For christ's sake yes, we should listen and take them seriously. But you should also the the police and the justice system do their job. We live in a civilised society were the court still decides whether you're guilty or innocent; not mobs on the internet who think they know everything.
What exactly do you think the police and justice system can do in this case?
The police are corrupt murderers and there's a rapist sitting on the highest court in the land. Fuck the police and the justice system.
Its from 1993, statute of limitations for Washington D.C. on sexual assault is 15 years. There is nothing police/the justice system can do.
Rolling Stone (the person who posted the audio co-hosts a podcast distributed by Rolling Stone, "Useful Idiots") in 2014 published a story alleging gang rape at a UVA fraternity without verifying details to the point where every named person/organization in the story has since sued them, following Rolling Stone's retraction.
The police aren't exactly well known for dealing with normal rape victims with the respect and care they deserve, you think when the accused is a rich and powerful man, potentially one whose going to become the most powerful man in the country, that the cops will do jack shit? Especially when plenty of them are abusers themselves
I'm seeing far more people bringing up Warren. It's pretty disgusting. At this time we need to focus on listening to this woman and not putting Biden in any more positions of power.
If he meant this forum the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp thing was pretty recent.
It's not that strange the victim herself said this. I mean why wouldn't people want someone that's not been credibly accused of rape as the nominee? Regardless of which other candidate it is (aside from Bloomberg).
Even if there's enough smoke I doubt Biden will go. It's his last chance to be president and doesn't seem like the type of person to care. I mean he ran while knowing about all those creepy out there full knowing more could come out.
He had been accused of domestic violence against ex-wife Amber Heard. It was recently revealed that she was largely the instigator of physical assault in the relationship, per her own words on audiotape.
For all the "dems just as bad" commentary in this thread the simple fact is he can't win if there is credible corroboration to this, and I don't think Biden is interested in losing to Trump and having his legacy largely eradicated by a credible charge of rape.
I'll need you to expand on the "aggressive touching" bit. At what point do you separate aggressive touching from inappropriate touching?
Grab 'em by the pussy v. hand on shoulders.
Nahhhhhh... you are reaching like a morherfucker. The fucking mental gymnastics in this thread...
The accuser literally falsified the existence and correspondence with the person she claimed took her to the party and cheered on her sexual assault. She was later sued for not turning over all evidence she had regarding the story and it was revealed that the "Haven Monahan" persona came from an email address she controlled. I'd say that puts the claims of the alleged victim in that case in dubious light.
What part and what mental gymnastics?
Or maybe they'll actively investigate it?
I'm not comparing anything and maybe read the thread. Someone made reference to a recent similar unnamed similar situation in the abstract, another poster asked what they might have been referring to. I provided two possible examples.
... think I've seen this before but now in this context... THIS is your democrat candidate, USA??
These were always hard to watch, but after this allegation it's even more unsettling. There's no longer any doubt in my mind that Biden is a predator.Like this?
I asked for two reasons. The first reason being that Biden has been accused laying his hand on a woman's thigh, slowly kissing a woman on the back of her head and grabbing a woman and pulling her to him. These are among other accusations. I see there are eight accusations in total. The second reason I ask is because I don't think it's appropriate to make light of anyone's experience with sexual harassment or their perceptions of it. Calling an act by Biden merely 'creepy', when some of his accusers considered his actions to be harmful, is disrespectful to say the least.
Bordering on it, those are all taken from photo ops where politicians are given a bit more pass for positioning but I'd personally take serious issue with someone touching my daughter like that.
ok....
This is an open forum. Everyone can read anything into what they want. The tilting at windmills regarding the posts I put up pertaining to Rolling Stone's UVA case and the Heard/Depp events are an example of that.
That you shouldn´t blindly believe everything people say without any sort of proof,like the people that were crucifying Depp because what that woman had said.
I'm mostly basing my thoughts off those definitions you provided. After using the term 'creepy', in quotes as you say, you defined the term as "not respecting personal space and inappropriate but not aggressive touching". Later, you drew contrast between inappropriate and aggressive touching by defining aggressive touching as "basically is it inflicting pain, involve genetalia, forcibly directing a person or restricting their physical movement". By your definition, however, Biden is guilty of aggressive touching. This specific accuser did not consider this specific encounter sexual harassment. On the other hand, others have voiced feelings of powerlessness (also in regards to power structures, as you touched upon) and harm for what you would only consider to be inappropriate according to that earlier definition.
I'm not discussing the rape allegation. I'm discussing a third party's interpretation and contrasting of "inappropriate and aggressive touching". That original post of yours seemingly threw several instances of sexual harassment under the umbrella of "not respecting personal space and inappropriate but not aggressive touching". Which is not your call to make or define in the first place.
1. in the top half of the post you just quoted I said "that isn't something anyone can label for another person or in all situations". So sure, we agree that inappropriate action depends on a wide variety of contexts, including the perspective of the infringed upon person.
That wasn't the reason it was mentioned in this thread, FYI. It was an attempt to fill in a void left by another poster who didn't follow up after leaving a vacuous comment.
In the correct and egalitarian form "Believe Women" (which itself is problematic because it overlooks male sexual harassment/abuse/assault) should refer to giving all claims merit for investigation on their own right. It doesn't mean the accused is a guilty by court of public opinion until proven innocent.
Well, sure. But we aren't really relying on the classic elements of delict or torts in this instance. So the legal interpretation is not really relevant unless the accusers pursue legal action. The goal of the accusers is likely to spread awareness of Biden's behaviour. It is therefore primarily dependent on an accuser's experiences, largely because it is difficult to prove that harassment occurred when it boils down to his word against hers. Whether or not the public is receptive to such claims is also key. Of course, if proof can be provided, it helps establish certainty. That said, we have at least 8 separate cases of harassment (most sexual), so that should also shape our reactions.
