Straight Dope Message Board

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Your concern is touching.

No...not touching. What's the word I was looking for? Oh, yeah, I remember now.
Your "concern" is hypocritical.

How so? 201

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I don't really care about anyone saying "that looks creepy" if they see Biden doing something on TV. That doesn't bother me.

I don't like the usage of these lurid videos of women and girls being touched, that were made for political purposes, without the consent of these women and girls. And I don't like others trying to use these nasty, consent-free videos for their own arguments. There are perfectly reasonable criticisms of Biden's behavior, using Flores' account (and apparently a second account I haven't seen yet), that don't require the usage of random internet consent-free nastiness.

And I really don't like your brushing aside the personhood of Stephanie Carter who is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, and did speak for herself, and you continued to implicitly deny that she could have this voice and was capable of having a friend who could give her hugs as they pleased. I can't imagine how you've convinced yourself that you shouldn't have backed off from this. Biden behaved inappropriately with Flores; that doesn't mean that he behaved inappropriately with Carter, especially when she says that they were close friends and she welcomed his affection. Those posts are creepy and gross, and you don't lose anything by considering that maybe you made a mistake and backing off from them.

You have been called out about thinking it is somehow improper these women have their very public photos and videos shared. Dunno what more to tell you except it is fine and your concern is unfounded.

Maybe you think it is not right for us to assume how they feel about Unca Joe neck rubs but there is a reason most people looking at them squirm a bit because it is weird. Maybe it is normal where you are from but the rest of us find it super creepy.

Biden has been accused of something so pics/vids of him doing what he is accused of are very relevant. Indeed, not even particularly new. The pics/vids were all taken in *very* public settings. No one, not even the kids, expected privacy with a zillion cameras pointed at them.

So, if you think you are protecting Jane Doe forget it...the pictures are out there. If you think you are protecting Biden...why?

As for Carter you forget we also have Flores. So, one person who is seen with a special Unca Joe neck rub is cool with it and another person says special Unca Joe neck rub creeped her out.

We have loads of pics of Unca Joe' special neck rubs...not just these two.

Whose side are you on? 202

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

You have been called out about thinking it is somehow improper these women have their very public photos and videos shared. Dunno what more to tell you except it is fine and your concern is unfounded.

Maybe you think it is not right for us to assume how they feel about Unca Joe neck rubs but there is a reason most people looking at them squirm a bit because it is weird. Maybe it is normal where you are from but the rest of us find it super creepy.

Biden has been accused of something so pics/vids of him doing what he is accused of are very relevant. Indeed, not even particularly new. The pics/vids were all taken in *very* public settings. No one, not even the kids, expected privacy with a zillion cameras pointed at them.

So, if you think you are protecting Jane Doe forget it...the pictures are out there. If you think you are protecting Biden...why?

As for Carter you forget we also have Flores. So, one person who is seen with a special Unca Joe neck rub is cool with it and another person says special Unca Joe neck rub creeped her out.

We have loads of pics of Unca Joe' special neck rubs...not just these two.

Whose side are you on?

Most of this has nothing to do with my actual words, so I'll just give up for now. I don't know how to respond to this kind of parade of straw men. 203

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

We have loads of photos/video of Biden doing his creep thing. Does that change anything for you?

No, you dont. You have a bogus edited vid collection from a kremlin hireling. 204

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, you dont. You have a bogus edited vid collection from a kremlin hireling.

Then for once Russia did us a favor. Go figure. 205

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Most of this has nothing to do with my actual words, so I'll just give up for now. I don't know how to respond to this kind of parade of straw men.

I.E. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

Fine with me. 206

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I.E. Dodge, dodge, dodge.



Fine with me.

Jesus. I wish you'd just respond to my actual words. I haven't accused you of dishonesty once, and you refuse to even consider that I might be making honest arguments.

I'll try and keep it simple. Carter's account is not in any conflict, not at all in any way, with that of Flores. There's no conflict there at all. I don't know why or how you insist that they are in conflict. 207

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

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.

Yes. And clearly Biden still sees nothing wrong with this conduct, which at best is patronizing. He's the Guy at the Top, comforting and bestowing his own wonderfulness on the little ladies. And he thinks that's great!

My guess is there is no footage of Biden doing this to a woman who clearly outranks him. Of course in US politics no one really outranks a Vice President, so we'd be talking about him (say) putting his hands on Queen Elizabeth's shoulders and kissing her hair.

That's tough to imagine. He would know better that to try it---which, I think reveals what's really behind the handling of women (an assertion---ever-so-benign, of course---of power).


Biden COULD fix this. It all depends on what he says. (And, of course, on him ceasing to lay hands on women who haven't issued an invitation.)

Biden needs to do something that may not be possible for him: he needs to stop thinking of women as fair flowers who will be grateful for his touch. He needs to start thinking of women as, you know, people.

A lot of voters would forgive his past if he could move past the mental rut he seems to be in now, in which he's clearly convinced that if he didn't intend to make anyone uncomfortable, then all is well, and everyone should stop talking about this. Biden doesn't yet understand that good intentions aren't the point, here. 208

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Jesus. I wish you'd just respond to my actual words.

I have.

If you want to point out where I have been unfair or willingly missed the point feel free to point it out.

I really am not out to mischaracterize your argument. At the end of it all I hope we will all agree (I know...not likely but I still hope). 209

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I really am not out to mischaracterize your argument.

...and yet you continue to do so. 210

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...and yet you continue to do so.

Show me where. 211

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Show me where or admit you are making this up.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

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?

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

You didn't answer my question.

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

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Your question contained a false premise.

This also contains a false premise. Biden's disregard for Flores' personal space was indeed disgusting.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

What "false premise"?

Do you think this should stop Biden from running for president?

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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.

If I were him, I wouldn't run, and this makes me substantially less likely to support him against the other Democratic candidates.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

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

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

What is "repugnant" about it?

We have a series of photos of Biden getting handsy with women and girls.

You posit it is wrong to assume how the women/girls felt about that contact.

Fine.

So the question is, if you had to bet, which way do you think the majority of women would feel about it?

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I decline to play this revolting game, because it is wrong to assume how the women/girls felt about that contact.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Read: "I am cornered and can't find a way out of what I argued for so I will feign indignance."

...entire sequence quoted for context: the bolded is a clear and obvious example of you purposefully mischaracterizing what iiandyiiii has said. Followed up later in the thread with this zinger:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

He/she does not have to answer but a dodge is a dodge.

And this one:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

You are the one who used charged language like "revolting".

Maybe you are really revolted. If so I submit you are too easily triggered.

And this one.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I.E. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

Fine with me.

Its perfectly cromulent that you don't understand what iiandyiiii has been saying to you but that isn't his fault. He is under no obligation to answer disingenuous questions and choosing not to answer those questions is not "dodging." So no I'm not going to admit to "making this up" because I didn't. 212

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Show me where.

I'm not completely on board, but it takes not very much attention to see the disconnect. You keep demanding iiandyiii make a judgment on little video clips that the people in the videos have not made themselves. Andy's whole point is that it is up to them to tell their story. But you keep saying "look at their faces!" and "someone must be lying!". 213

[asahi]

I think Biden's fucked. There are already two women coming out to explain their discomfort around Biden, and I'm guessing there will only be more, and I'm not quite sure how to feel about it. I understand that Biden's accusers probably felt uncomfortable and chose at the time not to say anything about it, probably feeling like they were powerless. On the other hand, I don't see where Biden has attempted to conceal who he was, and it has been well-known for a long time that Biden likes to put his hands on people, both women and men. I guess I'm wondering, did Biden really cross lines incontrovertibly, or is it simply a matter of a new era, with new ground rules? I think we've all known people who are physically affectionate - it's not always black and white, IMO. 214

[Try2B Comprehensive]

It doesn't have to be black and white. Warren doesn't have a squicky scandal. Gillibrand? Booker? Harris? I can't think of anything to quite compare there, either. Klobuchar apparently ate a salad with a comb once, so there's that...

It is only April. If this is it, I don't think it is a knockout blow. I'll have to see more of the campaign before I decide how to vote. I hope the conversation covers way more than scandals. 215

[SmartAleq]

Okay, say you don't find Biden's squicky behavior with women and girls compelling enough to compromise his candidacy. How about his involvement in getting a Ukrainian top prosecutor fired when said prosecutor was sniffing around too closely to the to the natural gas firm, Burisma Holdings, that employed Biden's son, Hunter as a board member? There are a whole lot of payments there that ended up in Hunter's pocket that wouldn't be there if Unca Joe hadn't gotten the prosecutor who was investigating corruption charges fired. Fired using his power as the VP, no less. Yeah, can't see how THAT would be a problem. Or is that just "Joe being Joe" too? 216

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by asahi

I guess I'm wondering, did Biden really cross lines incontrovertibly, or is it simply a matter of a new era, with new ground rules? ...

I honestly don't see Democrats talking in terms of 'lines crossed incontrovertibly.' It's much more a conversation about Biden appearing not to understand that there's something questionable about laying hands on people you barely know (without their invitation).

If Biden isn't able to wrap his mind around this new-to-him concept, then what other concepts not widespread in his long-ago youth will he simply refuse to consider? That's the discussion.

I suspect a lot of people want to pretend that the Democrats are preparing to condemn every white male born before 1999 and everything those white males have ever done----because that provides an occasion for righteous indignation. Those crazy Democrats! Totally unfair! Ridiculous expectations! Etc. etc. You can't enjoy a good bout of what do these unreasonable people expect, perfect 'wokeness'? if you acknowledge what's really the issue being debated here. (Which is Biden's actions and remarks NOW, not what Biden may have done years ago.) 217

[iiandyiiii]

Two more women speak out: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/t...den-touchiness

The pattern, so far, is consistent -- non-sexual (no one has claimed any sort of groping or sexual assault, that I'm aware of) but still unwelcome (for some women) touching during public events and/or political campaigning. 218

[BobLibDem]

I don't know. It isn't that he did anything sexual, it's that he intrudes on personal space. I just saw Jonathan Capehart on MSNBC describing how Biden put his hands on Capehart's shoulders, leaned in, and touched his forehead to Jonathon to talk very close to him. Joe does that. Jonathan said he wasn't bothered by it, he just felt his space was intruded but then added "but I'm not a woman, either".

It would be ironic if he was forced from the race because of getting too handsy in a non-sexual way and couldn't run against a guy who brags about getting away with grabbing women by the pussy and who bought a teenage beauty pageant so that he could barge in their dressing room and see them in stages of undress. 219

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I'm not particularly interested in looking at tailored random internet crap that, according to the descriptions of this thread, very likely blatantly disregards the personhood and wishes of the women and girls involved.

So the fact that Biden was the same way with children who couldn't have consented as he was with adult women who may or may not have consented after the fact, doesn't matter to you because you're not going to look at the publicly available pictures of public events.

Which you know were 'tailored' even though you don't look at them. 220

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

So the fact that Biden was the same way with children who couldn't have consented as he was with adult women who may or may not have consented after the fact, doesn't matter to you because you're not going to look at the publicly available pictures of public events.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I posted. 221

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I have no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I posted.

ISTM like I'm responding head-on to what you posted. Can't help you there. 222

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

ISTM like I'm responding head-on to what you posted. Can't help you there.

Okay. By my reading, you said or implied things about my beliefs that are baseless and inaccurate. 223

[iiandyiiii]

I'll put it another way - I think there's plenty to criticize about how Biden touches women, and I base that criticism on the words of women who have spoken about their experiences with Biden. I hope he doesn't run, and I'm very unlikely to support him over most of the other Democratic candidates.

I also think it's inappropriate (and disgusting to me personally) to presume things about the consent of women who haven't spoken out. I'm not interested in videos or photos that are entirely unable to provide any information on the consent and wishes of those involved (including their consent and wishes about how images of their bodies being touched are used) and/or their relationship with Biden. 224

[iiandyiiii]

More on consent when it comes to public video or photographs - in my view, if someone goes to a public, photographed or taped event, they are implicitly providing permission for these recordings to be taken and used as a record that the event took place, who was present, and the official proceedings. They are not providing implicit consent for strangers to slobber and obsess over the precise details of how their bodies were touched or handled, or anything else about their bodies, any more than they are providing consent for these images to be used in pornography. And I elect not to approach that line at all, especially when there are actual women who have spoken up about their experiences, thus nullifying any possible need to refer to these videos at all. 225

[DrDeth]

Well, one famous compilation shred here is a highly edited hit piece. The editing make the activity appear more creepy and the reactions worse.

But Joe is a friendly man of his times. He touches people. People generally are good with that.You know that Sanders Supporter politician who complained how Biden kissed her on the back of the head? Sure. Not good. But they were touchy friendly... it was her rally, Biden was supporting her and she put her arms around him on stage. Should Biden complain about that?

Another shot is of a woman in a restaurant who pushed her chair up to the Veep, back first, pretty well asking for some sort of contact.

Honestly, non-sexual touching isnt evil. Yes, it is no longer a thing we do. Some are uncomfortable with it. But in Bidens day it is what you did. It still is common around the USA, in areas- strangers hug, men and women shake hands. In political photos it is common to pose with your hands on a shoulder to show support. 226

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I also think it's inappropriate (and disgusting to me personally) to presume things about the consent of women who haven't spoken out.

Like I asked to begin with, do you believe children have the right to consent to inappropriate touching? 227

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Well, one famous compilation shred here is a highly edited hit piece. The editing make the activity appear more creepy and the reactions worse.

Can you point out to me where the edits are in one of the first, say, four videos? (I think that's the point where I'd had enough.) 228

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

More on consent when it comes to public video or photographs - in my view, if someone goes to a public, photographed or taped event, they are implicitly providing permission for these recordings to be taken and used as a record that the event took place, who was present, and the official proceedings. They are not providing implicit consent for strangers to slobber and obsess over the precise details of how their bodies were touched or handled, or anything else about their bodies, any more than they are providing consent for these images to be used in pornography.

Well, yes, they are. If I'm weird enough that I want to masturbate to a video of Joe Biden giving a campaign speech, I get to do that. Or for that matter, if I see a woman during a pan of the audience who I think is hot, I can freeze the video and masturbate to her image. (Not something I'm likely to do, jftr.) Or do I have to find out who she is, contact her, and obtain her consent first?

And I elect not to approach that line at all, especially when there are actual women who have spoken up about their experiences, thus nullifying any possible need to refer to these videos at all.

And others are saying, "no, that's not what really happened." And without videos or photos, how do we know?

So here we have those videos and photos. We should use them. 229

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Well, yes, they are. If I'm weird enough that I want to masturbate to a video of Joe Biden giving a campaign speech, I get to do that. Or for that matter, if I see a woman during a pan of the audience who I think is hot, I can freeze the video and masturbate to her image. (Not something I'm likely to do, jftr.) Or do I have to find out who she is, contact her, and obtain her consent first?

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. But I'd object if you made or edited or distributed or promoted a pornographic video that included clips of these women and girls being touched. Just as I would for any other video that's meant to focus on how their bodies were touched or otherwise used, unless you've gotten their permission to do so. Because that's no longer just you in your basement - it's affecting other people.

And others are saying, "no, that's not what really happened." And without videos or photos, how do we know?

I have no problem with scrutinizing any video of the specific women who have chosen to speak out. Feel free to point me towards any video that shows how Flores or one of the other women who have spoken out was touched. I have no problem at all with that, since they've chosen to speak publicly about these experiences. 230

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Like I asked to begin with, do you believe children have the right to consent to inappropriate touching?

I don't understand this question nor how it is relevant to anything I've said. You might as well be asking me if I beat my wife. 231

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Like I asked to begin with, do you believe children have the right to consent to inappropriate touching?

In a posed group photo, with a VIP, and parent there, when the photographer says "OK now, Mr Vice President, put your hand on her shoulder like you mean support.." inappropriate touching?

Keeristonafuckingpogostick, these are mostly posed group photos, with the parents asking, nay begging the VIP to take a photo with their kid. Look at kids posing with sports stars, disney costumed character, and so forth- they are ALWAYS touching the kid. Hugging, etc.

Google "politicians kissing babies" sometimes, and you will see politicos actually kissing tiny children- without that kids written and informed consent! 232

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Can you point out to me where the edits are in one of the first, say, four videos? (I think that's the point where I'd had enough.)

if you watched them and didnt see them, then I can't help you. So very obviously edited it isnt even funny. They are edited worse that Hitlers jig at the treaty signing.

And note - the parents were right there. 233

[iiandyiiii]

If touching is "inappropriate", then by definition there is no consent. If there is consent, then the touching is not inappropriate. Children can consent to hugs and other non sexual touching, just as they can deny consent for hugs and such. That's why the question makes no sense at all to me. 234

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

...But Joe is a friendly man of his times. He touches people. People generally are good with that. ...
Honestly, non-sexual touching isnt evil. Yes, it is no longer a thing we do. Some are uncomfortable with it. But in Bidens day it is what you did. It still is common around the USA, in areas- strangers hug, men and women shake hands. In political photos it is common to pose with your hands on a shoulder to show support.

A hand on a shoulder to show support during a political photo, or a handshake---these are not things Biden is being criticized for doing.

There's a generalized 'what is wrong with touching people if you're a warm, friendly person?' argument that is sort of floating around, and isn't being closely examined. (I don't mean to pick you out, DrDeth, because millions of people are making this same basic argument; your post happened to express it more clearly than many. So when I say 'you' in this post, I mean a generalized 'you'--all the people who hold the view that Biden is a warm and friendly guy and what he's done is being criticized unjustly.)

The argument seems to be that criticizing Biden for being a warm, friendly guy is just plain unfair. What is going on with these unreasonable women, criticizing a guy for being warm and friendly? What is going on with the Democratic party, tearing down one of their own for doing something that's perfectly okay and reasonable to do? ---That seems to be the general sense.

And that shows that those who are making the argument that there is something questionable about Biden's habits, need to work on communicating more clearly.

The argument that walking up to someone you barely know---yes, even someone from your own political party, at whose rally you are!---walking up and holding that person from behind and smelling her hair and kissing her hair, is a questionable action, might be better understood if we look at some other examples of when Biden does---or does not---perform such actions.

Biden, as is well known, is a Catholic. As Vice President he has had a number of audiences with both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. Photos exist of some of these meetings. If you search "Biden" and "audience with Pope" or similar terms, you'll get quite a few photos.

Since Biden is a warm and friendly man, who presumably feels warm and friendly toward Popes, you'd expect that when he encounters a Pope, he will step right up with a warm and friendly hug, right? Maybe even a neck rub? Perhaps a kiss on the head?

............My guess is that everyone reading, picturing Biden meeting with a Pope, rejected the idea that Biden would have stepped up and hugged that Pope--much less given him a neck rub or a kiss on the head. Most people would feel pretty safe in assuming that Biden did NOT smell the hair of a Pope, or grab him from behind and pull him close.

............................Why is that?


If Biden is a warm, tactile guy, why wouldn't he have been tactile with a Pope?

If you can answer that, then you have the answer to the question 'why do some object to Biden doing things such as Flores and others have described'?

To spell it out: Biden hugs down.

Biden, when he grabs people and smells their hair and kisses their heads, is asserting dominance. He probably has no idea that he's asserting dominance--he'd probably be hurt and offended by the observation that that's what he's doing.

But if he doesn't behave the same way with everyone---if he refrains from hugging and smelling the hair of people who outrank him in the status hierarchy---then that's what he's doing. He's asserting dominance.

And that's what the recipients of his "hug down" maneuvers find uncomfortable. 235

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

A hand on a shoulder to show support during a political photo, or a handshake---these are not things Biden is being criticized for doing.

There's a generalized 'what is wrong with touching people if you're a warm, friendly person?' argument that is sort of floating around, and isn't being closely examined. (I don't mean to pick you out, DrDeth, because millions of people are making this same basic argument; your post happened to express it more clearly than many. ....

The argument that walking up to someone you barely know---yes, even someone from your own political party, at whose rally you are!---walking up and holding that person from behind and smelling her hair and kissing her hair, is a questionable action, might be better understood if we look at some other examples of when Biden does---or does not---perform such actions....

Go ahead, it's fair.

Yesbut- that same woman put her arms around him on stage at the same event. In public, without asking. And oddly that woman is a major supported of Sanders, and didnt mention this until Biden pulled ahead of Sanders in the polls.

But you are wrong about Biden hugging down; goggle Biden Hugging Obama. Not only did they hug on many occasions, Obama kissed Joe on the cheek while they were hugging. So, no it's not a dominance thing.

You just dont touch the Pope without permission. That's the rules around the Pope. 236

[Heffalump and Roo]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

You know that Sanders Supporter politician who complained how Biden kissed her on the back of the head? Sure. Not good

Ex-Sanders supporter, it seems. Flores left Our Revolution, Bernie Sander's group, in May 2018.

Velasquez’s departure follows the resignation of Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman and fellow founding board member, who quit in April over her own anger at Our Revolution for, in her view, ignoring issues important to Latinos.

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

To spell it out: Biden hugs down.

Biden, when he grabs people and smells their hair and kisses their heads, is asserting dominance. He probably has no idea that he's asserting dominance--he'd probably be hurt and offended by the observation that that's what he's doing.

But if he doesn't behave the same way with everyone---if he refrains from hugging and smelling the hair of people who outrank him in the status hierarchy---then that's what he's doing. He's asserting dominance.

And that's what the recipients of his "hug down" maneuvers find uncomfortable.

Interesting theory. I'm not disagreeing. I do think there's a power dynamic that has an impact on the complaints. But the thing with being the Vice-President of the US is that there aren't many people who are up from that position. Your example of the Pope is a good one, but maybe people just do behave differently around the Pope. I did a quick search for 'Obama and Biden embracing' because Obama is the only other person who would be up from Biden. I found some of those photos to be cringe-worthy. YMMV.

ETA: Just noticed that DrDeth just made this point. I posted this before I saw that. 237

[DrDeth]

And when did Lucy Flores make her accusation? This happened in 2014, 5 years ago. She's a strong woman, not afraid to speak her mind, why didnt she announce to the audience then and there "Joe Biden just kissed the back of my hair, Joe that was inappropriate!" Instead she sucked up to him, and put her arms around him on stage, and before the incident in a photo op. Why? Well, because he was supporting her in her race.

Why is she making the claim today? Why? Because her candidate- Bernie is behind in the polls from Joe.

Let me make this clear- before the incident Flores posed for a picture with HER arm around Joe. Did she ask Joe first if she could "fondle" him? Or is it only "creepy" if a older man does it, but Ok if a younger attractive female does it? Double standard.

Then there's this:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...fraud-n2544198
Tezlyn Figaro, who worked with Flores at Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) organization Our Revolution, has similarly felt compelled to speak out on Flores. From what it sounds like, she didn't leave the best impression on her. She explained on "Fox & Friends" why she filed an EEOC complaint against her and why Biden should know his accuser is a "fraud." ...Her current EEOC complaint names Lucy Flores "as someone who was racist who also implemented retaliation," Figaro explained. "She told me that if I didn't do what she told me to, then I would suffer the consequences." 238

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

And when did Lucy Flores make her accusation? This happened in 2014, 5 years ago. She's a strong woman, not afraid to speak her mind, why didnt she announce to the audience then and there "Joe Biden just kissed the back of my hair, Joe that was inappropriate!" Instead she sucked up to him, and put her arms around him on stage, and before the incident in a photo op. Why? Well, because he was supporting her in her race.

Why is she making the claim today? Why? Because her candidate- Bernie is behind in the polls from Joe.

Let me make this clear- before the incident Flores posed for a picture with HER arm around Joe. Did she ask Joe first if she could "fondle" him? Or is it only "creepy" if a older man does it, but Ok if a younger attractive female does it? Double standard.

Then there's this:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...fraud-n2544198
Tezlyn Figaro, who worked with Flores at Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) organization Our Revolution, has similarly felt compelled to speak out on Flores. From what it sounds like, she didn't leave the best impression on her. She explained on "Fox & Friends" why she filed an EEOC complaint against her and why Biden should know his accuser is a "fraud." ...Her current EEOC complaint names Lucy Flores "as someone who was racist who also implemented retaliation," Figaro explained. "She told me that if I didn't do what she told me to, then I would suffer the consequences."

None of this has anything to do with the substance of her story, and as always, attacking women who have done nothing more than tell their stories is disgusting (and sadly very common). 239

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

None of this has anything to do with the substance of her story, and as always, attacking women who have done nothing more than tell their stories is disgusting (and sadly very common).

It has everything to do with it. Remember- unwelcome contact. She put HER arm around him before the incident at a Photo shoot. Didi she say "Mr Vice President, may I put my arm around you?". Touching without permission.

Then on stage, after the "incident" she again put her arms around him and thanked him. If she was so shocked by the "incident" why would she again initiate contact?

And a political component - when both are politicians is totally legit. 240

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

It has everything to do with it. Remember- unwelcome contact. She put HER arm around him before the incident at a Photo shoot. Didi she say "Mr Vice President, may I put my arm around you?". Touching without permission.



Then on stage, after the "incident" she again put her arms around him and thanked him. If she was so shocked by the "incident" why would she again initiate contact?



And a political component - when both are politicians is totally legit.

This demonstrates a disturbing lack of understanding of the intricacies of power differentials when related to unwanted touching and similar behavior, IMO. Probably best not to clog up this thread with the basics of that subject. 241

[Miller]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I'll put it another way - I think there's plenty to criticize about how Biden touches women, and I base that criticism on the words of women who have spoken about their experiences with Biden. I hope he doesn't run, and I'm very unlikely to support him over most of the other Democratic candidates.

I also think it's inappropriate (and disgusting to me personally) to presume things about the consent of women who haven't spoken out. I'm not interested in videos or photos that are entirely unable to provide any information on the consent and wishes of those involved (including their consent and wishes about how images of their bodies being touched are used) and/or their relationship with Biden.

"If nobody complained, they must have been okay with it," is, of course, one of the primary ways sexual harassment has historically been normalized and dismissed as a legitimate social concern. As, of course, is, "By raising concerns about this situation being sexist, you're showing yourself to be the real sexist." Related to that second point, it's also pretty disturbing to see you use the language of sexual harassment to attack concerns over someone being a sexual harasser, which I think you're doing by continually bringing up "consent" in the context of the presentation of these videos. It is difficult to read your specific language choice here as anything other than an attempt to create a moral equivalency between using publicly available videos to advance a political agenda, and sexually harassing a person, which strikes me as a cheap shot, and one that is not respectful to the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment. 242

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Miller

"If nobody complained, they must have been okay with it," is, of course, one of the primary ways sexual harassment has historically been normalized and dismissed as a legitimate social concern. As, of course, is, "By raising concerns about this situation being sexist, you're showing yourself to be the real sexist." Related to that second point, it's also pretty disturbing to see you use the language of sexual harassment to attack concerns over someone being a sexual harasser, which I think you're doing by continually bringing up "consent" in the context of the presentation of these videos. It is difficult to read your specific language choice here as anything other than an attempt to create a moral equivalency between using publicly available videos to advance a political agenda, and sexually harassing a person, which strikes me as a cheap shot, and one that is not respectful to the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment.

Most of this doesn't appear to have anything to do with my actual words. I'm honestly trying to explain my views here. That's all.

One again, I hope Biden doesn't run. Multiple women have credibly accused him of inappropriate touching that violated their consent. My views on consent when it comes to appropriate use of videos of women's bodies being touched are my true and actual views, and separate from my criticism of Biden.

If you disagree with me, please tell me which specific words and sentences you disagree with, and why. The above post seems to be referring to arguments I never made (and find as abhorrent as you appear to). 243

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

This demonstrates a disturbing lack of understanding of the intricacies of power differentials when related to unwanted touching and similar behavior, IMO. Probably best not to clog up this thread with the basics of that subject.

So when she touched him, that wasn't unwanted touching, but when he touched her, afterwards, it was. And then later, when she touched him again, that was fine.

Double standard much? 244

[Covfefe]

iiandyiiii - If Biden were a politician in a country where women's rights and autonomy were less recognized and where the social consequences for those who make claims against powerful men were riskier, it would always be inappropriate for people to comment based on videos and photos of touching they saw of anyone who hasn't spoken out based on your standard. I don't think that's acceptable and I'm not sure it is here either (or why the standard would be any different).

From my interpretation of your posts you are saying any such comment ipso facto makes an assumption(s) about consent. True or false? 245

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So when she touched him, that wasn't unwanted touching, but when he touched her, afterwards, it was. And then later, when she touched him again, that was fine.

Double standard much?

Exactly, so glad you're finally beginning to grasp the veriest first scintilla of The Point. It's like a strip club--the strippers can touch a customer if they want to and that touch is generally quite welcome, but let a customer touch a stripper and the bouncer will give them pavement skidmarks on their lips. Maybe Biden would just loooooooooooove it if every woman and five year old girl within a mile of his location would swarm around him and rub aaaallll over him--but I think we can be reasonably sure that every woman within a mile radius of Biden (including five year old girls) does NOT welcome the idea of Biden rubbing all over THEM. This is called--now write this down, because it's important, CONSENT. Biden might give consent for women to rub all over him, but his giving that consent does NOT then give him permission to do the same to them. Now go write this down seven or eight hundred times until you understand how it works, thanks ever so. 246

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So when she touched him, that wasn't unwanted touching, but when he touched her, afterwards, it was. And then later, when she touched him again, that was fine.



Double standard much?

I don't know, but Biden hasn't expressed any such feeling that her touch was unwanted. 247

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Covfefe

iiandyiiii - If Biden were a politician in a country where women's rights and autonomy were less recognized and where the social consequences for those who make claims against powerful men were riskier, it would always be inappropriate for people to comment based on videos and photos of touching they saw of anyone who hasn't spoken out based on your standard. I don't think that's acceptable and I'm not sure it is here either (or why the standard would be any different).

From my interpretation of your posts you are saying any such comment ipso facto makes an assumption(s) about consent. True or false?

I'm not really that worried about people giving their opinions on a video they happen to see (and I may have overstated this earlier) - I'm explaining why I think Biden is wrong (i.e. the words of Flores and the other women who have alleged inappropriate touching), and why I personally don't feel comfortable using videos of women and girls who haven't spoken out to try and evaluate consent - an impossible task, IMO. And also why I think it's wrong to specifically try and promote or advocate for the use of videos of women and girls being touched that were put together for what appears to me to be lurid and political reasons, without the consent of those women and girls. 248

[Covfefe]

Well, you used the term "political attack" repeatedly earlier so I'm gauging if someone does bring it up politically there isn't middle ground for you where such footage could be used as a source of less weaponized political criticism.

If only minors had been recipients of questionable touching and body language, there might be an unpleasant reality of diminished odds any of them would speak up. Maybe it's an exception to most situations, maybe it's a symptom of a more profound worldview difference, in general I believe society should be actively pressing in the direction of acknowledging rights and respecting boundaries for children. I'm not saying I have any great answers for this ambiguity other than maybe considering it advisable to limit the exposure of children attending certain events - which would only help curb the lowbrow attack side of the ledger, or any psychological problems that may accompany being in the camera eye. Expecting everyone who is reasonable to avoid bringing it up where politics are concerned is overboard unless they went out of their way to see something wrong, which again, can be ambiguous. 249

[asahi]

I personally don't think Joe's an actual creep, but I still don't think he really 'gets it' in terms of why he made women uncomfortable in the first place, and I also feel like he missed an opportunity to sound more genuine than how he sounded in his twitter apology.

I don't think he can win. Joe's got a long political history, with lots of video tape that can be edited and a long voting record that can be edited and spliced as well. Joe's political identity for most of his career was blue-dog democrat - something that today's Democratic party doesn't really identify with. He can't change his identity in a way that could be perceived as being authentic. The only reason people are even talking about him is because the pundits have been talking up the electoral math and 'what if's' since November 9, 2016. But that's in the past, and so is Biden. 250