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

[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.

[Poopadoop]

Naturally, it's too neutral I guess.

More that it's not peer-reviewed, but take it as you will.

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

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.

[Poopadoop]

Wiki is neutral.

You're basing this on what?

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.