It is a political cartoon related to the general topic?
SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer
- Thread starter Synobun
- Start date
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
Is it? Would you like to explain how a five-year-old pantsing a fellow five-year-old is relatable and relevant to being held down and raped by several men? I think we'd like to know your thought process on this.
sophie
Break My Heart
So you are equating sexual assault and attempted sexual assault with a schoolyard prank? K.
In the cartoon, the man is on stage with the presenter about to place the medal around his neck. He's not being interviewed for a job, he's already been awarded the prize, the placing of the medal around his neck is merely ceremonial. You don't even need to show up to an awards ceremony to get the award. If you miss graduation, they just mail you your diploma because you already earned it.Of relevant:
The text reads: "But he pantsed me once in kindergarten!"
In other words, this cartoon isn't analogous at all... except from the standpoint that his confirmation was already a done deal and the hearing was just a complete complete sham and a farce to give the flimsy appearance of due diligence when really, the decision had already been made... so Dr. Ford showing up is "spoiling" the Republicans victory lap in progress...
Oh wait...
That's exactly how they feel about it...
Lexicus
Deity
I don't think that pulling a girl's pants down in school is trivial or something to just laugh off even if it happens at age five actually.
I guess the author of the cartoon did?
Anyway, where did you get "being held down and raped by several men" from?
FWIW, I agree with everything that was said in the Atlantic article from the last page.
Berzerker
Deity
But the point that keeps getting missed... and I think in some cases not just missed, but intentionally glossed over, in order to move the goalpost of fitness to be on the SCOTUS... is that even putting aside the issue of whether his past acts in-and-of-themselves disqualify him... there is the issue of his constant stream of numerous other lies about his past that disqualify him.
So to applied to the pantsing cartoon. If for whatever reason, the committee deciding to award him that medal thought that his conduct in kindergarten was relevant to deciding whether to give him the award, and they asked him about various things he did in kindergarten, torturing cats, placing tacks on teachers chairs, pantsing classmates, robbing other kids of their lunch money... and he claimed "No I NEVER did any of that stuff", when in fact he had done at least some of those things, and was just knowingly lying about it, precisely in order to get the award... then no, he shouldn't get the award.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It isn't trivial, but it isn't exactly prosecutable either.
The cartoon fits the point I've been trying to make, that the Kavanaugh defenders keep resisting. The woman in the audience doesn't really want to talk about being pantsed as a five year old. She in all probability isn't the only person in the audience that got pantsed as a five year old. The thing that makes her case unique, and an issue, isn't her politics, it's his.
Reading back in the thread...
...
I don't rightly know why I feel this irrational urge to play the Devil's Advocate here, tbh.
Especially considering how we agree on the main question, which is that Kavanaugh should not receive the office.
EDIT: I guess the fact that an allegation from 36 years ago, especially one that by its very nature can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven, can have such an effect just sits wrong with me somehow.
Other than her boyfriend, maybe? I understand her connection to that group was some third guy she was dating at the time?
...
I don't rightly know why I feel this irrational urge to play the Devil's Advocate here, tbh.
Especially considering how we agree on the main question, which is that Kavanaugh should not receive the office.
EDIT: I guess the fact that an allegation from 36 years ago, especially one that by its very nature can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven, can have such an effect just sits wrong with me somehow.
Berzerker
Deity
Sen. Lindsey Graham gave an interview during which he brought up Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. He said they were terrorized, killed cat, punctured tires, stuff like that, when they accused Bill Clinton. He then said Ford was treated better. Graham wanted Clinton impeached and now he's putting Kavanaugh on the highest court in the land.
Maybe it isn't irrational, the first artist was followed by the first art critic - so says the mighty Mel Brooks
Maybe it isn't irrational, the first artist was followed by the first art critic - so says the mighty Mel Brooks
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
At the very least it seems like a teachable moment where you can be like "hey actually she's her own person and that's her body and her clothes, you're not allowed to touch her unless she says it's okay."
Instead apparently we draw cartoons about it that imply it's all in good fun.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Not in that era. At that time wives who admitted to having been raped risked being discarded by their husbands for having "cheated on them."
The sad truth is that Kavanaugh's most honest line of defense really should be "yeah, I did that, but at that time it was just not a big deal." The right wingers have been pointing out that even if Ford is totally right, he didn't succeed and under Maryland law at the time attempted rape was only a misdemeanor anyway. I haven't checked it out, and I know to modern humans the idea that attempted rape was a misdemeanor comes across as just crazy right wing nonsense...but it would not surprise me if it is true.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I think we draw cartoons that say "don't do stupid crap even when you are five." Sure, the current events context makes it probable that that isn't the intended message, but in ten years I'll be able to show that cartoon to my grandkids and say "don't do stupid crap because someday you might get a medal and you don't want this to happen."
This was an attempt she successfully resisted though, at a party they attended together. Seems unlikely he could have found any fault with her.
Of course, it is entirely plausible she didn't know him well enough to trust him either after an experience like this.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
There are multiple allegations against Kavanaugh, and mostly I don't see a point in this instance to differentiate in a scenario where the end goal is clear. That the two men in Ford's situation were too drunk (and possibly one of them got second thoughts) to truly finish the deed doesn't convince me to define it differently from rape. In a court of law, sure. On the record, sure. But on a forum and in an informal dialogue? Nah.
Berzerker
Deity
if Judge actually helped Kavanaugh rape her instead of intervening I suspect rape would have been the end result, so a distinction between rape and attempted rape would matter to the victim, but morally I dont see a difference.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
There's not really a good reason to think that Judge's "intervention" was anything other than drunken horseplay on the path to completing the deed. It could just as easily have been "me first" as "don't do that."
Berzerker
Deity
I dont think so, Ford said she made eye contact with Judge and that he was ambivalent about Kavanaugh's behavior, egging him on and then telling him to stop and when she saw him later at the store she detected shame. She said Judge jumped onto them causing Kavanaugh to roll or tumble off her, he might have disguised his intervention as horseplay or 'me first' so Kavanaugh didn't think he was defending her. I'm trying to put myself in Judge's shoes and thats what I might have done if I wanted to stop my buddy from raping her.
