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

The Big Dog said:
I enjoy the close analysis of the groping photo: JFK and Moon landing hoax fans are like "hey! that is our schtick!"

Folks even Al Franken said that the picture is inappropriate and demeaning to the victim. So, if you are continuing to defend that picture, even a serial groper like Senator McHandsy is suggesting that you give it a rest.

Al Franken's Boob Grope is an Outside Job!
Click to expand...

Except that the hoaxers either lack an understanding of geometry or deliberately misrepresent phenomena. I'm pointing out that the flattened perspective of a 2-D image can lead to false impressions, and point out a legitimate method of deriving the position of objects in depth via illumination and the resultant shadow placement.

If one uses the photo as unassailable 'proof' of touching, this can be tested due to the fortuitous sharpness of the lighting and shadows.

Yes, such a consideration can come across as rather like a desperate ploy of the hyper-partisan to inject all possible exonerating factors. To those lacking a grounding in photogrammetry, the derivation of the third dimension in a 2-D image might seem to be the stuff of the more questionable dreck in a CSI Miami episode. ;) My principal aim is to merely show that any claim of *damning proof* of contact based on appearances can be challenged in this instance by the lighting/shadow geometry.

And yes, thus far, on balance I consider Al Franken to be a generally honorable and decent enough person. I'm open to change my mind if more 'dirt' comes out. But based on what we know at this point, he's no Roy Moore--in more than one area where it matters.
 
Lurch said:
Except that the hoaxers either lack an understanding of geometry or deliberately misrepresent phenomena. I'm pointing out that the flattened perspective of a 2-D image can lead to false impressions, and point out a legitimate method of deriving the position of objects in depth via illumination and the resultant shadow placement.

If one uses the photo as unassailable 'proof' of touching, this can be tested due to the fortuitous sharpness of the lighting and shadows.

Yes, such a consideration can come across as rather like a desperate ploy of the hyper-partisan to inject all possible exonerating factors. To those lacking a grounding in photogrammetry, the derivation of the third dimension in a 2-D image might seem to be the stuff of the more questionable dreck in a CSI Miami episode. ;) My principal aim is to merely show that any claim of *damning proof* of contact based on appearances can be challenged in this instance by the lighting/shadow geometry.

And yes, thus far, on balance I consider Al Franken to be a generally honorable and decent enough person. I'm open to change my mind if more 'dirt' comes out. But based on what we know at this point, he's no Roy Moore--in more than one area where it matters.
Click to expand...

well that is certainly more than one way to derail the discussion about the facts. The picture looks bad because it is bad and the assertion that the mere instant shown in the photograph does not clearly depict contact does not in any way detract from that indisputable fact.
 
The Big Dog said:
well that is certainly more than one way to derail the discussion about the facts. The picture looks bad because it is bad and the assertion that the mere instant shown in the photograph does not clearly depict contact does not in any way detract from that indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

What indisputable fact?
 
uke2se said:
A year ago I would have more or less shrugged at the accusations against Franken. They are nowhere near as serious as those against Moore, and it irks me that the right is using it as a diversion. That said, the Democrats need to own this issue. There can be no tolerance for "boys will be boys". Defending Franken on these credible accusations cedes the moral high ground.

Franken may well be a good law maker and a fighter for Democratic causes. That's not enough today. This is more than a political thing. This is a brand new world were the momentum of women's voices is strong. Democrats need to be on the right side of history on this one. The GOP certainly won't be.
Click to expand...

newyorkguy said:
^ Well put. I agree.

What Franken did was in very bad taste and wrong but obviously not the same level of bad behavior as Louis CK much less Harvey Weinstein. Their actions were criminal. In fact, I read that a couple of the New York City police detectives who investigated one of the complaints against Weinstein -- and then recommended he be prosecuted -- were reportedly disheartened and furious when the Manhattan DA's office decided not to pursue criminal charges.
Click to expand...

I most DEFINITELY don't. I'm personally sick of the false equivalences. I also don't think cutting off my nose to spite my face is a very good idea which liberals seem to do all the time. I give you George W. and Donald J.
 
Lurch said:
If one uses the photo as unassailable 'proof' of touching,
Click to expand...

I think most of use are using the photo as unassailable proof of sexual harassment. Miming the gesture isn't really much better than actually doing it. "Groping" is a valid shorthand for the concept and execution of Franken's act, in my opinion.

"He's not really touching her" is a child's excuse for being a douchebag to his sibling on a long road trip.
 
acbytesla said:
I most DEFINITELY don't. I'm personally sick of the false equivalences. I also don't think cutting off my nose to spite my face is a very good idea which liberals seem to do all the time. I give you George W. and Donald J.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that Al Franken's actions led to this.
 
Elagabalus said:
I would say that they all share a certain creepiness/ I can see it in their personas (and I would even include Charlie Rose in that list). Whereas, Al Franken does not.
Click to expand...

A lot of people use that logic to justify why their psychic is a real one.

Should we really be using that standard when the stakes are this high?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom