Trump Believes He is Starring in the Second Season of an Apprentice Spinoff

[boost]

Discuss.

[BananaStand]

I think he definitely cares about portraying a certain persona, as he would if he were acting on a TV show. I'm not sure that's strong enough to link the two. I know it's not enough to say he's delusional and believes he's performing rather than doing the job of President, which is kinda what the title of this thread is suggesting.

This is obviously a push-poll, so why don't you just state your point, and then we'll discuss.

[boost]

I think he definitely cares about portraying a certain persona, as he would if he were acting on a TV show. I'm not sure that's strong enough to link the two. I know it's not enough to say he's delusional and believes he's performing rather than doing the job of President, which is kinda what the title of this thread is suggesting.

This is obviously a push-poll, so why don't you just state your point, and then we'll discuss.

Lol, I definitely don't believe this is true in the literal sense, I just think it's a hilarious idea that's fun to play with.

Now, does he think that the success of the format and persona from the show works as a good outline for how he should run his administration? That seems like both a disturbing and very real possibility.

[Poopadoop]

Discuss.

I think his show has gotten to the point where he's desperate for ratings and is jumping the shark. As theater, the chaos in the WH went from fairly good entertainment (assuming you had no personal investment in the US, I'm sure it's different if you do) to boring fairly quickly, so the strategy is to amp up the chaos to unseen levels. The problem is the audience just gets desensitized all the faster now and it's increasingly hard to get our attention.

I used to look daily for news of what that fuckwit was up to, now I can barely be bothered to check in on a weekly basis. Show's still worth a watch once in a while, but it's not topping my charts any more.

[Poopadoop]

Take for example all the people who quit/get fired from the WH staff. At first when Flynn got the boot, it was good drama - like wtf man this guy hires and fires this guy from a big job like that in a month?

Now, after Preibus, Comey, Spicer, Scaramucci...uhm, Bannon...jeez i can't even list them all go, now I find out Hicks is gone and it's like 'yawn'.

[BananaStand]

I think his show has gotten to the point where he's desperate for ratings and is jumping the shark. As theater, the chaos in the WH went from fairly good entertainment (assuming you had no personal investment in the US, I'm sure it's different if you do) to boring fairly quickly, so the strategy is to amp up the chaos to unseen levels. The problem is the audience just gets desensitized all the faster now and it's increasingly hard to get our attention.

I used to look daily for news of what that fuckwit was up to, now I can barely be bothered to check in on a weekly basis. Show's still worth a watch once in a while, but it's not topping my charts any more.

Is this Trump's doing or the media's?

Whose strategy is it to "amp up the chaos to unseen levels"?

[Poopadoop]

Is this Trump's doing or the media's?

Whose strategy is it to "amp up the chaos to unseen levels"?

You think the media is the one hiring and firing all those people in the WH?

[BananaStand]

You think the media is the one hiring and firing all those people in the WH?

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you flushed it down the toilet.

If you think Trump is purposely "amping up chaos" by firing people solely for the purpose of drawing attention to himself, you are you completely out of your gourd. Why would he need to do that? If a ball of yarn was president, it would still be followed by two dozen cameras and 50 reporters all day every day.

I used to look daily for news of what that fuckwit was up to, now I can barely be bothered to check in on a weekly basis. Show's still worth a watch once in a while, but it's not topping my charts any more.

Who has skin in the game to change this? Who benefits if you watch more?

[Poopadoop]

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you flushed it down the toilet.

If you think Trump is purposely "amping up chaos" by firing people solely for the purpose of drawing attention to himself, you are you completely out of your gourd. Why would he need to do that? If a ball of yarn was president, it would still be followed by two dozen cameras and 50 reporters all day every day.


Who has skin in the game to change this? Who benefits if you watch more?

You realize this is a joke thread and I'm just talking shit right?

You can relax now. I'm not really of the opinion Trump thinks he is doing the apprentice spin off.

It is funny though how you changed the topic from who hired and fired all those people to who benefits from people watching cable news.

[boost]

Everything bad is everyone elses fault!

[BananaStand]

Everything bad is everyone elses fault!

C'mon man. You know better than this. Don't pretend like CNN, NBC, ABC, WaPo, NYT, along with Kimmel, Oliver, Maher, and all the rest of them aren't LOVING a Trump presidency. The guy is compelling, and that means ratings.

The problem is that they stoke the fires a little too much in a way that, I think, undermines their integrity as objective journalists (Kimmel, Oliver, Maher, excluded).

For example, Trump said he's been tougher on Russia than Obama was. This is clearly not an objective determination. Obama passed some sanctions. Trump armed Ukraine. The headlines and chirons on CNN say "Trump repeats false claim that he was tougher on Russia than Obama"

The problem here is that the question of "tougher" is CLEARLY subjective. Despite that, CNN described Trump's claim as "false"

The headline could be: "president caught making false statement" or it could be "President has opinion, we disagree". One of those gets decidedly more ratings. So when I see stuff like that, I tend to roll my eyes alot more often when I hear shit like "chaos" and "turmoil" and "bombshell firing".

ask yourself....who benefits most if Trump's administration plays like a reality TV show? are there any entities or industries out there who would have a vested interest in cultivating that image?

[wufwugy]

Trump Believes He is Starring in the Second Season of an Apprentice Spinoff

Yes, he does.

He's using it to beat every antagonist and get more done than any president before him in recent history.

[Poopadoop]

It's more like Survivor than the Apprentice at this point:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/p...use/index.html

[BananaStand]

It's more like Survivor than the Apprentice at this point:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/13/p...use/index.html

LOL......duped by spin much??

Did you expect CNN to run a headline that says "Trump promises to drain swamp, then drains swamp"

[Poopadoop]

LOL......duped by spin much??

Did you expect CNN to run a headline that says "Trump promises to drain swamp, then drains swamp"

Oh, so by draining the swamp he meant hiring a lot of people himself who would then quit or get fired. Sorry didn't realise that.

[wufwugy]

It's been understood for quite some time that Trump uses very high turnover of employees.

[OngBonga]

It's a shame poop that you don't give banana any credit for his thoughts becazuse he's absolutely right about the #metoo bollocks. Classic left wing victimisation for political manipulation. Welcome to identity politics.

[Poopadoop]

It's a shame poop that you don't give banana any credit for his thoughts becazuse he's absolutely right about the #metoo bollocks. Classic left wing victimisation for political manipulation. Welcome to identity politics.

You're right. Women should just accept sexual abuse and stop complaining about it.

[OngBonga]

You're right. Women should just accept sexual abuse and stop complaining about it.

Because that's the default position of anyone who refuses to embrace identity poltiics.

You're a lost cause, they've got you well and truly.

[wufwugy]

You're right. Women should just accept sexual abuse and stop complaining about it.

Who believes this?

[Poopadoop]

Who believes this?

I was mocking Ong's position.

[OngBonga]

I was mocking Ong's position.

Badly

[OngBonga]

To elaborate...

One year ago, before #metoo was a thing, were women just accepting sexual abuse and not complaining about it? No. And every decent person on the planet, of which I consider myself one of, does not condone sexual abuse, and does not think women should not complain about it.

Just becuase I see the #metoo movement for what it is... political victimisation... does not mean I have no sympathy for the victims of sexual abuse. On the contrary, I am outraged at the political establishment's manipulation of victims of sexual abuse.

[BananaStand]

On the contrary, I am outraged at the political establishment's manipulation of victims of sexual abuse.

I'm only about 20% outraged.

For every woman who claims to be the victim of sexual misconduct, there are 9 other women who participated willingly to help their careers.

18 women have accused Trump. Do you think he's only ever fooled around with 18 women? Don't you think h e would have learned to stop after the third or fourth one turned against him?? It's more likely that he's actually fooled around with hundreds of women who were complicit because they got something from him.

[Poopadoop]

To elaborate...

One year ago, before #metoo was a thing, were women just accepting sexual abuse and not complaining about it? No. And every decent person on the planet, of which I consider myself one of, does not condone sexual abuse, and does not think women should not complain about it.

Just becuase I see the #metoo movement for what it is... political victimisation... does not mean I have no sympathy for the victims of sexual abuse. On the contrary, I am outraged at the political establishment's manipulation of victims of sexual abuse.

So in your mind, they're victims who are being manipulated into telling their stories, but still victims?

And so in that case who is the bad guy here? The perpetrator of sexual abuse or the person encouraging the victims to speak up?

'Cause you seem to be suggesting that it's wrong to encourage people to stand up for themselves if the person who abused them is a public figure. So those women who came forward about Bill Cosby were all just shamelessly manipulated into it doing it by the 'left'?

And if that's the case then sorry, but you sound like a moral dinosaur pining for an age when victims just sucked it up and kept their mouths shut. If this was the 1960s you'd be saying 'Fucking Martin Luther King, politicising racism like that and using it for his own selfish ends! Goddamn victims complaining about having to sit at the back of the bus! Next they'll want the right to send their kids to the same schools as us. Victimisation is all they know.'

[BananaStand]

So in your mind, they're victims who are being manipulated into telling their stories, but still victims?

And so in that case who is the bad guy here? The perpetrator of sexual abuse or the person encouraging the victims to speak up?

'Cause you seem to be suggesting that it's wrong to encourage people to stand up for themselves if the person who abused them is a public figure. So those women who came forward about Bill Cosby were all just shamelessly manipulated into it doing it by the 'left'?

And if that's the case then sorry, but you sound like a moral dinosaur pining for an age when victims just sucked it up and kept their mouths shut. If this was the 1960s you'd be saying 'Fucking Martin Luther King, politicising racism like that and using it for his own selfish ends! Goddamn victims complaining about having to sit at the back of the bus! Next they'll want the right to send their kids to the same schools as us. Victimisation is all they know.'

I think you've misunderstood Ong, but he's capable of correcting you.

So I'll just say that NO ONE thinks that abuse victims should be silent. But if all you had was an encounter with a man who has an strong come-on, then you are NOT a victim.

The stories that are coming out are stories of pathetic, spineless, women who either refuse to, or are incapable of, standing up for themselves. If Louis CK asks if he can jack off in front of you, just say no, and move on with your life. If Al Franken takes a distasteful picture with his hands hovering above, but not touching, your breasts....that's not grounds for surrendering a Senate seat. If you go back to Aziz Ansari's apartment, sit on his counter, spread your legs, and push his face into your crotch....you can't later claim you were a victim.

The news outlets that cover these events need to remember that there are two sides to every story.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Other than dehumanizing people about whom you know nothing firsthand, you are pretty close to making some good points,
i.e. that no single event can be harassment, by definition
i.e. that a workplace code of conduct is not a set of laws.

[BananaStand]

Other than dehumanizing people about whom you know nothing firsthand, you are pretty close to making some good points,
i.e. that no single event can be harassment, by definition
i.e. that a workplace code of conduct is not a set of laws.

I don't see where I even hinted at either of those points.

The exact definition of harassment is moot. In this context, it's meaning has been sanded down enough so that it's interchangeable with "assault" or "misconduct" neither of which require a multiple events

The law is also somewhat irrelevant. It's relevant in some cases, like if Charles in Charge was really fucking kids...it's a law problem. But in cases where workplace codes have been violated, the consequences have been career-related. That seems like it should be ok until you find out how devastating those consequences actually are.

[OngBonga]

So in your mind, they're victims who are being manipulated into telling their stories, but still victims?

Sure.

And so in that case who is the bad guy here? The perpetrator of sexual abuse or the person encouraging the victims to speak up?

"who is the bad guy?"
"encouraging the victims to speak up"

Why are they being encouraged?

A perpetrator of sexual abuse is indeed a bad guy. Someone who manipulates a victim for political gain is also a bad guy. Why is there only one bad guy in your world? The world is full of assholes.

'Cause you seem to be suggesting that it's wrong to encourage people to stand up for themselves if the person who abused them is a public figure.

You jump to some interesting conclusions. I'm not talking about public figures. I thought the #metoo movement was tapping into the victimhood of normal women around the world, whove had their asses pinched, or been leered at in the pub by a drunk.

And if that's the case then sorry, but you sound like a moral dinosaur pining for an age when victims just sucked it up and kept their mouths shut.

Fortunately I'm not. I advocate them making an immediate complaint, rather than waiting a decade until there's a twitter movement.

If this was the 1960s you'd be saying 'Fucking Martin Luther King, politicising racism like that and using it for his own selfish ends!

If someone else was encouraging him to do what he was doing, for an ulterior motive, then the person encouraging them would be engaged in polticising racism.

The people being manipulated are not the manipulators.

Goddamn victims complaining about having to sit at the back of the bus! Next they'll want the right to send their kids to the same schools as us. Victimisation is all they know.'

See, you just see victims, and it tugs on your heart strings. That's how they got to you, it's how they get to them all. I'm not racist, of course we should let immigrants in. I'm not a rapist, of course I hate Trump for saying "grab her by the pussy".

Because I'm shitting on the #metoo bollocks, you assume I'm a terrible person who wants to turn a blind eye to sexual abuse. You've been politically exploited into taking the position you have done. You take the position you do because you assume to take a different position makes you practically a rapist.

That's the whole point of identity politics.

[Poopadoop]

I thought the #metoo movement was tapping into the victimhood of normal women around the world, whove had their asses pinched, or been leered at in the pub by a drunk.

What % of women taking part in metoo are publicly denouncing someone for pinching their ass in a pub? I think you're trying to belittle the movement by saying it's encouraging women to make (comparatively) trivial complaints. What hard evidence do you have that is what is actually happening?

Fortunately I'm not. I advocate them making an immediate complaint, rather than waiting a decade until there's a twitter movement.

So if for whatever reason they didn't have the courage to speak up at the time of the incident, this automatically disqualifies them as the victim of a crime? Come on now.

If someone else was encouraging him to do what he was doing, for an ulterior motive, then the person encouraging them would be engaged in polticising racism.

Who cares what the other person's motives are? They're getting someone to report a crime that would otherwise go unpunished.

See, you just see victims, and it tugs on your heart strings. That's how they got to you, it's how they get to them all. I'm not racist, of course we should let immigrants in. I'm not a rapist, of course I hate Trump for saying "grab her by the pussy".

What is the argument here, I should not have empathy? Or do you think I'm such a mindless sheep-boy that I just go along with whatever I hear on twitter? If that's your idea of who I am I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Because I'm shitting on the #metoo bollocks, you assume I'm a terrible person who wants to turn a blind eye to sexual abuse. You've been politically exploited into taking the position you have done. You take the position you do because you assume to take a different position makes you practically a rapist.

That's the whole point of identity politics.

I don't assume anything about you other than you have a strange set of priorities. You seem to think if someone else benefits politically from a criminal facing justice, that somehow makes it wrong. Although I agree it's distasteful , to me that's such a small price to pay for justice I really don't see how it can be put in the same category. If the alternative is to let a criminal go free then I don't give a shit if someone gets a few brownie points from voters or likes on their twitter feed for standing up for another person's rights.

[BananaStand]

If this was the 1960s you'd be saying 'Fucking Martin Luther King, politicising racism like that and using it for his own selfish ends!

This is exactly how I feel about Al Sharpton.

[OngBonga]

Then you should be 10% outraged.

[BananaStand]

Then you should be 10% outraged.

Nope, I'm assuming that at least one of the 9 was underage.

[OngBonga]

Nope, I'm assuming that at least one of the 9 was underage.

When you laugh and then think "this isn't a funny subject matter" and feel awkward.

[BananaStand]

When you laugh and then think "this isn't a funny subject matter" and feel awkward.

In my defense, I did say I was outraged

[OngBonga]

What % of women taking part in metoo are publicly denouncing someone for pinching their ass in a pub? I think you're trying to belittle the movement by saying it's encouraging women to make (comparatively) trivial complaints. What hard evidence do you have that is what is actually happening?

Hard evidence? Is this a court? What hard evidence do you have on the contrary? I'll just point to Twitter as my evidence.

So if for whatever reason they didn't have the courage to speak up at the time of the incident, this automatically disqualifies them as the victim of a crime? Come on now.

There's anothert conclusion you jumped to. Things are so binary to you.

Who cares what the other person's motives are? They're getting someone to report a crime that would otherwise go unpunished.

I care, and so should you. And they're not reporting a crime, that isn't something one does over social media. If they were reporting a crime, they would be making a statement to the police, not their followers.

What is the argument here, I should not have empathy?

I have empathy. That doesn't mean I can't be outraged at political manipulation.

You seem to think if someone else benefits politically from a criminal facing justice, that somehow makes it wrong.

It is wrong if it's a political goal to exploit victims. Perhaps it's all too subtle for you.

Let's simplify it somewhat.

Let's say I'm running for office. I want votes. Turns out my rival has a drink driving conviciton from 10 years ago. So now I contact a load of people who lost their kids to drink drivers, and get them to relive their trauma on social media. Am I doing anything wrong here? No? Fine, as you were.

[Poopadoop]

Hard evidence? Is this a court? What hard evidence do you have on the contrary? I'll just point to Twitter as my evidence.

And what is your evidence from twitter? That metoo went viral or some such? I don't see that as evidence that people are publicly accusing others of grab-ass on an epidemic level.

There's anothert conclusion you jumped to. Things are so binary to you.

Well, you said...

I advocate them making an immediate complaint, rather than waiting a decade until there's a twitter movement.

...so the question seemed apt. If it's a legitimate complaint it should be made whenever the victim goddamn well feels like it. It's not your place to tell them when they should seek justice. Maybe there are good reasons they don't want to face the victim-blaming mentality a lot of people seem to hold.

I care, and so should you. And they're not reporting a crime, that isn't something one does over social media. If they were reporting a crime, they would be making a statement to the police, not their followers.

I'm not talking about people doing a tweet, I'm talking about people reporting a crime to the police so the guilty person gets prosecuted. Is your problem that someone is tweeting a crime and not reporting it to police - if so then I agree that's dumb - or that they do both?

I have empathy. That doesn't mean I can't be outraged at political manipulation.

What is the gross political manipulation that comes from encouraging people to report a crime?

It is wrong if it's a political goal to exploit victims. Perhaps it's all too subtle for you.

Possibly. Why don't you explain how you know the motivations of the people in the metoo movement. I obviously don't have your insight into others' minds.

Let's say I'm running for office. I want votes. Turns out my rival has a drink driving conviciton from 10 years ago. So now I contact a load of people who lost their kids to drink drivers, and get them to relive their trauma on social media. Am I doing anything wrong here?

Of course you are but not on the same level as a drunk driver.

[OngBonga]

Of course you are but not on the same level as a drunk driver.

This is where we disagree. I don't doubt you'll take this as me condoning drink driving, which I don't. But, one is a mistake that a lot of people make, a moment of madness, a loss of self control. The other is cold and calculated. You must see a distinction here.

This #metoo thing isn't just about criminal sexual abuse. It was referring more to sexual harassment in the workplace. The VAST majority of that is legal, ie there's no law telling me I can't compliment the secretary for her lovely legs, even if it would be unprofessional and inappropriate.

This isn't about reporting crime, it's about shaming men and empowering women, by means of victimhood.

Now... who are these women more likely to vote for? The party led by a woman? Or the pussy grabber?

Cold and calculated.

[Poopadoop]

This is where we disagree. I don't doubt you'll take this as me condoning drink driving, which I don't. But, one is a mistake that a lot of people make, a moment of madness, a loss of self control. The other is cold and calculated. You must see a distinction here.

Actually, it's a moment of criminal stupidity, just like any other crime that puts others' lives at risk. Whether or not it's common is orthogonal to its criminality and the danger it poses to the criminal and worse, to others. On the other hand, publicising a political opponent's crimes is not itself a criminal act, whether it's cricket or not.

This #metoo thing isn't just about criminal sexual abuse. It was referring more to sexual harassment in the workplace. The VAST majority of that is legal, ie there's no law telling me I can't compliment the secretary for her lovely legs, even if it would be unprofessional and inappropriate.

I would dispute again your claim that metoo's main goal was to punish men for innocent behaviour and minor indiscretions.

This isn't about reporting crime, it's about shaming men and empowering women, by means of victimhood.

It only shames men who are guilty; it doesn't shame other men one bit. As for empowering women to stand up for their rights, I can't see how that is a bad thing.

Now... who are these women more likely to vote for? The party led by a woman? Or the pussy grabber?

Cold and calculated.

pretty sure that whole metoo thing started after the election but anyways... yes, shock of all shocks, being a pussy grabber doesn't go down well with women.

Now, put on your other more sensible hat. Did the right ever try to capitalise on anything HRC might have done wrong, and use it for political gain? How come you're not crying victim identity or w/e the fuck you call it over emailgate? Wasn't the US public the victim of an unscrupulous bitch? Doesn't that empower men and shame women who seek power?

[OngBonga]

I would dispute again your claim that metoo's main goal was to punish men for innocent behaviour and minor indiscretions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement

The "Me Too" movement (or "#MeToo", with local alternatives in other languages) spread virally in October 2017 as a hashtag used on social media to help demonstrate the widespread prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, especially in the workplace.^[1] It followed soon after the public revelations of sexual misconduct allegations against Harvey Weinstein.^[2]

The phrase was first used in this context by Tarana Burke and was popularized by Alyssa Milano when she encouraged women to tweet it to "give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem".^[3][4] Since then, the phrase has been posted online millions of times, often with an accompanying personal story of sexual harassment or assault. The response on Twitter included high-profile posts from several celebrities, and many stories of sexual violence were shared, including from Gwyneth Paltrow,^[5] Ashley Judd,^[6] Jennifer Lawrence,^[7] and Uma Thurman.^[8]

Do you not see how it blurrs the line between "harassment" and "abuse"?

Actually, it's a moment of criminal stupidity.

Yes, but it isn't premeditated. It is not necessarily the act of an evil person. Manipulating victims for your own benefit, that is, whether legal or not.

[Poopadoop]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement

Do you not see how it blurrs the line between "harassment" and "abuse"?

As a matter of principle I don't accept wiki as a source of information.

I'm also not sure we were arguing that 'harassment' is the same as complimenting a woman's legs once, or pinching a woman's ass in the pub. My understanding of harassment is it generally involves some ongoing behavior or something grossly inappropriate. If you have some sample tweets you could share where a single compliment was reported for the purpose of shaming a man then that might be more persuasive.

Yes, but it isn't premeditated. It is not necessarily the act of an evil person. Manipulating victims for your own benefit, that is, whether legal or not.

Lots of crimes aren't premeditated. Carelessness and/or lack of foresight are morally no different from premeditation if they lead to a negative outcome. The former types of errors in morality can be excused in children perhaps, but not adults.

[OngBonga]

As a matter of principle I don't accept wiki as a source of information.

Naturally, it's too neutral I guess.

Wikipedia is an outstanding source of information. More fool you if you reject wiki while citing CNN.

[wufwugy]

The biggest losers of PoundMeToo are women.

Because men at large are being blamed for the doings of a very tiny minority of sickos, men are becoming more afraid of women. Women may be getting hired less (there are reports of it), or at least hired for less suitable jobs. MGTOW continues to grow, which hurts women more than men even though it does hurt men too.

[Poopadoop]

Because men at large are being blamed for the doings of a very tiny minority of sickos,

Two things wrong with this statement, before and after the word 'the' .

men are becoming more afraid of women.

Oh fucking hell. All you have to do is behave yourself and respect women. If you weren't doing it before, then start doing it now.

Women may be getting hired less (there are reports of it), or at least hired for less suitable jobs.

Reports as in 'official' or something credible? Source?

MGTOW continues to grow, which hurts women more than men even though it does hurt men too.

What is MGTOW?

[wufwugy]

Oh fucking hell. All you have to do is behave yourself and respect women. If you weren't doing it before, then start doing it now.

So why are so many men becoming more fearful of women?

Did you hear about the Aziz Ansari situation. It's a good example. Lots of women started calling PoundMeToo ridiculous hysteria after that.

MGTOW = men going their own way.

[Poopadoop]

So why are so many men becoming more fearful of women?

Did you hear about the Aziz Ansari situation. It's a good example. Lots of women started calling PoundMeToo ridiculous hysteria after that.

MGTOW = men going their own way.

The media is always going to sensationalize things and make it seem like 'this super unlikely event could happen to you'. Well guess what, smallpox could happen to you too.

Does that mean you should lock yourself in a hermetic bubble your whole life to avoid germs, or just that you should wash your hands after wiping your ass?

It's the same with women. If one of them is bent on fucking up your life, she's going to do it no matter what you do. If you want to protect yourself from credible complaints which are a thousand times more likely, don't give them things to complain about.

[OngBonga]

Carelessness and/or lack of foresight are morally no different from premeditation if they lead to a negative outcome.

I can't believe you really think this.

[BananaStand]

It's the same with women. If one of them is bent on fucking up your life, she's going to do it no matter what you do. If you want to protect yourself from credible complaints which are a thousand times more likely, don't give them things to complain about.

What if the woman isn't bent on fucking up your life? What if she is just bent on participating in a movement that requires her to be a victim? What if she is just attracted to the idea that men are the source of all her problems? What if she just wants someone to blame for her own professional shortcomings or for her own shame at being promiscuous?

Aziz Ansari went on a date. Then his sex life was plastered all over the media. While it's true that the woman was discredited, it doesn't change the fact that intimate details about Aziz are now public. While no one thinks he's an abuser, he's labeled as a "creep" forever, and that has real consequences.

Louis CK had consensual encounters with women. You know what consensual means right? One of the women's excuse was "well...I was in my 20's so I didn't know any better". Is that Louie's fault? Or the fault of the woman's parents? Another woman said "no thank you", and Louie said "ok". I'm not seeing what he did that was morally reprehensible, yet he is currently jobless.

Al Franken kissed a woman while rehearsing a comedy skit that contained a kiss. Read that again, and tell me where is the offense? He had to surrender a senate seat!!

Jeremy Piven passed TWO polygraphs. Yet when he's written about, no one ever describes him as "award winning actor Jeremy Piven". He's now "accused abuser Jeremy Piven"

Bill O'Reilly had some off-color conversations in the workplace. He was sued, and he settled out of convenience. He paid the woman off, and closed the case without admitting any fault or wrong-doing. It was over years ago. Yet after Trump became president, the NY Times went and dug up a bunch of old shit for seemingly no reason. It wasn't news. It wasn't a new development. It wasn't a revelation in the case. The NY Times just pulled out a file and ran a story saying "Hey remember when Trump's friend did this?". Then they badgered all of BOR's advertisers until Fox had no choice but to fire him.

Now tell me....if you were in charge of something....would you hire a woman?

[OngBonga]

It is a moral defence though, it's called "mitigating circumstances". If it's the first offence, if you can convince a judge that it was an out-of-character lack of judgement, that you have regrets, and assuming you didn't actually crash, then he will show leniency. So yes, it's a legal defence.

As for a moral defence... ask yourself, would you find it easier to forgive someone who wronged you as a result of a momentry lack of judgement, compared to someone who coldly set out to wrong you?

"Sorry I fucked up" is a moral defence if it's sincere.

[Poopadoop]

It is a moral defence though, it's called "mitigating circumstances". If it's the first offence, if you can convince a judge that it was an out-of-character lack of judgement, that you have regrets, and assuming you didn't actually crash, then he will show leniency. So yes, it's a legal defence.

Leniency is not the same as saying what you did is moral. I'm also not convinced that in the particular scenario you outlined, a judge has ever accepted such a defense. But let's say they did: your defense is one of mitigation, it's not a denial of moral responsibility.

As for a moral defence... ask yourself, would you find it easier to forgive someone who wronged you as a result of a momentry lack of judgement, compared to someone who coldly set out to wrong you?

"Sorry I fucked up" is a moral defence if it's sincere.

It depends on the level of harm that was done. If they had a 'momentary lack of judgement' as you call it, got pissed and ran over my kid, and said 'sorry i fucked up and killed your kid', no I wouldn't forgive them. If they accidentally bumped into me in a supermarket in a momentary lack of judgment, and no harm came of it, I would.

Conversely, if someone coldly set out to defame me at the same time as I was coldly setting out to defame them, as commonly happens in politics, I'd be inclined to accept that as an acknowledged if distasteful part of the game I'd entered into.

[OngBonga]

Leniency is not the same as saying what you did is moral. I'm also not convinced that in the particular scenario you outlined, a judge has ever accepted such a defense. But let's say they did: your defense is one of mitigation, it's not a denial of moral responsibility.

I never suggested that it absolves someone from responsibility, simply that a mistake due to a once-in-a-lifetime loss of control is less immoral than cold and calculated manipulation.

It depends on the level of harm that was done. If they had a 'momentary lack of judgement' as you call it, got pissed and ran over my kid, and said 'sorry i fucked up and killed your kid', no I wouldn't forgive them. If they accidentally bumped into me in a supermarket in a momentary lack of judgment, and no harm came of it, I would.

Sure, it's hard to argue this point. Then again, perhaps after many years, after the offender has served his sentence, if it were clear to me he was remorseful, that he was a changed man because of it... maybe. Who knows? But this is besides the point. The morality of an action isn't judged by the outcome. If two people drink five pints then gets into a car, with one running a kid over and the other getting home safely, they both comitted the same offence, they both acted with the same degree of immorality. It's just one had a terrible outcome.

Conversely, if someone coldly set out to defame me at the same time as I was coldly setting out to defame them, as commonly happens in politics, I'd be inclined to accept that as an acknowledged if distasteful part of the game I'd entered into.

Again, sure. But we're not talking about defamation, or at least I'm not. I'm talking about exploitation of victims.

[Poopadoop]

If two people drink five pints then gets into a car, with one running a kid over and the other getting home safely, they both comitted the same offence, they both acted with the same degree of immorality. It's just one had a terrible outcome.

That's right and it's bad luck. And I might have some empathy for the drunk driver who stupidly thought it couldn't happen to them, and eventually forgive them.

The thing to me is the drunk driver who didn't have the bad outcome is just as guilty and just as much of a cunt. The fact that the degree of negativity of the outcome is probabilistic (not every drunk driving episode gives rise to a death but the p(death) goes up with each episode), doesn't to me change the immorality of the act itself. It's kinda like saying 'eating asbestos sandwiches increases your risk of cancer, but if you don't end up with cancer, it wasn't foolish to do it'.

Again, sure. But we're not talking about defamation, or at least I'm not. I'm talking about exploitation of victims.

I'm not sure I go along with this use of the word 'exploitation' though. My sense is exploitation is a zero sum game where the exploiter A benefits while the exploitee B loses out. If B (the victim of s.a.) gets justice and A (the politician) benefits by winning an election, how is there exploitation going on?

Maybe I would accept the word 'capitalising on' over 'exploiting'. In that case I don't think the politician is doing anything wrong.

[MadMojoMonkey]

For someone who claims so hard to not be a snowflake, you do cry about your lack of creativity and imagination holding you back from understanding the things happening around you.

What you find easy or hard to believe is no reflection on reality.

[Poopadoop]

What you find easy or hard to believe is no reflection on reality.

Geez, don't tell him that his whole self-image is based on the idea that belief=fact.

[BananaStand]

For someone who claims so hard to not be a snowflake, you do cry about your lack of creativity and imagination holding you back from understanding the things happening around you.

Is that what it takes to believe these whores' stories? Creativity and imagination??

Interesting....

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is that what it takes to believe these whores' stories? Creativity and imagination??

Interesting....

For most of us it just takes a modicum of compassion and an honest conversation with any of the women whom we love and love us to get a sense of what they deal with on a relatively constant basis to realize that claims like those are perfectly plausible.

Most of us don't complain that we "find something hard to believe" and assert that subjective, emotional statement is an assertion of the world around us.

Most of us don't assume that we know people whom we haven't met, and don't assert that we have knowledge of their motives.

Most of us don't need creativity and imagination to have compassion, but you apparently do.


If you're so firmly adamant that you're not a snowflake, why do you let your emotions rule your arguments?

[BananaStand]

For most of us it just takes a modicum of compassion and an honest conversation with any of the women whom we love and love us to get a sense of what they deal with on a relatively constant basis to realize that claims like those are perfectly plausible.

Those feminists got to you huh? Sorry bro.

Most of us don't complain that we "find something hard to believe" and assert that subjective, emotional statement is an assertion of the world around us.

Most of us know what "figures of speech" are.

Most of us don't assume that we know people whom we haven't met, and don't assert that we have knowledge of their motives.

If you're referring to Stormy, she's filed a lawsuit. Her motive is a matter of public record. The anti-Trump media didn't find that fit enough to print. You don't find that eyebrow raising?

Most of us don't need creativity and imagination to have compassion, but you apparently do.

I don't think you know what compassion means.

If you're so firmly adamant that you're not a snowflake, why do you let your emotions rule your arguments?

What emotion would that be?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Those feminists got to you huh?

IDK what this means.
What does this mean?

If you're suggesting that I'm arguing in favor of entitlement for women, then no, "those feminists" haven't "gotten to me."

What I advocated for is to listen to the women you love and whom love you when they speak about the way they're treated in public, and to relate those stories to the ones you're getting all bent out of shape over. I opine that if you have women which fit this description in your life, whom aren't unwilling to talk to you on this topic because your attitude is prohibitive, that you will find they deal with a general constant background hum of sexual attention. As such, the complaints that are on the level of the metoo movement are at least plausible, not certainly true or untrue, but plausible.

Sorry bro.

Your sarcasm isn't lost on me, so I assume that whatever the above means, you think it's bad.

What emotion would that be?

Incredulity, melodrama, defensiveness, moral superiority, outrage, condescension, smugness, etc.

Pick from the many you regularly espouse and see how quickly you deny each of them:
If it takes more than 0.01 s, you are clearly off your game and need a healthy snack.


It's kind of a thing you do that people speak to you as if you're a reasonable adult, but you respond as though they're attacking you.
Is the fact that this betrays insecurity completely lost on you?
Are you preparing to insult me or anyone else who agrees with this analysis?
Congrats, you've proven the point.

[BananaStand]

JP:

"Male behavior is often diagnosed as Attention Deficit Disorder"

When is he running for President?

[BananaStand]

JP [Paraphrased]: if your kid is in a class that talks about inclusivity, diversity, white privilege, systemic racism, etc etc...pull your kid out of the class.

Tucker: I agree, but you might run out of schools

JP: THAT WOULD BE JUST FINE!!


Dude has my vote.

[Poopadoop]

If you're a man who hasn't figured out the difference between a woman wanting to look attractive in general and a woman who wants to look attractive because she wants to have sex with YOU specifically, then sorry but you are not very bright.

[BananaStand]

If you're a man who hasn't figured out the difference between a woman wanting to look attractive in general and a woman who wants to look attractive because she wants to have sex with YOU specifically, then sorry but you are not very bright.

That's either a wild misinterpretation, or a gross mischaracterization of what I said. possibly both

[Poopadoop]

That's either a wild misinterpretation, or a gross mischaracterization of what I said. possibly both

I did not quote you in my post sir.

[BananaStand]

I did not quote you in my post sir.

Why not just say you were wrong rather than embarrass yourself with this pathetically narrow defense

But getting back to what you said....if you think there is a difference between a woman wanting to look attractive in general, and a woman who wants to look sexually appetizing to men, then you are not very bright.

[wufwugy]

If you're a man who hasn't figured out the difference between a woman wanting to look attractive in general and a woman who wants to look attractive because she wants to have sex with YOU specifically, then sorry but you are not very bright.

Lots of people are not that bright.

Some people are quite bright and still misinterpret the cues.

[OngBonga]

To further demonstrate...

Lets ask an imaginary poll to married couples...
Q - who has the stronger sex drive? Him or her?

It's gonna be well over 50% saying "him".

[OngBonga]

You are up to your neck in feminist indoctrination, so I'm not hopeful that I can change your mind. But please try to understand that:

This isn't true, by the way. It's simply your default assumption to anyone who disagrees with you on this matter.

I don't blame men for being driven by their libido. I don't think men need to be shamed, nor do they need to change their behaviour (assuming it's legal at least). So no, I'm not neck deep in feminism.

[OngBonga]

Men don't receive the same kind of attention from random, unfamiliar women as women get from men.

Do you know why this is? You're a man of science, there's a sciency reason for it.

[Poopadoop]

Do you know why this is? You're a man of science, there's a sciency reason for it.

Women can only have one kid at a time, and it's a big ordeal for them to get that kid. A man can have lots of kids and it's a lot of fun for him to get them.

So to put it glibly, women nest, men hunt. Men wander around in the hope some woman will have sex with them. Women wander around in the hope some man will hang around after sex and help look after the kid. Evolutionarily speaking and broadly speaking that is.

[OngBonga]

You seem to have been indoctrinated by the "men are oppressors" and "women are victims of the social patriarchy" feminist bullshit that pervades our society and media.

Wrong. I just understand that men have higher levels of testosterone.

[BananaStand]

I just understand that men have higher levels of testosterone.

So?

[OngBonga]

So... that's why men are bigger dicks than women when it comes to stuff like sexual harassment. It's like why people who drink ten pints are more drunk than people who drink five.

[BananaStand]

So... that's why men are bigger dicks than women when it comes to stuff like sexual harassment.

How in the wide wide world of sports did you get that idea???

You are up to your neck in feminist indoctrination, so I'm not hopeful that I can change your mind. But please try to understand that:

1) The behaviors your describing as "harassment" aren't harassment
2) Women do plenty to encourage these bahaviors
3) Plenty of women unapologetically leverage sexuality to manipulate men and/or to advance their own interests (ie. they act like big dicks)

I really could go on and on. Look at the issue of rape on college campuses. There are TONS of stories that just don't smell right. Girls regret relations they've had and make outrageous claims of victimization. Men in these cases are deprived of legal representation, the right to face their accusers, or any kind of viable appeals process.

The point is, that women have plenty of power. More than men in the vast majority of cases. Men are getting destroyed in western societies. Absolutely destroyed. And women/feminism have a lot to do with it.

Villainizing men for behaviors that are inherently in their nature is just wrong. That's not a matter of interpretation. That's not a matter of opinion. It's just WRONG. A handful of bad actors are used as representative examples of an entire gender. There are billions of men, all pumping testosterone through their bodies that don't harass or abuse women.

[OngBonga]

1) The behaviors your describing as "harassment" aren't harassment
2) Women do plenty to encourage these bahaviors
3) Plenty of women unapologetically leverage sexuality to manipulate men and/or to advance their own interests (ie. they act like big dicks)

1) Granted, but note the use of the word "like"... I'm referring to any behaviour which could be considered inapprorpriate, such as unwelcome advances, wolf whistling etc.
2) Yes they do.
3) Yes they do.

But if you're trying to convince me they are on a par with men, you're failing. Women are more manipulative than men, I'll concede that much. But it's not particularly "unwelcome" from the man's pov, is it?

On average, men are more pushy, disgusting, assertive... basically more driven by sexual urges than women are. That's testosterone, and that's what drives people's behaviour when it comes to these matters.

[BananaStand]

Nothing you've said suggests why women should be wary of men more than men are wary of women.

youre just feeding the feminist myth