WaPo reported that Racicot texted Platner that she needed a glute massage to which he understood as an invitation and replied that he would come over. She later changed her mind and told him not to come over. Politico never included this detail in their article and since they were the first to break the story, most people were not aware of this detail.
WOW! THIS KEY DETAIL CHANGES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
You, the OP are the reason why women don’t want to report SA. I was one of them, until my then bf took me to the police station and convinced me to report. Get lost. Women are not safe in your presence.
The title of this post comes from the video itself. This video does not prove that Planter did not rape her - he did. This is about corporate media omitting details from their story.
They left it out most likely because it is irrelevant and puts the victim at greater risk of victim blaming
The summary paragraph attributed to you does not include any skepticism about this obvious attempt at victim blaming.
Spreading this sort of bullshit is what I’ll blame if Platner stays in and loses. He needs to drop out, now, and find a way to make amends and help the cause. Such as throwing his weight behind the most progressive candidate to replace him on the ballot.
(Unless he really is the shallow pseudo-leftist misandrist lefties clocked him as at first recollection of that damn tattoo.)
I am not victim blaming with this post and the video itself does not do that. I too believe he should drop out and I’ve heard that he will announce today.
I didn’t intend to accuse you of victim blaming.
I’m accusing the video of doing that, and you of failing to identify it as such in either your summary or a top-level comment.
The video doesn’t do that.
Does the video do more than note the thing about asking for a massage?
Because that’s not a relevant fact whose omission is any sin of journalism, and if that’s all they have then releasing a YouTube video with that headline is absolutely victim blaming, even if indirectly.
The only appropriate rebuttal to a claim of sexual assault is a refutation of the facts claimed, ideally with a horrified “people who cross this line suck” commentary.
No set of external facts matters if you touch someone in a sexual fashion without their contemporaneous consent. Assertions of external facts existing even being noteworthy is vicirm blaming and helps rapists get away with it.
Most people aren’t going to watch the video, they’re going to react to the title unfortunately. Since you didn’t clarify that this doesn’t change anything in the body of the post, it really does look like you’re casting aspersions. Thanks for clarifying that you aren’t.
And then people wonder why women pick the bear.
I recall hearing of a metaphor under the name “Tea Consent”. The idea is that consent for sex is much like asking for a cup of tea. Even if I ask you, repeatedly, for that cup of tea: You can not force me to drink it.
Now you might get annoyed if someone repeatedly asks for tea and then declines it when it’s ready. That’s an acceptable feeling, and you may very well choose not to continue obliging that person as a companion, or at least not as one who you make tea. However, if you choose to get the tea ready, and that person again changes their mind, you still can’t force them to drink it.
Yes and that’s what I meant in my summary. It is a rape. No doubt about it.
Sheesh. Stop with the cope. Yet again, Democrats got suckered because they didnt vet the candidate properly. I think the nazi tattoo was a big enough red flag but combined with his reddit posts, the dems had plenty of info to see this coming.
Just be happy you dodged another Fetterman.
And the block list continues to grow.
I want to know where the phone records went? Is that woman being paid? How and by whom? The timing is so coincidental. The first accuser turned out to be a Republican operative. When that didn’t work up popped this woman, with the most amazing timing. If I was a billionaire paying to undermine Platner, this is just how I’d do it. And I’d also pay an influence operation to flame anyone asking questions about her story in a public forum and accuse them of being misogynists. How are they always the top comments?
To be fair, there’s no good time to be accused of being a gross fucking rapist.
The best option is not to be a gross fucking rapist.
This is shit evidence for an accusation of that scope. Five years ago, he can’t defend himself. The text messages are gone, no security cameras. How would you like to have your life ruined on evidence like that?
Stop pushing that there is no evidence.
Because there isn’t. We’re not even getting the whole story. Well, we’re getting more of it now. The timing, the circumstance, no phone records, no one did a financial background to see if she’s being paid. The first accuser was a Republican operative. Come on, none of the weird coincidences make you question this even a little? Or maybe this is why Democrats are losers and will remain losers.
The timing, the circumstance, no phone records, no one did a financial background to see if she’s being paid.
This woman doesn’t owe you any of this and you don’t know that phone records and financial backgrounds don’t exist. You’re pushing misinformation because you’re pissy that your guy got found out as a rapist and lost his chance at winning.
What do you mean there is no evidence?
First of all, this is not a criminal proceeding. There is no admissibility standard or reasonable doubt standard.
Second, based on the description of the evidence, most of it would definitely be admissible and probative. Of course, sexual violence hardly gets investigated so it’s a moot point.
In other words, you have no idea what you are taking about.
And you don’t support your argument with facts. That’s just one step below name calling. This whole thing stinks and this is exactly how the billionaires win.
What facts? That testimony corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence is admissible? I was hoping you could figure that one out completely on under your own power given the context of the discussion. But I see now that I have severely overestimated you.
And yes, that’s name calling. And you deserved it.
Just because you don’t recognize factual statements like “sexual violence hardly gets investigated” and “based on the description of evidence, most of it would be admissible and probative” doesn’t make them false.