RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Melania
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4947



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/18 2:37 pm    ::: Melania Reply Reply with quote

Just when you think that it might be possible to think about maybe liking her....

Quote:
"It's a jacket. There was no hidden message. After today's important visit to Texas, I hope the media isn't going to choose to focus on her wardrobe," Grisham said.


Is there NO ONE that is advising these people????

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2018/06/21/melania-trump-wears-dont-care-coat-visit-migrant-kids-texas/722620002/



_________________
neverthless she persisted
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19621



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/18 5:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I know it's been said many MANY times before, but this time the world really has gone mad. It's fucking bonkers out there.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/18 9:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
I know it's been said many MANY times before, but this time the world really has gone mad. It's fucking bonkers out there.


Agree. This administration is taking babies away from their families, and the news focuses on a jacket.

Donald plays them every single time.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/18 9:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That poor woman. Those Poor(er) kids....if I were a frightened child, she would not be a comforting figure to me. She looks too much like Cruella DeVille.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10746
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 7:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
I know it's been said many MANY times before, but this time the world really has gone mad. It's fucking bonkers out there.


Agree. This administration is taking babies away from their families, and the news focuses on a jacket.

Donald plays them every single time.


It's been 2 yrs now. I no longer believe the "press" is being played. They're complicit.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 8:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
I know it's been said many MANY times before, but this time the world really has gone mad. It's fucking bonkers out there.


Agree. This administration is taking babies away from their families, and the news focuses on a jacket.

Donald plays them every single time.


It's been 2 yrs now. I no longer believe the "press" is being played. They're complicit.


They’re either complicit or stupid.

We need someone like Stewart to call their bullshit out.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 11:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
We need someone like Stewart to call their bullshit out.

A. Men.
I have long said that Jon was like the biblical prophets of old, not in his ability to foresee or warn so much as in his capacity to call out the bullshit of The Establishment. Many try (see: Trevor Noah, etc.), but Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?....was he the first to do it in earnest? To take it from the standup schtick to the newsdesk? And he KNEW. HIS. $HIT.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 3:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
We need someone like Stewart to call their bullshit out.

A. Men.
I have long said that Jon was like the biblical prophets of old, not in his ability to foresee or warn so much as in his capacity to call out the bullshit of The Establishment. Many try (see: Trevor Noah, etc.), but Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?....was he the first to do it in earnest? To take it from the standup schtick to the newsdesk? And he KNEW. HIS. $HIT.


Trevor satires the news, Jon satires news organizations. He was openly liberal, but he was also hyper critical of CNN and MSNBC

Similarly for Oliver, Bee, and Colbert. All three excellent at calling out politicians bullshit, none really bother to go after the media.

In fact, he might have been more critical of CNN than anything.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57519
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 3:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?


Mostly from the fact that you agreed with him



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 3:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Howee wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
We need someone like Stewart to call their bullshit out.

A. Men.
I have long said that Jon was like the biblical prophets of old, not in his ability to foresee or warn so much as in his capacity to call out the bullshit of The Establishment. Many try (see: Trevor Noah, etc.), but Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?....was he the first to do it in earnest? To take it from the standup schtick to the newsdesk? And he KNEW. HIS. $HIT.


Trevor satires the news, Jon satires news organizations. He was openly liberal, but he was also hyper critical of CNN and MSNBC

Similarly for Oliver, Bee, and Colbert. All three excellent at calling out politicians bullshit, none really bother to go after the media.

In fact, he might have been more critical of CNN than anything.


Yes, he was. And Fox, of course. They all are, fairly enough. What I actually meant, though, was that--and maybe it's just me--his credibility was more viable cuz he PRESENTED as more of a behind-the-desk journalist than as a stand-up. I know Oliver, Noah, et. al, do that now, too....but I see them more as 'knock-offs' of what Jon established.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 4:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?


Mostly from the fact that you agreed with him


From your perspective, perhaps; 'legitimacy' is relative, no? My litmus test might go like this: "Who's research, production and presentation is more legitimate in the documentation of a story on Stormy Daniels: Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, or Stormy Daniels?" Cool Jon beats out Sean every time. (Maybe even Stormy--can she be objective?!)

But what I meant was a more viable, perceived legitimacy than his proteges (Oliver, Noah, etc.)



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 5:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?


Mostly from the fact that you agreed with him


From your perspective, perhaps; 'legitimacy' is relative, no? My litmus test might go like this: "Who's research, production and presentation is more legitimate in the documentation of a story on Stormy Daniels: Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, or Stormy Daniels?" Cool Jon beats out Sean every time. (Maybe even Stormy--can she be objective?!)

But what I meant was a more viable, perceived legitimacy than his proteges (Oliver, Noah, etc.)


Legitimacy is the same as accuracy.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57519
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?


Mostly from the fact that you agreed with him


From your perspective, perhaps; 'legitimacy' is relative, no? My litmus test might go like this: "Who's research, production and presentation is more legitimate in the documentation of a story on Stormy Daniels: Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, or Stormy Daniels?" Cool Jon beats out Sean every time. (Maybe even Stormy--can she be objective?!)

But what I meant was a more viable, perceived legitimacy than his proteges (Oliver, Noah, etc.)


I never paid either of them much attention. Stand up comics and house painters aren't the best source of news.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/24/18 9:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
Jon had an established legitimacy from....what?


Mostly from the fact that you agreed with him


From your perspective, perhaps; 'legitimacy' is relative, no? My litmus test might go like this: "Who's research, production and presentation is more legitimate in the documentation of a story on Stormy Daniels: Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, or Stormy Daniels?" Cool Jon beats out Sean every time. (Maybe even Stormy--can she be objective?!)

But what I meant was a more viable, perceived legitimacy than his proteges (Oliver, Noah, etc.)


I never paid either of them much attention. Stand up comics and house painters aren't the best source of news.


So you know very little about Stewart, and yet you are questioning Howee’s assertion that Stewart had legitimacy?



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/18 10:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Daily Show was on when US went into Iraq on a pack of lies and without the support of the United Nations, who declared it illegal. Did the Daily Show have anything bad to say about US actions at that time?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/18 11:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The reason for separating the children from the parents is because judges have ruled that you can't detain children in family detention centers for more than 20 days. There is too much of a backlog to process their claims in 20 days, so any adults who come with children have been released after being caught, known as "catch and release". They are released into the US and asked to come back for a hearing/trial. But there is no way to enforce their return.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/18 11:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
The Daily Show was on when US went into Iraq on a pack of lies and without the support of the United Nations, who declared it illegal. Did the Daily Show have anything bad to say about US actions at that time?

Did you expect a response based on memory? Cuz I didn't even watch it then. Now, if you have proof of (whatever) to bolster your point, please provide it....starting with your point, please.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/18 11:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
The Daily Show was on when US went into Iraq on a pack of lies and without the support of the United Nations, who declared it illegal. Did the Daily Show have anything bad to say about US actions at that time?

Did you expect a response based on memory? Cuz I didn't even watch it then. Now, if you have proof of (whatever) to bolster your point, please provide it....starting with your point, please.


I was obviously not expecting a response based on your memory, as you have admitted you are of retirement age. Bam! Pow!

I remember a tremendous lack of criticism by anyone at the time of the Iraq invasion. The Phil Donahue show had one or more people on who criticized it (I think before - but when it was clear we were going to, like when we kicked out UN Weapons Inspectors). The show was canceled not long after that and Donahue said that it had good ratings for its channel (I believe MSNBC) and timeslot. There was another female author/writer who criticized the invasion and she faced a backlash. But I think she was independent, so was not fired. And, if I am remembering correctly, there were one or two editors/writers around the country who were critical and lost their jobs because of it.

So I don't think John Stewart and The Daily Show were critical of the invasion as it would have gotten a lot of publicity back then. So my point is (assuming no one claims Stewart was critical) that The Daily Show swallowed their whistle at a critical time, in contrast to the praise they are getting for being a watchdog.


J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 4722



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/18 11:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

google it


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/18 11:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

LOL......I'm happy to pit my memory against your imagined hypotheticals here. Wink

tfan wrote:
So I don't think John Stewart and The Daily Show were critical of the invasion as it would have gotten a lot of publicity back then. So my point is (assuming no one claims Stewart was critical) that The Daily Show swallowed their whistle at a critical time, in contrast to the praise they are getting for being a watchdog.


I think neither you NOR I can "claim" anything about Jon's stance on that without some research, so there's no good point to hypothetical conjecture, eh? That's why I asked for proof.

For the sake of the discussion, let's say it WASN'T a topic addressed by him or the show: so what? I base my opinion of his "legitimacy" on what I DID see of his work over the past 12 years, when I did watch him. And he was doggedly determined to call BS--where applicable--on every relevant topic as long as I've known his work.

But I'd be glad to see any findings on that if you care to dig a bit. I'm too old to google. Razz Cool



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/26/18 1:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
LOL......I'm happy to pit my memory against your imagined hypotheticals here. Wink


Why would it be an "imagined hypothetical"? Sounds like a hypothetical to me. I was vehemently against the invasion and was looking hard for people publicly criticizing it. I don't think he did to any extent as it would have got the warmongers upset, as a few people did. Here is a video a few months before the invasion where he makes fun of Iraqi protesters burning an American flag while protesting the coming invasion that is going to destroy their country:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/zq1m72/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-planned-war-with-iraq

It this "continuing coverage of Slowdown Iraq", again a few months before the invasion he does mention that other countries are not joining the USA's pro-war agenda, but jokingly says that Bush wants to fight Hussein after school and suggests if Hussein doesn't he is a pussy. After showing a clip of Bush claiming there is no "rush to judgment" because "clearly he's not disarming". Stewart fails to point out that UN Inspectors have found nothing at hundreds of sites. Then he shows a clip of Ted Kennedy saying we shouldn't go to war but keep doing inspections, and after mocking Kennedy, he does say "wait, he was making sense". He later calls Kennedy "the voice of reason". But the whole thing is a nothing burger. He jokes of and people are laughing about "Germany not wanting to go to war", missing the fact that Dubya Bush wants to destroy a country for a made up reason that even if true, is not a valid justification for war. It could be claimed by those pro-Stewart that that piece was critical (and I give him credit for calling Kennedy the voice of reason) but it is so lightly done and mixed with jokes that obscure the overall point that I can see why any warmonger would have considered it harmless. And while giving kudos to Kennedy, he fails to go after Bush.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/t05ced/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-slowdown--iraq---pro-war-agenda

Quote:
For the sake of the discussion, let's say it WASN'T a topic addressed by him or the show: so what? I base my opinion of his "legitimacy" on what I DID see of his work over the past 12 years, when I did watch him. And he was doggedly determined to call BS--where applicable--on every relevant topic as long as I've known his work.


You watched 12 years? That would mean you watched from August 6, 2003 to August 6, 2015, only months removed from his pre-Iraq war coverage. I don't have a problem with you thinking he is legitimate. I have family members who were big Stewart fans. But you can understand why I wouldn't be as enamored if he didn't take a definite stand against the Iraq invasion. That was some serious s***. And to me, that format, does not lend itself to getting across serious messages. It would help if there was a piece at the end of some shows where they gave a no-jokes talk about an issue.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/26/18 4:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

He was critical of the Iraq war.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-jon-stewart-definitive-moments-the-daily-show-20150805-html-htmlstory.html

Which is typical of Stewart, who has a tendency to be anti-military involvement. (He has been critical of Israel, and critical of our actions in Syria as well.)



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 5:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
He was critical of the Iraq war.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-jon-stewart-definitive-moments-the-daily-show-20150805-html-htmlstory.html

Which is typical of Stewart, who has a tendency to be anti-military involvement. (He has been critical of Israel, and critical of our actions in Syria as well.)


That article uses the terms "skeptic" and "skeptical". Which is better than going along, but less than I would hope for or want. Although the article says 'Heeding "the new mandate that criticizing the commander in chief is off limits in wartime,"' which I think reflects the feeling at the time - criticizing what Bush was going to do was off limits. Particularly after Congress gave him authorization in 9/2002.

We had a situation where we claimed we had to attack (against the wishes of the United Nations and major allies like Germany and France) because they had WMDs. And yet, we couldn't direct the UN Weapons Inspectors in hundreds of tries to a single place where they had them. Would have been so nice if that had been a daily headline or talking point the way something like Trump/Stormy Daniels will be today.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 10:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Would have been so nice if that had been a daily headline or talking point the way something like Trump/Stormy Daniels will be today.

Hindsight affords us this perspective. I agree completely that the dubious rationale for invasion should have been shouted from the rooftops.

However....think about the time period: we were still raw and reeling from 9/11 and all its ramifications. National security was shaken to its core. Was the media tiptoeing on eggshells? Might it have been too blatant to question the country's military actions? Bush's credibility was still at a fairly high level for most citizens. But still, I certainly remember believing that Iraq's invasion was all wrong so clearly, that perspective was being shared.

Now, fast forward through the following years, when more and more truths about Iraq were revealed. I think Jon did his fair share of exposing. [....and I wish Jon and others had been preaching about negative Obama stories, like his provision of military equipment to brutal Asian leaders for strategic gain] But if we fast forward to now, and something like the Stormy Story, news cycles and public discourse have degenerated considerably. As much as I think Stormy's story should be public, it doesn't deserve the same level of attention as Trump's Rule of Lies in the realm of governing. But of course, all media walk that delicate balance (some better than others) of reporting Important Truths and reporting Salacious Slime That Generates Viewership.

Money/Viewership/Revenues always seems to win out, no? And if our media have become The Whores of Salacious Slime, *we* are complicit, as The 'Johns' who eat it up.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 1:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think when we talk about Stewart and legitimacy, Howee and I are more speaking of his tendency to hold media to the fire.

In this clip, (unfortunately only part of the interview), he’s looking for an acknowledgment from an NY Times reporter in her responsibility in the Iraq war.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=924DT22tSWE

But again, he was highly critical of our Iraq involvement. There aren’t too many videos still available, but here is a video of him laying out his views during those years.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJPERZK64U



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4947



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/10/18 9:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So she does this sit-down with ABC news. Says that women need to provide proof when accusing accusing men of sexual assault/misconduct.

Quote:
Trump said: "You need to have really hard evidence, that if you accuse (someone) of something, show the evidence."

Clarifying her stance, she said: "I do stand with women, but we need to show the evidence. You cannot just say to somebody, 'I was sexually assaulted,' or 'You did that to me,' 'cause sometimes the media goes too far, and the way they portray some stories, it's not correct. It's not right."



She also says:
Quote:
"It's sad to see that organizations and foundations I want to partner with choose not to because of the. .. administration," she said, "and I feel they are choosing the politics over helping others."

Trump refused to provide examples and said the groups "know who they are. I don't want to put them out in front of the world, but they know who they are."


Ummm, Melania, your evidence please????

"Being Melania – The First Lady" airs on ABC Friday (10 p.m. ET/PT).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/10/10/melania-trump-me-too-accusers-good-morning-america-abc-first-lady/1587223002/



_________________
neverthless she persisted
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/10/18 11:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Here is the general problem: unless someone is penetratively raped or there are witnesses, the only "proof" of sexual assault is often the eye-witness testimony of the victim. What other proof is there?

I mean Ford even submitted herself to a polygraph and had therapist notes to demonstrate this wasn't an accusation of opportunity (doctors notes being considered prime evidence by investigators), and yet people say she couldn't offer any proof.

There is a reason that only 7 out of every 1000 sexual assaults end up in convictions.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/10/18 3:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Here is the general problem: unless someone is penetratively raped or there are witnesses, the only "proof" of sexual assault is often the eye-witness testimony of the victim. What other proof is there?

I mean Ford even submitted herself to a polygraph and had therapist notes to demonstrate this wasn't an accusation of opportunity (doctors notes being considered prime evidence by investigators), and yet people say she couldn't offer any proof.

There is a reason that only 7 out of every 1000 sexual assaults end up in convictions.

Most of those people don't have witnesses that refute their testimony.
Others generally have DNA proof, if they report the incident in a timely fashion.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/10/18 6:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Here is the general problem: unless someone is penetratively raped or there are witnesses, the only "proof" of sexual assault is often the eye-witness testimony of the victim. What other proof is there?

I mean Ford even submitted herself to a polygraph and had therapist notes to demonstrate this wasn't an accusation of opportunity (doctors notes being considered prime evidence by investigators), and yet people say she couldn't offer any proof.

There is a reason that only 7 out of every 1000 sexual assaults end up in convictions.

Most of those people don't have witnesses that refute their testimony.
Others generally have DNA proof, if they report the incident in a timely fashion.

Explain to me how there is DNA proof in non-penatrative sexual assault cases? Say someone, oh, I don't know, traps a woman in a room and "grabs them by the pussy". What sort of evidence do you think will exist other than the claim of the victim? DNA would not be present.

The vast majority of sexual assault cases come down to someone saying it happened and someone else saying it didn't, no matter how soon it is reported.

Yet Melania is saying that women should only come forward, or be believed, if they can somehow "prove" it.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/11/18 8:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Here is the general problem: unless someone is penetratively raped or there are witnesses, the only "proof" of sexual assault is often the eye-witness testimony of the victim. What other proof is there?

I mean Ford even submitted herself to a polygraph and had therapist notes to demonstrate this wasn't an accusation of opportunity (doctors notes being considered prime evidence by investigators), and yet people say she couldn't offer any proof.

There is a reason that only 7 out of every 1000 sexual assaults end up in convictions.

Most of those people don't have witnesses that refute their testimony.
Others generally have DNA proof, if they report the incident in a timely fashion.

Explain to me how there is DNA proof in non-penatrative sexual assault cases? Say someone, oh, I don't know, traps a woman in a room and "grabs them by the pussy". What sort of evidence do you think will exist other than the claim of the victim? DNA would not be present.

The vast majority of sexual assault cases come down to someone saying it happened and someone else saying it didn't, no matter how soon it is reported.

Yet Melania is saying that women should only come forward, or be believed, if they can somehow "prove" it.

Unless the attacker was wearing gloves there would be DNA or fingerprints SOMEWHERE. Even on clothing.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/11/18 10:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Here is the general problem: unless someone is penetratively raped or there are witnesses, the only "proof" of sexual assault is often the eye-witness testimony of the victim. What other proof is there?

I mean Ford even submitted herself to a polygraph and had therapist notes to demonstrate this wasn't an accusation of opportunity (doctors notes being considered prime evidence by investigators), and yet people say she couldn't offer any proof.

There is a reason that only 7 out of every 1000 sexual assaults end up in convictions.

Most of those people don't have witnesses that refute their testimony.
Others generally have DNA proof, if they report the incident in a timely fashion.

Explain to me how there is DNA proof in non-penatrative sexual assault cases? Say someone, oh, I don't know, traps a woman in a room and "grabs them by the pussy". What sort of evidence do you think will exist other than the claim of the victim? DNA would not be present.

The vast majority of sexual assault cases come down to someone saying it happened and someone else saying it didn't, no matter how soon it is reported.

Yet Melania is saying that women should only come forward, or be believed, if they can somehow "prove" it.

Unless the attacker was wearing gloves there would be DNA or fingerprints SOMEWHERE. Even on clothing.

You have been watching way too much CSI. That's not actually how it works.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/11/18 12:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
You have been watching way too much CSI. That's not actually how it works.

I don't watch CSI. So your answer to a reasonable method of investigation into a serious allegation is to hurl cheap shots at me.
Are you suggesting we just take people's word at face value? Guilty without evidence? Like Emmett Till?


Ay Mate



Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 1153



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/11/18 2:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And then she said ‘I’m the most bullied person in the country’. So if I didn’t despise her enough already, here’s more reason. Poor thing feels bullied. Meanwhile hundreds of kids kill themselves every year, probably more, because they are intesely bullied by other kids for being gay, overweight, different culture, etc. This bitch is just as revolting as her disgusting sugar daddy in the White House.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/11/18 5:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
You have been watching way too much CSI. That's not actually how it works.

I don't watch CSI. So your answer to a reasonable method of investigation into a serious allegation is to hurl cheap shots at me.
Are you suggesting we just take people's word at face value? Guilty without evidence? Like Emmett Till?

It isn't "reasonable". That's the problem. DNA and fingerprints don't work like you are suggesting. Unless the person was gushing blood or something. Hell, most rape kits come back inconclusive, and in those circumstances there is actual DNA to be harvested.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17163
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/11/18 7:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Not First Lady Melania Trump-related, but related to the most recent exchange above...

Tarana Burke, the founder of the #MeToo movement, had comments over the weekend (in an interview with Chuck Todd) about “believing” women and what that means.

She stated, “When we say, ‘believe survivors,’ it's not believe them without investigation, believe them without interrogation.”


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19621



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/18 12:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
Not First Lady Melania Trump-related, but related to the most recent exchange above...

Tarana Burke, the founder of the #MeToo movement had comments over the weekend (in an interview with Chuck Todd) about “believing” women and what that means.

She stated, “When we say, ‘believe survivors,’ it's not believe them without investigation, believe them without interrogation.”


Tarana Burke had absolutely nothing to do with the ‘founding’ of the #metoo movement.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8974



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/18 7:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6SzvT_Pdfbg" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SzvT_Pdfbg



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17163
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/18 10:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Tarana Burke had absolutely nothing to do with the ‘founding’ of the #metoo movement.


Quote:
Tarana Burke (born September 12, 1973) is an African-American civil rights activist from The Bronx, New York who founded the Me Too movement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarana_Burke
Quote:

#MeToo founder Tarana Burke on Brett Kavanaugh

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/metoo-founder-tarana-burke-brett-kavanaugh-many-people-wind-knocked-120102334.html

Quote:
The Woman Who Created #MeToo Long Before Hashtags


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/me-too-movement-tarana-burke.html

Quote:
Who is Tarana Burke? Meet the woman who started the Me Too movement a decade ago


https://www.ajc.com/news/world/who-tarana-burke-meet-the-woman-who-started-the-too-movement-decade-ago/i8NEiuFHKaIvBh9ucukidK/

Quote:
Me Too founder Tarana Burke: ‘You have to use your privilege to serve other people’


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/15/me-too-founder-tarana-burke-women-sexual-assault


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19621



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/18 12:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I know, cam. I’ve read it all.

I repeat. Tarana Burke had nothing at all to do with #metoo. Alyssa Milano tweeted her call for me too on Oct 15 with no knowledge whatsoever of Tarana Burke or her prior ‘me too’ efforts in the area of victims of sexual assault. She said so in her very next tweet the following day and has reported to have admitted that to the NYTimes.

There was no founder anyway. It’s a word that doesn’t apply at all in the case of #metoo. There’s only been a lazy picking up of that story as it came across the wire and repeating it almost verbatim in scores of publications. And it worked. It’s now unquestioned and repeated every single day somewhere. But it’s not remotely true and the actual truth is complicated and problematic.

What else? Oh...

And Wikipedia? A resource I’ve loved from its launching? Let’s say I’ve had an education that will never allow me to trust what I read there. That place is just nuts. Good for completely non-controversial information (for now) but anything that is at all in dispute is as realiable as the last anonymous editor.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17163
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/18 2:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
I repeat. Tarana Burke had nothing at all to do with #metoo.


Other than coining the term and creating it, she had nothing to do with it.
Other than being recognized for initiating of this and her efforts regarding victims of sexual assault, she had nothing to do with it.

jammerbirdi wrote:
Alyssa Milano tweeted her call for me too on Oct 15 with no knowledge whatsoever of Tarana Burke or her prior ‘me too’ efforts in the area of victims of sexual assault. She said so in her very next tweet the following day and has reported to have admitted that to the NYTimes.


Congrats to Alyssa Milano to putting a celebrity face on #metoo. You appear to be using the fact that she was unaware of what Tarana Burke and Burke's work/efforts to diminish what Burke did and praise Milano. There is no need to denigrate the work of Burke -- who has been doing this for years -- by not recognizing her efforts and bolstering Milano's ignorance (for lack of a better word) of Burke's efforts.

jammerbirdi wrote:
But it’s not remotely true and the actual truth is complicated and problematic.


Again, provide multiple media sources and outlets above. Yet you did not provide anything other than your opinion, declaring what Burke did with respect to metoo as "not remotely true."

What else? Oh...

jammerbirdi wrote:
And Wikipedia? A resource I’ve loved from its launching? Let’s say I’ve had an education that will never allow me to trust what I read there. That place is just nuts. Good for completely non-controversial information (for now) but anything that is at all in dispute is as realiable as the last anonymous editor.


How very interesting...

jammerbirdi wrote:
The name is very familiar. But it's an interesting thing that happens here with me lately. I could easily refresh my memory with just a couple of wiki clicks. Possess that knowledge.


http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=75120&highlight=wiki

jammerbirdi wrote:
There's an assessment on Wiki by musicologists of CA's voice and singing. It's mostly positive but read this. "She has no breath support and often sing out of tune. People say she can cover four octave, but it's not true because below A3, the low notes are forced, unsupported, her belting voice is throaty and forced and for her highest notes she doesn't use head voice but falsetto or whistle register, they are disconnected registers. So, she can hit good notes only from A3 to B4. Her melismas are always show-off, they are almost never connected with the rhythm and the structure of the songs."


http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=66609&highlight=wiki

jammerbirdi wrote:
Małgorzata Dydek (28 April 1974 in Poznań, Poland � 26 May 2011), known as Margo Dydek in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margo_Dydek


http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=65541&highlight=wiki

jammerbirdi wrote:
Just Dance is also a very very good record. Did she write both of those? I don't know and I don't care enough even to Wiki it. I just like to hear myself gas bag.


http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=54839&highlight=wiki

jammerbirdi wrote:
Okay. I don't doubt you, Mistress SORF. But Wikipedia lists the deepest (water depth) oil wells. The numbers I quote of 10k for the Deepwater Horizon and 12k for the six other deeper wells IS the water depth. Could you experts review this and come back with an explanation please.

Ultra Deep Water


http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=58484&highlight=wiki

jammerbirdi wrote:
Related. YouTube. Amazing historical tool that places information once limited to visits to research libraries right at your fingertips. I would suggest to ANYONE the following amazing experience. Have a couple of beers, put on the headphones late at night, READ the Wikipedia entry re: the assassination attempt on Reagan, then go to Youtube and watch the best videos of the actual shooting and then watch, in sequence, the coverage as it unfolded on CNN and other networks.

Ultimately, by watching all this stuff, you're left with a HINT, but one that will resonate, I guarantee you, of the national catastrophe that occurs and WOULD occur in the event that a president of the United States happens to be murdered. I hated Reagan, as well. But I remember this when it happened and when the report came in that someone had taken shots at the president I remember how that felt.

From Wiki:

"Shortly before 2:30 PM local time (EST), as Reagan walked out of the hotel's T Street NW exit toward his waiting car, Hinckley emerged from the crowd of admirers and fired a R�hm RG-14 .22 cal.[11] blue steel revolver six times in three seconds.[12] The first bullet hit White House Press Secretary James Brady in the head.[13] The second hit District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delahanty in the back.[13][14][15] The third overshot the president and hit the window of a building across the street. The fourth hit Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy in the abdomen.[13][14] The fifth hit the bullet-resistant glass of the window on the open side door of the president's limousine. The sixth and final bullet ricocheted off the side of the limousine and hit the president in his left armpit, grazing a rib and lodging in his lung, stopping nearly an inch from his heart.[9]


http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=55584&highlight=wiki


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/18 3:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Unless we're talking about the coiner of a precise word phrase, I find it a little silly to be arguing about who "founded" the behavior patterns of females complaining about men's sexual behavior patterns -- both being patterns that I suspect have been and will continue to be timeless.

My candidates for the founders of sexual complaints are:

- Cain's high school girl friend. Given that Cain slew his own brother Abel, he's likely to have been a bodice groper when he was a teen at parties.

- Mitochondrial Eve. Since literally everyone on the planet is sexually descended from her, she must've been hit on a lot.

- Speaking of lot, Lot's wife.

- Helen of Troy, dragged all over the Aegean Sea by various studs for sex.

- Tawana Brawley, a profoundly sympathetic "survivor" of white gang rape who was uncritically believed.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/18 5:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Unless we're talking about the coiner of a precise word phrase, I find it a little silly to be arguing about who "founded" the behavior patterns of females complaining about men's sexual behavior patterns -- both being patterns that I suspect have been and will continue to be timeless.

My candidates for the founders of sexual complaints are:

- Cain's high school girl friend. Given that Cain slew his own brother Abel, he's likely to have been a bodice groper when he was a teen at parties.

- Mitochondrial Eve. Since literally everyone on the planet is sexually descended from her, she must've been hit on a lot.

- Speaking of lot, Lot's wife.

- Helen of Troy, dragged all over the Aegean Sea by various studs for sex.

- Tawana Brawley, a profoundly sympathetic "survivor" of white gang rape who was uncritically believed.


Glenn, Glenn, Glennnnn....you feign ignorance so adorably. Razz

First, quit with Tawana. Everybody knows some people lie about their sexual assault. (2%-8%, maybe?) THAT doesn't negate this profoundly necessary movement of people who've had their lives trashed by sexual assault. And no, Brett isn't one of them: Ford-Blasey was.

But #metoo is NOT all that 'timeless'. Yes, men have assaulted women forever, but #metoo is about EVERYBODY standing up and saying "Stop That Shit, Now!" This is unprecedented, historically. This is about no longer suffering in silence, and no longer accepting disbelief of your story, cuz the perp is a rich white man who wants a SCOTUS seat, or your movie producer, etc.

Dear Melania lives in a vacuum...probably needs to, just to survive. But her handlers should help her understand that Stupid Things she says helps NO one, with its insensitivity.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/18 8:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:

First, quit with Tawana. Everybody knows some people lie about their sexual assault. (2%-8%, maybe?) THAT doesn't negate this profoundly necessary movement of people who've had their lives trashed by sexual assault. And no, Brett isn't one of them: Ford-Blasey was.

Two peas in a pod... Tawana Brawley and Christine Blasey-Ford. And both of them, who were backed by con artists, still have people who are willing to believe them Rolling Eyes


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/18 9:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
Howee wrote:

First, quit with Tawana. Everybody knows some people lie about their sexual assault. (2%-8%, maybe?) THAT doesn't negate this profoundly necessary movement of people who've had their lives trashed by sexual assault. And no, Brett isn't one of them: Ford-Blasey was.

Two peas in a pod... Tawana Brawley and Christine Blasey-Ford. And both of them, who were backed by con artists, still have people who are willing to believe them Rolling Eyes

Just stop. You are beyond disgusting suggesting this poor woman is lying with no evidence of that being the case, and a passed polygraph saying she sure as hell isn't. You are what is wrong with this world.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11181
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/18 11:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Howee wrote:

First, quit with Tawana. Everybody knows some people lie about their sexual assault. (2%-8%, maybe?) THAT doesn't negate this profoundly necessary movement of people who've had their lives trashed by sexual assault. And no, Brett isn't one of them: Ford-Blasey was.

Two peas in a pod... Tawana Brawley and Christine Blasey-Ford. And both of them, who were backed by con artists, still have people who are willing to believe them Rolling Eyes

Just stop. You are beyond disgusting suggesting this poor woman is lying with no evidence of that being the case, and a passed polygraph saying she sure as hell isn't. You are what is wrong with this world.


Justin, you know the deal: ignore the idiotic trolling and it WILL go away. The ignorance doesn't deserve the efforts of your keystrokes. Razz



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/17/18 12:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Howee wrote:

First, quit with Tawana. Everybody knows some people lie about their sexual assault. (2%-8%, maybe?) THAT doesn't negate this profoundly necessary movement of people who've had their lives trashed by sexual assault. And no, Brett isn't one of them: Ford-Blasey was.

Two peas in a pod... Tawana Brawley and Christine Blasey-Ford. And both of them, who were backed by con artists, still have people who are willing to believe them Rolling Eyes

Just stop. You are beyond disgusting suggesting this poor woman is lying with no evidence of that being the case, and a passed polygraph saying she sure as hell isn't. You are what is wrong with this world.


Justin, you know the deal: ignore the idiotic trolling and it WILL go away. The ignorance doesn't deserve the efforts of your keystrokes. Razz

Oooh. I like it. Let's all sign a pledge to ourselves and each other that we will never acknowledge another one of his posts. We will go Amish and just shun him.

I can get behind that.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/18 12:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Howee wrote:

First, quit with Tawana. Everybody knows some people lie about their sexual assault. (2%-8%, maybe?) THAT doesn't negate this profoundly necessary movement of people who've had their lives trashed by sexual assault. And no, Brett isn't one of them: Ford-Blasey was.

Two peas in a pod... Tawana Brawley and Christine Blasey-Ford. And both of them, who were backed by con artists, still have people who are willing to believe them Rolling Eyes

Just stop. You are beyond disgusting suggesting this poor woman is lying with no evidence of that being the case, and a passed polygraph saying she sure as hell isn't. You are what is wrong with this world.

I think you're beyond disgusting believing a woman who was clearly taking an active part in a false allegation tantamount to perjury knowing full well that she's lying. Want to know what's wrong with this world? People like you who go along with something like this, to destroy someone purely for political gain. Sad. At this point you're the only one who believes that ridiculous polygraph test.


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/18 1:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Howee wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Howee wrote:

First, quit with Tawana. Everybody knows some people lie about their sexual assault. (2%-8%, maybe?) THAT doesn't negate this profoundly necessary movement of people who've had their lives trashed by sexual assault. And no, Brett isn't one of them: Ford-Blasey was.

Two peas in a pod... Tawana Brawley and Christine Blasey-Ford. And both of them, who were backed by con artists, still have people who are willing to believe them Rolling Eyes

Just stop. You are beyond disgusting suggesting this poor woman is lying with no evidence of that being the case, and a passed polygraph saying she sure as hell isn't. You are what is wrong with this world.


Justin, you know the deal: ignore the idiotic trolling and it WILL go away. The ignorance doesn't deserve the efforts of your keystrokes. Razz

Oooh. I like it. Let's all sign a pledge to ourselves and each other that we will never acknowledge another one of his posts. We will go Amish and just shun him.

I can get behind that.

Yes, PLEASE do that. That way I don't have to see you two whine and resort to cheap insults every time I weigh in on any subject.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17163
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/19/18 6:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
I repeat. Tarana Burke had nothing at all to do with #metoo.


Other than coining the term and creating it, she had nothing to do with it.
Other than being recognized for initiating of this and her efforts regarding victims of sexual assault, she had nothing to do with it.

jammerbirdi wrote:
Alyssa Milano tweeted her call for me too on Oct 15 with no knowledge whatsoever of Tarana Burke or her prior ‘me too’ efforts in the area of victims of sexual assault. She said so in her very next tweet the following day and has reported to have admitted that to the NYTimes.


Congrats to Alyssa Milano to putting a celebrity face on #metoo. You appear to be using the fact that she was unaware of what Tarana Burke and Burke's work/efforts to diminish what Burke did and praise Milano. There is no need to denigrate the work of Burke -- who has been doing this for years -- by not recognizing her efforts and bolstering Milano's ignorance (for lack of a better word) of Burke's efforts.

jammerbirdi wrote:
But it’s not remotely true and the actual truth is complicated and problematic.


Again, provide multiple media sources and outlets above. Yet you did not provide anything other than your opinion, declaring what Burke did with respect to metoo as "not remotely true."



From The New York Times:

Quote:
• Reflections of a #MeToo leader

Tarana Burke started the original Me Too movement more than a decade ago on MySpace. She spoke to us about the movement’s future, the #HimToo backlash and advice for survivors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/briefing/saudi-arabia-paul-allen-nba.html
Quote:

She Founded Me Too. Now She Wants to Move Past the Trauma.

When the activist Tarana Burke started the original “Me Too” movement more than a decade ago on MySpace, she never imagined what a force it would become. Then on Oct. 15, 2017, the actress Alyssa Milano shared on Twitter a friend’s suggestion that “women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted” write “Me too” in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein revelations earlier that month. The #MeToo hashtag instantly went viral. And Burke was thrust into the global spotlight.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/arts/tarana-burke-metoo-anniversary.html?module=inline


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19621



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/24/18 7:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
I repeat. Tarana Burke had nothing at all to do with #metoo.


Other than coining the term and creating it, she had nothing to do with it.
Other than being recognized for initiating of this and her efforts regarding victims of sexual assault, she had nothing to do with it.


She had nothing to do with the creation or triggering of the #metoo movement that exploded beginning on OCT 15 of last year. Alyssa Milano had not heard of Tarana Burke or her previous 'me too' efforts. And she did not get the idea for 'me too' from anyone who had heard of Ms. Burke or her "me too" efforts. These are things I know like I know my own name. You can believe me when I say that I know these things or not but I'm going to beat you to the punch and say I'm equally certain that you are not going to believe me. And why would you? You simply don't have enough information.

This isn't about ownership of #metoo or who first coined a phrase or who had a MySpace page ten years ago. This is about history and history is about what exactly happened. What happened in the particular case of the worldwide #metoo phenomenon that exploded last year? I can't explain why there hasn't been a detailed journalistic exploration of the exact events that led to #metoo but I can tell you one is coming. Certainly I wouldn't be here arguing against the published record as it has been reported by the entirety of the news media worldwide if what I'm suggesting had already been reported on and was part of the public record.

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
You appear to be using the fact that she was unaware of what Tarana Burke and Burke's work/efforts to diminish what Burke did and praise Milano.


At this time, I have infinitely more respect and admiration for Tarana Burke than I do Alyssa Milano. But at a moment in which social justice might improve around the area of sexual predation as a result of the most high profile Hollywood sex scandal possibly ever, Alyssa Milano put her career interests at risk and took the idea of 'me too' and used her celebrity to spread that idea to what it has become today. That's just a matter of irrefutable fact. For anyone who cares about the #metoo movement, she's owed an infinitely greater portion of credit for bringing about or triggering #metoo than Tarana Burke, who had absolutely nothing to do with bringing it about at all.

You mentioned opinions. I do have lots of opinions about both of them, #metoo, what the movement is saying and has been saying, etc. But on this particular issue surrounding the creation of the #metoo phenomenon, as far as I can tell and I'm not perfect, I'm just dealing naked facts here. For the purpose of this thread, when speaking about Tarana Burke and Alyssa Milano, I am and will be trying to only speak factual information. She did this on such and such a date, etc. I know SOME of the facts I'm stating sound like opinions. But if I know them to be facts, I'm going to state them as such.

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:

jammerbirdi wrote:
But it’s not remotely true and the actual truth is complicated and problematic.


Again, provide multiple media sources and outlets above. Yet you did not provide anything other than your opinion, declaring what Burke did with respect to metoo as "not remotely true."


My sig line, which has been up for most of the last year, is my answer to the now scores of stories over the last 12 months repeating the same false origin story for the #metoo movement. But you can see I'm suggesting something outside the published and publicly known version of events here. I'm not trying to antagonize you and if I typed a remark that did that, I apologize.

Here is a fact or two, as stark as they may sound. If Tarana Burke had never been born, #metoo would still have happened exactly as it did. There are (at least) two people on this planet who that can not be said of: One is Alyssa Milano, and the other is the person who 'suggested' the 'me too' idea to her. If the person who 'suggested' 'me too' is the same person who thought of the idea then there are only two essential persons involved in the creation of the #metoo movement. If the person who 'suggested' the idea to Ms. Milano, who she refers to as 'a friend' (possibly as a conceit) was NOT the source of the idea, but was just passing it along, then there are (at least) three people who were instrumental in bringing about the #metoo movement, phenomenon, era, as it exists today.

You can stop linking to these stories that refer to Tarana Burke as the founder or creator or whatever. I've been reading them for a year, they're all representative of lazy repetition and copying almost entire articles and certainly key phrases verbatim off the wire. And that has been the case since just about the 17th of October 2017. The Founder of #MeToo. Meet the Woman Behind the #MeToo Movement. It's all bullshit. These articles are full of fanciful figures of speech that ascribe roles where there were none.

What actually happened? If Alyssa Milano had never heard of Tarana Burke or 'Me Too' then where did she get the idea for something called 'me too?' (Apparently no newspaper reporter or editor has ever asked.) She said it was 'suggested by a friend." Is that the absolute truth? Or were 'suggested' and 'friend' both figures of speech? If it's all the literal truth, then who is this friend and where and how did this person come into possession of the idea for a 'me too' movement, those exact two words, at this precise moment in time, the 3rd week of October, 2017, just ten days after the Weinstein stories broke?



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin