Ah. The James Carville smear and discredit the victim tactic is alive and well.
I believe that is true in many cases.
That was pretty bad. He sounds like he is into BDSM but it is obvious he didn’t care in the slightest about consent or the well being of his partner.
I hope he gets prosecuted by the manhattan DA. I sincerely hope that the next NY AG is willing to continue investigations into the Trump administration.
octopus, did you even read Sherrerd’s post? I ask because it’s the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.
A comment on my reading comprehension.:eek: Oh my.
In the context of “Republicans trying to Franken” people it seemed he was implying that in general if a Democrat is accused there needs to be a serious investigation of the motives of the women. Perhaps I misread.
Then it’s not really BDSM, is it? That’s just being violent and cruel.
Yeah, especially when you call a brown woman a slave.
“The right” didn’t Franken him. Franken Frankened himself.
No, no. That’s the Republicans’ standard line of attack.
You’ll note that Franken and Schneiderman didn’t call their accusers lying whores, suggest they were being paid by the Fake News and/or George Soros to discredit them, threaten to sue them, encourage their supporters to cyberstalk and threaten them, or get pundits to declare that even if they did all the things their accusers say they did, it doesn’t matter because Jesus and everyone should keep voting for them.
Not seeing that “the right” had much of anything to do with Franken’s exit, and although he voluntarily resigned (eventually), it’s pretty clear that he only did so after considerable pressure from the Democratic Party leadership. Without that pressure, I doubt he would have left. We can argue about whether that was the right course of action (and we did, for pages and pages in the Franken thread), but “the right” didn’t Franken him.
Perhaps. But we did hear that Schneiderman beat, spat on, intimidated, and racially denigrated women. So he was quick to resign shows character now?
I don’t see where **Smapti **or any others claimed it did. As far as I can tell he was pointing out that at least in those two instances the Person Of Interest did not adopt a strategy of discrediting the victim, as you attributed to be characteristic of one specific operator of one political side, and that the other side engages in such practices. At worst you could accuse him of “both sides do it”-ism.
I guess it depends on how one defines “discredited”. He’s saying that the allegations are untrue, that the acts were consensual, and so the women are lying, even if he’s not saying they are “lying whores” (a phrase which I’m not sure who it was who supposedly said that originally).
It shows nothing about the character of Schneiderman, Franken, or any one else that has committed those actions. It does, however, show a lot about the character of the Democratic vs Republican parties in general (but certainly not of every member of those parties). When Democrats get caught, they get thrown under the bus, whether it be Al Franken, John Conyers, or now Schneiderman. With Republicans the getting thrown under the bus by their own party is a lot more uncertain, such as with Roy Moore.
My own theory is that there might in some cases be a negative correlation. Meaning that - for example - a person who is active as a #metoo activist might be more likely to be an abuser himself.
The logic is that people are frequently torn between what their intellect thinks they should do and what their emotions are driving them to do. It can be a constant battle, with victories and defeats along the way. And to the extent that people are convinced - or convince themselves - that “everyone does it”, that makes them more susceptible to failing themselves, in moments of weakness. (See e.g. this)
It’s funny and sadly predictable that a thread on a particular individual devolves into bashing Republicans.
It’s always a good time to bash Republicans. There isn’t room if we only do it in “bash Republican” threads.
That’s either some twisted logic, or not expressed well. A correlation that happens “in some cases” is not a correlation. That’s a cherry picked set of anecdotes. But if you have some data to back up your hypothesis (it’s not a theory), that would be interesting to see.
I’m going to go with “not expressed well”. 
Strike the word “correlation”. What I’m saying is that in some instances it might be that the very fact that a person is an activist opposed to something-or-other might be related to his failure in that very area. The reason is that the activism lends itself to (or results from, or is at any rated “correlated with”) a sense that the failing is extremely widespread, and this perception in turn makes people more likely to transgress in that area.
The notion that the perception would have this impact seems logical to me, and is also backed up by the study in the link that I posted.
Whether there would be an overall correlation in that such people are on average more likely to transgress than others is something that I don’t know. Because counterbalancing the above, the activism is also correlated with a more vehement opposition to the something-or-other, and I can’t assess how it would play out overall.
My point was just that this type of hypocrisy is not as surprising as one might think.