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

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not touching someone is no defense for sexual assault, wow.
 
theprestige;12085933[HILITE said:
]I think most of use are using the photo as unassailable proof of sexual harassment.[/HILITE] 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.
Click to expand...

No, I DONT think most of us do. What do you think the definition of sexual harassment is?

Was it stupid? Childish? Offensive? Yes, yes and apparently offensive to Tweeden.

But NO..NO...NO. NOOOO, that is NOT sexual harassment.

What Charlie Rose, Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, CK Louis, Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein did was sexual harassment.
 
Argumemnon said:
She's offended.
Click to expand...

And that is fine. People have a right to choose what is or isn't offensive to them. But they also have a duty to communicate that they are offended. We don't have an unassailable right never to find something offensive. We do have a right not to suffer offenses after we have made it clear that we are offended.
 
theprestige said:
Sexual harassment. And no, not touching someone is no defense for sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

To any person following standard logic it would be if the claim in question is that they were groped.

If we are at the point where "someone pretended to grope me a few decades ago" is a cause for concern, either we are experiencing an odd stutter in our attempts at equality, or every other major world problem has been solved.
 
acbytesla said:
We do have a right not to suffer offenses after we have made it clear that we are offended.
Click to expand...


No, actually, we don't. There is no right to not be offended. There is certainly a right not to be discriminated against, a right not to be oppressed or marginalized, and a right not to be harassed, sexually or otherwise, but no such thing as a right not to be offended.

By your logic, fundamentalist Christians in the US have a right not to suffer offenses created by the existence of homosexuals/transexuals, atheists, Muslims, Starbucks coffee cups, and so on, after they have made it clear that they are offended.

I really like Stephen Fry's take on being offended:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so *********** what."

"I saw hate in a graveyard" - Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005
Click to expand...
 
luchog said:
No, actually, we don't. There is no right to not be offended. There is certainly a right not to be discriminated against, a right not to be oppressed or marginalized, and a right not to be harassed, sexually or otherwise, but no such thing as a right not to be offended.

By your logic, fundamentalist Christians in the US have a right not to suffer offenses created by the existence of homosexuals/transexuals, atheists, Muslims, Starbucks coffee cups, and so on, after they have made it clear that they are offended.

I really like Stephen Fry's take on being offended:
Click to expand...

Argumemnon said:
Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. I'm offended by your reference to Tesla! Please remove your avatar and change your username.

See?
Click to expand...

My mistake. You're both right. I should have been more clear. I was thinking about a workplace environment. And even then, it is not universal. It could be considered a 'hostile workplace'.
 
acbytesla said:
My mistake. You're both right. I should have been more clear. I was thinking about a workplace environment. And even then, it is not universal. It could be considered a 'hostile workplace'.
Click to expand...


"Hostile Workplace" regulations explicitly refer to behaviour that could be considered harassment, discriminatory, or "hate speech"; such as sexist/homophobic/ethnic/etc. jokes, comments, slurs, images, or literature, and so on.

"Offensive" things like wearing a headscarf or religious symbols, or pro-LGBTQ imagery (eg, "couple" photos, pride stickers, etc.) are not considered to create a hostile work environment, although complaints about them might.
 
luchog said:
"Hostile Workplace" regulations explicitly refer to behaviour that could be considered harassment, discriminatory, or "hate speech"; such as sexist/homophobic/ethnic/etc. jokes, comments, slurs, images, or literature, and so on.

"Offensive" things like wearing a headscarf or religious symbols, or pro-LGBTQ imagery (eg, "couple" photos, pride stickers, etc.) are not considered to create a hostile work environment, although complaints about them might.
Click to expand...

I agree. Note, I said it's NOT universal. Constantly making fun of an individual could constitute a 'hostile work environment' for that person.
 
Travis said:
It's like there is a race to try and catch people being hypocritical that has seemingly turned off critical thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen an argument (or even minor disagreement) in the last year or so that hasn't eventually just turned into aspersions about each others' secretive motives (or the ultimate fall-back of there being an "unintended interpretation" that the opponent must be raked over the coals for).
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I don't think I've seen an argument (or even minor disagreement) in the last year or so that hasn't eventually just turned into aspersions about each others' secretive motives (or the ultimate fall-back of there being an "unintended interpretation" that the opponent must be raked over the coals for).
Click to expand...

"for which the opponent must be raked over the coals." It is almost as if you intentionally wrote it that way for reasons of which I can only surmise but cannot share in this forum.
 
angrysoba said:
I have stated plenty of times that I am making no such equation. But now you are making a false equivalence by bringing up elevatorgate.
Click to expand...
It's not a false equivalence from my POV. It's exactly the same thing.

The grope joke was par for the USO tour and so *********** what, it was sexual.

I don't equate that to men joking about the big busted woman at the office, or some guy putting up a nude pinup calendar in his office at the warehouse where women also work. That's sexual harassment. And in the military soldiers need to take extra steps not to make sexual jokes because women are harassed and it's a serious problem.

But what, now we can never make any sexual jokes whatsoever in any setting? That's on par with claiming you can never flirt or get on an elevator with a lone woman on it because any and everything is unacceptable objectification.

That grope joke, given we've seen grope jokes were the norm on those USO tours, was much less out of line than it is being portrayed as.

You can make a sexual joke sometimes. Every single sex joke does not need to be eliminated from the planet. Men can flirt without asking for permission first. :rolleyes:

Go back and reread the main elevatorgate exchanges, yes that grope joke is analogous to the POV the world must be sterilized of all sexual interactions without express permission of the woman ahead of time.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't explain a variable with a constant.

ETA: apologies for dragging up old posts, it seems lately that "go to first unread" isn't acting like it used to...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom