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

[The Big Dog]

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.

Wrong.

Slut shaming: the action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative

 

[PhantomWolf]

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?

I'm arguing that you are ignoring the intended reason for bringing it up. Bringing up the victim's history to say "She's likely to have been abuse a number of times" is not the same as bringing it up to say "It's her fault she was abused." You're creating a strawman because you are demanding that your interpretation is the only possible true one, and then attack that, even after being told you are wrong in your conclusions. Time to drop it.

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?

No, she pointed out that she thought it was funny that the victim went after Franken and not others that likely have done similar to her, and suggested that such a thing might mean it's political. That is not slut shaming. Slut Shaming is blaming the victim for what happened to them. SG did not do that, despite your claims.

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

Yup, just keep up the strawmanning, at this rate Walmart is going to run out of scarecrows.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wrong.

Slut shaming: the action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative

That wasn't done either, unless you think that being a bikini model makes her "promiscuous or sexually provocative"? Do you?

 

[xjx388]

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

You need to stop calling it a lie. You may disagree with that opinion (for some strange reason) but your disagreement does not make the opinion a 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.

Totally speculative and of absolutely no bearing on what Franken has admitted to doing and apologized for.

Again, I do not agree with this argument!

That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying? IOW, why do you simply disagree with her argument but feel the need to call TBD a liar and "vile?

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.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you (through defending SG's argument) saying that because she is a pretty woman who poses semi-nude in magazines and has worked at Hooters that she MUST have been a victim in the past? And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument? I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious. Whether or not she has been victimized in the past and whether or not she is complaining about such victimization is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand: Franken's conduct which he has admitted to. I think the "past victimization" argument was a thinly veiled, "Well look at her and her history," argument which goes by the colloquial name, "slut-shaming." What makes it so is the fact that NSFW pictures were linked, which was completely unnecessary unless the goal was to show her scantily clad in order to put the image in our minds of a woman who has no problem using her body to get ahead.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, she pointed out that she thought it was funny that the victim went after Franken and not others that likely have done similar to her, and suggested that such a thing might mean it's political.

And to prove the highlighted rank speculation? Well here are some nsfw photos and her work history at hooters.

blatant, egregious, irrelevant slut shaming which is used solely to discredit her.

 

[Pterodactyl]

People just won't do nuance.

Franken at this point may as well have pulled a Bill Cosby.

That's the problem with promoting population-scale victimhood as a political strategy. Eventually if everyone's going to get their turn as a victim, you have to pretty much start inventing bad guys.

 

[The Big Dog]

You need to stop calling it a lie. You may disagree with that opinion (for some strange reason) but your disagreement does not make the opinion a lie.

Totally speculative and of absolutely no bearing on what Franken has admitted to doing and apologized for. That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying? IOW, why do you simply disagree with her argument but feel the need to call TBD a liar and "vile? Do I understand you correctly? Are you (through defending SG's argument) saying that because she is a pretty woman who poses semi-nude in magazines and has worked at Hooters that she MUST have been a victim in the past? And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument? I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious. Whether or not she has been victimized in the past and whether or not she is complaining about such victimization is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand: Franken's conduct which he has admitted to. I think the "past victimization" argument was a thinly veiled, "Well look at her and her history," argument which goes by the colloquial name, "slut-shaming." What makes it so is the fact that NSFW pictures were linked, which was completely unnecessary unless the goal was to show her scantily clad in order to put the image in our minds of a woman who has no problem using her body to get ahead.

very well said....

 

[Travis]

It's like there is a race to try and catch people being hypocritical that has seemingly turned off critical thinking.

 

[PhantomWolf]

-Totally speculative and of absolutely no bearing on what Franken has admitted to doing and apologized for. That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying? IOW, why do you simply disagree with her argument but feel the need to call TBD a liar and "vile? Do I understand you correctly? Are you (through defending SG's argument) saying that because she is a pretty woman who poses semi-nude in magazines and has worked at Hooters that she MUST have been a victim in the past? And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument? I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious. Whether or not she has been victimized in the past and whether or not she is complaining about such victimization is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand: Franken's conduct which he has admitted to.

You really should have stopped here, because I agreed for the most part, it is a silly argument, it's full of holes and was pointless to try and use, and TDB could have attacked it pretty easily without resorting to strawmen.

I think the "past victimization" argument was a thinly veiled, "Well look at her and her history," argument which goes by the colloquial name, "slut-shaming." What makes it so is the fact that NSFW pictures were linked, which was completely unnecessary unless the goal was to show her scantily clad in order to put the image in our minds of a woman who has no problem using her body to get ahead.

And this is where we part way, for a start, when I looked at the pictures I was basically, "oh, she's been an underwear model, I can see what SG is saying, don't agree, but I can get it." I didn't think, "OMG she posed in her underwear, she must be a woman who has no problem using her body to get ahead." In fact, I'd go as far as to say that those that would think that was the argument that women that model in their undies, bikinis, or less, are "promiscuous or sexually provocative" or that they are "wom[e]n who has no problem using her body to get ahead" are the ones that think of women in those terms because otherwise, why would it even occur to the viewer that someone was trying to hide that message in their actual argument rather then taking it on face value?

 

[PhantomWolf]

And to prove the highlighted rank speculation? Well here are some nsfw photos and her work history at hooters.

No, it was a case of, here are images of the work she did, and from that SG provided the rank speculation that she would have encountered abuse because of that work. I agree that it's speculation and unfounded and that SGH was wrong in her assumptions, attack her arguments on that, don't change them to what you want them to be and attack that, that's called a strawman.

blatant, egregious, irrelevant slut shaming which is used solely to discredit her.

Only if you are of the opinion that being a bikini/underwear/nude model or working for Hooters makes one a slut and hence it lowers her credibility. If you don't believe that it does, then the NSFW images should have zero effect on her credibility.

 

[llwyd]

I find the comment below a rather balanced way to deal with this. As of this moment I still think it is Stonean rat****ing and merely an error of judgment by Franken's part but we'll see if a pattern of behaviour will be established in which case he should resign, but absolutely not based on information so far:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-it-how-to-deal-with-the-horrific-possibility

 

[The Big Dog]

You do have to wonder how this stands out in her mind as the quintessential sexual harassment when clearly it must have been common in her life. You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made.

Link is NSFW.

No, it was a case of, here are images of the work she did, and from that SG provided the rank speculation that she would have encountered abuse because of that work. I agree that it's speculation and unfounded and that SGH was wrong in her assumptions, attack her arguments on that, don't change them to what you want them to be and attack that, that's called a strawman.

Only if you are of the opinion that being a bikini/underwear/nude model or working for Hooters makes one a slut and hence it lowers her credibility. If you don't believe that it does, then the NSFW images should have zero effect on her credibility.

Yet, I did not post them, SG posted them, and then argued they were evidence that the claims were politically motivated.

Pointing out that the pictures were gratuitous nonsense going to the victim's character is not a straw man.

The indefensible hills that some people choose to make a stand on, really quite remarkable...

 

[quadraginta]

Wrong.

Slut shaming: the action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative

That wasn't done either, unless you think that being a bikini model makes her "promiscuous or sexually provocative"? Do you?

I don't think there's much question about it being intended to be "sexually provocative". After all, there's a reason they don't use fat, ugly models. But I see no reason why that should be "stigmatizing".

As for "promiscuous", I don't understand how that enters into it at all. Modelling is just a job. Models can be happily married, or in committed relationships, or just not interested. There's no reason to think that just because they model swimsuits and lingerie that means they are promiscuous.

TBD seems to disagree, though. Maybe he can explain why.

 

[Minoosh]

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."

This is Franken's "Abu Grab."

ETA: But be aware that the scale of Franken's offense is not like a drunken crowd gang-banging a woman.

 

[Pterodactyl]

This is Franken's "Abu Grab."

ETA: But be aware that the scale of Franken's offense is not like a drunken crowd gang-banging a woman.

But see, that's the problem.

There is no "scale of offense".

In this climate you're either offender, victim, or sympathizer.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yet, I did not post them, SG posted them, and then argued they were evidence that the claims were politically motivated.

Pointing out that the pictures were gratuitous nonsense going to the victim's character is not a straw man.

The indefensible hills that some people choose to make a stand on, really quite remarkable...

Incredible you post the original post and it's like you don't even reads it, no you paste your interpretation over the top of the actual argument that was made and then claim that's not a strawman. TBDm making up someone else argument or claiming that they were arguing something they didn't actually say is the quintessential meaning of Strawman.

Here is SG's argument...

You do have to wonder how this stands out in her mind as the quintessential sexual harassment when clearly it must have been common in her life. You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made.

Attack that. The pictures were linked to to show that the victim worked in industries that SG believed were filled with Sexual Abuse and Harassment. She made incorrect assumptions that by being a model she'd have "a gazillion worse complaints", an argument that fails from the outset, but it's not the one you are claiming she made, and in changing her argument from what was actually made to what you keep demanding we accept it to be, you are creating a strawman. Again and again and again. You can't just declare that the argument made isn't the argument made even if you think it was something else. You have to deal with what was written not what you make up in your head and believe to have been said.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think there's much question about it being intended to be "sexually provocative". After all, there's a reason they don't use fat, ugly models. But I see no reason why that should be "stigmatizing".

As for "promiscuous", I don't understand how that enters into it at all. Modelling is just a job. Models can be happily married, or in committed relationships, or just not interested. There's no reason to think that just because they model swimsuits and lingerie that means they are promiscuous.

TBD seems to disagree, though. Maybe he can explain why.

The imagery yes, because it's usually trying to sell something, be it for an ad or a magazine, but just because the model is in a "sexually provocative" image, doesn't mean that she is being "sexually provocative". There is a distinction between the two things.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.

Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers.

Who comes off the better of all this?

And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.

 

[Travis]

Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.

Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers.

Who comes off the better of all this?

And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.

No. Don't you get it? It is all always equal no matter what! Draw and quarter him! Put the head on a spike on London Bridge!

Why people can't even just admit that while lots of people do bad things the way they react to it is just as telling about their character as the transgression itself?

 

[xjx388]

Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.

Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers.

Who comes off the better of all this?

And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.

Why isn't it suspicious when, say, Moore's accusers came forward as he was running for the Senate or when accusers came forward just when Trump ran for President?