Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Is Joe Biden's campaign over before it starts? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=873262)

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567737)
It really is all about consent.

In no case did these women give prior consent. So you are talking about giving consent after the act happened.

So, in your view, do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567755)
In no case did these women give prior consent.

You have no way of knowing this. Consent for non-sexual touching like hugs is usually not verbal, especially between friends and family. You have no way to know if these are friends/family of Biden and/or if they consented to these instances of touch.

Further, you've provided no indication that these women and girls gave their consent for images of them being touched to be used in this way.

Quote:

So, in your view, do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?
It depends on the circumstances. Human inter-personal relations can be complicated.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567765)
You have no way of knowing this. Consent for non-sexual touching like hugs is usually not verbal, especially between friends and family. You have no way to know if these are friends/family of Biden and/or if they consented to these instances of touch.

Further, you've provided no indication that these women and girls gave their consent for images of them being touched to be used in this way.

Look at the videos. Do you really think Biden asked first? I do not know if Russell's Teapot is really there or not but I feel comfortable in saying it is not there.

And as for the images thing I really do not know what you are after. They were all in a very public situation with loads of cameras pointed at them. Seems to me the consent is implicit. If they did not want to be photographed/recorded they need to not walk on the stage where cameras are pointed. Not like it is not obvious to anyone there.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567792)
Looks at the videos. Do you really think Biden asked first? I do not know if Russell's Teapot is really there or not but I feel comfortable in saying it is not there.

Once again, consent for physical affection is not always verbal. Further, friends and family often hug and are affectionate with implied consent, and we don't know if these are close friends or family of Biden (as Stephanie Carter has said she is).

Quote:

And as for the images thing I really do not know what you are after. They were all in a very public situation with loads of cameras pointed at them. Seems to me the consent is implicit. If they did not want to be photographed/recorded they need to not walk on the stage where cameras are pointed. Not like it is not obvious to anyone there.
I've made it very clear what I'm after -- stop advocating the violation of the consent of these women and girls, when you have no idea if they've consented to you using their images in this specific way. Yes, they consented to having their photo or video taken, but that is not consent for that photo or video to be utilized in any and every possible way. Presumably you can think of some gross ways that you would agree with me that it would be inappropriate to utilize these images and videos for without their consent; this is another one -- still gross (because it's implying that you know how these women and girls felt and whether they consented or not), just gross in a different way. Stop being gross about these women and girls -- assuming consent in strangers is gross; so is assuming lack of consent. They can speak for themselves if they so choose.

Why not just use Flores' words to criticize Biden? That's certainly reasonable, and it doesn't violate anyone's consent. Reasonable, appropriate, and not gross in any way.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 09:15 AM

Maybe we should use the Pence rule and never be near women without our wife or at least a chaperone present?

Biden does need to at least publicly say, he understands that his actions in the past (the touching) was not always appreciated and he would ensure he stopped doing so.

BTW: Does this mean politicians can no longer kiss babies? Not the worst thing for either I would guess.

kayT 04-01-2019 09:24 AM

Maybe another rule would be that women who don't like a particular touch should say so right then, not five or ten years later. And the rest of the rule is that when the woman does say so, the result should be a ceasing of the action, not some sort of social or even physical reaction by the man. How about that?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21567835)
Maybe another rule would be that women who don't like a particular touch should say so right then, not five or ten years later. And the rest of the rule is that when the woman does say so, the result should be a ceasing of the action, not some sort of social or even physical reaction by the man. How about that?

This ignores the power dynamics that may be at play (e.g. your boss who can fire you if you speak up) or the social situation at the moment (e.g. you are on stage with a million cameras pointed at you and you fear making a fuss).

Your world sounds great but it is not the one we live in.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 09:28 AM

On the bright side, Sanders leads other Dems by double-digits among 18-29 year old Democrats. So maybe getting Biden out of the way is best anyway. It is 31% for Sanders to Biden's 20%.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-double-digits

Better link for Poll results: https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ic-voters-poll

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21567811)
Maybe we should use the Pence rule and never be near women without our wife or at least a chaperone present?

Who needs a chaperone? We have lots of examples of Biden being creepy publicly.

And the Pence Rule seems to imply that Pence can not control himself around women unless his wife is present to keep him in check.

I am over 50 and not once have I done something I'd need a wife to stop me from doing (indeed most of that time I was not married). This isn't to say I have not done stupid things but nothing #MeToo inappropriate. It is not hard at all. Really...I don't even think about it. I just don't do creepy shit. I am not sure why this is so difficult for some guys.

DSeid 04-01-2019 09:37 AM

Whack-a-Mole can you not appreciate that Stephanie Carter feels violated by people like you appropriating her image and making up a story to go with it, appropriating her right to her lived experience?

Passing along cherry picked images in no context of people, insinuating how they were were being mistreated, without their consent and without them claiming such, is violating these people and appropriating their lived experiences for propaganda purposes. It is no more illegal than a kiss on the back of the head without consent, but it is in my mind worse ethically, and much creepier.

As for the question "do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?" More appropriately: do humans need to explicitly ask for consent before touching another human?

And I think even you'd agree with iiandyiiii here that it is context and situational dependent. Tapping another person on the shoulder on the subway after they do not hear your excuse me request to move so you get get out? Touching someone with your hip on their hip or even backside as you squeeze by? No verbal consent needed. A third grade teacher holding the hand of a student as they cross the street walking on a field trip? A friend seeing a friend in distress and putting a hand on should or holding their hand? A politician reaching to shake hands or kissing a baby shoved in their face? A doctor reaching out to touch someone who they just gave bad news to?

Consent is sometimes presumed by circumstance.

Intent does matter as well and this is one point where iiandyiiii and I disagree - friendly touch that turns out to be unwanted is not per se "entitlement." That word implies the intent is to get something selfishly and the intent with friendly touch is often meant to be giving something (comfort, support, whatever) not taking. Yes human communication is complicated and there are misunderstandings. With spoken communication and with nonverbal communication. Some people find being addressed by their first name to be nice, others find it presumptuous without explicit consent. Giving something that you thought would be received well that turns out to be something not wanted, is not being entitled; it is being mistaken.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567863)
Intent does matter as well and this is one point where iiandyiiii and I disagree - friendly touch that turns out to be unwanted is not per se "entitlement." That word implies the intent is to get something selfishly and the intent with friendly touch is often meant to be giving something (comfort, support, whatever) not taking. Yes human communication is complicated and there are misunderstandings. With spoken communication and with nonverbal communication. Some people find being addressed by their first name to be nice, others find it presumptuous without explicit consent. Giving something that you thought would be received well that turns out to be something not wanted, is not being entitled; it is being mistaken.

I'm not sure if we actually disagree here -- I'm saying that this feeling of entitlement can lead to someone being more likely to be mistaken in the manner you describe. In my personal experience, some people have this feeling of entitlement that their touch is always or usually welcome, and such folks are "mistaken" a lot more often than others without that sense of entitlement. Which isn't the end of the world, but reasonably worth criticizing.

DSeid 04-01-2019 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567858)
I am over 50 and not once have I done something I'd need a wife to stop me from doing (indeed most of that time I was not married). ...

Are you sure? Are you sure you've never done something that someone took offense at but did not tell you? You know how every person you ever touched in any context felt about it?

Somehow I suspect that if we had cameras on you 24/7 for decades we could find a whole host of stills and short clips that look bad, and maybe even a person or so who took offense at the way you squeezed by, or the look you took down her shirt as she bent down without even realizing you did it.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567863)
Whack-a-Mole can you not appreciate that Stephanie Carter feels violated by people like you appropriating her image and making up a story to go with it, appropriating her right to her lived experience?

No I don't. I mean, how she describes her feelings of the event is fine. That is totally up to her.

But she was in a very public situation with lots and lots of pictures being taken. She has zero expectation of privacy in that moment.

And, since it jibes very closely with what Flores described it is in the news. Carter can feel "violated" by this all she wants but I see no reason the picture should not be circulated in light of what is in the news. It has been out there for awhile...has Carter been working diligently to get it out of circulation? I'd bet she hasn't.

Quote:

Passing along cherry picked images in no context of people, insinuating how they were were being mistreated, without their consent and without them claiming such, is violating these people and appropriating their lived experiences for propaganda purposes. It is no more illegal than a kiss on the back of the head without consent, but it is in my mind worse ethically, and much creepier.

As for the question "do men need to explicitly ask for consent before touching a woman?" More appropriately: do humans need to explicitly ask for consent before touching another human?

And I think even you'd agree with iiandyiiii here that it is context and situational dependent. Tapping another person on the shoulder on the subway after they do not hear your excuse me request to move so you get get out? Touching someone with your hip on their hip or even backside as you squeeze by? No verbal consent needed. A third grade teacher holding the hand of a student as they cross the street walking on a field trip? A friend seeing a friend in distress and putting a hand on should or holding their hand? A politician reaching to shake hands or kissing a baby shoved in their face? A doctor reaching out to touch someone who they just gave bad news to?

Consent is sometimes presumed by circumstance.

Intent does matter as well and this is one point where iiandyiiii and I disagree - friendly touch that turns out to be unwanted is not per se "entitlement." That word implies the intent is to get something selfishly and the intent with friendly touch is often meant to be giving something (comfort, support, whatever) not taking. Yes human communication is complicated and there are misunderstandings. With spoken communication and with nonverbal communication. Some people find being addressed by their first name to be nice, others find it presumptuous without explicit consent. Giving something that you thought would be received well that turns out to be something not wanted, is not being entitled; it is being mistaken.
And this news highlights this problem.

We have Flores describing something that looks a lot like what we have many examples of Biden doing, including the picture of Biden and Carter.

Flores flags this as inappropriate.

Carter says it is fine.

Which is it? Who is right?

Is it your position that Biden (or any guy really) can be prosecuted for the same act only depending on how one person feels about that act?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567895)
No I don't. I mean, how she describes her feelings of the event is fine. That is totally up to her.

But she was in a very public situation with lots and lots of pictures being taken. She has zero expectation of privacy in that moment.

And, since it jibes very closely with what Flores described it is in the news. Carter can feel "violated" by this all she wants but I see no reason the picture should not be circulated in light of what is in the news. It has been out there for awhile...has Carter been working diligently to get it out of circulation? I'd bet she hasn't.



And this news highlights this problem.

We have Flores describing something that looks a lot like what we have many examples of Biden doing, including the picture of Biden and Carter.

Flores flags this as inappropriate.

Carter says it is fine.

Which is it? Who is right?

Is it your position that Biden (or any guy really) can be prosecuted for the same act only depending on how one person feels about that act?

Uggh. It's been explained why you're being creepy and gross, and you insist on continuing to be creepy and gross, about women and girls you've never met.

Blech. Unfortunately a very common sort of creepiness, but still creepy and gross.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567874)
Are you sure? Are you sure you've never done something that someone took offense at but did not tell you? You know how every person you ever touched in any context felt about it?

Somehow I suspect that if we had cameras on you 24/7 for decades we could find a whole host of stills and short clips that look bad, and maybe even a person or so who took offense at the way you squeezed by, or the look you took down her shirt as she bent down without even realizing you did it.

I am sure.

You'd see plenty of dumb stuff but never inappropriately touching people.

And we have lots of examples of Biden doing this. It is not a one-time oopsie.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567900)
Uggh. It's been explained why you're being creepy and gross, and you insist on continuing to be creepy and gross, about women and girls you've never met.

Blech. Unfortunately a very common sort of creepiness, but still creepy and gross.

Once again...huh?

Do you have to work at being oblique?

septimus 04-01-2019 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21567844)
On the bright side, Sanders leads other Dems by double-digits among 18-29 year old Democrats. So maybe getting Biden out of the way is best anyway. It is 31% for Sanders to Biden's 20%. ...

:confused: Bright side? :confused: The last thing we want is enthusiasm for the aging socialist. The reason he did so well in 2016 was low-turnout caucuses. Caucuses test strength among informed politically-active Democrats. This is a group that will be irrelevant in the election of November 2020. It is uninformed politically-confused "independents" who will choose our next President. Is an intelligent aging socialist who they want?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21567962)
:confused: Bright side? :confused: The last thing we want is enthusiasm for the aging socialist.

Good thing then that he is not a Socialist.

septimus 04-01-2019 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567974)
Good thing then that he is not a Socialist.

What's that? A Fact™? Everyone's entitled to their own Facts™ these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/5-things-bernie-sanders-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-socialism

Sanders ... is a self-described socialist who has been peddling destructive collectivist policies for decades—everything from single-payer health care to punitive taxes and radical climate change agreements. Make no mistake about it, Sanders, who honeymooned in Soviet Russia, wants to fundamentally alter American society and impose a socialist agenda on tens of millions of Americans who want the federal government to stay out of their homes and businesses.


DSeid 04-01-2019 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567901)
I am sure.

You'd see plenty of dumb stuff but never inappropriately touching people.

Right off the Biden statement. Use the same writer?

Really, that's what they all say. Especially the most clueless, they are very "sure."

And you've never done or said anything racist (without even realizing it) either, right? It's something others do.

FWIW I am confident that I have been clueless enough that I have offended without realizing it, by touch and by word, and would take someone at their word that I had. No pictures and no one telling me such but still pretty sure. I can say my conscious intent has rarely (not never) been to offend or to make uncomfortable, but still such may be felt without my intent to do so and I strongly suspect has. Actually was told once! A nurse interpreted me as shoving her as I went by quickly to a patient as all heck was breaking loose and complained. Was not my intent but she felt that way as her lived reality. Was it assault? I apologized.


Having your picture taken is one thing, having it used as propaganda with a made up story is something else. Doing the latter is being a creep.

Agreed again with iiandyiiii - blech.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567974)
Good thing then that he is not a Socialist.

He pretty much is a socialist, he doesn't deny it. He just doesn't mean the same thing by it that Fox News does.
Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21567962)
:confused: Bright side? :confused: The last thing we want is enthusiasm for the aging socialist. The reason he did so well in 2016 was low-turnout caucuses. Caucuses test strength among informed politically-active Democrats. This is a group that will be irrelevant in the election of November 2020. It is uninformed politically-confused "independents" who will choose our next President. Is an intelligent aging socialist who they want?

Sure, whatever, you're clearly the expert on beating Trump. Oh wait, College tuition is important to a lot of those independents and especially to younger voters. Oh wait, he can wrap himself in Green pretty well on Climate Change and related issues. Oh Wait, maybe coming off as the cranky but well informed uncle isn't the worst thing.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21567990)
What's that? A Fact™? Everyone's entitled to their own Facts™ these days.

You can look at what he calls himself or look at his policy proposals.

Socialism means the government seizing the means of production. I may have missed it but I do not recall Sanders advocating that.

Sanders is imprecise and using shorthand. Look at his policy proposals and get back to us.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21568004)
Right off the Biden statement. Use the same writer?

Really, that's what they all say. Especially the most clueless, they are very "sure."

You can Google Biden creepy and Obama creepy. Biden has loads of pics of him being creepy with women. Obama creepy are weird Photoshop pics.

So yeah...I am sure. Obama is sure. Biden's writer is spinning.

And FTR I know I have said racist shit before. I also know I have not inappropriately touched a girl/woman.

TriPolar 04-01-2019 10:46 AM

Okey dokey, Biden's a pervert, Bernie's a commie. Klobuchar is mean to her staff, we all know you can judge a person best by how they treat those beneath them. I hear Buttigieg is a Hillary hater, so he's probably a Bernie Bros. Warren pretended to be native American get into school, sort of like Aunt Becky paying to get her kids in. Beto is a bad father who doesn't care about his kids and thinks that's funny. Kamala Harris dissed her father and hates transgender inmates.

Anybody else need to step down because they aren't perfect in your eyes?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568029)
I also know I have not inappropriately touched a girl/woman.

When thinking about this I recalled one "maybe" example when I did an inappropriate touch.

I was leaving the gay pride parade in Chicago and taking the elevated home (above-ground subway). The cars were packed with people Japanese style.

As it happened my upper arm was nested firmly between a buxom woman's breasts.

I looked at her, she looked back and said that ordinarily such a thing would piss her off. She said it with a smile. It was inadvertent and unavoidable and she totally understood it.

But what if she had been pissed? Would I be guilty?

TriPolar 04-01-2019 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568076)

But what if she had been pissed? Would I be guilty?

No. You did nothing intentional. Nobody can expect to be untouched in a packed subway car.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567907)
Once again...huh?

Do you have to work at being oblique?

I've tried... but here goes again, as simply as I can: those women and girls consented to having photos and video taken, but not to those photos and videos being utilized to attack a politican, and not for you to insist that they were mistreated when you have no idea whether or not they consented, and whether or not they consider Biden a close friend or family.

Your assumption that they are fine with you using those images and videos for these political attacks (or even worse, if you don't care if they're fine with it), and your assumption that these women and girls did not consent to the actions in those photos and videos, is creepy and gross.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568118)
I've tried... but here goes again, as simply as I can: those women and girls consented to having photos and video taken, but not to those photos and videos being utilized to attack a politican, and not for you to insist that they were mistreated when you have no idea whether or not they consented, and whether or not they consider Biden a close friend or family.

Your assumption that they are fine with you using those images and videos for these political attacks (or even worse, if you don't care if they're fine with it), and your assumption that these women and girls did not consent to the actions in those photos and videos, is creepy and gross.

Whoa! So you're saying that even after photos and videos of someone are widely available on the Web, and that person has never protested that availability or tried to restrain it, that person still should have the right to be consulted on each individual use of those photos.

That makes no sense, and would be impossible even if it did.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21568141)
Whoa! So you're saying that even after photos and videos of someone are widely available on the Web, and that person has never protested that availability or tried to restrain it, that person still should have the right to be consulted on each individual use of those photos.



That makes no sense, and would be impossible even if it did.

When it comes to images and video purporting to be inappropriate intimate physical contact, absolutely.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568163)
When it comes to images and video purporting to be inappropriate intimate physical contact, absolutely.

Many, if not most or even all, of those pictures were taken in a political context. These are not pics taken at home in a private moment. These are indisputably public pictures.

A woman described a particular incident with the former Vice President of the United States. So, other pictures of him, in public, doing what she described are relevant and fair use.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568174)
Many, if not most or even all, of those pictures were taken in a political context. These are not pics taken at home in a private moment. These are indisputably public pictures.

Of course they're public. It's still wrong to use public pictures of women and girls being touched and utilize them publicly in a way that implies something about their consent to that touch, when they haven't spoken out or given you permission. That's what you're doing - you're implying that you know something about the consent of those women and girls. And that's wrong, creepy and gross.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568163)
When it comes to images and video purporting to be inappropriate intimate physical contact, absolutely.

They were present for the contact in question. You'd think that if they didn't want it to be shared on account of that, they'd have said something relatively soon afterwards.

Besides, I think this argument relies on a stretch of the word 'intimate.' We're talking G-rated contact here - if someone filmed me putting my hands on my wife in that way in public, nobody would think twice of it. The problem is that Biden's being inappropriately touchy-feely with people who, by and large, he barely knows.

It's inappropriate in the absence of any close relationship, not inappropriate per se.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21568189)
The problem is that Biden's being inappropriately touchy-feely with people who, by and large, he barely knows.

With Flores, yes. Implying this is true about other women who haven't spoken out is wrong, and it's creepy and gross because you're making assumptions about the consent of a stranger (not to mention whether or not they consider Biden a friend or family).

Chimera 04-01-2019 11:52 AM

On one hand, you have the Republican candidates and their actions.

On the other hand, you have people expecting Democrats to be perfect and blameless.

Yeah, fuck that nonsense. Especially when it comes from Republicans. If you support Donald Trump, you are unqualified to criticize anyone else for their imperfections.


I'm not willing to disqualify every damned Democrat for being imperfect.

And I'm no longer willing to listen to Democrats who insist that every Democrat be perfect. Fuck off already (generic you, no one here) with the extremist tone policing of your own damned side. If you're willing to see horrible people on the other side elected because our person made a few mistakes or isn't spotless, then you were never on our side.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera (Post 21568199)
On one hand, you have the Republican candidates and their actions.

On the other hand, you have people expecting Democrats to be perfect and blameless.

Yeah, fuck that nonsense. Especially when it comes from Republicans. If you support Donald Trump, you are unqualified to criticize anyone else for their imperfections.


I'm not willing to disqualify every damned Democrat for being imperfect.

And I'm no longer willing to listen to Democrats who insist that every Democrat be perfect. Fuck off already (generic you, no one here) with the extremist tone policing of your own damned side. If you're willing to see horrible people on the other side elected because our person made a few mistakes or isn't spotless, then you were never on our side.

If this was a Biden one-time oops I am with you.

But when we can see it repeated over and over this is not punishing someone for not being perfect. It is punishing someone for being a consistent creep.

WillFarnaby 04-01-2019 11:56 AM

They should at least blur the faces of the youngest possible victims. It is quite creepy.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568195)
With Flores, yes. Implying this is true about other women who haven't spoken out is wrong, and it's creepy and gross because you're making assumptions about the consent of a stranger (not to mention whether or not they consider Biden a friend or family).

Well, Flores made a claim that looks like loads of other pics of Biden doing the same thing. Those pictures are relevant to show this is not a one-time oops from Biden but rather shows a pattern of similar behavior.

Maybe you are right and every other female in these pics welcomed the contact and Flores is the one outlier.

Would you make a substantial bet on it?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568217)
Maybe you are right and every other female in these pics welcomed the contact and Flores is the one outlier.

It just occurred to me...does Biden do this to men? Does he grip their shoulders, whisper in their ear and kiss them on the head? If he did that would be an indication that he only does this as a habit to anyone and would suggest a less creepy motive (even if it is still creepy).

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568217)
Well, Flores made a claim that looks like loads of other pics of Biden doing the same thing. Those pictures are relevant to show this is not a one-time oops from Biden but rather shows a pattern of similar behavior.

Maybe you are right and every other female in these pics welcomed the contact and Flores is the one outlier.

Would you make a substantial bet on it?

Uggh. It's just revolting the way your posts in this thread have continuously and blatantly disregarded the personhood and individuality of Stephanie Carter (you didn't even back off after she explicitly said that Biden was her close friend offering comfort!) and these other women and girls. I haven't made any other claims aside from criticism of Biden for the conduct Flores alleges and his response. I've made no claims at all about any of these women and girls, aside from Flores and Carter, both of whom have made their feelings clear.

Using women and girls without their consent is wrong. Your usage of Stephanie Carter and these other women and girls without their consent (and explicitly opposite to the account of Carter, even after you saw her statement) is wrong and, IMO, disgusting.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568279)
Uggh. It's just revolting the way your posts in this thread have continuously and blatantly disregarded the personhood and individuality of Stephanie Carter (you didn't even back off after she explicitly said that Biden was her close friend offering comfort!) and these other women and girls. I haven't made any other claims aside from criticism of Biden for the conduct Flores alleges and his response. I've made no claims at all about any of these women and girls, aside from Flores and Carter, both of whom have made their feelings clear.

Using women and girls without their consent is wrong. Your usage of Stephanie Carter and these other women and girls without their consent (and explicitly opposite to the account of Carter, even after you saw her statement) is wrong and, IMO, disgusting.

You didn't answer my question.

Also, you ignoring Flores being bothered by Biden's behavior is disgusting.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568284)
You didn't answer my question.

Your question contained a false premise.

Quote:

Also, you ignoring Flores being bothered by Biden's behavior is disgusting.
This also contains a false premise. Biden's disregard for Flores' personal space was indeed disgusting.

DSeid 04-01-2019 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568237)
It just occurred to me...does Biden do this to men? Does he grip their shoulders, whisper in their ear and kiss them on the head? If he did that would be an indication that he only does this as a habit to anyone and would suggest a less creepy motive (even if it is still creepy).

Again, (linked to before and referred to again after that) yes. https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/joe-biden-record/

4 th picture in the (very unfavorable) article with a very clearly not consenting Storm Thurman.

The faces of the other pols in reaction tell their own story.

Again I suspect his touchy style ... rubs some the wrong way. And connects him well with others. It’s a particular style of politicking that is likely used more selectively than he has used it. But the intent is clearly not to offend or to intrude. I’d bet a solid majority of the time it serves to connect. But even a small minority is significant.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568290)
Your question contained a false premise.

What "false premise"?

Quote:

This also contains a false premise. Biden's disregard for Flores' personal space was indeed disgusting.
Do you think this should stop Biden from running for president?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21568298)
Again, (linked to before and referred to again after that) yes. https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/joe-biden-record/

4 th picture in the (very unfavorable) article with a very clearly not consenting Storm Thurman.

Are you seriously suggesting this is the same thing as what Flores described?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568319)
What "false premise"?

You said "Maybe you are right and..." and then the false premise. I haven't characterized, in any way, any touching/affection behavior by Biden aside from the behavior that Flores and Carter have publicly spoken about. I won't assume anything at all about the consent of women and girls who haven't publicly spoken about it.

Quote:

Do you think this should stop Biden from running for president?
If I were him, I wouldn't run, and this makes me substantially less likely to support him against the other Democratic candidates.

SmartAleq 04-01-2019 12:49 PM

Quick--what's Joe looking at? And would you feel comfortable hanging this pic in your living room if that was your daughter?

Just in case anyone thought it was age creeping up on him that made his judgment go wonky.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21568298)
Again I suspect his touchy style ... rubs some the wrong way. And connects him well with others. It’s a particular style of politicking that is likely used more selectively than he has used it. But the intent is clearly not to offend or to intrude. I’d bet a solid majority of the time it serves to connect. But even a small minority is significant.

I honestly do not think Biden is a perv. I think his hands-on, touchy thing is "innocent" inasmuch as, I think, he is just trying to be amiable.

But he doesn't do it to men and I think this is at the base of #MeToo. Men just do things to women that are sexist. They don't see it that way but they treat the "little ladies" differently. Biden is an old guy. He is of a different era. In the 1950's this would be charming behavior. In 2020 not so much.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21568328)
You said "Maybe you are right and..." and then the false premise. I haven't characterized, in any way, any touching/affection behavior by Biden aside from the behavior that Flores and Carter have publicly spoken about. I won't assume anything at all about the consent of women and girls who haven't publicly spoken about it.

My question was what you would be willing to make a substantial bet on. No premise at all. A simple binary choice.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21568345)
My question was what you would be willing to make a substantial bet on. No premise at all. A simple binary choice.

I wouldn't make any such bet, and I find the idea of making a bet about the consent of women and girls who are personally unknown to me to be rather repugnant.

DSeid 04-01-2019 12:56 PM

Both were intruding on someone else’s personal space with touch in a way that made the person uncomfortable with apparent lack of awareness that he was causing the other person discomfort.

The difference is that Strom’s discomfort is being made very clear with fist clenched and he still doesn’t notice. Everyone around seems to be noticing! Ms Flores does not describe any reaction she showed that communicated discomfort so much.


Yes he is hands on to men too.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.