U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1161719212243

Comments

  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    There's even an Op-Ed on Huff right now saying a Biden 2020 run would be disastrous in a post-Weinstein society because of Anita Hill and his reputation for being a little too close and handsy with women.  

    Does this thing have a name yet, like "Arab Spring"?  Cause it almost needs a name by now.  
  • My default position is to always believe the victim and that hasn't changed, but...the Franken accusation seems manufactured to me.  Not that she's lying, but it feels like she's playing up what happened to fit this current narrative.  Before being accused of partisanship, I had a similar feeling when watching the woman who accused Roy Moore who did the press conference with Gloria Allred.  I still think he's guilty because there's too many stories to ignore, but there was something about that particular story that didn't sit right with me.

    Something that we're all going to have to consider...the reasoning behind automatically believing the accuser is recognizing how hard it is to come forward, how much your life gets torn apart, how strong the stigma of victimization etc is.  As more and more people come forward, these things become less true and makes false accusations more likely.

  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    edited November 2017
    Nah that picture is real bad, fuck Franken and fuck Moore. Get em out. Let’s take this all the way to the top. 
    CretanBull
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    cdrive said:
    There's even an Op-Ed on Huff right now saying a Biden 2020 run would be disastrous in a post-Weinstein society because of Anita Hill and his reputation for being a little too close and handsy with women.  

    Does this thing have a name yet, like "Arab Spring"?  Cause it almost needs a name by now.  

    4th wave feminism?
  • Dawn of the Justice System?
  • perverse disincentive phase
  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    edited November 2017
    PDP for short. Not to be confused with the other PDP, or the other PDP, or the other PDP. Maybe PDP wasn’t the best acronym. 
  • Alkaid13 said:
    Nah that picture is real bad, fuck Franken and fuck Moore. Get em out. Let’s take this all the way to the top. 
    To be super clear, I'm not casting doubt on these claims and again - I believe the accusers - and I'm not attempting to defend either of these guys in any way.

    I'm just saying that with the Franken case - and I believe his accuser 100% - I think the perception of that event is influenced by the current narrative.  I'm not saying it was a lesser offense, not saying that she's lying, not saying that isn't a big deal, not saying he deserves a pass...just saying that it feels like a filter of current events is allowing this event to be seen in a new light (which could very well be a good thing, just saying that that the current climate is having an influence on how we see that event).

    With Roy Moore, again I totally think that he's guilty..there's a clear pattern of behaviour with multiple accounts of wrong doing that can't be denied.  My only point was, and this is hard to quantify, but with that one specific accusation something felt a little off about it.  I'll stick to my default position of believing the accuser, but I'll hedge my bet in this way - if I had to bet on one of these accusations turning out to be less than true in some way, this is the one that I'd bet on.  I won't say that she's lying and will continue to believe her, but I won't be shocked if there are some missing details that might cloud the issue in some way.  I realize that this is a terrible thing to say about someone who I 100% believe was victimized by Moore, but something about her press conference didn't sit right with me.  It's an intuitive hunch more than anything that I can point to.


  • I mean I won’t tell you that your intuition is wrong I guess, but I didn’t feel anything suspicious. 
    CretanBull
  • As a side note that is unrelated to either case that I mentioned, we have to be aware that in this climate with so many people coming forward the likelihood of a false accusation has increased.  When a political opponent can be wiped out with an accusation, surely someone will attempt to weaponize that.

    That doesn't mean AT ALL that we should revert back to an era when it was a traumatizing experience for a victim to come forward.  It's just a recognition that at a time when accusing someone further traumatized the victim, we can be sure that the likelihood of a false accusation was incredibly rare (4%, 75% of those limited to women accusing husbands of abusing children during divorce proceedings) but with victims being protected - and thankfully so! - and with the stigmatization of victimhood being lessened - again, thankfully so! - it increases the potential for a false accusation.
  • Alkaid13 said:
    I mean I won’t tell you that your intuition is wrong I guess, but I didn’t feel anything suspicious. 
    It's a difficult thing to discuss or position to defend because I can't point to anything specific, just a gut feeling.  And again, I'm not saying that she's made the whole thing up (I can only assume that Allred among others are convinced) it just had a feeling about it that made me think that there might be more to this one that we don't know yet.  It's all besides the point, because as I said - he's displayed a clear pattern of behaviour with multiple people etc.  so he's guilty in my book regardless of anything that might come from this particular accuser.
  • I mean there probably will eventually be a false accusation for the sole purpose of ruining an actually decent person or to destroy a political career. On the other hand the upsides of all these actual abusers getting their due probably outweighs the potential downsides. 
  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    edited November 2017
    I don’t know this may be a bit callous. I just think the percentages are probably like 85-90% allegations of abuse are correct to maybe 10-15% false allegations and I’m kind of ok with that for now. 
  • Alkaid13 said:
    I mean there probably will eventually be a false accusation for the sole purpose of ruining an actually decent person or to destroy a political career. On the other hand the upsides of all these actual abusers getting their due probably outweighs the potential downsides. 
    I totally agree
    Alkaid13 said:
    I don’t know this may be a bit callous. I just think the percentages are probably like 85-90% allegations of abuse are correct to maybe 10-15% false allegations and I’m kind of ok with that for now. 
    Canadian statistics have false accusations at 4%, and 75% of those false accusations are women accusing their husbands of abusing their kids during divorce proceedings.  That reinforces the idea that the stigmatization of being a victim is so strong that even false accusers don't want to be a fake victim.  So the practical number (ignoring those related to divorce trials) is effectively 1%.

    My point - and it's nothing to panic over and shouldn't be seen as a defense for anyone - is that with more people coming forward, there's less stigma associated with victimization.  Which is great in that it's allowing more people to come forward to get justice without having to pay a social price for doing so, but the down side is that the stigma also keeps false accusations at bay too so we're likely to see more of them.

    There's absolutely nothing at all that should cause us to doubt accusers, believing them will remain my default position, just a wrinkle that we should keep in mind as more and more accusations go public.

  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    For those who haven't seen it yet, this appears to be the original article from the victim.

    http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/

    Pretty damning stuff. I thought Franken was one of the good guys and it turns out I was wrong. Nothing in her description of their relationship (which seems to have been only professional) prior to this incident makes it seem like this would be in-bounds.
  • All sorts of people I thought were pretty good guys are coming out worse from all this. 
    CretanBull
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    Franken put out a statement, apologized and asked for an ethics investigation.


  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    Al Franken is my favorite senator and my favorite SNL alum, but now he's gotta go. We can't let one of these guys slide just because he's on our team.

    BUT I sure would like to know how Roger Stone knew about this LAST NIGHT
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • "Stone appeared to know Franken allegation was coming"

    This doesn't excuse Franken's behavoir, but Stone also seemed to have early knowledge of Clinton email stuff last year, suggesting a close tie between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. Not that this is tied to Wikileaks.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/360726-stone-appeared-to-know-franken-allegation-was-coming
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    MrX said:
    "Stone appeared to know Franken allegation was coming"

    This doesn't excuse Franken's behavoir, but Stone also seemed to have early knowledge of Clinton email stuff last year, suggesting a close tie between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. Not that this is tied to Wikileaks.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/360726-stone-appeared-to-know-franken-allegation-was-coming
    It could be true that Al Franken committed sexual assault and that elements on the right chose this time to expose him as a way to neuter dem outrage about moore, trump, gop tax plan, whatever. Stone is a lifelong dirty-trickster, for sure.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Alkaid13 said:
    I mean there probably will eventually be a false accusation for the sole purpose of ruining an actually decent person or to destroy a political career. On the other hand the upsides of all these actual abusers getting their due probably outweighs the potential downsides. 
    I totally agree
    Alkaid13 said:
    I don’t know this may be a bit callous. I just think the percentages are probably like 85-90% allegations of abuse are correct to maybe 10-15% false allegations and I’m kind of ok with that for now. 
    Canadian statistics have false accusations at 4%, and 75% of those false accusations are women accusing their husbands of abusing their kids during divorce proceedings.  That reinforces the idea that the stigmatization of being a victim is so strong that even false accusers don't want to be a fake victim.  So the practical number (ignoring those related to divorce trials) is effectively 1%.

    My point - and it's nothing to panic over and shouldn't be seen as a defense for anyone - is that with more people coming forward, there's less stigma associated with victimization.  Which is great in that it's allowing more people to come forward to get justice without having to pay a social price for doing so, but the down side is that the stigma also keeps false accusations at bay too so we're likely to see more of them.

    There's absolutely nothing at all that should cause us to doubt accusers, believing them will remain my default position, just a wrinkle that we should keep in mind as more and more accusations go public.


    Fascinating statistic about women accusing husbands of child abuse during divorce proceedings.
  • Moore's lawyer is ... about what you'd expect for Moore's Lawyer. Lawd almighty.


  • MrX said:
    Moore's lawyer is ... about what you'd expect for Moore's Lawyer. Lawd almighty.


    Don Lemon interviewed his lawyer last week and the guy repeatedly called Lemon "easy-peasy Lemon squeezy"....what does it say when you represent a pedophile and people question if you're the creepier of the two?
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Ephebophile...
    CretanBull
  • JaimieT said:
    Ephebophile...
    That's a new word to me (thanks!)....and while definitely more accurate, I'll admit my bias and say that I like the stigma that 'pedophile' has when I'm referring to a creep.  I'd be more inclined to us ephobophile if he wasn't 20 years older than his victims, but clearly there's a difference between a 17 year old and a 3 year old.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    JaimieT said:
    Ephebophile...
    That's a new word to me (thanks!)....and while definitely more accurate, I'll admit my bias and say that I like the stigma that 'pedophile' has when I'm referring to a creep.  I'd be more inclined to us ephobophile if he wasn't 20 years older than his victims, but clearly there's a difference between a 17 year old and a 3 year old.

    Sure, I just don't like the watering down of pedophile. Attraction to an underage young adult AT LEAST has evolutionary explanation.
    CretanBull
  • JaimieT said:
    JaimieT said:
    Ephebophile...
    That's a new word to me (thanks!)....and while definitely more accurate, I'll admit my bias and say that I like the stigma that 'pedophile' has when I'm referring to a creep.  I'd be more inclined to us ephobophile if he wasn't 20 years older than his victims, but clearly there's a difference between a 17 year old and a 3 year old.

    Sure, I just don't like the watering down of pedophile. Attraction to an underage young adult AT LEAST has evolutionary explanation.
    Very true, and fair point.  There's definitely a danger in blurring the definition of pedophilia, but calling someone an ephobophile (at this point anyway) doesn't carry the judgemental weight that it deserves.

    I'm reasonably sure that there's a similar law in America, but in Canada it's called statutory rape  - which might blur the definition of rape in a similar way, but the qualifier of it being 'statutory' should distinguish it enough (and 'rape' as a law doesn't exist in Canada, in its place we have varying degrees of sexual assault).

  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    JaimieT said:
    JaimieT said:
    Ephebophile...
    That's a new word to me (thanks!)....and while definitely more accurate, I'll admit my bias and say that I like the stigma that 'pedophile' has when I'm referring to a creep.  I'd be more inclined to us ephobophile if he wasn't 20 years older than his victims, but clearly there's a difference between a 17 year old and a 3 year old.

    Sure, I just don't like the watering down of pedophile. Attraction to an underage young adult AT LEAST has evolutionary explanation.
    Very true, and fair point.  There's definitely a danger in blurring the definition of pedophilia, but calling someone an ephobophile (at this point anyway) doesn't carry the judgemental weight that it deserves.

    I'm reasonably sure that there's a similar law in America, but in Canada it's called statutory rape  - which might blur the definition of rape in a similar way, but the qualifier of it being 'statutory' should distinguish it enough (and 'rape' as a law doesn't exist in Canada, in its place we have varying degrees of sexual assault).


    Yeah, that wouldn't work here because he'd say they didn't have sex or something, but yes, we have that in America. 
This discussion has been closed.