Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Dec 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Oh look, the troll still dodges.

    Okay, let me be very clear.. Your version of "do what it takes" amounts to throwing women's fundamental human rights off that cliff. And no, for obvious reasons, I am not willing to do that, nor am I willing to bow down to or embrace rape culture for the sake of politics.

    You have made clear that you are. So your harping on this, well, as I noted earlier in the Roy Moore thread, you are simply making my point for me.
    You seem to have this expectation that we completely forget all that you have said, Kitta. Why? Why aren't you willing to answer for the things you have argued for, embraced, and endorsed these past few weeks?

    I can assure you, we haven't forgotten. That rubbish you spouted about women's human rights, your open embrace of rape culture for politics, your willingness to not even factor in that women are human beings with rights equal to your own because hey, that can go off the cliff because 'politics!'.. That's the stuff that will stick to you, Kitta. That won't wash off.

    My linking and quoting your own words back to you is not slander, Kitta. There's a reason why you keep ignoring it, because if you have to answer for it, then perhaps, you might realise that you'd have to look at the faces of the women in your life and know that you were willing to sell their human rights for the sake of lower taxes and winning in politics. How does that feel, by the way? How does it feel to know that your wife's future rests on the laurels of people just like you, who are willing to sell off her human rights, her bodily rights, her access to health care, her ability to interact in the economy as an equal, her right to be equal, for the sake of politics? Can you look her in the eyes and tell her 'honey, sorry, but your human rights just aren't that important right now, because we have to win back Government'? Because that is essentially what you have argued, that is essentially what you argued when you declared that women's rights can go off in that trolley cart, because you think it is more beneficial to focus on winning back government.

    When I quote or link your words back to you, it's not slander. It's the reality of what you have said on this website. I did warn you in the back room, that you were treading down a dangerous road Kitta. Not dangerous for you. But dangerous for the women around you. Because your willingness to sell off their rights for politics, that's the shit that will come back to you, again and again and again. When you willingly throw your morality out the window for politics, you know, "get your hands dirty" so that your children don't have to do it, what? You think you are on some moral crusade? You are on a selfish crusade. You want to know how your kids hands don't have to get dirty? Start recognising their mother as a human being with rights equal to your own and defend that and teach your kids that girls and women are equal, and with that equality comes respect. As I said to you repeatedly, it starts with you.

    So no, you don't get to cry slander when I quote your own words back to you. You certainly do not get to cry slander about your own words and argument when you went out of your way to join in actually slandering me with false accusations as you openly did.

    And the sexism comes to the fore.

    Tell me, Kitta, do you feel like a big man when you infantalise me like that? When you try to silence me as a child, do you feel better about yourself? Does it make you feel all powerful?

    When you call me a "petulant child" (which is ironic given your repeated meltdowns these past few weeks), do you feel big and strong? Do you think this is a winning strategy in a debate?

    Let me guess, you're one of those guys who tries to stand up straighter so that you can look down your nose at people, perhaps with a smirk on your face, and that little "shrug", in an attempt to hide just how little you understand the discussion?

    These protections have been in place a long time, Kitta. What? You haven't noticed that women's health and human rights is suffering as a result of these policies already existing in hospitals?

    You know, the very human rights you said wasn't important right now because there were more important things, like winning politics, taxes, etc, do deal with.

    Given how many times we have discussed these issues, your attempts to now claim it as important, given what you have argued thus far in these threads, as an attempt to draw attention away from yourself, is really transparent, but it also speaks of a level of ignorance from you that should be raising eyebrows. What's the matter? This is now important to you? I don't need to wonder why. Are you aware that if something happens to your wife (and I sincerely hope it does not) in her pregnancy, that if you take her to a catholic run hospital, they will refuse to do anything for her if there is still a foetal heartbeat? Are you aware that there other men like you out there, who flicked that switch, and as a result, women do not have equal rights?

    Perhaps before you come out with trolley car analogies, perhaps before you start going on about the "greater good" while selling off our rights (rights that aren't yours to sell or give away), perhaps when you start comparing women's rights to Animal Farm, you should remember what men like you do to women.

    In short, you don't get to whine about something you openly advocated for these past few weeks. When you flick that switch and sell women's rights off in that trolley cart, this is what happens and it has been happening for decades. You embraced it, advocated for it repeatedly. Don't start whining as though this is important to you. Especially when in the previous post, you again ask about getting hands dirty. Your hands aren't just dirty. You threw yourself in.

    And you think selling off women's human rights is the way to go about it?

    You have argued that women are lower class citizens for the sake of your politics and you have argued along those lines repeatedly in this thread and the other threads. So don't start ranting when you are on record as embracing the ideology to begin with. This one is on you. As I said, if you want to fix it, look in the mirror.
    My battle was always zero tolerance and human rights, Kitta. You're the one that pitched the fit about it and your inner macho misogyny came to the fore and you fully embraced rape culture. You don't get to whine when we take you at face value.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Yawn, more Bells trolling. Next?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I'm not agreeing with the above statement...

    Is this something behind the scenes moderator quarrels?

    If you guys wanted to talk about Rape Culture try mentioning (in Wolf's book) how, Trump, made it a game to get his 'friends' wives to have sex with him.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Well, I mean this is the guy that openly admits to just "grabbing by the pussy" any woman he wants because "when you're rich they let you", or so Drumpf claims. It shouldn't surprise anyone when a true sleazeball acts like a sleazeball... But the GOP loves him cause he makes a fantastic smokescreen while they strip away more rights and protection from anyone not a donor titan.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    See, this is the kind of arrogant, self-centered bullshit that makes you a rape advocate. The malice in your heart is why you fail, and will continue to fail.

    Being well aware of empathy, you should probably start trying to understand what it actually is, how it works, and why it exists.

    Think of it this way: One thing I might say in retort is that if you showed at least a little sincerity maybe you wouldn't read like such a petulant brat, but like I said in splitting the hair, it's a matter of priorities. You are, indeed, showing sincerity in your devotion to personal pursuit.

    The thing is, you're not actually arguing the discursive issue, and haven't been for a while. You appear to be pitching a screeching tantrum in hopes of causing harm. And if you want to talk about dicking around, remember what you called reasonable.

    You've put more effort into bawling about your own sloth than these recent weeks than the actual subject matter. Your priorities are apparent, sir.

    You might be well acquainted with elements of pathos, but you need to develop a more intimate relationship than pointed, calculated disregard.

    But also remember that you consider your dick an insult. Think about that the next time you stick it in your wife, that you want to penetrate her with your insult. If your dick is an insult, that's your business, and no, you can't blame a woman; but now I have occasion to wonder if you're only assessing yourself in the mirror from the waist up.

    If you want your penis to be an insult, trust me, Kittamaru, that one's easy to accommodate. Meanwhile—

    —take a moment to reflect on the phrase, "go it alone", which is inapplicable in any context, and ask yourself whether that particular botchery is a result of general stupidity, or the kind of floundering idiocy that happens when you let your typal, self-righteous anger lead you around by your insult.

    Still, though, here we are, a month later↑, and you still don't get it↑°. Over the course of the period, you have, at the very least, made it precisely clear why you don't get it. There are reasons why I keep coming back to subordination of narrative and questions of priority; and there are reasons why this general description of normal discursive behavior is so offensive to those preferring empty, speculative chatter about electoral politics as some pretense of solution or even proper address of sexual violence.

    Consider what you've chosen to not actually discuss. We still haven't a clue if you actually know what the words "due process" mean; it's astonishing to think of American workers who don't know what "at will" means; we're supposed to believe you find bascic classism so confusing. And look at how much you'll spend botching up for the sake of, well, apparently, being a dick. I mean, come on, really? Some dude acting like a dick? That's hardly news. He's trying to blame a woman for it? Well, shit, what did we expect?

    You're down to declaring insupportable alternative truth, such as the "alone" in "go it alone", in a desperate attempt to subordinate a narrative that, left to reality, does not wish to cooperate: The reason you're not actually gaslighting at this point is that you're not good enough at it.

    Who or what, other than your own satisfaction, do you think you're helping by looking for excuses to be an abusive dick?


    ° We might note, additionally, that if you intend to complain about twisted words, we can tell you what the problem is↗, but you do not actually seem to care beyond refusing to address those points, so complain as you will that, "no doubt it'd simply be twisted and used against me yet again", because that is a common sloth among political advocates incapable of demonstrating even basic comprehension of the issues they purport to discuss; furthermore, as I said nearly a month ago, you failed to close a particular circle, and in this moment we might also consider that failure as another example of your failure to get it. (Wait, wait, wait, what is "it"? You keep focusing on rarified societal power, e.g., "there are a lot of very powerful people who have no qualms about ruining others to keep their hold on power"); as I said last month, the societal infliction against women is not reserved to the rich and famous. Or, perhaps↑, if you find it confusing that watching the elites hash it out to no avail only reminds the non-elite that pretenses of justice and propriety are for elites to hash out for the sake of being seen, then I don't know what to tell you. And for our purposes, this note only reminds that by the time we're down to "futilism"↑, no, you're clearly not getting it, and in this case, the "it" is important because without it one has an easier time pretending vague electoral speculation is somehow not utterly futile, unless of course the point is simply to perpetuate rape culture and hopefully govern it a little more to your liking.
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, but no. I have no compulsion or reason to simply stand by and watch some rando on the internet attack, insult, and slander me.

    It is not arrogant, self centered, malicious, etc.

    Nor does that make me a "rape advocate" - congratulations on your continued efforts to undermine your own supposed cause. You throw accusations around like candy, Tiassa... Perhaps you have read The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

    I also have little reason to interact with folks who default to ad hominem attacks and other such fallacy to attempt to preserve their precious egos, and even less reason to put any effort into doing so. You reap what you sow in that respect.

    Ah well, I didn't expect any better from either of you, at least you are consistent.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    On topic of the thread: Tim Pawlenty has taken himself out of the speculations - the Republicans have exactly one declared candidate for Franken's seat so far, with ten months to go, and that one relatively obscure. Tina Smith's lack of name recognition and campaign ability is less of a problem every day that goes by without a name Republican candidate - and the Dems have a couple of other possibilities for endorsement, along with a track record of the Dem endorsement not meaning much.

    The question of Pawlenty's motives - he probably wants to be governor again, as a stepping stone to the Presidency, and governor is easier to keep clear of the Trump swirl incoming - is the downside. The Dems are protecting five or six offices, three of them major league, Pawlenty more or less has his pick of targets - this may be merely the introductory announcement of how the Republicans have sorted things out.

    Pawlenty is of course pro-life, and a fairly consistent enemy of women's rights (or anybody else's, as is typical). He has won statewide election, in the past, but with (interestingly) only thin support from the Trump crowd due to his weinie personality - if the Dem can avoid looking incompetent and fecklessly delusional, he's beaten for governor as of now.

    So that's the challenge, in the aftermath of the Franken mess.
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Hmm, interesting. Thing is, running a relatively noname candidate might be a winning strategy for them - after all, slap an R by their name and they'll get a fairly large shake of the vote for that alone.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not safe any more.
    The Wisconsin district that just swung Dem in a special election is contiguous - demographically, politically, by bridge and commuter custom - with the most Republican districts in Minnesota (such as the 6th Federal House district, famous as Michelle Bachmann's constituency) The loss of a State Senate seat in that district is a serious warning to Minnesota Rs.
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I hope so.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Uh huh.

    So sayeth the man who felt compelled to join in and actually slandering me in accusing me of murdering children.

    Who do you think you are fooling here, Kitta?

    Have you forgotten your behaviour and actions this past month?

    When you openly advocate the position you have taken here, when you embrace rape culture as you have and repeatedly state that women's human rights is not important enough to warrant action or when you started spouting about how men need outlets and the biological urge to reproduce (in a discussion about rape and sexual harassment and assault of women), then yes, you are supporting misogynists, rapists, and the political body that seeks to remove the human rights of women as a whole. You still don't understand that?

    When you deliberately set out to diminish rape victims, when you set out to demean them by casting doubt on what they experienced, then yes, you are speaking for rapists instead of against them.

    I suspect it is more a case of your unwillingness to interact because you don't really have anything to say in defense of the position you embraced this past month, and also the fact that you don't actually understand what we are discussing. You have shown tremendous ignorance this past month Kitta, as Tiassa and others have noted these past weeks, and instead of actually learning from your mistakes, you chose to double down on your ignorance.

    I think your 'reap what you sow' applies more to you than anyone else at this point.

    As are you, Kitta.

    See, you and I have been through this before when you pitched a fit about women's rights and abortion. Just as we have been through this when you set out to sexually harass another member and you went off your nut when we had to advise you that the 'jokes' you were making were homophobic and amounted to sexual harassment. In any case, your current stand is not new or unusual. In that sense, you are consistent and your arguments this past month fit the same pattern as I have experienced with you over the last few years.

    Your flick switching and embrace of rape culture is consistent. The signs were there before. Now it is glaring and your ignorance even more so.

    As I noted previously, you should not get shitty when we take your words at face value. They are your words.
  15. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    A voice for reason.

  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I agree.

    It is important to note that Bill Maher states clearly that he agrees that "none of it is acceptable".
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Yes, it is.
    It shouldn't be, in a sane situation, given Maher's familiar take on such matters, but it is.
    Because crazy is waiting.
    Because there's an incoming barrage of reactions to Maher's take that will claim otherwise, we know that, and if it is not handled somehow it will overwhelm everything else.

    Indicative sign: We're on the brink of losing the word "acceptable". Do we have a general agreement on what it means to accept and not accept things, any more?
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Well, remember, we apparently live in a time (at least in this country) where words and definitions can be redefined on a whim, where actions and statements made and recorded ON TAPE can be dismissed by simply saying "No I didn't", and where rights and even the very humanity of others can be dismissed simply because they are "the other side" of whatever the debate du jour happens to be.

    Truly we live in interesting times.
  19. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    So much of what we do in our daily lives, politician or private citizen, is far more unacceptable than an occasional grab of the ass. I think Maher’s point is that we need to be more objectively realistic in our assessments of acceptability.
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    really? so an occasional grab of your wife's ass by a stranger is acceptable to you? she is just supposed to accept it?

    why is it hard for society to admit that is not acceptable?

    people do know there is difference in degrees of behavior but that still doesn't make sexual harassment acceptable or okay.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    You didn't get the memo?

    See, we don't get to decide what is or is not acceptable when it comes to our bodies.

    Keep in mind as to who he determined was the voice of reason when it comes to discussions about women's rights, women's bodies and *gasp* women discussing what is and is not acceptable..

    Back in 2009, Maher responded to the news that Tila Tequila had been assaulted by her then-boyfriend: "New rule: Stop acting surprised someone choked Tila Tequila! The surprise is that someone hasn't choked this bitch sooner."

    You forget. We don't get to make that determination for ourselves. We need to be told, like we are children. Over and over again until we just agree, comply and be quiet.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    "Handle it".

    Or do you mean handle [insert name here]?

    And who is going to do the handling, iceaura?

    You can always let Maher handle it.

    Dealing w/ Hamas is like dealing w/ a crazy woman who's trying to kill u - u can only hold her wrists so long before you have to slap her

    How many slaps do you think crazy women deserve, iceaura?

    So much sexism packed into one tweet! As others have alreadypointed out, Maher is making light of the serious problem of domestic violence. But he’s also trading on the tired stereotype of women as irrational children who need to be brought in line by more stable men. (See: Clark Gable or Cary Grant putting a hysterical woman in her place with a calmly delivered slap that swiftly reminds her of the proper order of things.)

    Something something about the 'handling' and the lecturing women goes here...

    Who is "we"? "We" who?

    Because when it comes to women's bodies, you don't count in that "we" unless you are specifically asked for your opinion, in which case, it's just that, an opinion.

    More to the point, you don't get to determine what is or is not "acceptable" when it comes to women's bodies. And if you think women speaking out on what is and is not acceptable is you apparently losing the word "acceptable", then I would imagine that says a lot about you and your "we're". Because women aren't losing the word. But it seems you believe that you are. Which is interesting in a variety of ways.

    How's that flick switching on the trolley cart going, Kitta? Still happily throwing women off the cliff and selling off their rights as a winning political strategy?

    Have you figured out what 'due process' means yet? How about 'at-will employment'?
  23. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    If a woman is driving down the road putting on makeup, or a man is driving on that same road sleep deprived, do we demand they be removed from their jobs and perpetually branded as menaces to society for their recklessness? Which puts your ass in greater jeopardy, the potential of an occasional grab at a campaign rally, or its extinguishment on the highway? Obviously neither condition is normally desirable, yet the lesser threat commonly garners the greater scorn.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page