politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Dig deeper into it, this doesn't seem like a hit job.
I respect that suggestion. I'm wondering how any guy grows out of being a dick and gets a chance to demonstrate growth in the party of Democrats.
Genuine remorse and honest self reflection, which would inevitably lead to "As someone who has committed rape it is irresponsible for me to ever ask anyone to vote for me to have political power ever again, but there are other ways for me to participate in and give back to my community that don't involve me having power over someone else. Perhaps I will go phone bank for a candidate that shares my values or volunteer to pick up trash in my local park."
"I'm really truly sorry, now can we please move on without actually changing anything" doesn't work.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Platner had grown beyond this incident which was pretty recent anyway?
I don't think so, but the victim thought he was blackout drunk, so the only reliable choice available to his unimpaired mind would be never to get that drunk again. But he'd made posts (in 2013) about how no one should drink so much they regret their choices, so if it were as simple as thinking responsible people shouldn't drink to that point it never would have happened.
You don't rape someone because you got too drunk. That only happens if you think rape is OK but you've been holding yourself back from it. Most of us have been drunk plenty of times without hurting anyone. So I don't find that argument too convincing.
Plus I think this was after 2013 so maybe he should have taken his own advice and this wouldn't have happened. If you know you lose control when drunk then ultimately I think you do have a responsibility to stop doing it.
By definition, if you're holding yourself back from doing something you don't think it's ok. It doesn't change that you're responsible for harm you cause by putting yourself in a position where your sober mind is no longer holding yourself back, but following this logic leads to things like saying drunk women can consent because they're just holding their true selves back when sober.
I disagree. You may also be afraid of the consequences. I don't think a normal person with a healthy concept of consent is going to rape someone no matter how drunk they are. It's people who are close to doing that already that are going to be pushed over the edge by a lack of inhibitions.
As far as drunken consent it's obviously a bit hazy but I personally think the idea that any amount of alcohol negates consent is a bit silly. When we're talking about alcohol negating consent we're talking about people who are impaired to the extent that they either don't know what's going on or can't clearly express their preferences. If you are physically and mentally capable of rape you are obviously not this impaired. In fact I think the muddying of the waters that some people have done here is a bit dangerous as it gives cover for people to behave badly when drunk and claim that they're no responsible for their actions, which again, I think is nonsense.
Why would being blackout drunk reveal your true desire to rape and not your true desire to consent? Or are you saying that being blackout drunk is not impaired enough to negate consent?
This sounds like you think non-consent from alcohol only occurs when you're practically incapable of standing or speaking coherently (and thus would be incapable of rape). Basically a step away from just being unconscious. That's a very expansive view on what qualifies as healthy consent, which is weird to pair with a concern about muddying the waters.
I'm not saying it's healthy consent, but it's a form of consent insofar as you are in control of your faculties. Obviously we as individuals should aim higher than that but as far as a legal or moral standard for where you can have responsibility for your actions, I think that's where the line is. And yeah blurring the line by saying two drunk people having otherwise consensual sex is mutual rape or silly things like that is eroding people's responsibility for their own actions, as here.
Like if Platner killed a guy in the same condition would you be saying these things? Like oh how could he have prevented it when he was so drunk... I just don't think that argument has any merit. We are ultimately accountable for our own actions unless we're so impaired that they can't be said to be actions.
I've said he's responsible for his harms to others while drunk because even if impairment removes his self-control, drinking caused that to happen. But that's not because I think raping (or murdering) is someone's true self and they're basically just stuck being a fundamentally bad person. They should pay for the consequences of their actions, dedicate themselves consciously to never reoffending, and then never get drunk enough to lose control, because that's a consequence of drinking.
I don't think most people exhibit personal growth (at least initially) by actually changing their fundamental impulses but by dedicating themselves to controlling those that are harmful. And maintaining that control is part of being committed to it. Maybe over time that changes the impulses themselves, but it's curbing the impact to others that matters morally.
You certainly haven’t show any.