|
Victory Position posted:It's a very strange double standard in which one woman is punished for accreditation and another, Dr. Jill Biden, is praised and held up high with the other side of this argument. this is such a weird false equivalency that reads like you desperately trying to insulting jill biden for... reasons? the only time that anyone 'praises' jill biden is to point out that, yes, its gross to scold her for using the professional title of a degree she earned (even if its tacky for her to use it), and it is somewhat notable that she is continuing to work while serving as first lady. regardless, it has nothing to do with this topic, and this is a gross post. i think itd be helpful to have some more guardrails around what this thread and discussion should be. i don't think trying to litigate the specific details of tara reade's accusations in this thread to arrive at some sort of judgement is appropriate or worthwhile, and i think it obscures from what i think is a more meaningful discussion, which is disparity in treatment of accusations against democratic and republican politicians, and why or why not this might happen. i think it'd be helpful to have a single post with all the information about reade on record and let that speak for itself.
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Lemming posted:The biggest thing is how stark the contrast has been between her treatment and the treatment of Ford. I haven't run into anybody who supports Democrats who has accused her of lying about Kavanaugh or even less flagrantly just said they're unsure about her, but people are willing to try to find any reason to discredit Reid. It's pretty hard to look at those two cases and treat them completely differently just based on the facts, you pretty much only can if there's an extra motivation behind it with regards to how one of them is accusing a Republican and one is accusing a Democrat. i think one of the legacies of the last twenty five years has been a significant shift in the role a person's personal decisions and private life make in how we judge their fitness for office (and let me say up front that this shift is a good thing). up until nixon we barely knew anything about personal lives of politicians, both because information was just more limited, and also because the press explicitly worked to protect the privacy of politicians because they viewed their personal lives as off limits and irrelevant. when it comes to kavanaugh specifically one thing really disappointed me (and this is true of biden to some extent) is that there are so many objectively true things that are just fundamentally disqualifying - his court opinions alone would, in a better world, mean he would never come within a hundred feet of a seat on the supreme court. but because for some reason we can't acknowledge that, the conversation shifts to something else. its good to know he's a bad person, personally, too, of course, but i feel that we never should have had to be in a world where the deciding factor for supporting kavanaugh or not was believing an accusation - we already shouldn't be supporting him, and anything else is just confirmation. i don't know if this makes any sense. edit: to add, i always have felt kind of i guess 'gross' about how people use any accusation in this context because it always feels to be kind of exploitative - that we can't just reject someone for bad politics, so instead you have to use the worst moment in someone's life as the 'proof' that someone who is objectively bad is bad. does anyone else feel this way? you see it on both sides, too: look at franken, it was like 'aha! we found something we can use to force him out!' - just ignoring the tragedy and trauma and jumping to how to use it. it feels seedy. even this conversation is always within the implicit context of "joe biden: good or bad", which again just feels wrong. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Zook posted:It is not gross to speak up about a rape victim who the entire media suppressed in order to propel her rapist into the most powerful office in the world, I don't know how you even square that. i don't think its inherently gross to discuss the allegations, and i think its fine to do so, i just think that with any of these type of allegations for most people in general, outside of SA its not about the victim or the allegation, its just a convenient way to score points, and i find it super gross. there is a huge element of 'my political party is my sports team' to this, which why none of these conversations ever get the care and nuanced discussion they deserve. like why the gently caress did they make ford testify? independent of that, someone needs to add a content warning to the OP. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:I think the short answer is that the people most likely to be affected by the story are not watching Fox News, and there's other things they'd rather use (such as, say, immigration) to get their viewers' blood boiling also opening the door into 'candidate's sexual assault history' is uhh not great when the other candidate is donald trump
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
crepeface posted:I realise Biden's miserable political history is outside this thread's topic, but Biden's rape of Tara Reade is one personal and specific case that Democratic leadership and corporate media/PR chose to overlook. this is what I was posting about earlier, I feel the current status quo is "accept people who should be disqualified for many other reasons" which creates a pressure for survivors to come forward - like, biden's terrible political record should have been disqualifying enough. same with kavanaugh. it should never have been necessary that kavanaugh's nomination hypothetically hinged on interrogating someone during a hearing - his own court decisions are disqualifying enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
i think trying to parse individual culpability in your voting decision isn't particularly fruitful in this thread, because what you're really saying is 'how do you live ethically in the late capitalism of 2021 where every single one of your actions contributes to brutality to a lesser or greater extent because of interlinked externalities and the base horror of day to day life', and there's really no way to have a "right" answer to such an individualized question, and it can quickly turn into a game of 'oh well do you drink coca cola?! coke uses your $1 to pay for guards for their slave factories in south america'. its also why previous discussions of this topic went off the rails. again, i also think trying to litigate specific details is also a big mistake, but welp...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:One of the most uncomfortable questions and situations we find ourselves in thanks to Biden's election is that as far as I can tell, we seem to have lost nearly every inch of progress made by MeToo. Even though MeToo was a movement mainly for wealthy white women, it was still having positive effects in turning around peoples' attitudes by making it clear that apologetics such as smearing victims with unrelated accusations, JAQing off about past indiscretions, etc. were no longer acceptable. Apologetics like that used to be the norm, and for a while some progress was made towards making the norm "Believe women first and foremost, because they have nothing to gain from lying about this," which was making some serious headway everywhere. People were beginning to believe it, more victims were coming forward, and it really looked like it might be a watershed moment. how many people in general even know about tara reade, though - isn't that one of the points in this thread, that the media didn't cover it? it was never a front page news story, it never really appeared on CNN or MSNBC, and none of the Republican outlets covered it or ran attack ads based on it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:I think people absolving themselves of any culpability because "oops its late stage capitalism!" is a mistake and a big part of where we are right now as a society. i think there are a million things that should disqualify biden from ever holding public office, including many personal things, but i do think its important to recognize that people are forced to make terrible decisions every single day to simply exist in america in 2021, and the real conversation should focus on people who have actual power to change things, i.e. politicians, media outlets, and not individuals. we're posters on a dying message board in 2021. culpability, responsibility and expectation are on a big, big, big sliding scale, and i imagine most of us are on the very end of it. Malleum posted:rationalizing your complicity is something you have to do yourself, absolutely, but if you're going to post in public "i think we can forgive a little rape because i believe biden's going to do some things that make me feel good sometime in the future" its a lot loving different good thing i didn't post that, then, right? i am saying i care a lot less about what individual posters on SA did or think, and i care a lot more what, for example, other democratic politicians think, because they, not us, are in a position to actually impact things. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't even think it is difficult to square your personal moral compass with supporting biden, but if your morals are important to you I think the question then becomes why were you in the position where your choice was between him and trump, what structure is it that made you complicit? Because much like there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, it appears there is no ethical voting under... what? What do you identify as the system that limits your choices between varying forms of horror? Which organizations and people are working to preserve that system and why, why was it necessary that that system delivered the choice it did? i never said i support joe biden, i am saying that i don't think its fruitful to try to interrogate each individual goons specific choices and instead talk about the choices of people who have actual power in our society, and the institutions that have placed them into positions of power. things like culpability, responsibility and guilt are exist within the context of ability to influence the conditions that lead to these awful choices - its the same conversation we have had on this website many times about the personal culpability of individual soldiers vs. the culpability of, say, military leadership, or the president of the united states. also, i don't think its particularly surprising to anyone (or shouldn't be) that the very systems which force someone to decide between trump or biden also precludes a non-biden or non-trump option from being a realistic candidate. i imagine that is also true in the UK, where i believe you live.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Dett Rite posted:Fair take. What, then, is the strategic benefit to leaving rape apologia unchallenged? i don't think calling out rape apologia is strategically unproductive, but i think its probably more useful to talk about rape apologia as it exists among people with power and authority, instead of individual posters on this website. if you'd rather focus on the latter, i guess thats fine, too, but that doesn't really seem to be a conversation that's going to lead anywhere. i don't really care how anyone here voted (or honestly, how people here think about tara reade, or trying to litigate details here at all), i care much more about how, say, the democratic caucus thinks about tara reade, or what progressive politicans think about reade, or what does it mean that bernie sanders supported biden. this thread is ostensibly supposed to about wider ranging conversations, but instead its people arguing back and forth about details of court cases. i also agree there should have been an investigation, because why not? Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is not remotely surprising that people adopt a personal-focused moral approach about things that are very personal to them. I do it all the time and I would be very surprised if you don't as well. I know that consequentialism is the more technically useful way to do it but I experience personal focused ethics more viscerally, especially when it is something that matters a lot to me. Saying people shouldn't do that is as useful as shouting at the tide, people are not obligated to be perfectly cold, calm and collected about things that matter a lot to them. I think you're missing the point: I don't think interrogating your specific personal ethics is particularly useful, because your ethics and your choices, SA user OwlFancier - regarding Tara Reade or even voting for Joe Biden (which from my understanding wasn't a choice you had to make, because you're not American) or anything else - have, for practical purposes, no impact on me. What I do care about is interrogating the choices and ethics of people who do have an impact on my life, which are people like politicians, media figures and CEOs of large corporations. If you want to live your life as a dyed in the wool Kantian, or if you want to sing "this is the best of all possible worlds", thats fine, thats your choice. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:Makes me think of a certain DuPont heir that was left off the hook related to a certain someone currently in office, but that's neither here nor there. I would hope that it wouldn't be particularly surprising or revelatory to anyone here that the political and capitalist class aren't particularly interested in interrogating the elements of our society which cover up sexual assault, because those same elements are part and parcel of their power. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
metoo is a decentralized "movement" - if you even want to call it a movement - and the degree to which it's been controlled/coopted/no longer relevant is entirely dependent on the particular space and context we're talking about. i would argue that specifically in politics metoo was never particularly authentic from the start and was always a convenient tool for both sides, but there have been real strides made in other areas - like entertainment - where the stakes are lower so there has been more of a real reckoning, and that reckoning continues. i do not think the sole criteria to judge #metoo by is 'to what extent has it existed within political spaces' - that's a component of a much larger whole.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Yeah, the republicans will win., because surprise surprise, the Dems are already walking back on: is your shtick going around to unrelated threads to harp about stimulus checks after you got booted out of uspol? because while it was irritating in the impeachment thread, its totally ridiculous to do it in a serious thread about tara reade.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Is your shtick to ignore context in every situation? Or are you just purposefully ignoring the context in an effort to stir up poo poo? Because while it was irritating in the impeachment thread, it's totally ridiculous to do it in a serious thread about Tara Reade. this is a thread about tara reade, not about stimulus checks or student loan forgiveness. do you think there is a level of progressive policy which would lead you to support biden? if not, then why the gently caress are you talking about it? and even in the context of "well i hope biden doesn't run again", that decision doesn't have anything to do with stimulus payments or student loans, it has far more to do with "is biden alive in four years" can ONE thread not be about student loans and stimulus checks, goddamn
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
to contribute: someone asked the question, "where do we go from here", and i don't think there's an easy answer - my hope is that once we eventually start moving towards the next generation of politicians they are less terrible people who care more about human dignity and rights
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:uh what, do you think people were sitting around jonesing to get rid of Franken and said "yay he abused his powerful position to get access to women so he could sexually assault them and intimidate them into silence, now we finally get to force him out!" ? i don't know if you missed the rest of my post, but i think that joe biden should be disqualified for many reasons that don't require someone feeling pressured to come forward who may not want to
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:nobody is talking about pressuring anyone to come forward, and it's weird that you're saying "well he's a bad politician anyway so he should go for other reasons", what if he's a great politician he should still go if he raped someone right? uh yes, of course, but i am disappointed that the determination of support of an objectively bad person - joe biden - rests on something unrelated to his terrible record as a politician, which seemingly does not matter. also good job quoting a post from 2 weeks ago, but you do you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I just started reading this thread today and when I got to the post I was like "uh what", I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on your takes. at the time nobody was talking about franken, so yes franken is different
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Franken was the example you used about people "exploiting" assault though, why do you think that's what was happening yes i think franken should've resigned, but i think the gop people calling him to resign while supporting other rapists are ghouls, and don't give a gently caress about sexual violence, yes. to put it another way: there is something that feels very gross about what are horrific violent crimes which should lead to serious criminal consequences being politicized and seemingly only mattering in political contexts Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:I mean, I thought Joe Biden was a massively unpopular piece of poo poo and he seemed to be until the Onion accidentally made morons think he was just cool diamond Joe. I've got no faith in how far the party will go to protect sex monsters. joe biden has always been fairly popular for a politican: https://news.gallup.com/poll/186167/biden-maintains-positive-image.aspx - his approval rating was only underwater once when he was obama's vp. he also never faced a serious challenger for senate reelection, even when delaware supported republicans for president.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
you quoted an opinion piece that starts with "my guess". i don't see anyone leaping to the defense of cuomo. like, where are people defending cuomo, outside of twitter comments? democrats are now calling for cuomo to resign. i don't know if cuomo is done because ny machine politics, but i do think its a significantly different situation than biden.
Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yes, in a thread talking about our society's take on sexual harassment, opinions in major media outlets like the NYT are relevant. This isn't USPol. i think cuomo is a governor, not a candidate for president running against trump, and has been on a downward trend since the nursing home scandal, so the context and the willingness to jettison him is different. i think cuomo's days are numbered. pointing out differences doesn't mean i'm defending the actions of a person. why are you bringing up 'lesser evil'? what 'hot takes' have i posted in this thread? i think you're trying to pick a fight, when the sum of my posts here have been 'i don't really think its useful to talk about individual voters when instead we should be talking about institutions and individuals which have actual, real power, i.e. the democratic party' as people have said the article was literally unsourced speculation in an opinion piece form a questionable writer - it is not insight into what may or may not happen, or what the democratic party is thinking. that would be in contrast to an article, for example, where the democratic party of ny came out and said 'we stand by cuomo' - which i would roundly condemn. we just had a big conversation in d&d about how we should treat unsourced opinion articles credulously, is the nyt opinion section immune to that? the reality is right now is as far as i can see there has been no real unified support for cuomo, and a lot of ny politicans wanting him gone (or investigated, then gone) in fact, this is what the nyt published (in their news section) yesterday: quote:At the same time, the initial stages of a pending investigation into Mr. Cuomo’s actions were underway inside the offices of the state attorney general, Letitia James, who was evaluating options for an outside investigator. so it seems already pretty different than biden, both with condemnation from other high ranking democrats (in the state at least) and an investigation. if you think that's enough, thats fair, but i'd rather we at least address things that are happening rather than random opinion pieces. edit: in fact, we now have more news - again from the nyt, which has an entire special section on their website devoted to this - that the investigation is moving forward and will have subpoena power quote:When a team of outside investigators begins to examine sexual harassment allegations lodged against Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, its scope may be far broader than first anticipated. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2021 16:18
|
|