Roy moore accusations

[birch]

Of course there is never any miscommunication in sexual harassment ever. Of course.

So glad, birch, that you can so confidently speak in absolutes.

As for the example with my friend - you can believe me or not all you want. It doesn't change a thing, much like most of your off the wall ideas. That's the great thing about the truth - it is true regardless of what unknowing fools opine.

and your example above shows just how ludicrous and disingenuous you are to use such an example of the 'possibility' of sexual harassment. yeah, your long-term friend who keeps interacting with you and is an adult and did not tell you he does not like hugs or is not very touchy/feely so as not to offend you. you are the fool opining who does not know or how to distinguish a misunderstanding between friends versus sexual harassment.

is there some other example you would like to share that constitutes possible sexual harassment to you? and i'm also curious as to what 'truth' you are referring to. it seems as if you are feeling guilty or other for something. do you ignore other people's signals in real life? lol.

i already outlined to you the contexts in which sexual harassment occurs and how it happens. evidently anything outside of that is not sexual harassment. it's not even that difficult. it's just common sense.

just because you refuse to get it, is not my problem.

 

[Kittamaru]

and your example above shows just how ludicrous and disingenuous you are to use such an example of the 'possibility' of sexual harassment. yeah, your long-term friend who keeps interacting with you and is an adult and did not tell you he does not like hugs or is not very touchy/feely so as not to offend you. you are the fool opining who does not know or how to distinguish a misunderstanding between friends versus sexual harassment.

is there some other example you would like to share that constitutes possible sexual harassment to you? and i'm also curious as to what 'truth' you are referring to. it seems as if you are feeling guilty or other for something. do you ignore other people's signals in real life? lol.

i already outlined to you the contexts in which sexual harassment occurs and how it happens. evidently anything outside of that is not sexual harassment. it's not even that difficult. it's just common sense.

just because you refuse to get it, is not my problem.

Actually, your problem is that, instead of arguing facts, you are making emotional appeals and other logical fallacies, such as your attempt at poisoning the well by implying I am "feeling guilty" for something. Do I ignore other people's signals? No, not by choice. Do I miss them? Occasionally - guess what birch, I'm human. I'm imperfect, I make mistakes, and, especially when tensions and/or stress is high I act impulsively and take what seems to be the right course if action that, with the benefit of hindsight, I can later see was not the best option.

If you wish to claim such things never happen to you, then I surmise we will soon be worshipping a new Queen of the World, if you truly are of such perfection.

Granted, based on what I've seen, I doubt we have to worry about such things.

As I said to you in another thread - if you wish to debate based on appeals to emotion, perhaps Facebook would be a better platform for you. Most of us here would rather deal in facts.

 

[birch]

Actually, your problem is that, instead of arguing facts, you are making emotional appeals and other logical fallacies, such as your attempt at poisoning the well by implying I am "feeling guilty" for something. Do I ignore other people's signals? No, not by choice. Do I miss them? Occasionally - guess what birch, I'm human. I'm imperfect, I make mistakes, and, especially when tensions and/or stress is high I act impulsively and take what seems to be the right course if action that, with the benefit of hindsight, I can later see was not the best option.

If you wish to claim such things never happen to you, then I surmise we will soon be worshipping a new Queen of the World, if you truly are of such perfection.

Granted, based on what I've seen, I doubt we have to worry about such things.

As I said to you in another thread - if you wish to debate based on appeals to emotion, perhaps Facebook would be a better platform for you. Most of us here would rather deal in facts.

your reply is appeal to emotion and has nothing to do with sexual harassment. you are trying to find some reason or example for a misunderstanding in the context of sexual harassment and you can't even come up with one because you have no experience. what is suspect is why you are so eager to find an excuse but you don't have any to point to. most people would have had an experience to share which proves an exception but you don't actually have an example of that either.

no one said anyone is perfect and i sure wouldn't be posting the way i do if appearing perfect was a goal, now would i?

i told you sexual harassers try to bypass the person they are targeting. they purposely ignore what you say in the vain idea that they can somehow trick you or coerce you which is strange in itself. they are predators period.

what 'mistakes and imperfections' are you referring in the context of sexual harassment and when sexual harassment is not starting a conversation or asking someone out on a date? it's when the other is not interested and tells you so. what mistakes and imperfections as an excuse is there for someone that ignores that and continues to pursue them?

it's you who aren't presenting any facts because you have none. partly it's because you have yet to grasp or acknowledge the actual boundaries are in sexual harassment.

you aren't being specific because you have no real point to make. you just want to assume there is an excuse in these situations somehow and there isn't. it's clear why. it's not up for interpretation in this case as you assume.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

To the one:::

Oh my... coud it be that a whale of a nice guy is just to stoopid to notice the clue that ther "frind" dont enjoy the poke-war game sinse they never initiate it.!!!

To the second:::

Or is it simply a bully-at-hart who conveniently dont notice the discomfort of ther victim in order to help satisfy ther sadistic needs.!!!

Concluson:::

Im guessin it lots of one an even more of the other

 

[Kittamaru]

your reply is appeal to emotion and has nothing to do with sexual harassment.

Funny, the entire point is about sexual harassment and how to define it. You don't like it because it doesn't fit your desired narrative, so you continue to pontificate about nothing whilst ignoring presented evidence and scenarios.

Sorry birch, but I think I'm going to follow some wise old advice and not argue with a fool

 

[iceaura]

Hell, when it comes to sex with a kid, the Democrats did the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Except for the jail sentence, the resigned office, the personal intervention of Jesse Jackson, the lack of national Party involvement, the failure to compare similar levels of politics, and so forth.

Yep. In other words, your party is just as bad, because they aren't making a stand against this sort of behaviour and leaving voters with little to no choice.

Bullshit. (bearing false witness)
Specifically, Republican media bothsides bullshit.

Ah, hysterical!

Information for you. You appear to learn these simple facts very slowly - agenda getting in the way?

So stop using that as an excuse.

You've been corrected on that one three times now. It's the Republican Party Line. (And bearing false witness)

You think that's what is going to get Moore elected?
- - -
We'll just ignore what he did beforehand and he did say 'sorry', so it's all good, right?

More of this Fox News troll-question style.
The issue was your repeated false claims of people making arguments they had not made - even the opposite of what they had made. You bearing false witness.
Read the posts, respond to the posts, shove the bullshit rhetorical deflection "questions" up your ass.
Or to put it in a style familiar to you: So you don't care whether "no means no"?

If your employee admits to sexually harassing women while representing your company, do you fire him or not?

Depends on what he - or she - did, and how they reacted when confronted. Of course.

And you don't really get to complain about Trump's sexual harassment of women anymore.

Yes, I do.
So do all the women who have been trying to get you guys to register reality. Such as the Franken-era female staff of Saturday Night Live - imho they get to complain about Trump's harassment of women if they want to.
Even better, since I don't get what Trump did and said confused with behaviors like Franken's, and since I'm aiming them at the men who control the major media and Party lines, my complaints do not undercut or trivialize the power issue.

People who keep pointing to Trump in defending Franken, have lost all moral high ground they may have had.

Nobody's doing that, in your sense. Nobody is saying that what Franken did is not so bad because Trump did worse, as you claim.

That's about the seventh screwed-up misrepresentation you've posted, every one of them straight from Republican Bothsides Central. You seem intent on living in that bubble of false equivalence, and bearing false witness against anyone who doesn't join you. Then after bearing false witness you pass judgment on other people's morality.

Moral high ground is more of a redneck thing, and I'm not into it. Being right, instead of wrong, interests me more. Liberal governance, in particular, stands or falls on reason - and I prefer liberal governance.

 

[Bells]

I would also ask - if it had been just the groping picture, as an example, what is the appropriate response /retaliation?

Ask yourself this.. You are an employer, and your employee takes a photo of another female employee sleeping and he looks like he's pretending to grope her boobs, what do you think the appropriate response would be?

Or ask yourself this.. How would you feel if she was your wife and her coworker did that to her after she fell asleep?

Franken has dozens of female staff standing by him, saying he's been professional and courteous et al, even after he took responsibility for wrongdoing.

And?

All the men who do things like this will always trot out women who 'stand by him'. I mean, look at Trump and Moore, how many women also stand by them?

He took responsibility for the Tweeden photo. He didn't exactly take responsibility or properly apologise to the 3 other women he groped. You didn't see or read his non-apology statement about how he's sorry they were made to feel uncomfortable, and how he's a 'giving a hug' type of person.. In short, he didn't apologise for groping women on their backsides. He apologised that women sometimes felt uncomfortable with how he greets people and how some are more sensitive than others... In other words, he shifted the blame on the women being sensitive to his hugs and how he greets people, than on his groping them on their backsides and staring at the boobs of another woman at the same event.

Does owning up to a mistake change things, compared to slandering and verbally abusing the accuser as Moore and Co are doing?

If Al Franken owned up to groping women, then your question could be answered. But he did not. And I suspect if he attempted to slander and verbally abuse the accusers in public, like Moore and Trump did, perhaps he understands that his voters and female voters in particular would turn on him. Moore and Trump know that by abusing their accusers in public, that this is more likely to resonate with their male voters. Democrats rely on female votes to get over the line.

Is personal responsibility after the fact worth anything anymore?

If he changes the behaviour, maybe. Do you think he's changed? Will he change for political expediency? Or because he truly knows it's wrong? And frankly, how can he not have known it was truly wrong to begin with? And do you think putting it down to the women being sensitive to how he hugs and greets people is showing personal responsibility for groping their backsides?

Because... Well, if not... Then what reason is there for said responsibility in an age where he who has the most money/power can do what they want and, apparently, get away with it unscathed?

And people who behave this way do regardless.

I would guess that depends on what happened. If said sexual harassment was, for instance, a joke too far, then I'd ask the victim what they felt was appropriate punishment.

Why are you putting that decision down to the victim and putting added pressure down on the victim?

If it were, say, someone attempting to coerce another employee into sexual actions, threatening to damage their career if they refused, then immediate termination and filing of charges would seem appropriate to me.

So why is Conyers still there?

What would you consider due process, in this instance?

I think if any organisation or political party is going to state they have a zero tolerance for sexual harassment, then they should act like it.

Obviously, he should knock it off.

Again, obviously he should stop.

Okay...

Agreed. My point was more along the lines of someone who is making an attempt to flirt whilst still being courteous and conscientious, yet is not getting any sign from the other party that they are uncomfortable or otherwise afraid.

If the woman does not say no, and is not trying to get away from him and if she is responding to his attempts at flirting in a manner that is positive, then what do you think the answer to that question is?

I think we both know the answer to this, Bells.

I do.

And yet, it can be. What is normal for you or I may be abnormal for someone else. Between cultural differences, differences in lifestyle, social norms, etc... it isn't so black and white. Attempting to make it that cut and dry just seems like it is asking for trouble.

Actually, it is pretty cut and dry, Kitta.

So, then, do you propose there is no difference between a lewd comment, touching the rear, and attempting to rip someones clothes off and forcibly take them? If that's how you want to define it, fine - but we need to make sure everyone is on the same page, and held to the same standard.

Please enlighten me.. What have I said, that would possibly make you come out with this response?

Here is what I said:

And if people can't understand that 'line' when it comes to women's bodies, then frankly, they should stay away from women. If a guy cannot grasp that he should not grope a woman when out and about or at a work function, etc, then really, he should not be anywhere near women.​

Can you please explain how you took that, and came out with my proposing "there is no difference between a lewd comment, touching the rear, and attempting to rip someone's clothes off and forcibly take them" and worse yet, that this is apparently how I want to define it?

If I'm not mistaken, Franken has admitted wrongdoing and stated he would be open to an investigation. Are you suggesting he should be punished before said investigation, ergo "guilty until proven innocent"? If so, again, that's fine - I just want to make sure we're all playing by the same rulebook

The investigation he has asked for, is a process that can take years. It is by a committee with one woman only, the rest are all males. He has admitted to wrongdoing to begin with. He has admitted to taking that photo with Tweeden to begin with. He has established his own guilt. So what is the investigation for, exactly? Is it to determine that taking such a photo is wrong and is sexual harassment? Oookay.. Is it to determine that his groping women on their backsides and propositioning one to join her in the bathroom is wrong and sexual harassment? Ermm.. Okay. The investigation is not a criminal investigation, Kitta.

Let's just say, for example, that this was for a criminal trial. Before going to trial, the accused admits to the crime and confesses that he did it. Do you still have a trial to determine if the person is guilty or not? No, you don't. Because you no longer need to establish that person's guilt. They already confessed.

So what will the ethnics investigation determine? That his manner of "hugging" and "greeting" women is wrong and he should stop doing so? Oookay then!

So, you are making the claim, then, that all men are swine and will take advantage of women at every opportunity unless the Sword of Damocles hangs o're their head...

*Raise eyebrows*

Where did she say that all men are swine? And why are you even going with the 'not all men' defense at this point?

 

[Bells]

Except for the jail sentence, the resigned office, the personal intervention of Jesse Jackson, the lack of national Party involvement, the failure to compare similar levels of politics, and so forth.

Yes, that came after..

He was accused of statutory rape of a 16 year old girl. He was found guilty during the campaign for reelection. He kept going with his campaign and did not resign or stand aside. He was not kicked out of the party. He resigned from his seat from his newly re-won seat, months after he was found guilty of statutory rape, attempting to procure child pornography. He was indicted in August 1994 for statutory rape of a child, attempting to procure child pornography and several other sex offenses against a minor. He was reelected to his seat in November of 1994.. He was convicted for those crimes in August 1995. He resigned from his seat in October 1995.

He was then jailed for 5 years.

He was then also fond guilty of several other charges, which he was given a sentence that was concurrent and overlap to the child sex offenses he was already in prison for. When his time served for the child sex offenses were over, he was still in prison for the fraud, etc conviction that he was sentenced to after the child rape conviction.. He was then given a pardon by Bill Clinton for the fraud and election fraud conviction and released from prison and went to a half way house for a period of time.

He was still not kicked out of the Democratic Party. He was then hired by Jesse Jackson, to work as a youth counselor. And a couple of years after that, he ran as a Democrat again.. twice.

The going to jail, resigned office, etc, came after the indictment for the child sex offenses, and well after he continued to run as a Democrat.

Stop making excuses.

Bullshit. (bearing false witness)
Specifically, Republican media bothsides bullshit.

Yep, of course it is. It's also a great way to avoid the bleeding obvious problem within the party itself.

It's also a great look!

Information for you. You appear to learn these simple facts very slowly - agenda getting in the way?

My sole agenda here, iceaura, is to stop sexual harassment of women. And I don't care which side of the political aisle you are on. The fact that your attempts to do whatever the hell it is you are doing by snide accusations that I am bearing false witness (which is frankly laughable), to apparently having some sort of insidious right wing agenda (which is doubly laughable), says a lot about how and why "the left" continues to fail when it comes to these issues, despite being the supposed party of women's rights. When push comes to shove, you aren't the party for women's rights and women's issues, when the Democrats consistently fail to address these issues when it falls within their party. They are always caught on the back foot, they aren't dealing with it as it is meant to be dealt with, meanwhile, they remain silent on their supporters shaming victims, and simply respond by pointing to the abject failures of the Republican party when it comes to women.

It's blatant hypocrisy. And frankly, I don't appreciate the manner in which some in this very thread, have attempted to silence women who wish to speak about that issue, by either commenting on our mental state, and in your case, insinuating that I am somehow or other right wing or espousing right wing rhetoric. You're just all piling more on that pile of what women have been complaining about and are still complaining about.

You've been corrected on that one three times now. It's the Republican Party Line. (And bearing false witness)

Oh, I'm sorry for not immediately agreeing with you. And I still don't.

If Franken had not been outed, do you seriously think that the Republican right wing voters in Alabama would have voted differently? Do you think their narrative about Moore changed after the Franken allegations came out?

And if Moore and Trump had not happened to the US, and the Franken allegations came out, would there still be hand wringing and pontificating and pointing out Republican sexual harassment and assaults?

It's astonishing really. Democrats keep referring to Moore and Trump and Republicans keep referring to Clinton and Franken and now Conyers.

Le plus ça change plus c'est la même chose...

More of this Fox News troll-question style.

I don't watch Fox News, so I frankly would not know.

The issue was your repeated false claims of people making arguments they had not made - even the opposite of what they had made. You bearing false witness.

Right..

We'll also ignore the many posts on progressive websites about how Franken did nothing really wrong, and where his victims are shamed and abused as well.

Then we can all say that none of it ever happened.

Read the posts, respond to the posts, shove the bullshit rhetorical deflection "questions" up your ass.
Or to put it in a style familiar to you: So you don't care whether "no means no"?

Nice. Good to see you sticking to their formula.

Depends on what he - or she - did, and how they reacted when confronted. Of course.

And yet, here we are.

Let me ask you this.. If Moore and Trump responded as Franken did, would you be saying the same thing?

Yes, I do.
So do all the women who have been trying to get you guys to register reality.

The women are complaining about what we register as reality. The question becomes, when are you guys going to listen to us?

Such as the Franken-era female staff of Saturday Night Live - imho they get to complain about Trump's harassment of women if they want to.

Yes.

And?

Women have every right to complain about Trump's sexual harassment, Moore's paedophilia, Franken's sexual harassment, Conyer's sexual harassment, etc. When are you guys going to start listening and paying attention?

When are you guys going to stop resorting to pointing to others as a defense instead of taking a zero tolerance stance on these issues?

Even better, since I don't get what Trump did and said confused with behaviors like Franken's, and since I'm aiming them at the men who control the major media and Party lines, my complaints do not undercut or trivialize the power issue.

Then you have completely missed the issue entirely.

The issue is sexual harassment. Full stop.

It's either acceptable or not acceptable. Full stop.

Regardless of party affiliations or anything else, really.

You do get that, right?

Nobody's doing that, in your sense. Nobody is saying that what Franken did is not so bad because Trump did worse, as you claim.

Right..

I've heard nothing about him yet that belongs in the same conversation as Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or D0nald Trump for that matter.

That's about the seventh screwed-up misrepresentation you've posted, every one of them straight from Republican Bothsides Central. You seem intent on living in that bubble of false equivalence, and bearing false witness against anyone who doesn't join you. Then after bearing false witness you pass judgment on other people's morality.

Moral high ground is more of a redneck thing, and I'm not into it. Being right, instead of wrong, interests me more. Liberal governance, in particular, stands or falls on reason - and I prefer liberal governance.

Yep. And because he's a good Democrat who votes for women's rights, he should get a pass and should not be lumped in with Trump or Moore or Weinstein.

And why shouldn't a sexual harasser of women be lumped in with Trump, Moore, Weinstein and co?

I'll put it this way. Would you be saying this if Franken was a Republican?

 

[Bells]

are the men on this forum really going to pretend they don't know what sexual harassment is,

Does this surprise you?

Of course there is never any miscommunication in sexual harassment ever. Of course.

Dude!

People know when they are being sexually harassed. People generally know what things are out of bounds.

So glad, birch, that you can so confidently speak in absolutes.

She actually wasn't. She was being quite general about it. Your attempts to set the tone of the discussion around one particular thing that had nothing to actually do with sexual harassment is what, exactly?

Actually, your problem is that, instead of arguing facts, you are making emotional appeals and other logical fallacies, such as your attempt at poisoning the well by implying I am "feeling guilty" for something.

She is arguing the facts.

And she isn't and was not making any emotional appeals. She wasn't poisoning the well. You did by attempting to discuss your friend's aversion to being touched under the guise of sexual harassment and mixed signals. She correctly pointed out that what you described was not sexual harassment. And now you are taking it personally, giving the stock standard #NotAllMen responses, etc.

Do I ignore other people's signals? No, not by choice. Do I miss them? Occasionally - guess what birch, I'm human. I'm imperfect, I make mistakes, and, especially when tensions and/or stress is high I act impulsively and take what seems to be the right course if action that, with the benefit of hindsight, I can later see was not the best option.

Ermm okay. And?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what she is actually discussing or attempting to discuss.

If you wish to claim such things never happen to you, then I surmise we will soon be worshipping a new Queen of the World, if you truly are of such perfection.

Granted, based on what I've seen, I doubt we have to worry about such things.

What does this have to do with sexual harassment?

You have a woman attempting to discuss sexual harassment and you are responding by hiding behind #NotAllMen type responses, you have every appearance of trying to guilt and shame her into silence, when that doesn't work, you make a pretty sexist argument that has nothing to do with what she said to begin with.

Funny, the entire point is about sexual harassment and how to define it. You don't like it because it doesn't fit your desired narrative, so you continue to pontificate about nothing whilst ignoring presented evidence and scenarios.

Want to know what's not funny?

This.

You haven't actually presented evidence or scenarios that speak to or are even about sexual harassment. Secondly, it's really not your place to tell a woman and a sexual harassment (and worse survivor), what narrative she should be adhering to when it comes to sexual harassment and issues that affect her on a daily basis. Thirdly, you don't get to foist your narrative about sexual harassment on her.

And finally, trying to make her out to be emotional, irrational and now this:

Sorry birch, but I think I'm going to follow some wise old advice and not argue with a fool

Just further underlines the problem facing women.

 

[iceaura]

Yep. And because he's a good Democrat who votes for women's rights, he should get a pass and should not be lumped in with Trump or Moore or Weinstein.

No, that's not what was posted. That's not what you quoted. That's almost the opposite of what you quoted.

Then you have completely missed the issue entirely.

The issue is sexual harassment. Full stop.

That issue includes you, and too many others, refusing to deal with sexual harassment in reason and good faith.

Yep, of course it is. It's also a great way to avoid the bleeding obvious problem within the party itself.

But that's not what's happening, right in front of you, in my posts.

Then you have completely missed the issue entirely.

Read the posts, respond to the posts. You do not get a pass on your behavior here because you claim to be representing a good cause.

It's astonishing really. Democrats keep referring to Moore and Trump and Republicans keep referring to Clinton and Franken and now Conyers.

That's not true. You are misrepresenting people, when you post that. Repeatedly.

My sole agenda here, iceaura, is to stop sexual harassment of women.

That is becoming less credible by the hour.

And I don't care which side of the political aisle you are on

Then quit making your presumptions about it central to your responses.

He was still not kicked out of the Democratic Party.

There is no such authority.

Yes, that came after..

It came. Hence the observation, which you refuse to acknowledge.

The issue is sexual harassment. Full stop.

It's either acceptable or not acceptable. Full stop.

That's meaningless, and begs every serious question in this matter.

Nice. Good to see you sticking to their formula.

That was your formula. Explicitly. A labeled and exact imitation of your posting here.

When are you guys going to stop resorting to pointing to others as a defense instead of taking a zero tolerance stance on these issues?

Trolling. When are you going to quit posting like that?

And why shouldn't a sexual harasser of women be lumped in with Trump, Moore, Weinstein and co?

If he didn't do what they did. It muddles and undermines dealing with what they did.

Women have every right to complain about Trump's sexual harassment, Moore's paedophilia, Franken's sexual harassment, Conyer's sexual harassment, etc.

You said they didn't, if they didn't agree with you that Franken's behavior was predation equivalent to Moore's and Weinstein's.

When are you guys going to start listening and paying attention?

You aren't even paying attention to yourself, apparently.

Stop making excuses.

Nobody's making excuses. That's dishonest posting by you.

We'll also ignore the many posts on progressive websites about how Franken did nothing really wrong, and where his victims are shamed and abused as well.

More dishonest deflection from you.

If Franken had not been outed, do you seriously think that the Republican right wing voters in Alabama would have voted differently?

That's irrelevant to my posting here. Don't pretend to be responding to my posts here like that.

Do you think their narrative about Moore changed after the Franken allegations came out?

The media narrative did. That's what I addressed.

I don't watch Fox News, so I frankly would not know.

Consider yourself informed. It's a bad team to be on - no complaints from you if y'all win this one.

I'll put it this way. Would you be saying this if Franken was a Republican?

Yes. Of course. Why not?
I'm addressing the media, after all - if they behaved the same given a Republican Franken, I'd have the same points to make. (Not a snowball's chance in hell of that, it would be like seeing the media treat W's 20 million lost official emails the way they treated Clinton's 20 thousand redacted personal ones, so it's a safe claim).
(Franken, on the other hand, probably wouldn't be acting the same - there isn't a single Republican in this arena behaving like Franken. That's not as safe a claim, of course - there aren't any Republicans in his position, and my bet is there won't be any).

You are attempting to bullshit a serious issue. Why?

 

[Kittamaru]

Does this surprise you?

Ah, right, I forgot - all us men are scum, and predators that just want in your pants.
Misandry 101, right there. The moment a guy gives an example of just how easy it is to blunder into an uncomfortable situation, BAM, we men are just avoiding the point. No matter that it applies equally to both men and women, no matter that it applies to a cultural difference as easily as a gender difference. Just another appeal to emotions and an attempted rallying cry around some banner for which the goalposts have more motion than O'Hare International Airport.

Dude!

People know when they are being sexually harassed. People generally know what things are out of bounds.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying that the claim that it cannot be anything but malicious is foolish and, quite simply, misandristic.

She actually wasn't. She was being quite general about it. Your attempts to set the tone of the discussion around one particular thing that had nothing to actually do with sexual harassment is what, exactly?

Did you actually read what birch wrote, or are you just bandwagoning? Because here are her exact words, as she wrote them:

so no, there is no 'misunderstanding or miscommunication' in sexual harassment. ever. that's why it's harassment and has all the hallmarks of either rude objectification/sexually or being, well, fuking harassed!

That is an absolute, Bells. Unless you wish to take a page from some of our more, hrm, prolific posters and start redefining words, perhaps? Your choice, Bells.

Here's a couple more:

the problem is it's not that they don't know it's unwanted, it's that they don't respect any boundaries unless it's absolutely enforced.

Nothing will stop men except zero access and opportunity which is unrealistic

She is arguing the facts. And she isn't and was not making any emotional appeals.

Oh really?

Please, Bells, support these arguments of Birch's with facts:

part of the reason is because it's too common. people are sinful creatures.

the problem has always been because people are immoral. its a shame there is almost nothing to change it. so you can see this shit will never stop.

humans may deserve to go extinct as a species and all organic life as it's so lacking in real integrity. the whole basis of organic life is predation. it will never stop. these incidents will continue and even if you deter some, there are others that won't be caught and even if they are, there is little consequence anyways and so on the next generation.

robots and computers should replace us. organic life is faulty as hell.

I await with baited breath your explanation how these are not appeals to emotion.

She wasn't poisoning the well. You did by attempting to discuss your friend's aversion to being touched under the guise of sexual harassment and mixed signals. She correctly pointed out that what you described was not sexual harassment. And now you are taking it personally, giving the stock standard #NotAllMen responses, etc.

Ah, hashtag responses. Classic bandwagon.

My example was quite succinct, and the fact that you missed the point entirely is rather funny. Try again, Bells - read my example and see if you can fathom the point I was making. I'll give you a rather large hint - it has little to do with sexual harassment and more to deal with the fact that, sometimes, people miss things. In this case, the fact that I had made one of my best friends (to the point that, he was the Best Man at my wedding) uncomfortable without knowing it.

He's a guy. I'm a guy. We've known each other for... close to a decade and a half. There is (or should be) exactly zero power disparity between us, so that claim is off the table. We've been exceedingly open and honest with each other about facets of our lives that we just don't share with others because we trust one another.

So, tell me Bells - can you figure out what the point of that is? C'mon... it should be easy!

Ermm okay. And?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what she is actually discussing or attempting to discuss.

Ah, I see what you are getting at. Men have to be 100% perfect at reading every possible signal, and missing one is clearly the fault of the guy alone, and he must be punished severely for doing so.

What does this have to do with sexual harassment?

Bells, I'm sorry, but you aren't this stupid, so stop pretending.

You have a woman attempting to discuss sexual harassment and you are responding by hiding behind #NotAllMen type responses, you have every appearance of trying to guilt and shame her into silence, when that doesn't work, you make a pretty sexist argument that has nothing to do with what she said to begin with.

Ah, the sexist argument. You know what's sexist, Bells? This is sexist:

you can be offended all the fuk you want.

and

since you are a man, obviously you are unaware that men who are sexual harassers take even conversation or any attention their way as an opportunity to continue to try you.

Because "I'm a man" I am "obviously unaware" about things. Because "I'm a man" I can be "offended all the fuk I want" and it doesn't matter. Apparently, only women get to be offended and have it mean something.

That is, fundamentally, sexist. Do you disagree, Bells?

Want to know what's not funny?

This.

You haven't actually presented evidence or scenarios that speak to or are even about sexual harassment. Secondly, it's really not your place to tell a woman and a sexual harassment (and worse survivor), what narrative she should be adhering to when it comes to sexual harassment and issues that affect her on a daily basis. Thirdly, you don't get to foist your narrative about sexual harassment on her.

The only ones foisting any narrative here Bells are you and Birch. That narrative being misandry.

The scenario I presented has a very simple point, one you and birch are trying exceedingly hard to miss. I know you aren't that stupid, Bells, but you are, apparently, that dishonest.

And finally, trying to make her out to be emotional, irrational and now this:

Just further underlines the problem facing women.

Ah, making it about Gender and not the Person.

Sorry Bells, but if you are going to play the fool, I'm going to treat you like a fool - I don't give a good Goddamn if you are a man or a woman. Gender should have precisely zero bearing on the argument being made - the facts of the argument are what matters. Your continued attempts to make it about gender showcase your narrative perfectly.

 

[Kittamaru]

You know... it's rather sad. We've reached the point where it seems we want the status quo to be "guilty until proven innocent", where we want a jury of public opinion, rather than a trial by peers.

We have placed two men, who have had differing accusations levied against them, have had very different responses to said accusations (one became defiant, repulsive, and his team made it a mission to slander his accusers, the other readily apologized and stated he would cooperate with any investigation deemed necessary) and have seemingly demanded an equal amount of blood from them, without due process for anyone involved.

You know, maybe Birch is right... perhaps Humanity should just go extinct, because if we're just going to operate on base emotion and instinct like this, then do we really have any claim to being the "intelligent species" on Earth?

Are we really so foolish that we cannot look beyond our own two hands and even attempt to see the world through someone else's eyes and experiences? Is it so difficult to stop and contemplate what is being said without our own personal prejudices?

I guess we really are too emotional for logic and reason to win the day... because as cold as it sounds, logic, reason, and facts are what matter most.

What happened? How did it happen? What was the intent? What was the situation? How was it handled?

These basic questions seem to be going unanswered in favor of a whole lot of gnashing of teeth and screeching of accusations.

GG Humanity, it's been a good run?

 

[Bells]

No, that's not what was posted. That's not what you quoted. That's almost the opposite of what you quoted.

Oh you mean that's not what you have been arguing for this whole thread?

That's not what his supporters have been saying?

I mean, you even went so far as to basically question if he even groped those women, then you went through that whole threat/fear spiel, as though you were trying to further dismiss what he did.

It's this insidious watering down of what he did and for what? To then point out just how he does not belong in the same boat as Moore, Trump, Weinstein and co?

That issue includes you, and too many others, refusing to deal with sexual harassment in reason and good faith.

Well yes. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, I have a zero tolerance policy in regards to sexual harassment. I understand how you would think that that somehow means that I do not "deal with sexual harassment in reason and good faith".

I mean, your response to Franken groping women amounted to:

The content of the accounts so far do not indicate even that. No predation, no abuse of power, no pattern of threat and coercion, appears so far. Did you notice?

I disagree. Clearly.

Now, apparently this means that I am refusing to deal with sexual harassment in reason and good faith, not to mention the wealth of other accusations that you have made because I am not seeing sexual harassment as you seem to deem appropriate for me to see it.

But, as far as you seem to be concerned..

In the second, Franken has proven his abilities.

And that's all that should matter, right?

He's proven his abilities and apparently the voters in Minnesota apparently don't seem to be that competent, according to you...

And so, he stays. This, apparently is you dealing with sexual harassment in reason and good faith?

But that's not what's happening, right in front of you, in my posts.

And yet, it is happening.

But he's proven his abilities.

Your posts, ah, iceaura, your posts read like you are from an angry men's rights group. What you have posted in this thread, is not unlike what I have seen on other websites where people are defending Franken. You fit into that narrative. Your behaviour, your manner of arguing these points, just shows why the Democrats won't actively do anything to deal with this behaviour within their party and why they have been hesitant and reticent to do so in the past.

Read the posts, respond to the posts. You do not get a pass on your behavior here because you claim to be representing a good cause.

I am and I did. You just don't like the answers.

That's not true. You are misrepresenting people, when you post that. Repeatedly.

But I'm not. Go and look at what his supporters have been saying.

That is becoming less credible by the hour.

Yep. Uh huh.

Then quit making your presumptions about it central to your responses.

After you quit taking political sides on the issue and offering up zilch and instead, pointing to how Democrats are dealing with it by throwing it to the Ethics Committee... Ya, that's really taking a stand! Because this, apparently, is what sets Democrats apart from Republicans in how they handle these sorts of allegations. This is why Franken should not be lumped with the likes of Moore, Trump and Weinstein. Democrats are acting, they were firm in their condemnation, they and Franken have demanded that he be investigated by the Ethics Committee. Good man!

The Ethics Committee, made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, is responsible for investigating any violations of the body’s ethics rules, but it rarely issues sanctions. In 2016, it received 63 allegations of violations, none of which resulted in disciplinary action. According to its own annual reports, the panel has not issued disciplinary sanctions against anyone in nine years.​

But the narrative of just how they are dealing with it, sure looks good from a media standpoint and helps you all sleep better at night. Meanwhile, the women may have to testify or answer questions from the Committee if said Committee agrees to investigate it or deems it warrants an investigation and perhaps that may even be made public. At the end of the day, this will turn into the victims being treated like criminals by a bunch of politicians who are more interested in protecting their own position. And the end result will be what? A slap on the wrist? He gets to carry on with his life,

Understand what I mean now? Or are you going to persist in demanding I stick to your narrative when it comes to sexual harassment?

That was your formula. Explicitly. A labeled and exact imitation of your posting here.

I told you to shove it up your arse?

You seem to be quite testy and very defensive. You seem offended that I take a zero tolerance approach to sexual harassment. All in all, you are putting on a spectacular display here.

There is no such authority.

Hmm okay..

It came. Hence the observation, which you refuse to acknowledge.

I think you got the timeline I put up backwards.

That's meaningless, and begs every serious question in this matter.

Oh so saying that sexual harassment is not acceptable is meaningless?

Okay.

Trolling. When are you going to quit posting like that?

When you stop doing it?

If he didn't do what they did. It muddles and undermines dealing with what they did.

Is this you still not pointing to Moore, Trump and co in defending Franken?

Franken sexually harassed women and there is a strong allegation that he sexually assaulted one. Are you suggesting that speaking up against what he did, somehow or other undermines what Moore and co did? This is what you are going with? Do you have issues in distinguishing what he did from others? Do you think women are that stupid that we can't speak out against all of it? That we cannot distinguish between it all?

And you have spent how many posts now, pitching a fit when I have pointed out just how downright dumb it is for the left who tout themselves as the party that protects women, to resort to this sort of defense and you have outright said that no one has said any such thing.. And yet, here you are, doing it again.

You are attempting to bullshit a serious issue. Why?

Because I think the left and the right are a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to this issue.

In dealing with sexual harassment, congressional Democratic and Republican leaders aren’t that far apart. Both see eruptions like Moore and Franken’s as political problems to be managed so they don’t hurt the party as a whole. The larger gulf is between grassroots liberal activists who want to change men’s behavior, no matter the political fallout, and conservative activists who see sexual-harassment claims against Republicans as a conspiracy by the liberal media.​

When it comes to sexual harassment, the Democrats are failing. Again.

 

[origin]

I think this is a great conversation. It is emotional. There are gray areas.
It is difficult to for me to get into the head of a woman and see her viewpoint, like wise it is difficult for a woman to get into a man's head to see his view point.

Most people do not want to hurt others, so let's see how our behaviors can be made better. The only way to work through this is to discuss this honestly which means the discussion will get heated and mistakes will be made by men and women alike. So let's bring it on and hash it out.

 

[Kittamaru]

Is this you still not pointing to Moore, Trump and co in defending Franken?

Franken sexually harassed women and there is a strong allegation that he sexually assaulted one. Are you suggesting that speaking up against what he did, somehow or other undermines what Moore and co did? This is what you are going with? Do you have issues in distinguishing what he did from others? Do you think women are that stupid that we can't speak out against all of it? That we cannot distinguish between it all?

See, this is the kind of behavior that confuses me Bells...

Are you saying Democrats shouldn't hold Moore, Trump and Co accountable just because one (now two) Democrats have been accused of the same behavior?

You keep harping on Franken - he has already welcomed an investigation. What more do you want? You seem to want him to resign in disgrace before any due process happens... a very interesting position for one supposedly so in-the-know with the law.

Are you equating what Franken supposedly did with what Moore and Trump supposedly did? Are they all equally bad?

If so, that's fine - just make sure we are all being clear.

I think this is a great conversation. It is emotional. There are gray areas.
It is difficult to for me to get into the head of a woman and see her viewpoint, like wise it is difficult for a woman to get into a man's head to see his view point.

Most people do not want to hurt others, so let's see how our behaviors can be made better. The only way to work through this is to discuss this honestly which means the discussion will get heated and mistakes will be made by men and women alike. So let's bring it on and hash it out.

I would contend that it isn't hard for a man to get into the head of a woman or a woman into the head of a man - rather, it's difficult for anyone to get into the head of someone who is more than minimally different than themselves. Everyone views the world through the glass of their own experiences; my wife and I, for example, agree on a lot of things, in part because we have had very similar experiences growing up. In a few areas, however, we differ greatly (the death penalty, for example - neither of us like it, but I believe it is a necessary evil, whereas she would like to see it abolished entirely).

I can understand and accept her viewpoint even without agreeing with it. Likewise, she does with me and mine. Neither of us revert to petty personal attacks, sexist attacks, or emotional logical fallacies, and so we simply agree to have differing opinions on it.

You are right, though, that this is a topic that sees emotions run very high. Especially for those that have been in such a terrible situation. However, those emotions must not overrule logic and reason, or else the entire discussion is for naught.

 

[birch]

I think this is a great conversation. It is emotional. There are gray areas.
It is difficult to for me to get into the head of a woman and see her viewpoint, like wise it is difficult for a woman to get into a man's head to see his view point.

since there are gray areas along this subject according to you, then you can provide examples of such, can't you? otherwise it's tantamount to bullshit. please provide examples as i'm sure if it's legitimate, then it will stand on it's own.

so harassment is about 'getting into the head of a woman's viewpoint'?? lmfao! you are in no man's land there. harassment is simply continuing along a course of action against someone who has clearly made it known it is unwelcome. now please explain how this is misinterpreted except for the perpetrator not accepting or respecting that.

even sexual innuendos or jokes as well as physical touching specifically directed at a total stranger before you have even established that this type of rapport is acceptable is sexual harassment. it's pretty obvious why that would be offensive because no one who is respectful of another person or has any civility would start out that way and be mindful of such overt actions.

Most people do not want to hurt others

you have an unrealistic take on what harassers do. it's not about that, it's that they don't "care" if their harassment hurts you. they don't "care," it's all about what they want from you.

you don't know who and why someone wants to hurt. they may not want to hurt you but may want to hurt someone else. you are assuming that simply based on the fact, everyone has issues and drama with different people.

i mean, the guy you chat with in the checkout line or co-worker who may be friendly with you may be beating his wife and kids at home or looking at child porn etc. hell, maybe he is harassing some woman too. why would he have an issue with you? you are of no real interest in his life so he would not have an issue particularly with you, positive or negative, so you take that further to assume people dont' want to hurt "anyone." you don't know people in general. just the people "you" know.

 

[Kittamaru]

since there are gray areas along this subject according to you, then you can provide examples of such, can't you? otherwise it's tantamount to bullshit. please provide examples as i'm sure if it's legitimate, then it will stand on it's own.

You claim it is black and white, then?

so harassment is about 'getting into the head of a woman's viewpoint'?? lmfao! you are in no man's land there. harassment is simply continuing along a course of action against someone who has clearly made it known it is unwelcome. now please explain how this is misinterpreted except for the perpetrator not accepting or respecting that.

Out of context entirely. I believe Origin's point was that it can be difficult for someone to accurately see/judge the world from anothers viewpoint, and to know how their actions will be taken.

you have an unrealistic take on what harassers do. it's not about that, it's that they don't "care" if their harassment hurts you. they don't "care," it's all about what they want from you.

Again, you seem to be claiming it is impossible to accidentally or inadvertently harass someone in any way.

you don't know who and why someone wants to hurt. they may not want to hurt you but may want to hurt someone else. you are assuming that simply based on the fact, everyone has issues and drama with different people.

This is utterly irrelevant to what was said.

i mean, the guy you chat with in the checkout line who may be friendly with you may be beating his wife and kids at home or looking at child porn etc. hell, maybe he is harassing some woman too. why would he have an issue with you? you are of no real interest in his life so he would not have an issue particularly with you, positive or negative, so you take that further to assume people dont' want to hurt "anyone." you don't know people in general. just the people "you" know.

Are you proposing that everyone should live in fear of everyone they don't know then?

 

[birch]

No matter that it applies equally to both men and women, no matter that it applies to a cultural difference as easily as a gender difference.

Gender should have precisely zero bearing on the argument being made - the facts of the argument are what matters. Your continued attempts to make it about gender showcase your narrative perfectly.

you are the one screeching incoherently. your trying to discredit female victims of sexual harassment by stating that it's not about gender and there are women who are sexual predators too.

guess what? no one said there wasn't.

but you don't even try to bring up an example to discuss if that's the argument or point you want to make and no one is stopping you. i think it's because it does not minimize the fact there are more men who harass sexually as well as being sexual predators. what other logical reason is there or do you just like appearing ridiculous?

i suppose your mentioning of cultural and gender differences is some type of an excuse. what culture would that be? somewhere in the middle-east? lol.

now, why don't you calm down and cite examples of female sexual predators or those who have been inappropriate so you can feel better, okay? lol.

 

[Bells]

Ah, right, I forgot - all us men are scum, and predators that just want in your pants.

You do understand that you are just making my point for me and birch's point, for that matter, when you behave this way, right?

Misandry 101, right there. The moment a guy gives an example of just how easy it is to blunder into an uncomfortable situation, BAM, we men are just avoiding the point.

Okay. Let me clear something up for you.

Sexual harassment is not an "uncomfortable situation".

No matter that it applies equally to both men and women, no matter that it applies to a cultural difference as easily as a gender difference. Just another appeal to emotions and an attempted rallying cry around some banner for which the goalposts have more motion than O'Hare International Airport.

Women have been very clear about what is sexual harassment. So why do you think the goalpost is moving?

And I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying that the claim that it cannot be anything but malicious is foolish and, quite simply, misandristic.

Sexual harassment, by its very nature, is malicious.

I'll put it this way. Do you view racism and antisemitism and saying or doing things that is racist or antisemitic as always being malicious in nature?

Did you actually read what birch wrote, or are you just bandwagoning? Because here are her exact words, as she wrote them:

That is an absolute, Bells. Unless you wish to take a page from some of our more, hrm, prolific posters and start redefining words, perhaps? Your choice, Bells.

And she's right. Women always know what sexual harassment is. And that's actually a fairly general statement.

The only people who would view it as an absolute are those who perhaps feel that it is infringing on them in some way.

Oh really?

Please, Bells, support these arguments of Birch's with facts:

I await with baited breath your explanation how these are not appeals to emotion.

Then you are at risk of asphyxiation.

Because what Birch detailed is the reality for women. And the response you offered, is a perfect example of the facts that you seek.

Sexual harassment will never end, as long as men start ranting about "not all men" each time a woman opens her mouth to try to discuss the issue in your bid to shut us up and shut us down. For all of your self righteous posturing, you still don't understand what sexual harassment actually is, you gave an example, which was not sexual harassment, you diminished sexual harassment to an "uncomfortable situation", you demeaned, abused, insulted, attempted to silence, attempted to use your position here to silence a victim who is attempting to lend her voice and detail what she has experienced, because shock of shock, you took what she said personally because #notallmen!

So yeah, bate that breath. Let us know when you turn blue.

Ah, hashtag responses. Classic bandwagon.

Ya. That's what it is.

My example was quite succinct, and the fact that you missed the point entirely is rather funny. Try again, Bells - read my example and see if you can fathom the point I was making. I'll give you a rather large hint - it has little to do with sexual harassment and more to deal with the fact that, sometimes, people miss things.

Your example has your friend telling you that your bro hugs make him uncomfortable because he doesn't like touching. You use this as an example of just how you "miss things" or miss social queues even from those you know. And this somehow or other plays into just how easily men can miss that they are sexually harassing a woman...

My incredulity isn't feigned at this point.

He's a guy. I'm a guy. We've known each other for... close to a decade and a half. There is (or should be) exactly zero power disparity between us, so that claim is off the table. We've been exceedingly open and honest with each other about facets of our lives that we just don't share with others because we trust one another.

So, tell me Bells - can you figure out what the point of that is? C'mon... it should be easy!

The point that is relevant to this discussion is that it was not sexual harassment.

It would be as relevant to the subject of sexual harassment as if you'd told us a story of how you saw a frog eat a bug once.

Ah, I see what you are getting at. Men have to be 100% perfect at reading every possible signal, and missing one is clearly the fault of the guy alone, and he must be punished severely for doing so.

Acts of sexual harassment must all be collapsed to the most anodyne in order to minimise what is a very serious problem that goes well beyond the touch of an elbow. The language of the witch-hunt is a giveaway. It betrays an understanding that if any of these allegations are taken seriously, then so much entitled behaviour needs to be unlearned. The Humbling must not come to pass.​

Poor you.

 

[Bells]

Bells, I'm sorry, but you aren't this stupid, so stop pretending.

Oh no, please, mansplain it to us some more.

Ah, the sexist argument. You know what's sexist, Bells? This is sexist:

Wow, you're still hugging and living up to the not all men spiel.

Because "I'm a man" I am "obviously unaware" about things. Because "I'm a man" I can be "offended all the fuk I want" and it doesn't matter. Apparently, only women get to be offended and have it mean something.

That is, fundamentally, sexist. Do you disagree, Bells?

When women talk about experiencing sexism or feeling unsafe, it has become a cliché for men to respond with "not all men." "Not all men sexually harass women," some might say, or, "not all men are rapists." This is true, but there are many reasons "not all men" misses the point. When we shift the discussion from the oppression of women to the protection of men's images, we undermine the very real problems women and men face.

There is a place for discussions of "not all men" in feminism. We can talk about, for example, how not all men were assigned male at birth, not all men are attracted to women, and not all men are innately aggressive, unemotional, or other things men are stereotyped to be. And we can even talk about how not all men are rapists — when it's serving a purpose like, say, pointing out that sexual violence is not natural or normal. But too often, the phrase "not all men" is used to invalidate women's claims about gender inequality or make men feel less uncomfortable about their privilege. In that case, it's not really serving a purpose, and it's silencing women.

[...]

When men say "not all men," they're often speaking defensively, Clementine Ford points out in Daily Life. They see themselves in stories about women's oppression and don't like how they're being represented. But these stories aren't about them, and members of marginalized groups should be able to talk about their own experiences without worrying about damaging privileged people's egos. When men or white people or members of another privileged group have the opportunity (which nobody owes them!) to learn about another group's experience, their job is to listen, not to defend themselves.​

Stop making it about you.

The only ones foisting any narrative here Bells are you and Birch. That narrative being misandry.

Oh! I guess we forgot our place. You know, in regards to a subject matter in which we are victims, have experienced it often on a daily basis.. In regards to a movement that is about us, as women and victims.

We forgot that we were meant to ask you what the narrative should be? Because we all so luuuurve it when you mansplain this subject to us. We really do. So set the narrative, Kitta. Protect your ego and privilege some more. Want to tell us how your friend is uncomfortable with bro hugs and compare sexual harassment to an "uncomfortable situation" some more?

The scenario I presented has a very simple point, one you and birch are trying exceedingly hard to miss. I know you aren't that stupid, Bells, but you are, apparently, that dishonest.

How many ways can we tell you that your scenario is not sexual harassment and has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual harassment?

How many ways can we get it past your inflated self importance and ego, that you don't get to set the narrative on what we view as sexual harassment?

Ah, making it about Gender and not the Person.

Sorry Bells, but if you are going to play the fool, I'm going to treat you like a fool - I don't give a good Goddamn if you are a man or a woman. Gender should have precisely zero bearing on the argument being made - the facts of the argument are what matters. Your continued attempts to make it about gender showcase your narrative perfectly.

Ya. Tell me how being a woman has no bearing in a discussion about sexual harassment some more.

No no, please, mansplain sexual harassment some more, keep demanding that we take you seriously. You're just proving our point.