Trump WAS absolutely found to be a rapist in a court of law, forcible penetration against the victim’s will is rape and it was proven he did that, he managed to run out the statute of limitations for a criminal conviction but he forcibly penetrated a woman against her wishes, it was proven in court.
He tried to sue Carrol for calling him a rapist, but the statements being true is a defense against slander and libel cases so it was thrown out. Try again sucker.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-tosses-trumps-counterclaim-e-jean-carroll-finding-rape-claim-sub-rcna98577

She’s definitely not the only one, his wife said he violently raped her and so did 26 other credible women.
If Joe had done what Trump has been proven in court to have done, the same thing he was recorded bragging about doing, you wouldn’t ever stop calling Joe a rapist and you would be right because that’s what Trump is…you know it’s true.
Donald J Trump raped at least one woman and almost certainly 27 women and girls at a minimum, those are just the credible accusers and don’t include those too afraid to come forward or those he paid for their silence afterwards.

Constant credible death threats and the destruction of her professional career and reputation are worth $88.3 million, again this has been proven in a court of law. Trump said days before the judgement that he intended to continue defaming her forever after the judgement no matter how high it was, so the penalty was designed to change that position because $5 million had no effect at all. It seems to have finally worked. 😂
Also, since the punitive damages are designed to impact the perp, it was tiny if you believe Trump about his net worth. 10% of his total net worth would have been a low amount, and she got under 2% of what he claims to be worth, under 1% of some claims, a nothingburger, stop whining. 😂

Anything else? 😂

Hold on there nutjob….

I 100% agree the ball was completely dropped by Dems who should have made an issue of this in Oct, knowing the right wouldn’t because they say facts and honesty are only for liberals. Had they discovered this immoral scam directly from the RNC before the election, Dems would have kept the house.

But it’s not the job of the opposition to discover the lies their opponent tells, nor their fault for not uncovering lies told by candidates and backed by their party. It’s the person who lies and those that knowingly corroborate their lies that are to blame, they are in the wrong, not the Democrats. You would blame the victim for not discovering the unbelievable crime beforehand, and accept no blame as the willing accomplice. Do you blame home invasion victims for not having security doors and bullet proof windows, armed security, and panic rooms? Oh wait….you actually do (Pelosi)

It took more than a scratch of the surface because Republican representatives and RNC officials totally knowingly supported and corroborated the lies with big grins, never saying a word despite knowing he was completely full of shit and not caring one bit they were lying to their constituents because honesty is not a righty feature, they didn’t just lie to the left, they did this to you, lying to you and making you their sucker intentionally for power. You don’t care, because it gains your team power and you like being lied to, and no amount of criminality and dishonesty is a deal breaker for you….absolutely nothing could make you upset that you belong to a terrorist anti American party of crooks and frauds, not even when they call to repeal the constitution and eliminate voting.
If Democrats perpetrated this kind of fraud you would be apoplectic, totally enraged and calling for another insurrection, but they never have and never would because their constituents care about honesty, facts, and ethics unlike the right.

You love to “both sides” every time your side gets caught pulling fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud after fraud, but you NEVER come up with examples of anything close to the scope and immorality of the Republicans. I show you a dozen concerted efforts by campaigns and elected officials to defraud elections on massive, 10000 votes and more scale, you come back with one woman who cast a single provisional ballot in Texas after officials cleared her to vote and say “both sides”.

Democrats aren’t perfect, but 98% of corruption, fraud, outright lies, self dealing, etc is on the Republican side, and 100% of yes to big money in politics, 100% of domestic terrorism, 100% of anti democracy sentiment, 100% of child sex abuse, 100% of calls to rescind the constitution is on the right. Or as you say….both sides.

ROTFLMFAHS!!!

You’re right,
They promote
Incest- Giuliani, Trump
Debauchery-Cawthorn, Gaetz, Boebert
Division- Jan 6, Green, and the entire Texas Republican Party that just made secession part of their official platform
Slavery-Texas, most of the red South in fact
Pro-Fa(cism)-Trump
KKK-David Duke, Republican state Senate representative from Louisiana and Republican candidate for US Senate in 2016….and grand dragon of the KKK
Hate- All of you FOR ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CULT, including actual Republicans not RINO’s like Trump who was a pro-abortion Clinton Democrat lest you forget

They are anti:
Family, -if they aren’t one woman, one man not racially mixed families
Free Speech- Truth Social
Morality - Please, see anything Republican after 2008 or any second of Trump’s life. 🤦‍♂️
GOD- Certainly all his commandments and instructions in the Bible, great leader has broken every one hundreds of times

Nothing moral about the Republican party.

FTFY and added examples. Hilariously I didn’t need to change much.

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:


Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)





>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)


>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)


>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)


>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)


>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)


>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005

Yeah, well, Trump did invite the actual Nazis into his party, calling them "good people" AFTER they marched through town with torches (and pitchforks?), murdered one woman, and attempted to murder dozens more.
Obama did not do anything of the sort.

But wait....we're supposed to be surprised the right are disingenuous hypocrites that can dish it out but can't take it? Sorry, I'm not brain dead, so I'm in no way surprised.

trump is accused by 20 women

if there's a 50% chance that any one woman lied it is a (1/2)^20 chance or 1 in more than a million chance that they are all lying; so he's guilty especially since the chance that any one is lying has to be less than 1 in 4 which would be a (1/4)^20 or 1 in over a billion chance that they're all lying
1 in 1099511627776

Didn't call for censorship. I just find little benefit in singling out an individual with a very tiny platform for saying something dumb. The idea that her being singled out online to be inundated with death threats and vitriol for her and her family (her and her family were doxxed over this) seems to far outweigh the benefit of "stopping this woman going around the country"... seeing as how she's one woman with basically no following and little influence. I doubt she's done many of these talks at all or will do more. (Looked it up. This talk was the only one she'd given all year. Only one on a different subject the year before. Both locally in her area.)

Spreading videos like this after someone has already been doxxed and threatened only seem to help compound the injury. And it's not ideological to me. Justine Sacco said something stupid online and got a crazy amount of blowback and lost her job for it- I don't agree with that either.

If you want to call out what you view as racism, going after the little guys for saying something a little off isn't the way. Go after people with influence. Hell, a police chief in Oklahoma was just caught running a white supremacist website and record label. That guy has direct impact on the rest of people's lives and even if they get to keep their lives in some situations.

Ashleigh is an unemployed recent college grad. The most influence she has are the 15 or 20 people who were all adults that signed up for this particular seminar. I imagine they either agreed with or are old enough to make up their own mind on what was said.

Well it's depressing that they might be Canadian but one woman is wearing track pants with Canada printed on the leg. They sound more like Ontario though rather than Nova Scotia.

@vil Perhaps. It is also a standard exercise in acting classes.

Instead of the teacher calling things out, it is the participants who say something true about themselves. It is to teach students to be honest, and brave, and to see that they are not freaks. Much like this video. (Although how do you know this isn't real, this "ad"? People could have volunteered to do this. Although the single bisexual didn't ring true to me -- either folks were lying or it is indeed scripted.)

Anyway, in the acting exercise, instead of boxes on the floor, it is just people standing around. Someone calls out something true about themselves, and people who have done that join them, those who haven't move away and cluster together, so you end up with two groups. Constantly moving, constantly changing, the power shifting, the emotions shifting. It is great fun and can be scary as hell as you decide how honest you want to be. How honest you CAN be.

Two favorite memories of this exercise in classes I took:

1. A guy calls out -- "everyone who has ever peed in a sink". Every guy in the class joins him -- and one woman. We all about lost it.

2. Here in PT, small town, had a class with about 25 people in it. One brave man, Jim P, I'll never forget -- he had the bravery to call out -- "everyone who has ever had a restraining order placed against them." And everyone moved away from him and he stood there alone. Only time I have ever seen that happen, someone standing alone.

True love.
One woman.
Two slices.

Specifics probably matter, but I'm going to say they don't sound satirical either. The differences are that the people that you listed have an audience of hundreds of millions. Sarkeesian has hundreds of thousands, maybe a million. Making threats and childish fantasies more concentrated. Also, I'm presuming making youtube videos about the media and feminism doesn't quite buy the security Hilary Clinton / the taxpayer can afford.

Finally, I seem to remember the Clinton one was focussed on a pun and not on Clinton. It was a game where you have to beat your political opponents (literally). Hardly ground breaking comedy but its a start.

If you think this draws attention away from other problems, I'm glad to inform you that other humans have a better attention span and are capable of understanding more than one woman's grievance at a time.

I also like that she is described as a 'polarising' public figure. I doubt that. The only people that dislike her are some gamers because she criticizes some aspects of an industry they support. Everyone else either hasn't heard of her, thinks she makes interesting points, or shrugs their shoulders and says 'she might be overreaching'. Hardly a real polarising figure just because she gets your knickers in a twist.

I wonder how this would go with a male photographer -- quite differently I believe, especially with the generally patriarchal society we live in.

What I loved about this video is even the people who one could argue weren't so attractive, when they smiled and when you took a moment to look at them in the right light, they were quite beautiful.

I agree that that one woman probably had some sort of traumatic experience that gave her such skepticism. I also found it really interesting that there were a handful who you could tell were really, really skeptical, but just not to the point of profanity. Poor people -- they don't believe anyone could find them beautiful.

Lastly, I'm curious as to how objectively beautiful Shea is. If she's a very attractive woman, I could see why some of the people were skeptical. They assumed it was some sort of joke or prank. I could easily see this being a joke or prank and Shea posting this on youtube saying, 'LOLZ LOOK AT THESE UGLY PPL HOO THINK THEIR BEUTIFUL! LULZ!!!!'

It's a difficult thing to really justify or demonize because sex is a head game, a dance but also a match of submissiveness versus dominance; it can become violent and abusive through the ebb and flow of permission and denial. One moment I'm smacking her ass during sex, after a year of smacking her ass, she needs to be spanked before sex even begins, and now 10 years later there's whips and clamps and shackles. It all started with a mildly amusing smack to the ass that over time became a mutual fetish.

All of that extreme abuse porn is a matter of course, just like the secret fetish in a relationship starts with something innocent then leads to something semi-professional. This is the end result of a fetish that started with Deep Throat in the '70s opening the world to oral sex. Now it's facial abuse. She doesn't need a deep throat, now she just needs to undergo a hazing.

Will regulation change an industry piloted entirely by desire and sex starved user demand? Or would the culture simply evolve around the regulations?

Japan blurs out genitals, so what happens? The culture evolves around the restrictions and now we have a thriving bukkake subgenre. You want cum in eyes? Niche. Cum in hair? Niche. Cum on teeth? For real though, the focus is on teeth. We don't even need genitals now! Just pick a spot on the body and then ejaculate in mass! What a phenomenon.

Niches form and when they trend, that's when you end up with a popular site like facial abuse.

But hazing porn exists in the reverse and is also quite popular. Pegging? Come on, where's my face sitting fans? Hey now, there's also a lesbian variety of big assed Brazilian women who abuse skinny blond girls. I don't know what they're saying, but clearly it means something along the lines of dig that white caucausian nose further up my brown latin pussy. One woman is empowered, the other not so much, but she likes it, so... empowered? But who watches it? Men? Surely not women. Well, I know several women who watch the shit out of lesbian domination porn.

I had the absolute pleasure to sit with some really open lesbians and watch lesbian domination porn where the women wrestle each other, and the winner gets to fuck the loser in humiliating and abusive ways. I mean... the topic of empowerment is tough here. If you do porn just own it. Damn. Come on, it's just sex. People just like giving each other a hard time and they're always worrying about the next generation, even though they know humans are all dirty, filthy, sex craved fiends.

I think the most abusive porn I've watched (was sort of forced to watch) was a man having his penis hit with a hammer by a very mean woman. He liked having his penis hit with a hammer for some odd reason.

You want to talk about trivial stories getting media coverage?

Yesterday, the island of Vanuatu was all but destroyed by a cyclone. 24 people confirmed dead, tens of thousands left homeless and "the development of the country wiped out" but what was the headline on NZs largest news site (and bear in mind that NZ is the closest developed nation to Vanuatu)?

Some d-list celebrity said something mean on a reality tv show, and the country lost their shit.

So, when someone threatens "the deadliest school shooting in American history" at your speaking engagement, that is not "faux victimhood". That is genuinely fucking scary.

Bad shit happens to people every fucking day and it's not deemed newsworthy. If you really want to get pissy about it, why does this one womans awful experience merit more support than the 200+ schoolgirls that are still missing?

The answer is that it's not a zero sum game.
I can say that I feel that the representation of women (and non-caucasians while I'm at it) in video games is pretty bad and should change.
I can also say that this woman had an awful experience and I wish it hadn't happened.
And I can also say that I sincerely hope those girls don't get sold in slavery.
And a million other issues of social justice, environment, etc.

Some of those are more important than others. Doesn't mean the "lesser" ones should be ignored.

This woman's rape (while undoubtedly horrific) does not in anyway trivialise someone else's bad experience. Just because you were stabbed doesn't make the time I was beaten up any better.

Besides, you could argue the other direction too and be just as wrong. Why raise money for this one woman. There are probably millions of women worldwide who have suffered much worse.

It's a stupid, stupid argument.

And just in case the hard of thinking brigade show up, the victims choice of career has absolutely no bearing on the trauma she's suffered.