women's march

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Jan 20, 2018.

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

    Always remember the statistical possibility that by defining "reasonable", you might be including rape culture.

    See, the thing is that I get what you mean in the context of, say, a jury in Florida acquitting a rape because a woman was wearing a bikini, and any reasonable person knows that means she was asking for it.

    Or the idea of the reasonable prosecutor who reasonably reasons that a reasonable jury in his county would refuse to convict a confessed rape.

    Reasonable is as reasonable does, but is also a subjective term.

    I might imagine that living in the fog of rape culture, you don't quite understand that you make my point for me.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Honestly, I am just not seeing this--either from Bells or from Tiassa.

    Again, several threads and over a hundred pages precede, but I simply do not recall anything of the sort.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I have no idea why not. It isn't exactly subtle. A wordsearch on screeching / bawling / whining / crying / partisan / "sexual assault" / etc etc should turn up a few dozen examples for your rereading pleasure. Or you could try making a case for general agreement that Franken exhibited no "malice aforethought", and that being a consideration in choosing how to handle his Senate tenure - the timing as well as the necessity of resignation, say - on this forum.

    Then again, you are seeing wholly imaginary stuff like whatever is behind this:
    QUOTE="parmalee, post: 3501126, member: 54486"]It's almost as though you're imagining Franken as a sort of classic schlemiel, with a preternatural tendency to accidentally grope people. Doesn't the serial nature--barring this most unusual preternatural inclination--at least suggest intent?[/QUOTE]
    So maybe there's an eyesight problem. Can't help you there.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    A jury, prosecutor, or criminologist concluding that a woman’s attire contributed to her being singled out by a rapist is reasonable. For them to conclude that her attire excuses the actions of the rapist is not.
    How does advocating for a consistent standard for the characterization of assault and its punishment put me in that fog bank?
  8. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    I find it interesting that eye witness testimony is deemed to be true in these instenses. Go on over to the UFO thread and see how eye witness testimony is treated there.
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Did a ufo grope someone.
    I'd like to see that.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Because the issue is Tweeden's body. Her politics do not really have much to do with it.

    Iceaura, you have determined that typing the word "it" is dishonest. So you'll excuse me if I roll my eyes some more at your claims of dishonesty.

    Aww did you?

    Aren't you sweet.

    When you argue and espouse the same ideology (sexual harassment vs politics) as EF, Capracus, Kitta, then it's pretty clear it's not a brain glitch.

    There's a reason why many eyebrows are raised at some of what you have been posting, Mr "depends on the politics".

    Aww, you think you are right.

    That too, is very sweet.

    Again with the faction...

    What faction? Who is this faction?

    You know, most people realise when they have overstepped the boundaries of "I'm sounding like a douche" and they stop. Not you though. Oh no, you don't just stride.. You run, arms spread akimbo, mouth open, tongue lolling, eyes wide open and nostrils flaring.

    I'm sorry.

    I don't see sexual assault as a joke or a prank.

    I get it, you think it's hiiilaaariouuuss.

    I don't.

    I know, I know, it means that I'm in a "dense ultra-feminist fog" that I don't try and excuse sexual assault because the victim is buxom and busty and shook her tata's as a profession and well, the dude just couldn't help himself because an opportunity arose for him to put his hands on her breast and his tongue in her mouth without her consent, since ya know, she did put herself out there... But there you have it. You think a woman's body is owned by others, to be used as a prop, because hey, she shook those boobies for entertainment way back whenever. I don't.


    People often try to excuse sexual assault and sexual violence as a crime of opportunity. Funny that, huh? I mean here you are, using the same excuse and labeling it a prank.

    *Raise eyebrows*

    Do you think it's not sexual assault if she is asleep?

    The photo paints an image of a sexual assault, since ya know, she was asleep and he was grabbing her boobs. Since she is asleep, she could not consent.

    I mean, you still have difficulty with this?

    Most pranks do not involve sexual assault.

    Funnily enough, pranks that involve sexual assault tend to have women as victims. Interesting, no?
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Do people get away with this sort of name-calling here?
    Does anyone read this as anything but calling the guy "a douche"?

    That seems both insulting and, speaking of sexual harassment, possibly sexual.
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    He wasn't grabbing her boobs, but the picture definitely would make her uncomfortable imagining what else he may have done while she was asleep.
    And he probably wouldn't have done it if she was awake. Both mean it was wrong.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Neither her body nor her politics were the issue in my post - the one you claimed to be answering. Want to try for three different ringers about the one post? That would equal your record.
    What I determined was that you had actually lied by typing the word "it", in a response to one of my posts. I didn't say anybody else could do that.
    I don't. That's the brain glitch talking.
    Claiming I do is a falsehood. Your intention, in posting such false claims, is slander.
    That's lying, slandering, and misrepresentation. It's all you post, in response to my posting, and all you can post. all I'm going to be dealing with from you from now on is repetitive, tedious, crazy bullshit. Nothing of value, no opportunity for exchange, reason, discussion, with you. So be it. You can't change.
    But I can continue to repeat: You are posting lies, slander, and misrepresentation - and absolutely nothing else - as responses to my posting. You haven't managed an honest post in response to me for months now. You're trapped.

    And very possibly so is the rest of your faction here in Minnesota politics. They aren't going to answer to reason. So the interesting question for me becomes one of protecting what representation I and folks like me have in the DFL, and through it in Minnesota and national politics, from the effects of having these people setting themselves up as the advocates of women's rights and the leading progressive lights of the DFL, the self-identified and very visibly so occupants of the moral high ground. Because in my experience the Dems in MN win and lose on reliable competence, the ability to make sense with courage - and that means these people can get the DFL beat as a Party, and any given DFL candidate with it, because they aren't making sense and they don't look reliably competent. So this is a high risk situation, even though Tina Smith reassuringly split with Klobuchar and cast Franken's vote against Stras.

    And attended the women's march, in Minnesota, last year: http://www.valleynewslive.com/conte...the-State-of-the-State-Address-411594095.html
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Oh it is very much a central issue here, iceaura.

    Wait, we need your permission to use words like "it" now?

    When you answered "depends on the politics" to that question, and then pitched a massive hissy fit because I dared to use the words "it" at the start of that quote in a general sentence and you accused me of lying.. Are you now suggesting that I needed your permission to use the word "it"?

    What the hell kind of authoritarian bent do you have, "depends on the politics"?

    "Depends on the politics".

    That was you, remember?

    And the only thing you post is accusations of lies, slander, blah blah blah, while managing to dodge and avoid actually standing up for your own arguments.

    Oh, I forgot your bizarre accusations about people belonging to factions and whatnot. Why? Because it "depends on the politics".

    That has been your stance all along.

    Emphasis mine..

    See, my contention throughout this whole sorry saga is that people are willing to overlook the worst for the sake of their own politics. That the outrage is political. You accused me of lying.. "depends on the politics".

    So you don't get to accuse people of lying, of dishonesty, of slander, when your own words are quoted back to you.
    And you have not managed to post anything that was not the desperate neurotic mewling of political hackery in defense of sexual harassment and sexual assault for the sake of politics and party.

    Once again, what is this faction that I apparently belong to in Minnesota, all the way from Australia?

    Wait, what representation?

    Weren't you the one who whined that it was "not your party"?

    And if you think that a man who gropes multiple women without their consent is the advocate for women's rights, then frankly, it shows how little you value women to begin with. Because women don't deserve a candidate who views women like props and property for him to fondle and grab as he wishes? This is what you throw down for, and then have the gall to demand that he is the voice for women's rights?

    Maybe next time, don't run a guy who gropes women as a candidate.
  15. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    I don't either. But unlike you I don't confuse the two.
    Or in this case you erroneously try to label a prank as a sexual assault. Not so much funny as sad.
    I don't think it's sexual assault when its not. The photo shows his hands over her breasts, not grabbing them. And unless Franken's got a tongue like Gene Simmons, I doubt he's guilty of this characterization as well.
    Niether did this one.
    If I had been on that plane asleep in place of Tweeden, with Franken's nose in contact with the crotch of my pants, should I have felt violated? Seeing a photo of such down the line would have likely made me laugh.
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Rather, you simply argue to reserve safe circumstance for sexual assault.


    You should probably inform yourself before saying such things.

    Really, the two-bit ignorance routine you're trying around here just doesn't work. You're only establishing yourself as a troll.

    We've already been through the part where the rape advocate calls a woman a dick so he can boast that's why he is being a dick.

    We've been through multiple iterations of the male supremacist trying to blame his own posts on other people.

    We've been through the wannabe arguing customary safe space for sexual harassment.

    Your expectations reflect mere abstraction, and consider nothing of history either in these particular discussions or what goes on, generally, around here. After you've been around, a while, you will get the hang of it.

    Mostly what this current iteration is about is some people are upset that their favorite U.S. Senator has taken a fall. Meanwhile, notice how little of this thread actually has to do with the actual marches. The opening of the discussion is rather quite telling for its priorities.

    Keep trying, though. You'll eventually get the hang of it.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And notice how that happened. Priorities indeed visible.
    Not in my post, the one you were explicitly answering. You were being dishonest, strawmanning and pretending, once again.
    That is you being dishonest, and slandering by misrepresentation. The question is why you do that.
    I'm not accusing "people", I'm accusing you. Other people sometimes post honestly in response to my posting. You essentially never do, any more.
    That's something you claim, dishonestly, is a feature of my posting. You then lie, slander, and misrepresent to support the claim.
    Yep. The recent post is right in front of you. Can you read it in good faith, and respond honestly? No, you cannot.
    "Demand"? In there with mewling and whining and all the rest of that sorry rhetoric.
    It's a track record Franken had, eight years of not only voice but votes and actions and bills and risk-taking - it's not something you can claim does not exist. It's better and stronger in that respect than Klobuchar's, or Clinton's, or Gillebrand's - he was in the middle of taking another one of those risks, in opposition to a Federalist Society stealth pro-lifer appointed by Trump to the lifetime Federal bench, when your faction of the DNC kicked him to the curb. And the best news for women's rights to emerge from the fiasco so far has been that his replacement followed through, at least symbolically, on his opposition - even splitting with Klobuchar to do it. So the rookie Senator showed more backbone, on a hard women's rights issue, than the senior one. Now if she can get elected in ten months, outright disaster for women's rights may have been averted. And if she, or whoever the DFL nominates, loses in November - well, that was a risk your faction was willing to take, for ten months less of Franken's presence on the Judiciary and other committees. No doubt the rest of the women's marchers will appreciate your Message sent.
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    So if you can justify it to yourself, you can call people names? Okay. If that what's allowed around here.
    Who am I to question it.

    Haven't read whole topic. Who is the "rape advocate"? Hopefully that's not just more name-calling.
    Who's the "male supremacist"?
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    It seems that, whether or not there is actual peer pressure, this woman does perceive the risk for it.
    So if anyone is attacking other women, it would be this cancer survivor. The assumption was her's.

    Even if that is an unfounded worry, I'm not sure I would want to criticize the cancer survivor.
    Since she wants to go, I'd assume she agrees with the cause of supporting other women.
    It seems it could both be true that she supports the cause and that she thinks women might generally be catty or politicizing.
  20. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    And you argue to unreasonably characterize sexual assault to promote a corrupt social agenda.
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    I see where Bells does not accede to the distinctions you make here:
    because, say, "predators from jerks" isn't quite appropriate, being as a "jerk" is by no means necessarily a sexual assailant (which Franken is). I do not see where Bells, or Tiassa, argue that--like, say, Weinstein's--Franken's actions were premeditated and planned.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There are a lot of posts of mine in which I do not mention Franken's apparent lack of planning and predatory scheme. So?
    There are also posts in which I do - and the reactions have been memorable, for me at least.
    Try arguing the case - try arguing here that the response to Franken, how the Dems handle him, would better have been calibrated according to Franken's lack of "malice aforethought" ( and apparent willingness to take no for an answer, and lack of threat or retaliation, and so forth).
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    OK, I'm convinced by our two bu, ooops, sorry members re women's rights, sexual harrassment etc etc. And I'll promise to do my best to achieve all that this momentous movement believes it should achieve.... I will
    [1] Make an effort to contact all women who have ever been "wolf whistled" over the last 60 years or so to bring charges to bear against those that so terribly harrassed them.
    [2] , Contact all women who have ever had a bloke "perve" in their direction, to bring charges against those evil blokes that perpetrated such a crime.
    [3] I will promise to cease standing up in a bus for anyone of female gender.
    [4] I will promise never again to let any women before me in any shopping checkout queue.
    [5[ I will cease to attempt to help any women who is carrying a load of grocies or whatever.
    [6]I will make every effort to change laws so that to make sure any women who has been shown to have unjustly accused any man of sexual harrassment, to automatically receive whatever sentence that the man they accused would have received.eg: life imprisonment for rape or as applies in some places, the death penalty.
    [7] I will make efforts to see the laws change that will prevent any male person that is part of the Surf life Saving orginisation, to be prevented from rescuing any women in distress and to be able to give any form of ressucitation to that person, that involves mouth to mouth contact and/or the pumping of the chest [breasts] for obvious reasons.
    Vociferous likes this.

Share This Page