-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Intercept: Time’s Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden, Citing Its Nonprofit Status and His Presidential Run
- Thread starter FliX
- Start date
Very grim to think that #MeToo as a viable defense against rampant unpunished sexual abuse is about to be so badly damaged or possibly buried entirely so that a few dozen Operators for various (D) politicians and news networks can keep their jobs for a few more months. Not to mention all of their online volunteers working overtime for free trying to discredit a victim when basically all of the same people were rightfully attacking Kavanaugh, in an eerily similar situation except he didn't have the (D). Sad that they don't seem to care about any collateral damage!
Nah, Americans simply love viting against their own interests. And fucking over their fellow Americans.
The bit from times up about how they don't run PR for accusers is bullshit btw
Their PR arm is run by Anita Dunn, of course. Known for running free PR for Harvey Weinstein and being the senior campaign advisor for Biden. Not sure who invented the narrative that they couldn't run PR for Reade.
Their PR arm is run by Anita Dunn, of course. Known for running free PR for Harvey Weinstein and being the senior campaign advisor for Biden. Not sure who invented the narrative that they couldn't run PR for Reade.
Yes, the tweet is contesting that statement by pointing out that Times Up claims that they actually do run PR for accusers. The statement in the article is baseless.
So it was outside the scope of how Time's Up helps with PR. They only do that with people who meet specific criteria.
People should read the Salon article and see all the help that Time's Up did give. This narrative that they turned her away is misleading.
The Salon article was able to confirm what TIme's Up said to Ryan Grim wrt their status as a non profit but ok.
But it goes against the "not in the business of running PR for accusers" statement. Let's just post the whole section of the article and let people see the whole thing.
Edit: Actually, I think maybe I'm not getting just what Grim was saying there. Nvm me.
Edit 2: For completion's sake adding Marcotte's tweet thread rebuttal to Grim:
Last edited:
I can't take liberals who refuse to consider the possibility that this may be true seriously. This is a man that routinely crosses boundaries with young women, that threw Anita Hill under the bus, and has a history of saying creepy sexist things.
I'm not saying this definitely proves Biden did it, I'm saying that he fits the profile.
I'm not saying this definitely proves Biden did it, I'm saying that he fits the profile.
Not gunna hold my breath on NYT and WaPo which are apparently the green light for TV stations to start running it
Seems like this story is completely dead in liberal media now. Seeing more right wing outlets pick it up. Also now on social media Biden supporters have entered a new level of toxicity attacking anyone who brings up his allegations, calling them names, shouting down sexual assault victims saying at least he rapes less, etc. Surely the media will cover toxic Biden Bros right?
It is going to be bitterly humorous when Biden supporters start claiming that people getting upset about these accusations are abusing the language of victimization for political gain
They'll also claim Biden got no outside support and people magically came to the conclusion that Biden is our best shot organically, totally ignoring reality.
It's always been a fucking team game for these people. So quick to scream "retire bitch" when it's against their opponent, but we see the same pathetic bullshit when their guy is being accused. We've seen it on this very forum and it's really gross. Anyone bringing up shit like "praising Putin" and "she's a Bernie bro" is no different than the fucking media circus with their "he smoked weed, he was 6 foot, he was no angel" garbage about Trayvon Martin. This week liberals proved that they are just the fucking same as conservatives. No wonder we have 2 rapists running against each other for president. What a fucking joke.
The thread is literally about how she was denied legal help by timesup holy shit are you for real
Is that your proof criteria? Only legitimate sexual assaults result in lawsuits by the victim?
You can almost sense the smirk and crossed arms in the poster with his gotcha question
User banned (1 week): inflammatory point of comparison
seeing liberals morphing into trump supporters over this accusation has been wild. but not surprising. scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds etc.
Remember when Clinton lost 2016, and some people went "but her emails" on people who chose to sit the election out? From what I understand of the situation (didn't really follow that election), that sounds like fair criticism. In other words, her e-mail story was, at worst, a drop in the bucket compared to, well, everything about Trump. And also possibly a calculated oppo move. Right? Right.
Now picture this hypothetical scenario:
1) Biden gets the nom, but loses to Trump in the GE
2) Meanwhile, the rape allegations against Biden don't really get resolved officially (but still retain a decent measure of plausibility), or outright end up being proven true at some point.
How many Biden voters do you think will dare "but his rape allegations!" people who sat out the election? 😂
Eeehhhh trust me I think this whole thing requires diligence by the press and the law - but the vast, teeming majority of rapes, sexual assaults and more go unreported, unpunished and unlegislated - because it's traumatic for victims, societies punish claimants and it's ruinously expensive to take legal action.
I don't know if this woman's accusation is true or not but I start every instance by assuming they're telling the truth so that the victim is given the benefit of the doubt - that doesn't mean I can't also listen to the accused's denial fairly - but not suing is utterly meaningless.
What's next? Calling her a Russian asset? A bernie bro? Fuck, this is exactly the same stupid reasoning r/neoliberal has (not shocked about it). "Believe women, unless it's against us"
Last edited:
Debase yourself for uncle fingers. The abundance of creepy material should've been disqualifying from the start and it only gets worse the closer his coronation gets.
No no, instead we should keep Trump, his Cabinet, and his policies in place, so we can keep the moral high ground. And throw in a Supreme Court justice pick for good measure.
Not really shocking. I mean it's not like rape, sexual assault, believing women, etc., was purely a conservative issue. We know from just the numbers alone, where it is common, etc., that there are plenty of people who are Dems/liberals who don't take sexual assault very seriously, particularly if it doesn't rise to the levels of what people imagine rape/sexual assault to be.
I don't know if people have read her Medium articles from earlier this year and last year, but they should definitely be owed a read since we're getting into the headspace of the victim:
and the one from last year when Biden's other victims came forward:
Both articles, along with her initial interview, deserve a readover and it would be nice if people did that before commenting further. At least it would hopefully reduce the hot takes.
Then came Washington DC. I worked for a prominent congressman and was hired later by Senator Joe Biden. Joe Biden was my political hero. The following months and events crushed my spirit in a way that is hard to express. I reported Joe Biden's sexual harassment of me at a time when no one listened and supervisors looked at me like I was the one with the problem. Some women even suggested, I comply with serving drinks to those male donors as suggested, to advance my career and winked they would like his attention or to be in the room with some of those men. This was my life, I wondered, to parade in front of men hoping I am worthy of their attention?
Yet, this was the message in the 1990s and even 2000's. Play along to get along. Then, something happened that changed me forever.
Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office
A Nevada County woman has added her voice to a recent spate of allegations that former vice president and possible presidential candidate Joe Biden touched her when she worked inwww.theunion.com
and the one from last year when Biden's other victims came forward:
Both articles, along with her initial interview, deserve a readover and it would be nice if people did that before commenting further. At least it would hopefully reduce the hot takes.
Proof criteria? I didn't say anything about proof criteria, I just find it weird that she doesn't seem interested in wanting to sue when she could totally do that. You don't think this case should be investigated at all? We should just blindly believe everyone who accuses someone else of something? Btw I have no idea if Biden did this or not, I'm not trying to defend him.
I mean, if the Democrats elect Biden as their nominee and he loses because of this allegation, that sounds like all of that is their fault.
It's hard to tell on here anymore, but it was sarcasm.
This sounds like what people say about their racist grandparents. Only reason that shit was okay is because men had a tighter grip on society, now it's slipping and they have to answer for oppressive behavior. Time aint a good excuse.
Considering how few rape cases (both criminal and civil) end in favor of the victim, I don't see what's weird about Reade not wanting to sue. She wouldn't have a chance without hard evidence (which most rape cases don't have, especially not when they happened years ago). What does a lawsuit do for her that her interview didn't?
Forgive my ignorance, but was there hard evidence against Weinstein or just witness/victim accounts?
Edit: This is just an aside, I don't believe a lawsuit is in any way necessary to be believed.
There was enough hard evidence to send him to jail, which tends to be difficult in cases like his.
Also, unless my understanding of the US judicial system is completely wrong, even if she had a reasonable chance of winning, it's still a very lenghty and costly process, isn't it? Even for pragmatism's sake, I could understand a victim (of anything) not wanting to sue the perpetrator. Much less so if said perpetrator is a powerful politician.
Firms can represent her pro bono, and if she won, the defendant could be liable for court costs, but yes upfront it would be an obstacle. In this particular case, I have no doubt that she could crowdfund the expenses, at least up to the election, but again if she doesn't want to sue that shouldn't be seen as evidence of things one way or the other.
Going from articles like this one, there wasn't any forensic evidence, so the verdict came down to the jury believing the accounts.
FWIW I agree with you. I'm about to put said poster on ignore, constantly makes my blood absolutely boil. Bless your non-bs approach to this whole topic. Someone Such as yourself with their heart completely in the right place gets fed up at the nonsense people are coming with and then ends up getting banned themselves. Don't agree with that at all
