Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Dec 7, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    13,938
    I keep seeing the words "political expediency" thrown around... and it makes me chuckle.

    https://twitter.com/1IronMan2018/status/941080049868042240

    The fact that the GOP has decided they won't wait for Jones to be seated, despite demanding the exact same thing less than a decade ago. The fact that they refused to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee because they didn't feel a legitimate and sitting President should get his constitutional right in his last year in office, yet are pushing through some of the most unqualified fuckwits as fast as possible for a "President" that is about as obviously illegitimate as possible without a military coup. The fact that The GOP are tying bits and pieces to undermine the ACA, Social Security, Medicare, et al to bills that have nothing to do with them...

    It isn't a matter of expediency. It's a matter of morality; to wit, it is a fairly classic "trolly car" question - out of control trolly car is barreling towards a crowd of people, who will surely die when they are struck. You can flip a switch to divert it onto another track, killing one person instead. What is the "right" decision, when there is no "good" decision?

    I would say the one that does the least damage and the least harm over the greatest period of time.

    But, alas, our neighbors don't agree - they would prefer their short term, shortsighted, and utterly irrelevant "victories", while allowing the country to slide back into the dark ages with a group that has a proven track record of "party over country" and "party over duty", a proven record of simply ignoring their constituents, and a proven record of doing untold damage to the economy at the whims of their corporate masters.

    I think a song is appropriate here...

    I guess my question at this point is... when are we going to say enough to this Animal Farm bullshit? All are equal, but some are apparently more equal... and right now, as the hold the government hostage, Conservatives are demanding special dispensation that nobody currently holds the power to prevent and hold them to task.

    Even better, they are betraying members of their own party, making promises they have no intent to keep in order to get their agenda passed... what possible reason do we have to expect that they will hold the best interests of the most vulnerable among us to heart?

    So far, nobody has been able to answer that question...

    Oh well... I guess Democracy truly does die in darkness. I only hope that this schism forming thanks to Moore's defeat continues to grow, because obviously the best hope is for them to fall apart from the inside, since we can't rally well enough to put up a united front.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, that's out of context. You are reframing. Calling that, out of context, "my question", is dishonest.
    You took that out of context, reframed it, and answered your new, reframed question. That was dishonest.
    The failure of team Franken-boot to address what Franken actually did, among their other failures, (relevant to my issue, the political side) is likely to be politically damaging - to what extent, remains to be seen.
    I have never misrepresented what you posted. You have continually misrepresented my posting. (Even right there, notice: "everything I have said" for one post on one short sentence - you can't help it, it's reflex by now).
    And that's not a narrative - unlike you, I have not invented backstory, motive, plot, etc.
    There is no answer to asserted falsehood - it's not a question.

    This, on the other hand:
    Depends on the politics. In this case, in this particular political situation and given the "level" established by the particular public accounts so far, Franken should in my opinion have been left in office until after the 2018 elections. You may morally and ethically disagree, after considering the matter. But only after considering the matter.

    Failing to consider the matter, before acting, is not high moral ground. It is abandoning reason, and opening the door to the monsters already on the step.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,938
    Sadly, reason was abandoned long ago in favor of knee-jerk reactions and emotional outbursts that, ultimately, only serve to further damage the chances of any sort of meaningful reform that would actually protect these people and allow victims of abuse to come forward.

    We have not only opened the door for the monsters, but given them the remote, set them in the arm chair, and told them to make themselves at home. I don't see them giving that advantage up willingly.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    People who do not understand something, often end up laughing to hide their own inadequacies.

    Oh hey, you are still trolling and still changing the subject.

    You should look up the meaning of the word "expediency". Really. You should. Please.

    Acting immorally for politics is what is meant by "political expediency". In other words, you arguing that your side holds on to its sex offenders for the sake of politics, is basically you arguing for political expediency.

    So when you say "it isn't a matter of expediency. It's a matter of morality", it shows that you don't really understand what the word "expediency" means, in particular how it applies to and for politics.

    In other words, you are arguing for the Democrats holding onto their sex offenders because of politics. You are arguing that women and victims of sexual violence vote for and support a party that protects sex offenders because one day in the future, those sex offenders might argue for the rights of those women and victims.

    As I said, you are willing to protect and overlook sex offenders for the sake of political expediency. In other words, you are willing to act in an immoral fashion and manner, for politics.

    Which frankly makes you as bad as the GOP who support Trump and endorsed Moore, because of politics. They are willing to ignore morality and principals to win. Makes you just as bad as they are.

    Firstly, you and I aren't neighbours. My neighbours stand up against sex offenders and aren't willing to throw their morality out the window just for the sake of winning and politics.

    Secondly, if you are willing to support and protect sex offenders, then you do not deserve to win.

    Thirdly, if you are willing to support and protect sex offenders for politics, then it makes you as bad as the GOP for endorsing, supporting and protecting Trump and the likes of Moore.

    Finally, if you are willing to support and protect sex offenders for politics, then for women, you are knowingly sliding the country back to the dark ages where women and their rights cease to matter for the sake of policy. Because doing that, you will become the party of "party over country", because you are willing to protect these people who knowingly and deliberately harm women.

    Are you now trying to argue that women are saying they are "more equal" for having an expectation that men not sexually harass and sexually assault women, and in particular, men in positions of power not sexually harass and sexually assault?

    Do you believe your rights are being eroded because women have an expectation of being able to be safe in society and an expectation that the Democratic Party is a safe place for women?

    Then perhaps you should refrain from adopting their policies when it comes to sex offenders.

    Perhaps you should stop demanding that women vote for men while ignoring what these men have done to women.

    You should perhaps look up the meaning of democracy as well. Because protecting sex offenders to win, is not democracy. It's just shitty policy that makes you as bad as the people you are whining about.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Fighting it cost money and time and energy. how did the victims of McCarthy feel abotu fighting it, or the McMartin Preschool teachers. Lets say a police officer shoots your dog for shit and giggles, you can fight them in a court of law for damages, that does not make what happened to you OK.

    Franken was forced to resign for political reasons, a sacrifice to try to make the republicans now culpable (good luck!) for their immorality. If he assaulted these women is not for you to say, only a court of law.

    Kittamaru,

    Nice bronie video

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    Did I chop and change your question? No. I posted it in full with my answer.

    Just because I am not answering as you want me to is your issue, not mine.

    I didn't reframe it, nor did I take it out of context. I posted your question in full with my answer.

    What is dishonest is your refusal to accept my answer of "neither".

    I would suggest that asking him to resign because of what he did, is addressing what he did. You seem to be arguing that he should remain in place, that the victims be dragged through a public process where their legal rights would not be protected, would be a better policy. That goes against helping women and is solely for the benefit of Franken and men like him. Because imagine what it would do to women and victims of sexual violence if the ethics committee returned with a ruling that groping women and forcing kisses on women without their consent did not constitute wrongdoing or sexual harassment? Is that what you would prefer? Franken did not think his actions were bad to begin with, and that is the biggest problem. Had he not resigned, it is more than likely that more women would come forward and his own history and 'comedy' routines, and the books he wrote where he joked about raping women and children, would hang on him and the party for a long long time.

    You cut out what I actually said and posted one sentence out of context and altered the meaning of what I actually said. That is dishonest.

    Just as some here have been trying to reinvent sexual harassment and alter its meaning to ensure that Franken is protected is harassment and despicable, not to mention the many posting in this thread who have attempted to excuse sexual harassment and sex crimes for the sake of politics, is despicable. That is the narrative you have been projecting in this thread, along with several others and all for the sake of politics. It is inexcusable.

    You cannot answer it because if you said yes, that it was not acceptable, then your argument for Franken would go out the window.

    You need to decide whether sexual harassment is acceptable behaviour or not to the point that 8 women coming forward should not mean that he is made to resign. That is on you. You need to decide if you are willing to accept that your preferred politician sexually harasses and molests women for the sake of politics. Again, that is on you.

    If you are willing to accept that, then really, I am not going to argue with you, because that is the bed you have chosen to lie on. That is the muck you are rolling in. It also means you have no reason to complain when the other side does the same thing for their politicians or members. Once you make that choice, once you are willing to overlook that kind of behaviour or water it down for the sake of politics, then that is entirely on you and you have to accept that is what you are fighting for. Just don't get shitty and start whining when women and men refuse to adhere to losing their morals and dignity for the sake of politics.

    For example:

    And there you have it. Your accusation that I am dishonest in clearly stating that you are willing to overlook this kind of behaviour for politics and then you come out with "depends on the politics".

    Then you are willing to overlook sexual harassment and sexual assault for the sake of politics. You don't get to complain about Trump's behaviour towards women.

    I would be tempted to ask what you are willing to condone for politics. I mean, you are fine with groping and forced kissing without consent. What about rape? Are you willing to answer "depends on the politics" for that too? If Franken had raped a woman, would you be saying that "in this particular political situation and given the "level" established by the particular public accounts so far, Franken should in [your] opinion have been left in office until after the 2018 elections"? What if he'd groped her between her legs? Made sexually lewd invitations to women? I mean, what, exactly, are you willing to overlook and condone because it "depends on the politics"?

    As I said, the fact that you answered "depends on the politics" when it comes to sexual harassment means that you think it is acceptable for the sake of politics. Says a lot about you. So no, you don't get to claim that I am being dishonest when I call you out on it. Just makes you look weaker. Own up to it and own it. Those are your words. You are willing to overlook sexual harassment because it "depends on the politics".

    They did consider the matter and they found that their member groping 8 women and sexually assaulting them required them to act. I know you disagree, because hey, "it depends on the politics", and you think demanding such a person resigns is abandoning reason.

    And by the by.. You can't open the door to monsters when the monsters are already sitting on your couch eating your ice-cream. They opened the door and demanded the monsters get out. Obviously that's why you have a problem with it, because "politics".
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes, you did. You took it out of context, and pretended it meant other than it did in context. And I pointed that out the very first time, with the entire post in front of you.
    Yes, you did. Repeatedly.
    Dishonest. I did not alter the meaning.
    Then you would be wrong.
    I made no such argument.
    You are, yes.
    I have agreed that Franken's behavior was and is unacceptable, explicitly. No argument of mine was affected.
    What thing would be "the same thing"?
    Because there is no "other side" doing what I'm doing, afaik. It's almost an identification characteristic, a field mark, of "my side" - left libertarians, liberals, the side of reason - to do what I'm doing.
    They considered nothing except the general "credibility of the accusations", according to them and according to you. Many even posited - as you do - that seriously considering anything else would be a moral and ethical failing. Others justified their action on grounds of political expediency, just as you did. ("Sending a message", moral high ground for Dem political leverage, attract women's votes, etc).
    Time to review a bit of history - multiple door openings have been involved. The Dems have been blowing off toes and getting into bed with authoritarians for a very long time.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    I answered the previous comments, and I answered that question.

    So stop declaring that I did not answer it.

    No, I did not. Repeatedly.

    Ya you did.

    I disagree.

    If there was to be an ethics hearing, then that is what would have happened. Or are you arguing that there shouldn't have even been that and let the pervert remain in place until after the 2018 elections?

    And for you, it "depends on the politics". Which says it all.

    Sexual harassment, iceaura. Or have you forgotten what this thread is about?
    Another person who does not fully grasp the meaning of political expediency.

    Asking him to resign was not immoral. Far from it. His fellow female senators demanded he resign because the accusations were credible.. In other words, they believed he did it. Groping 8 women is serious. Sure, you might think it all "depends on the politics", but there is a whole movement of women world wide now saying those types of excuses is bullshit and needs to stop.

    Well, if you think a sex offender can make a good politician, vote for another one next time. Just stop whining when the Republicans do the same thing.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,825
    #startmakingsense
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, you did not.
    Did not. Reread.
    Then you would be wrong twice.
    Dishonest. Many other alternatives existed.
    Dishonest. The word "it", there, is a lie.
    Dishonest.
    And silly. Several good politicians have been sex offenders - more than the population average, possibly. Franken, apparently, for one - his job performance got good reviews from the sane everywhere , including in the arenas of women's rights and civil liberties.
    That would be you.
    Nobody said it was. Which is a very commonly indicated response to your posts, because you deal mostly in invention and strawmen.
    Exactly as I described, several times now (Most recently like this: "They considered nothing except the general "credibility of the accusations", according to them and according to you. Many even posited - as you do - that seriously considering anything else would be a moral and ethical failing. Others justified their action on grounds of political expediency, just as you did. ("Sending a message", moral high ground for Dem political leverage, attract women's votes, etc).")
    So we have that nailed down - everybody's on the same page with that.
    And because it needs to stop, all those women (and you) think that booting Franken immediately upon receiving those particular credible accounts was a moral imperative and a good idea - regardless of the political situation, Franken's actual behavior, etc.
    Is the pilot flying the plane, will passengers be stranded, will safety be compromised, preventably - not considered. In fact, explicitly rejected as "excuses".
    That entire line of repeated assertion has been taken for granted by everyone here from page one.
    So you can move on.

    Here in the aftermath, this thread is considering the harm done and possible to the Democrats, by what everybody agrees happened.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    Yes, I did. I said neither.

    Tell me, do you often make it a habit to berate and harass women for not answering questions in the manner you demand?

    Do you behave this way in your private and personal life as well? Or do you save it for when you are faceless on the internet?

    Shouldn't that be "did not, did not, did not!!"?

    Whatever you say, oh ye master man.

    Yep. Including someone telling him he has been a 'bad bad boy' in public.

    Does not mean those other alternatives are acceptable considering he sexually assaulted 8 women by groping them without their consent.

    It is? I am fairly certain I typed the word it in myself and did not include it in what I quoted from you.

    So how can it be a lie, when it is right there, on the screen? Is this like the 'cake is a lie'?

    Because I happen to quite like cake. It is often yummy.

    I suppose you would prefer I left it out, and sentence structure be damned? Perhaps you want me to type like a caveman when quoting you?

    I am not even going to bother touching this one.

    I think that one should stand on its own, because it says so much.

    Yep. And then people found out he groped 8 women.

    Dang morals and expectations that one's politician not be a sex offender!
    Yep. Of course master man!

    *Nod sagely*

    Mmm hmm...

    Several good politicians have been sex offenders - more than the population average, possibly.

    I'll just leave that there, masterful man that you are.

    Tell me, do you specifically look for how many women a politician has sexually assaulted before you vote for him? Is this a quality you specifically look out for? Is this like a club or something? Oohh, maybe you should try to persuade Bill Cosby to run for politics for the Democrats!

    Meanwhile, in the land of reality, no political situation warrants protecting and enabling a sex offender to remain in office. Sure, you may disagree because:

    Several good politicians have been sex offenders - more than the population average, possibly.

    And if a pilot was credibly accused of raping or sexually molesting women and he was fired upon landing, they would find another pilot to step in, sure, it might cause some delays, but the passengers wouldn't be stranded. I know, you think protecting sex offenders is not always a bad thing, because think of the political situation and what not, but more often than not, if a pilot had been accused of that, he'd land the plane and find the police waiting for him at the gate. That's just how it is in the real world.

    I know, I know, it's Franken, he's a democrat and:

    Several good politicians have been sex offenders - more than the population average, possibly.

    And maybe that is your standard. Because 'ugga booga' "depends on the politics".. (Look, no "it") Don't expect others to buy it or take you seriously.
    Yep. Man who groped 8 women was asked to resign. Poor you.
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I don't. It may have happened, but that is for an ethic committee or court of law to determine.

    Can anyone explain to me why everyone is so sure it happened? Is there videographic proof, is there video of him saying he grabs pussy without consent? No. there are some claims, set off by a conservative, a photo from when he was a comedian of him hover handing over a women's kevlar covered chest, nothing more.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That was not a possible answer.
    Dishonest.
    Dishonest.
    It has been. And several more. Always in response to falsehood, of course - so no end in sight, responding to you.
    And doesn't mean they aren't. One would have to consider them. Which you have not, since considering them is in your view a moral failing and a looking for excuses.
    When it is right there on the screen pretending to refer to something it does not refer to, deceptively, as posted by a liar.
    Which was the sex offender part. So we have a good politician who was a sex offender - one of several we could name. For instance: Conyers. Kennedy. Clinton B.
    And we could make a list of bad ones: say Vitter. Hastert. W. Clinton H. (we're believing the women, remember)
    Both lists get long in a hurry. There seems to be little correlation.
    Wanna bet?
    There's a vague memory of somebody accusing somebody of "pitching a fit". Help me out, here?
    Again: You have to provide specific circumstances, assert specific situations, to determine an appropriate response. Always. And you always will - because they do in fact matter. That's how "zero tolerance" works in the real world.
    You simply cannot post honestly. Can't do it. Your "land of reality" requires lying and slandering and discarding of reason, or it vanishes like Oz without the green glasses.

    Meanwhile, that exact dishonest, misrepresenting, self-deluded, self-destructive, downright childish piece of stupidity is likely to be a source of the incoming damage from the Franken debacle. Because it has a voice in the DFL in Minnesota.

    The question has become: how much damage are we looking at. The DFL has ten months to get it together, and so there is hope - but right now they are running two mealymouths for Senate simultaneously, one without name recognition, in a national environment increasingly uncertain and chaotic, after demonstrating a stereotypical Party cluelessness and incompetence. And Governor is up in the air. The wild card then becomes third party stuff - the assumption so far has been that third party stuff under Trump will draw from an embarrassed Republican Party. In Minnesota, after this especially, there's a chance of a split from the Ds.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    And yet, "neither" is the answer that I am giving you to this question:

    Gimme an N..
    Gimme an E..
    Gimme an I..
    Gimme a T
    Gimme an H
    Gimme an E
    Gimme an R

    What does that spell?

    NEITHER!

    Want to know why? Because there will never be a "real women's party" so long as men like you are willing to condone and endorse sex offenders because... "Several good politicians have been sex offenders - more than the population average, possibly."..

    There will never be a "real women's party" so long as men like you are willing to put principal and morality on the side burner and you would condone a sex offender in power, because Politics.

    There will never be a "real women's party", so long as men like you defend men like Franken for politics.

    There will never be a "real women's party", because the very concept of a "real woman", is an ultra right wing misogynistic narrative to begin with.

    Ergo, the answer to your question is "neither".

    And if you keep harassing me about how you do not believe my answer is a "possible answer", then really, you are simply making my point for me about your inherent misogyny.

    You have been harassing me for pages and pages because you refuse to accept that I gave an answer to that question. The fact that you do not think there is anything wrong with your behaviour says a lot about you and what kind of person you are.

    Hence why I asked if this is a normal pattern of behaviour for you and whether you do this in 'real life', professionally or personally, or do you save this unsavoury persona for the internet, where your angry self can flourish while you remain faceless?

    Aww now you're being the sulky sookie na na..

    Seriously dude, you keep throwing these tantrums, because perhaps you have an itch that you need to scratch and get it all off your chest because 'oh noes', a sex offender you deemed to be a good politician was asked to resign. I understand you are having a hard time with this. But you should also understand that not everyone agrees with you and you don't get to tell me about sexual harassment or how I think serial gropers should be treated. You don't get to set my narrative on this issue. As I said, if your narrative is that several sex offenders have been good politicians, then sure, that can be your narrative and I have argued that for you from the start. Own it. Embrace it. Stop calling people dishonest when they point out your own words to you....

    As far as I am concerned, resignation was his only option.

    What are you accusing of lying about now?

    That I typed "it" before your "depends on the politics"?

    As I said, I can simply quote you and sound like a caveman if that is what you prefer.. "Depends on the politics".

    Look, no "it".

    Grunt once for yes. Twice for no.

    I mean, how fucking moronically picky do you get? You nagged because I said "it", "depends on the politics""? You are pitching a fit and accusing me of lying when I added an "it" before quoting your words and ensuring that I had your words in quotation makes and your words only...

    Okay Pappy..

    Now embrace your "good" sex offenders! Own them. And argue that sex offenders should not be made to resign because they made good politicians.

    What's going to be next? Weinstein should not have been fired because Miramax made good movies? Kevin Spacey should not have been shunned and outed, because damn, House of Cards is so good and he's such a good actor?

    Secondly, how is Hillary Clinton a sex offender?

    I don't make bets with people who embrace sex offenders for politics, sorry.

    You can't answer the question?

    Tell me, do you specifically look for how many women a politician has sexually assaulted before you vote for him? Is this a quality you specifically look out for? Is this like a club or something? Oohh, maybe you should try to persuade Bill Cosby to run for politics for the Democrats!

    Pretty straight forward questions. Since, ya know, "several good politicians have been sex offenders" and whatnot.

    So is that a trait you personally look out for in your politician?

    I'm going with what you provided.

    The pilot would be dismissed.

    Yup..


    Hmm yeah. The women seem to be in charge and he is going to be replaced by a woman.

    Please, tell us how you really feel about that, iceaura....

    It's not your party, so why do you care so much? Or are you just pissy that they made a good politician who is a sex offender, resign?

    Again, poor you!
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    But he is not a sex offender, or rather he had not been proven to be one by a court of law. Bells by the way is a murderer, I say this with no evidence what so ever, just claims I have hear from anonymous sources.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,825
    Yeah, well the difference between presuming to flip the switch and being the sacrificial lamb is pretty significant.

    Something about vested interest goes here.

    Are you actually willing to look someone in the eye and "choose" them? That is, can you really look a woman you know in the eye and say, "Yeah, so I hear, but I think there are more important things going on, so shut up about it."

    A mouse click from your tower of privilege or a train running you over.

    Or a mouse click from your tower of privilege or rape "prevention" being just a part of your day.

    There are some people we might put such notions in front of, and apparently they think this is somehow about the patriarchy; it's an interesting shift revealing an overlap in one's regard 'twixt the patriarchy and sexually predatory behavior, as if they are somehow intrinsically connected; it's a view that keeps coming up, strangely, in relation to the defense of sexual harassment or a mitigating argument thereunto. And it's actually worth noting this is a general form that comes up within the framework of these discussions; if you look back, say, between '08 and '14, the archives will cough up some discussions in which people refused to establish boundaries of prevention expectation, even to the point of a man arguing that men are sex machines who cannot be held responsible for their actions once they are turned on—in an effort to hold women accountable for their twmpting contribution to street harassment—and so on; the relevant point here is that as people objected to the open-ended prevention advice, the counteargument was to complain on behalf of #NotAllMan. And this is the way it worked: The prevention advice told women, functionally, to perpetually be on guard against all men. Feminists object, as this is a quality of life issue, an actual human rights question. The countargument denounces feminism for suspecting all men. What is actually happening there—maybe you get it, but this process really does seem to confuse people—has one group saying something, a second group objecting, and a third group with overlap unto the first attacking the second for what the first says. That is to say, the people who hate feminists keep attacking feminism for what feminism objects to. As a political spectacle, it's both strange to see because it's such obvious bullshit, and not unusual for, in fact, being rather quite usual.

    So as long as you're going to talk about "reason"↑ and glibly flipping switches, we should probably double-check; are you willing to fill in the blanks as follows:

    Proposition: "Sexually predatory behavior is acceptable for the sake of political expediency morality convenience need reasons when [_____], and because [_____]."​

    I mean, that would apppear to be what you describe as "reason". It's just that nobody is certain how to fill in those blanks. When the answers are, "when it might hurt us a political party in an election I think is really, really important", and "because he only groped her, and, you know, at least he didn't try to rape her in his car when she was a teenager", are the exemplary answers in the zeitgeist, we should probably come up with something better in our own actual discourse. So it is true, there is merit in considering the functional result.

    Or we could try it this way: In the moment she is being sexually assaulted, what does she owe politics? Does she report it, then, or, y'know, politics? That's actually part of how we men led our own damn way into this atrocity. Nonetheless, please consider the tower of privilege required for me to observe that all she gets for being a good girl is to go through it again, tomorrow; the bit about how failing subordinate the question of sexual violence to politics can "only serve to further damage the chances of any sort of meaningful reform that would actually protect these people and allow victims of abuse to come forward" is not just wrong, it is in fact just plain dangerous.

    Something goes here about the abandonment of reason. Sexually predatory behavior is still predtatory, regardless of the politics.

    If others should understand your juxtaposition of "reason" with "knee-jerk reactions and emotional outbursts", then it would certainly be helpful that you might give some good faith consideration to the question of what degree of sexual violence is acceptable under which circumstances according to whose political argument. That is to say, what are the reasonable boundaries of acceptable sexual violence?

    For some of us, the question itself is problematic for presuming such a threshold exists; sexual violence is sexual violence. So let us preclude, then, notions of it being mere words, or just a hand on the ass; the infliction of sexual behavior on another is pretty much the definition of sexual violence.

    And just like there is a time and place for consensual partners to complicate such questions by consenting to violence, so also is there a time and place for parsing the difference between the Minnesota Groper and What Goes On In Alabama. There are times, for instance, when we aim to diagnose the behavior in order to disrupt it; this is a question both of human rights and public health and safety. And during these times, yes, it is helpful to know the difference between the guy who strangles 'em out, the guy who uses his office to create duress for picking up underage girls, and the guy who, for instance, seems at best to simply fail to understand that women's bodies are in fact human beings and therefore have their own rights. The connection, though, is the fact of predatory behavior.

    And in that context, it's true that for Al Franken much of the question has to do with how he recovers himself. There's no recovering Roy Moore, but a shit-ton of work to do in Alabama.

    But predatory behavior is the common aspect; its shape and empowerment is a social phenomenon, but the underlying behavior represents fundamentally antisocial behavior. Reserving a threshold of acceptability for antisocial behavior is problematic because while people generally acknowledge at least tacitly societal permit of less-disruptive, what we are actually discssing is a constricting boundary; for the most part, people "have a line", and beyond that a previously acceptable behavior becomes unacceptable.

    Functionally speaking, the big sign that we're going to blow this one, as a society, are notions like we see in the thread title. I can pick on the title, I suppose, but that's not actually my point. There were, like, three articles that crossed my path in the day after Franken announced his resignation in which authors I generally respect or, at leeast, don't object to, wrote articles about Democrats seizing the moral initiative, and that is to the one well and fine, and to the other rather quite disappointing.

    Democrats need to simply do, just like Al Franken needs to simply do. Eventually, Mr. Franken might encounter a day when he finds a certain measure of restored credibility. Society isn't going to send him a medal or certificate; he doesn't get a parade; there certainly will not be a press conference. The thing is that he just needs to be and do, and eventually, if he is behaving and recovering appropriately, that will be reflected and reiterated in his visible behavior, without anyone pointing to it, to such a degree that it is left to anyone else to make the point about the past. He literally cannot go out of his way to be seen in the process of recovering, as such, because like Jesus said, if you do it for the sake of being seen, then being seen is what you get out of it.

    Part of the way out of this has to do with praxis: The eggshell tiptoeing is self-reinforcing; the more a man frets about harassment in certain contexts, the more reasons he has to want to; part of the way out is to stop worrying about it; part of the problem with not worrying about it is this eggshell feeling by which a man does not trust himself°; if the failure to trust himself is wise according to his outlook and behavior, then the point becomes to change his outlook and behavior, and, yes, this is to be somehow achieved by not worrying about it. And, yes, that's a big effing question mark, but as Perdurabo↱ reminded: "A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not"; even self-superior, exploitative bullshitters have their moments: Distinguish not, but thyself extinguish. We are not himog, nor need or will we ever be be, but, still, the Fortieth Lie is among the smarter bullshit he ever wrote down.

    Seriously, though, part of the way out has to do with learning to conduct ourselves properly while not worrying about it.

    This isn't a matter of opportunism; it's a question of getting it right.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° Generally, this long-trending, seemingly customary masculine mistrust of self is transformed and projected, through rather quite basic ego defense, onto women.​

    Perdurabo. "The HIMOG". The Book of Lies. 1912. BibliotecaPleyades.net. 15 December 2017. http://bit.ly/2sbb4Q7
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Sexual Harassment: The Great Problem of Our Times!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well this poll has to be wrong, because we all know men can't be sexually harassed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well I could say I have experienced 1 and 3 for sure, but again I am male so no one cares. None the less after these 24 years (what was that Jurassic park? boy that brings back nostalgia) the rate at which sexual harassment of every kind is happening has fallen significantly, so then why all the talk about it now? Well because social media amplifies any issue that is trendy/meme beyond any proportion or reason. The fact the rich are about to rape us all financially once again with another tax cut for themselves is not the biggest issue because it does not pull on basil emotions/the genitals like sexual harassment does.

    Anyways, oh look at that: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article189931514.html

    Andrea Ramsey, a Democratic candidate for Congress, will drop out of the race after the Kansas City Star asked her about accusations in a 2005 lawsuit that she sexually harassed and retaliated against a male subordinate who said he had rejected her advances.

    Multiple sources with knowledge of the case told The Star that the man reached a settlement with LabOne, the company where Ramsey was executive vice president of human resources. Court documents show that the man, Gary Funkhouser, and LabOne agreed to dismiss the case permanently after mediation in 2006.

    Ramsey, a 56-year-old retired business executive from Leawood, was one of the Democratic candidates vying to challenge Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder in 2018 in Kansas’ 3rd District.

    She was running with the endorsement of Emily’s List, a liberal women’s group that has raised more than a half-million dollars to help female candidates who support abortion rights.

    Ramsey will drop out on Friday, her campaign said.

    “In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard,” Ramsey said in a statement Friday. “For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”


    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has not endorsed anyone in the race, said in a statement that members and candidates must all be held to the highest standard.

    Well, at least no one will be calling us democrats hypocrite. Weak and powerless in the face of republican evil, sure, right on the money, but at least we are not hypocrites.

    Reference: https://www.mspb.gov/MSPBSEARCH/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1442317&version=1447804&application=ACROBAT
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    See, I feel like this is where something about the big picture should go... but honestly, I just don't give enough of a damn to bother since no argument, no logic, no reason; literally nothing, will sway the opinions you hold on this.

    And that is entirely within your right, of course.

    Granted, nobody is trying to say "shut up about it", and attributing that to my commentary is about as dishonest as it comes. I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that nothing be done (though some are desperately trying to claim it is the other sides intent).

    At this point, debating in good faith is meaningless because it is a foregone conclusion that other actors will not do so; they will take any steps, sink to any depths, and fabricate any accusation to "win" the debate, all without having a point or endgame to make.

    My endgame is simple - get people who are responsive to (and held responsible by) their constituents in office and make it abundantly clear that this kind of behavior must be stamped out, and that the laws must be changed to prevent victims being silenced through retaliation or slander. That is a long term goal, and it will take time and careful thought... but it will also take people in office who are willing to do something that benefits the average person rather than a corporate owner. It will require an ending of gerrymandering and a serious curtailing (or outright end of) lobbying and this idea that "money is speech". It will take, quite frankly, liberal minded folks on the bench and writing the laws - folks who don't believe a woman's only place is"barefoot in the kitchen with a baby on the hip" and other such sexist garbage.

    But, it seems, we'd rather have our hollow, pyrrhic victories whilst handing the steering wheel to the party that apparently thinks "Make America Great Again" would be a return to a time before women's suffrage and minorities civil rights; handing the reigns to groups that adamantly maintains a woman must be subservient to her husband, must carry a fetus to birth regardless of situation, and must certainly be lying when they accuse their party of sexual misconduct... well, I don't see that party doing the most vulnerable among us any favors... unless said vulnerable happen to own shares in Comcast or Verizon, maybe.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Kittamaru,

    Hope you were not talking about me there, I'm not trying to win a debate (since no one is actually debating me) just open up ethical/logic problems with this issue. As for what laws are needed to prevent victims being silence: present them. I think this is a social issue that can't be legislated away but requires changes to how we court mates. Clearly the idea of not fucking co-workers/students, using internet dating apps, and just focusing on a life where romance is unnecessary, is too progressive for you traditionalist old fuddy-doddies, I'm fine with that, Ok, so suggest your solutions then.

    Ultimately I agree that other problems are orders of magnitude more important, that if gerrymandering was trending as much as #MeToo something good would actually get done. Just the damage the republicans do from having power is far more important than Franken supposedly touching someones ass, the overall damage republicans do to women rights alone would be worth weinstein in office instead, oh wait we already had one of those, his name was Bill Clinton. Heck I would rather have Bill Clinton as president, or his supposedly sexual assault enabling wife, than Trump, heck them over any republican president all the back to Ike, Ike was pretty good.
     
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,825
    Yeah, y'know, I get versions of this routine out of people all the time: "I think this and that, but I'm gonna duckout, here's my excuse, and fuck you."

    I get it, dude; it's am matter of priorities.

    Like this. I can't believe you went out of your way to do that.

    Here, let's take a look:

    Are you actually willing to look someone in the eye and "choose" them? That is, can you really look a woman you know in the eye and say, "Yeah, so I hear, but I think there are more important things going on, so shut up about it."

    (#216↑)

    To which you replied:

    Granted, nobody is trying to say "shut up about it", and attributing that to my commentary is about as dishonest as it comes. I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that nothing be done (though some are desperately trying to claim it is the other sides intent).

    So, in the first place, I'm going to take that as a no, which means blithe trolley politics can go screw. You want the effect, but "nobody is trying" to create it. I understand that; I've witnessed it many times before; it's like the rest of your whining post.

    So let's go one at a time:

    "Granted, nobody is trying to say 'shut up about it', and attributing that to my commentary is about as dishonest as it comes." — Okay, so what are you trying to say? Flip the switch and what? Should they speak up so we can tell them what they're doing wrong? Hey, you called it "reason"↑, so explain the reasoning: Depends on the politics, but how? Shall she speak up so instead of telling her to shut up about it we can just explain that it depends on the politics and in this case she needs to take one for the team and she should not abandon reason by failing to consider this matter? So, hey, why not give a try instead of moaning about how it's other people's fault that you won't? So, "granted, nobody is trying to say 'shut up about it'". Okay, so what are people actually trying to say? What are you trying to say with your trolley problem, and what you describe as "reason"?

    "and attributing that to my commentary is about as dishonest as it comes" — I asked you a question. Maybe in the future you should think about the implications of what you post. Let us review:

    Look what you called "reason". It's a fair question because that's precisely the implication of your post.

    "I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that nothing be done" — So, right: Depends on the politics. That's "reason", right? So how about this: If you're going to lie to me, put some effort into it.​

    I mean, really.

    You keep showing your priorities. That was six paragraphs you just gave to bitterly lying your way out of answering a question.

    Look what you called "reason".

    When you won't answer for what you support, complaining about good faith is particularly excremental.

    So flip your switches all you want; something goes here about vested interest, and of course you're not going to answer, because, why, the sacrificial lamb is just a disposable character in a parlor game?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page