This is exactly what I’m talking about, though. This sort of fatalism only perpetuates the problem. Yes, this is a setback, for sure. There are currently people who do see porn as disqualifying. But giving up makes it inevitable that they win. Hell, even if she loses, making a good showing can still help to reduce the power that this particular horrible tactic has.
And, again, this is revenge porn. There is nothing ridiculous or silly about calling it such. They are using illegally obtained pornography of her to attempt to cause her harm. Just because it’s not her ex-boyfriend doing it doesn’t make it any less revenge porn. This is not a video that was publicly available–it’s a stream that someone had to have made an illegal copy of. And that Republicans had to have somehow gotten access to so they could control when it released. (It wouldn’t surprise me if money exchanged hands.)
Fatalism like this frustrates me. And, yes, it still matters even if you’re not able to vote. It’s still pushing the narrative, and driving down enthusiasm. If everyone is saying it’s inevitable that she’ll lose, it’s going to be hard to convince voters to try. I for one would say she should paint the narrative of her being wronged, and try to appeal to younger people, those who know it may be their sex video that comes back to bite them.
Think about Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The narrative then was that he had an affair. Did Democrats decide he had ruined everything? No. They got on board with the narrative that his private life didn’t matter. And this was in the 1990s, when voters still cared about affairs. Heck, you could argue that the narrative with Clinton is part of why voters don’t care anymore.
Yeah, yeah. Nowadays a lot of us regret that, because we now have reason to think he is a sexual predator. But we have no such qualms on the current candidate. My point is just that we don’t have to be fatalists.
We don’t have to say “well this is just the way it is.” Yeah, this is far from ideal. It is a setback. But it’s not necessarily a fatal mistake. But that will require us to not try to make it one.
No, it isn’t and bolding it doesn’t magically make it so. You clearly have no idea what happened if you think that this pornography is either 1) illegally obtained for the purpose of causing her harm or 2) the even more vastly ridiculous notion that republicans somehow had to have money trade hands to see this or “control when it was released”. Seriously, this is utterly ridiculous. I’d advise you to go to Recurbate where these files, along with according to them:
More than 30,686,271 hours of video of 224,518 performers
are hosted. Her videos, along with everyone who streams their Chaturbate sex shows were hosted there from the very day she broadcast them. At the worst she can slap them with a DMCA takedown claim to get them to remove her videos, but again, it’s not even worth it. It is unlikely to the point of the impossible that Recurbate is the only website that has been hosting said videos since the day they were made two years ago. Now that she has been identified by the username she used for her Chaturbate account, it’s going to be 100% impossible to scrub the internet of the videos. Gibson streaming herself having sex on Chaturbate in exchange for tips from literally anyone who wanted to by its very definition is making the video publicly available.
Using what you originally used as a comparison:
and keeping things political, let’s use Stormy Daniels as the example you want to use. If someone were to share a link to a Stormy Daniels video and I were to share it again, that doesn’t make it in any way, shape, or form revenge porn. What I - being the stand in for the republicans who made the general public aware of the knowledge of the existence of already public said Gibson videos - did is so far from any kind of criminal offense much less revenge porn its laughable. The only one who would have done anything close to wrong is the site hosting said Stormy Daniels porn video, and the only thing they’ve done wrong is a DMCA copyright offense, not a criminal act of revenge porn.
If you think porn sites not getting the copyright permission for the porn they are hosting is anything remotely out of the ordinary, you haven’t been on the internet for very long.
Gibson very publicly performed sexual acts for strangers in exchange for money. All that happened was two years later when she became a public figure, someone recognized her from her porn.
@Northern_Piper, @BigT, @flurb, @Dissonance and anyone else participating in this discussion about Susanna Gibson, stop this hijack now. If you want to discuss Gibson, start a different thread. This thread is about Lauren Boebert.
You all know better. Please try to respect our rules and stay on topic.
If it helps to understand the Congresswoman, it’s worth noting that her behavior runs in the family - the identity of her father is unknown, and for decades her mother claimed that her father was a pro wrestler who was one of several men she’d been sleeping with at the time. It was only earlier this year that DNA testing conclusively proved that former NWA World Tag Team Champion ‘Sweet’ Stan Lane was not her father.
I vote MTG so they can have a catfight so awesome the cameras come off Biden mid-speech, he stops speechifying, and instead begins delivering play-by-play fight commentary including the words “Republican representative” in every sentence.
I’m suggesting an even more entertaining possibility that the other 150M of us could enjoy watching, rather than just some R pol getting his crank yanked with a dumb grin on his face.
Maybe Boebert could auction off the right to sit beside her, one to the left and another to her right. All proceeds going to the DJT general defense fund of course. Net of skimming.
In 2012 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, then the leader of the Opposition , challenged Senator Patrick Brazeau of the ruling Conservatives to a boxing match.
It was widely expected that Brazeau would wipe him out but Trudeau definitively won. I expect MTG and 36 year old Grandma would have more hair pulling.
This thread edges ever closer to Pit material, complete with slut-shaming and misogyny.
Let’s confine the discussion to how Boebert’s behavior explains her being an elected member of Congress. I understand it’s a fine line, but with every post, it’s taking an unacceptable turn. Thanks.
I think Colorado newspapers sum-up Boebert’s recent antics well:
The really heinous part to me is enough people voted for her to become a congresswoman. This is really the person they wanted?
FTR: I do not care who she gropes (assuming it is consensual). I care about her poor decision making, disrupting a show and hypocrisy (and politics…1 million percent the politics).
Twice. A woman with a callous disregard for the law and the welfare of others, a profound ignorance of the requirements and expectations of the job she is getting paid well to do, a fundamental lack of any basic manners whatsoever, and a willingness to ignore or destroy every convention of democracy and polite society out of sheer petty malignancy, and the voters of her district still put her back in office. It’s a sad state of affairs.
