Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

A strange reaction. What is that you think Stalin or Beria have to teach me, and in what sense am I 'getting there'? All I did was to point out that being found, in a civil case, to have undertaken a serious sexual assault is hardly a qualification for public office - or maybe you think that it is.
Additionally, if you think that this was a rigged show trial, then arguing anything from its findings is fallacious in your own terms. Or do you think that it was a show trial that for some reason had to hold back from finding that he committed rape according to the definition in NY law? Sounds like a weird kind of show trial if that's the case. To my recollection, Stalin's trials didn't hold back on anything - the accused would be found guilty of everything on the charge list and often a few other things for good measure. As I remember also, in Stalin's trials the accused would be taken pre-emptively into custody, probably tortured, and certainly not allowed access to the media to call the judge, prosecutors, witnesses etc names and accuse them of corruption. Can't see the similarities myself, maybe you need to educate me,

Social norms different across time and communities. That picture to me looks like a kiss on the cheek, which in many places is an accepted form of etiquette and expected. Personally, I sometimes have difficulty understand what is expected in some circumstances, whether a hug or a kiss on the cheek is the appropriate greeting. So, many of us can and do get it wrong - which I suppose is part of the reason that there is fear of 'wokism'. However, you can judge in a way from the response to such a situation, such as this:
twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1113515882960052224
This is, I think somewhat different from denying it ever happened, calling the people in the case names and liars and encouraging supporters to issue threats.
I'd also point out that what was accused was '[he] put his hands on her shoulders, sniffed her hair and kissed her on the back of her head.' (thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436767-woman-says-biden-touched-her-inappropriately-rubbed-noses-at-2009/?jwsource=cl). Whilst that's certainly something that I would't do or feel comfortable doing, I would think that it stops some way short of inserting any part of the body into a woman's vagina, as social misjudgments go.

I think it's probably a mistake to underestimate Biden. He is old, but he's certainly no fool. Further, he doesn't surround himself with fools.

I'm interested in the line of reasoning here. What is the relevance of the women being 'some guys girlfriend'? Would this be more acceptable if she wasn't some guy's girlfriend, or may be was some girl's girlfriend? And by and large isn't a person who is in a public place liable to be photographed? So, if they choose to wear a 'skimpy bikini' (or for that matter a skimpy mankini, or some really small Speedos) is it reasonable for them to expect people not to photograph the beach because of what they chose to wear? And how do we know whether or not the photographers are 'perverts'. The phrase gets bandied around. I've even seen it applied to photographers who photograph dancers in skimpy dancing outfits, particularly if the dancer is their daughter. It's so common for people to be judgmental in a projective way - they assume that someone else's motivation is the same as theirs would be.

Donald,

It is not your place to judge others by your standards. I'd rather not see it potrayed here.

Alan