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

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Thank you. This is an example of how to move a discussion forward despite not being in agreement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... That's good but I wonder why you don't chastise SkepticGinger for lying?

So people distort what I posted despite multiple clarifications why you and others have my POV wrong but I'm lying? Do you know how ignorant it sounds to call someone a liar because you don't understand their post?

... 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?

That's a pretty certain given.

...And further, that it is necessary to link to NSFW pictures of her in order to make that argument?

In this case, yes. It goes to the point she is very much likely to be objectified by men all the time.

...I submit that such an argument is not only speculative and baseless, but spurious.

Oh puhleese. What fantasy world do you live in?

...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.

He said he remembers it differently yet he's willing to apologize and take responsibility for her perception of the events in the skit and he apologizes for the groping joke.

...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.

Project your own opinion onto other people much?

This is your opinion and your problem. It is way off base.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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 media likes equivalency, false or not. It's their defense against accusations of being partisan.

 

[theprestige]

He was not a senator at the time this picture was allegedly taken. While in poor taste and tactless, he is not actually touching her breasts. Franken's call for an ethics investigation into his actions speaks better for him than others that have been accused. Let the actual truth be told.

Why is "actually touching her breasts" the cutoff?

Why not "making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

I think it's a version of, "I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

I see two issues here. One is the false equivalence, between Moore and Trump, Franken makes a great target to neutralize their behavior. There are also a lot of conservatives dragging Bill Clinton's skeleton out of the closet, again to neutralize Trump's and Moore's behavior. Clinton, sure but Franken, we still don't see a pattern of anything other than a history of sexual joking.

And that brings up the second issue, are we not allowed any sexual behavior at all? Can people not see the difference between a joke grope in a photo and actual groping & exposing one's junk to women who aren't interested?

Can we not keep an open mind at this point (barring corroborating accusations that Franken sneaks a feel and a kiss pretending it's part of a skit) that Ms Tweeden's dislike of Franken on that whole USO tour, her resentment of the grope joke influenced her perception of the skit and the need to practice it?

She assumed Franken wrote the scene and asked to practice it because he was lusting after her. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. There are plenty of kissing skits on SNL and they usually exaggerate the making out part.

At this point, it's obvious Tweeden dislikes Franken and almost certainly was unhappy on the whole USO tour with him. Was it because he actually did jam his tongue in her mouth? If he did that is disgusting and I'm pretty sure the standard in acting is no tongue. That's the one part in this described incident that gives me concern.

Or was that her misinterpretation of Franken's intent? Which is why I await corroborating complaints of similar behavior.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

That's an interesting article.

 

[The Big Dog]

Relevant, I hate to go for the history thing, it's not always fair. But this does seem at least a little relevant. CNN is sucking it up.

If it wasn't political (which it might not be) I have to wonder if she wasn't sexually harassed way worse than this in her career. And is this a 15 minutes of fame or not?

Show me Franken has a pattern. Or this really is a nothingburger.


This is interesting:

So is the Greg Gutfeld interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qBpS_Nhr8E
Pro-gun and a lot of sexual innuendo jokes.

Project your own opinion onto other people much?

This is your opinion and your problem. It is way off base.

Nope he just read your post where you said her history was relevant, speculated it was political, she was probably harassed before, and was looking for 15 minutes of fame.

And that was before you gratuitously posted her "NSFW" pictures.

Absolutely the most over the top example of slut shaming one is likely to see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First paragraph of that article;

A Los Angeles radio station is pushing back on reports that former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone appeared to know sexual misconduct allegations involving Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) were coming hours before they were made public.


Interesting. They aren't doing a very good job of "pushing back".

They admit that a group at the station discussed it and then informed "some of our news partners".

"How many people does it take to keep a secret?" Any qualified news professional knows the answer to that old saw, and it isn't "some of our news partners". Or "a group", even.

Once they informed "some of" their news partners, that horse was well out of the barn even if one of the "group" didn't spill the beans. They might just as well have posted it on Facebook.

In fact, doing it their way was probably more efficient. It ensured that word would get straight to the people who would make the most hay out of it.

Well that makes sense.

I sense Tweeden seriously dislikes Franken. I didn't sense this was any kind of Fox News or alt-right manufactured stunt.

 

[Oystein]

That is certainly a factor.




I absolutely think that victims should come forward (if they chose to do so). But you have to admit we've had at least, what, seven or eight (or more) in a matter of weeks? After having a couple a year at most? It looks odd.

It could also be as PhantomWolf suggests, that the dam just broke. I think a lot of dams are either breaking or close to it.

Ok. You sounded earlier as if certain periods on the political calender ought to be no-no for past victims to come forward. I do notice a higher number of cases has come under the focus of intense media attention lately. This can have several reasons, but I see little need in scrutinizing individual victims why they pick this time to break silence rather than any other.

 

[Oystein]

Just "context" for the "slut shaming" I guess.

She worked at Hooters, open season on Hooters girls.

Reelect Al Franken

You gleefully dance with your strawmen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a question just out of interest: How many apologies in any of these cases include the simple phrase "I'm sorry," as in "I'm sorry I acted this way," not, "I'm sorry if you interpreted my actions this way"?

Well are we sure the latter isn't valid? I took Franken at his word, being sorry if he was misinterpreted or not, he took responsibility for causing the misinterpretation.

That's a tad different from some of the apologies as of late like Trump's non-apology apologies, "I'm sorry you are sorry."

 

[The Big Dog]

You gleefully dance with your strawmen.

Describing the effect of posting the accuser's history and posting her "NSFW" pictures is not in any way shape or form strawman.

If someone writes something that is "racist" or "sexist" do you think that is a strawman? protip: it is not, and calling her posts "slut shaming" is likewise not.

This is unbelievably basic.

Say, at least we have moved beyond you calling my posts lies, so that is progress.

 

[crescent]

I would add that in two decades of being on the set of Saturday Night Live, Franken had ample opportunity to behave badly. If he did, we are likely to hear of it.

I don't buy the argument that because we haven't heard about it, probably nothing happened.

Where did I say we would have heard of it already?

Present tense and past tense are different things.

What typically happens is that once one person comes forward publicly, others follow (if there are any). We've had one come forward for Franken - will any others?

If no more women come forward to accuse Franken, does it matter?

 

[Oystein]

I am getting out of here; the Partisan Blinders people are wearing is too much to take.

You never made out the claim that anyonr here has partisan blinders on. That's bloviation.

 

[Oystein]

No offence, but I do not track slut shaming with pictures of women nude or in bikinis (etc.) as slut shaming. Possibly as I do not regard women who choose to pose for such or be in public in/out of such clothing (or not-clothing) as sluts - never have and I am pretty sure never will. Unless there is commentary that makes it such - in which case I regard the commentary as that of a raving *******.

TBD is mighty proud if himself that he has amassed dozens of posts now with the word "slut" referring to Mrs. Tweeden, as if he wished to ensure everybody thinks of her as a slut.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why is "actually touching her breasts" the cutoff?

Why not "making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent"?

I'm not sure where the cutoff is, but I think we can agree that one is assault and the other is not.

Some will forgive neither. Others may forgive making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent more easily than actual assault. And still others are willing to forgive even assault.

That's why we have elections.

 

[The Big Dog]

TBD is mighty proud if himself that he has amassed dozens of posts now with the word "slut" referring to Mrs. Tweeden, as if he wished to ensure everybody thinks of her as a slut.

Most people have not cut the second word off like you have done.

Shaming.

Do not be afraid to say shaming.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not sure where the cutoff is, but I think we can agree that one is assault and the other is not.

Some will forgive neither. Others may forgive making her the butt of a sex object joke without her consent more easily than actual assault. And still others are willing to forgive even assault.

That's why we have elections.

I don't disagree, but isn't there a good case to be made that Franken should step aside and give someone else a shot in 2020, for the sake of his own party and values?

 

[xjx388]

So people distort what I posted despite multiple clarifications why you and others have my POV wrong but I'm lying? Do you know how ignorant it sounds to call someone a liar because you don't understand their post?

I'm questioning why Oystein calls TBD "Vile" and "liar" simply because he disagrees with TBD's posts, yet, Oystein also disagrees with you but does not call you names. Just pointing out the inconsistency.

I don't misunderstand your post. You are making an argument that she is very likely to have been groped and harassed many times in her career so why single out Franken. That argument is speculative and irrelevant. If you aren't bringing it up to throw shade on Tweeden, then why bring it up? It doesn't excuse Franken.

That's a pretty certain given.

1)Why is it a given and 2)Of what relevance is it to Franken's behavior?

In this case, yes. It goes to the point she is very much likely to be objectified by men all the time.

How is your speculation regarding her being objectified by men relevant to evaluating Franken's behavior? How is that significantly different from observing a Hooter's waitress who complains about being sexually harassed by a customer and saying, "well, a Hooter's Girl should be used to it so why is she complaining about this guy?" Is that how you think we should react to women being sexually harassed? Is there no room in your worldview for the idea that maybe Tweeden had NOT experienced any harassment to this level before? My view is that speculation about her choice of job, how she chooses to present herself to the world and whether or not she has been previously harassed is completely irrelevant. Bringing it up only serves to cast some shade on the victim.

I will offer one clarification: "slut-shaming" may not be a completely accurate way to characterize your argument. However, it is certainly closely related to what you are doing here -throwing shade on the victim in order to sow doubt about her motivations for coming forward in Franken's case.

Oh puhleese. What fantasy world do you live in?

He said he remembers it differently yet he's willing to apologize and take responsibility for her perception of the events in the skit and he apologizes for the groping joke.

Yup. That's what all harassers who have been outed do. It's not him; it's her perception of the event. And to be clear, it wasn't the "events in the skit," she objected to it was the unwanted kiss during a practice run that she felt pressured into doing.

Project your own opinion onto other people much?

This is your opinion and your problem. It is way off base.

I don't think it's off base. Whether you intended to throw shade on Tweeden or not, it certainly appeared that way to me. In any case, your clarified argument is a case of begging the question and irrelevant.

 

[casebro]

That is about as sexist as the word that starts with a C and rhymes with hunt.

Put that hypocrisy in your vagina hat.