I just wanted to thank Spice Weasel for her posts.
To the question of “why did she come forward now?”, I think the answer is “because someone finally asked her”. This is Moore’s first national race. Alabama politics are a shit show and everyone either liked Moore, or felt obligated to support him despite his insanity. The former wouldn’t believe anything bad: the latter certainly didn’t want it to surface. These stories have apparently been around for years–these girls did tell people–but no one followed up because it ran contrary to their interests.
Now, Moore is running in a national race. The Post sent reporters to Alabama and they heard stories and, for the first time, kept asking more questions, found the women involved, asked them what happened.
To me, it’s not even slightly implausible that a fairly apolitical woman would not go out of her way to make this story public but would tell the truth to a reporter when asked. It’s very different to talk when someone makes it clear they want to hear what you have to say.
ETA: this could even be the reason Moore avoided national politics before now, but decided Post-Trump that he could weather this potential storm.
Does anyone think octopus’ defense of Moore has anything to do with guilt or innocence? Has he ever defended a falsely-accused Democrat? Has he ever spoken against a right-winger? Bricker, HurricaneDitka, and octopus cannot see beyond the “(D)” or “®” that accompanies a name, and base their position solely on that. They’ll probably admit to this, and say it’s appropriate: they’re reacting to libtards doing the same thing in reverse.
Am I wrong? Maybe. octopus, can you point to an ® you’ve attacked or a (D) you’ve defended?
I read the account of the woman who was fourteen at the time. What I went through was something very similar. Her account hits me in the gut because her reaction was so much like mine.
“Whatever this is, I just want it to be over.”
I’ll be shocked if it isn’t true.
I don’t like the idea of someone having to prove their innocence, and as I said earlier, I don’t pay much attention to octopus as a poster, but I did read post 37 in this thread.
What does the fact that there are worse people have to do with anything? There are always worse people.
If he had only asked the one question, I could see your argument. But he has not. His posts on the subject are plain to see at the top of this thread. That’s not someone asking why there would be a delay. That’s a guy attacking all of us for taking the accusers seriously, and accusing us of only believing the accusations because of Moore’s politics.
What he is doing is rape apology, and it makes sense it is treated as such. We do not treat all conservatives as Nazis or rape apologists.
I strongly disagree that he’s being a rape apologist. I think that accusation dilutes the meaning of that word. He engaged in some behaviors that don’t help survivors any, but I reserve my survivor rage for actual rape apologist scumbags. If you want to berate him, I can’t stop you, but I’m going to disagree on the record because, given my heavy participation in this thread, it could readily be interpreted as me participating in a pile on or agreeing with the things said. I’m not, and I don’t.
“Virtue Signalling” A term used by people of low character to attack people with moral character, as if showing and having virtue is something to be despised.
See Also: “You think you’re better than me?”
Whether he’s unjustly attacking people on the board, yes of course he does that annoying shit all the time. I’m going on the record to say he can be infuriatingly partisan but I’ve never seen any indication he makes excuses for rapists or minimizes the acts. I see a massive ethical difference between partisan hackery and throwing assault victims under the bus. One makes me sick, the other is Pit business as usual. I see the two being conflated here and I’m going to point it out because I want to be fair.
In defense of cephalopods, I really like this t-shirt.
I’m working on that with him as we speak. I find him amenable to new points of view if he’s not feeling on the defensive.
I like that. I was expecting some more like this, or let’s cuttle, I’ll admit.
He’s a Republican apologist, no? The topic at hand just happens to be rape. If a Republican was known to have used drugs, octopus would be downplaying that instead.
I’ve never seen him rush to judgment on a Democrat for sexual assault so I don’t see the hypocrisy. Has he rushed to judgment on other sexual assault cases not involving Republicans?
My take is he normally says nothing either way, reserves judgment either way, but is speaking up on Moore because of the partisan thing. Not that his judgment would be different, but that his stating his opinion at all is the difference. Feel free to school me.
I think he’s naturally skeptical (of anything, pretty much), but doesn’t realize that expressing skepticism of the motives and honesty of accusers of sexual misconduct, without any evidence of dishonesty, provides aid to sexual abusers and harms victims.
And when I point this out to him, he questions my motives as well.
I’m still trying to figure out why he’s questioning your motives but not mine.
At a guess, because you have told your story and he now sees you as something more than an invisible adversary on the Internet.
Including Bricker there is some serious bullshit.
Indeed. Bricker did (eventually) vote for Hillary, though he had to drive a railroad spike into his thigh first in hope of expiating the burning pain of eternal hellfire his soul could feel coming for him.
I have an octopus t-shirt, and a cuttlefish t-shirt, and this would complete the trilogy.