Roy moore accusations

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately, the obvious desire not for justice, but for blood and flesh, will prevent any sort of meaningful change to the laws - those who use them to hide behind will point to such folks to bolster their assertions that tighter laws would simply result in harm to innocents (as an example -
    A Student Was Suspended for Sexual Harassment. Now He's Quoting Betsy DeVos to Sue His School

    A student who was suspended for sexual harassment is suing the University of Vermont, accusing the school of discriminating against men in its sexual misconduct policy. The student’s lawsuit cites Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ description of such policies as a “failed system” that has neglected due process rights.

    The plaintiff, identified in the lawsuit as John Doe, was accused of groping a freshman, identified as Jane Doe, at an off-campus party hosted by the school’s rugby club in April, when he was sophomore, according to the lawsuit. He is currently serving a one-semester suspension.

    Yep that's happening now...) and grind any attempt at progress to a halt.

    I would presume Bells is continuing her diatribe against me above - I cannot be sure as I can no longer see the content of her posts, but her fixation should serve as a warning to anyone who wants to try and fix this issue - you will have a lot of detractors when trying to legislate a way to prevent and prosecute these sorts of crimes, as one side will insist you have gone too far, and the other will insist you haven't gone far enough (and thus MUST be trying to protect male privilege and that you are an enemy to the cause).

    And yet, Bells and others see no relevance in this, nor understand how their actions are detrimental to their own cause...

    Regardless, I hold little hope for a solution until the last generation or two has either died off entirely, or become so decrepit as to not be able to have a say. Partisan bullshit is almost a sacred art, it seems, and no amount of logic or reason will shake the masses from their stupor.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I think I will go ahead and puke now....
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Aye... we are steadily marching backwards. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to wake up one day and see "GOP reinstates slavery" or the creation of "Muslim American Internment Camps".

    Given that, done correctly, something around 15% of the US Population can dictate the winner of a presidential election... is it any wonder we are so screwed?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Great. Let's.
    Just marking the place. Are we going to compare the DFL, maybe, apples to apples?
    Uh, no:
    A-a-a-a-nd we're not going to be discussing just Moore. Didn't think so. And we're going to be lumping Franken and Conyers - automatically. Because why not, right? And not the DFL, but "the Democrats" (lumped) are the new fruit.
    The Republican-influenced media defense of Moore is clearly working - the one that's following your playbook, lumping Franken and Moore, remember? The Franken story broke on the 16th - a timing chosen by the Republican Party, btw, although probably for more than just Moore's benefit.
    (Although there's a key factor not visible here: the Dem candidate is not very good at campaigning. Did you see his appearance at the first bigtime news conference after he got the lead in the polls? The local folks had provided him with a podium and microphones set up to make his height look silly, and he walked right into it - didn't know what to do. That's after a week of national mockery of Moore's penchant for macho posturing with cowboy hats and boots and white shirt/vest and the like - an outfit perfectly calculated to make him look even taller and less like a pedophile on TV. Remember Trump looming over Clinton?).
    "The left" is doing no such thing.
    And you have the basic argument wrong - the conjoining of Franken with Moore and Trump "plays down" sexual predation. That's why the Republicans jumped on it - the idea that what Moore was up to is in the same category as what Franken was doing in front of somebody's husband during a photo op is a gift from the Gods.
    What does that mean, exactly - what are the Dems doing in the way of "let this play out"?
    Thing is, Moore is easily replaceable if he proves a political liability in office - you can swap out these Republican minions like legos.
    Anyone with a ghost of common sense can see that Franken's case is different in many respects (including the "establishment" treatment of the victims, btw). The question is the significance attached - what the differences mean. To you, they are obstacles - the ones you can't dismiss or ignore you simply redescribe with alterations to suit.
    Innuendo, slander, and lies in the course of personal accusation from you, deflecting the issues at hand with the same timing, approach, and terms, being employed by the Republican Party's media defense of Moore and Trump (et al). Where's my shocked face, lemme see - - - - in the laundry.
    League? Realm? You were so close. All you had to do was use what I posted when referring to what I posted, you would have got something right.
    We see yet again whose moral and ethical analysis is "flexible" depending on political agenda - including, btw, lumping Franken and Conyers in the first place. You do that by reflex.

    And I know this is irrelevant to your agenda here, but geez, some attention to reality needs to be paid: There's nothing I've ignored less here than the topic of how the responses to Franken - especially yours - will play into the hands of Republicans.
    It goes far beyond the occasional Siamese vocabulary . It's the fundamental abandonment of reason at the core of the Republican Party's ideology.

    It's always in a good cause. And that never helps.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Did you put masking tape on your monitor? Since, you know, staff can't actually put each other on ignore.

    You actually have that backwards. It is those who wish to protect male privilege, who considered the laws implemented by the Obama Administration, that gave more protection to victims, as having gone too far.

    I mean, you do get that, right?

    Advocates for victims see the watering down of these laws by DeVos as being horrifically detrimental to victims, because it ensures that the abuser is protected and not the victim. I mean, you do get that, right?

    So you actually have your interpretation of it backwards.

    Right.. Yes, it's me and my ilk..

    Meanwhile, you spent how many pages trying to water down sexual harassment because you demanded we discuss your friend and how sexual harassment can apparently be a mistake or accidental or something that is just missed, not to mention your fit because when women discuss sexual harassment, we use words like "men" and "men", so you went off your rocker about that too, then of course came your whining that innocent men were being wrongly accused and how the system has to ensure they are really guilty before they lose everything (hey, how 'bout that, what you kept saying pretty much matches what DeVos has been trying to do!).. And so on and so forth. That wasn't me, that was what you spent pages arguing.

    Believe me, we see the relevance to this and the dozens of other lawsuits filed by sexual abusers since she watered down the law, because as you argued in this thread:

    DeVos did exactly what you have argued for. So why are you complaining that a man who sexually harassed a young woman, is suing and quoting her when she watered down those laws and rules? From the article you linked, which contained this quote from the lawsuit:

    “UVM students accused of sexual misconduct, like John Doe, have no meaningful opportunity to be heard and no meaningful right to an appeal. Moreover, they are presumed guilty from the start.”

    Does the meaning of that statement sound familiar?

    Put simply, how many times did you whine about how there is a presumption of guilt (even when the accused admitted to having done it), and how we all apparently want their blood or something to that effect, when it comes to sexual harassment? How many times did you whine about the "both sides", in regards to the accused and the victim, not to mention your whining about false accusations?

    So I don't really get why you find this lawsuit so offensive.

    I mean women and victims will, for obvious reasons, just as we find the changes to the guidelines by DeVos, just as we found her meeting with the "mens rights activists, who have harassed and threatened victims", to advise her on the law instead of meeting with victims and victim advocates, to be offensive.

    You, on the other hand, have been arguing for what the accused is suing for, throughout this thread. So why are you so offended?
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Roy Moore was going to win that election regardless, iceaura. His supporters in Alabama made that clear looong before Franken and Conyers.

    He's their man, he speaks their language. They do not care that he stalked, attempted to rape, sexually assaulted and "dated" teenage girls when he was in his 30's. Read and listen to what they said when the allegations were first made public. They wanted to vote for him because he did it and because he has been accused of it. To them, it was a liberal smear campaign, so they doubled down and dug themselves in.

    As far as they are concerned, Franken, Conyers and how the Democrats did not demand those two stand down, is further evidence of why they should vote for him.

    They attacked the victims, abused them, said all sorts of repulsive things about them.

    Democrats in Congress did not do that to Franken's accusers. Pelosi went on TV and ummed and ahh'ed about believing the victims of Conyers, and then went on to describe him as an icon, a great man who did many great things for women, which really, sets up a false narrative to begin with, because if you believe the women, then what Conyers has been accused of does not make him a great man. Democratic supporters of Franken on websites that should have known and done better, went on and attacked Franken's victims, shamed them, abused them, and they called it a political witch hunt, etc.

    Democrats had the ability and the chance to sink the Republicans when it comes to sexual harassment. Literally and completely. And in my opinion, they have failed. Their actions will and has opened the door to putting the focus on the victims even more, when the GOP kicks Moore to the ethics committee if (when) Moore is elected.

    You seem to think that focusing on Franken is what is getting Moore elected. I disagree. I think Moore winning the election was never at risk in the first place. How the Democrats responded to Franken, is just further confirmation to GOP in Alabama that it's all just political. Do you understand what I am getting at when I say this? Moore sexually assaulting teenage girls was never going to be the thing that sinks him. And Franken's accusations and how the Democrats responded by not requesting he resign because sexual harassment is not acceptable, is further proof to the GOP in Alabama, that as far as they are concerned with Moore, it's just political and not that it would have made any difference, they would have voted for him even if Franken never happened.

    Democrats had the chance to put the focus on how and why sexual harassment is not acceptable. If they had come out and said that Franken should resign, then that would have set the tone that it is not acceptable. It would have sent the message to victims. Instead, we get this bizarre 'yeah, I did it, I believe the women, so I want myself to be investigated to make sure I didn't break any rules' type of response from Franken. What kind of message does that send to victims? The GOP just got a pass, because of that response, not because the media were focusing so much on Franken. Victims will see yet another offender, getting a little smack on the wrist and being able to carry on with his life. And from my standpoint, that's an appalling message to send. The GOP will just see it as justification, a reason to vote for Moore, not only because they don't think he did anything wrong, but because they now know that the Democrats aren't willing to push the boundaries to go for zero tolerance within their ranks.

    Moore most probably will get elected. Not because of Franken or the media focus on Franken apparently took pressure off Moore or kept him out of the front page, but because the GOP simply don't care that he sexually assaulted teenage girls. I mean shit, at least one of them is preaching that he was only ensuring the girls were pure, and another compared him to Mary and Joseph.

    And because of that, the Democratic candidate is unable to campaign on a platform that the Democrats do care about sexual harassment and sexual assault, because it is not acceptable, while knowing full well that he has Pelosi saying she believes the victims, but Conyers is an icon, etc, while Conyers accuses the women who were his staffers, (that the Democrats are saying should be believed) of lying, and because Franken admitted to doing it, admitted that the women must be believed, but he's not willing to resign because of it. And I don't think you can quite grasp what kind of message that sends to victims.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, I don't seem to think that.
    1)You seem much more sure than the polls were, for a bit.
    2) So?
    Yes. Your line, and the Republican Party media line.
    "Democrats" have no such power. "Democrats" do not control the media feed in this country.
    No,"Democrats" didn't. Only intellectuals given voice in the media can do that.
    You thought that didn't matter, earlier.
    That's not a viable campaign meme anyway. Democratic candidates with sense would campaign on caring as their own personal attribute - and would not offer "caring" as a qualification for the job, but as an obvious and understood context of their competent and well-considered policy initiatives.
    1) Who's "they", who can "set the tone" like that? It isn't Pelosi's crowd.
    2) It would more likely (imho) have reinforced the existing impression that the Democrats in general are unstable and unreliable and incompetent and prone to talking themselves into damaging foolishness because it sounds good or the poll-winds were blowing.
    1) Compromising one's relationship with reality in order to "send messages" is a bad idea.
    2) Message receivers, not senders, say what messages have been sent. A message is what is received, not what is supposed to have been sent. Which means there are more to consider, here.
    For example, just one: There is the message that "the Democrats" have talked themselves into a position from which they can't acknowledge the difference between predation, threat, and giving offense; and they will shoot themselves in the foot on demand if you can corner them with that - they will literally take themselves out of office, on the one hand, or defend predation in office, on the other.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    1) It's Alabama. I mean, really, it's Alabama.
    2) Was just making the point.

    You do realise that this just sounds really silly, right?

    My point, throughout this godforsaken thread is that sexual harassment is not partisan. Pointing out the shortcomings of the Democrats on this issue, is not because I support the right. Perhaps you think that's meant to be some sort of put down? Make me feel bad so I shut up or start towing the line.

    a) They had the ability to literally set a standard, to do the right thing in regards to victims around the US.
    b) And I never said they did. What I am saying is that if they had acted accordingly, or to be precise, put their money where their mouths were, so to speak, they would be in a much better position in regards to female voters, than they are now.

    The manner in which they handled the Conyer's allegations and payout, were obscene. The manner in which they tried to take the moral high ground with Franken, and then the other allegations came out and they were already on the back foot, was obscene.

    Victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment expected and deserved better.

    I am tired of these statements, whether they are good or not.

    Let this be a lesson to all you men out there who hope to do any good in the world: We need you to not be shitty. To begin with. Not after the fact, when you release your “statement.” We’d love to have you out there, with us, doing awesome things, but if you can’t do that without sexually harassing or assaulting a woman, then you need to step the hell aside and make space for women and those men who can. That is the line we are drawing. So get with the program or go the hell away
    Democrats should also remember that they cannot win without women. If they keep lobbing these allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault to the ethics committee in an organisation that is designed to protect abusers, then women will continue to notice. In a time where you have Trump in the White House, the GOP in Alabama about to elect a paedophile, the Democrats had the opportunity to do so much better on this issue. What a shame they didn't really live up to the expectation of women and victims.

    And what do you think would have happened with those intellectuals if the Democrats had taken a zero tolerance approach. As in an actual one instead of the wishy washy approach they have taken this time?

    You keep carrying on as though the Democrats don't have a voice. That's rubbish. They would have had a much more positive media representation, instead of what they got (I still shudder with disgust at Pelosi's interview) and the dodging the Franken allegations when they had all come out.

    Moore beat out more, well, less insane candidates in his primary, because people wanted a right wing lunatic who's all about god and country, who is a bigot, a sexist arsehole, homophobic and a white male. Doug Jones would have had a better chance if the Democrats acted more strongly towards Franken and Conyers, and they would have had the ammunition to hang it around the necks of the GOP for Moore being in Congress. Now they don't.

    While many will go on and on about how Franken and Conyers did not molest little girls, but if that's the standard, then yeah, you're in trouble because women aren't stupid and women are sick of the double speak when it comes to sexual violence.

    Actually, they wouldn't have. Especially not when they would have had the GOP with Trump and a paedophile to point out too. The response would have correctly been that they would have the party that did not tolerate such treatment of women in any way, shape or form.

    And I can assure you, female voters would not have been uttering the words "I'm tired of these statements, whether they are good or not" when it comes to the Democrats.

    Well, now they are stuck. With no moral high ground left and female voters suggesting that if they can't do their job of doing good for women without sexually harassing or assaulting women, then they should be stepping aside. Still think you're in a good position?

    If this is a political stunt, then the people behind it surely want Franken to stay. Tweeden made a big public show of forgiving Franken and asking him to remain in the Senate. That could be sincere, or it could be that Tweeden and her friends in conservative media believe that Republicans will reap maximum benefit from Franken staying put.

    If so, it's hard to deny that they're being crafty. Every day Franken remains in the Senate as a visible symbol of liberal hypocrisy, Republicans get a free pass to grope, harass and abuse women. Any effort by journalists or Democrats to hold them accountable will be met with, "What about him?" Even misogynist legislation, which Republicans love more than dogs love their owners, will prosper under the Al Franken shield. If Sen. Kristen Gillibrand tries to pass more anti-rape legislation, too bad! Why? Al Franken!

    Republicans have been desperately hoping for a Democrat they could point to who has engaged in non-consensual sexual conduct. They've been dining out on Bill Clinton for two decades now, even though his actual transgression — not the ones from the fever swamps of right-wing conspiracy theories, but the one for which there is credible evidence — was a consensual affair with an adult woman who, to this day, refuses to play along with right-wing nonsense. It's thin gruel indeed, but the Franken matter offers them something with a little meat.

    The grim fact of the matter is conservatives can't defend their own values, especially around gender, on the merits. So they're forced to rely on allegations of liberal hypocrisy as their main rhetorical weapon. That's why, as Justin Peters recently pointed out on Trumpcast, a large proportion of Fox News programming is based on stories of liberals supposedly failing to live up to their own values. The narrative can be summed up as, "Sure, equality and fairness and justice sound nice and all, but no one can actually live that way."

    If Franken apologizes for his misdeeds and resigns from the Senate, on the other hand, that sends a message that liberals actually do live up to those values — and that other people can, as well. The most immediate effect would be to redirect attention back to Roy Moore's long and troubling record of sexual misbehavior. The long-term political benefits would be considerable, in that liberals would maintain the moral authority to denounce every Republican, including Trump, who is accused doing something similar.

    There's a moral component to this, as well. If Al Franken is largely shielded from consequences, because he's a beloved Democrat who supports a wide range of progressive causes, that sends a message to future victims of sexual harassment that coming forward is not worth it. Preserving Franken's seat in the Senate -- since his replacement, in this context, will clearly be another Democrat -- isn't worth the long-term harm this could do to women.

    But, instead, we'll get public ethic committee hearings where the victims will be grilled. Yeah, that sends a really good message to women and in particular, victims.
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Welp, looks like Moore is taking the low road:

    Congratulations conservative" Christians" - I'm sure Christ is proud of you.
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    It's worth noting the sarcasm isn't so problematic as what it stands for.

    The issue at hand was about what you wanted it to be, your priorities. The difference between, "maybe I'm pissed off that Bells is, yet again, intent on debating me rather than the issue at hand", and, "I wasn't aware that I wasn't permitted to defend myself from unfounded accusations", is itself a change of subject that, typically speaking, means someone is speaking while angry, as such, and therefore simply filling in the blanks.

    Well, this is part of the problem; your narrative is a political pitch, a sales pitch. Maybe it works with other audiences. You know, like, there I was just mindin' my own business and then bam! everyone's talkin' 'bout me. But you did kind of demand your priorities. And, here, I'm going to try to tell you what that means, so, you know, please, can you stuff the fucking sarcasm long enough to get through it?

    • Have you ever watched an interview when the journalist just won't let the subject answer a question? Chris Matthews likes to talk about challenging politicians, and never letting them have an easy answer, but part of that is asking a question, refusing to let them answer, and then complaining they never answered. He's hardly the only one, and probably not the worst; he is, however, really obvious and obnoxious when he gets up on that horse.

    • There's a version of it you have in your family or closest social circles, too, where people get into an argument because one asks another a question, and while the answer comes in, say, three parts—(e.g., start with A, which leads to B like this, resulting in C right here)—this person will always cut you off partway through A and start arguing absurdly in order to change the subject.​

    This is what society does to women pretty much perpetually. Like I suggested earlier in this thread↑, there will be a time to speak, but for right now shit is either changing or not, and that part isn't my decision; it would behoove me, and benefit everyone in my society, to not go fucking up that transformation just to feel like I'm somehow empowered.

    So, yeah. Actually, what that means is specifically avoiding what you or Iceaura are doing. Ah, futility! let me count the ways, except where do I begin counting?

    Once upon a time we required woman should stop and explain to society, y'know, how she knew he was really "grabbing" her butt, and, y'know, how she "knows" it wasn't an accident, and something or other about why she's even tempting him in the first place.

    Oh, wait, once upon a when?

    The institutional complicity we've all known about and generally accepted really is appalling when we attempt to take genuine inventory of what our society has made of this mess.

    But still, as we pause to consider harassment in the U.S. Capitol and various state houses, and confidentiality agreements akin to Hollywood settlements, as well as the hideous accusations against Matt Lauer and their implications for NBC; no, really, the idea that his assistant is summoning medical aid for his victims and the network had no effing clue? Please remember, we are working with behavioral and customary spectra, here, that include rape survivors apparently needing attorneys to protect them while they report rapes. In the middle of this cacophonous pageant of grotesqueries, I hear and read the same thing we've heard and read so many times before, including women saying they wish they never reported because of the way they were treated by the people who were supposed to help them. So when we hear about victims fearing for their careers, it's not just Hollywood or NBC News, it's also state legislatures and Congress.

    And the whole time, while we'be been asking about what she did wrong, the one thing we men have found impossible, inconceivable, unacceptable, or whatever, is that we should conduct ourselves in such a manner as to leave no room for misunderstanding about what happened; for instance, we might find some way to not accidentally tickle her vagina while standing behind her, or grind our penis against her ass, or forget that there is anything dubious about wandering around naked in front of an employee just because you asked her to come to your house, or keep the office door locked while yelling and berating her for refusing sex, or ....


    So, Caroline Orr↱ made a certain point—

    I keep hearing people say the recent flood of sexual assault allegations has men "looking over their shoulder" and wondering if they're next. There's a really easy way to answer that question: Have you ever sexually harassed or assaulted a woman? No? Good. Yes? You're next.

    —and, yeah, y'know, I'm not going to be the one to mansplain to her how the problem is the number of men unable to answer the question because they don't know how. It might be important; she's a social scientist, though, so she probably already knows.

    But that's part of what society is doing this time. It's quite clear by the trend of who asks and answers about believing the accusers that the primary discourse isn't willing to dick around with doubting traditionalist bullshit; the desperate will as they feel the urge ... I mean, need ... but, generally speaking, even attending the women as they work back toward the proper measures of and responses to harassment and abuse is a breathless exercise.

    Still, I might point to any number of women on msnbc; Katy Tur has been breathless and dazed, as if the meteor shower is bigger than anyhing she could imagine, at least since Charlie Rose fell. Every time they gather 'round the table to try to figure a few things out it's like something else catches fire; the Lauer episode was like a bomb went off. Stephanie Ruhle is probably one you'll want to pay attention to in terms of trying to find workplace footing. Meanwhile, a bunch of them are all getting together; Tur is apparently going to marry Tony Dokoupil; Stephanie Gosk, who spent some time today explaining what it's like trying to cover a story that explodes so close as the Lauer disgrace, is married to Jenna Wolfe. Ruhle is married to a hedge funder, but they met on the job in a training program.

    But that's the thing, neither are they parsing your issues according to your priorities, so I don't know how much those or any similar discussions of the issue might help.

    ―End Part I
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Part the Second

    Meanwhile, shall we go down to the strand and yell at the tide about where the waves should break? Because one of the things we men tend to do when faced with the realities of rape culture is start demanding women answer the sorts of questions no one person can necessarily answer.

    Like your poke-war question. I'm presuming some manner of workplace, academic, or other formal or quasiformal setting, and in that case, well, do you want Bells' assessment as a woman, a survivor of harassment from coworkers, or an attorney, and if the latter are we splitting hairs 'twixt sides of the ocean?

    Do you understand what I mean about women doing to you what you're doing to Bells? When the subject arises, we all turn to our nearest rape survivor for comfort: Tell me, please, I'm not as bad as those men!

    If I want to know what women think, I ask women; again, you can try to be sarcastic, but this is actually a more difficult point than it needs to be, so, yeah, it's a matter of priorities.

    Because I can ask Bells, and she can tell me. And then I can ask one of my longest friends, and she can tell em. And I can ask my mother, and she can tell me. And now I have a data set of three samples; I can tell you a bit about what these three people think; what I cannot tell you is what "women" think.

    So consider your poke-war inquiry. What difference does it make? Certes, it makes some difference in your understanding of certain aspects related to these issues, but what difference? Because you now have precisely one data point about that. And, sure, it is what it is, but a drop of water compared to the torrent washing over our society is, as much as I appreciate my friend, a drop of water. As a human witness, she is beyond any appraisal of value; as a woman, she tells me about things I need to understand in order to get along with my fellow human beings. As a societal analyst, an attorney, an international, a fellow Sciforums member, a staff colleague, or any of that, she's one of the brightest stars in the firmament. But there is only so much she can do.

    I can't ask her to absolve my sins. Do you get it? That's not Bells' job. It's not her job to make me feel better about any of it.

    But that's what we do to women, as a society, and, yes, as men.

    So, this time we don't get to ask if the accuser is certain, or how she knows it isn't a misunderstanding. So next thing we do in order to confound her is start laying out our own fears and asking this or that woman to resolve the conflict or absolve our sins.

    And what we get out of it is a change of subject, a redirection of the discussion toward traditional ineffectual excuses, and precisely one data point from a person we've just gone out of our way to insult.

    To be as cold as fucking possible, what is the ROI?

    So let's start for a moment with Iceaura, because part of the problem leading to this dispute in the early pages has to do, quite honestly, with the focus on partisan politics. To wit, your post at #149↑. Look, I'm not going to begrudge you the point about "conservative Christians" ... but ... okay, I know it seems like a digression, but you might be aware I have that thing going on in another subforum about how much people understand about what they criticize, and the thing about that particular subject matter making it relevant is that, as you might imagine, there is an aspect by which you're preaching to the choir. So, to be a little blunt: Question One—What does it matter? And then: Question Two—What is the threshold defining the difference?

    So, yeah. Roy Moore is acting just like a rapist. I'm sorry, but he is one of many powerful political officials I've been aware of who disdains recognizing the relevance of consent in sexual intercourse, as it interferes with his political goals to do so. By the way, there is a guy named William Pryor on the bench in the Eleventh, and he's just the same, and my two Democratic female U.S. Senators voted to give him a bench on the grounds that a president nominated him.

    Think about that for a minute: When George W. Bush was nominating judges, rejecting the relevance of consent to sexual intercourse was not disqualifying.

    Kittamaru, this is Rape Culture. This is it. What you're looking at is a very high profile mask of rape culture being dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight.

    There is nothing new about what is happening, and while it is true, "conservative Christians", and it is true, "Republicans", it is not exclusively true, and we do humanity, both at large and our own, disservice trying to contain it as such.

    And remember that one of the stories about Christ that didn't make the Bible was the one where the Apostles went off on Him for getting on a prostitute and loving her more than He loved them, and the problem was that they religious charismatic using His position to oblige a woman who believed He saved her life to have sex with Him.

    So, I mentioned Iceaura↑, and this might make the point well enough:

    "Both the women initially speaking about Franken voted for Trump, apparently. Is that part of their message?"

    As delicately as possible: ¿Are you fucking kidding me?

    (Notice the lack of block caps, exclamation points, and additional, more pointed profanity. Like I said, as delicately as possible.)​

    I fucking dare anyone to justify that.

    And you? Okay, so, just work with me here: Do you have any idea how many questions I need to ask before I have a grasp on your poke-war context so that I can offer some answer operating in the orbit you intend? And, hey, Bells is a lawyer; she'll just ask more.

    So, please, I need you to think about the effect: Wait, wait, wait, what about this? Okay, well, what about this? If there's a clear-cut principle at stake, it isn't apparent, and if you're burying the lede, we might wonder why. Thus, we might foresee a point at having hashed it out with you, and what have we accomplished? Well, now you have one data point that means nothing compared to the actual scale of the phenomenon, but at least people are talking about what you'd rather be talking about.

    Generally speaking, you needn't worry about style, sir. The problem has to do with what you put it toward.

    (postscript: Please note, for instance, the title I'm using in the work cited, below; it's derived from an old MLA format for Twitter that disappeared long before the two-eighty shift, which in its own turn renders the current standard unusable. More to the point, it ends up being a pretty brutal title, doesn't it? However, consider occasions when we want to believe that someone didn't mean something to be so godawful as they said it, like Iceaura's line about the Franken accusers. But just like Iceaura gaffed that formulation, we can rest assured that someone in the sphere of men pelting Caroline Orr with inquiries and retorts has used the phrase she put in quotes. And what I cannot stress enough is that we're not going to do that; and as much as you're going to want to tell me that's not what you're on about, okay, fine, but in that case then please wake the fuck up enough to recognize that is actually the form you're accomplishing.)​


    Orr, Caroline. "I keep hearing people say the recent flood of sexual assault allegations has men 'looking over their shoulder' and wondering if they're next."

  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    To the first question - it only really matters in that these little cultists stick together, and support their perceived "leaders", regardless of what they have done wrong (to wit - the number of people calling in to support Roy Moore going "At least he's not a liberal" or "at least he's not a democrat"). They will excuse any and all bad behavior and perform incredible mental gymnastics in order to to keep "their" party in power... even when said party is continually shitting all over them.

    To the second question - as it stands, I don't believe there really is one - both sides are, as has been pointed out, guilty of this "cult" like behavior, though in my experience, the left had tended to be a bit less likely to forgive egregious trespasses - now, though, things seem so polarized that they have gotten just as bad, and will call for the utter destruction of someone if the smell of a charge even wafts to their noses.

    Is it safe to say, yet, that our system is so utterly, completely, and totally broken as to be, well, fucking pointless? Wouldn't it seem prudent to fix said broken system, the one that keeps elevating people who have done these acts (as well as protecting those already elevated from the consequences of them) into these positions of power?

    Or... do we keep gnashing our teeth and wailing and doing exactly nothing useful about it?
  18. Bells Staff Member

    So, your fit pitching was just what, exactly? Posturing? Chest thumping?

    You know, we've been through this before. You go on a rampage, and then suddenly change your mind and pretend and carry on as though what you said and did never happened..


    Now go and look in the mirror.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

  20. Bells Staff Member

    Oh hey, look. More subject changing. How strange and unusual.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Curiously enough - NPR just this morning had a quick mention on their show 1A regarding the fact that they have had numerous men and women calling in saying they are rethinking how they interact with others in the workplace because of the increased awareness on sexual harassment, including mentioning concerns about how to avoid making mistakes or inadvertently crossing boundaries, as well as folks calling in with advice and statements about it. I guess this isn't as "cut and dry" as some like to make it out to be after all.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's not accidental, that dishonesty.
    It's deliberate. Bell's can be accidental, flailing and intemperate mental confusion. Not yours.
    Kidding? I'm accusing. I'm calling you out - on (among other matters) your "the women are speaking" bullshit response to my posted issue - shorthanded as the Republicans are speaking, and they largely control the microphones, if you are claiming incomprehension and need it dumbed down for you.

    Like Bells, you're assuming a good cause justifies slanders, lies, lousy arguments, and blatant injustices, while the moral high ground is yours by presumption of the good cause. You need to rethink that last, in particular.

    You're also forgetting your very own argument regarding the many objections to celebrating the miserable, even cowardly, political record of Hillary Clinton, which was just more deflection and bs from you in that context, but is sharply relevant here: This isn't a suicide pact, this US government. Neither is the Democratic Party, for that matter (the Reps, maybe, but not the Dems).

    Might have been daughter-educating Thomas More ( who said it, memory fails: If you cut down all the trees to chase the Devil, where do you hide when He turns?
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, you are going to call anyone out—

    —when you're just randomly making shit up.

    Seriously, try supporting your make-believe. Oh, right, you can't.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page