Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny

[The Big Dog]

You were there?

No, but I understand the nature of still photography. I’d be delighted to walk you through that.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you see a slut in those images, I think that is your true problem here.

If not, I think you are vile for fun.

Slut shaming is an expression of a tactic used to discredit women, such as it is being used here. She worked at hooters, she posed for playboy, here are pictures!

You have quite notably failed to address why those nsfw photos were necessary in connection with FRANKEN’S conduct.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited to remove response to moderated material.

 

[theprestige]

And Franken is willing to go before the Senate Ethics Committee and face the consequences. It doesn't excuse what he did, but at least it's an acknowledgment that he knows he did something wrong.

A defendant doesn't go to trial to admit he did something wrong.

 

[Elagabalus]

We haven’t gotten as far as did he actually grab them. There was also a witness to that. Besides, it looks to me like he’s touching. It’s clearly assault.

He is not touching "them" as you can plainly see by the shadow of the flash.

 

[logger]

That's not the way it works, if you want to go legal then it's up to you to show that he was touching. I believe there is a lot of doubt to that.

This isn’t headed to court, it’s going to be handled politically.

 

[Giz]

Umm, that is not slut shaming. Posting pictures of her in a bikini in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with her in her bikini for the sole purpose of discrediting her is slut shaming.

This is so obvious that I am stunned that people are defending this argument.

It's a bit like that scene from "The Accused", starring Jodie foster:

"The DA is unimpressed by Sarah's behavior as she had dressed provocatively that night at the bar and was also drinking heavily and showing a lot of cleavage."

 

[Oystein]

Slut shaming is an expression of a tactic used to discredit women, such as it is being used here. She worked at hooters, she posed for playboy, here are pictures!

You have quite notably failed to address why those nsfw photos were necessary in connection with FRANKEN’S conduct.

Except no one uses these images to discredit Tweeden. You need to drop that lie.

The discrediting occurs a step later - and you wilfully ignore that step: that her accusation may be in part motivated politically, as she likely would have other accusations to make, but chose to make them on Franken. Again, I do not agree with this argument! Only informing you that Ginger didnt link google results to discredit Tweeden as a slut. Rather, she linked google results to portrait her as a likely victim of more abuses.

Portayed as victim, not as slut.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, but I understand the nature of still photography. I’d be delighted to walk you through that.

The nature of still photography has nothing to do with anything that happened on the plane. Unless you were actually there, or you have exclusive testimony of someone that was, there is no way to tell what occurred based on one photograph.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You were there?

Maybe he read Trump's Tweet: The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....

 

[Minoosh]

I can say for sure that photo does not document the entirety of franken’s conduct while the victim was sleeping on that plane.

Still photographs are funny that way.

 

[Oystein]

A defendant doesn't go to trial to admit he did something wrong.

Well good thing that's not a trial and Franken is not a defendant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This isn’t headed to court, it’s going to be handled politically.

Either way, if you want to claim that his hands are touching, then you need to show your working.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except no one uses these images to discredit Tweeden. You need to drop that lie.

The discrediting occurs a step later - and you wilfully ignore that step: that her accusation may be in part motivated politically, as she likely would have other accusations to make, but chose to make them on Franken. Again, I do not agree with this argument! Only informing you that Ginger didnt link google results to discredit Tweeden as a slut. Rather, she linked google results to portrait her as a likely victim of more abuses.

Portayed as victim, not as slut.

Her accusation is politically motivated, but she is not being discredited by the totally unnecessary posting of her nsfw pictures.



Talk about vile nonsense.

Pure slut shaming.

 

[Oystein]

Her accusation is politically motivated, but she is not being discredited by the ... posting of her nsfw pictures
....

With a little snipping, what you wrote is correct

 

[PhantomWolf]

Her accusation is politically motivated, but she is not being discredited by the totally unnecessary posting of her nsfw pictures.



Talk about vile nonsense.

Pure slut shaming.

You need to drop this because it's going nowhere. It's very obvious that Ginger's meaning was that since she had worked in industries where women are often seen as objects that the likelihood is that others had done similar things to her, that is was highly unlikely that Franken is the only man that she has encountered that did this sort of thing, and likely others did worse, so it was unusual that she would single him out of all the other probable times.

If you what to attack that argument attack that argument, it has flaws in it that are very attackable, and I don't personally agree with Ginger's point at all, but at least attack the right argument instead your continual attacking of strawmen. All that does is make you look like you are trolling.

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe he read Trump's Tweet: The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....

The trump tard in chief

 

[The Big Dog]

With a little snipping, what you wrote is correct

that makes the posting of her nsfw pictures just gratuitous.

I really did not believe you could make a terrible argument worse but you have managed to do so.

Using her photos to discredit her is slut shaming, and creating a ludicrous interim step is specious.

The emphasis here is Franken’s conduct and anything focusing on her looks, dress, career or photos is abhorrent slut shaming.

 

[johnny karate]

A defendant doesn't go to trial to admit he did something wrong.

A defendant who turns himself in does.

 

[The Big Dog]

You need to drop this because it's going nowhere. It's very obvious that Ginger's meaning was that since she had worked in industries where women are often seen as objects that the likelihood is that others had done similar things to her, that is was highly unlikely that Franken is the only man that she has encountered that did this sort of thing, and likely others did worse, so it was unusual that she would single him out of all the other probable times.

If you what to attack that argument attack that argument, it has flaws in it that are very attackable, and I don't personally agree with Ginger's point at all, but at least attack the right argument instead your continual attacking of strawmen. All that does is make you look like you are trolling.

Attack her obviously transparently false justification for bringing up the victims work history and posting nsfw pictures while ignoring the actual purpose of posting those things?

She is attacking the victim using the most transparently idiotic justification possible and you think it is wrong for me to point out that she is slut shaming the Victim?

That is a big negative. I cannot believe that people are trying to defend this conduct.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The emphasis here is Franken’s conduct and anything focusing on her looks, dress, career or photos is abhorrent slut shaming.

This is just incorrect. Slut Shaming is when the victim is blamed for the offender's actions due to their career, clothing, looks, or actions. It's saying that the victim was responsible for the offender's actions because of what she did or how she looked. That is not what SG did.