Jump to content

Sexual Assault Scandals 3- the Fempire Strikes Back


Kelli Fury

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Or it could have easily garnered him more votes because the public would be calling it a nasty smear campaign and that the victim was asking for it or that it was no big deal or whatever we often say about women who come forward.

Tend to doubt that. This was already an extremely nasty election. I don't think Tweeden's accusation would've even been considered the nastiest of all the allegations that were thrown about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

DP,

In the big picture you’re absolutely correct, but not with Franken’s 08 campaign. Again, he won by 300 votes.

That is part of the big picture.  If this had come out nearly a decade ago, Franken may well have won by much more, perhaps even an amount that wouldn't have required a recount.  People have a remarkably high level of sympathy for those accused of harassment or assault.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And Moore is spinning precisely this as a political motive. Maybe not them, but they wouldn't have spoken up and it wasn't a big deal until WaPo came in making up a story. 

Again, stop it. Just believe them. That's all it takes.

You know, Kal, life is complicated, not black and white. There are a million shades of grey in between. I can believe her story about the rehearsal. I can believe him when he says he doesn't remember things happening that way, but if that was what she thought it was he can hear her and apologize profusely. I can believe she has been harassed and bullied and suffered unwelcome encounters with men her whole life. I can believe he has been a guy who thought men are supposed to push women until they say yes, but in the intervening years has come to recognize he was an asshole when he did. I can believe her when she says she spoke up so that other women don't have to go through want she did. I can believe him when he says he cannot comprehend what the hell was going on in his brain when he had that picture taken. I can believe his apology and I can believe she has accepted his apology.

I can at the same time believe there was a political motivation for speaking up when she did, and I can believe that his apology was so profuse because his political motivation is to fight like hell to keep his job.

I believe that I can have a lot of sympathy for someone one day and less sympathy for someone the next day when I hear more facts. I can be torn between the idea that he should resign and the idea that resigning would be a hollow gesture. I can change my mind next week if 20 more women talk about what a pig he was to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

You know, Kal, life is complicated, not black and white. There are a million shades of grey in between. I can believe her story about the rehearsal. I can believe him when he says he doesn't remember things happening that way, but if that was what she thought it was he can hear her and apologize profusely. I can believe she has been harassed and bullied and suffered unwelcome encounters with men her whole life. I can believe he has been a guy who thought men are supposed to push women until they say yes, but in the intervening years has come to recognize he was an asshole when he did. I can believe her when she says she spoke up so that other women don't have to go through want she did. I can believe him when he says he cannot comprehend what the hell was going on in his brain when he had that picture taken. I can believe his apology and I can believe she has accepted his apology.

I can at the same time believe there was a political motivation for speaking up when she did, and I can believe that his apology was so profuse because his political motivation is to fight like hell to keep his job.

I believe that I can have a lot of sympathy for someone one day and less sympathy for someone the next day when I hear more facts. I can be torn between the idea that he should resign and the idea that resigning would be a hollow gesture. I can change my mind next week if 20 more women talk about what a pig he was to them.

Sure, and none of these things has to do with her showing up in Playboy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, and none of these things has to do with her showing up in Playboy. 

I had no idea she showed up in Playboy and have never in any post said that. I said she was a beautiful woman and that women like me who are far less beautiful know the kind of harassment we've faced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, and none of these things has to do with her showing up in Playboy. 

Has anyone here been arguing that her appearance in Playboy is germane to this discussion? Because I haven't seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And none of that has to do with the motives of the accuser.

And I don't recall ever stating or asserting that proposition.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that prior statements of politics or truthfulness are irrelevant. I think that in this case they are.

I think her prior startements are relevant. I just don't think they are strong enough to rebut her base accusations, which I'm more than willing to give a very strong presumption that they are correct.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Especially when we're not talking about a court of law and anyone being under oath

I understand this isn't a court of law. And the burden of proof in the court of public opinion may be different. Still that shouldn't stop us from a bit of logic based reasoning.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

we're talking about an event that has not been refuted by either side with photographic evidence. 

The photograph pertains to one of the charges, not both.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

  • Her thinking anything about birtherism has nothing to do with her ability to recite events that occurred.

Her willing to toy with birtherism certainly calls into question her attachment to facts. 

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

 

  • Her employment with Fox News has nothing to do with her ability to recite events that occurred.

 

Never said it did. And secondly, this fact wouldn't convince me that someone is basically not truthful. Nor her political preferences, which I think I have made clear.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

  • Her being in Playboy has REALLY NOTHING TO DO with her ability to recite events that occurred.

Okay, I hope you're not implying that I would think this is remotely relevant. I couldn't give a damn whether she was in Playboy, or Hustler or starred in XXX films. None of that is remotely relevant.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Now, she has come out and stated an event happened and also has given a picture. Franken has no denied these events happened, only that his recollection of them differs from hers, and the photograph isn't in dispute. Based on that, why is there any particular reason to doubt?

I'm not really doubting her version of events.

But, what I really bulk at is the notion that prior statements are not relevant in determining the truth of what occurred, where determining the truth is going to based on the witness statement. And I don't think its simply correct to say the photograph proves the kissing allegation, though I do believe Ms. Tweeden's version of events.

I think what I'm thinking is that: This goes beyond Franken. And were probably going to see a lot more of this stuff. And I think we need to think really hard about how we want to judge this stuff when it comes done the pike, which I'm sure more will come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women who have been working with him since the time of her accusations of Franken have said he's never been anything but respectful to them. Which is why I tend to agree with Fragile Bird, that this is a guy who very likely has been a jerk at times like almost every male in the world, but unlike a whole lot of other males in the world, got woke, and learned and changed his behavior.

Thus he is entitled to keep his position -- he's apologized, he has acknowledged that it was wrong of him, he's sorry, and -- also, very important, which makes his situation different from Moore, for instance -- there is no hypocrisy there, howling about being a godly man, blahblahblah, while chasing teenage girls.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Seriously, there's photographic evidence. The accused admitted fault and apologized.

STOP TRYING THE ACCUSER. Just stop it. This is by far the biggest reason that people DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. DON'T DO THAT.

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the hour that Bill Clinton needs a reckoning. And should have resigned in 1998. 

Right? I'm seriously disgusted by some of the shit I just read in here. I expected better of some of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I know she's been in Playboy (as what? a bunny? a nude centrefold? being interviewed as a bright young thing? I still have no idea) I am even more convinced that she has seen more of her share than most of us of sexual harassment, breast groping, ass pinching and lewd suggestions, because there certainly are men who would believe an appearance in Playboy means all of these things would be expected by her. Not welcomed, just expected. And it probably adds to my belief that the hurt she showed in the Jake Tapper interview, the sincere genuine hurt, spoke to a lot more than an unwanted kiss from Al Franken.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I had no idea she showed up in Playboy and have never in any post said that. I said she was a beautiful woman and that women like me who are far less beautiful know the kind of harassment we've faced.

I saw it on your post on Facebook. 

36 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Has anyone here been arguing that her appearance in Playboy is germane to this discussion? Because I haven't seen it.

Possibly not, but I've seen it elsewhere. To me it's similar to saying that she was on Fox News or was a Birther. 

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And I don't recall ever stating or asserting that proposition.

Try again, Mr. Sessions.

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think her prior startements are relevant. I just don't think they are strong enough to rebut her base accusations, which I'm more than willing to give a very strong presumption that they are correct.

Then why protest so much?

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I understand this isn't a court of law. And the burden of proof in the court of public opinion may be different. Still that shouldn't stop us from a bit of logic based reasoning.

Certainly, but it still doesn't mean you should put the accuser on trial. Her accusation is reasonable, has evidence, and is not refuted by the accused. Why doubt?

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The photograph pertains to one of the charges, not both.

It pertains to the accused mindset towards her, her physical presence at the event, and her recollection of how things went. 

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Her willing to toy with birtherism certainly calls into question her attachment to facts. 

No more than believing in God does.

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Never said it did. And secondly, this fact wouldn't convince me that someone is basically not truthful. Nor her political preferences, which I think I have made clear.

You didn't. 

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, I hope you're not implying that I would think this is remotely relevant. I couldn't give a damn whether she was in Playboy, or Hustler or starred in XXX films. None of that is remotely relevant.

I'm actively saying that you almost certainly would do that, because you did that with other things. 

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm not really doubting her version of events.

But, what I really bulk at is the notion that prior statements are not relevant in determining the truth of what occurred, where determining the truth is going to based on the witness statement. And I don't think its simply correct to say the photograph proves the kissing allegation, though I do believe Ms. Tweeden's version of events.

I think what I'm thinking is that: This goes beyond Franken. And were probably going to see a lot more of this stuff. And I think we need to think really hard about how we want to judge this stuff when it comes done the pike, which I'm sure more will come.

Fine - don't bring it up in the context of this case, then. Bring it up with the other accuser - a person that I find less credible, and find her events not actually being harassment of any sort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sarah Silverman with a poignant, thoughtful statement regarding Louis CK and the Harassment Scandal in general

 https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/nov/17/sarah-silverman-on-louis-ck-can-you-love-someone-who-did-bad-things

The comments by her sister are the most interesting part of that for me. "On 10 November, following the New York Times revelations, Silverman’s sister Laura Silverman – who briefly dated CK – alleged on Twitter that CK masturbated in front of her 20 times around 25 years ago, “on a cross country trip before he was famous ... Not criminal. But compulsive, rude & gross"

I'm glad I re-read the next paragraph because it turns out he was doing that in hotel rooms, I was imagining him doing it whilst doing a cross-country hiking trip, which would have been far more difficult. 

The guy is clearly addicted to it, and has some bizarre obsessions around it that I cannot get my head around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eggegg said:

The comments by her sister are the most interesting part of that for me. "On 10 November, following the New York Times revelations, Silverman’s sister Laura Silverman – who briefly dated CK – alleged on Twitter that CK masturbated in front of her 20 times around 25 years ago, “on a cross country trip before he was famous ... Not criminal. But compulsive, rude & gross"

I'm glad I re-read the next paragraph because it turns out he was doing that in hotel rooms, I was imagining him doing it whilst doing a cross-country hiking trip, which would have been far more difficult. 

The guy is clearly addicted to it, and has some bizarre obsessions around it that I cannot get my head around.

Yeah, I found that bit interesting as well. 

The whole idea of masturbating in front of someone else just seems so counterintuitive to me. It's like the exact opposite instinct I have regarding masturbation. Can't wrap my head around it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I found that bit interesting as well. 

The whole idea of masturbating in front of someone else just seems so counterintuitive to me. It's like the exact opposite instinct I have regarding masturbation. Can't wrap my head around it either.

It feels like there is something at the core of it that is similar to Weinstein, who seemed to like getting naked in front of women. Both men are clearly pretty unattractive naked (and clothed) and maybe there is some sort of kick from the humiliation. Maybe there was some incident in their past that led them to this, were they always terrible with women and then found a way to get what they wanted in some other much worse way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Try again, Mr. Sessions.

Huh?

What are you talking about. At no point, did I say, that figuring out what happened had anything to do with figuring out the motives of the accuser. You put those words into my mouth.

Also, when I wrote what I wrote, it wasn’t exactly clear to me whether you were talking about this case or other cases. A lot of what I wrote had to with other cases as well.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Then why protest so much?

Because I think assessing her prior statements to asses the truth or validy of her story (or anyone else) as a general principle is a worthy line of inquiry. You seemingly desired to cut that right off.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Certainly, but it still doesn't mean you should put the accuser on trial. Her accusation is reasonable, has evidence, and is not refuted by the accused. Why doubt?

As far as I know, Franken didn’t say or outright admit he kissed her in the manner that Ms. Tweeden alleges. Now I believe Ms. Tweeden. But, I’d feel better about it if she hadn’t engaged in birther nuttery.

And raising problematic statements by an accuser isn’t putting “them on trial” as you say. Or maybe you just think defendants should never bring them up, even if it means getting them sent to the gas chamber.
 

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It pertains to the accused mindset towards her, her physical presence at the event, and her recollection of how things went. 

It may have some relevance to the other charge. I don’t deny that. But, the evidence of the other charge is largely based on her testimony.
 

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 No more than believing in God does.

Oh seriously. You don’t think somebody willing to engage birther conspiracy theories shouldn’t have their credibility impugned just a little?

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You didn't. 

Uh, yeah, I think in prior post I did make it fairly clear that in assessing her truthfulness her basic political orientation doesn’t matter that much to me.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm actively saying that you almost certainly would do that, because you did that with other things. 

There is not much to say about this other than it’s a load of baloney.

23 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Fine - don't bring it up in the context of this case, then. Bring it up with the other accuser - a person that I find less credible, and find her events not actually being harassment of any sort. 

And really what is your problem with me saying basically, I think the birther stuff is troublesome as to her credibility, but then concluding it’s not enough to disbelieve her.

And I was wondering whether, you thought prior statements were ever relevant in these sort of cases, which apparently you do.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because I think assessing her prior statements to asses the truth or validy of her story (or anyone else) as a general principle is a worthy line of inquiry. You seemingly desired to cut that right off.

 I completely understand where you're going with this (I have some minor nits to pick with the way she framed her reaction to the pic) but I think Kal's point trumps here.

We have to believe the victim. That's the rule, and it's the rule for a very good reason. We can't bend or break the rule to suit our narrative. Full stop. We believe the victim. 

So yeah, that does serve to cut off the conversation, but that is the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Huh?

What are you talking about. At no point, did I say, that figuring out what happened had anything to do with figuring out the motives of the accuser. You put those words into my mouth.

Then why bring it up in response to my points? If you want to talk about generalities, do so. Otherwise it's very disingenuous. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because I think assessing her prior statements to asses the truth or validy of her story (or anyone else) as a general principle is a worthy line of inquiry. You seemingly desired to cut that right off.

I think it's bad form in this case, which is what we were talking about, yes. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

As far as I know, Franken didn’t say or outright admit he kissed her in the manner that Ms. Tweeden alleges. Now I believe Ms. Tweeden. But, I’d feel better about it if she hadn’t engaged in birther nuttery.

And raising problematic statements by an accuser isn’t putting “them on trial” as you say. Or maybe you just think defendants should never bring them up, even if it means getting them sent to the gas chamber.

Again, criminal law vs societal norms. If you want to do this in a court of law with legal representation, cool beans. 

And no, I don't think that her political viewpoints and beliefs are particularly relevant to her ability to tell the truth. There are a whole lot of people who genuinely believe in the birther thing because other people told them it was valid; that doesn't make them lack credibility. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Oh seriously. You don’t think somebody willing to engage birther conspiracy theories shouldn’t have their credibility impugned just a little?

Not particularly, because it's incredibly common. I believe something like 40% of all Republicans STILL believe it. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Uh, yeah, I think in prior post I did make it fairly clear that in assessing her truthfulness her basic political orientation doesn’t matter that much to me.

Except you brought it up as relevant.

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

There is not much to say about this other than it’s a load of baloney.

And I don't believe you, based on your prior behavior of saying that things like prior political opinions and viewpoints are reasonable things to bring into the fore. Why not prior occupations? Why not prior modes of dress? 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And really what is your problem with me saying basically, I think the birther stuff is troublesome as to her credibility, but then concluding it’s not enough to disbelieve her.

And I was wondering whether, you thought prior statements were ever relevant in these sort of cases, which apparently you do.
 

Again, when you're bringing it up as a counterargument to one specific case it really doesn't help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I completely understand where you're going with this (I have some minor nits to pick with the way she framed her reaction to the pic) but I think Kal's point trumps here.

We have to believe the victim. That's the rule, and it's the rule for a very good reason. We can't bend or break the rule to suit our narrative. Full stop. We believe the victim. 

So yeah, that does serve to cut off the conversation, but that is the rule.

It's easy to say- I'd be interested to see how many people would hold to that if it was them, a family member or a close friend accused.

I think you can still believe and support the accuser without instantly condemning the accused. When people have told me about being attacked, I've never questioned their account, asked them about the circumstances, etc. I've taken their word for it. But when my friend was accused of rape, I didn't condemn him, I waited to see the result of the police investigation.

If only life was so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...