Hollywood/Political Sex Offense Scandals (Now Louis CK and AL-GOPSenateNom Roy Moore)

57Brave said:
the riots were in 1992.

of course you do, you are being deliberately ...
Click to expand...

The beating occurred, the video was filmed, and the video was released in March of 1991. There was an enormous public outcry. Tensions were high. Thomas' confirmation hearing came that fall.

You can twist a lot of things 57, but you can't twist history.
 
Hawk said:
Have either admitted guilt? Or any semblance of sexual wrongdoing?
Click to expand...

So we're giving them credit for persisting in their mendacity?

Moreover, I would say that gleefully bragging about the relative impunity his celebrity has allowed him in groping and assisting women pretty fairly constitutes admitting to a "semblance of sexual wrongdoing" on President Trump's part.
 
jpx7 said:
So we're giving them credit for persisting in their mendacity?
Click to expand...

I think you have to give credit - although not for mendaciousness, but for consistently unmitigated denial.

That's a basic courtesy I'm willing to extend to any accused.
 
Hawk said:
I think you have to give credit - although not for mendaciousness, but for consistently unmitigated denial.

That's a basic courtesy I'm willing to extend to any accused.
Click to expand...

See my above edit.

President Trump's guilt vis-à-vis sexual assault allegations is as likely as President Clinton's.
 
jpx7 said:
Moreover, I would say that gleefully bragging about the relative impunity his celebrity has allowed him in groping and assisting women pretty fairly constitutes admitting to a "semblance of sexual wrongdoing" on President Trump's part.
Click to expand...

If you choose to take his comment at face value then it would certainly be fair to construe it that way.

I personally don't. But I'm a dog like Trump, so ... big woof.
 
Hawk said:
If you choose to take his comment at face value then it would certainly be fair to construe it that way.

I personally don't. But I'm a dog like Trump, so ... big woof.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty easy and fair to take the comments at face-value given the history of allegations against him.
 
jpx7 said:
I think it's pretty easy and fair to take the comments at face-value given the history of allegations against him.
Click to expand...

If you are straining for inference, sure. Those particular grounds just aren't solid enough for me. The only allegations against Trump that carry concerning weight, with respect to outright abuse, come from Ivana's depositions during their divorce settlement. And that's because she was willing to go on record, in a legally-binding setting, with her claims. Claims that are horrifying to read. Of course, it was also a divorce, and her comments (which she later downplayed/retracted) unfortunately tend toward the boilerplate of what you see in these negotiations.
 
I don't know if 'straining for inference' makes any sense, but it was one of those constructions that I couldn't bring myself to delete or modify.
 
Hawk said:
If you are straining for inference, sure. Those particular grounds just aren't solid enough for me. The only allegations against Trump that carry concerning weight, with respect to outright abuse, come from Ivana's depositions during their divorce settlement. And that's because she was willing to go on record, in a legally-binding setting, with her claims. Claims that are horrifying to read. Of course, it was also a divorce, and her comments (which she later downplayed/retracted) unfortunately tend toward the boilerplate of what you see in these negotiations.
Click to expand...

Later downplayed after immense pressure from her ex-husband's legal team.

He was also sued in 1997, for an attempted rape and multiple gropings, but was able to maneuver the woman into dropping the suit in exchange for settlement of a separate suit by her partner.

He was a sued in 2016 by a woman who, supported by an eye-witness, claimed he assaulted her at a party in the early 1990s when she was thirteen. She was threatened to such an extent she withdrew her suit.

At least sixteen other women have less formally alleged assault.

Both presidential men used their money, influence, and power to abuse women, and then again to get away with it. The fact that you're vehemently, righteously critical of one, and exceedingly, coddlingly reverential of the other, is extremely suspicious.
 
Meanwhile: "straining for inference" makes sense, and is a fine construction. It's also not at all accurate here.
 
jpx7 said:
Later downplayed after immense pressure from her ex-husband's legal team.

Both men used their money, influence, and power to abuse women, and then again to get away with it. The fact that you're vehemently, righteously critical of one, and exceedingly, coddlingly reverential of the other, is extremely suspicious.
Click to expand...

As I've said, Clinton admitted to wrongdoing. So did Franken, for that matter. Moore has denied. Thomas has denied (in a setting where deference seems like something that should be naturally due). Trump has denied. That this happens to have delineated itself by ideology is purely coincidental, at least in terms of my personal interest in applying criticism where it's appropriately due.

Call me old-fashioned, or slow on the uptake (your choice), but I see a virtuousness in taking someone at their (absolute) word and not jumping to conclusions which seem to be based very heavily on tenuously linked circumstances.
 
jpx7 said:
Meanwhile: "straining for inference" makes sense, and is a fine construction. It's also not at all accurate here.
Click to expand...

When I am uncertain of my wording I usually do the old "Google exact quote" to see if anyone else has ever used it online. Guess ChopCountry is going to get a nice page-rank for inference straining.
 
Hawk said:
As I've said, Clinton admitted to wrongdoing. So did Franken, for that matter. Moore has denied. Thomas has denied (in a setting where deference seems like something that should be naturally due). Trump has denied. That this happens to have delineated itself by ideology is purely coincidental, at least in terms of my personal interest in applying criticism where it's appropriately due.

Call me old-fashioned, or slow on the uptake (your choice), but I see a virtuousness in taking someone at their (absolute) word and not jumping to conclusions where are based very heavily on circumstances that appear tenuously linked.
Click to expand...

I see an ideology so clearly invested by and in patriarchal capitalist power that, unlike their center-left colleagues, they see no shame or danger in continuing to ham-fistedly excuse and legally equivocate and dissemble and wealth-weasel and outright lie in the face of a mountain of allegation and testimony and evidence.

I'm suspicious of Thomas, but willing to extend a benefit-of-doubt for an isolated incident. The sheer volume (and, in the case of Trump) violent similarity of the cases of Moore and Trump merit no such benefits. We have had, amongst our past four Presidents, two rapists—but only one giddily bragged to Billy Bush about getting away with it through celebrity.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't give bonus-points for denying the specifics of the crime but glorifying in its generalities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top