Senator Al Franken accused of sexual assault.

[knapplc]

Just now, zoogs said:

I cannot believe how far down you are going with this "these women might all probably be lying" route.

 

Take out Franken's name, replace him with any number of others. What's the difference?

 

 

There is zero difference. Facts are facts, and society should rely on facts to make these decisions. 

 

We are not relying on facts in the Franken situation. We are relying on the word of some people making accusations.  That is not proof, and we have an obligation to the truth. 

 

You are either unaware of or unwilling to see the similarities of this situation and the McCarthy trials.  Innocent people's lives were ruined over false allegations.  Have we learned nothing?

 

The simple fact that, when asked for proof, you responded with the above should give you pause.  Demanding proof does not equal calling these women liars.  It is nothing short of due diligence.

[zoogs]

It is not accurate to say we are relying on the word of "some people" -- we are relying on journalists to have done good work. In the case that Franken categorically denied, which I discussed earlier, for example, the reporting there documents two corroborators who were told of the incident years ago. Other allegations followed the same standard. You can, and probably have read about them. At some point, it is either willful blindness or outright dishonesty to assert in such strong terms that there's an absence of due diligence, that we have no idea how credible the picture emerging before us is. And then there's the stuff for which there's both evidence and admission -- the photo, for example, which we'd have to find a way to chalk up to "no big deal".

 

Numerous articles list every allegation out. To even pull out a LMGTFY link seems unnecessary. You did not ask that question because you are confused. You are moving the requirement to a point that will allow us to keep Franken. What "proof", indeed, would be suitable here? It will be always one word against a few others about whether or not groping occurred during some photo. 

 

To interpret current events as a wave of McCarthyism is deeply saddening to see from you.

[knapplc]

The "good work" the journalists have done is to interview these women and get their side of the story.  That is not proof.

[zoogs]

...and to find former colleagues or associates who affirm that they were told this.

 

Every woman who has something to say isn't simply given a platform and a mic by the press. That's the fear, isn't it? 

 

So many independent allegations have come out, some anonymous, some public. If a standard hasn't been met, that standard is not possible to meet. Where "proof" cannot exist, demands for it are not an actual appeal to facts, so much as they are a discomfort that things are changing from the silence that was.

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by zoogs

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, zoogs said:

we are relying on journalists to have done good work.

 

Seriously????

[teachercd]

Knapp is 100% right.  

 

 

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Seriously????

No kidding! 

[BigRedBuster]

Two things I'm seeing said about this that should throw up a huge red flag.

 

a)  Well, why would a woman ever lie about that?
 

and...

 

b)  Zoog's quote above about relying on journalists to do good work.

[zoogs]

If you can survey the scene on the Franken story as it's developed over the past month and you still find yourself focused on arguing that it's a picture that is not credible enough (and based on what?), then that, perhaps, should give you pause.

[knapplc]

13 minutes ago, zoogs said:

...and to find former colleagues or associates who affirm that they were told this.

 

Every woman who has something to say isn't simply given a platform and a mic by the press. That's the fear, isn't it? 

 

So many independent allegations have come out, some anonymous, some public. If a standard hasn't been met, that standard is not possible to meet. Where "proof" cannot exist, demands for it are not an actual appeal to facts, so much as they are a discomfort that things are changing from the silence that was.

 

 

To the bold - that is called hearsay, and not admissible in any court of law.  In the court of public opinion it's iffy. 

 

To the underlined - No, and I have no idea where you're getting that.  Every woman who has something to say should be given a platform and the respect of credibility unless her story is proven false.  Then again, every man defending himself should be given that same respect of credibility, and that's not happening here. 

 

I agree that many independent, similar stories have come out, and that's why HERE I said I was skeptical of his denials, and HERE I said it's an appropriate time, based on multiple independent accusations, to discuss him resigning.

 

We are taking away this man's Senate career based on unproven facts.  If that doesn't give you pause, it should.  We need to be careful here.

[BigRedBuster]

I want to make something clear.  I'm not specifically talking about just the Franken case.  I really don't care about Franken.  I'm fine with him being out of office.  I'm talking about these situations in general.

For instance, you're falling all over yourself congratulating John Oliver for humiliating Dustin Hoffman.  I see no hero in what Oliver did.  He confronted a guy with no evidence and no ability for the man to defend himself about an extremely hot topic that he knew people would jump to conclusions on.  That isn't being a hero, it's chickens#!t shock jock crap.  Now, if an accusation was presented and verified...etc....fine...have at it.

 

I fail to see how destroying every man's life (or attempting to) because of no matter what type of actions may have been offensive in the past, helps the cause.

Edited December 7, 2017 by BigRedBuster

[Landlord]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

We are in a scary place right now in our effort to empower women ... This kind of witch hunt mentality will backfire against women eventually.

 

You know, I want to agree with this ideologically, but pragmatically speaking I can't really agree with it at all. White land-owning men have had a witch hunt mentality focused on all kinds of other people groups in our country for hundreds of years now. Has it backfired on us, other than the dull annoyances of being s#!t-talked about by the more liberal among us? Not really. We're still on the top of the social ladder. 

 

I mean, maybe eventually is 400 years down the road, but if that's the case, then what concern is that of women today? Reality is, if one side keeps stealing from and beating down the other side, you can't get the other side back to equal by one day deciding to treat every side the same, because there's still an unaccounted for history of imbalance. I'm nervous that the only way to get to equal is to imbalance the other way, or that that will at least be the way things go. The only way I see women being in danger is if they continue to be under the heel of men.

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, zoogs said:

I cannot believe how far down you are going with this "these women might all probably be lying" route.

 

He's not going down that path at all zoogs. You're painting him out to be on the other side of a non-existent dichotomy.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

For instance, you're falling all over yourself congratulating John Oliver for humiliating Dustin Hoffman.  I see no hero in what Oliver did.  He confronted a guy with no evidence and no ability for the man to defend himself about an extremely hot topic that he knew people would jump to conclusions on.  That isn't being a hero, it's chickens#!t shock jock crap.  Now, if an accusation was presented and verified...etc....fine...have at it.

 

So I finally actually watched the video of Oliver/Hoffman. Before seeing it I was actually prepared to agree with you that I thought that was in poor taste on John's part, but after watching it I'm mostly okay with it. I assumed going in that he would have an accusatory tone, or an air of assuming that Hoffman is a guilty pervert. He didn't come across that way. He came across as asking legitimate questions and holding Hoffman to an unflinching standard of transparency.

 

But.

 

What Oliver did that I thought was off, was his unhappiness with Hoffman's answers was all centered around the idea of, "I don't like your answers because they don't seem self-reflective in the way they need to." Absolutely self-reflection, especially for things that we did decades ago with different societal norms and different levels of ignorance in our own brains, is insanely valuable, but how do you really expect someone to self-reflect when you surprise them in a public venue and the situation demands immediate responses? Even if you as a questioner aren't being aggressive, that kind of scenario breeds immediate defensiveness. Don't get me wrong, there's a value in the sort of 'sneak attack' methodology of getting a real and not PR-canned response, but just like we can glean some info from official statements while also knowing that they're contrived, we should also, I think, not take a very natural defensiveness in this kinda scenario as a sign of necessary wrongdoing.

 

 

If you guys can't tell I'm all kinds of confused about all this stuff lately

[funhusker]

6 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

 

 

And frankly, there's nothing preventing him from running again in a few years. If he did a good job (which he has) and he's truly repentant (which he seems to be), then if the voters approve him going back...

Could the same be said for Moore and Alabama voters?

[Danny Bateman]

Knapp raises a completely fair point. It's one that I tried to broach, less eloquently, previously in this thread or another. I am, though, OK with Franken stepping down. We should point out that we're still talking about accusations here. The ethics investigation has not concluded and nothing has been proven. However, there are a lot of allegations from a lot of different women, fairly well corroborated from what I can tell.

 

I also feel we should hold U.S. Senators to a higher standard on charges such as these than simply letting the investigation play out. Perhaps if it was just one woman, and Franken categorically denied the accusation as false. But we're up to what, 7, now? 

As a hypothetical, where would we all come down on Franken if he just called every accusation false & said nothing more? Or if he actively tried to attack the accusers?

 

 

[Big Red 40]

7 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

 

 

And frankly, there's nothing preventing him from running again in a few years. If he did a good job (which he has) and he's truly repentant (which he seems to be), then if the voters approve him going back...

After witnessing last years election, I don’t have faith that most voters have informed,  fair , opinions any more . It’s too easy to destroy someone through the media/internet, and  innocence or guilt doesn’t matter . They’ll watch Hannity, Fox News etc and be told Franken is a horrible sexual monster not worthy of public office , and they’ll believe it without question . The same “news outlets” will preach that  Trump and Moore accusers are liars , and the masses will believe that too. Sexual misconduct is wrong , should be investigated, and if found to be substantiated, appropriate punishment should be dealt out . I think Al should have forced and investigation instead of stepping down so easily . Now I think Frankens political career is over either way . 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Big Red 40

[knapplc]

I feel like zoogs is 60%-70% sure that Franken should step down. I'm like 49%-51% sure.  I don't think we're really that far off. I've just seen enough people falsely accused that I want a greater sense of proof than we have with Franken.  I don't fault zoogs for his stance, and I hope he doesn't fault me for mine.  I'm just worried about the rule of law.