International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324808)

Oystein 16th November 2017 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079750)
not kidding, literally the worst defense of slut shaming I have ever seen.

Post some NSFW pictures of the accuser to REALLY drive that point home....

Except I never defended any slut shaming since none took place.

logger 16th November 2017 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12079795)
Right... that's what I said. But thanks for your bizarro world grammatical parsing.

No actually you didn’t say that. You minimized it by strangely saying “he knows he did something” even Franken would not have said it like that.

I can imagine Franken saying, “gee I know I did something”

Oystein 16th November 2017 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12079759)
Let me stop you after your third try and ask that, if you have an issue with a specific person's contribution, please...be specific. Vague, blanket denunciations (not to mention the faux quote in the second of your posts above) don't help address what you appear to claim is problematic.

Seconded

logger 16th November 2017 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079804)
Except I never defended any slut shaming since none took place.

Explain to me again her purpose for posting it?

Oystein 16th November 2017 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12079770)
Tweeden's interview with Jake Tapper is very good, and removes any lingering doubts I might have had about her motivations. She comes across as credible and sincere. I have immense respect for her.

And for what its worth, Franken's second apology (not sure if it's been posted or linked in this thread yet) is more articulate and heartfelt than his lame first attempt. He's admitted to what he did and is willing to face the consequences. I find that respectable too.

Good post.

Regnad Kcin 16th November 2017 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12079435)
Not if you think Moore's should end........

If you give one a pass, you need to give both a pass.

Do you believe a kid playing cops and robbers should be judged the same as one who steals from his mother's purse?*



*Yes, these examples are of children's actions; I understand. I'm only using them as an illustrative contrast in behavior.

Oystein 16th November 2017 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079771)
Uh huh. She just posted nsfw pictures of the accuser to uh... show that she would have been groped before and... therefore... walk us through it again?

Really, love to hear how her history at hooters and her nsfw pictures, you know, fit in here.

Because it seems like blunt slut shaming of the worst type.

I already walked you through it. Apparently no point in repeating the exercise when you wilfully refuse to follow. Just re-read.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079797)
Correct, and neither Ginger nor I said or implied it did.

Nope just that her background makes it more likely that she was groped and the fact she was groped before and did not report it makes her not credible.

To prove it? Her are some nsfw work bikini pictures:

Nsfw bikini pictures! Yay

Oystein 16th November 2017 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12079779)
So American Politics is coming to this:All that Matters is whether there is a R or a D after you name......

No. You really should not make such generalized accusations while never actually ever addressing anything anyone actually said.

NoahFence 16th November 2017 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079758)
You even manage to misconstrue your own lie. Know no shame?

:dl:

None of those people do. Did you see who they elected? They're truly vying to make hypocrisy an Olympic sport.

They're going to sweep the medals.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079812)
I already walked you through it. Apparently no point in repeating the exercise when you wilfully refuse to follow. Just re-read.

Say, you got through that post without accusing me of lying.

No, you did walk us through why her nsfw bikini pictures were necessary to show that terrible argument with which you disagree.

Walk me through that.

Walk us through that will you?

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079780)
USA politics might need to have US law referenced?

Well with groping of women in clubs, it's pretty much a worldwide problem. Talk to a few of the members of the opposite sex, you'll find that of those that go to clubs, most if not all have had it happen at some stage, yet you know what is missing? Stories on men being prosecuted for doing so. Clubs admit it's an issue and kick out the repeat offenders, but they rarely get the police called on them.

In the search I did, though admittedly limited, I found 5 cases going back 7 years (most in the UK but one in the US) where a guy was prosecuted, and in all but one case he was arrested not for groping, but rather because they got violent on being challenged.

One broke a bottle of his victim's husband's head when challenged.

One punched, knocked down, and then started kicking his victim's two female friends when they intervened.

One was thrown out but returned to the club and violently attacked the bouncer trying to force his way back inside.

One started fighting with the bouncers when they tried to remove him, and then attacked the police when they arrived (this was the US one) and it should be noted that "Officers did not charge him for assaulting the woman because they could not find her, police said."

The final one was charged with 3 counts because he was a known serial offender and got fined a grand total of 600 pounds. :rolleyes:

Oh, and of cause in almost all cases it seems the lawyers for the defendant wrote it off and a "bit of harmless drunk groping, nothing serious."

logger 16th November 2017 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079820)
Well with groping of women in clubs, it's pretty much a worldwide problem. Talk to a few of the members of the opposite sex, you'll find that of those that go to clubs, most if not all have had it happen at some stage, yet you know what is missing? Stories on men being prosecuted for doing so. Clubs admit it's an issue and kick out the repeat offenders, but they rarely get the police called on them.

In the search I did, though admittedly limited, I found 5 cases going back 7 years (most in the UK but one in the US) where a guy was prosecuted, and in all but one case he was arrested not for groping, but rather because they got violent on being challenged.

One broke a bottle of his victim's husband's head when challenged.

One punched, knocked down, and then started kicking his victim's two female friends when they intervened.

One was thrown out but returned to the club and violently attacked the bouncer trying to force his way back inside.

One started fighting with the bouncers when they tried to remove him, and then attacked the police when they arrived (this was the US one.)

The final one was charged with 3 counts because he was a known serial offender and got fined a grand total of 600 pounds. :rolleyes:

So you’re admitting that you were wrong?

I can agree that clubs don’t call the cops, but if they did, the offender would be charged.

Regnad Kcin 16th November 2017 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 12079458)
Jesus the people pretending they would be having the discussion the exact same way if the only factor that was different was D at the end of the title was switched to an R is hilarious.

If I happen to have been included in your imaginary group scenario, please consider yourself corrected.

Skeptic Ginger 16th November 2017 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079502)
And that was their decision to make, same this time.

So based on a single incident/accusation and a bad joke (non-groping grope picture) every Senator or Congressperson should resign and run for reelection?

logger 16th November 2017 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12079827)
So based on a single incident/accusation and a bad joke (non-groping grope picture) every Senator or Congressperson should resign and run for reelection?

Wow!!!

Hell must be freezing over!

Skeptic Ginger 16th November 2017 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079506)
This is kind of my point. We give people passes on their bad behaviour because it's "just a prank" and that allows it to become acceptable to do. It's time we stopped seeing it as acceptable behaviour when it quite clearly isn't.

Not everyone is saying boy on boy jokes are OK, I'm not. But honestly that photo is a non-grope grope. It's not like it was akin to the Steubenville videos.

rwguinn 16th November 2017 08:02 PM

The only way one can consider pictures of an individual in swimwear - or even nude, for that matter- as "slut-shaming" is if he has a real hang-up over the female (or make) form Devine.
In other words, only a "slut" would be seen in public in a bikini.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Skeptic Ginger 16th November 2017 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079507)
Elevatorgate involved a man who asked a woman to come back to his room. She declined. He did not force the issue, grope her or pursue any action beyond that. No harassment there, just a dude that got shot down.

Franken wrote a skit that included a kiss. He then insisted on a practice session. Why would the practice session need a real kiss? Actors talk with each other about what is acceptable in these kinds of scenes; there is consent. Marlon Brando did not obtain consent from Maria Schneider for what he was about to do to her in "Last Tango in Paris," and I'm sure you can see why that was a problem. While obviously not on the scale of the "Paris" scene, essentially the same thing happened here; Franken did not obtain consent for a real kiss from Tweeden and she did not like it. Then he took a picture pretending to grab her boobs while she was sleeping.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to call Franken a monster. But his behavior is on the same spectrum as any other sexual harasser in the history of sexual harassment. You can argue that this was minor sexual harassment if you want to. I argue that any sexual harassment is unacceptable.

Moore? He should drop out of the race. Trump? He never should have been elected. O'Reilley and Ailes? Already given the boot and with good reason. Franken? It's time for him to step down.

First, yes elevatorgate involved something benign. But all sorts of people took the side of it being close to sexual assault, gripes about objectifying women flew, some people suggested men not get on elevators if a woman was alone on one.

Now you may see the Franken incident as worse than the elevator come-on. Fine. It was a skit Tweeden didn't appreciate. He didn't grope her in the dressing room. There are dozens of make-out skits on SNL.

I'll repeat it, it is possible Tweeden saw it differently than Franken. Tweeden is saying right now she accepts Franken's apology.

The Franken incident is not equivalent to the other incidents.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwguinn (Post 12079833)
The only way one can consider pictures of an individual in swimwear - or even nude, for that matter- as "slut-shaming" is if he has a real hang-up over the female (or make) form Devine.
In other words, only a "slut" would be seen in public in a bikini.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Umm, that is not slut shaming. Posting pictures of her in a bikini in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with her in her bikini for the sole purpose of discrediting her is slut shaming.

This is so obvious that I am stunned that people are defending this argument.

Oystein 16th November 2017 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079803)
Uh huh, she needed to post nsfw pictures to show whe would have had been groped before and was inconsistent, or some contemptible ********.

And the fact you disagree with me makes me lying?

The fact that she has a terrible excuse to post slut shaming pictures and claiming her work history and looks makes her a target for groping does not mean she was not being slut shamed.

Blatant obvious slut shaming. Not sure how you are missing this.

Although I get a kick out of the fact That you disagree with me makes me “lying.” Oh brother.

Post some bikini pictures. They are “relevant.”

I tell you why the google image search results are relevant:

Prior to tonight, I had never heard of Mrs. Tweeden. I read early tonight that she had been on the covers of FHM and Playboy magazines, but figured she is mostly a TV personality who also does photo shoots from time to time.

Turns out my perspective was a bit off. How did I find out? By googling her name and seeing the pictures that came up: the public image, literally, of Tweeden is that of a pretty face with a sexy body showing lots of skin in racy lingerie.

There is no shame in that! Unless YOU find it shameful.

However it could be taken as an indication that Tweeden would most likely not be a stranger to being abused by men who cannot distinguish public image from personal integrity. Would you agree she is more likely to experience being made the object of "locker room" abuse with some frequency than women with a less racy body of images in the public realm? Or at least acknowledge that such an assumption is not entirely incomprehensible? Again, this is neither defense of such abuse nor a judgement on Mrs. Tweeden, it is merely an estimation of likelihood of exposure.

Skeptic Ginger 16th November 2017 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079513)
Surely you can see the difference between a comedic skit proposal and actually harassing someone outside of a skit?

You are asking me if I see the difference? :eye-poppi

Pretty sure that's what I've been saying.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079824)
So you’re admitting that you were wrong?

I can agree that clubs don’t call the cops, but if they did, the offender would be charged.

Except that in the only US case I found (which sorry you got in too fast before I added it in edit) they didn't charge him even though they had the testimony of the bouncers, because, they claimed, they couldn't locate the victim. So no, just because they are called doesn't mean they will charge.

Now yes if the victim made a big enough stink about it and demanded that the Police do something, I would expect they would charge, I also would not be surprised to see it just go away quietly with a small fine or a warning at the most.

The fact remains that men think that this sort of behaviour, and more, is acceptable, and continue to do it without hesitation or remorse, and it's unacceptable. Whether he touched her or not, I think he needs to step down, because his behaviour was unacceptable in a leader.

And so was Moore's and Trump's and apparently a heap more if this multi million dollar fund to pay out claims is true. They all need to go, the lot of them, Rep, Dem, it doesn't matter what Letter they have, they need to be gone and if they are in a current elected position, then let's have the Voters decide their fates.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079843)
I tell you why the google image search results are relevant:

Prior to tonight, I had never heard of Mrs. Tweeden. I read early tonight that she had been on the covers of FHM and Playboy magazines, but figured she is mostly a TV personality who also does photo shoots from time to time.

Turns out my perspective was a bit off. How did I find out? By googling her name and seeing the pictures that came up: the public image, literally, of Tweeden is that of a pretty face with a sexy body showing lots of skin in racy lingerie.

There is no shame in that! Unless YOU find it shameful.

However it could be taken as an indication that Tweeden would most likely not be a stranger to being abused by men who cannot distinguish public image from personal integrity. Would you agree she is more likely to experience being made the object of "locker room" abuse with some frequency than women with a less racy body of images in the public realm? Or at least acknowledge that such an assumption is not entirely incomprehensible? Again, this is neither defense of such abuse nor a judgement on Mrs. Tweeden, it is merely an estimation of likelihood of exposure.

:eye-poppi

This is absolutely the finest description of slut shaming one will ever see.

Nothing in this post has anything to do with Franken’s conduct at all. It is a blatant attack on the accuser. She is hot, she likely was groped before, and?

And nothing, the whole argument is appalling.

Skeptic Ginger 16th November 2017 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079580)
While I think that Ginger's arguments are biased and kinda miss the mark, you keep misconstruing them badly.

Ginger certainly did not shame Tweeden by referencing her well-known career in being a sexy model, as in "shame on the victim, she had it coming".

The argument is rather this: Although it is wrong, it is very likely that Tweeden has experienced a number of sexual harrassments and perhaps even assaults in her life - and very likely more than many other women her age because she is a sexy model and many men perceive her as a pin-up more than as a human being with dignity. And therefore, Ginger seems to question why Tweeden has come out to complain about Al Franken, but not about any other instances of having beem harrassed.

Exactly, thank you, even if we disagree on some of the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079580)
Again, I don't think that argument hits a worthy mark (there may be many reasons - perhaps there really were no other incidence worth telling; perhaps no other incidents involving significant leaders; perhaps Tweeden is only starting to come to terms with past incidents, and more will come out soon), but it is a different argument from what you have mocked, maliciously, in several posts.

That's a lot of hypothetical there. How does that differ from Franken was making a stupid joke and the skit didn't hit the mark but Tweeden has seriously exaggerated the incident?

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:19 PM

Franken sticking his tongue in the victim’s mouth was not part of a skit.

But she does have a mouth, here are some nsfw pictures to prove she has a mouth:

Nsfw pictures of the accuser with her mouth;

Minoosh 16th November 2017 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079673)
From what we know now. Franken would be charged and Moore wouldn’t. It’s that pesky evidence thing.

Pretending to squeeze someone's boobs isn't a crime, that I know of.

Regnad Kcin 16th November 2017 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12079775)
OK:SKeptic Ginger is doing her best to let Franken off the hook.

Thank you, that's productive. I'll try to reread SG's contributions here and see if I agree, disagree, or, most likely, land on some spot between.

Skeptic Ginger 16th November 2017 08:20 PM

Can we not distinguish between a guy who realizes he was a jerk when he was younger or even a couple years ago and Louis CK claiming he didn't know masturbating in front of women bothered them?

Is a picture of a pretend grope (and it is clearly a fake grope) the same as cornering a woman and actually groping her?


As for Franken's apology, anyone remember PZ Meyer's change of heart re his past behavior? Seems similar to me.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12079857)
Can we not distinguish between a guy who realizes he was a jerk when he was younger or even a couple years ago and Louis CK claiming he didn't know masturbating in front of women bothered them?

Is a picture of a pretend grope (and it is clearly a fake grope) the same as cornering a woman and actually groping her?

Yeah, What about Louis C.K?

:rolleyes:

logger 16th November 2017 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12079854)
Pretending to squeeze someone's boobs isn't a crime, that I know of.

I don’t think you can say for sure he wasn’t touching.

johnny karate 16th November 2017 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079806)
No actually you didn’t say that. You minimized it by strangely saying “he knows he did something” even Franken would not have said it like that.

I can imagine Franken saying, “gee I know I did something”

Your interpretation of what I said seems to indicate you don't understand how humans communicate or use words.

I didn't minimize anything and my posts speak for themselves.

The Big Dog 16th November 2017 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079861)
I don’t think you can say for sure he wasn’t touching.

I can say for sure that photo does not document the entirety of franken’s conduct while the victim was sleeping on that plane.

Minoosh 16th November 2017 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079846)
They all need to go, the lot of them, Rep, Dem, it doesn't matter what Letter they have, they need to be gone and if they are in a current elected position, then let's have the Voters decide their fates.

Are you talking about special elections, or just the normal one that would roll around every 6 years?

logger 16th November 2017 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12079863)
Your interpretation of what I said seems to indicate you don't understand how humans communicate or use words.

No, I interpreted your post accurately.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12079868)
Are you talking about special elections, or just the normal one that would roll around every 6 years?

Specials, they can use the money they have in the sexual harassment pay out fund for them!

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079866)
I can say for sure that photo does not document the entirety of franken’s conduct while the victim was sleeping on that plane.

You were there?

Fudbucker 16th November 2017 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12079832)
Not everyone is saying boy on boy jokes are OK, I'm not. But honestly that photo is a non-grope grope. It's not like it was akin to the Steubenville videos.

Don't try to soft-peddle it. When I saw it, I threw up in my mouth a little: a lech reaching for an unconscious woman's breasts with a leering grin? Disgusting. I lost all respect for Franken.

The victim says she believes his apology. Perhaps he could get off with censure and a pledge to retire at the end of his term. I wouldn't mind letting the woman choose his punishment. If no one else comes forward, we can say maybe this was a one-off of bad behavior. If there's other accusers, Franken needs to go.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12079861)
I don’t think you can say for sure he wasn’t touching.

That's not the way it works, if you want to go legal then it's up to you to show that he was touching. I believe there is a lot of doubt to that.

Oystein 16th November 2017 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12079848)
:eye-poppi

This is absolutely the finest description of slut shaming one will ever see.

Nothing in this post has anything to do with Franken’s conduct at all. It is a blatant attack on the accuser. She is hot, she likely was groped before, and?

And nothing, the whole argument is appalling.

If you see a slut in those images, I think that is your true problem here.

<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 12.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.