So they’re not delusional, they’re just married to a delusional belief. Neat trick.
…to be crystal clear: a **specific **delusional belief. To be even more percise: “married to the delusional belief that it’s all just a frame-up”.
And not a “neat trick” at all. Its just how the english language works.
In casual conversation, “you’re delusional” means you are holding a deluded opinion, not that you require a stay in a mental hospital. That’s how english works with that word.
Quite a fine hair to split: “you’re delusional” vs. “you’re espousing a delusional belief.” I recognize a distinction, but let’s face it: from a distance, all cats are grey.
…were you talking to me? Is this in reference to something I’ve said?
…its not a fine hair to split at all. It was a very specific statement and it is simply incorrect to claim that it was a general statement. Its the difference between claiming Marcotte said "“Franken’s defenders are all delusional” and what she actually said which was “Franken’s defenders are married to the delusional belief** that it’s all just a frame-up”**. There is no fine line there. The two sentences mean two different things.
We agree on something! 
(excellent post, BTW)
I never said they didn’t. I’m saying that the distinction is not as “comparing apples and Winnebagos” as you seem to be repeating.
I still can’t believe that Al Franken resigned over that picture, although there may have been other things going on that weren’t reported.
There were other things reported. About 7 women said he groped them while posing for pictures at public gatherings.
When impartial, completely non-biased author Jane Mayer contacted one of the 7 different women who Franken groped and asked her (surely with delicate, sisterly compassion) if she now felt that Franken’s behavior was “bad enough to end his Senate career” his victim rightly replied “I didn’t end his Senate career, he did.”, and when informed of her statement poor, innocent Saint Al of 30 Rock literally began to cry, sniviling like a spoiled, entitled little shit, “This thing has really destroyed my family, for her to say that is just so callous!”
No contrition, no introspection, just endlessly blaming everyone else for his own vile actions, not unlike a certain New York City businessman turned politician who also shows no concern for the people he has treated like garbage.
I assume you’re referring to this bit from the New Yorker article:
I might cry too if I lost my career over what I intended as a friendly (and non-sexual) gesture.
Based on that article and other things I’ve read, I’m still not convinced that Franken is guilty of anything worse than being “physically obtuse.”
Eight women reported Franken behaved inappropriately, about half of them are Democrats. Allegations include unwanted sexual advances, unwanted touching and propositioning a junior aide.
Even the picture alone is enough.
It really wasn’t. If all it had been was the picture, he’d have been fine.
This is so bizarre. On the same board where it’s not considered okay for any of us common folk to say Jeopardy champ James Holzhauer is “nice looking”, hardly anyone agrees with me that taking this kind of photo while a woman is sleeping and then spreading it around to everyone on the tour, right before running for Senate, is disqualifying? 
Look, I get it: Franken is smart, with a lacerating wit that he used to fillet Republicans. It was glorious. But it’s over. We can’t have a muddled message about this stuff. I happened to see Tina Smith interviewed on my local news tonight, denouncing Mitch McConnell for blocking an election protection bill that has bipartisan support. She is perfectly fine and adds to female representation in the Senate. Get over it!
He may be guilty of coming from a family background and/or culture in which it’s okay to touch people. He may have come from a long line of huggers. People who, when a photo is suggested, put their arm out and pull you in by the waist. People who kiss to say hello and goodbye.
I don’t come from such a culture. I come from a WASP background, and I react negatively to people who are more touchy-feely. I don’t mean to react negatively (and I do try to be polite), but I do have a certain visceral ‘no’ response that I can’t quite talk myself out of.
However, the fact is that WASP culture is somewhat isolated in this. More people worldwide, I’d guess, are good with the hugging and kissing than WASP people can imagine.
The accusations against Franken fall into the chasm of misunderstandings created by these two basic orientations: WASP and non-WASP.
Leaving aside for the moment the largely-discredited Tweeden accusations, the accusers all made some variation on the story that they were with Franken in some voluntary situation (radio interview; posing for a photo) and he made physical contact in a way they found objectionable.
This, by the way, is what’s been said of Biden. About neither man has it been said that they follow women around the grocery store or into an elevator and then pounce. About neither are there any stories about the man calling a woman into his office and then asking for sex or such. Instead, social niceties—taking a photo; thanking someone after an interview—are the occasion for physical contact that the woman feels goes beyond the level of social niceties she finds culturally acceptable.
For example, the last woman to come forward said this, describing how she was attending
All the accusations are like that. He kissed a woman’s cheek and she felt the kiss was too wet. He posed for a photo at a woman’s request and, she says, held the side of her breast. (The photo doesn’t show that.) He posed for another photo and the woman later stated about the 2010 encounter that Franken
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html
As a WASP, I’m dismayed by these kinds of acts. I would never do such things. I don’t like it when others do such things to me (or try to). And I believe that politicians should not do such things. It’s clearly unwise, if nothing else.
But what’s missing here is reasonable certainty that these were deliberate acts of sexual harassment. What’s missing here is reasonable certainty that Franken did these things with the intention of demeaning the women.What’s missing here is reasonable certainty that those taking the anti-Franken position are correct to label these incidents as “groping.” Or as “disgusting” or as any of the other leaps-to-judgment we’ve seen in this thread and elsewhere.
There’s a cultural factor here that is being ignored. Does it play a role? Can we rule out the idea that what these women were defining as offensive conduct, may not have been intended as such?
That’s what an investigation would have gotten us close to: a greater chance of reasonable certainty.
Has nothing to do with how much I luurves Franken. I just don’t think it’s that big a deal. They were doing a baudy comedy tour. If this had been in isolation, I would have written it off.
Bookmarked it! (No time today for more than a cursory look. Dude is certainly not pulling any punches, I will say!)
Sherrerd, nothing in your post addresses the photo taken of Tweeden while she was asleep.