# Now, Al Franken **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 16, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770 "2017-11-16T15:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/681 "2017-11-19T23:40:30Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …humour is subjective, not objective. How you see the joke, how Tweeden sees the joke, how I see the joke and how Franken explains the joke can all be different things, and none of us are “objectively correct.” Absolutely. In objecting to what I saw as a mischaracterization of the joke. I should have been more careful in how I offered my own interpretation. I believe this is the joke Franken was making. And I am fine with it. I realize that others disagree. I’m not saying that Ms Tweeden should be fine with the joke. She says she was humiliated and I think that’s a perfectly reasonable reaction. Clearly a lot of people didn’t see the joke as I did. > [@](#): > > No he hasn’t: which is my point entirely. Your entire point was that Franken hasn’t released any more statements after he twice disputed the story told by Tweeden? > [@](#): > > Well yeah, but we aren’t going to get those details are we. The most we will probably ever get from Franken is that his recollection of events is different (we might even get his version of events), but he understands where Tweeden is coming from. And we will all still be “none the wiser.” At this point “lets not rush to judgement” is nothing but a cliche. Not much is going to change. Why not make a “judgement” now? No, we don’t know what information will turn up in an investigation. That’s the point of having an investigation. To learn more. Why would you support an investigation if you don’t believe it could change anything? Witnesses might be found to corroborate or cast doubt upon the accusations. The accusers themselves may provide more information to lend credence to their stories. There might be more physical evidence in the form of more pictures or video. We don’t know. And “we don’t know” is the judgement to make right now. Because we don’t. Anyone not directly involved saying anything differently is wrong. Objectively wrong. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/682 "2017-11-19T23:43:41Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This is one of the more … out-there … interpretations of the photo that I’ve read. Did you come up with this interpretation on your own or read about it somewhere? That was my initial reaction to the photo. I know of no one, before **Sherrerd** posted today, who shares my view. That’s why I began my first post by asking if I was the only one who got the joke. In what way do you find my interpretation “out-there”? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/683 "2017-11-19T23:54:59Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > That was my initial reaction to the photo. I know of no one, before **Sherrerd** posted today, who shares my view. That’s why I began my first post by asking if I was the only one who got the joke. > > In what way do you find my interpretation “out-there”? You said you thought it was Franken “pretending to fail to grope her”. I hadn’t heard anyone suggest that, and it seems rather convoluted for a joke. I thought it was more along the lines of “hey, look at me touching this hot chick’s boobs” (or pretending to touch them). That seems like the simpler and more direct interpretation (Occam’s razor may apply), but I recognize that perhaps I just don’t get Franken’s humor. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/684 "2017-11-20T00:06:56Z")
I’ll concur with HurricaneDitka: that interpretation would never have occurred to me, and I find it a big stretch. I don’t know how – without further context – you could extrapolate “Franken is pretending to be an incompetent pervert” from one picture of him mugging for the camera while he almost gropes a woman. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/685 "2017-11-20T00:15:07Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Absolutely. In objecting to what I saw as a mischaracterization of the joke. I should have been more careful in how I offered my own interpretation. I believe this is the joke Franken was making. And I am fine with it. I realize that others disagree. I’m not saying that Ms Tweeden should be fine with the joke. She says she was humiliated and I think that’s a perfectly reasonable reaction. Clearly a lot of people didn’t see the joke as I did. …how can you object to how other people are characterizing the joke, when the very nature of a joke is based on individuals subjective interpretation? Especially one that is as “out there” as yours? > [@](#): > > Your entire point was that Franken hasn’t released any more statements after he twice disputed the story told by Tweeden? Nope. > [@](#): > > No, we don’t know what information will turn up in an investigation. That’s the point of having an investigation. To learn more. Why would you support an investigation if you don’t believe it could change anything? Witnesses might be found to corroborate or cast doubt upon the accusations. The accusers themselves may provide more information to lend credence to their stories. There might be more physical evidence in the form of more pictures or video. We don’t know. None of this precludes us from making a judgement now based on everything we know. I suspect that everybody in this thread have already made some sort of judgement. Should we all now expect a lecture from you? > [@](#): > > And “we don’t know” is the judgement to make right now. Because we don’t. Anyone not directly involved saying anything differently is wrong. We may as well close down Great Debates now. None of us are “directly involved” in anything we discuss here. I’ve made a “judgement.” With new information I can change my judgement. But I most certainly didn’t “rush” to judgement. > [@](#): > > Objectively wrong. You are (objectively) incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/686 "2017-11-20T00:15:15Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …if the right hand is touching, then what the left hand is doing isn’t relevant… Did somebody else say: > [@](#): > > …For the purposes of debate I’ve made the assumption that the hand is not touching… Perhaps you can see how I, a boor of little brain, might be confused. One of us must be. > [@](#): > > …You have the privilege of looking at the photo with a skeptical eye because you don’t have a stake in the matter. Tweeden doesn’t have that privilege… Franken is a Senator, a reliable vote for things I care about. Damn straight I have a stake in it! > [@](#): > > …WTF does kicking have to do with anything? If you want to know what “groping” means I suggest you look up a dictionary… I did. Says “to feel or fondle for sexual pleasure”. “Touch”, in other word. Violating someone’s person is some serious shit, a vulgar and a stupid joke is…a vulgar and stupid joke. If you have a definition that defines “grope” without any reference of “touching”, why don’t you go look it up. I’ll wait right here. Take your time, I’m not that old. > [@](#): > > …Not particularly. You didn’t concede that you’ve done anything wrong… Sadly, your faultless and crystalline logic has not astounded me. You’ll get over it. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/687 "2017-11-20T00:21:40Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I have defended Franken for the photo. Right here in this thread back on page 12. People claiming the picture shows Franken pretending to grope Leeann Tweeden are missing the joke. It’s not the most tasteful joke but it’s not an example of “punching down”. He is pretending to fail to grope her. The joke is literally on Franken as the incompetent pervert and not on Tweeden… Yeah, and Trumps 'Grab’em by the pussy comment was really a deep insight into the power imbalance between men and women in this country! Your argument is quite possibly the dunbest thing i have read in the last 10 years. Slee ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/688 "2017-11-20T00:57:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You said you thought it was Franken “pretending to fail to grope her”. I hadn’t heard anyone suggest that, and it seems rather convoluted for a joke. I thought it was more along the lines of “hey, look at me touching this hot chick’s boobs” (or pretending to touch them). That seems like the simpler and more direct interpretation (Occam’s razor may apply), but I recognize that perhaps I just don’t get Franken’s humor. > [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > I’ll concur with HurricaneDitka: that interpretation would never have occurred to me, and I find it a big stretch. I don’t know how – without further context – you could extrapolate “Franken is pretending to be an incompetent pervert” from one picture of him mugging for the camera while he almost gropes a woman. To me it seems obvious that Franken is not almost groping her since Ms Tweeden is wearing body armor. She is not laying there vulnerable. Her combat gear is going to prevent the pervert from fondling her breasts. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/689 "2017-11-20T01:05:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Did somebody else say: > Perhaps you can see how I, a boor of little brain, might be confused. One of us must be. …yeah I did say that. Why are you confused? For the purposes of debate I \*\*have \*\*made the assumption that Franken isn’t touching her. I’ve made that assumption so that we don’t have to litigate the point every time it comes up in the thread, as one tends to do in threads like this. Franken has apologised and Tweeden has accepted, this isn’t going to a court of law, so whether or not Franken touched her or not is largely unimportant. But whether or not he actually \*\*is \*\*touching her or not is a separate and distinct point. It is clear to me that the left hand isn’t touching her. To the layperson the shadows on the right hand indicate that the right hand isn’t touching her either: but I’ve seen those sorts of shadows before and that isn’t necessarily the case. So I did a quick test and the test confirmed my initial thoughts: it is virtually impossible to say whether or not Franken is touching her, IMHO, as a professional photographer. You asked me a question about the photo and about my “unscientific” recreation of the photo. I answered it without the “assumption he didn’t touch”, in the context of the question that you asked, because to do otherwise would be pretty fucking stupid. If he is touching her with the right hand then what he is doing with the left doesn’t matter. That seems pretty fucking obvious to me. > [@](#): > > Franken is a Senator, a reliable vote for things I care about. Damn straight I have a stake in it! No you don’t have a stake in it. You are just like me: a random person on the internet. The photo was not of you. You didn’t put put the CD of the images into your computer to view them, maybe with your husband, and you weren’t surprised, shocked, dismayed and disgusted when this image suddenly popped up on your computer. When that happens to you you see things through a different lens. You are not detached from the moment. You don’t blow the photo up on your 2006 computer-screen and peep at the pixels to try and figure out “is he actually touching me, or is he just nearly but not quite touching me?” You have an instant, visceral reaction. You might not look at the photo again for a number of years. > [@](#): > > I did. Says “to feel or fondle for sexual pleasure”. “Touch”, in other word. > > Violating someone’s person is some serious shit, a vulgar and a stupid joke is…a vulgar and stupid joke. If you have a definition that defines “grope” without any reference of “touching”, why don’t you go look it up. I’ll wait right here. Take your time, I’m not that old. For the purposes of debate I had made the assumption that Franken didn’t touch her. That doesn’t mean that IMHO, he didn’t touch her. So lets change the assumption then. For the purposes of debate I’m going to assume Franken did touch her. Does that make things easy for you? I could have gone either way from the beginning. But I had no idea that anyone would have such difficulty that conceding a point for the purposes of debate doesn’t mean that I can’t believe the opposite. So lets change the assumption. He groped her. He touched her while she was sleeping without her permission. Touched. Has it now progressed from “vulgar and stupid joke” to “some serious shit!” for you now? > [@](#): > > Sadly, your faultless and crystalline logic has not astounded me. You’ll get over it. Unfortunately no I won’t. I fear that I will be challenging people like you for the rest of my life. I’m not really looking forward to that. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/690 "2017-11-20T01:06:51Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Her combat gear is going to prevent the pervert from fondling her breasts. …your interpretation of the joke relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how perverts work. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/691 "2017-11-20T01:18:44Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …how can you object to how other people are characterizing the joke, when the very nature of a joke is based on individuals subjective interpretation? Especially one that is as “out there” as yours? It doesn’t seem out there to me. To me it seems odd that you all don’t seem to understand how body armor works. The specific characterization I was objecting to was **John Mace** ’s assertion that the joke was indefensible. I feel the same about your claim that the the picture “clearly and unambiguously reveals that Al Franken is a bit of a dick”. I respect that you feel that way but you are wrong about it being unambiguous. > [@](#): > > Nope. Then I am afraid I have no idea how you reconcile the fact that Franken says he remembers differently with your claim that “nearly every single detail isn’t in dispute”. > [@](#): > > None of this precludes us from making a judgement now based on everything we know. I suspect that everybody in this thread have already made some sort of judgement. Should we all now expect a lecture from you? So long as the people present their opinion as opinion and not as fact they have nothing to worry about. Yes we can judge based on what we know. Lets just not pretend we know more than we do. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/692 "2017-11-20T01:26:06Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Yeah, and Trumps 'Grab’em by the pussy comment was really a deep insight into the power imbalance between men and women in this country! > > Your argument is quite possibly the dunbest thing i have read in the last 10 years. > > Slee Personally I think Gaudere’s Law should cover situations where people call another post dumb and then make a dumb mistake like “dunbest”. Thanks for the laugh. Other than that I can’t reply since I don’t understand the nature of your objection. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/693 "2017-11-20T01:26:40Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > It doesn’t seem out there to me. To me it seems odd that you all don’t seem to understand how body armor works. …I know how body armour works. Do you understand how jokes work? > [@](#): > > The specific characterization I was objecting to was **John Mace** ’s assertion that the joke was indefensible. I feel the same about your claim that the the picture “clearly and unambiguously reveals that Al Franken is a bit of a dick”. I respect that you feel that way but you are wrong about it being unambiguous. Yes: it is indeed possible to contort yourself into such an extraordinary position that this photo was somehow “defensible.” But it really isn’t. And the lameness of your defense really proves that point. Regardless of the intent of the joke, Tweeden was not a willing participant in that joke: and that, in my most humble of opinions, is indefensible. > [@](#): > > Then I am afraid I have no idea how you reconcile the fact that Franken says he remembers differently with your claim that “\*\*nearly \*\*every single detail isn’t in dispute”. I’ve bolded the bit you can use to reconcile your thoughts. > [@](#): > > So long as the people present their opinion as opinion and not as fact they have nothing to worry about. Yes we can judge based on what we know. Lets just not pretend we know more than we do. Well thank fuck for that! Because I don’t see anyone pretending to know more than we do here in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/694 "2017-11-20T01:28:25Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > So lets change the assumption then. For the purposes of debate I’m going to assume Franken did touch her. > > Does that make things easy for you? I could have gone either way from the beginning. But I had no idea that anyone would have such difficulty that conceding a point for the purposes of debate doesn’t mean that I can’t believe the opposite. So lets change the assumption. > > He groped her. He touched her while she was sleeping without her permission. Touched. > > Has it now progressed from “vulgar and stupid joke” to “some serious shit!” for you now? Factual question: What is the nature of the body armor that she is wearing in the picture? I think that **2sense** may be right that there’s something ridiculous about the idea of groping a person who is wearing body armor. And if what she is wearing is thick and rigid enough, it might be reasonable to say that he _couldn’t_ have been touching _her_, only what she was wearing, and that the distinction is significant. That still doesn’t make it okay. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/695 "2017-11-20T01:30:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > YI thought it was more along the lines of “hey, look at me touching this hot chick’s boobs” (or pretending to touch them). That makes no sense. How could he be touching (or pretending to touch) boobs? She’s wearing body armor.\* It further makes no sense in that it’s not funny. How is ‘hey look at me touching this hot chick’s boobs’ _funny_? Y’all disparaging the obvious interpretation that 2sense spelled out, are ‘protesting too much,’ I think. \*Which IS the joke. The body armor. The clueless letch not realizing that body armor will thwart him–hence comedy, with the clueless letch being the butt of the joke. Geez. How is that not self-evident? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/696 "2017-11-20T01:34:38Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …your interpretation of the joke relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how perverts work. What misunderstanding would that be? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/697 "2017-11-20T01:46:52Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > What misunderstanding would that be? …that was a **joke**. Perverts are, by definition, “a person whose sexual behaviour is considered strange and unpleasant by most people.” A pervert would probably enjoy fondling body armour over the breasts. Because doing strange and unpleasant things is what perverts do. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/698 "2017-11-20T01:55:19Z")
From Franken’s apology (emphasis added for those who think they know what he was doing-- he doesn’t even know): > [@](#): > > For instance, that picture. I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn’t funny. It’s completely inappropriate. It’s obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what’s more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/699 "2017-11-20T02:01:24Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Perverts are, by definition, “a person whose sexual behaviour is considered strange and unpleasant by most people.” A pervert would probably enjoy fondling body armour over the breasts. Because doing strange and unpleasant things is what perverts do. So your belief is that the joke is supposed to be that people viewing the photo will instantly grasp that Al Franken is pretending to be a body armor fetishist who is about to successfully get his rocks off? This from a person who just questioned whether I understand how jokes work. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/700 "2017-11-20T02:06:36Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Factual question: What is the nature of the body armor that she is wearing in the picture? …don’t you think its getting a bit ridiculous to even contemplate asking this question? I mean that in all seriousness. She’s asleep. She’s wearing clothes. Would we be asking the same question if she was in a bikini? How about a sweater? Has this thread honestly degenerated into “what was she wearing?” > [@](#): > > I think that **2sense** may be right that there’s something ridiculous about the idea of groping a person who is wearing body armor. If the intent of the joke was to say its ridiculous to grope a person in body armour, then shouldn’t Franken be unambiguously groping her for that joke to work? I don’t think its all that complicated. She was asleep. Franken was in the moment and chose to stage the photo, the camera-person took the photo. Thats it. I don’t think there was any intent to tell a joke for any wider audience. It was a funny moment for them, so they snapped the picture. > [@](#): > > And if what she is wearing is thick and rigid enough, it might be reasonable to say that he _couldn’t_ have been touching _her_, only what she was wearing, and that the distinction is significant. Significant for whom? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=36)