bravesnumberone
Well-known member
That ought to be interesting.
Hollywood/Political Sex Offense Scandals (Now Louis CK and AL-GOPSenateNom Roy Moore)
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
sturg33
I
Hopefully we throw them all out and then try again.
Just hope we don't try any unicorns
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
It's a strategy of discrediting, and I don't believe him—for good reason, to my mind.
It seems your standard for believing the accused is their categorical denial, "No hedging." I think that standard incentivizes lying irrespective to, and especially in cases of, actual guilt. My standard, at this point—which leans toward believing the potential victim over the potential perpetrator—is in most cases essentially asking if the accused has more than three accusers who present similar and reasonable stories. If yes to both, I presume guilt until overwhelming evidence is advanced to reverse that presumption. My standard has its cracks and flaws as well (and I certainly wouldn't advocate applying it in any institutional, criminal justice setting), but I believe it's fair in the context of (a) the barriers, material and psychological, to reporting this sort of misconduct in the first place, (b) the well-documented recent history of men lying until they absolutely can't, and men (especially powerful men) leveraging whatever means they can to discredit and/or silence their accusers, alongside (c) the entirety of recorded history, which doens't reflect awesomely on men vis-à-vis women.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I haven't combed them with my attorney present; but I've read through various recapitulations. Again, for me, it's not any one claim, but their preponderance and preponderant similarity, alongside an audio recording wherein the accused gloats about his impunity when committing behavior similar to the misconduct alleged, alongside a history of verbal misogyny.
My subsequent description—a "direct admission of a type of behavior"—is more where I want to be in terms of nuance. Nonetheless, I don't think it's unfair to call this sort of moment a "confession":
But again, I'll go with a "direct admission of a type of behavior" as my official gloss, for your records.
Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification, but sure, yeah, categorical (repeated, vehement, unequivocal) denial is a solid jumping off point. At least until proven otherwise by germane instances of (provable) similar behavior or partial discreditation of basically any variety. I've also considered the nature of the allegations (both formally lodged and informally claimed) as well as the context in which they surfaced (which, to me, is an aspect of the body of accusations that's conveniently overlooked here). Your standard is certainly more appreciably humanistic, and one that I think we should generally accept. I do believe that this case is (er) special because of the parties involved - and that's why I'm willing to subject it all to a more thorough scrutiny.
Billy Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as ****. In the purple.
Trump: Whoa! Whoa!
Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!
[Crosstalk]
Trump: Look at you, you are a pussy.
[Crosstalk]
Trump: All right, you and I will walk out.
[Silence]
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
Bush: Come on shorty.
Trump: Ooh, nice legs, huh?
Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.
Trump: Whoa! Whoa!
Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!
[Crosstalk]
Trump: Look at you, you are a pussy.
[Crosstalk]
Trump: All right, you and I will walk out.
[Silence]
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
Bush: Come on shorty.
Trump: Ooh, nice legs, huh?
Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I've read the transcript of, and listened to, the full recording. I do not see how posting the full, pre-van-egress conversation puts Mr Trump's comments in any better light.
I don't see any special merit to this case over any other. And I'm not overlooking "the context in which they surfaced"—I think it's wildly believable that these women felt it just wasn't worth the risk, the emotional toll, the potential material cost, et cetera, to come forward until it looked like this man was a real threat to hold the highest executive office in government. It's eminently reasonable to feel that's a bridge-too-far for your abuser, especially when he's a political neophyte who was theretofore confined to the far less pluripotent space of sub-Emmy-quality reality television.
Certainly not in a better light, but if we're talking about "direct admissions" here ...
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
See my above. I think the election-specific context is irrelevant at best, and potentially another reason to believe that these accusers finally felt they had to come forward, in spite of the personal difficulties it could create for them.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
You're going to have to parse your subtext for me here, because it seems to pretty clear to me that the generalized, women–targeting nature of You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. [...] Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything. is nothing if not a "direct admission of a type of behavior".
Why are you intentionally removing Bush's comments/contributions here?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
All he does it pose a typical, television-journalism rephrasing—Whatever you want. for Trump's (twice-used) You can do anything. (a verbal formulation, in its active agency, that seems much more damning than Bush's passive formulation)—so I don't see how it's useful. It seems you're trying to imply that he induced statements from Mr Trump, or otherwise carefully placed words in his mouth, and that seems absurd given how much of the misogynistic language is initiated by the President. Hell, in the audio, it sounds like Trump is goading Billy Bush on, not the other way around.
I was referring to the context of the AH tape. The context of the election is key, too, though. We're talking about allegations which surfaced (and, it's important to note here, in light of your tripling-down on the 'barriers' reality [although, perhaps not entirely the case here], that some of the allegations were made previously, and either settled or dismissed away, and others came in concert) at an extremely key juncture of the campaign. Not during the primaries, or at any other point when a collective allegation would have had any less of an effect in bringing the man to justice (whatever that would represent).
Perhaps not an inducive environment, but certainly a conducive one.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Even if Billy Bush were so masterful a journalist, good on him, then, for regarding Trump in a fashion that was conducive to Trump admitting the typical manner of his assaults, the low-regard he holds for women's personal boundaries and agency, and his general ****tiness as a human being. Bravo, Billy—you were more effective at discrediting the character of the aspirant Trump than your uncle or cousins, for all the good it ultimately did.
They were talking, together, about pussy. Calling each other pussies. No journalism here. Just all kinds of Bush.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
And in that context, Trump didn't just say, "I love pussy, bro," or "That [specific] pussy was good," but instead admitted that he not only feels comfortable grabbing women "by the pussy" as well as kissing them without asking (and, thus, without consent), but moreover that he has done so and not faced repercussions because of his celebrity and attendant wealth/power.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
How about we make some of the subtext full text here, so we can stop circling around the same things and see instead if there's anything on the other side?
(i) You're in awe of Trump's twisted, weaponized semiotics, whereby he's leveraged the theoretical fact of the arbitrariness of the sign in order to accrue physical and political power. (To some extent, I too am perversely in awe of this.)
(ii) You see Trump as a sort of useful monstrosity for your ideological ends, and you want to see that play out; as such, you are invested in protecting and prolonging his ascendancy against any assaults that might meaningfully destabilize, delegitimize, or depose his administration. (To some extent, I understand this; but, while someone like Sanders is useful to my ideological ends, I do not think I would be defending him with such vehemence if the pussy-grabbing shoe were on his foot.)
(iii) You have engaged in sufficient lewd "locker-room banter" in your life that you are wary of admitting or assigning it much evidentiary weight when gauging the likelihood or veracity of claims of legitimate misconduct or assault, claims that may sound on the same wavelength as said speech, but which also may—if you squint hard enough—simply be coincidentally similar. (To some extent, I sympathize—I have said plenty of crass things that I would not want deployed against me in the case of some spurious accusation. But for me, off-handed bragging about assault and subsequent impunity is both beyond the typical for "locker-room banter"—not to mention meriting more weight given the volume of complaints—and also not something that I would either say or allow to go unremonstrated in casual conversation.)
(i) You're in awe of Trump's twisted, weaponized semiotics, whereby he's leveraged the theoretical fact of the arbitrariness of the sign in order to accrue physical and political power. (To some extent, I too am perversely in awe of this.)
(ii) You see Trump as a sort of useful monstrosity for your ideological ends, and you want to see that play out; as such, you are invested in protecting and prolonging his ascendancy against any assaults that might meaningfully destabilize, delegitimize, or depose his administration. (To some extent, I understand this; but, while someone like Sanders is useful to my ideological ends, I do not think I would be defending him with such vehemence if the pussy-grabbing shoe were on his foot.)
(iii) You have engaged in sufficient lewd "locker-room banter" in your life that you are wary of admitting or assigning it much evidentiary weight when gauging the likelihood or veracity of claims of legitimate misconduct or assault, claims that may sound on the same wavelength as said speech, but which also may—if you squint hard enough—simply be coincidentally similar. (To some extent, I sympathize—I have said plenty of crass things that I would not want deployed against me in the case of some spurious accusation. But for me, off-handed bragging about assault and subsequent impunity is both beyond the typical for "locker-room banter"—not to mention meriting more weight given the volume of complaints—and also not something that I would either say or allow to go unremonstrated in casual conversation.)