The Politics Sexual Assault Thread

[Bozo the kKklown]

Clarence Thomas and Bob Melendez didn't have the government babysit them. Melendez is actually on trial for his charges.

 

Roy Moore hasn't been charged but instead was allowed to gain more power.

20 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No ****. If all you had said was that it was about being a political figure in a position of power, I wouldn't have brought up Bill Cosby... But since you're first sentence was "this is white privilege in a nutshell", a Bill Cosby comparison is relevant.

what does this mean?

 

"Imagine it being known pedophile and being able to be a prosecutor, chief justice of the state supreme court, and now potentially a US Senator."

 

because i wrote that and you got hot and bothered and brought up Bill Cosby. You didn't read my post because you refuse to see past the weeds. A major political figure in a state was known to lust and molest and sexually assault teenage girls and the response was to protect him from himself and give him more power. And he is white. That's white privilege, and instead of seriously pondering that, you ran here and wrote a post without reading  what you were replying too. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by BenningRoadSkin

[Bozo the kKklown]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

So it happened to one person

And he happens to be white

So

White privilege!!!!!!!!!

 

I talked about this specific allegation because it was apparently supported by the state of Alabama, particularly the criminal justice system, which is different from the others. And it's children. You all cannot find another example so instead we dismiss.

Edited November 24, 2017 by BenningRoadSkin

[tshile]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I talked about this specific allegation because it was apparently supported by the state of Alabama, particularly the criminal justice system, which is different from the others. And it's children.

Yup, and you have one instance of it and in your mind the fact that he's white made you jump to the white privilege stuff.

 

I don't care whether you're correct that this is the only instance, or whether there are similar instances.

 

It's the way you think about such things that cracks me up. Everything is about racism and privilege. That's what you see.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok....I laughed WAY too hard at this!!!

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

It's the way you think about such things that cracks me up. Everything is about racism and privilege. That's what you see.

1) no i dont

2) you don't see racism

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

1) no i dont

2) you don't see racism

You're ridiculous dude.

[TradeTheBeal!]

This last page or so has been a privilege to read.

[LadySkinsFan]

I get you, Benning. It's like when I call male privilege. These privileges are so built into the system that it's not even seen. When we point it out, it's discounted, because of that very privilege. Then it's claimed that that's all we see. Of course it's all we see because we are affected by privilege every single solitary day, from multiple people.

 

We keep trying to educate people about privilege and they keep denying that they don't have it and/or everything is not about race, sexism, classism. And that's the very definition of privilege, the more one has it the more one denies having it.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I get you, Benning. It's like when I call male privilege. These privileges are so built into the system that it's not even seen. When we point it out, it's discounted, because of that very privilege. Then it's claimed that that's all we see. Of course it's all we see because we are affected by privilege every single solitary day, from multiple people.

 

We keep trying to educate people about privilege and they keep denying that they don't have it and/or everything is not about race, sexism, classism. And that's the very definition of privilege, the more one has it the more one denies having it.

No, that's not what's happening here. Nobody is denying that white privilege exists. I'm not denying that I have privilege. Benning is ridiculous about it though.

 

 

[grego]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 A major political figure in a state was known to lust and molest and sexually assault teenage girls and the response was to protect him from himself and give him more power. And he is white. That's white privilege, 

 

i think this is a point of disagreement with sacks (he'll correct me if i'm misunderstanding).

 

your reasoning is saying correlation is causation- he was protected, and he happens to be white, therefore white privilege. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 minutes ago, grego said:

i think this is a point of disagreement with sacks (he'll correct me if i'm misunderstanding). your reasoning is saying correlation is causation- he was protected, and he happens to be white, therefore white privilege. 

That's pretty much it... for this specific instance at least. I wouldn't have bothered if this was just a one time thing though. The fact that he posts about racism and white privilege ALL the time and that he takes it to the point of ridiculousness (like five days ago when he said that politicians were working toward a goal of having only white landowners be allowed to vote) and that, when challenged, he offers nothing of value but reflexively comes back with "go back and read" or "get your hand out of the sand" or "you don't see racism", etc.

 

So once again, yes, racism is a problem in this country. Yes, white privilege is a real thing. Yes, there is an intelligent conversation to be had and one that is needed....

 

This ain't it though.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I haven’t read the last couple pages, and based on the tenor right now I’m not going to.

 

That said, just invoking “white priviledge” or “male priviledge” is NOT a trump card to knock down all opposing arguments, nor is it a tool to immediately dismiss anyone white or male. The problem with focusing on one issue is that everything is then read through that issue...and thus every problem looks like a nail.

 

Do those things exist? Certainly

Are things the basis for every social ill? Hardly

Edited November 24, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I haven’t read the last couple pages, and based on the tenor right now I’m not going to.

 

That said, just invoking “white priviledge” or “male priviledge” is NOT a trump card to knock down all opposing arguments, nor is it a tool to immediately dismiss anyone white or male. The problem with focusing on one issue is that everything is then read through that issue...and thus every problem looks like a nail.

 

Do those things exist? Certainly

Are things the basis for every social ill? Hardly

I don't disagree with this. I also never said it was the only factor. Only @Sacks 'n' Stuff made it seem like I said that. I said Moore's career is an example of white privilege, but the statement wasn't saying it was the only thing. @Sacks 'n' Stuff, @tshile , and others took it as that and the only reason I can think is because convos on race make them uncomfortable. Sacks deliberately misinterpreted my post and thats how this started.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

35 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I don't disagree with this. I also never said it was the only factor. Only @Sacks 'n' Stuff made it seem like I said that. I said Moore's career is an example of white privilege, but the statement wasn't saying it was the only thing. @Sacks 'n' Stuff, @tshile , and others took it as that and the only reason I can think is because convos on race make them uncomfortable. Sacks deliberately misinterpreted my post and thats how this started.

Horse****. You said being able to rise to and remain in that position while being a known pedophile was "white privilege in a nutshell".

 

And of course, you come back with your equally unintellectual rebuttals of "convos on race make them uncomfortable" and "Sacks deliberately misinterpreted my post". 1) I interpreted your post as you saying that him being allowed to get away with amorous behavior toward young girls was because he was white. And do you know why I interpreted it that way? Because that's what it says. Explicitly. 2) I'm not uncomfortable with conversations about race. I'm annoyed by unintelligent conversations on serious matters.

[Llevron]

Wasn't sure where to post this. 

 

 

[Destino]

11 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Wasn't sure where to post this. 

 

That thread would be a better fit.  Mr. Rogers has recently come up.  

 

[Kosher Ham]

On 11/24/2017 at 9:23 AM, tshile said:

It's the way you think about such things that cracks me up. Everything is about racism and privilege. That's what you see.

 

I disagree. 

Not everything, but darn near everything is indeed true. 

 

EDIT : Ignore the rest...deaf ears or whatever. 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Kosher Ham

[visionary]

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Oh Nancy, such a disappointment.

[LadySkinsFan]

Democrats need to step up and let the chips fall where they may. Investigation by the Ethics Committee should be called. 

 

The problem is that regardless of party, both houses could be balked down with numerous investigations because I bet there's lots of sexual misconduct to go around.

[LD0506]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Oh Nancy, such a disappointment.

 

Dude, thank you, honestly. Right there you see the rot in the trunk, the institutional Democratic party is elbowed out of the worst spot by the insanely egregious behavior of the Rs, but its a close race. Pelosi & Co. have no interest in ANY narrative that might loosen their grip on their status. They are so blinded by self-interest that they cannot see they are making common cause with the Rs on this one.

 

Appoint a special counsel, investigate all the NDAs and abuses, as usual follow the money.

 

And yet I still have hope, Virginia has shown the way, several candidates ran and won on little more than idealism and heart, dismissed and overlooked by the Ds that didn't want to "waste" $$$$ on seats they had already written off. Women are leading the charge here, they are not going to just shut up and bake cookies this time, they are talking, talking in a lot of places that men don't hear and don't even know exist. A groundswell, a freekin tsunami, of female anger and determination is building with its sights set on the midterms. Weinstein, Moore, Franken, Conyers, etc., all feed into the narrative. Sexual abuses covered up and paid off forever in Congress feed into the narrative. The snotty, snarky condescension their concerns are met with whenever the subject comes up about their interests feeds into the narrative.

 

Getcher popcorn ready............

[nonniey]

18 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Democrats need to step up and let the chips fall where they may. Investigation by the Ethics Committee should be called. 

 

The problem is that regardless of party, both houses could be balked down with numerous investigations because I bet there's lots of sexual misconduct to go around.

Democrats?  Everyone needs to do that. The sheer hypocrisy I'm seeing due to which side a predator politically falls on is sickening  (But certainly not surprising). The Republicans have been attacking the Clintons for almost 30 years over this issue and now Moore comes around (or Trump last year) and many of them twist themselves into pretzels to justify supporting them - and of course many on the left continue to say they were right to defend the Clintons. Moore and Trump supporters are are so blinded by self-interest that they cannot see they are making common cause with the Ds on this one.

Edited November 26, 2017 by nonniey

[LD0506]

And I'd add, thrilled to my toes that once again we see everyone vying to fly their flag the highest over which label to brand their angst with, IMO it isn't about white privilege or male privilege or anything else that narrow, it is about GREEN privilege and it is the one battle that dose wid da green don't want fought.

 

Yeah I know, the green sits in a lot of wrinkly white paws, but that focus is one more way to distract and divide, brought to you by the same people that invested in thalidomide or oxycontin. Green supersedes all else, all politics or race or nations or ideology, green is their religion.

[LadySkinsFan]

I was calling out Pelosi, nominee. Perhaps you missed my phrase "regardless of party."

 

 

[Busch1724]

A great point came up during the roundtable discussion on MTP. Hugh Hewitt, I think it was him, made the point that for some reason politicians are about the only group of people immune to immediate repercussions from these kinds of allegations. Celebrities, regular citizens, athletes, etc.  are all out the door when something is verified or some sort of admission of guilt. Our politicians, not so much. Chuck Todd jumped on the point, and the rest of panel immediately brought up the triballism of the parties. It was a very good discussion today