The PWR BTTM Statement: A Breakdown
Amy Crean
155

It is interesting to see the progressive left eviscerate and destroy its own members and supporters. While the political side of me wants to revel in the almost unbearably delicious irony, the rational side of me, thus the dominant side, sees the flashing lights of caution before the dangerous road Amy Crean and her ilk would take all of us down.

Let me say firstly that I more than likely disagree with PWR BTTM on 99% of issues. This stance is on based on principle, not politics.

PWR BTTM is yet another victim to the new despotic standard the progressive left has imposed on America: guilty until proven innocent. Now, allegations, anonymously charged and with no immediate proof, can lead to the destruction of people’s reputation and livelihoods. PWR BTTM has been dropped from their label and tour dates have been cancelled. More importantly, their integrity as decent human beings has been called into question and, politically, their own side has savagely attacked them, not even giving them the benefit of the doubt that this charge is untrue.

I hate to break it to the progressive left, the bastion of tolerance and understanding, but Ben (the PWR BTTM member accused), like every other American citizen, is innocent until proven guilty. Contrary to what Hillary Clinton says, the accuser has no “right to be believed.” None. The accuser has the right to sue a person or persons and to take a grievance to the courts. The burden of proof falls on the accuser and it is their responsibility to provide evidence which shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that who they have accused is indeed guilty. Then, and only then, should conclusions be drawn about the character of the accused which can lead to a damaged reputation.

The way Amy Crean seems intent on passing a guilty verdict is troubling. As is their actual right to do, PWR BTTM refuted the allegation, while still expressing a desire to understand where the accuser is coming from. Unfortunately, their own political philosophy is their undoing. PWR BTTM, Ben, in particular, seems to firmly adhere to the progressive left gospel of “right to be believed,” to the point that it hinders their ability to effectively contest the accusation. One can clearly see Ben is torn between defending himself and staying true to his political principles.

Crean starts off by being shocked that Ben would have the audacity to address how he is feeling and how stressful the allegations against him are, because, of course, if you’re accused of sexual abuse, you cannot say anything in your defense. She’s disgusted at Ben’s reprehensible attitude of the accusation “being positioned” as untruthful. Silly Ben. Does he not know that the new standard is for him to accept wrongdoing immediately? Who does he think he is? An American citizen? Crean continues after Ben says the allegations don’t line up with any sexual experience he’s ever had: “Ben claims to have no memory of a similar series of events, again implying that the account of the survivor must be heavily biased at best, and at worst a blatant lie.” That Crean claims to be a law student and cannot wrap her head around the fact that the allegation is in and of itself biased because it’s coming from a particular point of view wanting a particular outcome is worrisome. And again, if Ben is confident he did nothing wrong, it is his right to dispute the allegation as untruthful, or a blatant lie. He does not, however. Still, he is trying to remain true to his political convictions. Admirable, yet ill-advised.

Next, Crean finds fault that PWR BTTM wouldn’t reveal the name of the accuser. She says that it should be an assumed action and not something that PWR BTTM should decide not to do. Though, if PWR BTTM had any legal sense and boldness, they should reveal the name. That way, the accusation can face openness and the accused can see if the accuser stands by the story which can very well be slanderous. Yet again, PWR BTTM is victim to their pure belief in their principles.

Continuing to try and balance wanting to defend himself yet still be respectful and mindful of what the accuser might have perceived or experienced, Ben says he wants to be accountable to the accuser’s perspective. Yet here, Crean finds fault, telling Ben to either contest the allegations or accept them, but to not be manipulative. Manipulative? What manipulation? How can wanting to defend one’s self from potential slander yet wanting to understand the accuser’s perspective possibly be manipulative? Ben would be a prosecutor’s dream person to depose. He wants to be cooperative, not manipulative.

In addition, and a bit of a digression, the way Crean sees sex (and, perhaps, even PWR BTTM, for that matter) is so strange. Sex is no longer an exciting, beautiful, and spontaneous experience that happens from two people wanting each other; it’s now a mini-contract, subject to checks and balances every step along the way from the first contact of hands, to lips, to actual intercourse where, as Crean puts it, yeses or nos are not enough. Now, our sexual experiences and encounters are subject to the way Amy Crean and her far-left friends interpret it: “Did you act in a positive way throughout? Did your body reflect your wanting of sex? It doesn’t matter if you both had orgasms, did you want to have the orgasm at that moment?” This ridiculous standard opens the door to the very real possibility that if someone looks back with 20/20 hindsight and says, “you know what, I shouldn’t have slept with that person,” they can now claim sexual abuse after the fact.

It cannot be any clearer that Amy Crean is a product of third wave feminism (which is just misandry) and that she will believe any accusation of abuse towards a man (worse in this case because it’s a white man, the worst of all men) that comes from a woman simply because they are the same sex. Crean’s harshness and agenda-driven attitude do nothing to help a resolution to the issue, only to further exacerbate an already sensitive situation. Crean is hyper-hawkish on any attempt Ben takes to try and defend himself, which he does poorly, yet she still finds error in him. She’s biased in favor of the accuser, with no proof, nothing, to offer against Ben. Crean only has the word of an anonymous person against a famous band member to base herself on. And yet she has the tenacity to so unashamedly destroy Ben’s credibility? Crean calls the PWR BTTM statement “invalidating.” So, logically, the only other option is to validate it. But validating it would mean Ben is accepting the allegation as true and that he knowingly committed a crime. Crean wants to pressure Ben into accepting what may be untrue. Talk about manipulative. How’s that for modern tyranny?

PWR BTTM is an unfortunate victim of their own political movement. In the honest attempt to try and reduce rape and sexual abuse, the progressive left has opened up the possibilities for anonymous accusations to run rampant. The work of fiction Rolling Stone printed, “A Rape on Campus,” shows how out of control the situation has gotten. And, after seeing PWR BTTM, can we really not give Ben the benefit of the doubt so that he can at least defend himself? Simply based on our intuition, does PWR BTTM look like guys who will abuse women? They couldn’t be more San Francisco if they tried (and I say that as a native San Franciscan). Is it really beyond the pale to say something, something is amiss? Are we suggesting that the accuser, seeing the almost unprecedented success PWR BTTM was having, has no motive for such an accusation? All of these things must come into consideration.

Politics shouldn’t matter here. What’s at stake are principles we as Americans all agree on, or used to, at least. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has been one of the cornerstones of our republic and to lose such a noble value would mean to see the US descend into more chaos with sexual abuse allegations. Let me be clear: I am not saying Ben didn’t do what the accuser says. I am not saying the accuser shouldn’t be believed by people who want to believe her. I am not saying the accuser is lying. I am indeed saying that no proof has been put forth. I am saying that Ben’s reputation, as a result of the allegation and the subsequent lack of proof, is forever damaged. I am saying that we ARE rushing to judgment. I am saying that Ben is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I am saying the court of public opinion should not replace the court of law. I am saying that the burden to prove Ben’s guilt lies with the accuser, not the other way around; this isn’t Europe. I am saying that PWR BTTM being dropped from their label, having to cancel their tour dates, and their lives being thrown into chaos on the word of an anonymous accusation is wrong.

I genuinely feel bad for PWR BTTM. Their world, Ben’s mostly, has been turned upside. The fact that people’s lives can be thrown into chaos by an anonymous accusation with no immediate proof shows how far we have strayed from being a nation of laws. The rule of law no longer seems to matter. Instead, we have adopted a sickening “rule of feelings” that is endorsed by the progressive left. In the culture of infantile trigger-warnings and perceived micro-aggressions, what else can we really expect?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.