Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore accused of statutory rape

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Oh yeah, speaking of the moral rot within the GOP....check this out.

Some voters in Alabama received a robocall from someone named "Bernie Bernstein" (yes, really) who claimed to be a Washington Post reporter that was seeking women who were willing to make "damaging" remarks about Roy Moore in exchange for money.
http://wkrg.com/2017/11/14/curious-robocall-seeks-damaging-information-on-moore/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/a-dishonorable-smear-in-dixie/545957/

The sad thing is, the people behind this smear didn't even bother to use a real Washington Post reporter's name and instead used the most Jewish sounding name they could think of and the most Jewish sounding voice they could pull off, and a number of Republican voters will STILL think it's the real thing. The alt-right and the channers and the Daily Stormer pukes know they can exert minimal effort and still manipulate people with this crap because they WANT to believe it's true. It's scary.

BeetleManiac:

As some of the commentary circuit have pointed out, the Republicans are more or less (and in some cases literally) saying that anything is better than electing a Democrat. I'd like to make a joke about that, but I'm not that fucking funny.

Honestly, I'd probably do it too now that I think of it. Not because of politics (well a certain kind of politics), but in order to publicly cover my arse, gain leverage and also being able to twist the knife in the wound. Not specifically on the issue of paedophilia, something like tax "avoidance" or active corruption and theft/inappropriate use of the public kitty ... I mean, I have standards.

Possibly get in a new boss who will remember how I helped them on the side.

Now that I've given it a bit of thought, seems like a smart play. Of course, I'm assuming a lot that this guy is playing political chess and carrying buckets of petrol pretending it's water to the local house-burning. He could just be a colossal fucking idiot with no idea of optics. Actually I could probably get the answer to that by asking ... is state auditor something you get voted into, or you're merely selected for the job? If the former, colossal fucking idiot.

Exley97:

Team Moore's defense has moved well beyond moralizing his alleged actions and now constitutes doxxing and attacks on the alleged victims as well as various smears and unsubstantiated rumors on Gateway Pundit about both the victims and the press, in particular the Washington Post ("It's a grand conspiracy! The Post paid the victims to lie!!!").

Again, the moral rot at the center of the GOP has been laid bare for everyone to see, but it still won't stop the right wing lifers from either arguing it's all fake news (as if something of this proportion could be faked and covered up) or that having a underage creeper/harasser in the Senate is better than having a liberal.

Argh ... I hate American politics. In Australia we'd run them out of the country on a strong basis of them being a kiddy-fiddler alone, also that fugly hat he wears. Apparently this is how far they're willing to sink? Christ. Doxxing and outing his victims as well? Well ain't he classy. That being said, it seems like a conspiracy to begin with. After all, they merely banned him from various locations and kept it underwraps.

Which seems like a whole spectrum of fucking wrong to begin with. People can't say it's a 'political' attack, either, given how long he's been in the political spotlight.

That being said, it could be the GOP themselves doing a bit of internal pruning. It's not a good look to have to be continually supportive of an active paedophile longterm, for the same reason of that public optics of moral rot. So maybe it was the whips of the GOP deciding he was one screw too loose to be a useful rep of the brand and quietly pushed on the side to make this go public in a big way.

Political parties tend to do a bit of private investigations into the lives and histories of its members. Mainly because of situations exactly like this. So maybe they already knew the extent of that house burning that was hushed up on the side, and gently stoked the coals to make a brand new fire under his arse.

That's what power brokers in Australia do, anyways. After all, party loyalty is second to that frontbencher job. I'm not 100% familiar on the particulars of U.S. power-broking, however. If it's anything like Australia, it must be the greatest soap opera on Earth.

bastardofmelbourne:
Annnd now Sean Hannity has given Moore "twenty-four hours" to come up with a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies in his accounts of the incidents.

I'll reiterate: Sean Hannity is on the verge of dropping Roy Moore. Am I reading this right? Sean Hannity, everybody, is drawing a line in the sand (twenty-four hours from now) which he will not cross. Sean Hannity is Taking A Stand.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but here goes; good on you, Sean Hannity. I know you're still a turd-person who sleeps inside a used condom, but seriously, good on you for finally drawing a line. I mean, sure, first you accused the women of lying, accused both the Democrats and Mitch McConnell of manufacturing a frame-up, and started a bizarre feud with a coffee machine manufacturer. But eventually, you saw the light, and that's what really matters; having the strength of moral character to break out from the cocoon of hardened bullshit you constructed over your long and despicable career as a professional bullshitter and say "No more. No more! No Moore."

Sounds like Hannity is taking credit for finding the " inconsistencies" in Moore's story.

Exley97:

Well, the Daily Caller hired him for a weekly column (great job, Tucker!) and then immediately cut ties with him after his first column (on Kevin Spacey, LOL...) and claimed they didn't actually really and truly hire him, it was just a one-time thing. So I guess we're not quite there yet, but hey....give it time!

Ha! Well, maybe with enough time, he could experience a moment of deep introspection and get out of the cesspit before they decide to wheel him back in. Depends on how well they pay to numb the introspection, I guess.

bastardofmelbourne:
Annnd now Sean Hannity has given Moore "twenty-four hours" to come up with a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies in his accounts of the incidents.

I'll reiterate: Sean Hannity is on the verge of dropping Roy Moore. Am I reading this right? Sean Hannity, everybody, is drawing a line in the sand (twenty-four hours from now) which he will not cross. Sean Hannity is Taking A Stand.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but here goes; good on you, Sean Hannity. I know you're still a turd-person who sleeps inside a used condom, but seriously, good on you for finally drawing a line. I mean, sure, first you accused the women of lying, accused both the Democrats and Mitch McConnell of manufacturing a frame-up, and started a bizarre feud with a coffee machine manufacturer. But eventually, you saw the light, and that's what really matters; having the strength of moral character to break out from the cocoon of hardened bullshit you constructed over your long and despicable career as a professional bullshitter and say "No more. No more! No Moore."

It's amazing how losing one's sponsors triggers moral epiphanies.

altnameJag:

bastardofmelbourne:
Annnd now Sean Hannity has given Moore "twenty-four hours" to come up with a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies in his accounts of the incidents.

I'll reiterate: Sean Hannity is on the verge of dropping Roy Moore. Am I reading this right? Sean Hannity, everybody, is drawing a line in the sand (twenty-four hours from now) which he will not cross. Sean Hannity is Taking A Stand.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but here goes; good on you, Sean Hannity. I know you're still a turd-person who sleeps inside a used condom, but seriously, good on you for finally drawing a line. I mean, sure, first you accused the women of lying, accused both the Democrats and Mitch McConnell of manufacturing a frame-up, and started a bizarre feud with a coffee machine manufacturer. But eventually, you saw the light, and that's what really matters; having the strength of moral character to break out from the cocoon of hardened bullshit you constructed over your long and despicable career as a professional bullshitter and say "No more. No more! No Moore."

It's amazing how losing one's sponsors triggers moral epiphanies.

but only until those sponsors come back *cough*O'Reilly*cough*

Avnger:

altnameJag:

bastardofmelbourne:
Annnd now Sean Hannity has given Moore "twenty-four hours" to come up with a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies in his accounts of the incidents.

I'll reiterate: Sean Hannity is on the verge of dropping Roy Moore. Am I reading this right? Sean Hannity, everybody, is drawing a line in the sand (twenty-four hours from now) which he will not cross. Sean Hannity is Taking A Stand.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but here goes; good on you, Sean Hannity. I know you're still a turd-person who sleeps inside a used condom, but seriously, good on you for finally drawing a line. I mean, sure, first you accused the women of lying, accused both the Democrats and Mitch McConnell of manufacturing a frame-up, and started a bizarre feud with a coffee machine manufacturer. But eventually, you saw the light, and that's what really matters; having the strength of moral character to break out from the cocoon of hardened bullshit you constructed over your long and despicable career as a professional bullshitter and say "No more. No more! No Moore."

It's amazing how losing one's sponsors triggers moral epiphanies.

but only until those sponsors come back *cough*O'Reilly*cough*

Comeback or not, this is the only way to hurt a television program like this: The wallet. People will watch it none stop, regardless of how much a jerk he is (Michael Savage still has a job for crying out loud). Its not like Firefly or the Heman remake where the studio could just screw them over with little consequence.

In any case, I can't for the life of me think of why this "alleged" kiddy fiddler would still run for office.

People's lives get ruined if they are falsy accused of sexual assault, much less of this degree or actualy committing it. If you go out streaking, you are put on a watch list and can't get even a job cleaning up trash at the county fair.

If I committed statutory rape I couldn't mop the floors of the Alabama Capital Building, but he thinks he can be one of the people that says Yay or Nay to Lets bomb the hell of some spot int he Middle East?

saint of m:
In any case, I can't for the life of me think of why this "alleged" kiddy fiddler would still run for office.

Because backing out feels dangerously close to an admission of guilt.

Bear in mind that a lot of these people (of which Moore may be one) simply do not accept that they are doing anything wrong. Even the knowledge that it is technically illegal does not really get through to their core beliefs. I imagine once they've got away with it for so long and risen so far despite it, it is particularly hard for them to eventually be caught out and take the fall.

saint of m:

If I committed statutory rape I couldn't mop the floors of the Alabama Capital Building, but he thinks he can be one of the people that says Yay or Nay to Lets bomb the hell of some spot int he Middle East?

Well...yeah. I can think of no nice way to say this, but while reactionary Evangelicals (and reactionaries in general) do not willingly admit to this, they are on the whole either not concerned with or even in favor of rape and sexual assault.

Remember, this is the political bloc that believes:

-Women should marry as young as possible, Evangelical leaders have long advocated for 15 or 16 being the ideal marrying age.

-A man has the right to demand sex from his wife even if she doesn't want to

-A woman who is impregnated by her rapist should consider herself "blessed"

-Women generally should not have autonomy, before they are married they should be completely obedient to their fathers and after marriage they should be completely obedient to their husbands.

-Girls should not go to school (and especially not to college), and should be homeschooled to learn primarily homemaking skills so that the "feminists" in the "State schools" don't ruin their ovaries by teaching them math and science or other such silliness like how to vote or exercise their right to refuse sex.

-Rape is a personal issue and police shouldn't investigate it. Evangelical Republicans in state legislatures have frequently cut funding to rape prevention and investigation programs, for instance in Georgia, where the Republicans for two years managed to stall legislation that would provide funding to process the state's backlog of rape kits.

-A man has the Biblical right to "discipline" his wife and daughters.

-A woman who becomes pregnant by rape secretly wanted to be raped, women use false rape accusations to justify abortions, and other such rape myths.

Basically, it should come as no surprise to anyone here that the social group that invented the concept of the father-daughter abstinence ball is now backing an admitted sexual abuser of teenagers.

Oh, and just so we're all clear that these people are scum, the Evangelical movement has had ties to actual white supremacy since its inception. Remember that the issue that originally spawned the religious right was the federally-ordered desegregation of Bob Jones University. They also don't very much like Jews, if the "Bernie Bernstein" robocall (I never thought it was possible to audibly indicate the presence of echo marks) is anything to go by.

renegade7:

saint of m:

If I committed statutory rape I couldn't mop the floors of the Alabama Capital Building, but he thinks he can be one of the people that says Yay or Nay to Lets bomb the hell of some spot int he Middle East?

Well...yeah. I can think of no nice way to say this, but while reactionary Evangelicals (and reactionaries in general) do not willingly admit to this, they are on the whole either not concerned with or even in favor of rape and sexual assault.

Remember, this is the political bloc that believes:

-Women should marry as young as possible, Evangelical leaders have long advocated for 15 or 16 being the ideal marrying age.

-A man has the right to demand sex from his wife even if she doesn't want to

-A woman who is impregnated by her rapist should consider herself "blessed"

-Women generally should not have autonomy, before they are married they should be completely obedient to their fathers and after marriage they should be completely obedient to their husbands.

-Girls should not go to school (and especially not to college), and should be homeschooled to learn primarily homemaking skills so that the "feminists" in the "State schools" don't ruin their ovaries by teaching them math and science or other such silliness like how to vote or exercise their right to refuse sex.

-Rape is a personal issue and police shouldn't investigate it. Evangelical Republicans in state legislatures have frequently cut funding to rape prevention and investigation programs, for instance in Georgia, where the Republicans for two years managed to stall legislation that would provide funding to process the state's backlog of rape kits.

-A man has the Biblical right to "discipline" his wife and daughters.

-A woman who becomes pregnant by rape secretly wanted to be raped, women use false rape accusations to justify abortions, and other such rape myths.

Basically, it should come as no surprise to anyone here that the social group that invented the concept of the father-daughter abstinence ball is now backing an admitted sexual abuser of teenagers.

Oh, and just so we're all clear that these people are scum, the Evangelical movement has had ties to actual white supremacy since its inception. Remember that the issue that originally spawned the religious right was the federally-ordered desegregation of Bob Jones University. They also don't very much like Jews, if the "Bernie Bernstein" robocall (I never thought it was possible to audibly indicate the presence of echo marks) is anything to go by.

"Yeah, but Muslims..."

renegade7:

Basically, it should come as no surprise to anyone here that the social group that invented the concept of the father-daughter abstinence ball

The WHAT NOW? 0_o Do I WANT to know?

Agema:

saint of m:
In any case, I can't for the life of me think of why this "alleged" kiddy fiddler would still run for office.

Because backing out feels dangerously close to an admission of guilt.

Bear in mind that a lot of these people (of which Moore may be one) simply do not accept that they are doing anything wrong. Even the knowledge that it is technically illegal does not really get through to their core beliefs. I imagine once they've got away with it for so long and risen so far despite it, it is particularly hard for them to eventually be caught out and take the fall.

Actually you're not too far off the mark. There is an accepted psychological phenomena that arises from the diffusion of responsibility in the face of authority and a crowd... like when one is in a large enough presence of people seemingly also doing nothing about a situation. This tends to weaken resolve or otherwise promote actions that would be considered unthinkable. Basically Moore has two things going for him... religious convictions, and the fact that he is an authority figure who has currently publicly surrounded himself with groups of people whenever he can to put up a facade of collective support. It's arguably what allows active paedophilia through church groups to crop up to begin with.

After all... if you were an evangelical that reviles the idea of an active paedophile in your midst (let's be fair, most Americans I would find would think it abhorrent), your revulsion is otherwise going to be muted when everbody else in your church group is seemingly celebrating the kiddy fiddler on stage and appealing to a collective support that would otherwise be lacking if the context was different.

The response to their presence would be different if he were just the local school teacher or doctor... if he couldn't wear the trappings of collective support. It's hard to say in front of a camera; "When he came to my church, I just left..." If that would put you at odds with all the other people you know who attended but stayed. Best to sort of be quiet and hope you don't get asked about it.

Dec 12 will be interesting. I think you may find that even as it seems that his base hasn't been eroded now, it might do so when people are infront of a ballot box and not in a crowd.

We've seen a lot of politicians recently toppled to unlikely candidates for generally offensive, religion/race baiting rhetoric. We might find some parallels here.

aegix drakan:

renegade7:

Basically, it should come as no surprise to anyone here that the social group that invented the concept of the father-daughter abstinence ball

The WHAT NOW? 0_o Do I WANT to know?

This thing.

I thought it meant a literal ball, like a stress ball that the father clenches whenever he feels an urge to sex up his own daughter. But, no; it's just a dance, albeit one with disturbing implications.

In other news, a bunch more women have come forward about Roy Moore, because of course they have. I swear, if this guy wins the election, I'll...I'll...well, I'm probably just rant about it on this forum and otherwise go on with my life unaffected because I don't live in Alabama. But I'll be very cross.

aegix drakan:

renegade7:

Basically, it should come as no surprise to anyone here that the social group that invented the concept of the father-daughter abstinence ball

The WHAT NOW? 0_o Do I WANT to know?

Oh, yeah. It is exactly what it sounds like.

That is, they have men bring in their daughters and have a formal dance after the daughters pledge to their fathers that they'll be abstinent.

The idea is that this is supposed to somehow make abstinence cool.

No matter how creepy you think it sounds, I guarantee you that it's actually way worse in practice. https://www.glamour.com/story/purity-balls

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The response to their presence would be different if he were just the local school teacher or doctor... if he couldn't wear the trappings of collective support. It's hard to say in front of a camera; "When he came to my church, I just left..." If that would put you at odds with all the other people you know who attended but stayed. Best to sort of be quiet and hope you don't get asked about it.

Once you dig in, you can actually see that the entire evangelical church structure is built around this. It's an environment in which predators flourish. And if you've ever said or done something "blasphemous" within earshot of a fundamentalist evangelical then you know how downright vicious they can get in retaliation.

bastardofmelbourne:

aegix drakan:

renegade7:

Basically, it should come as no surprise to anyone here that the social group that invented the concept of the father-daughter abstinence ball

The WHAT NOW? 0_o Do I WANT to know?

This thing.

I thought it meant a literal ball, like a stress ball that the father clenches whenever he feels an urge to sex up his own daughter. But, no; it's just a dance, albeit one with disturbing implications.

In other news, a bunch more women have come forward about Roy Moore, because of course they have. I swear, if this guy wins the election, I'll...I'll...well, I'm probably just rant about it on this forum and otherwise go on with my life unaffected because I don't live in Alabama. But I'll be very cross.

Trump, a sex offender, became President.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

After all... if you were an evangelical that reviles the idea of an active paedophile in your midst...

Well... do they?

A friend of mine's husband grew up in an evangelical community. His sister was sexually abused throughout her childhood by their father. His mother knew. The local pastor knew. Several other high up members of the community knew. No-one would stop him or report it, despite my friend's husband's efforts to persuade them to speak up, and his word alone wasn't enough.

This father was a "good Christian" who worked hard for the church, a respected "pillar of the community". I guess the idea was that if he just happened to have this unfortunate habit of raping his own underage daughter then that was very regretful, but nothing to destroy an otherwise good man's life over.

Okay yes, I think mostly Americans would be appalled to have a paedophile in their midst. But that comes with a caveat, it can also be much more easily ignored, excused and covered up if the offender happens to be of high standing, especially in communities that are smaller and more insular.

aegix drakan:
The WHAT NOW? 0_o Do I WANT to know?

bastardofmelbourne:

This thing.

renegade7:

Oh, yeah. It is exactly what it sounds like.

That is, they have men bring in their daughters and have a formal dance after the daughters pledge to their fathers that they'll be abstinent.

...

*hurk*

And then they WONDER why there's these stories from the evangelical community of dads doing terrible shit to their daughters. Like, sweet angela mercy ziegler that's just...Gah....What the hell.

Agema:
it can also be much more easily ignored, excused and covered up if the offender happens to be of high standing, especially in communities that are smaller and more insular.

Yes, this is the key thing here.

If you're in high social standing in a small community, you can get away with basically anything. For some reason, even if there's 11+ independently verified allegations, people will often shoot the messenger rather than believe that the "Dude everyone looks up to" who seemed to have a creepy side would do something horrible, and will often band together to protect the unprotectable. I saw this happen with a friend of mine in a community he used to be part of, it wasn't pretty. :(

And with a zealous community like the Evangelicals who are already conditioned to bow to an authority figure and just mindlessly follow the herd? Where "Forgive and forget (but only if the pastor says so!)" is in play? There's just next to no hope of someone in high social standing getting punished for just about anything. :(

aegix drakan:
*hurk*

And then they WONDER why there's these stories from the evangelical community of dads doing terrible shit to their daughters. Like, sweet angela mercy ziegler that's just...Gah....What the hell.

Also, of note, is that they started in 1998. This isn't some outdated tradition from way back, it's a relatively new thing.

Thaluikhain:

aegix drakan:
*hurk*

And then they WONDER why there's these stories from the evangelical community of dads doing terrible shit to their daughters. Like, sweet angela mercy ziegler that's just...Gah....What the hell.

Also, of note, is that they started in 1998. This isn't some outdated tradition from way back, it's a relatively new thing.

So then in this case, the chicken came before the egg? I'm not sure which is worse. >_>

aegix drakan:

Thaluikhain:

aegix drakan:
*hurk*

And then they WONDER why there's these stories from the evangelical community of dads doing terrible shit to their daughters. Like, sweet angela mercy ziegler that's just...Gah....What the hell.

Also, of note, is that they started in 1998. This isn't some outdated tradition from way back, it's a relatively new thing.

So then in this case, the chicken came before the egg? I'm not sure which is worse. >_>

The safe anser is to scramble the one and roast the other. While I can agree witht he concept, the point and execution I think miss their point, and add further preasure on girls. Its been about 13 years since I was a highschooler but I remember the things they did to be "normal" was intense, with already a dozzen stigmas and expectations that boys diddn't have. Also, notice note no Mother Son Purity Ball...someone is actualy going to do reaearch and proove me wrong, arnt they?

aegix drakan:

aegix drakan:
The WHAT NOW? 0_o Do I WANT to know?

bastardofmelbourne:

This thing.

renegade7:

Oh, yeah. It is exactly what it sounds like.

That is, they have men bring in their daughters and have a formal dance after the daughters pledge to their fathers that they'll be abstinent.

...

*hurk*

And then they WONDER why there's these stories from the evangelical community of dads doing terrible shit to their daughters. Like, sweet angela mercy ziegler that's just...Gah....What the hell.

Agema:
it can also be much more easily ignored, excused and covered up if the offender happens to be of high standing, especially in communities that are smaller and more insular.

Yes, this is the key thing here.

If you're in high social standing in a small community, you can get away with basically anything. For some reason, even if there's 11+ independently verified allegations, people will often shoot the messenger rather than believe that the "Dude everyone looks up to" who seemed to have a creepy side would do something horrible, and will often band together to protect the unprotectable. I saw this happen with a friend of mine in a community he used to be part of, it wasn't pretty. :(

And with a zealous community like the Evangelicals who are already conditioned to bow to an authority figure and just mindlessly follow the herd? Where "Forgive and forget (but only if the pastor says so!)" is in play? There's just next to no hope of someone in high social standing getting punished for just about anything. :(

It makes sense. On a larger scale did any one want to beleive half the things Cosby is said to have done? Nope, and part of my childhod died with it.

On the other hand, you have other problems. In Arizona, Utah, and Idaho, you have problems with Paligamists, that also have issiues with spoucal and child abuse, even the kind this thread is about. The RFLDS foubder, for instance, molested several boys and girls before he got cought.

The Branch Davidians in Texas had the same problem, as did the Jim Jones.

My only saving grace with this is its easy to spot most of the women folk in the Bigamy crap: They all dress up like they got off the set of a 50's western TV show.

BeetleManiac:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The response to their presence would be different if he were just the local school teacher or doctor... if he couldn't wear the trappings of collective support. It's hard to say in front of a camera; "When he came to my church, I just left..." If that would put you at odds with all the other people you know who attended but stayed. Best to sort of be quiet and hope you don't get asked about it.

Once you dig in, you can actually see that the entire evangelical church structure is built around this. It's an environment in which predators flourish. And if you've ever said or done something "blasphemous" within earshot of a fundamentalist evangelical then you know how downright vicious they can get in retaliation.

Part of it is the zealoty you find; you think you are on the right then therefore you can get away with anything. You also have your cliches within the congregation, and some parts of the US will hold on to hard feelings for a subject or something supposedly done wrong to them for generations.

To give an excample, my current Stake Preasedent (leader of several congregations in a geographic area) here in Idaho has gotten flack because the house he moved into used to be a feild where people used to get free potatoes from. Its not his fault that's the case, but they are still ticked off at him.

Another, one of the women in my congregation is none practicing because of something someone did that she was upset by decades ago (she can't rememver who or what, but it still irks her).

saint of m:
It makes sense. On a larger scale did any one want to beleive half the things Cosby is said to have done? Nope, and part of my childhod died with it.

Yeah, it's a big cognitive dissonance thing. You think someone's a good person or you otherwise admire them, and you find out they've done something terrible... many are inclined to not believe because it just doesn't seem to make sense with everything else you know, and it takes one hell of a lot to push them into accepting that what happened happened.

Agema:

saint of m:
It makes sense. On a larger scale did any one want to beleive half the things Cosby is said to have done? Nope, and part of my childhod died with it.

Yeah, it's a big cognitive dissonance thing. You think someone's a good person or you otherwise admire them, and you find out they've done something terrible... many are inclined to not believe because it just doesn't seem to make sense with everything else you know, and it takes one hell of a lot to push them into accepting that what happened happened.

There's also the personal stake, people don't like to feel like they're helping/supporting bad people.

A person I used to know personally and worked with a couple of times, he has his own radio and TV shows, was outed yesterday, as a harasser.

Now the thing is I knew the guy was a bit handsy, I didn't know he had gone as far as literally putting his hands down guys trousers and grabbing their penis, but I knew he was a creep. We all did and we all just laughed it off. Kind of tough having to accept that I played even a small part in that and it's really annoying watching others who knew him posting on twitter about how shocked they are, and how they had no idea. If you have any kind of personal stake in a person, even just as a fan, it's hard to accept that they're fucking awful.

Look at Lena Dunham. According to her women don't lie about being raped, until they accuse her friend of rape.

So, minor but telling update: The Washington Post has today reported that they were approached by a woman who alleged that Roy Moore impregnated her when she was 15 and compelled her to get an abortion. The catch? The woman was lying, and the WaPo reporters caught her out on it almost immediately with some very basic fact-checking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/us/washington-post-roy-moore-project-veritas.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/27/project-veritas-moore-washington-post-261023
https://www.vox.com/2017/11/27/16707410/conservative-group-fake-roy-moore-allegation-washington-post

Suspicions raised, they later filmed the fake informant walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas - the non-profit organisation run by James O'Keefe, a political hit-man infamous for setting up stings with news organisations or any agency he doesn't like, recording the exchanges, and then releasing heavily edited versions of the tapes that make his targets look bad.

O'Keefe was the guy behind the ACORN scandal, in which manipulatively edited video footage was released implicating ACORN in prostitution, resulting in the agency losing its federal funding and being dissolved - before investigation revealed that O'Keefe's videos had been Frankensteined out of multiple different interviews with different ACORN representatives and edited specifically to make the agency look bad. ACORN was completely exonerated...after being dissolved; O'Keefe later paid a $100,000 settlement for having run the sting job. O'Keefe was contracted by the late Andrew Breitbart, who of course founded Breitbart News, which is now run by former White House chief strategist and Hollywood producer Steve Bannon. Bannon has been vociferous in his support for Roy Moore, who he saw as a keystone candidate in his anti-establishment Republican insurgency.

So it seems that the woman who approached the Washington Post with the bogus accusations was trying to get the Post to publish her story, or to lure the Post into saying things that could be edited into one of O'Keefe's trademark bullshit videos. But the devious plot was foiled by, uh, basic journalistic standards. See, it turns out that the Washington Post isn't always lying; they do actually do research, as crazy as that seems, and they do hold back on publishing stuff they can't prove. This woman approached them weeks ago, and it wasn't until WaPo were sure that she was working for Veritas that they even mentioned her existence in the paper. In a twist of irony, the Washington Post turned Veritas' tactics against it, recording most of the sting operation themselves and releasing the video in full to prevent O'Keefe from pulling his usual bullshit.

tl;dr - once again, right-wing hacks who claim to want to expose the alleged unethical reporting of the mainstream media end up exposing their own unethical reporting. Nice work, douchebags. Play fair next time.

bastardofmelbourne:
So, minor but telling update: The Washington Post has today reported that they were approached by a woman who alleged that Roy Moore impregnated her when she was 15 and compelled her to get an abortion. The catch? The woman was lying, and the WaPo reporters caught her out on it almost immediately with some very basic fact-checking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/us/washington-post-roy-moore-project-veritas.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/27/project-veritas-moore-washington-post-261023
https://www.vox.com/2017/11/27/16707410/conservative-group-fake-roy-moore-allegation-washington-post

Suspicions raised, they later filmed the fake informant walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas - the non-profit organisation run by James O'Keefe, a political hit-man infamous for setting up stings with news organisations or any agency he doesn't like, recording the exchanges, and then releasing heavily edited versions of the tapes that make his targets look bad.

O'Keefe was the guy behind the ACORN scandal, in which manipulatively edited video footage was released implicating ACORN in prostitution, resulting in the agency losing its federal funding and being dissolved - before investigation revealed that O'Keefe's videos had been Frankensteined out of multiple different interviews with different ACORN representatives and edited specifically to make the agency look bad. ACORN was completely exonerated...after being dissolved; O'Keefe later paid a $100,000 settlement for having run the sting job. O'Keefe was contracted by the late Andrew Breitbart, who of course founded Breitbart News, which is now run by former White House chief strategist and Hollywood producer Steve Bannon. Bannon has been vociferous in his support for Roy Moore, who he saw as a keystone candidate in his anti-establishment Republican insurgency.

So it seems that the woman who approached the Washington Post with the bogus accusations was trying to get the Post to publish her story, or to lure the Post into saying things that could be edited into one of O'Keefe's trademark bullshit videos. But the devious plot was foiled by, uh, basic journalistic standards. See, it turns out that the Washington Post isn't always lying; they do actually do research, as crazy as that seems, and they do hold back on publishing stuff they can't prove. This woman approached them weeks ago, and it wasn't until WaPo were sure that she was working for Veritas that they even mentioned her existence in the paper. In a twist of irony, the Washington Post turned Veritas' tactics against it, recording most of the sting operation themselves and releasing the video in full to prevent O'Keefe from pulling his usual bullshit.

tl;dr - once again, right-wing hacks who claim to want to expose the alleged unethical reporting of the mainstream media end up exposing their own unethical reporting. Nice work, douchebags. Play fair next time.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-donated-project-veritas-organization-tried-trick-washington-post-723888

I mean, you and I, we know Donald Trump -creates- fake news, but apparently he also helps funds it.

Trump most definitely is the most hypocritical President ever.

I don't see what the big deal is, child molesters can pass atrocious tax proposals, deregulation, and giveaways to private industry as well as anyone else.

bastardofmelbourne:
Snip

You know the worst part? This is probably going to change very few minds. Trump hollers fake news at everything he doesn't like, and the people who voted for him have too much of an emotional investment to accept that either he or the GOP aren't what they really say they are. Even though the GOP is actively trying to cover up the Moore scandal with shit like this, GOP senators are distancing themselves from Moore, and even the White House said that Trump won't campaign for him (Trump himself didn't say this, the fucking coward) and it's still going to be a close race, because the GOP voters are honestly going to have a hard time picking between Democrat and a RAPIST!

I have to say, if Moore gets elected, my opinion of Alabama is going to drop big time and I'm probably going to have a negative view of the state until the day I die. The state already romanticizes traitors and slave owners, I don't know if what respect I have left for the state can take them electing a pedophile.

bastardofmelbourne:

tl;dr - once again, right-wing hacks who claim to want to expose the alleged unethical reporting of the mainstream media end up exposing their own unethical reporting. Nice work, douchebags. Play fair next time.

Technically speaking, unless one views all undercover journalism as unethical there is not a lot of difference between the two. We can't even really know how untrue the reporting would have been had the paper taken the bait or whether the paper would have accepted her story if she wasn't followed, was a better actress or wasn't giving the newspapers something too good to be true.
I mean, it's pretty usual to excuse inconsistencies in those cases as a result of trauma and those cases nearly entirely fall into "she said" with very little hard evidence.

inu-kun:

bastardofmelbourne:

tl;dr - once again, right-wing hacks who claim to want to expose the alleged unethical reporting of the mainstream media end up exposing their own unethical reporting. Nice work, douchebags. Play fair next time.

Technically speaking, unless one views all undercover journalism as unethical there is not a lot of difference between the two. We can't even really know how untrue the reporting would have been had the paper taken the bait or whether the paper would have accepted her story if she wasn't followed, was a better actress or wasn't giving the newspapers something too good to be true.
I mean, it's pretty usual to excuse inconsistencies in those cases as a result of trauma and those cases nearly entirely fall into "she said" with very little hard evidence.

Undercover journalism to reveal corruption isnt the same as undercover journalism to frame a News outlet.

Just as there is a difference between a cop trying to buy drugs from a possible dealer to catch them versus a cop selling drugs to people who dont do drugs to arrest them for being drug addicts.

inu-kun:

Technically speaking, unless one views all undercover journalism as unethical there is not a lot of difference between the two. We can't even really know how untrue the reporting would have been had the paper taken the bait or whether the paper would have accepted her story if she wasn't followed, was a better actress or wasn't giving the newspapers something too good to be true.
I mean, it's pretty usual to excuse inconsistencies in those cases as a result of trauma and those cases nearly entirely fall into "she said" with very little hard evidence.

There is actually a big difference. Usually undercover journalism is used to uncover actual unethical behavior like corruption, lies and whatnot. In this case someone tried to purposely induce journalists into error by feeding them with false information in the most believable way possible. What do you prove if it succeeds? That the journalists are unethical? Or that there is no 100% bulletproof fact checking and that yes it happens that journalists sometimes accidentally relay lies from deceptive people? If they were trying to prove the journalists were deliberately lying and making up stories you would be right. But in this case, no.

Stories get corrected all the time and for all kinds of subjects. This isn't new nor unethical, error is human.

generals3:

inu-kun:

Technically speaking, unless one views all undercover journalism as unethical there is not a lot of difference between the two. We can't even really know how untrue the reporting would have been had the paper taken the bait or whether the paper would have accepted her story if she wasn't followed, was a better actress or wasn't giving the newspapers something too good to be true.
I mean, it's pretty usual to excuse inconsistencies in those cases as a result of trauma and those cases nearly entirely fall into "she said" with very little hard evidence.

There is actually a big difference. Usually undercover journalism is used to uncover actual unethical behavior like corruption, lies and whatnot. In this case someone tried to purposely induce journalists into error by feeding them with false information in the most believable way possible. What do you prove if it succeeds? That the journalists are unethical? Or that there is no 100% bulletproof fact checking and that yes it happens that journalists sometimes accidentally relay lies from deceptive people? If they were trying to prove the journalists were deliberately lying and making up stories you would be right. But in this case, no.

Stories get corrected all the time and for all kinds of stories. This isn't new nor unethical, error is human.

Well hey, if anything, they helped prove that The Washington Post is actually on the up and up.

Saelune:
Undercover journalism to reveal corruption isnt the same as undercover journalism to frame a News outlet.

Just as there is a difference between a cop trying to buy drugs from a possible dealer to catch them versus a cop selling drugs to people who dont do drugs to arrest them for being drug addicts.

generals3:

There is actually a big difference. Usually undercover journalism is used to uncover actual unethical behavior like corruption, lies and whatnot. In this case someone tried to purposely induce journalists into error by feeding them with false information in the most believable way possible. What do you prove if it succeeds? That the journalists are unethical? Or that there is no 100% bulletproof fact checking and that yes it happens that journalists sometimes accidentally relay lies from deceptive people? If they were trying to prove the journalists were deliberately lying and making up stories you would be right. But in this case, no.

Stories get corrected all the time and for all kinds of subjects. This isn't new nor unethical, error is human.

Going through with a publishing a rape allegation without proof or confirmation from police and attorney on what is little more than heresay is definitely corrupt and unethical (even before considering political gain from it), though. At the very least it is likely to destroy a person's life. If after some time the story is revealed to be hoax and the accused life is ruined you can't go to say "oh that was just a error, silly me". The fact they heard her out rather than gave her a telephone of a lawyer and a psychiatrist is disturbing.

inu-kun:

Saelune:
Undercover journalism to reveal corruption isnt the same as undercover journalism to frame a News outlet.

Just as there is a difference between a cop trying to buy drugs from a possible dealer to catch them versus a cop selling drugs to people who dont do drugs to arrest them for being drug addicts.

generals3:

There is actually a big difference. Usually undercover journalism is used to uncover actual unethical behavior like corruption, lies and whatnot. In this case someone tried to purposely induce journalists into error by feeding them with false information in the most believable way possible. What do you prove if it succeeds? That the journalists are unethical? Or that there is no 100% bulletproof fact checking and that yes it happens that journalists sometimes accidentally relay lies from deceptive people? If they were trying to prove the journalists were deliberately lying and making up stories you would be right. But in this case, no.

Stories get corrected all the time and for all kinds of subjects. This isn't new nor unethical, error is human.

Going through with a publishing a rape allegation without proof or confirmation from police and attorney on what is little more than heresay is definitely corrupt and unethical (even before considering political gain from it), though. At the very least it is likely to destroy a person's life. If after some time the story is revealed to be hoax and the accused life is ruined you can't go to say "oh that was just a error, silly me". The fact they heard her out rather than gave her a telephone of a lawyer and a psychiatrist is disturbing.

But they didn't do it though. You act like just because known liars targeted the Washington post it means that the Washington post is guilty of lying.

In your opinion if an undercover cop tried to sell me drugs and I said no, that I would be guilty of buying drugs just because an undercover cop thought I might buy some.

Washington Post is innocent and Project Varitas or whatever is guilty regardless of how you feel about journalism ethics.

undeadsuitor:

inu-kun:

Saelune:
Undercover journalism to reveal corruption isnt the same as undercover journalism to frame a News outlet.

Just as there is a difference between a cop trying to buy drugs from a possible dealer to catch them versus a cop selling drugs to people who dont do drugs to arrest them for being drug addicts.

generals3:

There is actually a big difference. Usually undercover journalism is used to uncover actual unethical behavior like corruption, lies and whatnot. In this case someone tried to purposely induce journalists into error by feeding them with false information in the most believable way possible. What do you prove if it succeeds? That the journalists are unethical? Or that there is no 100% bulletproof fact checking and that yes it happens that journalists sometimes accidentally relay lies from deceptive people? If they were trying to prove the journalists were deliberately lying and making up stories you would be right. But in this case, no.

Stories get corrected all the time and for all kinds of subjects. This isn't new nor unethical, error is human.

Going through with a publishing a rape allegation without proof or confirmation from police and attorney on what is little more than heresay is definitely corrupt and unethical (even before considering political gain from it), though. At the very least it is likely to destroy a person's life. If after some time the story is revealed to be hoax and the accused life is ruined you can't go to say "oh that was just a error, silly me". The fact they heard her out rather than gave her a telephone of a lawyer and a psychiatrist is disturbing.

But they didn't do it though. You act like just because known liars targeted the Washington post it means that the Washington post is guilty of lying.

In your opinion if an undercover cop tried to sell me drugs and I said no, that I would be guilty of buying drugs just because an undercover cop thought I might buy some.

Washington Post is innocent and Project Varitas or whatever is guilty regardless of how you feel about journalism ethics.

Except that's not what I said....

inu-kun:

Going through with a publishing a rape allegation without proof or confirmation from police and attorney on what is little more than heresay is definitely corrupt and unethical (even before considering political gain from it), though. At the very least it is likely to destroy a person's life. If after some time the story is revealed to be hoax and the accused life is ruined you can't go to say "oh that was just a error, silly me". The fact they heard her out rather than gave her a telephone of a lawyer and a psychiatrist is disturbing.

Rape allegations are very hard to "prove" and often those which get to the media are not reported to the police or an attorney. The same goes for stories about priests who have touched little kids. This said, most of those stories are usually not based on one person reporting such claims. Obviously if one person makes one claim it's much dodgier to report about it (due to the high chances it is incorrect and wrongly harms the accused's reputation), but when multiple persons bring up very similar stories it's usually because there is something fishy and likely worth bringing up. And in the case of Moore there are quite a few people reporting misconduct on his part and Project Veritas tried to add yet another testimony which fits the already existing ones. How would reporting on that, in case everything suggests it is credible, somehow be unethical? It's not like there isn't enough on Moore to make him a likely sexual predator. If at the very least the test would have been: "can we just fabricate any kind of sexual assault story about anyone and make a newspaper to put it on the front page?", there would be some value to it.

And I totally fail to see how corruption would apply in such a scenario (it could but most definitely doesn't have to).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here