I was just thinking......what the fuck is going to happen in 20-30 years when that crop of SCJ are from the social media generation, and everything they did or said will be discoverable from online archiving?
these judges are held to a higher standard supposedly, but that higher standard really only exists from what we know, and in the digital age, we know a LOT. as if there's never been a justice on the court who has raped someone. of course there has.
with the combination of women standing up for themselves and everything being digitally documented, pretty sure the standards are going to be pretty low by then.
Standards are going to be lower? I don’t think I understand what you mean. It’s not like every guy is an abuser (although some days it kind of seems like it). Better transparency should just highlight the many good people out there.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
To paraphrase the best tweet I've seen today:
Drunk woman gets raped: her fault. Drunk guy rapes: not his fault.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I was just thinking......what the fuck is going to happen in 20-30 years when that crop of SCJ are from the social media generation, and everything they did or said will be discoverable from online archiving?
these judges are held to a higher standard supposedly, but that higher standard really only exists from what we know, and in the digital age, we know a LOT. as if there's never been a justice on the court who has raped someone. of course there has.
with the combination of women standing up for themselves and everything being digitally documented, pretty sure the standards are going to be pretty low by then.
Standards are going to be lower? I don’t think I understand what you mean. It’s not like every guy is an abuser (although some days it kind of seems like it). Better transparency should just highlight the many good people out there.
I just mean because the vast majority of people have done something stupid in their lives. I wasn't talking just about abusing, sorry, I should have clarified that. I mean stupid comments on line, pictures of you passed out at a kegger, stuff like that. right now we seem to look at SCJ's as people that are beyond reproach, when in reality, they are fallible like the rest of us. they were all young at one point.
at some point we are going to start seeing these people for who they really are/were, and it's going to be eye-opening.
I was just thinking......what the fuck is going to happen in 20-30 years when that crop of SCJ are from the social media generation, and everything they did or said will be discoverable from online archiving?
these judges are held to a higher standard supposedly, but that higher standard really only exists from what we know, and in the digital age, we know a LOT. as if there's never been a justice on the court who has raped someone. of course there has.
with the combination of women standing up for themselves and everything being digitally documented, pretty sure the standards are going to be pretty low by then.
Standards are going to be lower? I don’t think I understand what you mean. It’s not like every guy is an abuser (although some days it kind of seems like it). Better transparency should just highlight the many good people out there.
I just mean because the vast majority of people have done something stupid in their lives. I wasn't talking just about abusing, sorry, I should have clarified that. I mean stupid comments on line, pictures of you passed out at a kegger, stuff like that. right now we seem to look at SCJ's as people that are beyond reproach, when in reality, they are fallible like the rest of us. they were all young at one point.
at some point we are going to start seeing these people for who they really are/were, and it's going to be eye-opening.
I agree. We are going to have to do more critical thinking and separate out the passed out kegger stuff from the real dangers. But you are correct, all the flaws will be readily apparent and we will need to come to terms with that.
I was just thinking......what the fuck is going to happen in 20-30 years when that crop of SCJ are from the social media generation, and everything they did or said will be discoverable from online archiving?
these judges are held to a higher standard supposedly, but that higher standard really only exists from what we know, and in the digital age, we know a LOT. as if there's never been a justice on the court who has raped someone. of course there has.
with the combination of women standing up for themselves and everything being digitally documented, pretty sure the standards are going to be pretty low by then.
I assume what will happen is that it will be easier to weed out the ones with bad bahaviour in their pasts, which is a good thing. It's not everyday one can come up with a real benefit in terms of the long term effects of social media, lol.
I see no reason to assume that standards will go down in this context. I would assume the opposite actually. I disagree that there are hardly any younger people without something damning online about them. That's a really cynical outlook, even for you, lol. Do you really think that "oh, he has a photo of him at a keg party drinking beer and partying" is going to be scandalous to younger generations? I don't. I also think you're underestimating how many younger people are actually careful about this kind of thing. Many of them do know better - they're getting better all the time and knowing what they should and shouldn't put out there on social media for the sake of the future. Education is getting better about that all the time. Younger people aren't going to be anywhere near as stupid about it all as the baby boomers and Gen Xers and even some Millennials have been. They're going to know better than older people because they will have been born into it and will have better education about it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I was just thinking......what the fuck is going to happen in 20-30 years when that crop of SCJ are from the social media generation, and everything they did or said will be discoverable from online archiving?
these judges are held to a higher standard supposedly, but that higher standard really only exists from what we know, and in the digital age, we know a LOT. as if there's never been a justice on the court who has raped someone. of course there has.
with the combination of women standing up for themselves and everything being digitally documented, pretty sure the standards are going to be pretty low by then.
I assume what will happen is that it will be easier to weed out the ones with bad bahaviour in their pasts, which is a good thing. It's not everyday one can come up with a real benefit in terms of the long term effects of social media, lol.
I see no reason to assume that standards will go down in this context. I would assume the opposite actually. I disagree that there are hardly any younger people without something damning online about them. That's a really cynical outlook, even for you, lol. Do you really think that "oh, he has a photo of him at a keg party drinking beer and partying" is going to be scandalous to younger generations? I don't.
not scandolous,but I think like I said it's going to be a stark departure from the exposure these people have had up to this point.
I'm not cynical. I'm realist. I see the shit people (myself and friends included) do in their teens and twenties. even people who are mostly well-behaved have their moments, and now with a phone in every bloody hand, it's inevitible that those things are going to get discovered during these processes. maybe those things will be vetted and discovered prior to nomination, so things may not change that much, but I can see a time where this will be more of a common occurence.
people are getting fired from their jobs at law firms and other respectable jobs with a public profile for nothing other than a picture on facebook where you look loaded. so yeah, I think a SCJ will be under an even bigger microscope. But the public might be a lot more desensitized by the time that happens. who knows.
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
offender is an R: he was just a dumb kid, leave him alone! offender is a D : (something nonsensical about Obama)!
That's true. But also equally true when flipped. Both sides have an amazing ability to look beyond the flaws of a candidate when it is in their own party. And an equal ability to focus and hammer in on the smallest of details when they aren't (not saying that this is a small detail). It isn't unique to republicans.
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
offender is an R: he was just a dumb kid, leave him alone! offender is a D : (something nonsensical about Obama)!
That's true. But also equally true when flipped. Both sides have an amazing ability to look beyond the flaws of a candidate when it is in their own party. And an equal ability to focus and hammer in on the smallest of details when they aren't (not saying that this is a small detail). It isn't unique to republicans.
Maybe, but I think the D's have shown better accountability when someone is called out. Look at Franken for one. It seems, based on my recollection alone, that the R's double down or blow it off as fake news. Maybe there are supporters who hold fast on both sides, but those in power seem to be drawing a more definitive line not based on party affiliation if they are a D.
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
offender is an R: he was just a dumb kid, leave him alone! offender is a D : (something nonsensical about Obama)!
That's true. But also equally true when flipped. Both sides have an amazing ability to look beyond the flaws of a candidate when it is in their own party. And an equal ability to focus and hammer in on the smallest of details when they aren't (not saying that this is a small detail). It isn't unique to republicans.
you will never see a democratic president re-up his endorsement of a sexual abuser.
I was just thinking......what the fuck is going to happen in 20-30 years when that crop of SCJ are from the social media generation, and everything they did or said will be discoverable from online archiving?
these judges are held to a higher standard supposedly, but that higher standard really only exists from what we know, and in the digital age, we know a LOT. as if there's never been a justice on the court who has raped someone. of course there has.
with the combination of women standing up for themselves and everything being digitally documented, pretty sure the standards are going to be pretty low by then.
I assume what will happen is that it will be easier to weed out the ones with bad bahaviour in their pasts, which is a good thing. It's not everyday one can come up with a real benefit in terms of the long term effects of social media, lol.
I see no reason to assume that standards will go down in this context. I would assume the opposite actually. I disagree that there are hardly any younger people without something damning online about them. That's a really cynical outlook, even for you, lol. Do you really think that "oh, he has a photo of him at a keg party drinking beer and partying" is going to be scandalous to younger generations? I don't.
not scandolous,but I think like I said it's going to be a stark departure from the exposure these people have had up to this point.
I'm not cynical. I'm realist. I see the shit people (myself and friends included) do in their teens and twenties. even people who are mostly well-behaved have their moments, and now with a phone in every bloody hand, it's inevitible that those things are going to get discovered during these processes. maybe those things will be vetted and discovered prior to nomination, so things may not change that much, but I can see a time where this will be more of a common occurence.
I still think you're overestimating how many people do things that stupid then? I know TONS of younger people who absolutely nothing like that about themselves out there, mainly because none of them have ever done anything stupid enough that it would be a concern if they went into politics or anything.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
offender is an R: he was just a dumb kid, leave him alone! offender is a D : (something nonsensical about Obama)!
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
offender is an R: he was just a dumb kid, leave him alone! offender is a D : (something nonsensical about Obama)!
Except for Keith Ellison huh?
So you believe that woman's accusations?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Somebody said the both sides aren't the same when it comes to this issue... that's ridiculous... inappropriate sexual behavior is a human thing, not a political thing
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
offender is an R: he was just a dumb kid, leave him alone! offender is a D : (something nonsensical about Obama)!
Except for Keith Ellison huh?
So you believe that woman's accusations?
I truthfully haven't paid much attention to any of it, but to suggest that some of these don't have the potential for being politically motivated is ridiculous.
Really? Huh. To be honest I've had several different reactions as I thought through this.
Started with: 1) Happened in high school...long ago...just brought up now? Seriously this is shady now ending with... 2) Man, even if this was long ago, it still seems like it happened (still gotta hear the "testimony") and is really bad. Being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behavior. If she had a more supportive society back then and had reported it and the law took it seriously, he would not be eligible for this job. So he shouldn't be confirmed if true.
This is why it so important to report and have a supportive society and a just law at the time of the incident though.
I absolutely agree with "being a drunk kid doesn't excuse this type of behaviour". I keep hearing/reading people say "it was a long time ago and he was just a kid", which is shocking to me. So you get a free pass on sexual assault if you're a teenager?
offender is an R: he was just a dumb kid, leave him alone! offender is a D : (something nonsensical about Obama)!
Except for Keith Ellison huh?
So you believe that woman's accusations?
I truthfully haven't paid much attention to any of it, but to suggest that some of these don't have the potential for being politically motivated is ridiculous.
I agree, but you can't have it both ways. Judging from your posts, you seem to say that you want hard proof to back up all accusations, AND want to consider accusations without proof? I guess that is not what you intended to say...
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Somebody said the both sides aren't the same when it comes to this issue... that's ridiculous... inappropriate sexual behavior is a human thing, not a political thing
Both sides are not the same. See how the Dems were drummed out of the party as a result of the #metoo movement as opposed to how the repubs reacted. Look at the character of SCOTUS nominees by party over the past 20 years or compare Clinton to Team Trump Treason, if you shall. Both sides are not the same. Then compare the politics of the last three dem Administrations to the last three repub administrations. Oh, and compare the congresses as well. Thinking or believing both sides are the same is lazy. And convenient.
Somebody said the both sides aren't the same when it comes to this issue... that's ridiculous... inappropriate sexual behavior is a human thing, not a political thing
Both sides are not the same. See how the Dems were drummed out of the party as a result of the #metoo movement as opposed to how the repubs reacted. Look at the character of SCOTUS nominees by party over the past 20 years or compare Clinton to Team Trump Treason, if you shall. Both sides are not the same. Then compare the politics of the last three dem Administrations to the last three repub administrations. Oh, and compare the congresses as well. Thinking or believing both sides are the same is lazy. And convenient.
Yes, this is all extremely true... like, objectively true. The two sides are not the same in terms of this issue at all..... That doesn't mean the Dems are squeaky clean of course. There are a few things anyone can point out to prove that... But the difference is still massive.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Somebody said the both sides aren't the same when it comes to this issue... that's ridiculous... inappropriate sexual behavior is a human thing, not a political thing
You know what's ridiculous, thinking politics has nothing to do with inappropriate sexual behavior.
Somebody said the both sides aren't the same when it comes to this issue... that's ridiculous... inappropriate sexual behavior is a human thing, not a political thing
You know what's ridiculous, thinking politics has nothing to do with inappropriate sexual behavior.
I'm necessarily disagreeing with you, but would you mind clarifying what you mean by this? Are you talking about "power politics" perhaps? Because power politics has a LOT to do with a lot of inappropriate sexual behaviour, but that and actual government politics aren't the same thing (although not mutually exclusive obviously).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Drunk woman gets raped: her fault. Drunk guy rapes: not his fault.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
at some point we are going to start seeing these people for who they really are/were, and it's going to be eye-opening.
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
Another brilliant failure by the cheeze-doodle
I'm not cynical. I'm realist. I see the shit people (myself and friends included) do in their teens and twenties. even people who are mostly well-behaved have their moments, and now with a phone in every bloody hand, it's inevitible that those things are going to get discovered during these processes. maybe those things will be vetted and discovered prior to nomination, so things may not change that much, but I can see a time where this will be more of a common occurence.
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Slick Willy
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Cheers,
HFD
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I honestly might be missing something, but I remember two democrats?
You know what's ridiculous, thinking politics has nothing to do with inappropriate sexual behavior.