Roy moore accusations

Discussion in 'Politics' started by birch, Nov 17, 2017.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,766
    Generally speaking, this is a matter of priorities: A crux perceived may be a crux, but a stake perceived gets priority. That is to say, the psychological mindset, such as it is, can itself be a stake.

    Most men will say no, or else duck the question, because they either do not understand it or cannot comprehend even their own answer.

    If I ask, for instance, if it is a blonde joke or a cop joke—or, what, a breathalyzer joke? drunk driving? gorilla? senate candidate? judge? Alabama? &c.—or a rape joke, someone has usually just said something about never having heard a rape joke. How about a nerd joke? I raise this issue as a question of rape culture, because to hear some men tell it, I apparently grew up in a rare generational-regional cohort in which ... er ... ah ... okay, I admit, I don't know how to finish that bit of sarcasm. I don't actually believe people my age when they say they've never heard a rape joke.

    I saw a political cartoon the other day, in which Roy Moore was reassuring everyone there was nothing amiss as he prepared to rape a girl. To the one, I get the joke, and can remember why it is supposed to be funny. Still, though, if I asked the artist, "Dude, just how did throwing down a rape joke help anyone?"—because somebody had to draw that, and there really is no empathy in it, the girl is merely an object, and her terror only adds to our humor—how do I expect he would respond? And, y'know, I can't make any promises on behalf of women, but I do always wonder what happens if he shrugs and says, "Yeah, I thought getting all macho and smacking Republicans and Yellowhammer conservatives in the teeth like that would make a point, but having spent the time drawing and publishing it—well, I'm not sure yet what the underlying point is I'm supposed to get, but it's easy enough to see I should have drawn something else." Because who ever says that? The standard we might expect is to challenge the pretense of a rape joke: Look, it's a Roy Moore joke! It's about Alabamians! Southerners! Incest! Since this is an allegedly enlightened cartoonist, though, we might actually hope for better; then again, "Yeah, that probably wasn't as funny as I thought", which is about the best people ever get, leaves an open question whether or not the man saying so has any real clue why it isnt funny.

    Similarly, at least in effect, the question you're asking about common identification or sympathy will generally find either distressed and accusing denial, or breathtakingly pretentious ignorance. Functional elements include the danger and despicability of the conduct, ignorance regarding the issues involved, fear for self-interest, and a derivative distrust of women; there comes a point where they are no longer stubbornly refusing to address the question but utterly incapable of comprehending what it means.

    My cohort learned the framework and methods of sexual harassment pretty much from the outset; we learned to sexually harass at a time when an adult looking upon us with such interest would in fact be pedophilic. It's been with us virtually from the beginning; train up a child in the way they should go, and they will not depart from it.

    Part of what happens, then, is that we develop a presexual sexuality, and there are a number of ways to express this condition or circumstance according to diverse schools of psychology and behavior. But peeking in on the bathroom, spying their underwear, &c.; much arises in two contexts generally defying children, namely considerations of right and wrong during periods in which children's development generally describes a testing of boundaries, and an abstract sense of specifically forbidden territory; the latter, for my generation, ran into really weird conflicts, such as the question of whether you don't talk to or about people that way, or if there is a right time and place to treat a woman that way.

    That presexual sexuality also constructs or lends heavily toward the construction of an aesthetic. It is, obviously, a childish aesthetic, but one toward which many young men carry enduring romantic or otherwise favorable sentiment. The question nearly sounds, then, like whether or not one outgrows a childish aesthetic, and, quite frankly, it very nearly is.

    For instance, I try to not recall that idiot who wrote the "harmless pedophile" confessional article; there are moments that seem like people are rushing to test a bad thesis about moral relativism and proverbial floodgates, but I really, really, really don't want to try to psychoanalyze that hideously awful notion. Nonetheless, if he is determined to make that effed-up argument about having a thing for kids yet being harmless, then what he needs to do is get hold of his psyche and unwind the aesthetics and fears wrapped up in his identification. Meanwhile, nobody ought to pretend this one is harmless; the fact of the article itself raises serious doubts about his sense of discretion.

    Indeed, a striking notion might be suggestions that (ahem!) most men are smarter than that. Let us be low and cold about it: Most men are smarter about self-preservation.

    I actually know a guy who, by legend, would seem to have reconciled some aspect of his aesthetics. It always was creepy, and of course the word was that he liked adult women. Indeed, he married one. Four-nine, stick-skinny, actually likes wearing the clothes that she can fit into, and prefers a life of drinking beer, smoking pot, playing video games, and watching football. Somehow or other the guy with a known lolita fascination found what (ahem!) most men would describe as some manner of (cough!) perfect match. They're hippie suburban backyard farmers, seemingly well-adjusted, and that's how we will continue to view our friends until they turn up in some godawful, scandalous investigation, or some such.

    So there is our appearance of exception; it's entirely possible that guy managed to get his head together about enough of this, but more to the point is the idea that this range could be common enough to be familiar. Was he ever a lolicon proper? I don't actually know, so the one thing I can never tell you for certain is that this one time, there was this guy who ....

    I can tell you we all saw this. It would, however, be irresponsible to try to tell you what it means.

    Still, that's one, and nothing more than a reference point; I don't have enough on it to make a proper contrast.

    Because this childish aesthetic is a weird thing; I can tell you about how many other "positive" experiences in a boy's life, but riding a bike, or our first home run, or other easily romanticized memories are not quite the same as this range of protosexual and inchoate sexual experience, memory, and emotionalism. It's one thing to wallow in the good feeling of some youthful memories, and hitting home runs is generally a good thing.

    But at some point, we need to outgrow these childish aesthetics, and unlike recollections of late-inning glory, what adult man ever wants to confess to or be caught amid wallowing in pleasant memories of watching little girls pee, or counting the balloons or hearts or teddy bears on their underwear?

    It seems, at the very least, as if the best spin we could possibly put on the would-be "harmless" pedophile is ... honestly, I can't do it. This one is one of the biggest challenges I can imagine, and I honestly tremble not at the magnitude of the task, but its purpose; I simply cannot see the value in trying to define that one under circumstances when I absolutely will ultimately fail, and, really, without understanding why, what is my priority for such resource allocation? Nonetheless, from that extreme case to aspects more mundane, neither can I promise there is not a connection at least, or even continuum.

    Your question is asking men who consider themselves largely normal and normalized to consider something they believe, according to pretense of normalcy, is repugnant. Most quite literally have no means of addressing the question because they are simply incapable of comprehending it; this is a psychological result that, in my postfreudian context, is described as neurotic. Blocking out, as such, is straightforward ego defense.

    The idea that one can recognize common ground with pedophilia is, functionally, almost entirely verboten; hebephilia is often subsumed under pedophilia, but there also comes a point at which many men will make excuses because they really want, for diverse but exploitative reasons, "underage" to be "old enough". Facing that directly is stressful enough for these men in the context of social propriety; trying to answer as if one has a clue might well seem a fate worse than death to some of them.

    And it's because they don't know how to deal with this stuff. So the bees haven't evolved in how long? Why not? Because they didn't need to. "Men" as a social construct, haven't evolved their address of society because they have not needed to. They don't want to think about it, so if they do, well, then it's some woman's fault. Or some little girl.

    They need to break the continuum in order to pretend that, with a place for everything and everything in its place, or a season, turn, turn, turn, for all things, there must necessarily be a right time and place and method for harassment and exploitation. They won't concede this point without exhausting every possibility, and since the scale of that defies any one human being, it means they will never actually stop. That's what they're afraid to say, enough that they are incapable of saying it.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,400
    I haven't read all of your post... But I think if you could paste that cartoon your post would be a lot more understandable.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,400
    OK That's sick.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,766
    Well, Spidergoat provided a pretty strong example.

    Which, in turn, only reminds to make the point of a content warning; sickness is the theme.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Lalo Alcaraz, Daily Kos, 16 November 2017
     
  9. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,431
    It looks like Al Franken will be announcing tomorrow that he is stepping down.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,470
    Of a cartoon that doesn't seem intended to be "funny", or to leave anyone laughing. So that to read it as a misbegotten rape joke is to misunderstand it.
    And that's a perfectly normal, ordinary, granted-relevant post in any thread about Roy Moore, any TV discussion of Moore, etc.

    Clarence Thomas - who will probably be among the nine wise who will rule on the fate of Donald Trump's Presidency and the role of sexual assault and harassment in determining it - is not stepping down, or recusing himself from these cases. Here's his wife, reminding us that what the Republican Party is doing here goes back decades: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...s-award-to-conservative-activist-who-tried-to
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Roy Moore may be sick, but the cartoon is funny and prescient.
     
  12. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,431
    It shouldn't be a 'granted-relevant' post in just any thread about Roy Moore. I posted it in this one in large part because of the uphill battle you've been having in trying to get people to see the difference between the two (parties). Roy Moore will not be stepping down, of course, so this helps point out the difference between the two.
     
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,400
    No. It's not funny. It's disturbing.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,542
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,132




    this is very common. the reason why the world is such an evil place is not just the people who do crime or wrong, it's also the people you don't know or hear about in the background that support and even empower such people, because underneath it all deep inside, they are like them, male or female. though my take on society seems to be more harsh, it's actually closer to true. there are a lot of bad people in society, not necessarily because they are actually doing it or exactly in the same way but a part of the complicity in supporting them or in some cases, maliciously wanting them to, in the case of my mother with her husband. she supported his actions when it suited her own malice or gratuitousness, regardless of ethics. she was also a pastor's wife, if that is not absolutely sick.

    when i accused my abuser, i was not believed and in fact, was looked upon suspicion first more than the stepfather by many church members. i realized it was as simple as they were more alike in their beliefs and politics. that's why they wanted to support him, right or wrong.

    what makes them even more evil is they had been around this man so should have had a clue as there were times he showed a strange amount of evil at times and they just overlooked it even as a pastor. that does not say much good about people.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  16. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,478
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    Edmund Burke? Or Reverend Charles F. Aked?
     
  18. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...w-race-tightening_us_5a27107fe4b0cd6fb5ee8afd

    well this is why.
     
  19. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,462
    And now we, once again, see the difference between Republican and Democrat...

    Where as Roy Moore seems possibly poised to secure the election in Alabama amid his scandals, Democrats are (and have been) calling for Franken and others to step down, and it seems they are likely to do so:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/al-franken-democratic-senators-resign/index.html

    Meanwhile, the Republicans are backing Moore once again:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...after-cutting-fundraising-ties-weeks-ago.html
    and
    Seems Republicans are more interested in getting their terrible Tax bill passed and gutting Social programs than they are about women's rights... and the few Republican's still denouncing Moore, such as Romney:

    Will no doubt fall in line, as they are want to do, when the chips are down.

    I wish I could say that I hope Alabama voters make the right choice here... but I honestly have no reason to believe they will, what with the so-called "religious" voters flocking to support Moore.

    I guess this is America anyMoore?

    EDIT - oh, and the hypocrisy is astonishing:

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...s-party-spends-cash-to-elect-a-child-molester

    Ol' Turtle Mitch McConnell, griping about how Franken should step down while he and his party funnel over a million dollars into Roy Moore's campaign.

    But don't worry - no doubt Republican's will take steps to ensure sexual abusers are dealt with appropriately!*


    *Appropriately, according to the GOP, meaning elevated to positions of power with lifetime benefits that last no matter how piss-poor the person in question acts*
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,222
    And now, this can hang around their neck for generations.

    The GOP is now the party that supports and endorses sex offenders and paedophiles and there is nothing they can turn to or against to lessen that load.

    As someone posted on twitter...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now is the time for the Democrats to say they purged out the sexual offenders and literally keep hammering the point that the GOP not only voted for them, but also endorsed them.
     
  21. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,132
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,226
    If Roy is running an 80% chance of winning, that is Alabama for you.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,470
    It already has. With consequences everywhere visible.
    Democrats lose in Minnesota when the voters think they are incompetent and untrustworthy, as a rule. That's how they lose, when they lose.

    One of the ways the Democrats have been made to appear incompetent and untrustworthy in the past - the very recent past - is by being presented as too much influenced by unrealistic and immature and authoritarian ideologues, who will screw up the country in pursuit of one ideological obsession after another while enmeshing us all in a tangle of onerous rules and nanny-state impositions.

    Meanwhile, "the Democrats" nationally have not been able to "hammer" on the differences between themselves and the Republicans in the issues of women's rights and powers and civil liberties, which have been stark and striking for decades, because regardless of those very real differences the media has been co-opted by bothsides Republican political memes. The media that does all the "hammering" is corporate owned and largely Republican run, remember. That is unlikely to change with Franken's resignation, in part because the "bothsides" Republican meme was reinforced by the very people advocating for that resignation.

    So all the "hammering" is going to be presented within a bothsides frame. Both sides get hammered, or neither side gets hammered.

    It's not going to be "the GOP" running, in other words, in Minnesota. It's going to be someone who doesn't look at all like Roy Moore, running as a sane and competent adult who regrets the bad behavior of individuals on both sides, and the ideological fanaticism of the extremists on both sides, and the excesses of both sides. People want a change from this divisiveness, this partisan bickering and identity politics, this Republican will say. That will be one "side".

    My guess is that the Democratic candidate in 2020, possibly in 2018, will be forced to distance themselves from the Party factions that most loudly called for Franken's resignation, to have a chance. If that's how it plays, how they manage that will depend on who they are.
     

Share This Page