Official Sexual Harrassment Thread

[Bernie Brewer]

I brag to one or two league mates about my titles when i want to piss them off. I don't tend to do it to non-league mates often (cuz I doubt anyone else cares one way or the other), But if I had a couple of guys from my league reading my posts on here, I might try to get their goat too.

Do I need to get a larger room?

[heyelander]

Inappropriate is my sense of humor as well. Oh, that and poop jokes. (Insert poop emoji here) Btw, lest we lose track of your initial response, how do you know we didn’t get a room?

I'd be very happy for you both.

[Sour Masher]

Do I need to get a larger room?

Nah. If we invited with, 1. He'd brag about his conquests after, and 2. If I got up to go to the bathroom, he'd be all like "you shall not pass!"

[Redbirds Fan]

This is sort of a non sequitur, but does anyone know if there are any female posters at RJ? I realize that roto is very male dominated, and this topic made me think of how narrow our demographic probably is here. And then it got me thinking about how male dominated message boards in general probably are. I don't really post on other forums, but ones I've read seem to be all guys. Is this sort of activity--engaging with strangers online, not friends and family on social media, on all sort of issues almost almost exclusively a guy thing? I wonder if that is related to fear of harassment. I know women often hide there gender when gaming to avoid that sort of thing, so maybe they hide their gender on message boards too? Or maybe women openly use all sorts of message boards, just not ones I go to?

There's Mandy.

And there was Stacy the Sports Chick. And FUCLA.

[The Feral Slasher]

Jeez. If nobody noticed, this isn't a news article, it's an opinion piece from the socialist magazine Jacobin. They've got such a hard-on for Bernie and are still so pissed off at Hillary they can't even get their eyes un-crossed. So this is their point of view, but their haphazard recitation of Clinton "facts" is reason enough to be skeptical of their editorial opinions.

The claims by the Clinton accusers have been litigated ad nauseum, but I'm happy to go through them all, date-by-date, line-by-line if anyone likes...not because Clinton deserves to be defended, but because too many people have made political hay out of his sexcapades. I'd rather talk about the sixty people he has murdered.

And again, here is a big difference...with many sex cases the dispute is 'consensual vs. non-consensual'. In Moore's case, that is not an issue. At 14, there is no legal possibility of consent. And, even if it was some state where a kid could consent at 12, is it still disgusting enough that a 32-year old prosecutor was dating a 14-year old in secret?

(BTW, Michael Steele, former GOP chairman, just said in an interview that when Clinton was the accused he didn't even get the benefit of the "if these allegations are true" doubt. In other words, Steele is saying that the facts are the opposite of what your post and the Jacobin opinion piece suggest, namely that Moore is being held to an unfairly high standard. He's saying that Clinton was assumed to be guilty and that everyone went from there. Interesting, huh?)

Since you didn't respond to my earlier questions I suppose I'll try again. So it seems that you believe those who think it is likely Bill Clinton has harassed or sexually assaulted women are either Socialist Bernie lovers who have an axe to grind or are right wing conspiracists who will believe any outrageous claim about the Clintons. I do find it interesting that you believe every other group can be biased against Clinton, but don't think it is possible that Democrats can be biased in his favor. Not sure what the parts about Moore's case have to do with it nor Michael Steele's comments. I really don't think Michael Steele was talking about loyal Democrats when he made his statement.

So a simple question for you (and anyone else who will answer)--how likely do you think it is that Bill Clinton has harassed or sexually assaulted at least one woman ?

[Redbirds Fan]

Since you didn't respond to my earlier questions I suppose I'll try again. So it seems that you believe those who think it is likely Bill Clinton has harassed or sexually assaulted women are either Socialist Bernie lovers who have an axe to grind or are right wing conspiracists who will believe any outrageous claim about the Clintons. I do find it interesting that you believe every other group can be biased against Clinton, but don't think it is possible that Democrats can be biased in his favor. Not sure what the parts about Moore's case have to do with it nor Michael Steele's comments. I really don't think Michael Steele was talking about loyal Democrats when he made his statement.

So a simple question for you (and anyone else who will answer)--how likely do you think it is that Bill Clinton has harassed or sexually assaulted at least one woman ?

It's not a simple question, it is a poorly worded and loaded question. Let's talk about facts, specifics, knowable things.

With Monica, I believe they had sexual relations and that it was highly inappropriate. People differ on whether it was sexual harrassment.

I believe it is more unlikely than likely that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, based upon all of the facts which have come forth.

If you want to know about any more any other women, just speak up.

My belief is that you are only pretending to misinterpret my posts in an attempt to make a point you are unable to make directly. I think you are purposely misstating my positions. That seems to me to be a very passive-aggressive approach to discourse.

[The Feral Slasher]

It's not a simple question, it is a poorly worded and loaded question. Let's talk about facts, specifics, knowable things.

With Monica, I believe they had sexual relations and that it was highly inappropriate. People differ on whether it was sexual harrassment.

I believe it is more unlikely than likely that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, based upon all of the facts which have come forth.

If you want to know about any more any other women, just speak up.

My belief is that you are only pretending to misinterpret my posts in an attempt to make a point you are unable to make directly. I think you are purposely misstating my positions. That seems to me to be a very passive-aggressive approach to discourse.

you are the one who brought up the conspiracy theories and Bernie supporters so it really wasn't clear what you were saying. if u want to believe I am purposely misstating your positions I am fine with you believing that.

[Hornsby]

Louis CK admits that the stories were all true:

I want to address the stories told to The New York Times by five women named Abby, Rebecca, Dana, Julia who felt able to name themselves and one who did not.

These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions. And I’ve tried to learn from them. And run from them. Now I’m aware of the extent of the impact of my actions. I learned yesterday the extent to which I left these women who admired me feeling badly about themselves and cautious around other men who would never have put them in that position. I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn’t want to hear it. I didn’t think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it. There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with. I wish I had reacted to their admiration of me by being a good example to them as a man and given them some guidance as a comedian, including because I admired their work.

The hardest regret to live with is what you’ve done to hurt someone else. And I can hardly wrap my head around the scope of hurt I brought on them. I’d be remiss to exclude the hurt that I’ve brought on people who I work with and have worked with who’s professional and personal lives have been impacted by all of this, including projects currently in production: the cast and crew of Better Things, Baskets, The Cops, One Mississippi, and I Love You, Daddy. I deeply regret that this has brought negative attention to my manager Dave Becky who only tried to mediate a situation that I caused. I’ve brought anguish and hardship to the people at FX who have given me so much The Orchard who took a chance on my movie. and every other entity that has bet on me through the years. I’ve brought pain to my family, my friends, my children and their mother.

I have spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything I want. I will now step back and take a long time to listen. Thank you for reading.

[Redbirds Fan]

you are the one who brought up the conspiracy theories and Bernie supporters so it really wasn't clear what you were saying. if u want to believe I am purposely misstating your positions I am fine with you believing that.

No, you are one who cited the nutty opinion piece by Branko Marcetic. I will admit that he probably knows more about US politics than most of the other people in New Zealand. That doesn't make him an authority.

[The Feral Slasher]

It's not a simple question, it is a poorly worded and loaded question. Let's talk about facts, specifics, knowable things.

With Monica, I believe they had sexual relations and that it was highly inappropriate. People differ on whether it was sexual harrassment.

I believe it is more unlikely than likely that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, based upon all of the facts which have come forth.

If you want to know about any more any other women, just speak up.

My belief is that you are only pretending to misinterpret my posts in an attempt to make a point you are unable to make directly. I think you are purposely misstating my positions. That seems to me to be a very passive-aggressive approach to discourse.

I really have no problem directly stating my point, I think Bill Clinton likely assaulted or harassed at least one woman and I think many Democrats give him a pass on it or give him the benefit of the doubt when they wouldn't if he were a Republican or some other celebrity. And since you think I am passive aggressive I'll quit treading and responding to your posts, which should make us both better off.

[Redbirds Fan]

I really have no problem directly stating my point, I think Bill Clinton likely assaulted or harassed at least one woman and I think many Democrats give him a pass on it or give him the benefit of the doubt when they wouldn't if he were a Republican or some other celebrity. And since you think I am passive aggressive I'll quit treading and responding to your posts, which should make us both better off.

I think that sounds fine. And if you'll be direct enough to tell us which woman you are referring to, we can see whether he has gotten the benefit of a doubt improperly. But I don't think he will ever be elected President again anyway.

EDIT: (I forgot to add that Bernie lost, get over it.)

[Redbirds Fan]

And as President Kennedy used to say, "Let me say this about that...."

I don't intend to be a Bill Clinton apologist. He is sleazy. He was then, he is now. But there are some fundamental differences in Bill's case now and the cases of Weinstein, Moore, etc.

In the cases of Weinstein and Moore, the allegations are just now coming out. We know some bad stuff, but we don't know yet all of what happened. Experience tells us that these things are usually much worse than they seem at first. With Weinstein, the allegations have grown every week. Now with Moore, it comes out from former co-workers that he regularly dated teens when he was in his 30s, which to me alone is enough to question his judgment.

In Bill Clinton's case, the allegations against him have been litigated for decades. And when I say litigated, I mean both in the press and in the courts. There have literally been Independent Counsel who have reviewed many of the claims, as well as courts and countless news organizations. There have been hundreds if not thousands of people interviewed, thousands of documents gathered. It seems unlikely there would be many skeletons still buried out there, unless you are one of the people who buy into the sixty murders school of thought.

The biggest difference with the two cases, Clinton vs. Weinstein, et al. is what I perceive to be the purpose for which they are being used. In the case of Weinstein, Moore and the others, the object is to identify the bad guys, make them answer for their misconduct, and not let them do any more harm. In Weinstein's case there has been some good success, in Moore's not so much as of yet. In Clinton's case, it has been a different matter. In 2016, the Trump campaign used the allegations against Bill Clinton to do two things: 1) to deflect from Trump's history of sexual misconduct, and 2) to smear Hillary Clinton as being an accomplice to what Bill had done. In this regard he received a ton of help from Facebook, which I never really understood until now. More recently, with the recent wave of Weinstein-type revelations, I have seen commentary about "the Clintons" once again, from people still pissed off about the Democratic Primaries, despite the fact that Bill was not a candidate.

So I'm not going to argue that Bill is Father-of-the-Year. But don't try to weave his infidelities into some sort of conspiratorial Democratic tapestry, or be ready to defend your facts and your reasoning. Better to just agree that he is sleazy. But not as sleazy as Weinstein.

[Bernie Brewer]

I think that sounds fine. And if you'll be direct enough to tell us which woman you are referring to, we can see whether he has gotten the benefit of a doubt improperly. But I don't think he will ever be elected President again anyway.

EDIT: (I forgot to add that Bernie lost, get over it.)

I’ve long thought the Junita Broaddrick is a legit rape. From everything I’ve read over the years, her story seems consistent and highly plausible. She apparently had a fat lip and bruises when her hotel roommate found her in bed and crying the afternoon of the “event”. IIRCC, the women roommate verified this. Either that’s rape or really rough concentual sex. If we are to believe everyone automatically who makes an allegation against a powerful individual except in her case, that’s splitting hairs. If I stated I didn’t believe one of Moore’s accusers, I’d get a thrashing for victim blaming. How is this different. Both events occurred long ago.

The obvious difference is Moore is running for office.

[Sour Masher]

I’ve long thought the Junita Broaddrick is a legit rape. From everything I’ve read over the years, her story seems consistent and highly plausible. She apparently had a fat lip and bruises when her hotel roommate found her in bed and crying the afternoon of the “event”. IIRCC, the women roommate verified this. Either that’s rape or really rough concentual sex. If we are to believe everyone automatically who makes an allegation against a powerful individual except in her case, that’s splitting hairs. If I stated I didn’t believe one of Moore’s accusers, I’d get a thrashing for victim blaming. How is this different. Both events occurred long ago.

I think it is a bit different, because in this context, of talking about new revelations about powerful people still in positions to exert that power, and especially about politicians currently seeking election, it seems like what-about-ery to bring up Clinton.
I say that not suggest that Bill Clinton has not gotten the benefit of doubt in the past that no one accused is getting now, but to me that is as much a product of the times as anything. A lot of this used to be dismissed/disbelieved back in the day in a way it is not now. And I think public opinion is such now that not only do many revile Bill Clinton, I think his actions are part of what cost his wife the election (there were so many things, but I think that was part of it).

Whatever passes he got (and I think he got less than many at the time, because as RF has said, a lot of people wanted to bring BC down, so they litigated the hell out of these cases), I'm not going to deny them. I'm certainly not going to defend Bill Clinton for that aspect of his life, because even if you don't believe everything said about him, he has admitted to enough to damn him. If anyone was bringing him up in the context of changing times, as a reflection on the progress we are making that now powerful men like him are getting called out for this behavior and victims are finally being believed, or to highlight how this sort of thing is far from new, that adds value to the discussion.

But it does get tiresome, when some folks bring Bill Clinton up as a deflection any time a Republican's sexual misdeeds are brought to light. I see that happen a lot, and I find it as weak a defense of current bad acts of current power players as when Moore defenders want to compare him to Saint Joseph, legal father of Jesus Christ. As a man of the law, I know it must get RF goat when that deflection defense is used. How absurd it would be for a murdered to defend himself in court by pointing out all of the other murders people did before him. And it is an equally poor defense of the GOP's efforts to defend Moore to suggest that in a past where many such accusations were swept under the rug, that the Dems were also complicit and silent on Bill Clinton's misdeeds.

All that said, frankly, at this point, I'd be happy if both Clintons realized the fact that their continued political existence and place at the forefront of the political world is a determinant to their party. I think, given just how obsessed the GOP is with them, and what perfect distractions they always seem to be from the matters that matter in the now, the honorable thing for them to do would be to bow out and let the party find itself without them. They are more of a detriment than a help to the party at this point. And while I'm standing on the boo Clinton side, I'll add that HRC's tactic of blaming just about everyone but herself for losing to a charlatan buffoon like Trump is annoying as hell. She lost to Donald freaking Trump. She has to own how royally she screwed up to allow that to happen, and after that, it would be lovely if she and Bill retired somewhere peaceful and out of the public eye (of course, the right-wing media would still talk about them all the time, but at least they wouldn't fuel them, like a moving red cape to a bull).

[The Feral Slasher]

I think it is a bit different, because in this context, of talking about new revelations about powerful people still in positions to exert that power, and especially about politicians currently seeking election, it seems like what-about-ery to bring up Clinton.
I say that not suggest that Bill Clinton has not gotten the benefit of doubt in the past that no one accused is getting now, but to me that is as much a product of the times as anything. A lot of this used to be dismissed/disbelieved back in the day in a way it is not now. And I think public opinion is such now that not only do many revile Bill Clinton, I think his actions are part of what costs his wife the election (there were so many things, but I think that was part of it).

Whatever passes he got (and I think he got less than many at the time, because as RF has said, a lot of people wanted to bring BC down, so they litigated the hell out of these cases), I'm not going to deny them. And I'm certainly not going to defend Bill Clinton for that aspect of his life, because even if you don't believe everything said about him, he has admitted to enough to damn him. If anyone was bringing him up in the context of changing times, as a reflection on the progress we are making that now powerful men like him are getting called out for this behavior and victims are finally being believed, or to highlight how this sort of thing is far from new, that adds value to the discussion.

But it does get tiresome, when some folks bring Bill Clinton up as a deflection any time a Republican's sexual misdeeds are brought to light. I see that happen a lot, and I find it as weak a defense of current bad acts of current power players as when Moore defenders want to compare him to Saint Joseph, legal father of Jesus Christ. As a man of the law, I know it must get RF goat when that deflection defense is used. How absurd it would be for a murdered to defend himself in court by pointing out all of the other murders people did before him.

All that said, frankly, at this point, I'd be happy if both Clintons realized the fact that their continued political existence and place at the forefront of the political world is a determinant to their party. I think, given just how obsessed the GOP is with them, and what perfect distractions they always seem to be from the matters that matter in the now, the honorable thing for them to do would be to bow out and let the party find itself without them. They are more of a detriment than a help to the party at this point. And while I'm standing on the boo Clinton side, I'll add that HRC's tactic of blaming just about everyone but herself for losing to a charlatan buffoon like Trump is annoying as hell. She lost to Donald freaking Trump. She has to own how royally she screwed up to allow that to happen, and after that, it would be lovely if she and Bill retired somewhere peaceful and out of the public eye (of course, the right-wing media would still talk about them all the time, but at least they wouldn't fuel them, like a moving red cape to a bull).

I certainly don't recall anyone on RJ justifying or defending Moore. I think Gregg first brought up the Clintons, but he pretty clearly wasn't defending Moore. For my part in this discussion it was not at all about Moore or any other Republicans, but rather a question of why Clinton has continued to be popular amongst mainstream Democrats given his history. And I agree it would be better for everyone if the Clintons just disappeared, but that doesn't really seem like their style.