What to call this thread?

[Rigby5]

So that makes sexual assault okay?

My point was that Jean Carroll's actions are not consistent with her claims of sexual assault.
A person who is sexually assaulted is both angry and wants to protect others, so reports it immediately.
She not only did not report it immediately but waited so long that prosecution was impossible.
I also find it bizarre that she offered to model lingerie for a stranger?

 

[Shiftless2]

So you know more about what happened than the judge and jury in the case? And you definitely know more than Donnie's lawyers - he should have hired you to defend him.

Amazing what you can learn from reading newspaper articles or reading blogs.

 

[Shiftless2]

A Wyoming librarian, who was fired for defending LGBTQ+ books, has won a $700,000 settlement after standing firm in her belief that everyone should have access to diverse literature.

Terri Lesley, a dedicated library director for nearly 30 years, faced intense pressure to remove LGBTQ+ books from the shelves of her library in Campbell County. She refused, standing by the core values of inclusion and free access to knowledge.

Her stance led to her firing in 2023, prompting Lesley to file a federal lawsuit, arguing that her First Amendment rights had been violated.

In a significant victory, Lesley reached a $700,000 settlement in October 2025 with the Campbell County Commission and library board, resolving the dispute.

Lesley’s courageous decision to stand up for the rights of all library patrons has made a powerful statement about the importance of access to information.

Though her journey was tough, Lesley expressed that she would do it all over again because she believes in the fundamental right of every individual to access diverse stories and viewpoints.

Her case has sparked important discussions about the role of libraries in promoting inclusivity, freedom of expression, and resisting censorship.

Lesley’s victory is a reminder that standing up for what’s right can lead to meaningful change.

SOURCE

 

[sear]

"Terri Lesley" Epoch Times #1,163

Not an insult to Ms Lesley.
Not dismissive to equality. But an observation:

Isn't the objective to break down the barriers that differentiate us?
And to accomplish this, we differentiate?

Gay. Lesbian. LGBTQ.

Do we need a new approach?

 

[Shiftless2]

Isn't the objective to break down the barriers that differentiate us?
And to accomplish this, we differentiate?

Gay. Lesbian. LGBTQ.

Do we need a new approach?

We don't accomplish that by pretending that "those people" don't exist. That includes removing books from the library that have LGBTQ characters.

That would be like removing Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn from the library because there are (shudder) black people in those books. And Huck actually sat down and ate with Jim.

 

[sear]

"We don't accomplish that by pretending that "those people" don't exist. That includes removing books from the library that have LGBTQ characters." S2 #1,165

Important point well made.
None the less, are we overlooking opportunity here, ignoring constructive strategic advantage by citing the distinction we wish to eliminate?
The objective is: people are people. Right?
To achieve that objective?

"That would be like removing Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn from the library because there are (shudder) black people in those books. And Huck actually sat down and ate with Jim." S2 #1,165

No.
Removing such literature is censorship, contrary to egalitarianism.

Introducing Manuel as "my Mexican friend" engages a distinction that some may use to practice bigotry.
Introducing Manuel as "my friend" sidesteps the distinction. CERTAINLY it doesn't terminate all bigotry for all time. BUT !
The ocean of bigotry is formed one drop at a time.

 

[Shiftless2]

Removing such literature is censorship, contrary to egalitarianism.

How is removing Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn because of black characters any different from removing other books because they have LGBTQ characters? Why is one censorship while the other is not?

 

[sear]

"How is removing Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn because of black characters any different from removing other books because they have LGBTQ characters? Why is one censorship while the other is not?" S2 #1,166

I dispute the premise of the question. I don't recognize a significant difference in principle between them.

Perhaps an example separate from genders / sexes:

Approximately, racism is distinguishing by skin color, right?
And such racism is bad. Right?
But then what of the NAACP? Is that not distinguishing based on skin color? Isn't that what the "CP" in NAACP stands for?
Affirmative action? Isn't A.A. an effort to promote equality by implementing inequality, preference?

To be clear, this is not in any way to disapprove or discredit NAACP, or other steps to help our mosaic blend better as a melting-pot. BUT !
It's an acknowledgement that such effort can employ the very distinction it's intended to curtail.

AND !

That's not the only example of such irony in our culture.
The purpose of the U.S. military is to preserve our democracy. Right?
And yet, U.S. military troops in military barracks (government housing) forfeit the very Constitutional protections such troops are to protect.
Company commanders can conduct "health & welfare" inspections, including an unannounced knock on the door at 2:AM to search an individual service member's locker for contraband, etc.

That is SURELY not a condemnation of the U.S. military, or the heroic volunteers that continue to preserve our sovereignty. BUT
it's an acknowledgement of the contradiction.

 

[Rigby5]

So you know more about what happened than the judge and jury in the case? And you definitely know more than Donnie's lawyers - he should have hired you to defend him.

Amazing what you can learn from reading newspaper articles or reading blogs.

The judge has nothing to do with it, and the jury could simply have not liked Trump?
Do you have an acceptable explanation why Jean Carroll offered to model lingerie for Trump?

 

[Rigby5]

I dispute the premise of the question. I don't recognize a significant difference in principle between them.

Perhaps an example separate from genders / sexes:

Approximately, racism is distinguishing by skin color, right?
And such racism is bad. Right?
But then what of the NAACP? Is that not distinguishing based on skin color? Isn't that what the "CP" in NAACP stands for?
Affirmative action? Isn't A.A. an effort to promote equality by implementing inequality, preference?

To be clear, this is not in any way to disapprove or discredit NAACP, or other steps to help our mosaic blend better as a melting-pot. BUT !
It's an acknowledgement that such effort can employ the very distinction it's intended to curtail.

AND !

That's not the only example of such irony in our culture.
The purpose of the U.S. military is to preserve our democracy. Right?
And yet, U.S. military troops in military barracks (government housing) forfeit the very Constitutional protections such troops are to protect.
Company commanders can conduct "health & welfare" inspections, including an unannounced knock on the door at 2:AM to search an individual service member's locker for contraband, etc.

That is SURELY not a condemnation of the U.S. military, or the heroic volunteers that continue to preserve our sovereignty. BUT
it's an acknowledgement of the contradiction.

I am not sure, but I think races would not exist if not for an inherent instinct to associate more exclusively with those of the same visual appearance as your parents.
So then a conscious effort has to be made to counteract this inappropriate instinct.
We have to over ride it with rational information and thought.

The military I think is just dangerous.
Like all those I end up arguing with over Mark Kelly, who think his belief on not obeying illegal orders is treason.

 

[sear]

"I am not sure, but I think races would not exist if not for an inherent instinct to associate more exclusively with those of the same visual appearance as your parents." R5 #1,170

It's an interesting dynamic R5, a fascinating insight into how brain functions are organically differentiated.
Reportedly we "see" images in clouds, or in coffee:
We do seem more amenable to those from our own clan. BUT !

"Westermarck effect: individuals who spend large amounts of time with each other under the age of six, raised together, regardless of relationship, tend to become desensitized to each other, and they will not generally develop sexual attraction to each other later in life. This idea is sometimes referred to as “reverse imprinting,” and it is named for Edvard Westermarck, a Finnish sociologist."
Finnish? When did he start?

Over millions of years, we've survived by remaining among those familiar to us,
while engaging with sufficient diversity to not interbreed.

There's no more extravagant waste than a 2nd rate military. Gen. Horner

"The military I think is just dangerous." R5 #1,170

It is. "The purpose of the U.S. military is to kill people and break things." Rush Limbaugh
BUT!
It is more dangerous still to risk 3rd Millennium survival without it.

"Like all those I end up arguing with over Mark Kelly, who think his belief on not obeying illegal orders is treason." R5 #1,170

Kelly has an extremely impressive résumé.
The reports I've seen of it indicate U.S. military troops are officially instructed to not obey illegal orders.

If it's treason they're after, tell them any Drug Warrior will do.

 

[Shiftless2]

The judge has nothing to do with it, and the jury could simply have not liked Trump?
Do you have an acceptable explanation why Jean Carroll offered to model lingerie for Trump?

So you know more about the trial than the jury who heard all the evidence.

And I really don't care about why she modeled lingerie - that doesn't give him permission to assault her.

 

[sear]

"And I really don't care about why she modeled lingerie - that doesn't give him permission to assault her." S2 #1,172

It may exemplify extenuating circumstance.

I don't know enough about this specific case to have an opinion.
But I'm aware that her saying "No." on their walk to her door is not the same as her saying "No." a few seconds before ejaculation.

 

[Rigby5]

So you know more about the trial than the jury who heard all the evidence.

And I really don't care about why she modeled lingerie - that doesn't give him permission to assault her.

We don't know if she said "no" at the time, and may have changed her mind 20 years later, after he became president.

 

[sear]

"We don't know if she said "no" at the time, and may have changed her mind 20 years later, after he became president." R5 #1,174

I was a juror.
Before deliberation we the jurors were "charged" by the law judge.
His explanation for the definition of "reasonable doubt" was: do you (the juror) have a reason? If the juror has a reason for doubt, that's reasonable doubt.

"... changed her mind 20 years later" R5 #1,174

Is that a reason for doubt? The ostensible victim needed decades to decide, the juror has hours?

 

[Rigby5]

I was a juror.
Before deliberation we the jurors were "charged" by the law judge.
His explanation for the definition of "reasonable doubt" was: do you (the juror) have a reason? If the juror has a reason for doubt, that's reasonable doubt.


Is that a reason for doubt? The ostensible victim needed decades to decide, the juror has hours?

If she really had been assaulted and waited 20 years to identify an attacker, then she should be charged with letting the attacker harm others for 20 years.

 

[sear]

"If she really had been assaulted and waited 20 years to identify an attacker, then she should be charged with letting the attacker harm others for 20 years." R5 #1,176

At least superficially that might seem to make sense.
The complications emerge when we evaluate the merit of punishing the victim for suffering abuse so traumatic the victim wasn't even comfortable discussing it with a government agent, a police detective.

Women in the military may have a compounding reason for silence, as divulging such misfortune can be a career ender.
Either way the publicity may simply be unendurable.

 

[Shiftless2]

sear - #1,173

Extenuating circumstances is a polite way of saying "blame the victim"

 

[Shiftless2]

Trans people vs bigots

 

[sear]

sear - #1,173
"Extenuating circumstances is a polite way of saying "blame the victim"" S2 #1,178

Potentially.
In law it may be a binary: either he crossed the line, or not. But,
in practice, in life, it's potentially more complicated.

Example, she may feel amenable, but change her mind.

Generally I disdain "blame the victim", perhaps you know that.
But we delude ourselves if we ignore such complexity. Sometimes there are less than optimal outcomes. That doesn't excuse it. It may help explain it.