For sure. Sometimes you need specificity. It’s good to try to use it when you can because it shows you are an ally by recognizing sex work as work.
The whole point is to avoid using phrases like “prostituting themselves”. Why can’t you just say something like “Lindsay Graham paid a sex worker to have sex with him” (allegedly)? You don’t have to put a derogatory label on a person based on an act they participated in. You can just describe what Lindsay Graham paid the sex worker for (allegedly).
1 Like
He is completely correct. There is no meaningful difference. Just shame imposed ones.
1 Like
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that people are threatened with more than lawsuits.
Has this story been vetted at all? People going wild itt, but how do we know this isn’t the #Resistance equivalent of Jacob Wohl?
Nope it hasn’t but that is part of the point. Who cares if it is as it has no relevance to anything.
Lady G.
-
Fine, I guess I conflated two different hush money stories. One, where Trump was a party (Stormy Daniels) was an NDA and another between Karen McDougal where Trump wasn’t officially the party, but it was done in his behalf that I guess was technically an “exclusivity agreement” but had the same functionality of "if you talk about this to someone else, we’re coming for some money. If you want to semantikes about the legal header that was put on the contract (or the fact that he wasn’t President yet), do you, but I’m gonna stand by the argument that rich powerful people using legal contracts that might not actually hold up in court in order to hide misconduct is a pretty common thing. At least common enough that you shouldn’t treat it as laughable.
-
The ones WE KNOW about remained secret long enough, and that’s just about Trump. Some of the Weinstein ones stayed secret for decades. And just because not everyone who broke one of these NDAs was immediately sued for it doesn’t mean that the possibility doesn’t have a chilling effect. If people didn’t think that unenforceable NDAs might have a deterrent effect, why did so many rich and powerful people (and their attorneys) want the victims to sign them?
Story means nothing and nothing will come of it. Interesting timing right before Lady Gs primary but can’t imagine it will matter.
1 Like
Bowser is on our side? This timeline is so confusing.
Name one street Bobby Sands street and the other BobbySands street ftw
2 Likes
George died for our jobs
1 Like
Backcausewayside Street is one of the best street names I’ve seen, absolutely no Idea how it got it though.
…
I read your post as Name were those streets are, lol.
Honestly I mostly agree with Clovis but I wanted to add what I’ve seen. Because I’m apart of a large underground dance music festival type community I have a lot of LBGTQ people on my FB feed and so far several of them have posted the Lindsay stuff basically laughing and saying you hate to see it.
So from a small sample size of gay progressive raver types it seems like they’re super cool with it. I can ask them questions if anyone has them, a few of them are really close friends.
I have been chatting with the LGBTQ+ people in my life and they are honestly a bit split. Some of my younger friends seem ok with it. My dad agrees with me.
Well the main reason I used that is because of the specific point in the post I was responding to.
I am not surprised by this anecdata. My hunch is that, in general, older folks who grew up in an era where the consequences of being outed were more severe are probably less willing to do it to anyone (even the “deserving hypocrites”) than people who have lived more of their lives when being out was both more common and less sanctioned.
oh no, now how are they supposed to protect themselves from… france? poland?
1 Like
No one on our side is going to shame Linsey for being gay. His sin is hypocrisy.
1 Like