Roy moore accusations

[Bells]

And you then require that I accept your representations of people I've never met, believe your accounts of others, take for granted your framing of issues, and entrust you and those who agree with you with political power.
After continually representing my posts, right there in front of you, like that, you want to be taken seriously about what other people say and do.

You are the one arguing that a sexual assaulter should not be lumped in with others.

Not me.

So if it's not about that, it's not sexual harassment? There's a loophole I hadn't thought of. The whole male status competition thing gets a pass.

It would help if you applied my responses to you in context.. In other words, what, exactly, was I responding to?

Meanwhile: there are distinguishable degrees of that - from situations of essentially no power and no control possible, even no awareness of self or other, to deliberate creation of great misery and pain. Agreed?

If you think groping a woman as her people took her photo, knowing she is not going to make a scene, is not about power and control, then perhaps you truly do not understand what sexual harassment is. And if you think holding a woman like that, groping her while smiling at her friend or spouse taking the picture, knowing that she will not make a scene is not distressful, then again, you don't know what sexual harassment is.

Also: Despite your listed characteristics, Franken's miming for the camera a grope of the flak jacket of a sleeping woman is not excused on the grounds that it involved no creation of awareness and no power or control - maybe it's not sexual harassment, in your definition, but there's something wrong with it, surely.

But it is sexual harassment.

I don't get it. What's the deal with you throwing down for a man who groped women?

I hate to break it to you, but most of these men are not being open and honest - I know it's a shock.

Uh huh..

I mean, what could I possibly know or understand about it...

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well, let's cut to the chase.

Can the men posting identify, or try too, it may be a natural introspection, with a man sexually harassing a women, but not pedophilia as that would totally be blocked out of the mind?

:EDIT:

Hell, I'll post this video anyway:

 

[iceaura]

You are the one arguing that a sexual assaulter should not be lumped in with others.

And you are the one misrepresenting my posts, dealing in slanders and troll questions, begging questions, and generally failing even minimal standards of credibility.

If you think groping a woman as her people took her photo, knowing she is not going to make a scene, is not about power and control,

And if I don't, then not.

And if you think holding a woman like that, groping her while smiling at her friend or spouse taking the picture, knowing that she will not make a scene

And if I don't, then not.

I don't get it. What's the deal with you throwing down for a man who groped women?

I'm not. And I am evaluating your claims about what I don't know, based on these posts of yours about what I do know.

I hate to break it to you, but most of these men are not being open and honest - I know it's a shock.
Uh huh..

I mean, what could I possibly know or understand about it...

Another example - wait: what are you talking about?
All I have to go by are your responses and postings here. Your "understanding" here, of my posts, is a litany of incomprehensions, slanders, projections, misleading vocabulary, begged questions, unwarranted presumptions, and general bs. So - - -

Since it is no longer possible to talk about Moore, Trump, etc, without talking about Franken:
Here's an illustrative paragraph from a commissioned opinion page essay in my local newspaper, by two people whom I think - in my assessment - align in their views with you (judge for yourself: http://www.startribune.com/the-franken-case-is-our-moment-of-truth-as-progressives/460871983/ note their rhetorical approach - it should be familiar):

We are tired of watching people bend over backward to defend Franken when there are so many highly qualified candidates for Senate who are not white men — women and people of color who could do the job better, and be a senator without assaulting anyone.

Does that bring a pause for reflection, raise a warning flag?

Context: Minnesota has two Senators. The "senior", Amy Klobucher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar, is up for election in 2018, as a classic establishment Minnesota Democrat with Clinton-type credentials and associations (better than Clinton's, imho). She has not weighed in strongly on Franken in public (or anything else of controversial substance - confrontation is not her mode). She is widely assumed to be secure in office, with good polling numbers and no visible challenger, to the degree that some speculate the Republican Party will run a sacrifice candidate only. She is widely regarded as less "progressive" than Franken (including in issues bearing directly on women in particular), and has proven to be less of an obstacle to the Republican legislative and policy agenda than either Franken or her predecessor in the Senate (Mark Dayton). She has been much praised for "working across the aisle".

The voting in the special election, to fill Franken's seat if he resigns, would be the same day. Franken won his seat by a much narrower margin than Klobuchar's.
So would the vote for Governor, in which the first Democratic Party governor of the State in a long time (Dayton) - also among the most "progressive" upper echelon politicians in the State, and also elected in the first place on a very narrow margin - will be replaced. (Dayton's appointment for interim Senator would be a lame duck appointment.).

 

[Bells]

Does that bring a pause for reflection, raise a warning flag?

Context: Minnesota has two Senators. The "senior", Amy Klobucher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar, is up for election in 2018, as a classic establishment Minnesota Democrat with Clinton-type credentials and associations (better than Clinton's, imho). She has not weighed in strongly on Franken in public (or anything else of controversial substance - confrontation is not her mode). She is widely assumed to be secure in office, with good polling numbers and no visible challenger, to the degree that some speculate the Republican Party will run a sacrifice candidate only. She is widely regarded as less "progressive" than Franken (including in issues bearing directly on women in particular), and has proven to be less of an obstacle to the Republican legislative and policy agenda than either Franken or her predecessor in the Senate (Mark Dayton). She has been much praised for "working across the aisle".

The voting in the special election, to fill Franken's seat if he resigns, would be the same day. Franken won his seat by a much narrower margin than Klobuchar's.
So would the vote for Governor, in which the first Democratic Party governor of the State in a long time (Dayton) - also among the most "progressive" upper echelon politicians in the State, and also elected in the first place on a very narrow margin - will be replaced. (Dayton's appointment for interim Senator would be a lame duck appointment.).

So he should remain in place for political expediency?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

And you are the one misrepresenting my posts, dealing in slanders and troll questions, begging questions, and generally failing even minimal standards of credibility.

And I don't care about Bells' posts, I care about my posts and I feel you have deliberately ignored me.

If you have put me on ignore at least give me the courtesy to say so.

 

[Kittamaru]

So now we have two women with items signed by Moore, with identical looking handwriting... I know Evangelical White Christians will do some terrific mental and moral gymnastics to support their ridiculous single - issue mindset but damn... How sad that he isn't simply legally disqualified at this point.

 

[birch]

Harassment is, we have apparently decided, irrelevant of intent: if someone feels like they are being sexually harassed, no matter the intent of the other party (even if they stop if/when they realize they have inadvertently made the person uncomfortable), it sounds like it's too late in the minds of some folks.

The only safe option, if they had their way, would be to not attempt to engage with others at all, which is, to any rational person, obviously silly.

*shrug*

you know why you keep shrugging? because these points you are dreaming up are silly and you don't understand the points you are making. it's points like this that is coming off suspect pretending there is a middle ground but providing not even a single real-life example of one. do you know why? because sexual harassment already covers those through certain criteria but you ignore that, just like sexual harassers do.

for instance, if the other person stops after it is made known, then what sexual harassment has occurred? mind you, don't be ridiculous as it's not something as blatant as sexual groping which is sexual harassment/assault from the getgo. so answer this specific and open question.

if for instance, someone has let you know they do not want to talk to you (personal context) or do not want to engage with you (personal context) or do not want to go out with you, then how is sexual harassment going to occur unless you keep pushing the issue?

no one said you don't engage with people or of the opposite sex. but if someone was harassing you or someone who is interested in you in a way that's not platonic and that creates an uncomfortable conflict of interest, one may have to not engage with them at all since they may take any interaction as a sign or just keep exploiting that opportunity. so how is that silly?

for instance, would you personally like to keep interacting with someone who harassed you before? what makes you think it's 'silly' for someone to not want to interact with someone who has shown they don't respect another's boundaries, even when made clear? or when the other has different interests that are not platonic?

why does your brain turn to jello all of a sudden when it comes to this issue and why the pretense that there is this non-understanding of very common sense boundaries? it seems more willful and a pretense of cognitive dissonance than actual ignorance. you do know that someone does not have to say literally 'no' don't you?

if someone told you they are not interested in dating or a relationship to you directly, what does that tell you? and ask yourself this most important question, why would the other ignore what they say to them? i already know the answer why harassers ignore it, but do YOU know why? it's ego for one thing and they see the other as an object to 'break' down if they can. an individual's rejection to a harasser is no more than a barrier to be broken down, something in the way of what they want or their agenda.

if you ask someone out on a date and they decline, but you keep pursuing the issue, why should the one who rejected you keep interacting with you? what possible reason should they even want to?

 

[iceaura]

So he should remain in place for political expediency?

Not according to me.

And I don't care about Bells' posts, I care about my posts and I feel you have deliberately ignored me.

? Not sure how that came up. I tend to post on cruxes in quarrels, let stand otherwise - that explain anything?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

? Not sure how that came up. I tend to post on cruxes in quarrels, let stand otherwise - that explain anything?

I'm desperate for attention, that would describe me.

 

[Kittamaru]

Looks like the RNC has made a decision... one I think we all knew was coming as the risk of losing the seat became a possibility...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...2589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.f185bea55f41

RNC to support Roy Moore in Senate race in Alabama, weeks after cutting ties with his campaign
President Trump led an aggressive charge Monday on behalf of embattled Senate nominee Roy Moore, with the Republican National Committee rejoining Moore’s side in Alabama weeks after cutting ties with him following allegations of sexual misconduct.

Before dawn, Trump took to Twitter to declare his strongest support yet for Moore. By day’s end, the RNC was back in his corner and America First Action, a pro-Trump group, said it would spend $1.1 million to try to push Moore across the finish line.

Senate Republican leaders, however, remained critical of Moore, warning that the former judge is likely to face an immediate ethics probe if he is elected next week.

The divergent attitudes toward Moore, who has been accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward teenage girls when he was in his 30s, underscored how polarizing a figure he would be among his party’s national leaders if he wins the Dec. 12 special election.

Even if Moore is largely ostracized by his Senate colleagues, the support of the president could make him an influential figure in Washington — a point he appeared determined to emphasize on Monday.


“I look forward to fighting alongside the President to #MAGA!” Moore wrote on Twitter, using the acronym for Trump’s signature campaign theme, “Make America Great Again.”

Trump and Senate Republicans have already started pondering Moore’s place in the party if he gets past Democrat Doug Jones in a contest that recent polling shows is neck and neck. The president wrote on Twitter on Monday that the united Democratic opposition to the GOP’s sweeping tax plan showed “why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama.”

“We need his vote on stopping crime, illegal immigration, Border Wall, Military, Pro Life, V.A., Judges 2nd Amendment and more. No to Jones, a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet!” Trump wrote.

Trump’s message went further than his previous remarks about the race, in which he has bashed Jones but stopped just short of advocating for Moore.

The president placed a call to Moore on Monday morning, and the Senate nominee proudly trumpeted it in his own tweet.

“‘Go get ’em, Roy!’ - President Trump,” Moore tweeted.

Trump’s message came on the same day that the RNC reversed itself and returned to Alabama to support Moore, less than three weeks after pulling out of a joint fundraising agreement with his campaign. An RNC official with knowledge of the plans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the re-engagement. The committee did not immediately issue any public statements announcing the move.

And here we see the fundamental issue - in this particular sentence: “We need his vote on stopping crime, illegal immigration, Border Wall, Military, Pro Life, V.A., Judges 2nd Amendment and more. No to Jones, a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet!”
They are more concerned with taking away a woman's right to choose and be autonomous over her own body, ensuring any old crackpot can get a gun, and building that damn useless boarder wall than they are about the fact that this guy has left irrevocable dark smudges on several women's lives.

Looking at things, it seems Feinstein has reintroduced (and is pushing for) new rules regarding sexual harassment in Congress, including simplifying the process by which victims can file reports and have their complaints acted upon. Given the current turmoil in the GOP, I can only hope that enough of them have an ounce of moral fiber and are willing to help make such changes a reality.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

? Not sure how that came up. I tend to post on cruxes in quarrels, let stand otherwise - that explain anything?

And how is a psychological mindset not a crux?
:EDIT:
And before you answer let me reiterate:

Can the men posting identify, or try too, it may be a natural introspection, with a man sexually harassing a women, but not pedophilia as that would totally be blocked out of the mind?

 

[spidergoat]

I can only hope that enough of them have an ounce of moral fiber and are willing to help make such changes a reality.

LOL, good one K.

 

[iceaura]

On the matter of misunderstandings, take a look at the closure of this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-about-the-men.160315/

For the prize: Reading the initial brief comment overhead of the OP, predict which way, or on which "side", or with what motive, or against whom, the moderator will explain the troll was likely to be posting. (Hint: there are at least four different ways to misread that OP as trolling - two stereotypical "sides", each with a pro and con).

For context on the sides etc, read the thread. Or this one.

The entire matter requires, fundamentally, good faith.

And how is a psychological mindset not a crux?

I don't see the quarrel.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I don't see the quarrel.

So, you fundamentally agree with what I said?

 

[James R]

Hint: there are at least four different ways to misread that OP as trolling - two stereotypical "sides", each with a pro and con

Members should take care not to post things that can be misread in four separate ways as trolling. If they can be read that way, lots of different ways, then they most likely will be.

I don't think there is any misreading at work in my moderation decision in that thread. It is clearly fallout from this current thread, and the intent to create division among forum members is also clear there.

This is not the appropriate place for further discussion of that particular decision. If you want to discuss it further, PM me, or else take it up in the Site Feedback forum if you have a more general issue.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

On the matter of misunderstandings, take a look at the closure of this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-about-the-men.160315/

For the prize: Reading the initial brief comment overhead of the OP, predict which way, or on which "side", or with what motive, or against whom, the moderator will explain the troll was likely to be posting. (Hint: there are at least four different ways to misread that OP as trolling - two stereotypical "sides", each with a pro and con).

Ah shucks... thanks... i thout it was ingenious myself

 

[iceaura]

This is not the appropriate place for further discussion of that particular decision.

It's not being discussed here, and never was - it was referenced and introduced as an example, an illustration, part of the ongoing thread discussion about (initially) the Roy Moore accusations. I took its reality for granted, and still do, as a providential illustration of an apparently controversial point here.

Members should take care not to post things that can be misread in four separate ways as trolling

And an even further extension of its worth as an example here forthcomes.
To whit: Misreading, however blatant or willful, is officially declared the fault of the misread. It is a feature of the post itself, independent of the reader. The burden of preventing misreading falls on the poster. It must be anticipated, and forestalled or avoided, with care, by the poster. Failure to take that care incurs liability, and blame, for any content or consequences of the misreading. Failure to have taken that care is demonstrated - proven - by the misreading itself.

That has a familiar and centrally thread-relevant ring to it, on this thread and in the larger social context of this thread's topic generally, no? The matter of who declares the reality, and why, and when - the framing - is a multifaceted central concern of this discussion of Roy Moore and his depredations.

As of this writing, the media operations of the Republican Party seem to have re-established their (temporarily threatened) predominant role in the framing of Moore. One almost never sees him mentioned alone, or conjoined with a more serious Republican offender, or in any other context that fails to mitigate public perceptions of his behaviors by association, for example.

 

[James R]

Misreading, however blatant or willful, is officially declared the fault of the misread.

As I stated, there was no misreading here, let alone blatant or wilful misreading. Nevertheless, we can run with your premise that the post was misread, if you like, for the sake of seeing where the discussion leads.

The question is: what responsibility do writers have regarding their own writings? The purpose of writing something in a news article, or in a post on an internet forum, is to communicate something to other people. If what you write can be interpreted at least 5 different ways (4 of them as trolling, and 1 innocent in this case), then I'd say that there's a good chance you're not communicating very effectively. A writer's message should, ideally, be clear and unambiguous, when writing non-fiction.

It is a feature of the post itself, independent of the reader. The burden of preventing misreading falls on the poster.

The other extreme end of the argument you are putting is that all of the burden is falls on the reader, and none on the poster. I think it's unreasonable to expect a reader to always correctly interpret the meaning of and intent behind a piece of writing that is imprecise, unclear, ambiguous, or otherwise wanting.

Communication is a cooperative enterprise between writer and reader. Both have obligations, or else communication breaks down or fails.

It must be anticipated, and forestalled or avoided, with care, by the poster. Failure to take that care incurs liability, and blame, for any content or consequences of the misreading. Failure to have taken that care is demonstrated - proven - by the misreading itself.

Indeed. This is half the story, but it's not inaccurate.

The matter of who declares the reality, and why, and when - the framing - is a multifaceted central concern of this discussion of Roy Moore and his depredations.

As of this writing, the media operations of the Republican Party seem to have re-established their (temporarily threatened) predominant role in the framing of Moore. One almost never sees him mentioned alone, or conjoined with a more serious Republican offender, or in any other context that fails to mitigate public perceptions of his behaviors by association, for example.

I think you're conflating two different issues in this thread. Issue one is the political messages being put out by political parties and groups about this senate candidate. Issue two is what constitutes sexual harassment and whether and to what extent there are (and should be) degrees of culpability for said harassment.

It is possible to discuss the particulars of the allegations against Moore while leaving out the political machinations concerning the presentation of the relevant issues by various parties and media outlets. The facts of what occurred or did not occur are, in principle, separable from whatever political "spin" different players want to put on them.

Your complaint appears to be that Moore's behaviour is being presented as being on a level footing with less reprehensible behaviour of certain others, and that this is being done for political gain by the Republican party and its supporters. My impression is that you would prefer to concentrate on one case at a time - on Moore alone, or on Franken alone, for example - rather than having the cases compared and contrasted by political pundits on either side of the political divide. If that is your view, then I'm inclined to agree with you. Where I disagree with you is that I perceive an unwillingness on your part to separate the politics of all this from the perpetrator/victim facts of each case. I disagree with you that it is impossible to separate the two.

 

[iceaura]

As I stated, there was no misreading here,

It was quite obvious. No trolling was evident, for example.
(As I pointed out, people reading the post in good faith with comprehension would have a hard time even identifying the direction or slant of trolling it would be accused of.)

The other extreme end of the argument you are putting is that all of the burden is falls on the reader, and none on the poster

But nobody is making that one. Let's deal with what's here.

I think you're conflating two different issues in this thread. Issue one is the political messages being put out by political parties and groups about this senate candidate. Issue two is what constitutes sexual harassment and whether and to what extent there are (and should be) degrees of culpability for said harassment.

I'm not the one conflating those two issues, on this thread or in the larger world. Those posters bringing in topics like which messages are being sent by the Democratic Party in its floundering assignations of degrees of culpability? They aren't me.

It is possible to discuss the particulars of the allegations against Moore while leaving out the political machinations concerning the presentation of the relevant issues by various parties and media outlets.

Maybe someone will undertake that possible discussion. Meanwhile - - - -

Your complaint appears to be that Moore's behaviour is being presented as being on a level footing with less reprehensible behaviour of certain others, and that this is being done for political gain by the Republican party and its supporters.

That's an observation, and that posters here further that deception is among my complaints.

My impression is that you would prefer to concentrate on one case at a time - on Moore alone, or on Franken alone, for example - rather than having the cases compared and contrasted by political pundits on either side of the political divide.

? I would obviously welcome more, not less, comparison and contrast - I've been trying to insist on it, here, in an uphill battle featuring much repetition.

Where I disagree with you is that I perceive an unwillingness on your part to separate the politics of all this from the perpetrator/victim facts of each case. I disagree with you that it is impossible to separate the two.

Nothing posted by me suggests any such impossibility. Merely the absence of the separation, and the consequences of that absence - which favor power and money and Republican agenda, including Moore's quest for the Senate seat.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I can't help but feel you responding to the adminastraitor is a scapegoat for ignoring me. As I already said, I'm desperate for attention.

So, you fundamentally agree with what I said?

You propose no comment to my question?