Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I know you don't Facebook, but I think you can access this without an account: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00008083698763 If you can't, let me know and I'll cut /paste in a PM for you.

This has to do with Liam Neeson thing, but I think it comes down to "how are you today?" This particular author comes down on the side of "clearly he is appalled at his past behavior and has learned something from it" with regard to Neeson. It's going to come down to a case-by-case basis, I think. With Warren, I think she's handled this entire issue badly, and so it's going to dog her for quite some time. With Northam, he fumbled right out of the gate and hasn't recovered. We'll see what happens with the AG guy. Since he's the one bringing it forward and presumably he's seen the mess Northam made, maybe he'll be able to present it better and convince the world that that isn't him anymore.

But as the piece above says, there are a shit-ton of people out there with downright racist pasts. Republicans don't seem to care as much about whether their candidates were (or are) racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc. I would have said they have a Jesus litmus test, but, well, Trump. Democrats do. But they don't know how to handle people who evolve.

I think a lot of it goes to the fact that no one deserves to be on top. NO ONE. And for each of the "oops, I wore blackface" idiots out there, there are plenty of perfectly good replacements who not once even considered it. And often they are the very people who the idiot was marginalizing/mocking/disparaging.

With Liam I can see one's surrounding being a thing- poor white neighborhoods are some hateful places to grow up in- like my 'rents were racist given my standards, but when I think back and compare them to my friends' parents growing up in my neighborhood they were some evolved people- so I guess one can take that into account compared to some rich kid walking around Charlottesville with a torch?

The problem with "who gets a pass" is that Dems seem to have a different standard for Dems then for R's, and R's do the opposite (as Ty said it is political as all hell), and then mix in "why does white guy Hank get to have an opinion on Liam?" Remember someone getting hit with second hand me-too when he said that someone's #metoo thing wasn't as bad as some other guy's so he gives the less bad guy a pass? Then he was in shit for saying that (forget who it was). Then mix in do all women/black people get to set subjective standards that all have to be met? Like some black people are saying maybe the gov is net positive enough to get a pass- whereas Al Sharpton is "fuck him." It seems the Trump model of "fuck that I'm staying" is the only sure course, but a wrong one?

And, as to the governor, listen to him on his Michael Jackson comments- he gives advice about putting shoe polish on one's face in a way that sure seems to imply lessons learned from repeated past applications.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The problem with "who gets a pass" is that Dems seem to have a different standard for Dems then for R's, and R's do the opposite ...

Like, how do you figure? Pretty much everyone has called on Northam to resign. Franken resigned.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Like, how do you figure? Pretty much everyone has called on Northam to resign. Franken resigned.

I don't agree with all of Franken's politics, but he was reasonable, and he knew how to get a point across. He is sorely missed and needed. Every time I hear his name, I'm annoyed. The only solace is that Gillibrand, the Brutus in that production, has as much chance of being elected President as she does of developing prostate cancer.

May her unrealized ambition (and she has a relentless ego) eat her alive.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't agree with all of Franken's politics, but he was reasonable, and he knew how to get a point across. He is sorely missed and needed. Every time I hear his name, I'm annoyed. The only solace is that Gillibrand, the Brutus in that production, has as much chance of being elected President as she does of developing prostate cancer.

May her unrealized ambition (and she has a relentless ego) eat her alive.

Imagine my surprised that you went full misogynist with this one.

Dude had credible allegations against him, made his own decision (and the right one), and was called out by a whole slew of his colleagues not named Gillibrand.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Imagine my surprised that you went full misogynist with this one.

Dude had credible allegations against him, made his own decision (and the right one), and was called out by a whole slew of his colleagues not named Gillibrand.

What's misogynist there? (Except in your head?)

Franken was accused of being a bit skeevy, and he took a really dumb picture, years ago. Keep up this purity campaign and see how it goes for the Democrats. It's possibly the one really dipshit thing the party can do to fuck up what should be an easy win in 2020.

What Franken did is nowhere near what Northam did. Not even close. That sort of false equivalence is just the sort of thing the GOP is praying for over the next 21 months: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...general-224820

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What's misogynist there? (Except in your head?)

Well, finding a woman to blame for dude's fuck ups, to begin with.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude had credible allegations against him, made his own decision (and the right one), and was called out by a whole slew of his colleagues not named Gillibrand.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Credible allegations for which he asked for a full investigation. Gillibrand lead the charge to remove him before he was allowed an investigation. And the one allegation based on that photo was not something he deserved to lose his job over. Censure him or punish him in some other way. But there is no denying that there was a rush to judgment. And Gillibrand was grandstanding.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Credible allegations for which he asked for a full investigation. Gillibrand lead the charge to remove him before he was allowed an investigation. And the one allegation based on that photo was not something he deserved to lose his job over. Censure him or punish him in some other way. But there is no denying that there was a rush to judgment. And Gillibrand was grandstanding.

What I'm about to say is only a little about Franken and Gillibrand. There are a lot of people who are not interested in waiting for the results of formal investigations in situations like this one, and on some level I think that results from the intuition that formal processes like investigations can't be trusted to get at the truth of what happened, that there are too many false negatives. It's obviously problematic, because calling on people to resign without an investigation sounds unfair.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

There are a lot of people who are not interested in waiting for the results of formal investigations in situations like this one, and on some level I think that results from the intuition that formal processes like investigations can't be trusted to get at the truth of what happened, that there are too many false negatives. It's obviously problematic, because calling on people to resign without an investigation sounds unfair.

It doesn't sound unfair. It is unfair. A story told from one person's perspective is only a piece of what happened. And an accuser's perspective is always biased. (The person's obviously angered enough to have accused another.)

I've sued people and received large recoveries for things I could convincingly present as negligence but which were really more a confluence of random events that led to someone being harmed or fired. My narrative was accepted because juries like to hear stories, and our claims could be packaged into stories. The defense did not have such a great story because telling a jury of common people that a mix of random events led to a circumstance that looked like negligence but wasn't does two things:

1. It robs the audience (the jury) of the ability to use their primordial pattern-finding mind (which works against their instinct); and,
2. If they find its more random than negligent, the plaintiff does not get paid, which feels unfulfilling to a lot of common folk.

The argument that process gets in the way on claims of harassment too easily leads to "buying a subjective narrative." We certainly don't need to investigate Franken's transgressions like serious crimes, but the accused should have an opportunity to put out his version of events and present exculpatory evidence and witnesses. You don't convict on a memoir.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What I'm about to say is only a little about Franken and Gillibrand. There are a lot of people who are not interested in waiting for the results of formal investigations in situations like this one, and on some level I think that results from the intuition that formal processes like investigations can't be trusted to get at the truth of what happened, that there are too many false negatives. It's obviously problematic, because calling on people to resign without an investigation sounds unfair.

I agree. But some of the allegations were fairly thin and just got lumped in with the initial one because that's what happens. And the initial allegation only gained traction because there was a photo.

I'm not saying Franken wasn't in the wrong. I'm not saying that the allegations weren't true. But it can't just be that someone gets accused and they're over. There has to be some thought put behind how severe the punishment should be in relation to what he did. And he should absolutely have the right to be heard before judgment by a formal body* is passed.

TM

*And this includes getting the whole crew together and forcing you to resign.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't agree with all of Franken's politics, but he was reasonable, and he knew how to get a point across. He is sorely missed and needed. Every time I hear his name, I'm annoyed. The only solace is that Gillibrand, the Brutus in that production, has as much chance of being elected President as she does of developing prostate cancer.

May her unrealized ambition (and she has a relentless ego) eat her alive.

The Kavanaugh hearings would have been disastrous for the Dems if he'd been on the judiciary committee. I really loved him as a Senator, but there were EIGHT accusations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The Kavanaugh hearings would have been disastrous for the Dems if he'd been on the judiciary committee. I really loved him as a Senator, but there were EIGHT accusations.

He should have been removed from his committees as punishment. That seems fair to me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He should have been removed from his committees as punishment. That seems fair to me.

The guy treated a woman as meat, because she was a dancer or posed nude or something? Just destroyed his narrative.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The guy treated a woman as meat, because she was a dancer or posed nude or something? Just destroyed his narrative.

He took a stupid photo in which he was not even touching her. And she alleges he tried to kiss her. Boorish? Yes. Offensive? Yes. Something that should cause an excellent Senator to lose his job? No.

Oh, and the semi-famous woman who accused him, the one in that photo? Right winger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeann_Tweeden

She did a bunch of Hannity interviews, Greg Gutfeld's show, and worked for numerous Fox affiliates.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't agree with all of Franken's politics, but he was reasonable, and he knew how to get a point across. He is sorely missed and needed. Every time I hear his name, I'm annoyed. The only solace is that Gillibrand, the Brutus in that production, has as much chance of being elected President as she does of developing prostate cancer.

May her unrealized ambition (and she has a relentless ego) eat her alive.

Funny how people blame Gillibrand for Franken's bad behavior. I miss him too, but if he hadn't done bad things he wouldn't have had a problem. And Gillibrand was not the first or last to call him on it.