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.
“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).
So when she touched him, that wasn’t unwanted touching, but when he touched her, afterwards, it was. :rolleyes:And then later, when she touched him again, that was fine.
Double standard much?
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?
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.
I don’t know, but Biden hasn’t expressed any such feeling that her touch was unwanted.
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.
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.
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.
A big part of my opinions about the “use” of these videos comes from personal experience (or at least the personal experience of an acquaintance). I knew a kid who had been in a very roughly sort-of similar situation (much smaller scale – just on the local news and social media and stuff) and was terribly embarassed that this video kept getting replayed that had something happen to him, and I think it’s very possible that some of the women and girls on these videos might have similar feelings about these videos being replayed and spread around over and over again without anyone having consulted them about their feelings first.
I think this is the best summation of my feelings about it. He is a good man, but his prime time is past. The last point at which he could have gone for it was derailed by circumstances. The day Obama put that PMF around his neck should have been the signal to ride into the sunset in honored esteem.
In any case, IMO it is better that if anyone’s got ANYTHING that can be brought up against them, bad, ugly, dumb, trivial or significant, it be brought up now, early, so candidates can deal with it now and not at the convention or as October surprises. If the candidate overcomes it, it’s a plus; if s/he feels it’s not worth it, it spares expense and effort later on.
ISTM many people who were looking to Joe for 2020 AND many people who did not want Joe for 2020 were ***both ***thinking of him as neutralizing the Dem “new left”, being the old mainstream Dem who would not be portrayed as a scary leftist and could go toe-to-toe with Trump for the WWC.
What do you mean by PMF?
I hasten to add that I’ve always liked Joe Biden in general as a senator and vice president. I don’t dole out heaps of praise for any particular name-brand politician that often, but I really do get the sense that Biden is a passionate defender of the working class guy.
I may be naive, but I even get the sense that while younger Joe Biden probably was motivated more by a sense of ego - like all ambitious and aspiring presidential candidates - I get the feeling that older, mature Joe Biden could take it or leave it. I do get the impression that he really regrets not running not because he feel like he personally missed his chance to be president and because he missed out on some lifelong dream, but more so because he’s truly appalled at the morons running the white house now and the opposition party that has enabled him. I’m not even totally convinced he wants to run for himself as much as he is constantly reminded every damn day that he probably could even squeaked out a victory over Trump, and chose not to run. I bet that eats away at him, and so now he feels compelled to run because of his own feelings and probably because everyone around him has convinced him he can do it this time.
I won’t say that he doesn’t have ambition, ego, and designs on power - you don’t get to be a multi-term senator and Veep without these traits. But what I’m saying is that I think he can walk away from it if he really wants to and he could live out his life content on a personal level, which is different from how I assess Hillary Clinton’s reaction to her loss. My impression is that while she, like Biden, is horrified by Trump’s inflicting damage to the country, I also get the feeling that she feels cheated, that she lost out on a lifelong dream, and that she’ll never, ever get over it - ever.
Presidential Medal of Freedom, surely.
She made it fairly clear she felt cheated in 2008. She lined up as many major players in the DNC to ensure a smooth nomination as possible for 2016, she thought she had enough in 2008 but found out she didn’t and went all out for 2016.
Thank you.
OK, you’re saying that there’s nothing to see here, and iiandyiiii is saying, ‘omigod, we need the consent of these people before we look at these salacious pix!’
Right now, I’m just addressing the latter claim. I thank you for your support in assuring iiandyiiii that he’s making a big deal out of nothing.
This is not what I’m saying, by the way.
The pose with two pols standing side by side, each with an arm around the other, is so standard that we’ve all seen it hundreds if not thousands of times. It seems to be part of the deal if you’re in politics.
The pix of poses I’ve seen involving Biden are quite different from that.
Then I’ll be damned if I’m able to figure out what you’re saying.
What exactly is special about these photos and videos that their consent to this specific use is necessary, given that they’re photos and videos of a public event? If it’s not about anything particularly salacious or revealing going on in them, what’s the deal?
If it’s a matter of just the simple nonconsensuality of the touching, suppose Person A punches Person B in the face at a public event. That’s nonconsensual touching, for sure. Should Person B’s consent be required before anybody publishes a photo of it?
You’re trying to stand on some sort of principle here, but I just don’t grok it.