Roy moore accusations

#rapeculture | #TheWomenAreSpeaking​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dear sweet harem: Click because baby girl is a woman who wants to monopolize him so badly for he is so wimpy they are all devoted to him.​

So, there's this bit where trolls do, where they point to something as if it makes a point, but what they're really doing is trying to pretend they didn't say or do something.

Are your own posts so distressing to you that you need to pretend you didn't write that?

You do make the point, though. "Republican men". You're upset that women's narratives are being subordinated to masculine political narrative? Is this because that's the wrong thing to do, or because you would subordinate the narrative differently?

There's always a reason, isn't there, women need to wait until the men are satisfied? And what, really, is that reason? Are they less important than your politics? Or do you just know better than they do?

Iceaura, take a look around. Who needs to write the narrative for women?

The problem with arbitrary attacks like you're attempting is that they often reveal what they're supposed to hide.

Think it through, Iceaura: If Republican men do something wrong unto women, then why do you get to do the same?

Honestly, Iceaura, this might work better if you weren't so desperately arbitrary.

Think of it this way: Instead of accusing that the results of my conduct in this thread help rape culture, you accuse me of deliberately trying to do so.

So I'll just recall that tirade on behalf of stalkers who need guns, and note your priorities are about as obvious as they were when you were screeching about Amy Klobuchar and the Nanny State↗.

Seriously, the simple fact of you and me sitting here making so goddamn much noise about the right and wrong way for women to tell us what they have to say pretty much makes a certain point that only ever needs to be made in order to remind the circumstance is problematic.

†​

Let us try it in terms more suited to your advocacy: Look, at some point they're going to taper off, take a breath, and shut up, and then it will be men's turn to talk, and we better damn well have something better to say than scolding women under a pretense of what they did wrong in telling us.

†​

To borrow a logical example that ought to be clear to ... y'know, not so much anyone, but at some point the people who purport to care about certain issues ought to be able to at least sketch certain general objects within the framework. Like this:

To the one, there is a pathological hair I would split; I think you're probably familiar with it, Iceaura.

To the other:

(1) Bells is not wrong.

(2) She is, specifically, correct.

(3) The point of pathology I would focus on will show through in the historical record.

(4) Said pathology and its components will only resolve more clearly and accurately for having more data.

(a) If what I want is politics, then there is no time like the present. If, however, I seek comprehension, address, and solution, then yes, it actually behooves me to wait.​

↳ If anyone ever needs a logical reason why now is not the time for splitting certain hairs, then now they have it.​

†​

Here's some more logic: So, for whatever reason, Juanita Broaddrick went on the air to back Trump, very possibly endorse mudslinging against victims, and blame Hillary Clinton for all sexual harassment against women over the last twenty years.

Am I going to pick a fight with a rape survivor who could only find public support in people who would exploit her? Why the fuck under the sun would I? Especially because part of her own living hell is that if anyone remembers this episode, ten or twenty years down the line, it will be filed under embittered blaming Hillary for everything.

I would have no idea how to answer her. But if you want the politics of it, the Twitter capsule for the story from The Hill is brutal.

Spoiler

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[Anapol, Avery. "Clinton accuser Juanita Broaddrick won't say whether she believes Trump accusers". The Hill. 24 November 2017.]

¡ACHTUNG! (Ouch.)​

†​

In terms of politics, all any of us had to do about Al Franken was keep our goddamn mouths shut. He knew the score. Politically, he is testing an example.

In terms of Roy Moore, we don't have the particular data we need. To wit, Alabama voters will either send him to the U.S. Senate, or not; they have, during the time people have known of his penchant for young girls, twice sent him to the state Supreme Court as Chief Justice.

Right now polling speaks well for Doug Jones, but there is also an emerging transformation of how we look at the human individual relating to the social phenomena our species builds. It seems a weird example, but fire alarms, despite the most obvious presupposition, do not turn out to inform us about a fire; rather, we behave as if fire alarms grant us permission to respond to a fire. The reason it stands out is that polling can become notoriously inaccurate under certain stresses, and this has something to do with assertions of perceptions of judgmental assessments. This will lend to at least some of Jones' increase in support, and this is Alabama, so that unknown value could be insignificant or it could make all the difference in the world. When choosing to answer someone who has their phone numbers, to what degree are people's answered by presupposition, assignation, of value judgment in the pollster? When choosing to address their ostensibly secret ballot, will they actually give the same answer?

Quite honestly, no amount of mansplanation I throw at this issue will change the way Alabama votes.

Please consider that while I stand, in the face of any War on Women, alongside, behind, or wherever my sisters need me, the range of definitions we might assign the word "War", while they do not include any good outcomes, do in fact include significant ranges of bad enough outcomes as to compel anyone to wish for a slightly less desperate problem.

Alabama is really pissed off that it lost the Gay Fray. And, yse, I stand on my assertion that the Gay Fray was, at heart, about women. What do I think is about to happen? I would very much like to believe that Yellowhammer voters will find the courage to send a Democrat to the Senate, but I'm going to need to see it happen.

†​

Meanwhile, that I consider the GOP the Party of Rape Advocacy does not in any way mean rape culture has some dimension of partisan boundary. Seriously, leftist demagogues who convince others they have even a small measure of power, like that one Trotskyist who had Redgrave's support, can be as sick as any televangelist. And Koestler was a Marxist-Leninist, and fuck-all, I don't ever want to comprehend his apparent personal theses about women; it's almost inevitable that he would coin the word mimophant.

And if this was just an electoral cycle with a sex scandal, well, yeah, now I get to rethink the line that goes here, because it's true, I see utility in fighting some of these fights. But this is about more than the electoral cycle, and right now we verge on class warfare atrocity by focusing on politicians and celebrities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your conservative religious unethical freak senses are showing. you won't distinguish the differences between situation a versus situation b, rendering them equivalent. you are willfully dishonest about this issue because it's easily understood and nowhere near rocket science.

here it is again explained very simply and plain:

it is not about 'getting into someone's head ' or reading their mind. actually, it is none of your business and that is veering into nosiness. if you have to strain to do that, then obviously they either are not interacting with you much, at all or not interested. obvious cue one. duh?

such as the assbackward logic of a harasser who disrespects what she said wasn't really meant or that the other was lying about not wanting to be in a relationship or is in one etc.

obviously, it's not about whether it's all true or not but if they tell you specific information or opinions that are roadblocks, they are obviously not interested! there is nothing to misinterpret. it's that the harasser refuses to take someone's boundaries at face value.

it's about not ignoring or bypassing what someone has told you and made known such as the word 'no' or 'i don't want to talk to you', or 'i have a boyfriend/girlfriend', or 'i am not interested in dating or a relationship' etc. what harassers do is they don't stop at the first red light. they will continue until either they get tired or you get hostile and possibly even threatening yourself.

there is nothing to misinterpret. it is not mysterious. there are no crossed signals. if one misses "unspoken" cues such as someone making an ugly or disgusted expression when you talk to them, even involuntarily; cutting discussion short, formal or impersonal or never asking similar personal questions etc is because the other is ignoring those cues. why? because they don't care if the other is interested, they only care they are interested.

this is because men have been raised in a culture that traditionally saw women's own personal rights, thoughts, and wishes as inferior to their own and also simply a power disparity on a base level, men are less intimidated harassing women because they are not generally as physically strong as men.

but decent as well as good men do not do that just as any decent human being would not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's public and formal. So it has effect whether it's posturing or not. It exists, in the real world. It is an observable, objective, factual difference between Franken and - say - Moore. One of many.

So do I. So? That's meaningless, in addressing my posts.

You haven't. You've been troll posting the entire matter, and that blurs the entire matter - which why the Republican media operation is putting its shoulder to the same wheel.

Nope.

Nope.

No, that's not what I posted. That's you trying to twist and reframe and - basically - lie. You're reaching so far to avoid this stuff you are coming down on the side of flat out lying.
Look at this shit:

You posted a false claim, you deliberately attempted obviously false innuendo, and now you believe what you posted?

Because you, on the other hand, do in fact post such questions as I described and quoted - inveterately, repeatedly, frequently. That is the majority of your responses to my posting here. You haven't posted an honest three consecutive sentences in response to me on this thread.

And then you have the nerve to demand that your representations of others be accepted as framing the discussion, as the context. My presumption is of course going to be that you are representing other people as you represent me - how else? And if you are representing women I don't know - "Democrats", say - as dishonestly as you are representing me and women I do know, everything you post on this topic comes into question. Are you, for example, actually a woman posting her own take and not a male Republican media agent ratfucking the issue? I think you are the former, for historical reasons - but that's the level at which one would be forced to begin, in responding to your posts on this thread.

And that is how the Republican bothsides media machine is likely to win, here. Reason, analysis, distinction, discussion, is how liberals win. When they are spiked, power and money wins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Take the troll questions, and shove them up your ass.

Not me. So I don't.

Nope. I'm observing the fact. It's my addressed issue. And any time you want to deal with my actual posting, can't come too soon.

 

You are. Who's "everyone"?

You and Tiassa, on that one. Is that what you mean by "everyone"?

An obvious factor. Or one's political enemies in the Republican Congress - another obvious factor.

That's willful misreading.
And it's completely typical of your posting in this thread.

Impeachment is substantial. Resignation is substantial. Jail is substantial. Which politicians are you talking about? I mean, clearly you are pointing to a real situation and a serious problem, but given your posting it's hard to tell exactly what it is.

His job and its normal benefits, among other things. But you're right, once we revise your posting from its Fox Question format into a declarative statement you can be held to - he probably has much more to worry about from various media than from an investigation.

That shit is the majority of your posting in response to my posts in this thread. A physical majority.

You don't seem able to clear it.

I would have thought so as well, prior to this. Apparently not. Some people read them and see Moore or Weinstein, for example.

And some pros are marketing that viewpoint. It's useful, if the leader of your Party is Donald Trump.

 

Yep.

Ok. And that absurdly false equivalence is what Trump's Party needs to sell and is trying to sell, to normalize Trump. Because they are vulnerable now - Trump won't shut up, and everyone around him is abusive or enabling.

Together with the media, the Republican Congress can force his resignation using the investigation findings - if they are bad enough. Or they can make something up.

You do know that the GOP controls both houses of Congress, right? They lose nothing, and gain much, and might be able to precipitate resignation by threat.

And part of that - if it happens (I think this time around there's a chance of some permanent changes) - will involve setting up Trump's and Moore's victims to be depicted as getting all worked up over something that Franken's victims handled much more easily. That will make it easier to bribe, threaten, and coerce them.

You cannot post honestly for three consecutive sentences.

Meanwhile, to repeat ( you brought up the topic of my thinking): I of course don't think there is a "the Democrats" response, and very few of the various Dem responses match your descriptions above - certainly none of the common or official ones. We see a range from immediate calls for resignation and criminal prosecution of Franken (many, beginning immediately) to detailed analysis of the victim's stories and their various dubious aspects, presented as discrediting the lot of them. (e.g. The first accuser claimed Franken wrote the skit after she joined the tour, for her to play; the State Fair picture looks photoshopped; that kind of thing - all perfectly accurate, but not to the point).

 

Then, I presume, you would expect the same from all people accused of any sexual misconduct?

What do you propose happens to one who is falsely or otherwise wrongly accused, then? Because, as much as it sucks, it happens. Is this simply a situation where some should come to wrongful harm (loss of a job, loss of trust and dignity, etc) prior to any sort of proof?

So the system is flawed. It doesn't work. So, the logical thing to do would be to fix it.

That's exactly what it is. Unless, of course, you believe this is an actual guide to the zombie apocalypse?

No, most women do not want superiority; it simply seems that you do. Most women would be content to not be sexually harassed - you seem to demand a "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

What about men? I dunno, Bells, what about men? You keep making this discussion firmly about you, so what about men?

Then why do you keep using misandristic slogans to present your case, Bells? I don't think the case (that women shouldn't have to live in fear) is so weak as to need to attack the other gender to make your point, so why do you keep doing so?

Exactly, so why do you keep doing so with your "not all men" bullshit? I'm not attempting to defend a gender - I'm putting up the argument that, maybe, human beings can fuck up in pretty incredible ways, and all you've done is make my case for me.

Because it is a rather straight forward example of how someone can miss a vital piece of information.

If you honestly believe that, then I'm afraid you have entrenched yourself so deeply in your own little fantasy realm that reality has escaped you completely.

Hm, okay Bells, more libel.

Quote me - where did I say it was "personally insulting that women, victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault, use such terminology to discuss what we have and do experience." I would like to see those exact words attributed to me. If you cannot do so, then I will accept that you are simply fabricating lies to try and justify your ranting.

I have no qualms with the use of "men" or "man" - they are words. What I took umbrage with was your apparent desire that men can have zero say in this discussion. Guess what Bells - there have been times where a party was kept out of a discussion that involves them, and I'd bet you can guess what happened.

It would be much more productive to get both parties to the table and have a discussion about what should happen and how they can help make it happen. Cause, lets face it Bells, if you go up to a bunch of old WASPs and demand they start treating you like an equal, they are going to laugh in your face; the same is happening to Millennials who are trying to tell the previous generations that the whole "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality is ridiculous in an increasingly automated world.

Then quit acting like a goddamn fool, Bells. It's a simple solution. If you want to have an honest discussion, then quit trying to pigeonhole me as someone who has personally raped you. I haven't, I have no intention of doing so, and your continued attempts to besmirch my character because you were wronged by someone else is, quite frankly, disturbing.

Where have I tried to "shut down" the discussion on sexual harassment, Bells? Quote me. The only thing I've tried to shut down are your accusations and hostility.

Where am I trying to dismiss what "you and other women" have experienced? Show me where I have handwaved it away. Show me I am saying you "don't know or understand" the issue. Quote me Bells. Because otherwise you are simply fabricating lies.

OK Bells, this is crossing the line. You "know why I am doing it", hm? Pray tell, enlighten me. Enlighten SciForums - because your continued attempts at character assassination are becoming tiresome.

Let me be blunt - you are making this an issue about me. Do you want me to apologize for the fact that someone raped you? Fine, I will - I'm sorry that there are shitty men out there. I'm sorry you were put through something that nobody (man or woman) should ever have to experience.

I can't fucking change it though Bells.

None of that does! You can hate him all you want! Did he do something wrong? YES! I'm not saying he didn't. Does that mean there should be a burden of innocence rather than a burden of guilt put into effect (the point I keep trying to get you to see, and you keep conveniently ignoring)? I don't think it does, because that is going to put a lot of people (on both sides of the gender line) in a bad place from folks who would abuse it.

I rather like the accepted definition of Due Process, Bells:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due process
Definition of due process
1: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles — called also procedural due process
2: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual — called also substantive due process

Now - what issue do you have with that? Have you figured out yet where something such as missing information could be important?

 

So it seems.

Where the flying fuck did I say either of you forgot I was a man? Seriously Bells, are you capable of debating honestly, or do years in the court systems suck that ability out of you? Every bit of information you don't like is suddenly "mansplaining"... again, you seem to be the one having issues with sexism here Bells, not me.

So you are going to continue to pretend you don't understand its relevance. Fine.

Right. So, back to the "I am scum" argument. Got it.

No. Because I won't stand idle while you continue to spout lies. If you want to discuss something honestly, then I would suggest you start doing so.

Where did I say that Bells. Quote me, or are you lying once again?

What a shame you can't argue facts and in good faith, instead of slandering everyone you perceive is against you.

So you are firmly claiming that it can never be a mistake. Thank you for clarifying.

The only thing I'm confused about is why you are playing the fool.

No, it is an honest question - Answer it Bells. Are you capable of debating with someone without resorting to insults?

Let me be as blunt as possible, Bells:

I don't give a fuck about my "male ego".

What I care about is the fact that, right now, we have a system of laws in place, and a judicial system, that is failing its citizens so supremely that we are elevating to positions of power people who abuse their influence for sexual gratification, and then drag those who have the guts to stand up to them through the dirt and potentially ruin their lives forever.

So, tell me Bells - why are you so intent on making this about me?

That isn't what your picture said, Bells. Thank you for demonstrating why defining anything in absolutes is a terrible idea.

Indeed, intent is everything... or is it? If someone is trying to be friendly to another, and the person takes it as harassment (not necessarily sexual harassment), does the persons intent protect them?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Bells...

I'm not ignoring the fact at all, Bells - indeed, I would say having a secure and non-invasive channel to report such things should be mandatory. Currently, though, a lot of employers HR offices are there to protect the company, not the employees. Case in point - a few places I've worked had "anonymous reporting hotlines" where, after someone called in to it to report an offense, said person was brought into the managers office with the person they were reporting and outed; more than once, they were forced out of the company altogether.

This needs to stop. I think we can all agree on that. The question is, how do we stop it? I know I can't stop it on my own - I'm not a CEO, or any other high ranking officer in the company... what power do I have to stop it? I can (and do) write my legislators - I can't ensure they will take action. I can (and do) vote, but I can't ensure the person I'm voting for is going to do what they say any more than I can guess the next Lottery drawing.

So, how do we handle it Bells? You seem to want anyone accused to immediately roll over and resign/quit/give up everything in their life. That would seem to be the definition of "guilty until proven innocent".

You want Franken to resign? Fine, I can agree to that. I don't know that it would actually resolve the issue(s) at hand, but sure. Then what? What do you want after your pound of flesh? Can we work on an actual solution to stop these kinds of things from happening?

You know what, Bells, nobody can be in your corner when you keep forcing them out of it.

 

Your posts might be taken a little more seriously if they were not preceded by images of large-breasted women with artfully cut reveals in their clothing, captioned with "harem".

 

Because you're not discussing it how men want you to.

• • •​

That you are so goddamn pissed off because women aren't obeying you while they talk about sexual harassment and rape culture really ought to be an internal discussion.

• • •​

Rape culture is as rape culture does.

Just doin' your part to help out?

 

And once more, we just have to make it about gender, rather than the problem... fucking pathetic.

Or maybe I'm pissed off that Bells is, yet again, intent on debating me rather than the issue at hand.

What the actual hell are you even talking about? MRA handbook?

Really, it's a bad thing now to want to avoid false accusations that both ruin innocent peoples lives and weaken the argument for why protections against these kinds of crimes are important?
Maybe you just haven't been paying attention, Bells, but the United States is, currently, unable to get its head out of its collective ass about a number of things for various reasons. Shall we throw crimes against women on that same pile and let it rot, or shall we do something logical about it?

Then why did you just say, and I quote "It's not that the system is flawed." Bells? You are being duplicitous now.

And your false ignorance is inexcusable Bells. Guess we're both going to be disappointed eh?

Content. Happy. Pleased. Relieved. Satisfied. Take your pick. For fucks sake Bells, you are making it ever more obvious that you aren't actually concerned about the topic at hand, and only want to "win" this petty little grievance you have with me.

Inane? Ah, so it's inane now to want to ensure everyone is protected against sexual harassment, and not just women. Fair enough Bells - my apologies for forgetting this was all about you as an individual.

I dunno, you keep making everything out to be "mansplaining" and throwing out personal attacks left right and center - you seem pretty damn intent on attacking me on any angle you can.

You are the only one going on and on about how men are being attacked, etc and pulling arguments out of the anus of the MRA movement.[/quote]
What the fuck does Magnetic Resonance Angiography have to do with this?

What "what about the men" spiel? You mean the fact that I've mentioned sexual harassment can happen to both genders? I wasn't aware that acknowledging facts was offensive to you Bells. =

Oh wow, Bells. I'm sorry you are so delusional as to think this is true. Truly, I am.

Oh, I understand you. You have a victim complex the size of Jupiter and won't be satisfied until you have your pound of flesh.

It would be almost comical, if it weren't so tragic... you keep coming back to physical sexual harassment for your defense that it's impossible to miss something. Apparently women cannot be sexually harassed without physical conduct now?

Again, back to the physical contact, and again, you are intentionally missing the point.

I'm sorry Bells, but you've lost the plot a long time ago.

 

If you say so.

No, but I've rather lost my appetite at this disgusting display of yours.

Okay.

If it is so obvious, then quote it - throw it in my face because obviously I'm just not seeing it.

Again, what the fuck is MRA? Seriously, is there some meeting where you group up to discuss these fancy little nicknames and acronyms? It's starting to feel like a government agency with all your little buzzwords.

Good Lord indeed.

What about this statement confuses you?

I wish I was on reality TV, because then there'd at least be an explanation for this bullshit.

Oh really? You know what, Bells, after this little tirade of yours, I've come to the conclusion that I don't really give a flying fuck what you think. Childish? Perhaps - but then again, I don't see a reason to care, when you are going to act like this.

If that's how you read it, then you are absolutely delusional.

Mmm, I'm actually glad you see me that way - tells me I must be leaning a bit closer towards normally.

OK, Bells, then what do you want? You don't want an apology, you don't want input into (or to even talk about) the problem at hand, and you don't want to talk about facts. What is left?

So you are going to be willfully ignorant. Understood.

Due process isn't just what you get in court, Bells. Read the bloody definition and maybe you'd figure that out on your own.

*shakes head* Whatever Bells... you've done more damage to your agenda than President Pussy Grabber ever could. I hope you are proud.

 

For the record, Bells, here is where you seem to have lost the plot:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/roy-moore-accusations.160205/page-3#post-3488267

My offense was to the apparent claim that men don't respect any boundaries unless they are absolutely enforced. Look at the language - the reason for presuming birch meant men was:

If my response was too harsh, then you have my sincerest apologies - I thought we were all adults here.

To which I got:

So, excuse me Bells if I laugh when you say I came into this thread making attacks against people. Forgive me if I can't help but be amazed at your audacity to claim that I'm the one making this "about men". Lord have mercy that I would want to see things actually improve, rather than continue to be a shithole where victims are left feeling utterly alone and without help.

In fact, my first several posts should be rather evident - trying to get your train wreck with iceaura back on the rails and get the discussion moving in something that could be considered a productive direction.

You want me to defend my gender? I'm not going to, because honestly, I don't feel the need. You can throw all the buzzwords you want around, but none of that is going to solve the problem... and as far as I can tell, you don't want to solve it. Since verbal japing seems to be all you want, well, guess what - that's what you're getting.

Congratulations Bells - you have helped to thoroughly derail this thread.

 

In this particular case, she's discussing it exactly as Donald Trump's PR folks - men in control, women paid to be mouths - want her to. She's attacking the right women (and men), in the right words, for the right reasons, with the desired consequences. She even imitates their style - the Fox-questions, the slander attempts, the focus on accusations of partisanship, the denouement in bothsides.