women's march

[Tiassa]

Apparently the term reasonable confuses you.

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

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

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

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

Living in a dense ultra-feminist fog, I imagine the humor of such imagery is lost on you, but believe it or not, many reasonable people do see it.

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

 

[parmalee]

I said:
I think most people agree that Franken's incidents suggest little malice aforethought, but still some sort of intent nonetheless. What's that term from legal theory? Scienter? I think that is somewhat more pertinent here: Franken was undoubtedly aware of the wrongness of his actions, even if we can't suss the precise nature of his intentions. (And when I say "here," I'm referring to the context of the discussion--not within a court of criminal law.)

The faction that called for his immediate resignation does not stipulate to that - not so but far otherwise, as they say.
Bells here regards such excuse-mongering in obviously Partisan defense of Franken as a sign of moral depravity and unconcern for the victims.
Tiassa regards it as an assertion of illegitimate male privilege and a defense of rape culture to make any such assessment and choose one's response accordingly.

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

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

 

[iceaura]

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

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

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

 

[Capracus]

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

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

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

A jury, prosecutor, or criminologist concluding that a woman’s attire contributed to her being singled out by a rapist is reasonable. For them to conclude that her attire excuses the actions of the rapist is not.

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

How does advocating for a consistent standard for the characterization of assault and its punishment put me in that fog bank?

 

[zgmc]

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

 

[Vociferous]

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

Did a ufo grope someone.
I'd like to see that.

 

[Bells]

Why are you trying to twist my post into an assertion about Tweeden's authority over her body?

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

That's dishonest. You do that continually. It's bad to do that. It's even a bit crazy - these are completely obvious lies, my posts are right there, what are you trying to accomplish?

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

And "everyone" is back. Hi folks! Missed you.

Aww did you?

Aren't you sweet.

That would be a consideration if you had ever managed an honest response to my posting. When my posting and your responses are right there for comparison, it's clear that you cannot be in the right - lies, slanders, and misrepresentations are never in the right. When you lump my arguments with EF's, for example, you're clearly having some kind of brain glitch.

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

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

Granted that does not save me from being wrong on my own, independent of your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations - but it does improve the odds.

Aww, you think you are right.

That too, is very sweet.

The faction that called for his immediate resignation does not stipulate to that - not so but far otherwise, as they say.

Again with the faction...

What faction? Who is this faction?

Apparently the term reasonable confuses you. The theme of Franken’s prank is fairly obvious to a reasonable person. You have a busty professional erotic model who has made a career of feeding men’s erotic fantasies with her imagery. A likely common fantasy would be grasping her large breasts. Franken having the opportunity to simulate such a fantasy with the sleeping model in front of him, strikes up the pose and mugs for the camera. Just like this guy below.

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

Living in a dense ultra-feminist fog, I imagine the humor of such imagery is lost on you, but believe it or not, many reasonable people do see it.

I'm sorry.

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

I get it, you think it's hiiilaaariouuuss.

I don't.

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

Her story, not his.

And?

The photo shows he pranked her by simulating a boob grab. It was a prank of opportunity, he probably didn’t have a whoopee cushion at the time.

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

The victim of the PRANK did not witness the act in her sleep. Like the rest of us she had to rely on the elements of the photo to determine nature of the act. The collective elements of the photo paint a picture of prank, not assault.

*Raise eyebrows*

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

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

I mean, you still have difficulty with this?

Or instead the act is characterized as a prank involving a simulated grab. Pranks by definition do not involve consent, and need not be considered assault.

Most pranks do not involve sexual assault.

Funnily enough, pranks that involve sexual assault tend to have women as victims. Interesting, no?

 

[Vociferous]

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

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

That seems both insulting and, speaking of sexual harassment, possibly sexual.

 

[Vociferous]

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

 

[iceaura]

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

Neither her body nor her politics were the issue in my post - the one you claimed to be answering. Want to try for three different ringers about the one post? That would equal your record.

Iceaura, you have determined that typing the word "it" is dishonest.

What I determined was that you had actually lied by typing the word "it", in a response to one of my posts. I didn't say anybody else could do that.

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

I don't. That's the brain glitch talking.
Claiming I do is a falsehood. Your intention, in posting such false claims, is slander.
That's lying, slandering, and misrepresentation. It's all you post, in response to my posting, and all you can post. all I'm going to be dealing with from you from now on is repetitive, tedious, crazy bullshit. Nothing of value, no opportunity for exchange, reason, discussion, with you. So be it. You can't change.
But I can continue to repeat: You are posting lies, slander, and misrepresentation - and absolutely nothing else - as responses to my posting. You haven't managed an honest post in response to me for months now. You're trapped.

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

And attended the women's march, in Minnesota, last year: http://www.valleynewslive.com/conte...the-State-of-the-State-Address-411594095.html

 

[Bells]

Neither her body nor her politics were the issue in my post - the one you claimed to be answering. Want to try for three different ringers about the one post? That would equal your record.

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

What I determined was that you had actually lied by typing the word "it", in a response to one of my posts. I didn't say anybody else could do that.

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

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

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

I don't. That's the brain glitch talking.
Claiming I do is a falsehood. Your intention, in posting such false claims, is slander.

"Depends on the politics".

That was you, remember?

That's lying, slandering, and misrepresentation. It's all you post, in response to my posting, and all you can post. all I'm going to be dealing with from you from now on is repetitive, tedious, crazy bullshit. Nothing of value, no opportunity for exchange, reason, discussion, with you. So be it. You can't change.

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

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

That has been your stance all along.

What level of sexual harassment and sexual assault is acceptable to you that you are willing to leave them in place for the rest of their term, for the sake of politics?

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.

Emphasis mine..

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

So you don't get to accuse people of lying, of dishonesty, of slander, when your own words are quoted back to you.

But I can continue to repeat: You are posting lies, slander, and misrepresentation - and absolutely nothing else - as responses to my posting. You haven't managed an honest post in response to me for months now. You're trapped.

And you have not managed to post anything that was not the desperate neurotic mewling of political hackery in defense of sexual harassment and sexual assault for the sake of politics and party.

Example:

And very possibly so is the rest of your faction here in Minnesota politics.

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

They aren't going to answer to reason. So the interesting question for me becomes one of protecting what representation I and folks like me have in the DFL, and through it in Minnesota and national politics, from the effects of having these people setting themselves up as the advocates of women's rights and the leading progressive lights of the DFL, the self-identified and very visibly so occupants of the moral high ground.

Wait, what representation?

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

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

Because in my experience the Dems in MN win and lose on reliable competence, the ability to make sense with courage - and that means these people can get the DFL beat as a Party, and any given DFL candidate with it, because they aren't making sense and they don't look reliably competent. So this is a high risk situation, even though Tina Smith reassuringly split with Klobuchar and cast Franken's vote against Stras.

Maybe next time, don't run a guy who gropes women as a candidate.

 

[Capracus]

I'm sorry.

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

I don't either. But unlike you I don't confuse the two.

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

Or in this case you erroneously try to label a prank as a sexual assault. Not so much funny as sad.

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

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

I mean, you still have difficulty with this?

I don't think it's sexual assault when its not. The photo shows his hands over her breasts, not grabbing them. And unless Franken's got a tongue like Gene Simmons, I doubt he's guilty of this characterization as well.

Al Franken groping women on their backsides, boob, trying to force his tongue down the throat of one victim,

Most pranks do not involve sexual assault.

Niether did this one.

Funnily enough, pranks that involve sexual assault tend to have women as victims. Interesting, no?

If I had been on that plane asleep in place of Tweeden, with Franken's nose in contact with the crotch of my pants, should I have felt violated? Seeing a photo of such down the line would have likely made me laugh.

 

[Tiassa]

I don't either. But unlike you I don't confuse the two.

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

†​

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

That seems both insulting and, speaking of sexual harassment, possibly sexual.

You should probably inform yourself before saying such things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying, though. You'll eventually get the hang of it.

 

[iceaura]

Mostly what this current iteration is about is some people are upset that their favorite U.S. Senator has taken a fall.

Bullshit.

Meanwhile, notice how little of this thread actually has to do with the actual marches. The opening of the discussion is rather quite telling for its priorities.

And notice how that happened. Priorities indeed visible.

Oh it is very much a central issue here, iceaura

Not in my post, the one you were explicitly answering. You were being dishonest, strawmanning and pretending, once again.

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

That is you being dishonest, and slandering by misrepresentation. The question is why you do that.

So you don't get to accuse people of lying, of dishonesty, of slander, when your own words are quoted back to you.

I'm not accusing "people", I'm accusing you. Other people sometimes post honestly in response to my posting. You essentially never do, any more.

See, my contention throughout this whole sorry saga is that people are willing to overlook the worst for the sake of their own politics.

That's something you claim, dishonestly, is a feature of my posting. You then lie, slander, and misrepresent to support the claim.

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

Yep. The recent post is right in front of you. Can you read it in good faith, and respond honestly? No, you cannot.

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

"Demand"? In there with mewling and whining and all the rest of that sorry rhetoric.
It's a track record Franken had, eight years of not only voice but votes and actions and bills and risk-taking - it's not something you can claim does not exist. It's better and stronger in that respect than Klobuchar's, or Clinton's, or Gillebrand's - he was in the middle of taking another one of those risks, in opposition to a Federalist Society stealth pro-lifer appointed by Trump to the lifetime Federal bench, when your faction of the DNC kicked him to the curb. And the best news for women's rights to emerge from the fiasco so far has been that his replacement followed through, at least symbolically, on his opposition - even splitting with Klobuchar to do it. So the rookie Senator showed more backbone, on a hard women's rights issue, than the senior one. Now if she can get elected in ten months, outright disaster for women's rights may have been averted. And if she, or whoever the DFL nominates, loses in November - well, that was a risk your faction was willing to take, for ten months less of Franken's presence on the Judiciary and other committees. No doubt the rest of the women's marchers will appreciate your Message sent.

 

[Vociferous]

You should probably inform yourself before saying such things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep trying, though. You'll eventually get the hang of it.

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


Haven't read whole topic. Who is the "rape advocate"? Hopefully that's not just more name-calling.
Who's the "male supremacist"?

 

[Vociferous]

Ok so, my beloved spouse is off to a women's march ---she will take her friend(who seems to be surviving another bout of cancer), and our granddaughter. The cancer survivor is too weak to march and is worried that she will be seen to "be sitting this one out".

Nice day for it.

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

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

 

[Capracus]

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

And you argue to unreasonably characterize sexual assault to promote a corrupt social agenda.

 

[parmalee]

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

I see where Bells does not accede to the distinctions you make here:

This is where failing to distinguish the Frankens and Bartons (and Spitzers and Keillors and so forth) from the Moores and Trumps and Ailes's takes you: to a place in which you can't separate predators from jerks, crime from offensiveness, calculation from impulse, fear from disgust, injury from insult; to a place in which reason does not govern.

because, say, "predators from jerks" isn't quite appropriate, being as a "jerk" is by no means necessarily a sexual assailant (which Franken is). I do not see where Bells, or Tiassa, argue that--like, say, Weinstein's--Franken's actions were premeditated and planned.

 

[iceaura]

I see where Bells does not accede to the distinctions you make here:

There are a lot of posts of mine in which I do not mention Franken's apparent lack of planning and predatory scheme. So?
There are also posts in which I do - and the reactions have been memorable, for me at least.

I do not see where Bells, or Tiassa, argue that--like, say, Weinstein's--Franken's actions were premeditated and planned.

Try arguing the case - try arguing here that the response to Franken, how the Dems handle him, would better have been calibrated according to Franken's lack of "malice aforethought" ( and apparent willingness to take no for an answer, and lack of threat or retaliation, and so forth).

 

[paddoboy]

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