Roy moore accusations

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's a question...

Zero tolerance... To where does that extend? Eg - if someone makes an attempt to flirt, and the lady finds that to be offensive or frightening... Do you suggest throwing them out? No physical contact, no lewdness, mind you.

Where does one draw the line? Obviously, it must be drawn somewhere... But, well, how do we want to define it? Where do you cross from "normal human prerogative" to "creepy sexual harassment"? I think that needs to be clearly defined, or else we are all just shooting at a moving target... One that can, and is, being adjusted for use as a political power play.

To wit - there is a lot of commentary about how it affects "your party" and such. Shouldn't both sides be held to the same standards, and judged against those standards equally?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The same choices the Republicans have, and the Wiener or Weinstein supporters, who chose differently.

Why would they do that? In the first place, there aren't many possible choices. In the second, Franken has proven his abilities. In the third, the Dems in Minnesota aren't all that "progressive" or competent - the progressive Dems don't trust the State Dem establishment, and aren't going to go along with that unless far worse Franken behavior is exposed.

Nonsense. The difference between the Dem and GOP Party behavior is striking.

I'm going to believe the accounts as published by the women themselves, along with what's what my sisters, my wife, and my brothers's wives, tell me about them (it's been a hot topic - overshadowing Moore and Trump and Weinstein - in the family circles).
I'm also going to believe the accounts and tones of voice of the other women who have, over the years of my adult life, complained about the repulsive necessity of that in my hearing. Ok?

No, "the Democrats" aren't.
Why do you find it necessary to repeatedly misrepresent what people are saying?

The question is not whether it's "good enough". (Good enough for what?) The question is whether it's the fact of the matter - whether the people in control of this narrative can make the obvious distinctions involved in the reality of the situation.

Because if they can't, if this Republican bothsides narrative dominates, it will continue to kill every progressive agenda in American politics. This is how Clinton got killed on the emails, for example. It's lethal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not "my" Party. It's where I usually end up, most times, because the Republican Party is malignant in my State, but there's no love lost in my house for the asshats of the Minnesota DFL.

It's just that: Weinstein is pilloried, Spitzer was fired and prosecuted, Weiner's in jail, there's even a formal investigation of Franken for Chrissake. All as should be. And meanwhile, Trump is in the White House after a campaign year of media bothsiding everything, and Roy Moore has a chance of bothsiding his way to victory on the media handling of Franken's behavior, and there's no hint on the horizon even of a Republican white male power center - such as Wall Street, or the boardrooms of the Fortune 500 - even coming into play.

We know what Franken did immediately upon being braced, according to the accounts so far - he backed off. According to the accounts so far. No threats, no coercions, no bribes or "settlements" yet made public.

And so they have, with Franken. That's not good enough for you, is the problem.

"Democrats" (in general) are not actually doing that, in this case. You are misrepresenting the situation.

Clinton was impeached, Weiner was prosecuted and removed and eventually jailed, and "Democrats" do not point to Moore and Trump "as to why" Franken - or even Conyers, an apparently more legitimately comparable case, at least somewhat - should not resign (the opposite, in fact - some point to Moore, in particular, as a reason Franken should resign). You are bullshitting, here.

You are posting Newt Gingrich's Both Sides Party Line. Why?

 

Nothing will stop men except zero access and opportunity which is unrealistic but society can make an example by how it handles it's leaders so as to give the message it's not acceptable. zero tolerance no matter what political party. some punishment administered is more important to show the public in general that it's not acceptable. but it will never completely stop it or deter it to any significant extent unless the punishments become very harsh and society is not going to do that. part of the reason is because it's too common. people are sinful creatures.

besides men, the problem is there are still women who are lax about such incidents against women too and that can't be changed either.

literally, if the accused perpetrator did not directly victimize them, they don't usually care. same with most men, while they don't want that to happen to their own mother, wives/girlfriend, sister, daughter, or friend, they may want to victimize someone else they don't care about.

so, this is the core problem with garnering support or a consensus on an issue that affects many but where the individuals involved vary in each situation.

add to this another issue is that there are women who unjustly accuse or even fabricate lies against men so that makes it harder for women who really have been victimized to be believed. unfortunately, this can be used as a ruse against women that they are being vengeful or have an ulterior motive in their accusations.

then to add further problems, much of these incidents are hard to prove with concrete evidence and which is one of the reasons why it's prevalent because perpetrators know it's often a he said/she said scenario when they commit the offense in the first place. some do it in front of others but usually not or they will in company that they know does not care or will not be taken seriously.

the problem has always been because people are immoral. its a shame there is almost nothing to change it. so you can see this shit will never stop.

humans may deserve to go extinct as a species and all organic life as it's so lacking in real integrity. the whole basis of organic life is predation. it will never stop. these incidents will continue and even if you deter some, there are others that won't be caught and even if they are, there is little consequence anyways and so on the next generation.

robots and computers should replace us. organic life is faulty as hell.

 

I will elaborate more once I'm at my computer (it's a pain in the ass to break up quotes on my phones touchscreen due to lack of brackets) - my point was that it can be difficult for the flirt-er (guy or girl) to tell if the flirt-ee is uncomfortable, especially if said person doesn't make it apparent. Case in point - I'm a tactile person, always have been, and with close friends I'm very much a hugger and several if us have a "poke war" of sorts going on (inside joke spanning a dozen people and as many years).

All that said - one of my best friends (and I consider him like a brother), it took me several years to discover that it made him somewhat uncomfortable, because he simply never said anything about it, and I (nor our other friends) picked up any outward signs. I only found out due to a new years eve party that involved trivial pursuit and alcohol. He is a rather jumpy but giggly drunk, and at one point I commented how he was a bit jumpy whenever people got real close. He let me know that he wasn't a fan of close contact, and that anything more than a handshake was sometimes disquieting for him.

All that to say - when is a mistake simply a mistake, and what roll/responsibility does the person claiming foul have to let the other know they are uncomfortable?

Me, I'm pretty outspoken about it. If someone is making me uncomfortable, I take a step back, lock eyes, and tell them as such. It's who I am. Many people simply aren't like that, and suffer in silence. That isn't an excuse or an attempt to shift blame - it's simply what happens.

So, again, how and where do we draw the line, because common sense, as we've seen this election cycle, is seemingly so rare it could be an X-men style superpower at this point.

Anyway, I don't know how well if at all, I'm getting my internet turned across. If there were a clearly defined line (No is No, for example), then there would be no question regarding people like Franken, Moore, Trump, et al. As it stands now, it seems to be a shades of gray style "Well what" x" did isn't that bad, and besides "y" did this and it's worse" kind of bullshit that never accomplishes anything productive.

Is what Franken did wrong? IMHO, hell yes. Is it as bad as what Moore reportedly did, or perhaps the guy that was just outed as having impregnated a minor? I don't think it's on the same level, but neither are acceptable.

 

I would also ask - if it had been just the groping picture, as an example, what is the appropriate response /retaliation? Franken has dozens of female staff standing by him, saying he's been professional and courteous et al, even after he took responsibility for wrongdoing. Does owning up to a mistake change things, compared to slandering and verbally abusing the accuser as Moore and Co are doing? Is personal responsibility after the fact worth anything anymore? Because... Well, if not... Then what reason is there for said responsibility in an age where he who has the most money/power can do what they want and, apparently, get away with it unscathed?

 

I would guess that depends on what happened. If said sexual harassment was, for instance, a joke too far, then I'd ask the victim what they felt was appropriate punishment.

If it were, say, someone attempting to coerce another employee into sexual actions, threatening to damage their career if they refused, then immediate termination and filing of charges would seem appropriate to me.

What would you consider due process, in this instance?

 

or in the future if women are genetically altered to be as physically strong and aggressive as men, then men wouldn't see them as such easy victims. real equality.

ironicly, is that often the victim is subdued by the law too. while it is very easy to harass someone which for a man is unthreatened by a woman even in terms of backlash in the immediate sense (physically), which is why they do it. a victim's only recourse is the law after the fact or actual physical injury to stop the perpetrator and that is going to put the blame and accusation on the defense. oh poor perpetrator.

 

Which it should not be. If a woman is being sexually assaulted or raped, and pulls out a handgun and splatters the would be rapists brains across the wall, I personally feel she acted in self defense of a real and present threat. The fact that, as it stands, we have people serving life on prison for just such a scenario is insane to me.

 

OK, at my computer for a few minutes:

Addresed here

Obviously, he should knock it off.

Again, obviously he should stop.

Agreed. My point was more along the lines of someone who is making an attempt to flirt whilst still being courteous and conscientious, yet is not getting any sign from the other party that they are uncomfortable or otherwise afraid.

I think we both know the answer to this, Bells.

And yet, it can be. What is normal for you or I may be abnormal for someone else. Between cultural differences, differences in lifestyle, social norms, etc... it isn't so black and white. Attempting to make it that cut and dry just seems like it is asking for trouble.

So, then, do you propose there is no difference between a lewd comment, touching the rear, and attempting to rip someones clothes off and forcibly take them? If that's how you want to define it, fine - but we need to make sure everyone is on the same page, and held to the same standard.

If I'm not mistaken, Franken has admitted wrongdoing and stated he would be open to an investigation. Are you suggesting he should be punished before said investigation, ergo "guilty until proven innocent"? If so, again, that's fine - I just want to make sure we're all playing by the same rulebook.

 

obviously, as an 'adult', they have a responsibility to make it clearly known certain actions or words are unacceptable to them. but as with with sexual harassers, they will just try something else. so literally, you have to say and be very literal, 'don't talk to me at all'. which is ridiculous to have to be that explicit but often that is the only way to stop them (usually) because they will just try something else.

the problem is it's not that they don't know it's unwanted, it's that they don't respect any boundaries unless it's absolutely enforced. the verbal boundary is only respected because they know they can't deny or feign they don't know where you stand when you made it clear to them. but even that only applies to some people. there are those who will do anything and you literally have to physically get away.

 

Yet as I already explained above, complete with an example from my own life with one of my own very close friends, that is not always the case.

So, you are making the claim, then, that all men are swine and will take advantage of women at every opportunity unless the Sword of Damocles hangs o're their head...

Quite the interesting idea, and one that I personally take offense to. I'm certain, of course, that you can prove this is the case, with requisite supporting evidence, that it's impossible for this to ever be a misunderstanding or miscommunication?

 

you can be offended all the fuk you want. of course, not all men are like that. i was clearly referring to sexual harassers because to have to get to the point of having to say 'don't talk to me at all' indicates repeatedly coming onto you in various ways, even after you've made it known you are not interested. politeness doesn't work.

since you are a man, obviously you are unaware that men who are sexual harassers take even conversation or any attention their way as an opportunity to continue to try you.

as an example, at this house i was renting a room, the guy immediately banged on my door insisting on meeting me. the guy downstairs told me that he asked 'what does she look like' even before he met me when he was told that a female lived upstairs, which he thought was inappropriate. then when i did meet him, he immediately was telling me about how he is not getting along with his girlfriend and immediately started asking me invasive questions. i told him i am relocating elsewhere. then he asked me out on a date. i said no politely. then since i had to use the same facilities, i could not really avoid him and had to still be civil, i was downstairs making my meal and he was there and out of nowhere in the conversation, he asks me for a hug. what? that is actually not appropriate at all and is not innocent. then a few days later, he sees me outside and props the door open again and mentions he broke up with his girlfriend and he's buying a car soon as if i give a shit. then he asks me again if i would go out to a dinner and a movie which i said no again and this time he plaintively says 'i don't know why we just can't be friends!' to which i said i'm not interested and don't talk to me again.

yeah, i consider that harassment. i felt harassed, bothered, annoyed and irritated. people can feign they don't know but they do know, they just don't care to read the signs all along because they will keep trying you until there is no opening at all. that is not innocent and that is not ignorance, that is harassment and disrespectful.

evidently i do know not all men are like that, because the other two males there were not like that and they did not bother me and i interacted with them fine without any issues.

 

heh. i even told him that i was not interested in dating or a relationship at all. this was to let the person know where my head was. if you are conversating with someone and they say that and you ignore it, then that's on you.

sexual harassers try to 'evade' what you say or what you mean and what your wants/wishes are if they don't coincide with theirs in relation to their agenda or motive with you. that's the 'objectification' of what sociopaths do. they literally try to bypass you as if they can coerce you into submission which is pretty sick actually.

 

are the men on this forum really going to pretend they don't know what sexual harassment is, like kittamaru, using a very reaching example of a friend he's known for years?

sexual harassment can happen from the getgo with one action such as sexually explicit remark, joke, or comment about body etc. that is in the context of a stranger or just an associate such as a coworker you don't have such a rapport with. if one thinks that is just a 'misunderstanding', it's like pretending ignorance of the law. that's no misunderstanding. you are a fuking asshole.

the other cases of sexual harassment is when someone is clearly not interested and one keeps ignoring that until the other literally has to tell them to not interact with them at all and vice versa.

so no, there is no 'misunderstanding or miscommunication' in sexual harassment. ever. that's why it's harassment and has all the hallmarks of either rude objectification/sexually or being, well, fuking harassed!

 

Of course there is never any miscommunication in sexual harassment ever. Of course.

So glad, birch, that you can so confidently speak in absolutes.

As for the example with my friend - you can believe me or not all you want. It doesn't change a thing, much like most of your off the wall ideas. That's the great thing about the truth - it is true regardless of what unknowing fools opine.