Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

I'm kind of fuzzy on the law, but this is about the same (in certain dimensions) as flashing someone.  It may or may not be, strictly speaking, illegal--but it's one of those things where I sort of think it should be.

(Of course, there's another bunch of muck about maintaining the freedom of the internet, which I will say does not apply here because he had his real name and identity fully attached to everything)

This isn't a lifestyle thing.  Sex with consenting animals?  Polyamory?  Bisexuality?  A history of mental illness that still leaves him able to do his job?  Unruly children?  I don't really give much of a crap.  That's his personal business.

The minute he starts sending random women photos of his junk is when I start getting pissed.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you on that. Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant that my kneejerk reaction was "It's his life, I don't care about what he does in his private life," for which I apologize because I hadn't thought it through clearly. I've got to the point where that's my kneejerk reaction to any political sex scandal where it's not hilariously blatant hypocrisy, and that's kind of dumb. Result of growing up during the Clinton thing, I suppose, but it's not really an excuse for not looking more closely. I don't think it's an invalid principle, like I think you said, but it doesn't apply in this case precisely because he was sending it without being asked. So I should've gone past the kneejerk.

[Darkmere]

I should clarify that I despise newsmedia. The moment it became a ratings-driven enterprise, reporting direct facts went out the window. Now everything seems like there's a spin on it, and that's what I object to about things like this. Yeah, what happened is shitty, lying about it as shitty, but presenting the story with stated lies of omission and slant is still lying from the media and still shitty.

That was the point I was trying to make about the voting and job ability post a couple pages ago. Saying "I don't want someone who would do things like that to be in a position of power" is what I would call a positive, self-affirming statement on the situation.

Saying "He's a liar and that makes him unable to do his job" is different. This is a direct attack on him, which carries very different emotional connotations. It's not an affirmation of what we (the general we) believe, but an aggressive mindset that puts people who speak/feel/read it into attack mode.

As a tie-in with the thought processing video thread from a couple days ago, the negative is always stronger, so the media has a stronger negative bent to make the impression last. If that, coincidentally, means less rational attention paid to the details, it's less fact checking and information they actually have to throw out there.

[Glowcat]

It isn't random people, but in this case 'unsolicited' means sending them w/o a request. From a quick look at a story on it, he sent them to people he was having online chats with about topics which were mostly tangential. Kinda like if, after posting this, I were to send photos of mine to you; completely unacceptable behavior from anyone.

Ah, ok. That does make his behavior extremely creepy. My earlier understanding was that he got caught in some dirty flirting with supporters who wanted "To See the Weiner".

[Nikov]

If I am to understand this correctly, women who wanted to talk about politics with him instead got pictures of his pole. Is there a defense for such actions?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I am to understand this correctly, women who wanted to talk about politics with him instead got pictures of his pole. Is there a defense for such actions?

I believe that the term in question is the "Stupid Politicians Know Nothing About How Computers Actually Work" defence, but you'd have to ask Truean to be sure. Of course, that's just for Democrats such as Weiner himself, the Republican politicians tend to use some variant of the "Possessed By A Sex Demon" defence.

[Africa]

Like somebody said, if he's doing his job, I really don't give a shit how sleazy he is. What's worse, sending a few dick pix or being in the pocket of huge, exploitative corporations that are fucking your constituents, or enthusiastically slashing social programs and education budgets that serve your very own damn constituents?

Now that I've learned (some of) the women were political supporters, I'm less inclined to assume he was just chatting up random cam-whores. Of course, that's still possible. And in that case, it's inevitable that some of them were dudes. Old wrinkly dudes. I give it two weeks until an old wrinkly dude comes out with new pix and reveals that he was one of the recipients.

Anyway, this is now old news and once again, it's a sad reflection on both the media and the public's dumb asses that it's still being talked about, not to mention that not once has anybody brought up, as mentioned, his voting record and whether he's serving his constituents.

[Nikov]

So you wouldn't mind if he sexually assaults women so long as he votes L+?

[Africa]

Yeah, clearly that's what I said.

[Nikov]

Like somebody said, if he's doing his job, I really don't give a shit how sleazy he is.

You kind of did. That's why I'm seeking clarification.

[Glowcat]

If he has been sexually harassing people online then it goes beyond simply being displeased with him and instead makes his actions intolerable or possibly criminal. We don't need people of such compromised morality to represent us nor should we want them to, no matter what awesome things they might have done in the past. Politics will only get better if its corruption is purged.

[Africa]

Like somebody said, if he's doing his job, I really don't give a shit how sleazy he is.

You kind of did. That's why I'm seeking clarification.

"Sleazy": Apparently a synonym for "sexual crimes" since 2011.

[Nikov]

Like somebody said, if he's doing his job, I really don't give a shit how sleazy he is.

You kind of did. That's why I'm seeking clarification.

"Sleazy": Apparently a synonym for "sexual crimes" since 2011.

See, I'm just curious since if sexual harassment (which he admits committing) is sleazy, and if you don't care how sleazy he is, then if he got sleazier still it logically follows your first statement that you wouldn't care, so long as he is doing his job. Furthermore indecent exposure will get you on the sex offender's registry, so if you call sexual harassment sleazy, you are making that association yourself.

[Impending Doom]

I guess it comes down to whether or not the women in question actually requested the photographs of Weiner's, erm, weiner. If so, then he's just a regular sicko, which I guess isn't actually hurting anything. If not, then it's at the very least sexual harassment, which if I'm not mistaken is criminal.

[Chaoswizkid]

What I really hate is that when I watched him be interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, I had thought he made a lot of sense and thought he was telling the truth. I got in late to the fiasco and hadn't seen the picture, hadn't known about anything other than a 'lewd' photograph was posted on his Twitter. I also didn't know about the whole when asked about if the picture was of him he responded that it could be thing. Those would have clued me off in what has been revealed as factual direction.

But listening to his interview made me kinda like the guy. He said he was hacked (which happens) and a picture was posted on his Twitter and he quickly deleted it. He said he also went and found where the pictures were and deleted them somehow (which was a major red flag, but I chalked it up to not knowing anything about what was actually going on). He said he wasn't pursuing the hacker because it was a prank, and he wasn't going to use federal resources (see: taxpayer's money) in order to find the guy to then go on a year of trial, etc. He said that personal photos of him did exist (which is fine, I certainly don't care what he does with his personal life), and that he didn't know if the picture was of him or not (I figured he deleted the picture too fast to see it, but like I said I didn't know the full details). He also complained that the media kept bringing up people who were not even involved in the story at that time, including a stripper who mentioned getting a private message from him on Twitter (which he explained as probably being a message where he thanked them for subscribing and to check out his website. Underlined part for another red flag that I chalked up to him being honest in that he didn't know for sure what it was because it was months old and that he immediately removed her once he found out she was a stripper). He seemed like a pretty honest guy who knew a thing or two about digital media and was upset the media was blowing it out of proportion.

Then it turns out it the whole thing was a lie. Damnit. I wish I had gotten in on it earlier so I wouldn't feel so bad for thinking he was telling the truth.

[Darkmere]

Don't beat yourself up over it, just take it as a life lesson. The way politicians keep their jobs is by making the majority of people agree with them. The higher up they get, the better they are.