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

[theprestige]

This is 50% nonsense.
Trump's nomination as the GOP candidate, against all odds, against the party leadership, was a reaction years of hypocrisy and shrill preaching from the right, i.e. within the Republican party. The "swamp" Trump offered to drain, the establishment he was fighting, is as much the Republicans' as the Democrats'.

Bill Clinton. The progs had their chance. I don't know why they're acting now, and bless their hearts for doing so, but the time for the progs to claim the moral high ground has long since passed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

And the Hollywood sex abuse scandals!

The fact is that with the Scandals and victims coming forward in Hollywood and on TV, there are a lot of stories of women coming to terms with their abuse and seeing that people will believe them. Yes it';s a sudden rush, but it's not suspicious, it's quite understandable. All it needed were a few brave ones to stand up and say "I was abused" and others suddenly can see that "it wasn't just me" and "I'm not alone" and they are granted the courage to stand up as well. We saw the same thing happen in the UK with the Jimmy Savile case.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Bill Clinton. The progs had their chance. I don't know why they're acting now, and bless their hearts for doing so, but the time for the progs to claim the moral high ground has long since passed.

because Clinton was about 20 years again and attitudes have changed quite a bit since then, much of it due to what happened with Clinton and other big scandals such as Tailhook. If Bill was found out today, it's be a rather different story in how things are dealt with.

 

[Brainster]

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.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that SG is so poor at communicating her thoughts that she should be given a break? From my experience she actually believes the silly things she writes.

Bringing up the fact that the victim posed nude in Playboy (as L8E did, and as SG approvingly cited) seems designed to discredit her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that it was just some attempt to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers, since it was assumed she must have had many. Why? Is there some fantasy that perhaps she is withholding a few Republican names? Where is the call for all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers (most of them extremely good-looking women) to mention every other perv they've encountered?

 

[Travis]

It is equally probable that she was spurred into revealing the kiss and grope by someone looking to mitigate the Moore disaster as it is that she was just emboldened by all the other revelations recently.

It doesn't really matter why she did it since it really did happen to her. She always had the right to reveal it whenever she so choose.

 

[llwyd]

I find her career in modelling et al totally irrelevant but not her political connections nor the advance warning to Roger Stone - of all disgusting rat****ers in politics. Franken apologized for the photo but did not confirm the kissing incident and submitted to ethics investigation. I think the rational position is to wait for the result of that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that SG is so poor at communicating her thoughts that she should be given a break? From my experience she actually believes the silly things she writes.

Bringing up the fact that the victim posed nude in Playboy (as L8E did, and as SG approvingly cited) seems designed to discredit her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that it was just some attempt to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers, since it was assumed she must have had many. Why? Is there some fantasy that perhaps she is withholding a few Republican names? Where is the call for all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers (most of them extremely good-looking women) to mention every other perv they've encountered?

again, here is her argument without the link....

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.

It is a silly argument, but to ignore it and spend 5 pages screaming "slut shaming" is just beating a dead straw horse. Nor was it a suggestion that she was "attempt[ing] to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers". The argument is purely:

1) She worked in the scantily clad modelling industry
2) The modelling industry is rife with abuse
3) She must have been abused a lot because 1) & 2)
4) Claiming that the lower level abuse of Franken ruined her life while ignoring all the other abuses on her is suspicious.

The pictures merely established point 1), that "She worked in the scantily clad modelling industry."

Of course the assumption that the second point is true is very questionable. While abuse does happen in the modelling industry, I don't believe it is as rife as SG indicates.

Of course point 3 is illogical regardless of the truth of points 1 and 2, as even in a highly abusive modelling industry she may have never actually been targeted herself.

Which leads to point 4 being shown to just be wrong logically and the argument defeated.

There is no need to create strawmen over it, especially when no-one other then those claiming the strawmen seem to be actually claiming that the images discredit her in anyway.

 

[Cain]

1) She worked in the scantily clad modelling industry
2) The modelling industry is rife with abuse
3) She must have been abused a lot because 1) & 2)
4) Claiming that the lower lower abuse of Franken ruined her life while ignoring all the other abuses on her is suspicious.

She initially worked at Hooters, but I'm certain the abuse Franken visited upon her was unprecedented. Why would she exaggerate? It's not like she's been a guest on Hannity before.

She's just a confident, empowered, beautiful woman (beautiful like all confident, empowered women, regardless of body shape). She's even comfortable with publicizing her nude photos on Fox alongside trusted colleagues. It's OK if co-workers have seen her naked. It's not like anyone buys Playboy for impure reasons -- except for sexual deviants like Franken.

 

[PhantomWolf]

She initially worked at Hooters, but I'm certain the abuse Franken visited upon her was unprecedented.

It's illogical to be certain either way. She may have been harassed and/or even abused while working there, it seems from the articles I have read that so called "Breastraunts" such as Hooters does have an issue with customers doing so, but the fact is that even if there is a high probability, it isn't a certainty so she might have skated through her Hooters employment and avoided the harassment, without further evidence we can't know.

Why would she exaggerate? It's not like she's been a guest on Hannity before.

She's just a confident, empowered, beautiful woman (beautiful like all confident, empowered women, regardless of body shape). She's even comfortable with publicizing her nude photos on Fox alongside trusted colleagues. It's OK if co-workers have seen her naked. It's not like anyone buys Playboy for impure reasons -- except for sexual deviants like Franken.

Seeing picture of you naked is not an invitation for unwanted sexual advances, and regardless of what you do to your copies of Playboy (I'd really rather not know) nothing gives someone the right to non-consensually press themselves onto any of the girls whose photographs are inside in the real world. It's quite simple really.

 

[Oystein]

But see, that's the problem.

There is no "scale of offense".

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

And I think THAT is the bigger problem: the equivocation of brutalized underage rape victims with women made the object of a tasteless joke. As if one is no worse than the other.

If you level standards - and punishments - like that, please report me, for my transgressiona are too numerous for the ISF to bear, and don't ever vote for any male, for chances are too big he has laughed at a sexist joke in a woman's presence at some point in life.

 

[Oystein]

Bill Clinton.

Whataboutism. I consider that validation of the point I made.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Can you please advise Mrs. Tweeden, or any victim of a D politician, or of a R politician, what specific time frame to make past abuse known is acceptable to you, and why? Thanks.

 

[Darat]

Do you really believe what franken was accused of doing and what trump was accused of doing are equivalent ?

Really ?

Slight correction, Trump wasn't accused Trump claimed he did that.

 

[Oystein]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that SG is so poor at communicating her thoughts that she should be given a break? From my experience she actually believes the silly things she writes.

Bringing up the fact that the victim posed nude in Playboy (as L8E did, and as SG approvingly cited) seems designed to discredit her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that it was just some attempt to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers, since it was assumed she must have had many. Why? Is there some fantasy that perhaps she is withholding a few Republican names? Where is the call for all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers (most of them extremely good-looking women) to mention every other perv they've encountered?

No, I am actually saying SG communicated her thoughts so well

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0

You repeat one bit, but it has already been pointed out that it's false: no, the reference to her modelling career was not designed to discredit her. Not at all. That is not in SG's teyt. Not at all. It seems to be in your head.

I agree with the rest: the argument SG does in fact make is poorly constructed, for it assumes facts not in evidence, and makes demands of harrassment victims that are none of her business to make. But it is not the argument TBD strawmans.

 

[Darat]

Not if you think Moore's should end........

If you give one a pass, you need to give both a pass.

You really believe sexual advances and sexual assault on a 14 year old is equivalent?

 

[Darat]

Thing is they were certainly picking them up instantly in the case of Roy Moore.

Don't get me wrong:I think Moore is totally Reprehensible. I just don't like double standards.

I suppose as is usual you will not actually support your claim?

 

[Darat]

Funny, that sounds an awful lot like what the Moore supporters are saying.....

Moore supporters are admitting he made sexual/advances and/or sexually assaulted a 14 year old? I I honestly haven't seen that.

 

[Darat]

Who cares?

We're talking about Franken, not Moore. What Moore did isn't relevant, unless, as noted, making sure each side's slaps on the wrist are properly and accurately tallied for future "Whataboutism" is like super important you.

Why does a worse case somewhere matter outside of ideological point scoring? It doesn't change what what Franken did. We're not grading on a curve.

You might as well go "Well this lady was harassed by let's not forget this other lady that was hit by a meteorite."

Oh right because meteorites aren't partisan. If there was a Republican meteorite you would be doing that.

Be an American, be a Human, be something other than just a Democrat for thirty seconds and care about what happened to this women.

Are you perhaps not also allowing your political biases to cloud your reactions? By this I mean seeing it through a partisan filter because it is a politician? My responses in all these reports have been the same regardless of which USA side they are meant to represent.

 

[Darat]

This is kind of my point. We give people passes on their bad behaviour because it's "just a prank" and that allows it to become acceptable to do. It's time we stopped seeing it as acceptable behaviour when it quite clearly isn't.

I really wouldn't want to live in the world you advocating for. There is nothing wrong with pranks or jokes, there is nothing wrong with sexualised communication and relationships, what is wrong is bullying, harassment and assault (whether sexual or otherwise).

 

[Darat]

I see it as red apples vs green apples.



The problem here is that you are comparing benign but potentially humiliating behaviours, such as video taping a friend snoring or playing a prank without sexual connotations to things that do have sexual connotations or are clearly sexual harassment in the least. Pretending to, or actually, groping someone who passd out is quite different to shaving their eyebrow or putting their hand in warm water. (though I'd actually say that even shaving an eyebrow these days might be too going too far to be honest.) I have no issue with pranking and joking and bonding, you can do that without the sexual references, innuendos, and harassment. You don't have to squeeze a woman's boobs (or pretend to squeeze them) to bond!



Familiar enough to know that more happened than just "standing in the same elevator."

As I said above, assault is wrong, whether it is sexual or otherwise. But humans will find each other sexually attractive and of course we will act on such matters. Whether that is appropriate or not is contextual and situational, you still seem to be advocating that we totally remove anything sexual in our communications and other interactions with other people.