Official Michigan State/Mel Tucker Hate Thread

[Tatanka™]

 

[Tatanka™]

Some people are like, ”Bitches are lying, gold digging hoes. Respect my opinion.”

 

[#1 pick]

Dude, the woman in the Petrino affair acknowledged a consensual, sexual relationship with Petrino and never accused him of any form of harassment. Neither of those things are true in this Tucker episode. Big difference.

Tell me you aren't comprehending my post for a thousand, Alex

 

[ladyblaise]

I bought nothing he said. You are wrong. I do not champion his position. Read my posts.

Your point on consent is key. The idea of consent has been disputed. Notwithstanding consent, he abused the relationship in a horribly wrongful way.

When you have about a dozen posts in this thread that are ultra critical of her, but you did not show any balance with respect to him and similar questioning, it shows what your focus was. That is your position.

I know I am right with consent. I am right that gifts will never equate to consent. I am right that many still feel as if they should mean consent, and couch it in terms like "leading him on." Judgment and offense fully intended here: that is creepy, rapey and wrong. I feel that trying for decades to play fair when discussing or debating the topic has not resulted in any change on the issue. Perhaps blunt talk that shocks will work?

Those who say that his wife and kids were wronged - you are correct, assuming he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth depending on who he was interacting with. Those who say the advocate is not a victim because she got sucked in by a person in power who likely lied to her and certainly abused the differential in power of the relationship, remember that he tried to threaten her ability to earn a living to keep her silent and complicit. Also reflect that you are damn blessed for being born in the power group. Try not to be so hard on what it is like to navigate the world as the other half. I understand you do not get it. But you need to understand this: those of us who do understand it are getting mighty tired with this response over and over.

Be better. You let women down today if you are clinging to the viability of just any ole opinion. You are free to hold any opinion you choose. But you are judged by them. And if your opinions betray a lack of fairness, you will be called on them.

In this case, welcome to the concept that his gifts do not mean consent. Get real comfortable with it. ALL the population deserves bodily autonomy, and any think tank that discredits a woman for accepting a gift also takes away her bodily autonomy. No, she does not have to be in the same room. Get consent. The end.

 

[PAHIBuff]

On AB stridency of opinion is often directly related to the absence of what is known about a situation or event.

 

[hawg1]

When you have about a dozen posts in this thread that are ultra critical of her, but you did not show any balance with respect to him and similar questioning, it shows what your focus was. That is your position.

I know I am right with consent. I am right that gifts will never equate to consent. I am right that many still feel as if they should mean consent, and couch it in terms like "leading him on." Judgment and offense fully intended here: that is creepy, rapey and wrong. I feel that trying for decades to play fair when discussing or debating the topic has not resulted in any change on the issue. Perhaps blunt talk that shocks will work?

Those who say that his wife and kids were wronged - you are correct, assuming he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth depending on who he was interacting with. Those who say the advocate is not a victim because she got sucked in by a person in power who likely lied to her and certainly abused the differential in power of the relationship, remember that he tried to threaten her ability to earn a living to keep her silent and complicit. Also reflect that you are damn blessed for being born in the power group. Try not to be so hard on what it is like to navigate the world as the other half. I understand you do not get it. But you need to understand this: those of us who do understand it are getting mighty tired with this response over and over.

Be better. You let women down today if you are clinging to the viability of just any ole opinion. You are free to hold any opinion you choose. But you are judged by them. And if your opinions betray a lack of fairness, you will be called on them.

In this case, welcome to the concept that his gifts do not mean consent. Get real comfortable with it. ALL the population deserves bodily autonomy, and any think tank that discredits a woman for accepting a gift also takes away her bodily autonomy. No, she does not have to be in the same room. Get consent. The end.

Can you not read?

I have been ultra clear on my opinions about Mel in this thread. He did something bad. He abused his power.

I understand consent. I understand it to be in dispute.

I understand there are questions to be investigated. There is an ongoing investigation.

Jeez.

 

[rosstr]

I agree with all. He is not a good person. The process will play out. And I suspect he will be fired. And should be. The role of Brenda Tracey remains unclear. I suspect the investigation will get to the bottom of this and the actions of both of them.

What he did is terrible.

Hopefully you learned your lesson Hawg1. As a suspected male, you are not allowed to ask questions regarding the facts of the case. If you do, you are complicit.

 

[ladyblaise]

Can you not read?

I have been ultra clear on my opinions about Mel in this thread. He did something bad. He abused his power.

I understand consent. I understand it to be in dispute.

I understand there are questions to be investigated. There is an ongoing investigation.

Jeez.

If you truly understand that, and you truly understand consequences for choices, then you also understand that your fascination with sordid details is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Yet here we are. And I have to point out to you exactly why it did not matter if she wanted a sugar daddy. It does not matter if she flirted. In the moment, he did not get consent, and the dollar amounts you want to discuss are moot.

He did bad. He gets fired. No information seeking on your part is warranted. That is the vehicle that obstructed justice in the past, so I won’t be too friendly to it.

 

[hawg1]

Hopefully you learned your lesson Hawg1. As a suspected male, you are not allowed to ask questions regarding the facts of the case. If you do, you are complicit.

It seems that way.

 

[hawg1]

If you truly understand that, and you truly understand consequences for choices, then you also understand that your fascination with sordid details is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Yet here we are. And I have to point out to you exactly why it did not matter if she wanted a sugar daddy. It does not matter if she flirted. In the moment, he did not get consent, and the dollar amounts you want to discuss are moot.

He did bad. He gets fired. No information seeking on your part is warranted. That is the vehicle that obstructed justice in the past, so I won’t be too friendly to it.

The questions/details are neither sordid nor inappropriate. They are key to the investigation.

I understand and appreciate your points. You don’t have to explain consent to me any more. I get it.

It’s a shame we can’t have a conversation on this.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Tell me you aren't comprehending my post for a thousand, Alex

You said “This is how Bobby Petrino lost his job” which is only true if you find equivalency in any form of misconduct where a woman was involved regardless of the actual details. Someone accused of having a consensual affair with a woman he later gave a job to without disclosing the relationship to his employer is different from someone accused of jerking off (without consent) on the phone in front of a former victim of sexual assault who provides advocacy at your campus. But you may disagree so we’re not going to find common ground here.

But she's not the victim. She was cool with this till she wasn't.

You presented the above without any caveat of it being an opinion and it certainly reads as something you believe as fact. I have no idea how you come to this conclusion, but I have a real problem with this as someone’s baseline assumption in this case for the reasons explained earlier.

 

[SINKRATZ]

It’s a shame we can’t have a conversation on this.

8 pages and counting suggests that’s exactly what we’re doing here.

 

[hawg1]

8 pages and counting suggests that’s exactly what we’re doing here.

My comment was directed to ladyblaise and nobody else.

 

[Yung Buffalo]

 

[PrimeTimeBuffs]

this thread has greatly derailed it's intended and most important purpose, which is ****ting on Midnight Mel Tugger and Masturbator State University

 

[PAHIBuff]

If you truly understand that, and you truly understand consequences for choices, then you also understand that your fascination with sordid details is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Yet here we are. And I have to point out to you exactly why it did not matter if she wanted a sugar daddy. It does not matter if she flirted. In the moment, he did not get consent, and the dollar amounts you want to discuss are moot.

He did bad. He gets fired. No information seeking on your part is warranted. That is the vehicle that obstructed justice in the past, so I won’t be too friendly to it.

Let's be clear. In our civil and criminal courts, and in most non-judicial administrative hearings "fascination with sordid details" is properly called due process and involves impartial findings of fact. Has not much to do with fascination and the details are not always sordid.

 

[rodrigo]

Do you know what the term "devil's advocate" means?

Yeah… No.

 

[ladyblaise]

My comment was directed to ladyblaise and nobody else.

The point stands. A discussion is exactly what is transpiring.

Unless you believe a foregone conclusion to discussions is that people, especially women defer to your opinions, then no. That is not happening.

 

[TedBuff]

 

[#1 pick]

You said “This is how Bobby Petrino lost his job” which is only true if you find equivalency in any form of misconduct where a woman was involved regardless of the actual details. Someone accused of having a consensual affair with a woman he later gave a job to without disclosing the relationship to his employer is different from someone accused of jerking off (without consent) on the phone in front of a former victim of sexual assault who provides advocacy at your campus. But you may disagree so we’re not going to find common ground here.

You presented the above without any caveat of it being an opinion and it certainly reads as something you believe as fact. I have no idea how you come to this conclusion, but I have a real problem with this as someone’s baseline assumption in this case for the reasons explained earlier.

Which is all we can validate at this time. It's not only true, it's the only truth we have available to us right now. Come on man, think, stop assuming and wanting your assumptions to be accurate when none of us know those details YET.

She's not the victim. She's the accuser and we need the investigation to be completed to know if she is or isn't the victim. This is how Michael Irvin won a 100 million dollar lawsuit. Being judged in the court of public opinion but when the facts came out, it wasn't what he was accused of. Let due process take its course. They have phone records. They can get legal discourse. When it's he say, she say, it's not Mel must be right or Nancy must be right. It's not that simple. We have to let the process run its course.

 

[ladyblaise]

Let's be clear. In our civil and criminal courts, and in non-judicial administrative hearings "fascination with sordid details" is properly called due process and involves impartial findings of fact. Has not much to do with fascination and the details are not always sordid.

Good point.

In application here, we are not that civil or criminal court. In the court of popular opinion, too many people feel that accepting gifts means loss of bodily autonomy.

In the court of law not too long ago, marriage lost a woman her bodily autonomy. That is so ridiculous, I have limited respect for those institutions until such a time that they start treating victims as people first, atone for their past processes, and truly act as should befit their dignity.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Which is all we can validate at this time. It's not only true, it's the only truth we have available to us right now. Come on man, think, stop assuming and wanting your assumptions to be accurate when none of us know those details YET.

She's not the victim. She's the accuser and we need the investigation to be completed to know if she is or isn't the victim. This is how Michael Irvin won a 100 million dollar lawsuit. Being judged in the court of public opinion but when the facts came out, it wasn't what he was accused of. Let due process take its course. They have phone records. They can get legal discourse. When it's he say, she say, it's not Mel must be right or Nancy must be right. It's not that simple. We have to let the process run its course.

I’m not assuming anything, Tucker admitted in writing to doing what she accused him of doing. His only argument is that it was consensual - she says it wasn’t. I’ll choose to believe she’s telling the truth, you’re free to believe she’s a liar or an opportunist or whatever she must be if you think she might not be telling the truth about her consent.

 

[Creebuzz]

Keep this up and I’ll be forced to lock this thread.

 

[#1 pick]

I’m not assuming anything, Tucker admitted in writing to doing what she accused him of doing. His only argument is that it was consensual - she says it wasn’t. I’ll choose to believe she’s telling the truth, you’re free to believe she’s a liar or an opportunist or whatever she must be if you think she might not be telling the truth about her consent.

Man, I feel like we are running in circles right now.

This isn't proper discourse

 

[hawg1]

The point stands. A discussion is exactly what is transpiring.

Unless you believe a foregone conclusion to discussions is that people, especially women defer to your opinions, then no. That is not happening.

I don’t expect you to defer. I would like you to understand the nature of my questions in light of the investigation (and Pahi’s post)

 

[ladyblaise]

Which is all we can validate at this time. It's not only true, it's the only truth we have available to us right now. Come on man, think, stop assuming and wanting your assumptions to be accurate when none of us know those details YET.

She's not the victim. She's the accuser and we need the investigation to be completed to know if she is or isn't the victim. This is how Michael Irvin won a 100 million dollar lawsuit. Being judged in the court of public opinion but when the facts came out, it wasn't what he was accused of. Let due process take its course. They have phone records. They can get legal discourse. When it's he say, she say, it's not Mel must be right or Nancy must be right. It's not that simple. We have to let the process run its course.

That was said very poorly.

He did not win a 100 million dollar lawsuit. Everyone involved settled.

He won nothing. One can infer that his points were likely more right, or he would not settle.

No details exist of the amount settled for. It could be $50,000 and his legal costs. Who knows? It is most likely bound up in a NDA. But I seriously doubt it was 100 million.

 

[hawg1]

Good point.

In application here, we are not that civil or criminal court. In the court of popular opinion, too many people feel that accepting gifts means loss of bodily autonomy.

In the court of law not too long ago, marriage lost a woman her bodily autonomy. That is so ridiculous, I have limited respect for those institutions until such a time that they start treating victims as people first, atone for their past processes, and truly act as should befit their dignity.

Who are the people that believe accepting gifts means loss of bodily autonomy? I hope you aren’t talking about me. I do hope you see that it will be a part of the due process described here and put in context of the overall investigative findings.

 

[Not Sure]

Keep this up and I’ll be forced to lock this thread.

You can do that?

 

[ladyblaise]

Who are the people that believe accepting gifts means loss of bodily autonomy? I hope you aren’t talking about me. I do hope you see that it will be a part of the due process described here and put in context of the overall investigative findings.

History has shown that the lawyers who argue this line of thinking, the courts who allow it, and every person who repeats this type of justification - every one is demonstrating that they believe gifts lose a person their bodily autonomy.

Not shocking. Marital rape was not recognized as possible until recently in history. Sexual harassment in the workplace was chalked up to boys being boys.

And every time a situation like this happens, those who deep down feel this is true want their questions legitimized.

It is not legitimate. It truly is a side issue.

A better question to ask in the dispute of consent would be “can you tell me what was said to make it clear that (insert name) was okay with (insert activity?”

Does that truly not directly answer the question?

 

[hawg1]

History has shown that the lawyers who argue this line of thinking, the courts who allow it, and every person who repeats this type of justification - every one is demonstrating that they believe gifts lose a person their bodily autonomy.

Not shocking. Marital rape was not recognized as possible until recently in history. Sexual harassment in the workplace was chalked up to boys being boys.

And every time a situation like this happens, those who deep down feel this is true want their questions legitimized.

It is not legitimate. It truly is a side issue.

A better question to ask in the dispute of consent would be “can you tell me what was said to make it clear that (insert name) was okay with (insert activity?”

Does that truly not directly answer the question?

I understand consent. I’ve said that before. Your question should be asked. It will be wrong if it isn’t.