Huh?
Roy Moore is currently running for office. The election is in less than a month.
Franken is not currently running for office. His current term in office ends in 2021.
Shame on you for this argument. A woman’s past or present political affiliations have nothing to do with their credibility. Shame on you and anyone else using this argument as reason to cast doubt on her credibility.
Well, if you read the article, it’s obvious:
But maybe she’s overreacting, or hyping this up for the benefit of conservatives? Well, let me set a ground rule: I don’t think that’s it’s a stretch to say that a person doing something that “isn’t funny” is “completely inappropriate”, that is “obvious” that the victim and “millions of other women would feel violated by it” is pretty obviously acting with malicious intent. With that in mind, what does Al Franken say about the picture?
For one, the person denying the obvious malicious intent involved when a man who had been harassing a woman after being rebuffed by her took “completely inappropriate” pictures of her that it’s obvious to him that she would feel violated by.
Can’t help. The quote is selective regardless.
Her article alleged two incidents. She was kissed and groped. She describes the kissing episode and its aftermath at some length, and then says that’s not all he did and goes on to describe him groping her. The last sentence of the kissing part was about him repaying her with petty insults, and by beginning your quote with that sentence you made it appear that the “that’s not all” was a reference to that one sentence. A fuller quote would allow for the more likely interpretation that the “that’s not all” was referring to the kissing, and not to the final sentence about petty insults.
The context of all this is that it’s not at all clear that she was interpreting his “groping” as an insult aimed at her, but more likely as something more analogous to the kissing.
But I don’t think this is worth arguing about further. (She was sleeping at the time anyway.)
Then why did you raise the timing in your previous post?
Uhhuh.
Of course political affiliation has a lot to do with accusations against political figures. This should be obvious. It is obvious, in fact.
That’s not to say such accusations should be dismissed. But to insist that political affiliation has zero bearing and should not be considered at all is ridiculous.
This “shame on you” attempt at petty intimidation is silly.
I agree with you. Franken’s behavior was shitty and proof that this is not a partisan issue, men of all political stripes have behaved like creeps. To not own up to that and call out creep behavior when it happens is to be part of the problem.
FWIW:
Because (for now) it smells like a smoke screen for Roy Moore and typical conservative “whataboutism”.
Disclaimer: liberal, like Franken. But I think I’ve been consistent.
I will be interested in seeing what the final shake out is WRT “sexual harassment”. I feel that absent egregious factors, an isolated decades in the past should not define how an otherwise upstanding person is judged today. We are a sexual species. What is within the conceivable range of acceptable or excusable in a bar, is clearly different than in a professional workplace. Or the age/power of the respective parties. Isolated event vs pattern of behavior. Hypocrisy might also be relevant - such as engaging in homosexual activity while publicly condemning same.
How the person responds to the accusations is also relevant in assessing their present character. Moreover, while not “blaming the victim”, I believe that memories are often terribly unreliable.
I’ll be happy if we truly see some changes in behavioral norms as the result of this current climate. And I’m thrilled to see truly bad actors bear consequences. But I hope that every instance of poor judgment ought not have outsized repercussions years down the road.
Roy Moore is going to speak soon, right now, they are busy praying. No sign of a smiting.
I’d hate to see the Dems feel compelled to make an example of one of their own for a relatively minor transgression whilst the shameless Republicans feel no such compulsion.
If an argument is poor or flawed, that’s fair game to call it out. Shaming other posters however personalizes the argument. Please do not personalize your arguments in this fashion.
[/moderating]
She has been a frequent guest on Sean Hannity’s show. About an hour ago I found some cites on Google of her identifying as a Tea Party supporter and saying she would like to “kick Obama’s ass”, but now all the search results are pointing to stories about today’s allegations.
On the fifth page down I found this example of her promoting birtherism on Hannity’s show.
If there’s a easy-to-understand standard that can be applied consistently besides “has/hasn’t committed sexual assault/harassment,” I’m all ears.
But in the absence of such a standard, that’s where we’ve got to draw the line. It’s probably where it should be drawn, period. Even when one of my favorite politicians falls on the wrong side of it.
you know ive always got the impression that franken was like most comics somewhat funny but a major dick he just was more intellectual tham most and this hasn’t changed my mind …
Al Franken strongly disagrees with you on this. He actually says that there’s no excuse for the pciture, that he’s disgusted with himself for taking it, and that it’s obvious millions of women would feel violated by it. I think I’ll take the accused’s side in this instance! "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.
No we don’t. We have a ‘she said, he didn’t disagree with her about the kiss, and he also said the photograph was wildly inappropriate’. That’s a ‘she said, he partially agreed and didn’t disagree with anything she said’.
Getting consent for a stage kiss is not the same thing as consent for shoving your tongue into their mouth. He lacked any actual consent for what he did. And as for the rest, see his own description of the picture.
Drunk college students engage in all kinds of awful behavior, I can’t believe someone would argue ‘drunk college students do this, so clearly it’s OK’ in general. But especially when we’re talking about not just a grown man, but a US Senator - I really don’t think “Only does stuff as bad as drunk college students do” is a good standard of behavior.
No, it’s not obvious. Credibility for allegations of personal misbehavior is (or should be) based on honesty, plausibility, etc. Not who one associates with, or one’s political beliefs. A liberal accusing a conservative, or vice versa, is no more or less credible than a liberal accusing a liberal, or conservative accusing a conservative.
Understood. I’ll leave out the “shame on you” outside of the Pit.