I don't know what to make of the Franken situation. It seems pretty clear that he has engaged in some inappropriate behavior at time(s) in the past, and it seems equally clear that the right-wing hitjob is on as well. Separating out which is which is proving to be a giant pain in the ass.
I feel that way too because Hannity and company seem to have a couple of days headstart on predicting when these stores are going to drop. And Tweedens story already already has holes in it.
Tweeden's story strikes me as legit, but she clearly isn't as interested in collecting Franken's scalp as everyone else is. Melanie Morgan is completely full of shit and trying to imply her story is more than it is (she lied about CBO figures and Franken was pissed about it), and now they're trying to make hay with a story about Arianna Huffington that Ms. HuffPo herself categorically denies.
Some other chick claims al grabbed her ass about 7 years ago during a state fair or something. In front of her husband. I dunno. Maybe he did it. She seemed fine in the picture.
I actually think Van goes farther than you do, insofar as he creates a false dichotomy. Also, it seems weird that people (not in this thread per se, but definitely on this board) keep saying "safe spaces are stupid" when only criticizing the worst/most extreme examples of them. It's like saying "comedy is stupid" and pointing to Carrot Top. In my opinion, there should be safe spaces on campuses, both physically AND emotionally. But the whole college doesn't have to be -- and shouldn't be -- a safe space. You seem to agree, so, no need to belabor that point. Where I think we do disagree is to the level of the problem with college students not wanting to be challenged. Overall I think the censorship fears are a bit overblown. When it comes to speakers and such on campus, I don't think any school needs to book racists/homophobes/whatever to fulfill some mythological commitment to free speech. I think a lot of syllabi are desperately in need of updating, and should probably be at least considered more deeply. While I think it happens on occasion, I don't think "professors being forced to give into the intellectual demands of overly liberal students" is actually as much a problem as people say. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm trying to find numbers on it now. ETA: Just read that Bret Weinstein thing. I think he's wrong and missing the point spectacularly, but there's no way he should have been fired over it. If we fired every middle-aged white person who didn't meet my standards of critical race analysis there would be no schools left.
I'd like to spin this off and ask what part of Bret Weinstein's argument do you not agree with? I'm not around much, so don't expect quick responses, but I'd like to know how you think he missed the point of the day of exclusion.
I don’t think you are, and that gets back to my original point. Evergreen was an outlier for sure, but it’s an interesting case study in that even a progressive professor was run off campus under those circumstances and its not a sole occurrence of similar events. Speakers like Richard Spencer are obviously worth protesting, but Ben Shapiro? Milo? Students who disagree with them would be better off ignoring them rather than feeding their publicity. My college had African American, Asian American, Middle Eastern American, etc. Cultural Centers and a Women's Center. If those are considered safe spaces in the original sense of the term, then so be it. I dont think very many people take issue with it.
The idea that "everyone regardless of race/ethnicity/background would be invited to attend this discussion on race" sounds really good on paper, but when your college is super white -- like, say Evergreen -- that practically leads to the discussion just being a bunch of white people talking over one another and misses the original point. It would have been weird/wrong if white people were explicitly banned from campus, but the fact that they were invited to participate seems eminently reasonable.
Yeah, because no woman has ever hidden her reaction to something inappropriate before. If she looks fine in the pic it must not have happened. It's easy for those of us who have not experienced that type of situation - especially men - to say "Well, I would have done something about it when it happened." Much more difficult to do that when you're thrown into that situation unexpectedly. If you read the rest of the story she told a number of people immediately that it had happened.
I don’t doubt that this kinda shit does actually happen. But the most credible of stories happen to also be well sourced and have lots of corroboration. If we are going to try someone in the court of public opinion, I think the stories should be stronger.
Dayum. A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
Jesus, how sticky can one story get? So....this is a “charity group” that uses it’s funding to descredit any media story that threatens the Right? This stupid woman just sooooooo fucked up her life.
They're the same group that went after planned parenthood with those videos that went viral a while ago.
Oh, the “We Sell Chopped Up Babies” bullshit. And now these fuckers got caught on camera ACTUALLY being stupid and get to eat crow again. Funny what gets away with being called a charity group these days. Then again, Hamas does.
If you see what the WaPo journalist does with her bag, it's very telling... once bitten, twice shy. When she comes into the room, the liar is already seated and has her purse on the table... so the journalist puts her purse in front of it, blocking any camera that might be there... so the liar then moves her purse... pretty well guaranteeing that there's a camera in there. I wonder if there are some laws that were broken here....
And she ID’ed her. The icing on the cake, her ass is all over Trump support sites and photos. What a fucking circus. I miss the days when people did undercover work to have lies destroyed by the facts, not vice-versa.
In case ya'll were curious, this is what a civil war looks like when the population is too fat and prosperous to actually resort to violence.
Can't read the WAPO article, but based on what I'm hearing elsewhere - so... the plan was to get WAPO to publish a fabricated story, and that would therefore invalidate all the other accusations? Ummm, doesn't Moore already have 8 accusers? I'm kind of doubting their plan would have accomplished much even in their most hopeful scenario. One false story doesn't cancel out 8 real (or at least convincing) stories. I'm sure they were also hoping to grab soundbytes where WAPO reporters admitted they hate republicans, but who didn't know that already?
They were working very, very hard to get the WaPo reporter to say, "we'll take Moore right out of the running"... making it sound like they were fabricating stories to attack him.
Yeah, I get that. I just think it was still a shit plan because: 1) Everyone already knows WAPO is very pro democrat and 2) How many people actually give a shit who first broke the story? It doesn't make the accusations any less serious. Then again, I'm probably giving the general population way too much credit, but it just seems like one of those things only uber-partisan types would bite on, and that it wouldn't actually swing votes. Who knows though...