Quote:
I thought you would appreciate the reminder of other assumptions you could make. Like I said, I was just adding to your little pile of assumption. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It would appear that you are having difficulty distinguishing between the people making the assumption (ie, that the accuser is thirsty = your assumption) with the person noting those assumptions (ie me) If you are assuming she is thirsty, by golly that is your right. It does not mean that her allegations against franken are not true. See how that works?? |
Quote:
|
Here is the post wherein you made your assumption:
Quote:
Does that clear up your confusion? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Similarly, what Franken did is not sexual assault but it most certainly is harassment in the same vein as Trump's "knees" comment. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Care to ever actually elaborate? |
Quote:
It's not that SHE did anything to be ashamed about but that there's a picture of her in such a compromising position. If you can't see why a woman might be embarrassed about that then that's probably part of the problem. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So now she's not ashamed and humiliated , but she's embarrassed, because Al franken acted like a jackass ? As for the hilighted, well, again, we've already covered the topic of pictures of her in compromising positions, yes ? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
In my state, the way the laws are written, sexual assault is a synonym for rape. For the most part that means penetration, but tongue in mouth isn't included. "Groping" would fall under sexual abuse. But apparently most states don't have that distinction. I think it's useful. Lumping the whole spectrum in together is problematic, IMO. There's just too great a variety of behaviors to be covered under the same law. I can understand being revolted when you're not expecting someone to slip you some tongue, but it is just not the same as being violently raped at gunpoint. There are quite a lot of people in the latter category and I'd just as soon see enforcement centered on them. |
Quote:
First paragraph of that article; A Los Angeles radio station is pushing back on reports that former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone appeared to know sexual misconduct allegations involving Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) were coming hours before they were made public. Interesting. They aren't doing a very good job of "pushing back". They admit that a group at the station discussed it and then informed "some of our news partners". "How many people does it take to keep a secret?" Any qualified news professional knows the answer to that old saw, and it isn't "some of our news partners". Or "a group", even. Once they informed "some of" their news partners, that horse was well out of the barn even if one of the "group" didn't spill the beans. They might just as well have posted it on Facebook. In fact, doing it their way was probably more efficient. It ensured that word would get straight to the people who would make the most hay out of it. |
Here's a question just out of interest: How many apologies in any of these cases include the simple phrase "I'm sorry," as in "I'm sorry I acted this way," not, "I'm sorry if you interpreted my actions this way"?
|
Quote:
ETA: He already knew he was running for Senate, according to the NYT. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The first is that it is up to the the voters. Yep, even Alabama deserves to be able to put a kiddie diddler in the senate if that is the man that best represents their state. The second is that their conduct as a senator speaks more loudly than their conduct prior to becoming a senator. As such, Franken has acting like a senator once the issue was raised by apologizing and asking to be investigated. We will see what Moore does once he is elected. But, if he continues to act as an embarrassing man-child, then he should be treated as one.* *I'm not sure what that would entail. Maybe a cabinet position or something. |
Quote:
Shame is rarely logical. As an example, rape victims often feel shame even though they are the victim. It may not make sense to you personally, but it is a documented and frequent occurrence. This appears to arise (although I am not an expert here) from the tendency humans have to blame themselves for things outside of their control. Children often feel a parent's divorce is their fault, for example. There are many examples of people blaming themselves for not being able to stop a horrible event even though they could not realistically have done so. If one blames themselves for something irrationally, this can easily lead to shame. Logical? no. Real? Yes. Common? Yes. Predictable? Verymuch so. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So people distort what I posted despite multiple clarifications why you and others have my POV wrong but I'm lying? Do you know how ignorant it sounds to call someone a liar because you don't understand their post? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is your opinion and your problem. It is way off base. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why not "making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent"? |
Quote:
I see two issues here. One is the false equivalence, between Moore and Trump, Franken makes a great target to neutralize their behavior. There are also a lot of conservatives dragging Bill Clinton's skeleton out of the closet, again to neutralize Trump's and Moore's behavior. Clinton, sure but Franken, we still don't see a pattern of anything other than a history of sexual joking. And that brings up the second issue, are we not allowed any sexual behavior at all? Can people not see the difference between a joke grope in a photo and actual groping & exposing one's junk to women who aren't interested? Can we not keep an open mind at this point (barring corroborating accusations that Franken sneaks a feel and a kiss pretending it's part of a skit) that Ms Tweeden's dislike of Franken on that whole USO tour, her resentment of the grope joke influenced her perception of the skit and the need to practice it? She assumed Franken wrote the scene and asked to practice it because he was lusting after her. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. There are plenty of kissing skits on SNL and they usually exaggerate the making out part. At this point, it's obvious Tweeden dislikes Franken and almost certainly was unhappy on the whole USO tour with him. Was it because he actually did jam his tongue in her mouth? If he did that is disgusting and I'm pretty sure the standard in acting is no tongue. That's the one part in this described incident that gives me concern. Or was that her misinterpretation of Franken's intent? Which is why I await corroborating complaints of similar behavior. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
And that was before you gratuitously posted her "NSFW" pictures. Absolutely the most over the top example of slut shaming one is likely to see. |
Quote:
I sense Tweeden seriously dislikes Franken. I didn't sense this was any kind of Fox News or alt-right manufactured stunt. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's a tad different from some of the apologies as of late like Trump's non-apology apologies, "I'm sorry you are sorry." |
Quote:
If someone writes something that is "racist" or "sexist" do you think that is a strawman? protip: it is not, and calling her posts "slut shaming" is likewise not. This is unbelievably basic. Say, at least we have moved beyond you calling my posts lies, so that is progress. |
Quote:
Quote:
Present tense and past tense are different things. What typically happens is that once one person comes forward publicly, others follow (if there are any). We've had one come forward for Franken - will any others? If no more women come forward to accuse Franken, does it matter? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Some will forgive neither. Others may forgive making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent more easily than actual assault. And still others are willing to forgive even assault. That's why we have elections. |
Quote:
Shaming. Do not be afraid to say shaming. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't misunderstand your post. You are making an argument that she is very likely to have been groped and harassed many times in her career so why single out Franken. That argument is speculative and irrelevant. If you aren't bringing it up to throw shade on Tweeden, then why bring it up? It doesn't excuse Franken. Quote:
Quote:
I will offer one clarification: "slut-shaming" may not be a completely accurate way to characterize your argument. However, it is certainly closely related to what you are doing here -throwing shade on the victim in order to sow doubt about her motivations for coming forward in Franken's case. Quote:
Quote:
|
[quote=Skeptic Ginger;12081231..... one's junk.......[/QUOTE]
That is about as sexist as the word that starts with a C and rhymes with hunt. Put that hypocrisy in your vagina hat. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.