Rep. Katie Hill announces resignation

ponderingturtle said:
Pretty much the same as taking any photos.
Click to expand...

Entirely. I won't let anyone post photos of me or my family online, but especially on facebook. And I delete any photos that I'd rather not have to explain later.

And why limit it to text based communication, why shouldn't everyone be obligated to live their whole lives by the standard you hold your email to?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should live their lives by my standards. My standards are boring as ****. In fact the first 20+ years of my life were not all lived to those standards. But, having lived my life like that for over 20 years I have a hard time grasping why people do things that I can never imagine doing. I get that they do. I get that they will. I get that they shouldn't be punished for doing so. I just don't get the attraction.

Like I said, it is not judgement, it is a lack of understanding on my part. I have never thought "this sex would be better if we took pictures." Hell, I rarely think "this [event] would be better if we took pictures" for any value of [event]. Pictures don't make a wedding better, the necessity of taking them is a total drag and an interruption. Why would I think pictures would make sex better?

Look, I have to sand a piece of wood before I paint it. It sucks because it takes time, but it is a necessary step of the process. Why would I then add sanding to other tasks where it is not needed, like drinking beer? Drinking beer is too enjoyable, maybe if I try sanding stuff while drinking beer, the beer drinking will be better. No, you drink beer while you are sanding because the beer drinking makes the sanding better. Hmm, I guess I could try sex during photos the next time I have to take photos, to make the photo session more bearable, but that is going to be really weird for the rest of the family at my nephew's wedding.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yep women should also know better than to drink alcohol, or associate with men. If they just stopped the last think how few rapes there would be. If you choose to continue to associate with men, well these things happen.



Yep go out to clubs and those kind of things happen, leaving the house is the first mistake.


Like going out to clubs is also a often a first mistake.

This is victim blaming, focusing on what to do to avoid being a victim and ignoring the perpetrators is victim blaming. She should really have known better than to have a sex life at all. I mean what if her husband secretly recorded her, and released it as revenge porn, of course that would be a failure of her to be sufficiently careful at avoiding being recorded.

Where does focusing on what the victim could have done to prevent something instead of focusing on the perpetrator become silly instead of pragmatic?

Why was the focus not more on why Brock Turners victim shouldn't have drunk that much alcohol?
Click to expand...

Your need to resort to such ridiculous, outlandish hyperbole just demonstrates that you haven't got a logical rebuttal to my point.

Sure, not walking down a dark alley alone in a dodgy part of town at night is the same as saying you should never go outside at all. Yeah. Sure it is. Why not just claim that saying it's not a smart idea to eat an entire full sheet birthday cake in one sitting is like saying you shouldn't eat at all.

When you can discuss this in a rational manner, let me know. I'm not into this kind of nonsense.
 
This is my last post on the subject as some of you just can't seem to differentiate between something being WRONG and something being not SMART.

I never said Hill or anyone is WRONG for making sex videos. I clearly said I don't give a damn WHAT two consenting adults do. I said it wasn't a SMART thing to do considering the internet/smart phone/ political/ age we live in. Apparently, some of you DO consider it a smart thing to do.

If you need to interpret that as blaming the victim for someone else taking that video and making it public, then there's nothing else I can say to clear that up for you. And I'm no longer interested in trying. Some things just aren't worth the headache. This is one of them.
 
I think what we're missing here is that there is a big push right now to say that Hill did nothing wrong, and hence the focus on her being wronged. Which of course completely ignores the fact that she was not pushed to resign because of the photos, but because of her current affair with another staffer, apparently sans photographs.

So saying it was stupid undermines the current effort.
 
Who here said Hill did nothing wrong? Can you quote that person? We all agree that a relationship with a subordinate is wrong.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to distract from the fact that your "team" is trafficking in revenge porn.

Are you OK with the RNCC, a division of the RNC, trafficking in revenge porn?
 
Stacyhs said:
This is my last post on the subject as some of you just can't seem to differentiate between something being WRONG and something being not SMART.
Click to expand...

It's a distinction without difference if it leads to the person in question being treated the same regardless if they are "WRONG" or "not SMART."

This woman had explicit photos of her shared without her consent. If your response it to focus is then on her "stupidity" for having them in the first place I fail to see the difference you insist upon.
 
Donal said:
Who here said Hill did nothing wrong?
Click to expand...

Let's try to read this carefully:

Brainster said:
I think what we're missing here is that there is a big push right now to say that Hill did nothing wrong
Click to expand...

Brainster didn't say anyone here said Hill did nothing wrong. Rather, the people here are missing that people somewhere are saying Hill did nothing wrong. If people here were saying that she did nothing wrong, then people here probably wouldn't be missing it, whereas if they're saying it elsewhere, then it's much easier to miss here. So the sensible reading of his post is that it's being said elsewhere.
 
Could either Brainster or yourself demonstrate evidence of that push? Are you going to link a couple of twitter posts that I already said exist but are in the vast minority?

Can you deal with the conversation here? Or are you going to help Brainster distract from the fact that a major political party is trafficking revenge porn?

And while you are at it: Do you think it is OK that the RNCC, a part of the RNC, trafficked in revenge porn? A yes or no will suffice.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's a distinction without difference if it leads to the person in question being treated the same regardless if they are "WRONG" or "not SMART."

This woman had explicit photos of her shared without her consent. If your response it to focus is then on her "stupidity" for having them in the first place I fail to see the difference you insist upon.
Click to expand...

My response is the people who shared the photos are criminals that should be prosecuted AND I don't understand why anyone, especially those in the public eye, would ever film themselves having sex. It is not one or the other. It is both. Is that allowed? Or do I have to just pick one?
 
Dr. Keith said:
My response is the people who shared the photos are criminals that should be prosecuted AND I don't understand why anyone, especially those in the public eye, would ever film themselves having sex. It is not one or the other. It is both. Is that allowed? Or do I have to just pick one?
Click to expand...

You're "allowed" (whatever the chuff that is supposed to mean) to say whatever you want.

I just don't understand what you think your "I don't understand why someone would do this" matters or what point it has in the discussion. People don't have to justify their own legal activities to your moral code.

No, let me guess, you're gonna respond with "I'm not expecting them to" so I'm wondering exactly what change you're expecting for your two cents.

What you (and others) are functionally doing is blaming her. Whether in your head it's blaming her or just... wandering into the discussion to give your opinion about your own moral code that nobody asked for makes no difference.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You're "allowed" (whatever the chuff that is supposed to mean) to say whatever you want.

I just don't understand what you think your "I don't understand why someone would do this" matters or what point it has in the discussion. People don't have to justify their own legal activities to your moral code.

No, let me guess, you're gonna respond with "I'm not expecting them to" so I'm wondering exactly what change you're expecting for your two cents.

What you (and others) are functionally doing is blaming her. Whether in your head it's blaming her or just... wandering into the discussion to give your opinion about your own moral code that nobody asked for makes no difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. It has really helped me to understand. That means a lot to me.

theprestige said:
Rep. Hill resigns due to improper relationship with Congressional staff member, a clear violation of the rules.

"But what about the revenge porn?!"
Click to expand...

Seriously, do you not think it should be investigated?

If someone broke into my house and stole all my **** and the cops found a bag of pot under my bed while gathering evidence, I still want them to go after the thief even if I have face the possession charges.
 
theprestige said:
Rep. Hill resigns due to improper relationship with Congressional staff member, a clear violation of the rules.

"But what about the revenge porn?!"
Click to expand...

Yes, what is your opinion of the Republican part trafficking revenge porn?
 
Donal said:
Could either Brainster or yourself demonstrate evidence of that push?
Click to expand...

I'll leave that to him, since it was his claim. I was merely clarifying what the claim was.

Can you deal with the conversation here? Or are you going to help Brainster distract from the fact that a major political party is trafficking revenge porn?

And while you are at it: Do you think it is OK that the RNCC, a part of the RNC, trafficked in revenge porn? A yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. I don't think I've seen any stories that source the naked pictures to the RNC or the RNCC. I've no doubt that they have taken advantage of the situation by criticizing Hill, but I don't classify that as "trafficking in revenge porn". So can you clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying the RNCC are the ones who actually distributed the naked pictures that have been printed?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Seriously, do you not think it should be investigated?
Click to expand...
This thread isn't about investigating revenge porn. The only reason to even bring it up is to address Puppycow's hypothesis that its publication was the real motive for Pelosi asking Hill to resign.

If someone broke into my house and stole all my **** and the cops found a bag of pot under my bed while gathering evidence, I still want them to go after the thief even if I have face the possession charges.
Click to expand...
This analogy fails because she didn't resign because of the revenge porn, she resigned because Congressional staff reported her improper relationship with a Congressional staffer.

Donal said:
Yes, what is your opinion of the Republican part trafficking revenge porn?
Click to expand...
It's off topic for this thread, for one thing.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'll leave that to him, since it was his claim. I was merely clarifying what the claim was.
Click to expand...

Maybe leave him to clarify his own claims

I'm confused. I don't think I've seen any stories that source the naked pictures to the RNC or the RNCC. I've no doubt that they have taken advantage of the situation by criticizing Hill, but I don't classify that as "trafficking in revenge porn". So can you clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying the RNCC are the ones who actually distributed the naked pictures that have been printed?
Click to expand...

It was the campaign adviser of the previous Republican to hold her seat. He brought it to the RNCC and then went to other Republican mouthpieces. Even if they didn't directly send them out, they knew it was there and geared up for the fallout.
 
theprestige said:
It's off topic for this thread, for one thing.
Click to expand...

This is the first time that idea was kicked up. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Hill has admitted to the unethical behavior, resigned, so all there is left to discuss is the GOP trafficking in revenge porn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom