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

[beren]

Politically speaking, I usually agree with Ginger, but I think it is obvious that she has dovetailed into party support.

+1

 

[angrysoba]

It's really hard to buy that a serial sexual abuser gets his kicks solely by sneaky feels in photo ops.

I'm sure you know what's wrong with this argument.

"It's hard to buy" is just an argument from incredulity. But the other important part is that "getting sneaky feels" is exactly what he is accused of. He isn't being accused of rape, or of child molestation, but he is being accused of grabbing sneaky feels.

Let's assume, for a second, that the women are telling the truth, and he was intentionally getting sneaky feels.

Is that reason for condemnation, or for him losing his Senate seat?

For me, it would be, and that is regardless of how bad Roy Moore, Donald Trump, Bill Cosby, Charles Manson and Joseph Stalin behaved.

Now if those reports were among other groping reports, exposing oneself, whatever, and "everyone knew" then they might be significant.

I think this is beside the point. If it turned out that he was also alleged to have exposed himself and that "everyone knew" this would only mean he was accused of worse forms of sexual harassment, and that others were somehow complicit or privy to it, it wouldn't alter whether the current allegations are bad or if they were true or not.

At this point these reports are too vague and one must consider some accusations really should be heard with a degree of skepticism.

I agree that the "accusers MUST be believed" narrative is wrong, and that sometimes they should not be.

This is partly why I think it is premature for him to step down without some kind of investigation, and why I would be prepared to accept an alternative explanation such as that he lacks self-awareness about what he is doing with his hands.

But the multiple sources of accusations make it less likely that everyone is making it up or that they are "Franken haters".

 

[theprestige]

I don't think he should step down at all. There's no ethical conflict with his Senate duties. He hasn't settled any secret harassment claims with taxpayer money. None of the allegations date from his current term.

If any of that changes, then yeah, maybe he should resign. Otherwise? Let his constituents decide if they want to send him back to Washington, or just send him packing.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well having read it, then,why did you deliberately misrepresent the accusations?

franken said to the first accuser that he “remembered it differently” but then the creep never said how he rembered it. You bought that dumpster fire of an apology?

He said that "to" her?

"the creep"

"dumpster fire of an apology"

All that, plus we have an underlying premise we're miles apart on in terms of certitude.

There's literally nothing for me to say back to this mish-mash of thought-interrupting blasts other than some amusing way of pointing out the delicious irony of what a virtue signalling spree you're on in this thread, but I can't muster the givashit to be clever about it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't think he should step down at all. There's no ethical conflict with his Senate duties. He hasn't settled any secret harassment claims with taxpayer money. None of the allegations date from his current term.

If any of that changes, then yeah, maybe he should resign. Otherwise? Let his constituents decide if they want to send him back to Washington, or just send him packing.

He can also decide that. Which everyone will line up on sides over whether he's cowardly running away (from either the truth or the mistaken(?) charge) or he's dutifully stepping aside to allow someone without distractions to help govern the nation, yada yada.

But, on the subject of the ethics committee. Well, it's the Senate Ethics Committee. I think they'll clear him. They can't break a nearly ironclad "inside baseball" rule about not nuking each others' seats that would rip the last strand of our legislative branch apart.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That's a piss-poor analogy.

Does the shoplifter get the same sentence as the armed robber? And neither are guilty based on accusations. And there can be a preponderance of evidence or a single eye witness in either case which makes a big difference in drawing conclusions before the conviction.

And you still ignored my points.

Don't forget every time the accused opens their mouth, the number of interpretations of what they said will be the number of words they used squared.

My favorite so far: "he said exactly the right kind of thing..."

"...just to taunt her."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Where are you coming from? I mentioned Ted Kennedy, and men being capable of being sleeze balls. No all encompassing statements and certainly nothing racial.

I know you didn't say anything racial. I was putting an example up where the same hasty generalization is decried rather than endorsed.

I'm kinda quirking my eyebrow at how the one thing that analogy got out of you was a clear statement that you said nothing racial. But let's set that whole swing-and-miss on my part aside and try again:

In the context of current accusations vs. past observed behavior. Like Franken doing self-deprecating sexualized humor (half the reason its "funny" is he's not that attractive, cheap irony...I blame pop culture and most humans' acceptance of mediocrity) and his activism contrasted with Trump, who's been making straight-faced, doesn't-even-get-that-he's-being-creepy types of creepy statements about, oh let's say, his own goddamn infant daughter for 3 decades.

All that as a response to charge of partisan sorting, if I recall.

Ted Kennedy was instrumental in many women's issues yet was a disgusting bastard to women.

As the variable you've isolated for comparison with Franken is "instrumental in many women's issues" all you've done is cast a net across everyone in that group.

Franken:women's issues, also Kennedy: women's issues, since Kennedy: bastard, ergo Franken: bastard.

Men can easily be both.

Okay, "all men who are instrumental in many women's issues."

For fun, I'll play along. Yes, that group of people very likely contains some manipulative, deceitful people.

As will any group of humans. Thanks John Madden! (Boom!)

It sounds more and more like Franken is also.

I'm not going to tell you what to believe.

I'm not sure this tangent was even touching directly on the claims themselves, but whether that or the partisan bias accusations (see micro versions of similar paradigms right in the thread :9), your argument's structure leaves me unmoved.

Really, boiling it down, I was making a point about how I have arrived at different levels of certitude in different instances: via the different probabilities suggested by their observed behaviors (the class-label-derived formula for how to feel about person x is a scourge on humanity). Probabilities are not certainties. I'm pretty sure I've steered clear of ever stating a firm "he did not do it" if so, it was a monumental lapse of judgment. The closest I think I've gotten is knocking back incredulity about celebrity appearances at promo events and conventions having anything but Staid and Proper Conduct for Gentlemanly Gentlemen and Ladylike Ladyfolk™.

ETA: while I'm thinking about it, I think someone mentioned Trump's mannerisms in his description of his actions on the AH tape. Dead on. Fits with his "poor man's idea of a rich man, lazy man's idea of a hard worker" motif. He's a (I'll ironically use MRA terms) "simp's" idea of an "alpha." That derives from insecurity, a much more reliable predictor of abusers (proving how "powerful" they are, the world not treating them right is an aberration, you see). Franken, on the other hand, revels in pointing out how not ideal he is, which takes a rather healthy assessment of self-worth.

 

[quadraginta]

Wikipedia has it covered well.

Do you have an actual source?

I gather that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Articles generally list multiple sources, usually to document and support the statements being made. This is especially true of ones concerning living people.

A Wikipedia article such as this one conveniently gathers together cites to many different sources, which you can peruse at your leisure, evaluate on your own, and which often lead to even more cites to even more sources.

Why bother asking for a cite to a single one when Wikipedia puts so many at your fingertips?

You asked;

I've heard that there are multiple women who accuse him of something, but I haven't bothered to track down the cites and get the specifics of their allegations. Do you have a link? I'd like to know more.

You were offered a reference source which has multiple articles providing exactly what you requested. Specifics and citations.

If you would really like to know more, why not use it?

 

[LTC8K6]

Do you have an actual source?

Wiki is very good at listing it's sources, and pretty good at pointing out when a source is needed for a claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Sources are clearly noted and listed.

 

[LTC8K6]

I agree what Franken is accused of is not nearly as bad as what Roy Moore is accused of doing, but it might be bad enough so that he should not be in the US Senate.

That's about where I stand.

Also I think Franken might not have been elected if these claims had been brought out before his 312 vote win.

 

[The Big Dog]

He said that "to" her?

"the creep"

"dumpster fire of an apology"

All that, plus we have an underlying premise we're miles apart on in terms of certitude.

There's literally nothing for me to say back to this mish-mash of thought-interrupting blasts other than some amusing way of pointing out the delicious irony of what a virtue signalling spree you're on in this thread, but I can't muster the givashit to be clever about it.

I giggled! The part I like best is when you cherry picked a few comments while missing the big aching, throbbing summary of Franken's "apology" right in the middle.

Sensational, seriously.

 

[phiwum]

Trump's real sin is not respecting his accusers' "experiences".

Or the accusers are telling the truth and his real sin is in that.

 

[phiwum]

Do you have an actual source?

Wikipedia has links to original sources, no? Follow the links.

 

[phiwum]

I'm sure you know what's wrong with this argument.

"It's hard to buy" is just an argument from incredulity. But the other important part is that "getting sneaky feels" is exactly what he is accused of. He isn't being accused of rape, or of child molestation, but he is being accused of grabbing sneaky feels.

Let's assume, for a second, that the women are telling the truth, and he was intentionally getting sneaky feels.

Is that reason for condemnation, or for him losing his Senate seat?

For me, it would be, and that is regardless of how bad Roy Moore, Donald Trump, Bill Cosby, Charles Manson and Joseph Stalin behaved.

Maybe I'm an insensitive bastard, but it's not at all clear to me that grabbing an occasional butt is reason to resign from the Senate. It's a bad thing to do and he should be censured if he did it, but I'm not altogether certain that he ought to resign if the allegations are true.

Reasonable folk might disagree with me, obviously. I'm not all that sure in my judgment on this matter either. (For Soba: "judgment" means "judgement". Honestly, it's one of those rare matters where British spelling makes more sense.)

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I giggled! The part I like best is when you cherry picked a few comments while missing the big aching, throbbing summary of Franken's "apology" right in the middle.

Sensational, seriously.

This subject really has you excited, huh?

Heaping mounds of ******** onto a kernel of truth doesn't make the ******** true.

P.S. your "summary" of Franken's apology is a cherry-picked line from the apology.

Hypocrite much?

 

[The Big Dog]

This subject really has you excited, huh?

Not really, just a way of drawing attention to your tactics in ignoring the fully engorged elephant in Franken's nightmare of an "apology"

And to circle us back, you never answered why you misrepresented the accuser's statements (and referring to Franken's "apology" is no answer at all) and then you have failed to explain why anyone should believe Franken where he said this:

"I certainly don't remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way,"

yet never deigned to tell anyone how he actually remembered it! C'mon, you cannot have really fell for that ********, did you?

Sad!

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Not really, just a way of drawing attention to your tactics in ignoring the fully engorged elephant in Franken's nightmare of an "apology"

I reject your assessment of 3 words of his apology being surrounded by a tirade of pejoratives and invectives as being representative of his apology.

I have no reason to feel ashamed of what you've pointed out, which is that I have no interest in tacitly accepting your portrayal as authentic in order to respond.

Now, would you like to engage in discourse above that of a 5 year old who thinks they've just discovered a really clever psycho-manipulative tactic?

ETA: Also a very popular SJW tactic, "you have to agree with how >I< see it or you are a very, very bad person!" Yay diversity!

 

[The Big Dog]

I reject your assessment of 3 words of his apology being surrounded by a tirade of pejoratives and invectives as being representative of his apology.

I have no reason to feel ashamed of what you've pointed out, which is that I have no interest in tacitly accepting your portrayal as authentic in order to respond.

Now, would you like to engage in discourse above that of a 5 year old who thinks they've just discovered a really clever psycho-manipulative tactic?

ETA: Also a very popular SJW tactic, "you have to agree with how >I< see it or you are a very, very bad person!" Yay diversity!

Say, lets take a gander at what was cropped out of my post in the "reply" shall we:

And to circle us back, you never answered why you misrepresented the accuser's statements (and referring to Franken's "apology" is no answer at all) and then you have failed to explain why anyone should believe Franken where he said this: "I certainly don't remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way," yet never deigned to tell anyone how he actually remembered it! C'mon, you cannot have really fell for that ********, did you?
I did get all giggly inside when you sternly lectured me about "a tirade of pejoratives and invectives" and then a couple of sentence later compared me to a 5 year old!

Seriously fantastic.

You grossly misrepresented the victims' accusations, and Franken's so-called apology was silly manipulative joke. That is the hill you chose to stand on?

Good luck with that.

By the way? "I certainly don't remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way," is a bit more than three words. math, how does it work?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't think he should step down at all. There's no ethical conflict with his Senate duties. He hasn't settled any secret harassment claims with taxpayer money. None of the allegations date from his current term.

If any of that changes, then yeah, maybe he should resign. Otherwise? Let his constituents decide if they want to send him back to Washington, or just send him packing.

Agreed, and I also don't feel like either of us have to come to his defense in any way to hold this position.

He seems like he is handsy and creepy, or at least has been at times. I hope this is a wake up call for him and others.

I await the first photos of a woman slapping the hell out of a politician or other rich person who puts their hand below the belt. Whether he's from the red side of the aisle or blue, that day he will be well and truly labeled an ass.

 

[theprestige]

Wikipedia has links to original sources, no? Follow the links.

It's not my claim. Presumably if you assert what happened, it's because you actually read the original source and know that it supports your assertion. It's not my job to "follow the links". And wikipedia should never come up at all, except perhaps as an aside; "here's the source for the information I found in wikipedia."