Quote:
|
Quote:
You have quite notably failed to address why those nsfw photos were necessary in connection with FRANKEN’S conduct. <snip>
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"The DA is unimpressed by Sarah's behavior as she had dressed provocatively that night at the bar and was also drinking heavily and showing a lot of cleavage." |
Quote:
The discrediting occurs a step later - and you wilfully ignore that step: that her accusation may be in part motivated politically, as she likely would have other accusations to make, but chose to make them on Franken. Again, I do not agree with this argument! Only informing you that Ginger didnt link google results to discredit Tweeden as a slut. Rather, she linked google results to portrait her as a likely victim of more abuses. Portayed as victim, not as slut. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:eye-poppi Talk about vile nonsense. Pure slut shaming. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you what to attack that argument attack that argument, it has flaws in it that are very attackable, and I don't personally agree with Ginger's point at all, but at least attack the right argument instead your continual attacking of strawmen. All that does is make you look like you are trolling. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I really did not believe you could make a terrible argument worse but you have managed to do so. Using her photos to discredit her is slut shaming, and creating a ludicrous interim step is specious. The emphasis here is Franken’s conduct and anything focusing on her looks, dress, career or photos is abhorrent slut shaming. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
She is attacking the victim using the most transparently idiotic justification possible and you think it is wrong for me to point out that she is slut shaming the Victim? That is a big negative. I cannot believe that people are trying to defend this conduct. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Slut shaming: the action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
blatant, egregious, irrelevant slut shaming which is used solely to discredit her. |
People just won't do nuance.
Franken at this point may as well have pulled a Bill Cosby. That's the problem with promoting population-scale victimhood as a political strategy. Eventually if everyone's going to get their turn as a victim, you have to pretty much start inventing bad guys. |
Quote:
|
It's like there is a race to try and catch people being hypocritical that has seemingly turned off critical thinking.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I find the comment below a rather balanced way to deal with this. As of this moment I still think it is Stonean rat****ing and merely an error of judgment by Franken's part but we'll see if a pattern of behaviour will be established in which case he should resign, but absolutely not based on information so far:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ic-possibility |
Quote:
Quote:
Pointing out that the pictures were gratuitous nonsense going to the victim's character is not a straw man. The indefensible hills that some people choose to make a stand on, really quite remarkable... |
Quote:
I don't think there's much question about it being intended to be "sexually provocative". After all, there's a reason they don't use fat, ugly models. But I see no reason why that should be "stigmatizing". As for "promiscuous", I don't understand how that enters into it at all. Modelling is just a job. Models can be happily married, or in committed relationships, or just not interested. There's no reason to think that just because they model swimsuits and lingerie that means they are promiscuous. TBD seems to disagree, though. Maybe he can explain why. |
Quote:
ETA: But be aware that the scale of Franken's offense is not like a drunken crowd gang-banging a woman. |
Quote:
But see, that's the problem. There is no "scale of offense". In this climate you're either offender, victim, or sympathizer. |
Quote:
Here is SG's argument... Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.
Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers. Who comes off the better of all this? And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations. |
Quote:
No. Don't you get it? It is all always equal no matter what! Draw and quarter him! Put the head on a spike on London Bridge! Why people can't even just admit that while lots of people do bad things the way they react to it is just as telling about their character as the transgression itself? |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.