Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 148: Don't Sexually Assault People

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheRock1525 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

It sounds like a non-black/white issue that he presumably didn't know was a problem to disclose in the first place, so treating it as a "He didn't disclose it so shame on him" the same as Moore, who knowingly broke the law, is a bit silly.

I. Am. Not. Treating. It. The. Same. As. Moore.

Jesus fucking Christ do I need to bold it?

I. Am. Not. Treating. It. The. Same. As. Moore.

Now all caps.

I. AM. NOT. TREATING. IT. THE. SAME. AS. MOORE.

Now all caps and bold.

I. AM. NOT. TREATING. IT. THE. SAME. AS. MOORE.

OK, do you get it now? Can we stop accusing me of something I'm literally not doing?

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments (but that Moore should also receive legal repercussions as well.)
---

I mean with the way the system works, there is zero chance Moore faces any criminal penalties for this.

So functionally, you are treating it the same as Moore in that neither he or Franken should be Senators <_<
---

Inviso posted...

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments (but that Moore should also receive legal repercussions as well.)

I'M FUCKING NOT.

Fuck it, I'm closing this topic. I'm done with the containment topics if I keep getting accused of something I'm not doing.
---

Inviso posted...

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments (but that Moore should also receive legal repercussions as well.)

what the fuck does this even mean? "stop treating them the same except for this whole other part where you don't treat them the same"?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Don't you think if this information had come to light earlier, he may have never been elected to begin with?

*looks at the president*

nope.jpg
---

The woman is a Conservative talking head and SHE doesn't want Franken to resign.

Why don't we just move on?
---

Inviso posted...

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments

I've largely been staying out of this but this seems reductive.

How many "punishments" are there really in the Senate? Nothing, Censure, Resignation, Expulsion? It feels like a false choice to have to force every possible offense to be equated simply because you call for the same consequence. There's far more potential offenses than categories!
---

Inviso

You're being stupid

Knock it off
---

Kenri posted...

Inviso posted...

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments (but that Moore should also receive legal repercussions as well.)

what the fuck does this even mean? "stop treating them the same except for this whole other part where you don't treat them the same"?

I think that there is a big difference between calling on a person to lose their job for sexual assault and sexual misconduct with multiple minors (which cannot be misinterpreted), and calling on a person to lose their job for an unwanted kiss and an immature photograph (which COULD be misinterpreted). The fact that he's adding "and Roy Moore should face legal repercussions as well" does not change that the baseline punishment Rock is establishing for both men is WAY more harsh for the severity of Franken's actions than it is for Moore's.
---

Inviso posted...

I think that there is a big difference between calling on a person to lose their job for sexual assault and sexual misconduct with multiple minors (which cannot be misinterpreted), and calling on a person to lose their job for an unwanted kiss and an immature photograph (which COULD be misinterpreted). The fact that he's adding "and Roy Moore should face legal repercussions as well" does not change that the baseline punishment Rock is establishing for both men is WAY more harsh for the severity of Franken's actions than it is for Moore's.

Well tbh they're both millionaires so I (and possibly Rock as well but I don't want to speak for him) treat them losing their jobs as just about the barest minimum punishment they could possibly receive while still sending any kind of actual message. They're not gonna go home and starve.

I'm absolutely fine with "lose your job" as the baseline for senators who commit sexual harassment, much less assault.
---

xp1337 posted...

Inviso posted...

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments

I've largely been staying out of this but this seems reductive.

How many "punishments" are there really in the Senate? Nothing, Censure, Resignation, Expulsion? It feels like a false choice to have to force every possible offense to be equated simply because you call for the same consequence. There's far more potential offenses than categories!

This is exactly my problem. Rock wants to punish Al Franken. Censure would be fine by me, but apparently not by Rock. Therefore regardless of the severity, he wants to inflict one of the two harshest penalties possible, both of which involve Franken losing his job without his constituents having a say in the decision. And if there are so few potential punishments and Rock wants the same punishment for Roy Moore, then you are in effect saying that their respective offenses are on the same tier.
---

Inviso posted...

I think that there is a big difference between calling on a person to lose their job for sexual assault and sexual misconduct with multiple minors (which cannot be misinterpreted), and calling on a person to lose their job for an unwanted kiss and an immature photograph (which COULD be misinterpreted). The fact that he's adding "and Roy Moore should face legal repercussions as well" does not change that the baseline punishment Rock is establishing for both men is WAY more harsh for the severity of Franken's actions than it is for Moore's.

There is no motherfucking baseline punishment. He has said a million times that Moore deserves worse than just being kicked out of the Senate. Your logic is that if I think Person A deserves to not eat any of my cookies, and Person B deserves to not eat anything because he should be executed, I am saying Person A and Person B are morally equivalent because I don't want either to eat my cookies.
---

Kenri posted...

Inviso posted...

I think that there is a big difference between calling on a person to lose their job for sexual assault and sexual misconduct with multiple minors (which cannot be misinterpreted), and calling on a person to lose their job for an unwanted kiss and an immature photograph (which COULD be misinterpreted). The fact that he's adding "and Roy Moore should face legal repercussions as well" does not change that the baseline punishment Rock is establishing for both men is WAY more harsh for the severity of Franken's actions than it is for Moore's.

Well tbh they're both millionaires so I (and possibly Rock as well but I don't want to speak for him) treat them losing their jobs as just about the barest minimum punishment they could possibly receive while still sending any kind of actual message. They're not gonna go home and starve.

I'm absolutely fine with "lose your job" as the baseline for senators who commit sexual harassment, much less assault.

And I think that the message being sent if you force Franken out over this is not "we're not going to tolerate sexual harassment" so much as "never apologize and never admit fault because the end result is the same either way, or you could be like Trump and receive no punishment whatsoever."
---

Inviso in your world any time a person commits a horrible crime they should never, *ever* be fired because to want someone fired for, say, being a serial killer is saying that stealing from the cash register and mass murder are the same.
---

Kinda just skimmed this argument

I think the difference between a Senate seat and most normal jobs is that you represent your constituents

In Frankens apology, he recognized and acknowledged that what he has done rightfully disturbs people, presumably including his constituents.

I think the true most ethical thing to do would be to step down, and if he still wants to be a Senator, run again after this has all had time to settle. If his constituents still want him, then fine.
---

Panthera posted...

Inviso in your world any time a person commits a horrible crime they should never, *ever* be fired because to want someone fired for, say, being a serial killer is saying that stealing from the cash register and mass murder are the same.

In my world, I don't think mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses are at all fair, no.
---

Inviso posted...

Panthera posted...

Inviso in your world any time a person commits a horrible crime they should never, *ever* be fired because to want someone fired for, say, being a serial killer is saying that stealing from the cash register and mass murder are the same.

In my world, I don't think mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses are at all fair, no.

This is a Trump tier response, well done
---

Inviso posted...

This is exactly my problem. Rock wants to punish Al Franken. Censure would be fine by me, but apparently not by Rock.

And if you wanted to argue Censure was a more appropriate action to take I doubt anyone would have any problem with that. They might argue if they disagree, but it would be an honest debate.

Inviso posted...

Therefore regardless of the severity, he wants to inflict one of the two harshest penalties possible, both of which involve Franken losing his job without his constituents having a say in the decision.

Resignation can't be imposed, he would have to choose it for himself. That's why expulsion is a different thing. In which case, his constituents had a say in electing him - the person who would hypothetically be choosing to resign. It's probably not a case they specifically considered but it would broadly fall under character.

Inviso posted...

And if there are so few potential punishments and Rock wants the same punishment for Roy Moore, then you are in effect saying that their respective offenses are on the same tier.

And this is the problem that Rock is having with you.

I mean, okay, let's generalize this a bit. What potential offenses are you reserving for expulsion? By your reasoning here you're equating them to each other so be careful now. Now once you're starting to feel uncomfortable listing some hypothetical offenses with the worst you can think of I guess you're going to have to back up into calls for resignation, etc.

...I have a feeling that if you conducted this as a thought experiment you'd quickly find yourself backed into "Do Nothing" with a host of pretty bad offenses still on the table because you've been forced to move backwards.
---

Inviso posted...

And I think that the message being sent if you force Franken out over this is not "we're not going to tolerate sexual harassment" so much as "never apologize and never admit fault because the end result is the same either way, or you could be like Trump and receive no punishment whatsoever."

And what message are we sending to victims who haven't yet come forward about a powerful person harassing/assaulting them if we just let Franken off the hook with an apology?
---

Rock, feel free not to make another topic, but don't close the current one just because someone's being an idiot. These would get closed all the time otherwise.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Inviso posted...

Then stop saying they should receive equally harsh punishments (but that Moore should also receive legal repercussions as well.)

I'M FUCKING NOT.

Fuck it, I'm closing this topic. I'm done with the containment topics if I keep getting accused of something I'm not doing.

Popcorn.gif
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I think the true most ethical thing to do would be to step down, and if he still wants to be a Senator, run again after this has all had time to settle. If his constituents still want him, then fine.

I mean if youre ok with this why not just let the constituents decide when reelection comes around?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I think the true most ethical thing to do would be to step down, and if he still wants to be a Senator, run again after this has all had time to settle. If his constituents still want him, then fine.

I mean if youre ok with this why not just let the constituents decide when reelection comes around?

Whens he due again?

If its 2018 then yeah, okay.

If its 2020 or 2022, thats too long.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

It sounds like a non-black/white issue that he presumably didn't know was a problem to disclose in the first place, so treating it as a "He didn't disclose it so shame on him" the same as Moore, who knowingly broke the law, is a bit silly.

I. Am. Not. Treating. It. The. Same. As. Moore.

Jesus fucking Christ do I need to bold it?

I. Am. Not. Treating. It. The. Same. As. Moore.

Now all caps.

I. AM. NOT. TREATING. IT. THE. SAME. AS. MOORE.

Now all caps and bold.

I. AM. NOT. TREATING. IT. THE. SAME. AS. MOORE.

OK, do you get it now? Can we stop accusing me of something I'm literally not doing?

I'm not saying you're equating the ENTIRE thing to Moore, but you're equating the one piece, which is "He didn't disclose it," which is the point I'm trying to make.

Moore did something illegal. The normal person should think "Hey, I should disclose this."

Franken's is ambiguous as far as how much he actually knew of what damage what he did caused. So treating it under the same "this should be disclosed" umbrella is expecting a bit much.

That's the only part I said you're equating, in that you're saying both acts fall under the "Should have been disclosed" umbrella. The argument others have had is that Franken's is not so black and white in so far as knowing it was a problem to even need to be disclosed in the first place.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Fuck it, I'm closing this topic. I'm done with the containment topics if I keep getting accused of something I'm not doing.

Welcome to politics containment topic, where people continually force words in your mouth to make you seem as unreasonable as possible
---

Jakyl25 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I think the true most ethical thing to do would be to step down, and if he still wants to be a Senator, run again after this has all had time to settle. If his constituents still want him, then fine.

I mean if youre ok with this why not just let the constituents decide when reelection comes around?

Whens he due again?

If its 2018 then yeah, okay.

If its 2020 or 2022, thats too long.

Or wait, maybe Im making it too complicated.

Couldnt we just do a recall election?

If so, Id like to see him volunteer for that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean if youre ok with this why not just let the constituents decide when reelection comes around?

I hate to answer a question with another question, but by that logic aren't you saying that impeachment and recall mechanisms are pointless?

You call for the resignation to send a clear message that the behavior is not tolerated. (Yes, this gets thorny when you deal with cases like, "And if he is re-elected?" and we can have that discussion if you want, I guess.)
---