• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.

    I truly don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of seeming to defend bad actions, but, you are assuming coercion and non-consensual behavior though, are you not?

    If so, do we know this for a fact?

    Maybe others who judge them otherwise consider what they did as consensual and non-coerced activities.

    My point is just how other people judge the actions when judging the person, not if I personally thought the actions were correct or not. Personally I would have turned down a consensual offer in the work office.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The whole point of the power imbalance is that true consent can never actually be communicated and, therefore, can never actually be known. If I offer to stick my dick in my secretary’s mouth, does she say “yes” because she’s into it, or because she’s afraid of retribution? How do I tell the difference? If HR finds out, they won’t try to tell the difference, they will show me the door.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      When a power imbalance is that large, consent cannot truly exist.

      Clinton was the Harvey Weinstein of Presidents.