…lack of nuance on your part? Absolutely. My post was about as nuanced as you can get.
How so?
…I’ve already explained why. Several other people have also posted critiques of the article. Its all in the thread already.
Enough of what Tweeden has said has been shown to be misrepresentations and/or deliberate lies that I have no idea how she genuinely feels.
Curious what the mass response would be if the photo was of the woman asleep with her mouth open, Al with stupid grin and cock out an inch from her mouth? Or in mouth? Still ok to some?
Yep.
Are you sure you’re not a pretzel maker instead of a photographer? Because that is some serious twisting. If you hold a delusional belief, you are delusional. And if you mention a group of people without qualifying them in some way, such as some of Franken’s supporters are married to a delusional belief, the clear implication is that all are such.
We aren’t going to convince each other about the “delusional” issue. I have nothing else to say about it. So, apart from that, I’ll ask one more time: who is Marcotte referring to, by name, when she talks about Franken’s defenders.
…this happens to victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault all of the time. Christine Blasey Ford was accused of misrepresentations and/or deliberate lies. But do you know how she “genuinely” felt?
…LOL.
Incorrect. The belief is delusional. In this case the belief that there was a “frame-up” is the delusional belief. Lets substitute delusional for another word. “Stupid”. Does believing a **stupid **thing make someone stupid? How about important. Does having an **important **belief make somebody important?
But it was qualified. The statement, even out of context, was as qualified as you can get. The qualification was “a belief that it’s all just a frame-up.” That qualification clearly excludes any beliefs that weren’t contingent on a frame-up.
Sure, LOL. I’ll believe that when I see it.
Are you asking that question of Marcotte or me? Because if you want Marcotte to answer you then asking that question in this thread is the wrong place to be asking it. If you are asking me " who hold beliefs about Franken which are “based on inadequate grounds not amendable to rational argument, etc”, well I’ve already answered that.
Not the beliefs, the defenders. Again, if she had said “some” of his defenders, it would have been clear that she wasn’t talking about all of them.
Funny. Yes, of course it would be the wrong thread. I ask that of you, and have before, to emphasize that generalizing about Franken’s defenders was wrong. And no, you haven’t answered the question. I asked for specific people, names. You haven’t given those, just like Marcotte didn’t.
No, on your part. Nothing matters but how the victim feels? Not nuanced.
…a quick question: do you believe there was a frame up?
I linked to thousands of twitter posts from Franken defenders that I think fairly fit the criteria you were looking for.
…who claims that “nothing matters but how the victim feels?”
For a politician, there is actually the larger issue than was the person okay with the joke. The constituents get to decide if they want to be represented by a person who jokes about something like that. At a minimum, he was joking about sexual objectification or even sexual assault. For some people, those subjects are so serious and offensive that they don’t even want it to be joked about. In a similar vein, people might also be offended if he was joking about racism or the Holocaust. Whether or not he was intending it to be a joke and regardless of if his audience was okay with it, many constituents will not be okay with handling those subjects in a joking manner.
I read somewhere that all accusations don’t have to be believed, necessarily, but should all be taken seriously. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
That is just a tad different, wouldn’t you say??
As much as I am enjoying you guys on the left argue with each other, what about this as a proposal. Let’s start from the #metoo movement, say 2017, when anyone should know that something like what was in the picture is not acceptable.
We have one standard for acts pre-2017 and a different one for those post-2017. No, I’m not saying rape pre-2017 is okay, but just a different standard. Is that fair? We could argue about the details, but surely someone who did something in 1992 shouldn’t be held to a modern #metoo standard, no?
See the post itself:
I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s been “largely discredited”. A mistaken date and who else recieved the picture are not much. And if Franken was fucking with her, I could easily see him saying he wrote the skit just for her even if he had performed it before.
I’m not interested in trying to get Franken into office any time soon, but one of the reasons this topic still ignites so much passionate controversy is nothing to do with Franken himself: it’s the question highlighted in your post. It’s about the number of voters concerned about what seems to be a new Democratic Party platform plank: that accusations must be accepted as true without investigation or scrutiny.
That’s not an actual party-platform plank. But not only will many Democrats be expected to abide by it, it will be talked up as emblematic of the Dems by cynical/hypocritical Republicans.
As you note about your extremely useful article*, it suggests the disconnect between left-leaning activists and moderates, with the activists being much more likely to embrace the “believe all accusations” position.
A major reason for continuing to discuss cases like Franken’s is that we really do need to find a unified message on this. We can’t dislodge Trump or Congressional Republicans or state-office Republicans unless we find a way to reach the people in the middle: the people who don’t want to see anyone get away with sexual misconduct, but who are alarmed by a new orthodoxy that says all accusations should be automatically believed, without investigation or scrutiny.
It’s an issue that’s a lot bigger than Franken.
*A Year Into #MeToo, Public Worried About False Allegations
You don’t see the right-wing connections as having any relevance to her credibility on this?
I’ve only seen the term “frame-up” used by Marcotte, and given that she didn’t explain what that even means, I can’t really answer. I will say that I don’t think there were any conspiratorial machinations going on though.
Okay, fair enough.