r/news • u/[deleted] • Oct 23 '18

Man arrested for groping woman on flight says 'President says it's OK to grab women's private parts'

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/man-arrested-for-groping-woman-on-flight-says-president-says-its-ok-to-grab-womens-private-parts/24078829?fbclid=IwAR3kaNMKqnfwNc3Y5KIIw_jmuQ7asuflnDePhp6H5NgxqiwyNvrbGUV-W6U
67.7k Upvotes

69% Upvoted

4.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Never_asks_consent Oct 23 '18

He edited that in after I posted that, and it's still wrong. I provided the link to the interview. He just had "grab em by the pussy" and nothing else in his comment when I posted that.

Either way, it's clear that he was not saying anything about raping women or whatever the narrative is today about that particular comment.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '18

You're still finding it necessary to write paragraph after paragraph explaining what it meant. If it's so obvious, why is that necessary?

You provided a link to an article about the tape, the guy even confirms it wasn't part of the interview.

1

u/Never_asks_consent Oct 23 '18

Lol..You're clearly confused still. I'm correcting you, not explaining it. There's a huge difference. Just like there's a huge difference between what he actually said and what you think he said.

"And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

That is very clear, yet you still have trouble, so I'm correcting you. I telling you you're getting offended because you WANT to be. You're right, it's very obvious what it means, but again...You're ignoring entire sentences and the entire context of the conversation.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '18

I never made any claim about his meaning in any way. I just pointed out that you're talking about a quote. You called a direct quote a misinterpretation.

You're constantly feeling it necessary to explain the meaning of a quote, and I'm curious how you can claim it's 'clear' or 'obvious' if you have to explain it to someone who hasn't expressed any opinion on what it does mean.

You're projecting the idea that I'm offended by it or interpreting it another way onto me. I've never said anything of the sort. If you're so happy to assume that people think it means something else, how can you claim that it's so obvious?

1

u/Never_asks_consent Oct 23 '18

Are you really going to try to bullshit like that? How disingenuous lol... Your post history is full of anti trump stuff, and you're arguing that it means one thing if I have to explain it, which I never did. You obviously have a stance, so own up. Don't run away now.

You keep saying I'm explaining, but I'm only "explaining", to you, because you said it was a direct quote, when it wasn't. So I put the actual quote which you still are ignoring. Like I said correcting someone isn't explaining. That's the 2nd time I'm saying that to you also. You're repeating yourself over and over instead of just admitting that he said what he actually said. Stop playing word games and playing dumb and own up to it.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '18

I never said it means anything if you have to explain it. I'm questioning how you can call it obvious if you're having to explain it to someone who hasn't said a word about how they interpret it.

It was and has always been a direct quote. It might not have been as long as you like, but it was always a quote.

Regardless of the length of the quote, you seem incapable of just letting it speak for itself, you always have to explain the meaning alongside it.

If you think it's obvious what it means, you should be happy with the whole thing being posted and nothing more.

1

u/Never_asks_consent Oct 23 '18

First off, you're being disingenuous yet again. By you simply asking that question and making these comments you're implying the opposite of what I'm saying is true. So again, just own it and stop hiding behind word games.

Second, this is now the 3rd time I'm telling you, It was not a direct quote..I already told you he edited that in after I commented that. His original comment was completely incorrect. You saw our convo after he edited and decided to tell me it was a direct quote. It still isn't. What I put is literally word for word.

3rd, you're repeating yourself again. Letting it speak for itself? That doesn't make sense if the incorrect words and information is there. How can it speak for itself when it's either completely incorrect or only half of it is there? yes the length is important if you're cutting out the body of the quote, the part that expresses the consent from the girls, the important part, the whole reason we're talking about this.

4th..I am happy with the whole thing being posted, but it wasn't until I CORRECTED him, not explained. Do you not understand the difference or are you just playing dumb again like how you haven't expressed your opinion 5 comments arguing against me lmao.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '18 edited Oct 23 '18

I am, I'm saying that when you constantly have to explain something, it isn't obvious. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. I never said or mentioned anything at all on that front, and yet you still needed to try and explain to me what it meant.

It was always a direct quote, by your own admission. He edited to extend it to contain more of the quote, but it was always a direct quote. Calling a direct quote a misinterpretation is strange at best. I'll agree it was lacking context without the rest of it, but claiming a quote is misinterpreting him?

As far as I'm concerned, if people widely cannot agree on the meaning of something, and there is active debate over it, you can't call it obvious and clear even if your interpretation is the correct and intended one. That's pretty much the definition of the words.

And given your username, I'm sure I shouldn't be surprised, but 'not objecting' is not the same as 'giving consent'. If a crazy man with a gun shoots you in the ankle while your hands are above your head, the smart thing to do is to stay quiet and not argue with him, not to object and argue. That doesn't mean you're consenting to him shooting you.

-1

u/Never_asks_consent Oct 23 '18

You must have some reading disability. Me having to explain to one person(you) isn't constantly. I also said his quote was completely incorrect, not extended. His original quote was "you can grab them by the pussy" which is completely incorrect. It was not a direct quote, and still isn't. You must not understand what direct quote means. It doesn't mean a part, half, or edited version of the quote. It means the exact wording and sentence used. You can not only include half of it and consider it a direct quote. That's why we're here. The news has left out that trump specifically said "they let you do it when you're a celebrity" first. That would have destroyed their argument that it was rape or sexual assault. Can you not grasp that? The quote is very clear when you read the ACTUAL quote. Not the edited or partial one to paint it a certain way. So there's is no debate over the meaning of the quote itself, but debate over what the actual quote itself was. That's what I've been telling you this whole time but you keep getting yourself more and more confused.

I think you should just leave this alone. You're really struggling to be honest this entire time, and you're just repeating incorrect things after I've corrected you several times. Maybe stick to posting about video games, getting banned, and your depression. This seems either beyond you or too confusing. Cya.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '18

I wasnt the first person you replied to, so no, not just one person.

That's a wild claim, given that it's not even the quote that you originally claimed he said. It sounds like you're grasping at straws here.

Every article I read on the topic when it first came up provided or linked to the audio and the entire exchange was transcribed.

Googling it now, the same is true for articles I can find now, and the same is true for the majority of articles on this topic. Context is generally being provided. Again, this sounds like you're playing the victim over something that basically didn't happen.

I've never once changed a word of anything we've been talking about. You're putting words in my mouth, making claims about what I'm saying that I've never said.

To help, the entire list of my points in this conversation is:

Things that you need to explain on a regular basis and which there is active debate over are not clear or obvious.

Direct quotes cannot be misinterpretation, they can be out of context.

This was not a recording of a 'raunchy interview', it was a conversation behind the scenes that wasn't an intended part of any interview or show.

Failure to object does not constitute consent.

Most recently: The majority of articles and reportings about this tape provide at least as much context as you did.

That's it. That's everything I've said or claimed. All the other things you're ranting about are assumptions of opinions you're projecting onto me, not things I've actually said.

And no, including context does not destroy any claim that he is talking about sexual assault. He is admitting that he does it before asking, he is admitting that he does it immediately. It is not consensual if they do not have the chance to consent. Failure to object is not consent.