of innocence,

"it's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of". 

The main errors in the song are the strawmanning (logical fallacy goo.gl/HJAeOd) of the claim to which the title alludes; the president's claim being:

"it's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of". 
This is not a claim that
it is not scary for women 
or that
it's a scary time for men because they can't assault women and get away with it,
These claims were not put forward by her president, yet the song argues against them as though they were.

A justice system constructed on liberal principles will foremost apply the presumption of innocence. However, for a civilisation that lays claims to the principles of liberalism, the presumption of innocence is a guiding principle for that civilisation, rather than just a specific function exclusive to the due process of law. The assumption of truth without evidence is not only a logical fallacy, but when culturally accepted as valid tilts the civilisation towards adopting tyrannical and oppressive behaviours. The president's words addresses the culture that facilitates the perceivably politically motivated attempt by the Democratic party to delay or prejudice the election of Kavanaugh to the Supreme court by putting forward a serious criminal accusation publicly, but without any corroborating evidence. The accuser (Dr. Ford), in consultation with Democrat polticians, 'chose' the moment of Kavanaugh's nomination to come forward with the accusation of assault after - if the allegation were true - 35 years of saying nothing. Several other people also then made similar allegations without evidence, but have since retracted their statements or admitted they were lying (srcs: goo.gl/UPauuB,  goo.gl/JfzEWB,  goo.gl/tKnFHX ). After the episode Ford made no further representations (src: goo.gl/dsRr2e). Ford has raised over $700,000 from a gofundme campaign (src: goo.gl/Rk59dK), and secured a book deal possibly worth over $1million (src: goo.gl/EBgDgn ), which mitigates any claim for the preponderance of credulity for her allegation based on the falsehood that she had nothing to gain. Her ability and willingness for deception has also since emerged (src: goo.gl/aDHSEF). The disregard for the principle of the presumption of innocence means that Kavanaugh's reputation may never be recovered, and he and his family will be associated with the unfalsifiable allegation for the forseeable future, probably for the rest of their lives. This is in spite of no case that any serious misconduct having ever been demonstrated, with corroborative evidence, to be true.

The larger point the American president was alluding to in his comments, though, was that if this can happen to Kavanaugh (and his family) it can happen to anyone. Indeed this has already happened many times (Eg goo.gl/o31Ncx goo.gl/J6KyCc) but repeatedly fails to get much attention from mainstream media. Any group identity (including both men and women) will have the most morally virtuous and most morally corrupt individuals amongst them, as well as everything in between. Political and ideological opponents (not necessarily exclusively men) can have their livelihood threatened and lives ruined by morally corrupt individuals blinded by ideology, motivated by resentment and armed with the 'listen and believe' idea currently being pushed, which weaponizes the disregard for the presumption of innocence.

A Scary Time for Boys Unpacked

The song is written cleverly and sarcastically. As a response to the formerly cited claim of  her president "it's a very scary time for young men...", the song makes several errors, including repeated strawman fallacies. The song repeatedly regards and judges men collectively rather than as the individuals with varying moral standards that they are. The collectivist ideology that drives this narrative especially reveals itself towards the end of the song. Coupled with its inverted sarcasm, the logical errors can easily slip by you in the engaging song format; it requires a bit of scrutiny to unpack it.
So here goes.

I can't walk to my car late at night while on the phone

I can't open up my windows when I'm home alone

I can't go to the bar without a chaperone

I can't wear a mini-skirt if it's the only one I own

I can't use public transportation after 7pm

I can't be brutally honest when you slide into my DMs

I can't go to the club just to dance with my friends

And I can't ever leave my drink unattended 

Strawman fallacy;

Yes a lot of that is pretty scary, but she is criticising a claim that was not made, which is:

'it is not scary for women'

not the actual claim made, which was:

"it's a very scary time for young men..."

[Chorus]

But it sure is a scary time for boys

Yeah, gentlemen band together make some noise

It's really tough when your reputation's on the line

And any woman you've assaulted could turn up any time

Strawman fallacy,

this is the most manipulative error in the song: The strawman claim that was not made but she (sarcastically) argues against is:

'it's a scary time for boys because they can't assault women and get away with it'. 

not the actual claim:

"it's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of"

which is an entirely different concern that she has not addressed: In the current climate, innocent people (not necessarily just men) can be regarded as guilty without evidence of any misdemeanor, simply based on having had an accusation made against them alone. Lives can be ruined, and the threat of ruining lives alone carries a large amount of social power. The liberal principle of the presumption of innocence circumvents the likelihood of the corruption of such power in order to protect the innocent from malevolence. The disregard of the presumption of innocence is illiberal.

Yeah, it sure is a scary time for guys

Can't speak to any woman or look her in the eyes

It's so confusing, is it rape or is it just being nice?

So inconvenient that you even have to think twice 

The same strawman, the allegation against Kavanaigh was of assault, not harassment. But worse, this is patronizing and trivializes the difficulty in the necessary public conversation on this topic. Assault is not harassment. The entire category of non-violent interaction is not assault either, but there is also a distinction between harassment and other harmless social activities like 'banter' and 'flirting' that, in my view, still needs to be more clearly defined,  The joking reaction of Netflix film crews 'banned from looking at each other for longer than five seconds' is s testament to this unresolved confusion (src: https://goo.gl/i3KUEb ).

[Verse 2]

I can't live in an apartment if it's on the first floor

I can't be wearing silk pajamas when I answer the door

I can't have another drink even if I want more 

Strawman fallacy as per the first verse. Also, no one is forcing you to cover up answering the door to strangers, its just good idea or politeness, not a form of cruelty.

And I can't make you feel invalid, unseen, or ignored  

Same strawman. Also these are relationship issues that are not exclusive to women.

I can't jog around the city with headphones on my ears

Same strawman, and not a ubiquitous issue for either women or men. Compared to women, men are twice as likely than women to be fatal victims of assault (src: Home Office archive  goo.gl/UuX6z2 ) in the UK (the ratio is the similar in all other countries where this is measured, including the USA).

I can't speak out against my rapist after 35 years

35 years refers to the period of time from Dr. Ford's allegation. In that context, it is illiberal (not to mention unethical) to presume in this line that Kavanaugh is a rapist (burden of proof is on the singer, presumption of innocence is with Kavanaugh), and this particular lyric borders on libelous. To the listener's knowledge, Kavanaugh is no more a rapist than she is.

What does she mean by 'speak out'?

If 'speak out' means 'talk to someone', in USA  you can 'speak out' after 35 years, or at anytime, you have that natural right protected by the government.

If 'speak out' means 'take legal action', yes, in USA you can do this for up to 7 years after the allegation (statute of limitations), but Dr. Ford did not say anything about it in that period, but instead when it was politically convenient for the Democrats at Kavanaugh's nomination.. and subsequently has not pursued it.

I can't be taken seriously if I'm holding back tears

There's no perfect system. The presumption of innocence is the most effective principle to avoid the wrongful persecution of the innocent, as it simultaneously acts to prevent a descent into a tyrannical culture, judiciary and government. Due process requires evidence. 'Holding back tears' maybe a reason to be taken seriously, but cannot be regarded as objective evidence that a misdemeanor has been committed. The disregard of the presumption of innocence as a 'remedy' to the impossibly hard situation of being a victim of a serious crime that you cannot prove is itself a 'cure' worse than this 'disease' and has consequences radically worse than that which it is intended to remedy.

And I can't ever speak earnestly about all these fears

Then what is she doing right now? She sung this on USA national TV. ( goo.gl/fZn2f5 )

[Chorus]

Cause it sure is a scary time for dudes

Can't text a girl repeatedly asking for nudes

Can't make a girl have sex when she's not in the mood 

Correct, you can't.

Again strawman, the claim was not that you could

And what gives her the right to give you attitude?

That depends what she means by 'attitude'. In the context of the Kavanaugh issue to which this is a response, it appears to mean the disregard for, or subversion of, due process in the pursuit of political goals.

Yeah it sure is a scary time for men

Girls like to act like you're to blame and they're the victim  

Her dress was short and she was drunk she's not so innocent

This is a criticism of men (rather than perhaps some men or a man), ie she is conferring guilt on men; it is a claim that men are as morally corrupt as the man she is describing here. A judgement of a group based on the worst of the group is bigotry. 

Thank God your dad's the judge and you won't be convicted

This scenario would be a conflict of interest and if it happened it would be in spite of the system, not because of it. Anyway, my dad isn't a judge, nor is it the case for almost all men, so I don't know who this is addressed to.

[Chorus]

Cause it's not such a scary time for boys

They've always had the upper hand, they've always had a choice 

Here she reveals her collectivist ideology. She is criticising men collectively for having the upper hand, which is a claim of power imbalance between all men over all women (and is not true; most men are not powerful in terms of job status in relation to the rest of the society, and many are desperately dispossessed - Eg most homeless people are men (src: goo.gl/RdGfwk). The narrative that men have 'always had the upper hand' is an ideological one that is a ridiculous idea given that for most of history the standard of living for 90% of men and women is what would be described by today's standards as extreme poverty. The ideological claim is driven by resentment  channeled by a collectivist ideology that has emerged from a corrupted and discredited field of academia (src: goo.gl/d1rkAk ). This particular idea of all men somehow dominating all women is largely constructed upon assumptions about the observation of inequalities between averages, which is an outcome that the scientific literature has demonstrated to be mainly because of differences in complementary competences, preferences and choices (Eg: goo.gl/RKfWX9 ), and nothing to do with the idea that it is a 'toxic' driven conspiracy of men; an idea from the 'grievance studies' field of academia now exposed as nonsense (src: goo.gl/d1rkAk ).

It's time for women to rise up, use our collective voice 

This directly exposes the singer's thinking as very collectivist. Women are individuals and the individual can think for themself and think differently from other individuals. Women are not like the Borg from Star Trek, they're not a collective hive mind, and. there is no collective voice of women. 

The day to vote's November 6th, so let's go make some noise 

With a statement of fact and a call to political action; the last line is the only non fallacious line in the entire song.