Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Dec 17, 2017.

  1. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Nothing literally prevented them - but obviously they decided not to do so.

    No, I mean quite literally - where are they? Where were they when Trump was put in office? Where were they when Hillary took the Dem nod?

    It seems like they disappear when it's time to put the cards on the table

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Question is, do we have anyone to run for those positions that stands a snowballs chance?

    I'm not so sure Corporate America didn't want Trump... I'm pretty sure they realized quickly that, while he's an idiot, he'd be a very effective smokescreen.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    But they didn't have to. The choice was very real, right there, not fore-ordained.
    They didn't want him, in the first place. He got elected anyway. It happens. It can happen again.
    Some of them showed up for Obama - and he wasn't even that well aligned: just the possibility was enough.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Then we just need to bypass the DNC, who has decided corporate interests overrun societal responsibility?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Come at it differently - here, for example, is one possibility:
    Now I don't agree with this guy. I don't think gerrymandering is a good idea, even to fight gerrymandering. I think the cause is not even strictly political, but media centered - some fine print political changes with heavy media consequences would do more good than the other way around, imho.

    But he's right in a tactical sense: if California and New York were gerrymandered as North Carolina is pending enforcement of the latest judicial ruling, the House and its Budget Committee would be run by Democrats right now. Solid, safe-seat Democrats. Probably women. Think that might alter the landscape of rape culture politics a bit?
  8. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    It probably would - but then, we'd have folks like some of our neighbors here crying foul and that the two parties are one and the same and other such nonsensical BS.

    I don't think politicians should have a hand in drawing district maps, to be honest... but the chances of them voting against their own power consolidation is virtually nil. I am hoping the court cases could rule in favor of realistic and sensible lines... but I don't know if we can actually expect it to happen.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The House just reauthorized FISA in its ugly current form, without the amendments proposed by liberals.
    Now 47 Republicans voted against that abomination. So if the Democrats had held firm, it would have gone down on majority vote. But instead, several dozen Democrats voted for it, and it passed.

    Blue Dogs and New Dems are simply not worth compromising basic principles over. They won't vote right anyway, and they will corrupt the Democratic Party.
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    And that has to do with abortion how? Ok how about this, explain to me how abolishing FISA can be made into an electable issue? Give me a percentage of how many people fucking care, and where are you getting your numbers?
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Prolife does equal "racism to tax cuts", it is possible to be against racism and for taxing the rich, and be prolife.

    Second, the out in the middle of nowhere canidate and elected prolife democrats are not going to get much in the way of repressing me in talks shows or writing platforms, etc.

    Do you live in rural minnesota? I'm in what as Backman country buddy.

    We fielded every kind of candidate out here, pro-choice, pro-life, radical liberal, moderate liberal, you name it, all lose. We have not won since 1990, thanks to gerrymandering we can't get above 40% regardless what we field. Your premise is fucked. We do though get a few precentage points more when we run moderates that can talked with rural voters on their level with the issues they care about, like "not killing babies and family values and good god fearing stuff, eh?" I rather reel in some republicans to see what democrats are about because we liberals simply do not have the numbers out here, so we have to start trying to converting independents and moderate republicans.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's just vanishingly rare, and unreliable in practice - even if the mere fact of being politically prolife did not reveal a fundamental confusion about the role of government in a free society as well as a basic disrespect of women.
    What premise would that be?
    If we are to lose anyway, why sack basic human rights in the process? And in fact we have some winners, and they didn't do that.
    You will never "convert" the rural Minnesota vote via cowardice and pandering. The Rs have that bloc sewed up. A flat out in your face liberal who looks competent and has common sense will do better, nine times out of ten, than a faux R - the real thing gets respect.

    Jesse Ventura. Pro-choice, pro gay rights, favored legal medical marijuana, not religious, opposed the Cuban embargo, favored instant run-off voting, favored (and funded, as governor) mass transit and light rail: He killed the Sixth district in '98. In a three way race against two major Party candidates with big names he took home more than 50% of the vote from Isanti, Anoka, Sherburne, Wright, and Chisago counties. He also won plurality in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. (Only one other county broke 50% for anyone - Kittson, for Humphrey, with its 2000 voters) Map (orange is Jesse, darker is over 40% and over 50%)

    That's how to win. Not by pandering to fundies, and betraying women, and hoping to appease enough bigots to slide by.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You're an example of betraying women.

    Oh, right, it's not betrayal if they never had any reason to trust you.

    You haven't explained how all your electoral distraction actually deals with process, ethics, and justice as relates sexual harassment and violence, and rape culture. Yet you want to reserve an acceptable amount of sexual harassment according to the politics of the circumstance. Your months-long display of disrespect is quite clear. It's just that, at some point, the advocate of sexual violence in the workplace according to political needs probably shouldn't be saying much about betraying women.

    So explain it. What's that? You can't explain what your deliberate, trolling distraction has to do with the thread? Nobody is surprised. Or, hey, I don't know, maybe you want to blame the last couple months of your posts on other people?

    Your months-long campaign of deliberate disrespect and dishonesty is pretty definitive. I'm quite certain the DFL won't appreciate the denigration, nor the people of Minnesota.

    Think of it this way, Iceaura: You're two months into your tantrum, and you're still not capable of discussing the issues, instead blithering about electoral fantasies. Your effort to talk over the issue until it goes away will fail. Neither is is there anything good to be found in your need to burn sosobra in lieu of actually communicating with people who happen to be female. And, remember, you're unreliable, having been caught lying in order to blame other people for your own post. And the thing about the implications is that your record of dealing poorly with women does include a period of years.

    So, what, then? You're annoyed because a woman was disobedient and didn't stick to the script when you wanted to complain about Republicans? Meanwhile you can't explain what any of your electoral prattling has to do with the subject? And your determination through the course of multiple threads to subsume discussion of human rights of women for the sake of disrespectful political aesthetics and two-bit, illusory sensations of empowerment makes its point insofar as you really, really, really want to denigrate Minnesota, its people, and DFL? What's that? No? Okay, then, what the hell are you on about and why are you so incapable of discussing the issue such that you need to spend two months insisting people talk about something else?

    If your testament to the time of #MeToo is that it is too inconvenient to your political aesthetics to show some decent respect, then ... okay, people will take the note. But, yeah, really, over two months in and we get it; having nothing to say is the argument. Seriously, even the determined focus to distract discussions of process and justice in favor of speculative electoral bullshitting that only denigrates Minnesotans and DFL. No, really, what about your performance in this thread over the last five weeks has anything to do with anything other than your own vice? A month spent trolling is a month spent trolling.

    You're not going to be able to blame all this on other people.

    But you have accomplished one important thing relative to the thread: You are an excellent example of rape culture, providing a daily illustration of how it thrives in these United States.
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    FISA is how we know who Trump was talking to in Russia.
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Well that is a matter of perspective: the right to murder they don't believe should be given to anyone, it not my fault they believe a fetus is a human deserving of the right not to be murdered. I would even go so far as to say by their logic it is you who are disrespecting women by proclaiming women have the right to murder. These people thus vote for republicans that fuck us over in far more way then abortion rights, simply because of their myopic view on abortion, I would rather let that view slide for the movement so that we can show them that liberals are more then simply about abortion. Over time we can win them over to a more pragmatic and even tolerance for abortion rights. This is about winning hearts and minds and eventual votes, actually try changing peoples minds IRL for once.

    Because it is about building a voting base for the future, we need to sway these people to the left, can we can't do that with a full on assault, we got to literally get through the front door first.

    Bullshit! Many of these people were democrats 30 years ago, if the right can convert them to the right, then we can convert them to the left. A flat out in your face liberal will not do better out here, I know, I live out here we have tried multiple kinds of candidates out here.

    First of all Jesse was a State candidate not a district candidate, for governor. Independents often do not do well beyond school board member, so when it comes to say state house or state senate or even US house congressmen, there are very few non-party candidates winning, because they lack the money and political machine to back them: that is why there has not been another Jesse, he was a fluke of letting a 3rd party candidate on to state wide televised debates for a state wide election that the two parties have learned from an won't dare allow again. Perhaps as system like Maine will change that but we will have to wait and see. So once again: I'm talking about district and county level candidate, not state level or beyond, candidates that have to go door to door and not via a TV.

    Second off, there is no betraying women, most of the women out here are against abortion. I'm hoping to turn bigots around to being less bigoted, yes, I want to convert people, because we can't win elections otherwise.

    Now you will argue they can't be converted, I will contest some can and that some must be if we are to win elections and maintain political control, you would rather we die under the likes of trump to maintain political purity.

    Consider Tiassa for example who already sees you as irremediable, now if Tiassa was an american voter and votes left I would leave Tiassa at that, Tiassa ostracizing voters is the only thing I have a problem with and helping to create this present Hell of total republican rule and President Trump.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Oh put a sock in it. In the first place, I have - pay attention. In the second: This entire subforum is called "politics" - that's a clue, no?
    "The issues"? Do tell.
    I'm a lot more than two months into being told that I'm throwing tantrums again, followed by a hopelessly convoluted ream of invective and bs and long-debunked slanders and pejorative delusional garbage. Get a mirror, use it.
    They don't actually have cemetaries full of dead fetuses, and they flush early miscarriages down the toilet like everybody else - they don't even check to see if they're dead.
    In other words, most will vote for liberals anyway - especially strong and forthright liberals who don't pander and try to compromise with them. .
    I'm recommending you go for the much larger number of significantly easier voters - the more liberal ones who stay home - rather than convert (and undermine) your own Party in an attempt to swing a few bigots. No purity involved. I'm arguing that there are more Ventura voters than "convertible" ones.
    He killed the Sixth district - running on a more socially liberal platform than the Democratic candidate. Not just pro-choice, like any reasonable human being in 1998: pro gay marriage; pro legal marijuana, pro Cuban trade. More than 50% of the vote in a three way race, in the center of Bachmann territory.

    Because the politics of rape culture are not simple, even in the center of fundie misogyny and institutionalized gender oppression. There's no tradeoff on offer, or necessary. They aren't matters of triangulation and transaction, but persuasion and pressure - unidirectional. Appealing to reason and principle and competent governance one can rely on. Not only do you not have to sack basic human rights to get basic economic reform - not even in the center of Bachmann territory - but it does not work: and the attempt does harm (has done harm) to all good political efforts.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    You got to argue that to them, not me, with the intent of actually changing their opinion to get them to vote for democrat, or at the very least not for a republican. Instead your arguing with me, on the internet, for fun.

    This conclusion does not at all follow from your previous sentence (premise)

    THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH LIBERAL VOTERS STAYING HOME IN RURAL AMERICA!!! You got a fine strategy for urban areas or even many suburbs, by all means get as liberal as you can candidates for there, but thanks to gerrymandering significantly more voting power is given to rednecks out in the middle of nowhere, there are not enough people out there that don't vote and would tolerate a non-christian, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro-transbathroom candidate. Again Backman country, not Minneapolis, rather the trailer parks of monticello, big lack and buffalo.

    Once again your comparing a non-party candidate running for governor with what I'm talking about of candidates for district or county seats. If what you said was true then there would be far more independent candidates coming out here, then republicans like Backman and Emmer. There are NO VENTURAS here!

    What tradeoff?

    If you were talking about on a national level, sure, that how we got trump, but on a local level it is completely different. Remember those bluedogs you where bitching about, how did they get elected again?
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's an observation, not a conclusion - from common sense, experience, and directly of the example of Jesse Ventura here.
    There are far more of them than Trump bigots you can "convert" by pandering. By an order of magnitude, almost. That is a statistical fact.
    Via Democratic Party pandering and betrayal - and they've been enabling the Republican rollback of the New Deal and civil rights ever since, while helping to block all of those economic reforms you claim to advocate.
    Ventura got more than half the total vote from five core counties of the Sixth district, and a plurality of the rest, running as the most socially liberal of the three major candidates. He sacrificed no human rights, made no such trade or pander as you recommend. That is simply what happened.
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You're not actually capable of discussing predatory behavior, rape culture, or human rights, due process, justice, or any of that. All you have is conspiracist electoral politicking that goes precisely nowhere, and an attitude problem.

    Get something to say.

    You're a lot more than two months into hopelessly convoluted invective and bullshit, libel, and delusional pejorative garbage, that's for sure. After all this time, I don't know, maybe you could actually try having something to say.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    When the Clinton koolaid wears off, and you come to your senses, never mind apologizing. Just drop it.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    #process | #rapeculture

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Built-in doubt.

    It's worth noting:

    • Alleged incident.
    • Six months to file.

    (1) You filed; mandatory counseling.
    (2) You filed; mandatory mediation.
    (Still want to keep going?)​
    (3) Sign non-disclosure agreement.
    (4) Mandatory "cooling off" period.
    (Are you sure, after the mandatory counseling, mediation, and agreement to never say anything publicly, that you aren't just being petty and emotional? Are you certain you wish to proceed?)​
    (5) Okay, you can have an administrative hearing, and maybe a federal civil trial if you push hard enough.​

    Now please consider that, after meeting those prerequisites, if your claim is deemed to have merit, Congress paid out settlements in secret, using public money to the effect of protecting known harassers, assailants, and predators.

    And if anyone ever finds out about those settlements, supporters of the harassers complain that their favored politician was denied due process↱. What process do they want for him? He already had what passes for due process. And if we don't like that implication, well, what passes for due process is part of the general problem. Look at the institutional doubt and disruption built into this process. And then consider a member of the House of Representatives.

    Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-NV04), facing a second allegation of sexual harassment, opted for the congressional ethics process. And then he decided to not run again. We can fret about the disruption to his career if we want, but the maneuver essentially guarantees that he will not face judicial consequence.

    We should not be surprised, of course, that supporters of this or that embroiled and embattled politician make such vague appeals to due process without ever accounting for disruptions within the various processes.

    Toward which end, it is easy enough to blithely say whatever about the notion that "the process needs to be changed↗, but what does that ever mean? Because while such change might "require a national (or worldwide) discussion, with the least amount of wailing and histrionics as humanly possible", the question of due process makes a certain point about what is wrong with that.

    In a previous consideration↗ of strange postures regarding due process—

    In a month that saw a leading American employer commit to ending forced arbitration for sexual harassment and violence claims, Hollywood continues to ripple as word circulates of an effective blacklist against sexual harassment victims, and accused Congressmen continue to prefer that what happens in Congress stays within Congress, one of the reasons our neighbor cannot seem to address reality might well be simple ignorance.

    —I also found myself recalling a discussion of Title IX, and one part relevant to the moment is the question of why universities are adjudicating sex offenses, and therein lies a question of processes that would seem to need to change. As I noted↗ in July:

    From both political and law enforcement perspectives, it is probably easier, going forward from any given moment, to encourage the universities to do better jobs than to convince the states to alter their laws specifically to take this power away from universities. Virtually any attempt to accomplish such an outcome directly through federal legislation will either fail politically or falter in the courts; the best course forward is in the federal courts vis à vis the states in an attempt to force equal protection outcomes not only on behalf of victims, but also from one victim to the next.

    We might contrast that with some manner of counterpoint↗: "have justice department deal with ALL accusation of rape (or any other CRIME for that matter) not the education department, simple as 2+2=4."

    How simple do we wish to pretend it will be to alter the laws in fifty states? Fifty legislatures; fifty governors; Congress; White House.

    So now we might take the moment to ask, #WhatAboutTheMen? Functionally, it is a pertinent question. What are we going to do with our screech chorus? How loudly will men screech and wail as one by one the states say, "No honor court for your alleged sex offenses, anymore, you must answer a real court"? How loudly will men screech and wail about government interfering with businesses in the discussion to formally banish mandatory arbitration? How loudly will they screech as, state by state, and in the federal government, we take away internal procedures for accused law enforcement officers?

    And the whole time, who is going to screech about other crimes: What about people who shoot each other? (Well, actually, murder doesn't get pushed off into honor courts or forced arbitration.) What about women who put on lipstick while driving? (Do we really need federal regulations? Would the states really botch it up so badly?)

    Similarly, who will screech if we dropped the hammer by proxy of the gavel? As I argued, the best course forward is in the federal courts vis à vis the states in an attempt to force equal protection outcomes. One can easily disagree with that proposition, but we cannot pretend such judicial decisions come down without a tremendous amount of screeching, wailing, and histrionics.

    We will need to remember, as we go about our societal discourse in search of better system and process for establishing justice, that this will be an arduous task even on its best days, often feeling fraught with redundancy because, well, that is how we have managed to build this mess; eventually, the screeching and wailing and histrionics will, themselves, become subject to complaint as example of why we need to abandon, divert, or diminish that discourse. That we must guard against that element is at least as predictable as the idea that sexual violence will occur. The establishment of justice is anything but simple.


    Gibbons, Laura. "John Conyers deserves due process in sexual harassment claims, Detroit leaders say". MLive. 4 December 2017. 25 January 2018.

    Velshi, Ali and Stephanie Ruhle. "Rep. Speier is fighting sexual harassment on the Hill". Velshi & Ruhle. 18 January 2018. 25 January 2018.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They screech, whine, pout, scream, cry, bawl, throw fits and tantrums, do pretty much everything except simply make a point (right or wrong) in a discussion.
    The Wizard Of Oz got it right: strawmen are emotional beings.
    Kittamaru likes this.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Something something about perhaps you should look in the mirror should apply here.

    It's good to see you still dodging and tacking right. I guess there's something to be said for consistency, I suppose.

Share This Page