Discuss.
Discuss.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.
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'.
Is this Trump's doing or the media's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you flushed it down the toilet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?Quote:
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.
You realize this is a joke thread and I'm just talking shit right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
It's the same topic. The turnover in the WH is not particularly surprising. The promise was "drain the swamp". Alot of the people you named,Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
are swamp monsters. For fuck's sake, the guy is famous for saying "you're fired". This is one of those things, like Trump's history with women, that everyone knew before the election, and he still won. So it's fraudulent to be shocked by it now, or describe it as chaos.
using words like "chaos" and "bombshell firing" have very little to do with descriptive accuracy and alot more to do with generating clicks.
So the premise of this thread, that Trump's WH is like a reality show, is more the fault of the media and not Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
He hired most of those people himself.
Just because it's par for the course doesn't mean it's not chaos. Not surprising perhaps, but still chaotic.
But people voted for it. That's what the left is missing in this whole reality show they are producing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
People knew Trump was a loose cannon. They knew he was a womanizer. They knew he was vulgar and bombastic. They knew he doesn't speak in the King's English. No candidate is perfect, and people decided that they could accept these weaknesses of Trump's in exchange for him fulfilling his policy promises.
Maybe rather than putting Trump's actions through the spin cycle and framing it as chaotic reality TV, perhaps the left would be better served by trying to evaluate why their policy promises were so unattractive.
The left is not producing the reality show, they are only broadcasting it. Trump is the one doing all the hiring/firing, sending midnight tweets to insult celebrities, talking shit to the Boy Scouts, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
FalseQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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?
Yes, he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
He's using it to beat every antagonist and get more done than any president before him in recent history.
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??Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Did you expect CNN to run a headline that says "Trump promises to drain swamp, then drains swamp"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
It's been understood for quite some time that Trump uses very high turnover of employees.
Exactly. And he still won. There are things about Trump that are not ideal, and voters decided that it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What's surprising to me, is that the Democrats have adopted a strategy of doubling down on these non-ideal qualities that he has, as if people will be swayed differently this time around. That's what the #metoo movement is all about. It's about turning sexually aggressive men into villains. The #metoo movement is a weapon to make Trump toxic to women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You keep going back to this same argument as if that somehow proves he's a good president. Nixon also won, and by a much larger margin than Trump. So all those negative traits of his didn't matter either?
Yea, funny how it just happened to coincide with all the sexual assault charges against him and the words he himself was caught on tape using. Funny how those things seem to catalyze people. But in your world it's all contrived as a weapon of the left. Well, if it's a weapon for the left it's because he gave it to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Exactly which negative traits are you referring to regarding Nixon? Did people know about them BEFORE they voted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What show are you watching? Your timing is all wrong. The allegations (not charges), and the "grab them by the pussy" tape were around for a long time, sometimes YEARS, before Trump was elected. He still got elected. Some catalyst...lol.Quote:
Yea, funny how it just happened to coincide with all the sexual assault charges against him and the words he himself was caught on tape using. Funny how those things seem to catalyze people.
This hooplah started after the Weinstein revelations. Weinstein is tied very closely to Clinton and her campaign. So if Hillary was president and this happened, it's highly likely that the press would have swept it under the rug. they've been doing it for decades. The idea that sex is currency in Hollywood is not news.
Since Hillary didn't win, Weinstein can be weaponized.
Because that's the default position of anyone who refuses to embrace identity poltiics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're a lost cause, they've got you well and truly.
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.
I'm only about 20% outraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
Then you should be 10% outraged.
Nope, I'm assuming that at least one of the 9 was underage.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
When you laugh and then think "this isn't a funny subject matter" and feel awkward.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In my defense, I did say I was outragedQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So in your mind, they're victims who are being manipulated into telling their stories, but still victims?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
"who is the bad guy?"Quote:
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?
"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.
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.Quote:
'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.
Fortunately I'm not. I advocate them making an immediate complaint, rather than waiting a decade until there's a twitter movement.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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!
The people being manipulated are not the manipulators.
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".Quote:
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.'
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.
This is exactly how I feel about Al Sharpton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who cares what the other person's motives are? They're getting someone to report a crime that would otherwise go unpunished.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hard evidence? Is this a court? What hard evidence do you have on the contrary? I'll just point to Twitter as my evidence.Quote:
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?
There's anothert conclusion you jumped to. Things are so binary to you.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Who cares what the other person's motives are? They're getting someone to report a crime that would otherwise go unpunished.
I have empathy. That doesn't mean I can't be outraged at political manipulation.Quote:
What is the argument here, I should not have empathy?
It is wrong if it's a political goal to exploit victims. Perhaps it's all too subtle for you.Quote:
You seem to think if someone else benefits politically from a criminal facing justice, that somehow makes it wrong.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well, you said...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
...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.Quote:
I advocate them making an immediate complaint, rather than waiting a decade until there's a twitter movement.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What is the gross political manipulation that comes from encouraging people to report a crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of course you are but not on the same level as a drunk driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Of course you are but not on the same level as a drunk driver.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I would dispute again your claim that metoo's main goal was to punish men for innocent behaviour and minor indiscretions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movementQuote:
I would dispute again your claim that metoo's main goal was to punish men for innocent behaviour and minor indiscretions.
Do you not see how it blurrs the line between "harassment" and "abuse"?Quote:
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]
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.Quote:
Actually, it's a moment of criminal stupidity.
Who believes this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I was mocking Ong's position.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
BadlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
As a matter of principle I don't accept wiki as a source of information.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And also incoherently obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Two things wrong with this statement, before and after the word 'the' .Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Reports as in 'official' or something credible? Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What is MGTOW?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So why are so many men becoming more fearful of women?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Naturally, it's too neutral I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Wikipedia is an outstanding source of information. More fool you if you reject wiki while citing CNN.
I can't believe you really think this.Quote:
Carelessness and/or lack of foresight are morally no different from premeditation if they lead to a negative outcome.
More that it's not peer-reviewed, but take it as you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
When do I cite CNN as a source of facts? I might link to a report they give that doesn't mean I use them to support an argument I'm making.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"oops" is not a legal defense, why should it be a moral one?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Edit: Let me clarify that: a drunk driver's defense of "I didn't think through the possible consequences when I got behind the wheel after seven pints - guess my judgment was lacking - oops" is not a legal defense, nor a moral one.
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.
Find me a peer reviewed article on the metoo movement. Jeez.Quote:
More that it's not peer-reviewed, but take it as you will.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
I questioned your claim that a significant portion of metoo is about shaming men for minor indiscretions like complimenting a female colleague's legs once or pinching a bum in a pub. Your response was to cite wiki (which fwiw didn't address that claim anyways). So, in my view you haven't supported that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If, otoh, you can provide some actual data from a credible source that metoo is being overdone in the way you claimed, then I'd accept it. Maybe someone has analysed all the metoo hashtags and linked them with the use of particular phrases like 'sexual abuse', 'rape', 'bum pinching', or 'unsolicited compliments', I don't know.
Until you provide some credible and relevant evidence, however, your claim remains unsubstantiated and I'll continue to dispute it.
You're basing this on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm happy to consider the idea that taken in sum, the political leanings of Wiki's various contributors are unlikely to be heavily biased. But that's not the same as saying "person X who wrote page Y that I'm referring to here is neutral, and can't possibly have a political motive." You have no idea why person X wrote page Y, or if they were in any way qualified to do so, unless you yourself are expert on the topic.
So, not only could they be clueless, they could very well not be neutral. That is why Wiki is generally regarded as unreliable.
By saying this, you are saying a significant portion of the metoo claims are credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I just don't see how that's possible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/u...-off-poll.html
If the numbers in this survey are even close to accurate, you couldn't walk down the street without witnessing multiple rapes.
77% say they have been verbally sexually harassed!!?? Not possible.
If only i had a dollar for every time you read more into someone's statements than what was there...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Try not extrapolating from someone's words to all kinds of imaginary things you might think they are arguing and/or believe. You'll be better for it, trust me. Take your own advice and turn off the auto-argue.
Most survey results should be taken with various degrees of salt for various reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not remotely logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I would say of the women I've known in my lifetime where the topic has come up, that's a pretty accurate figure of what they've related to me. I guess you could claim women are lying en masse, but I personally don't have a reason to think they habitually lie about such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If only I had a dollar for every time you claimed "I didn't say that" after being called out for saying something ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you're misunderstood so frequently...isn't that on you?
The women you know are either flat out liars. Or they are exaggerating their memories in order to participate in a popular social media movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Which supports the conclusion that a huge % of #metoo claims are bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If it were a general occurrence, yes. The fact that it seems be to a problem peculiar to you suggests otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There's a difference between misunderstanding someone and extrapolating from what they say to reach unwarranted conclusions about what they are thinking or saying.
Maybe women you know are less likely to open up to you about their experiences. I can imagine it's because it seems likely your response would be to call them liars.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No it supports the idea that rapes don't generally occur in broad daylight in front of huge numbers of witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's almost as if rapists KNOW they're doing something wrong and don't want others to witness it.
Except that it's YOU whom is not only constantly misunderstanding poopy, you also misunderstand anyone who doesn't tow a right-wing party line.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If only the people who disagree with you were the villains you paint them out to be, you'd be so damn right all the damn time.
If only.