In USA, why a small sexual touch or thing force politicial resign? it's also a job, they don't break law?

[Kelly6]

[Altheavas]

There’s no such thing as a small sexual touch in a job, and without consent. I learn skills just
to perform it like everybody else professionally.
(Hypothetically speaking in 1st person): I don’t remember putting in a resume my pussy/(dick is hard like a rock and tip is shiny as diamond) is wet and can’t resist as a skill!
1st: it’s not appropriate
2nd: it’s not professional
3rd: That’s sexual exploitation
4th: Sexual coercion
5th: I’m (you’re - not that I would know) not a Hoe 👀

[KrakenAttackin]

@altheavas.

6th... Unless he's haaawwwwwt.

[Altheavas]

Agreed, unless he’s hawwwwt! 😈😈 🤤Then he should be eaten as a delicacy! Chained between those legs, and has nowhere to go, and submit as my little slave!

[Kelly6]

@altheavas
well , hmm

[Altheavas]

@Kelly6 🙃😂😂😅

[Kelly6]

@altheavas
yup lol

[NYCQuestions1976]

What if a guy had no arms and/or hands, and could only write, type, and introduce himself with his penis? 🤔

[Kelly6]

@NYCQuestions1976 hehe good point

[NYCQuestions1976]

(Also he was a notary public, and his notarized seal mark was his balls dipped in ink.)

[RoseySarah]

In the us they fire and black list you over a tweet or Facebook post from 10 years ago now!

I can see a company wanting an image but that is extreme thanks to the whining cancel culture!

Like sure have a consequence but don't just ruin someone's life for something that old which was okay and relivant back then!

[OlderAndWiser]

What do you consider a "small sexual touch?"

[normalice]

Well, that's only expected of democrats. Republicans pretty much campaign on living up to no standards other than "who can tell the best 'jokes' about democrats." Democrats tend to push for civility and the plan fact is unwanted sexual touches is monkey behavior, not civilized. How can someone be trusted to be any sort of success in pushing for civility when they themselves don't seem to want it? Thats the underlying theory but of course it is often blown out of proportion because republicans own all the media and are giddy about ousting any Democrat ever.

[Friendlybro79]

I'm not a Republican and agree with a lot of what you said, but to be fair, they don't own all of the media.

[normalice]

They own like 90% of it. That's the only explanation i can come up with for people continuing to take the GOP seriously despite them openly campaigning on being a lame joke.

[Friendlybro79]

They don't own 90% either but the reason people believe the GOP is because they tell their voters what they want to hear and unfortunately a large percentage (not all) of republican voters believe in unproven made up conspiracy theories, and a large percentage of republicans 33% think political violence is the answer. What do you expect from a large violent group? To be fair a much smaller but not insignificant 13% of democratic voters do too. These numbers are rising because the media has been appeasing already paranoid and fearful gun swinging republican voters by perpetuating lies that fuel them. Also, source your stat of 90% if you have it. I can't find it. Source for stats I spoke to.

time.com/.../

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 but they tell people what they want to hear through the media, and that media doesn't call them out on any of it.

90% is just a guess because 100% sounds far fetched. But I'm personally convinced it is 100%. And I don't necissarily mean direct ownership, in any case. The citizens united ruling allows dark money to bankroll entire media empires. It was republican justices that made that ruling and so it is republicans who were chomping at the bit to take advantage of it.

[Avicenna]

You need some serious mental health treatment.

And 96% of journalists in the US are leftists, which isn't a surprise to anyone who doesn't live under a rock.

[Flatmanlewis]

I’m curious how one could be so easily manipulated into thinking one political party is more likely to have members committing sexual assault or harassment than the other. It’s a human condition - not a political one.

[Friendlybro79]

@Flatmanlewis That is very true. I can't find stats in this anyway and honestly just because someone is registered as whatever doesn't mean they even understand the politics of that party.

[Friendlybro79]

@normalice you say you're convinced it's 90-100% of the news is owned by dark money etc or whatever other conspiracy. Just because you think that doesn't mean it's remotely true. If you don't have evidence, and are "convinced" it's true, well then you're no better then every right wing maga extremist saying they know democrats eat babies.

[normalice]

@Avicenna that's what the right wing journalists say. But what benefit would it be for them to say otherwise? Or put another way, if 100% of the media was owned by the right or at least answered to it, who do you imagine would tell you as much?

[normalice]

@Flatmanlewis I don't know why you replied to my comment as that isn't what I said. I only said that democrats are infinitely more likely to force resignations for it, whereas Republicans are more likely to circle the wagons and try to say the rapist is the real victim.

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 my evidence is the coverage. I could do a whole thesis on it but to put it in the most straightforward terms I can think of: If you knew you had the eyes and ears of left leaning centrists and your appointed task was to discourage them from voting for Biden - not to vote for Trump but to just not show up for Biden - it would take you thousands of man hours of work but what you would ultimately come up with is exactly what left-leaning centrist media is doing. Which, being that they are fully staffed, is indeed the result of thousands of man hours of work. So, who appointed them the task of discouraging their viewers from showing up for Biden? The only people who would benefit from making such an assignment are republicans so >>obviously<< they are calling the shots and the discouragement is very much intentional.

Ask yourself how many "left wing journalists" have done pieces on Trump supporters and trying to understand them. A lot.

Now I dare you to try to find a left leaning journalist that did a piece trying to make sense of Biden supporters. Where the fuck is it, Friendlybro79? I sure can't find one.

[normalice]

These "let wing journalists" have normalized an environment where far right ragetards should be treated like the non-derranged non-violent civilized thinkers they try with all their might not to be, but Biden voters? Those dont exist and so you are a damned weirdo if you are one. Thats the media environment these "left wing journalists" have spent 3 years creating despite ample svoid-screechings from Biden supporters that we are being ignored and it is starting to seem like it's on purpose.

And the simplest explanation for why it seems that way is because it is. 🤷

[Jackblue]

Republicans and democrats both protect their own which for democrats includes most black people, even though according to one statistic 60% of black girls are abused by black men www.bet.com/.../study-60-percent-of-black-females-are-sexually-abused in the meantime Republicans yes are sometimes guilty of protecting white males, but they have also been behind laws to punish rape with death.

[Friendlybro79]

You're calling mainstream corporate left wing media and centrist Democratic (moderate democratric) conservative media then. It isn't conservative media but corporate left wing media and right wing media and all republicans for that matter have one thing in common.

They're owned by corporations and they as well as the rich don't want to pay taxes. Corporate Democrats: aka centrists, or moderate democrats have the similarity with republicans in that they paid off by their corporate donors. Democrats don't have conservative views but most of them share the same tax policies as the Republicans. Which is to lower corporate taxes so they can continue to be bribed.

So I understand what you're saying I just don't believe it's technically all owned by conservatives. For ex a pro choice piece isn't a conservative talking point and they wouldn't ever air that if it was all truly conservative. They will however be leery and prob scold a journalist if they say anything anti corporate on a left wing corporate media station. They don't want to piss off any of their advertisers either.

I'm not understanding your find a left leaning journalist that is trying to make sense of Biden supporters. Their strategy in not doing this is just strategy. Many Biden supporters or voters would rather another candidate run in 2024. The conservatives could try to interview them but they would make too much sense and just argue a conservative conspiracy as bs because it is lol.

[Friendlybro79]

Only progressive Democrats don't take corporate donations that I'm aware of and they are out numbered largely by corporate/moderate democrats.

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 I'm pointing out the result of their coverage has undeniably been a general fiscal policy shift to the right. That is either on purpose or on accident and I am only saying I'm convinced it was on purpose.

And to reiterate, when I say ownership I include ad purchases. The citizens united ruling allows for people who don't technically own media empires to flush one with cash to the point where if they stop doing so the media empire would collapse. Obviously in such cases said media empires are going to print whatever the fuck they are told to print. How common is this, though? Well, the whole point of the ruling is were not allowed to know. Why would they do that if they didn't have every intention of abusing it? The only real tell we have is the results and the result is 74 million people voted for trump despite the fact that he didn't even have a party platform. 3 million more people turned out to vote republican in 2022 despite the fact that they >still< didn't have a party platform or any plans to address any of the problems they campaigned on complaining about. There is no explanation for this besides mass manipulation.

[Friendlybro79]

Ok I understand your point a little better. Sometimes it's hard to decipher things online. We might be saying something more similar than I realized. If you mean that advertisers who pay ridiculously large sums to media companies are buying them off to which they can't say anything that would disparage those companies or report certain views or policy changes that would cost corporations money, then yes indirectly speaking these bribes are a figurative way of saying they own the media.

Remember not all corporations are conservative in social views but fiscal ones, I'd say they are. To that I understand your point if I'm reiterating correctly. Thanks for replying and explaining.

[Friendlybro79]

I think the mass manipulation and wht so may voted for Trump is their religious beliefs are so strong they can't vote blue no matter what and a large maga extremist group is voting like it's a sports team us vs them mentality all from Fox, Newsmax etc. They spew the conspiracies not the left media.

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 basically you seem to paraphrasing correctly though I would also point out that "social" issues mean nothing at any of to these companies except in exactly two ways: 1) the extent to which they result in more effective ads and 2) the extent to which the anger over them encourages people to vote for conservative fiscal issues. At any time they could 'put their money where their mouth is (ie disney could move to clorado or new mexico)" but the whole point of all this manipulation is to keep their money as far from their mouth as possible

[Friendlybro79]

I understand your point. I think I agree with much of what you're saying with the exception that MSNBC (just as an example) isn't trying to get people to vote for trump or any conservative. They will push towards conservative fiscal policy like avoiding that rich people and rich corporations need to pay higher taxes and should not be paying less percent in effective tax rates than middle class and lower middle class.

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 yeah, msnbc does seem to be a genuine exception and I'm not sure what to make of it.

[Friendlybro79]

I think it's what I said. Not all news is owned by ultra conservatives. I also think we have to acknowledge the difference between what people stand for politically is in a gray area in real life. The agenda and fiduciary responsibility of a corporation is to make as much money as they can for their stakeholders. So that means unfortunately much of corporate media will pander to their listeners and we might not get a real "what happened today" in the news without a twist to satisfy corporate, their advertisers, etc.

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 I'm unwilling to agree 100% that msnbc isn't controlled by the right. I confess it doesn't seem to be but I'm ultimately looking at results and our rightward drift despite the existence of msnbc suggests something is keeping them from being as effective as they could be.

[Friendlybro79]

What results? Who specifically on the right is controlling left wing media? Without evidence (anecdotal observation isn't enough) it's just your feelings. I'm not saying I don't follow why you think that way but an example of evidence to me would be finding that a prominent conservative institution or person owns the company. Or emails that are validated. Just an example. You don't have to feel convinced but you can't say this is a sure thing without real evidence.

You keep saying results but can you show me something or give a specific example? I'm not arguing I just don't understand where you're getting this.

[Avicenna]

normalice, no reasonable person could agree with your bizarre claims about media bias. Observe for yourself- what do you see? Nothing like what you claim. All you're doing is showing not only that you're biased (which is hardly uncommon), but that you're delusional.

[Friendlybro79]

@Jackblue I'm not sure where you're going or trying to imply with your stat but if you're saying that statistic means that democrats are more likely to protect their own in the media you're delusional. Republicans protect all insane Christians, conspiracy theorists, and even an ex president and push lies about an election being stolen that cost them almost a billion dollars because they LIED, and all of their donors lol. White collar crime is completely forgotten I guess. Lol. Listen to report then news isn't to report every statistic out there. It's corporate media we're talking about.

They all do this certainly no less that the right wing media. There is no way to debate who does it more but besides protecting their own, right wing media has proven in a courtroom that cost them big time, that they will do as you suggest and absolutely lie to us. Newsmax and all the other nutty news sources are just as bad if not worsen perpetuating nonsense to distract and appease their stupid audience. All corporate media is pandering to their audience don't say SOME Republicans are guilty of protecting white people lol. They do it all day every day to the highest powered white people. You're being ridiculous.

[Friendlybro79]

Speaking of stupid... pardon my grammar. Typing on a phone.

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 by "results" I mean the rightward shift of the US. The only plausible explanation for that is mass manipulation. And while it's not required that the right control 100% of the media to achieve this, I just can't come up with an answer to "why wouldn't they?" They would certianly buy the minimum amount that achieves their goal on the timeline they want, but how did they calculate that minimum? I suppose I don't know, but rich people are nothing if not paranoid about any threat to their power, so its hard to imagine they would leave anything out of their control unless they could be certain it could not be a threat to their plan for more power. That certianty is not possible without the sort of understanding that includes knowing why something can't be a threat It takes power to engage in the continued monitoring for assurance that something is harmless when they can't do the same, despite, in the case of the media, it being their appointed task.

If you put a glass cage around an ant colony so big that not a single ant touches the wall, is it still a cage? Yes, because cages are also about what is kept out. Rich people aren't bankrolling msnbc like they are msnbcs competitors. That limits their reach because their competitors can afford more talent, keeping them docile and harmless. It seems a contradiction to say the rich are controlling the media by bankrolling it, except msnbc they are controlling by not bankrolling it, but there is a critical mass involved. They only have to bankroll some threshold until anything left that isn't bankrolled by them will be unable to compete and "the market will decide." But again I'm not saying they are doing this. I'm saying it is a possibility for explaining how they are engaging in mass manipulation. I'm open to other explanations, as long as they are possible.

[Friendlybro79]

Sorry man. You lost me with this. You have no evidence of this. This is just your feelings talking. The reality is the county is more liberal than ever and it will continue to become more progressive in the next decades to come.

[Friendlybro79]

Oh and the evidence is in the popular vote

[normalice]

@Friendlybro79 evidence that the country has shifted to the right is etched into law. The lowest corporate tax since the great depression. A six seat supermajority by far right justices on the supreme court. A whole political party that attempted a war on democracy and no one arrested them or even talks about arresting them except in terms of how there would be retaliation. What are you thinking has shifted to the left? Dudes playing women's sports? What rich man does that make richer?

[Marcia1218]

@normalice You should really get out of mommy's basement and see what's really happening in the world 😂

[Kelly6]

@Marcia1218 wow that mean lol

[normalice]

Nomit isn't. Right wing trolls have been saying that when they lose an argument for decades 😅

[Flatmanlewis]

I think your question is ambiguous. Any unwanted touch, which would by definition be sexual assault, would be a political scandal here in the US. It has also been a political weapon for years and allegations alone have been used to derail political careers.


A consensual but sexual act won’t really create the same scandal as it once did but extramarital affairs are still pretty damaging. Polls consistently show you will lose substantial parts of a voting body (be they left or right) behind such acts.

[Cute_potato01]

People are easily offended these days. An accidental touch can lead to your career ending. I've been touched or groped but I haven't be offended because it was merely accidentally. A bit intentional on my end..

[Kelly6]

@Cute_potato01
you are smart and have morals

[RageBabe]

Compared to us Europeans, I believe Americans are more prude.

[InspireGlow678]

You're right, in Europe there are a lot more clothing optional places, in the US no one is used to it.

[Kelly6]

@RageBabe
totally agree

[InspireGlow678]

You can tell who are the American guys over there because they're not used to it and they get boners

[Kelly6]

@InspireGlow678 true, and they try to tell us whats right and whats wrong.
i hate people who come on our beach to tell whats appropriate

[InspireGlow678]

Right, total hypocrites. They're afraid/ashamed of their own desires. Nudism is natural and nothing wrong with it

[InspireGlow678]

If I ever got a boner (accidentally) on a clothing optional beach I would hope no one would judge me

[Kelly6]

@InspireGlow678 no one judges it as long as you ignore it.

[InspireGlow678]

I pretend it's not happening but some women laugh/stare

[Kelly6]

@InspireGlow678 i watch guys boner, but just give guys smile , not laugh

[InspireGlow678]

I don't blame women for staring, it's hard to ignore. They're cool too, I've had conversations with women when I'm hard and they just smile too (especially the older women)

[LuckyGuy1647]

Protestant Christians are such hypocrites is no wonder they have such high divorce rate.

[LuckyGuy1647]

I would love to go to nude beach

[RageBabe]

Indeed, I agree with you both.

[Billlewis]

This continues to occur because of the greatest enemy we've ever faced as a nation -- the media.

[Lliam]

Some women take #MeToo too far or use it as a weapon.

[RebelinSteel]

I cannot comment for the US, but a sexual touch is a sexual touch no matter the country. I don’t think many companies would keep someone that deliberately touched someone sexually while at work or work event. If they don’t, then it sets a precedent that the management think it’s okay to sexually touch people at work.

[jshm2]

It's the same in most countries.

You cannot be hassling your employees or acting contrary to common decency.

Yes American is a strange country. You can spark an insurrection, steal from donations, and shoot without valid cause. But don't use wrong pronouns or touch people.

[DJB72]

One person's accidental contact is another's sexual harassment. I've even heard of men being fired for harassment because they rejected the female co-worker's advances. The "It's how he makes me feel when he looks at me" bullshit.

I'm only responsible for my words and actions and my intent behind them. I'm not responsible for how you interpret them. Especially if there's no physical contact or nudity involved.

[Siri137]

I see you're trying to make sense of Americans and why the do some of the funny things they do. Well, good luck with that! :D

[Anonymous]

You mean like a boob or butt squeeze or something?

[Kelly6]

Yes.

[Opinion Owner]

I think this was not just totally okay, but expected in the 50s. Half the reason for having a secretary would be to cop a quick feel and then get back to work feeling invirgorated!

[Mangospacho]

It’s usually more than a small touch. Once one person accuses a politician of something, more accusers come forward so it’s not just one small touch, it’s just the small touch they happened to get caught for.

[RedInnocent68]

Yeah, it’s a bit overdone. Although the ones that most ought to are often the ones that don’t… An apology with some remediation is often a better outcome, but it depends on personal circumstances.

[Tamera952]

Huh? I don’t understand your question at all.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Most of the time it depends on whether or not the person is attractive or a zit with teeth. Sad and wrong, but usually true.

[KrakenAttackin]

American women are badly damaged as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Some of those politicians think theyre above the law. ALL of em should have limited term limits, just like the president.

[RoronoaZoro8]

Because its inappropriate

[RageBabe]

Perhaps it would be frowned upon in America, but luckily that isn't the globe.

[RoronoaZoro8]

What country allows men to harass women at work?

[Christoff92]

Am confused