Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president. - Page 23

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Remember, sexual assault is not about sexual gratification for the perpetrator. It is about the overthrow of another person's will. Sex is the weapon used to impose debilitating humiliation and shame on another human being as a vehicle for validating the attacker's supremacy. It is not the goal in and of itself.

And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life.

I think you guys are missing the probably-a-narcissist aspect of this. **I think that Trump is less likely to be a pig in order to exert his dominance and overpower another's will. I rather suspect he genuinely thinks that all women want him, and that his attentions to them are a gift. I doubt the idea that it might be unwanted ever entered his mind.

**Reworded from "I doubt that Trump would be a pig... " That made it sound like I think he wouldn't be a pig, which wasn't my intent. It's quite possible that he may on occasion be trying to exert dominance or something of the sort. It just think it's more likely in general that he is so arrogant and self-centered that he can't even imagine that his advance aren't wanted.

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Surely you see the error in your reasoning? If no one had voted for Clinton would she have still won?

I'm not following you.

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

Translation: "I refuse to read something that might challenge my deeply held beliefs, therefore I have absolutely no clue what it is actually in the article and will just use a pat dismissal to pretend I have the moral high ground."

luchog, I think you're very selectively ignoring all of my actual beliefs, all of my actual viewpoints, and all of the positions I've actively taken and defended on this forum. Why don't you take a few moments, and go find the supporting evidence for my views on white privilege, gender bias, and GLBTQ rights? It shouldn't take long, I believe I've been fairly vocal on those topics, and my arguments speak for themselves.

If you still wish to pursue this witch-hunt, then by all means, continue.

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by turingtest

I don't think that Trump supporters are generally bigots; I do think that bigots are generally Trump supporters. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think anybody would question it.

(Channeling some John Stuart Mill)

I would agree with that assessment.

Spindrift · 18th November 2016, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think you guys are missing the probably-a-narcissist aspect of this. I doubt that Trump would be a pig in order to exert his dominance and overpower another's will. I rather suspect he genuinely thinks that all women want him, and that his attentions to them are a gift. I doubt the idea that it might be unwanted ever entered his mind.

I think he knows he's a pig and just doesn't care.

marplots · 18th November 2016, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

And you are completely unable to see the clear and obvious potential for abuse, not to mention the dramatic ethical problems with that scenario?

Leaving aside the clear problem with power imbalance and their modification of the question of consent, you can't see how damaging that is to the work environment in general? When rewards are not based on merit, not based on the quality of work and reliability of the individual, but on willingness to prostitute one's self to authority figures, that creates an environment that is not only ripe for abuse, but effectively demands abuse. Not to mention effectively guaranteeing the enshrining of incompetence.

Yes, I see problems with it, despite the fact that society seemed to function well enough when the rules weren't in place. (Well enough from a profit taking, corporate viability standpoint, not an ethical one.)

But there's a paradox in play. On the one hand, we now have looser sexual mores in that what I choose to do with my body and who I have sex with is none of your business. I can (or should be able) to prostitute myself if I wish. On the other hand, sexual transactions still have an element of Victorian approbation and are not treated like other forms of commerce. I doubt we would react quite so strongly if, through sheer capricious power, a CEO demanded male employees wear ties.

It's this holdover that "sex is special" which cultures struggle with. "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't work overtime on Fridays" means something different to us than, "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't wear sexy dresses." Both constrain behavior, both are "forced" by a power asymmetry, but only one will get the boss sued.

And, I think that's the best we can do - create a system where there are real penalties for unwanted behaviors we deem cross the line (wherever we set that line), and accept there will always be borderline cases we don't like, wouldn't do ourselves, and would react strongly negative to if they happened to us.

Meadmaker · 18th November 2016, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by turingtest

I don't think that Trump supporters are generally bigots; I do think that bigots are generally Trump supporters. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think anybody would question it.

(Channeling some John Stuart Mill)

It depends on what sort of bigotry.

Anti-mulsim bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-black bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-gay bigots? Trump supporters, which is kind of odd in a way, since Trump seems at worst gay-neutral, but still, Trump supporters.

Anti-Christian bigots?

Or are we denying those exist?

luchog · 18th November 2016, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

luchog, I think you're very selectively ignoring all of my actual beliefs, all of my actual viewpoints, and all of the positions I've actively taken and defended on this forum. Why don't you take a few moments, and go find the supporting evidence for my views on white privilege, gender bias, and GLBTQ rights? It shouldn't take long, I believe I've been fairly vocal on those topics, and my arguments speak for themselves.

I am fully aware of them, and I'm pointing out how you're setting them aside in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that roughly half of the country actively disagrees with you one one or more of those principles, in your rush to defend said people from being called bigots or ignorantly supportive of bigots, which they have clearly demonstrated themselves to be.

We don't need to "understand" middle-America. We understand them far too well. The problem is that they do not, and in most cases will not, understand us.

turingtest · 18th November 2016, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I don't think that Trump supporters are generally bigots; I do think that bigots are generally Trump supporters. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think anybody would question it.

(Channeling some John Stuart Mill

It depends on what sort of bigotry.

Anti-mulsim bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-black bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-gay bigots? Trump supporters, which is kind of odd in a way, since Trump seems at worst gay-neutral, but still, Trump supporters.

Anti-Christian bigots?

Or are we denying those exist?

Again, the operative word, for both clauses of the first sentence, is "generally." So if that last question of yours is the point of the post...no, I wouldn't deny that anti-Christian bigots certainly exist.

I don't really believe in black-and-white absolutes, and this is especially so when it comes to human behavior. Even bigotry is a spectrum.

luchog · 18th November 2016, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

But there's a paradox in play. On the one hand, we now have looser sexual mores in that what I choose to do with my body and who I have sex with is none of your business. I can (or should be able) to prostitute myself if I wish. On the other hand, sexual transactions still have an element of Victorian approbation and are not treated like other forms of commerce. I doubt we would react quite so strongly if, through sheer capricious power, a CEO demanded male employees wear ties.

Yes, you shold be free to prostitute yourself how you wish. You should not be free to create and environment where people feel that doing so is necessary to their personal well-being.

Do you honestly think that a corporate environment based on sexual availability is in any way as desirable, ethically or economically, than one based on merit?

Quote:

It's this holdover that "sex is special" which cultures struggle with. "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't work overtime on Fridays" means something different to us than, "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't wear sexy dresses." Both constrain behavior, both are "forced" by a power asymmetry, but only one will get the boss sued.

The fact that you're unable to see the profound difference between those two conditions pretty much negates any chance you'll understand why the latter is far, far more damaging to both corporate and overall social cultre than the former.

Quote:

And, I think that's the best we can do - create a system where there are real penalties for unwanted behaviors we deem cross the line (wherever we set that line), and accept there will always be borderline cases we don't like, wouldn't do ourselves, and would react strongly negative to if they happened to us.

Which is a pointless truism in one part, and outright wrong in the other. You're committing a Middle Ground Fallacy here; as well as engaging in a Special Pleading Fallacy.

Edge cases in this scenario simply do not need to exist, as this is not a complicated ethical dilemma, but one of the few that has clear demarcations of right and wrong.

If you believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then you have to have a clear line regarding the acceptability of making employment and reward decision based on non-job-performance factors such as race, religion, gender, sexual availability, familial status, or appearance. The fact that some people still make job decisions based on non-job-performance factors does not make these "borderline cases", it simply makes them ethical violations that happen to occur despite the undesirability of such cases.

If you absolutely cannot survive without a sexual relationship with someone you have that much power over, the ethical thing to do would be to remove yourself from that position of power before making advances; not engage in special pleading to try and convince yourself and others that this is a borderline case that should be tolerated.

Likewise if you absolutely need to have sex with someone in a position of authority over you, then the ethical thing to do would be to move to a different position where that power imbalance no longer exists, rather than, again, committing a special pleading fallacy and by doing so contribute to creating an environment where sexual availability becomes a significant factor in job decisions.

Of course, if you do not believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then all bets are off, and you'll have the live with the culture you help create.

luchog · 18th November 2016, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Anti-Christian bigots?

Or are we denying those exist?

Given that Trump pandered to the evangelical Christian bloc, and they turned out to vote for him in record numbers, I doubt anti-Christian bigotry was a significant contributing factor in his election.

marplots · 18th November 2016, 11:46 AM

There's a misapplication of a principle here. It means something different if I have bigoted friends than if I vote for someone who is bigoted.

The difference is one of scope. I can make new friends, and the friends I have reflect my own ethical stance. However, when it comes to broad policy, I am always forced to accept, or at least work around, differences of opinion and behaviors. I only have limited options.

A slash and burn approach doesn't work for policy-level decisions, in the same manner we have to deal with other nations, some who have internal mores we vehemently disagree with. We do it, not because we agree with the behaviors, but because we are not free to ignore large parts of the world - it's a limited selection and one we aren't empowered to create in our image.

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

I am fully aware of them, and I'm pointing out how you're setting them aside in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that roughly half of the country actively disagrees with you one one or more of those principles, in your rush to defend said people from being called bigots or ignorantly supportive of bigots, which they have clearly demonstrated themselves to be.

We don't need to "understand" middle-America. We understand them far too well. The problem is that they do not, and in most cases will not, understand us.

Fine. I'll take this opportunity to point out that you're broad-brushing a bunch of people, with no consideration to whether the views you and I both find unacceptable actually belong to them. You're acting as if the entirety of "middle-America" are ALL bigots.

How is this materially any different from collectively deriding all people of middle eastern descent as terrorists or terror supporters? I mean, if they were not supportive of terrorism, they'd leave those countries, right? Or at least attack their terrorist neighbors, right?

If it's perfectly acceptable to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from Trump is a bigot/bigot supporter, then it's equally valid to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from muslims is a terrorist/terror-supporter.

marplots · 18th November 2016, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

Yes, you shold be free to prostitute yourself how you wish. You should not be free to create and environment where people feel that doing so is necessary to their personal well-being.

Do you honestly think that a corporate environment based on sexual availability is in any way as desirable, ethically or economically, than one based on merit?

"Merit" is itself a value judgment and variable. You will hear jargon like "team player" or "self starter" bandied about as if they had independent, observable meaning. They have replaced such notions as "easy on the eyes," but they are value judgements none the less. Besides, these things are not swapped in and out as replacements - it is perfectly possible to be both a good lawyer and a good looking lawyer, someone who answers the phone and someone who answers the phone and displays cleavage.

In a competitive workplace, I fully expect some might leverage their desirability to gain on their peers. This would be true for other attributes as well. If I can tell a good joke to please the boss, I might as well. Who knows what's going to be in his mind when it's time to trim the budget?

Quote:

The fact that you're unable to see the profound difference between those two conditions pretty much negates any chance you'll understand why the latter is far, far more damaging to both corporate and overall social cultre than the former.

Would it truly be that difficult to find countries where sexual mores differ but where corporations manage to succeed? I'm not well informed on this, but I seem to recall Japan ballooning economically while retaining very strict gender roles. The point isn't that how we treat each other doesn't matter, the point is that it doesn't have to rise to the level of a significant driver of profits.

Quote:

Which is a pointless truism in one part, and outright wrong in the other. You're committing a Middle Ground Fallacy here; as well as engaging in a Special Pleading Fallacy.

Edge cases in this scenario simply do not need to exist, as this is not a complicated ethical dilemma, but one of the few that has clear demarcations of right and wrong.

If you believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then you have to have a clear line regarding the acceptability of making employment and reward decision based on non-job-performance factors such as race, religion, gender, sexual availability, familial status, or appearance. The fact that some people still make job decisions based on non-job-performance factors does not make these "borderline cases", it simply makes them ethical violations that happen to occur despite the undesirability of such cases.

Here we might depart ways if you are an ethical objectivist, since I am a relativist. It is not apparent to me that there is a clear line in these matters, and I have seen standards change over time.

Quote:

If you absolutely cannot survive without a sexual relationship with someone you have that much power over, the ethical thing to do would be to remove yourself from that position of power before making advances; not engage in special pleading to try and convince yourself and others that this is a borderline case that should be tolerated.

Likewise if you absolutely need to have sex with someone in a position of authority over you, then the ethical thing to do would be to move to a different position where that power imbalance no longer exists, rather than, again, committing a special pleading fallacy and by doing so contribute to creating an environment where sexual availability becomes a significant factor in job decisions.

I think you've overlooked the power relationship inherent in sexual congress itself. To be consistent, it seems you'd have to deny there are always conflicting evaluations and asymmetries. Even when we access our own mental states, we sometimes find internal struggles and confusion.

But as to power, the term denotes asymmetry. To hold power over someone is to (at least partly) control them. I don't think you can escape such relationships and still deal with your fellow men.

Quote:

Of course, if you do not believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then all bets are off, and you'll have the live with the culture you help create.

I actually do think equality of opportunity and meritocracy are the way to go, it's just that I refuse to believe in a cartoon version without the complexities of actual human behavior. There are men and women who exploit their beauty, who use sex to gain advantage, and there are others who use other tools to get what they want. Some of those tools are illegal and should be. But so long as we allow people to make their own choices as to what they will allow with their bodies, some of those people will make choices we disagree with.

There will always be borderline cases and gray areas because of the variability across the population. I cannot both be desirous of setting my own limits on what is acceptable and then deny that ability to others - at least I can't do that and say I want people to be free to make their own decisions.

luchog · 18th November 2016, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Fine. I'll take this opportunity to point out that you're broad-brushing a bunch of people, with no consideration to whether the views you and I both find unacceptable actually belong to them. You're acting as if the entirety of "middle-America" are ALL bigots.

Nope, again that's your strawman, not what I said. When you're willing to discuss what I'm actually saying, I'll be happy to continue the debate, until then, I see absolutely no point.

Quote:

If it's perfectly acceptable to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from Trump is a bigot/bigot supporter, then it's equally valid to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from muslims is a terrorist/terror-supporter.

That's about the most ridiculous thing you've posted so far. Congratulations!

For anyone more reasonable, anyone who supports Trump is by definition is a bigot supporter, because Trump is a proudly declared bigot. Lots of us have distanced ourselves from Trump and do not support him, so we're not supporting his bigotry, by definition. We're talking about people who supported Trump, in case you've forgotten.

Try again, with better reading comprehension this time.

Arcade22 · 18th November 2016, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Islam is a political ideology. It is a political ideology. It definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion. And I have a very, very tough time because I don’t see a lot of people screaming ‘Jesus Christ’ with hatchets or machetes or rifles shooting up clubs or hatcheting, literally axing families on a train, or like they just killed a couple of police officers with a machete. It’s unbelievable. So we have a problem.

It’s like cancer. You know, I’ve gone through cancer in my own life. So it’s like cancer. And it’s a like a malignant cancer, though, in this case. It has metastasized.

Looks like Michael Flynn, Trumps pick for his national security advisor, is a really sensible, moderate and reasonable person. Of course he's not prejudiced or even outright islamaphobic

luchog · 18th November 2016, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

"Merit" is itself a value judgment and variable.

So? The fact that it's variable means nothing. Different jobs have different requirements and performance standards. People can still be judged on their ability to meet those requirements and performance standards.

Quote:

You will hear jargon like "team player" or "self starter" bandied about as if they had independent, observable meaning.

Actually, they can be, to some extent, observable. To the extent they can't, they've nothing to do with merit, only personal preference.

Quote:

They have replaced such notions as "easy on the eyes,"

No, they haven't. The fact that you can equate the two means that you have no idea what they actually mean.

Quote:

In a competitive workplace, I fully expect some might leverage their desirability to gain on their peers. This would be true for other attributes as well. If I can tell a good joke to please the boss, I might as well. Who knows what's going to be in his mind when it's time to trim the budget?

Which doesn't make it any less wrong to use that as a basis for judgement. The fact that unethical judgements exist does not make them less unethical, it just means that unethical judgements exist.

Quote:

Would it truly be that difficult to find countries where sexual mores differ but where corporations manage to succeed? I'm not well informed on this, but I seem to recall Japan ballooning economically while retaining very strict gender roles. The point isn't that how we treat each other doesn't matter, the point is that it doesn't have to rise to the level of a significant driver of profits.

I addressed this. If all you care about is profitability for a tiny minority, then slavery and indentured servitude are quite effective for that, as demonstrated historically, and in modern sweatshop and prison labour systems. Have fun with that.

Quote:

Here we might depart ways if you are an ethical objectivist,

Nope, not sure where you could even manage to get that from anything I've said.

Quote:

since I am a relativist. It is not apparent to me that there is a clear line in these matters, and I have seen standards change over time.

Thus demonstrating both the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of relativism.

Quote:

I think you've overlooked the power relationship inherent in sexual congress itself. To be consistent, it seems you'd have to deny there are always conflicting evaluations and asymmetries. Even when we access our own mental states, we sometimes find internal struggles and confusion.

No, this is nonsensical in any but the most hair-splitting academic context.

Not going to bother addressing the rest of the post, since it was just more of the special pleading I pointed out earlier.

phiwum · 18th November 2016, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I use Twitter but only to get news from various commercial sites, music bands and NASA and the like without having to go through a list of 50 sites every morning.

I didn't mean to suggest that Twitter users are deplorable (they are), but just to point out that reposting a 140 character tweet is not conducive to conversation.

phiwum · 18th November 2016, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I think the question is, if there's not widespread suffering under Trump, then how will people realize that voting in an incompetent bigot is a bad thing.

The worst possible scenario: Trump's policies harm certain groups (e.g. muslims), but the majority see him as a success, and see no reason to vote Trump (or a similar Candidate) again.

Better scenario: Trumps policies harm everyone, people realize that voting for incompetent bigots is a bad thing all around and don't do that again. Yes, people suffer, but they actually learn something.

I am not thrilled with this view, but I must agree. What might be good for the long-term health of the nation is that Trump is abysmal enough that we take future elections more seriously than we took this one. Just abysmal enough that he resigns or is impeached, but no worse.

It's not pleasant to be hoping for a bad future for my nation.

Dr. Keith · 18th November 2016, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I didn't mean to suggest that Twitter users are deplorable (they are), but just to point out that reposting a 140 character tweet is not conducive to conversation.

Can I just say I have never agreed with a post more in all of my time here. And I laughed out loud.

phiwum · 18th November 2016, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

Really? How is their acceptance of GLBTQ people? My experience with people in those regions is that it's pretty bad.

Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"?

Thanks.

Darat · 18th November 2016, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Except the premise is that women may feel coerced into saying "yes" when they don't want to do those things. By requiring them to object you are right back where we started.

As an aside, we need to seriously change the way movies and literature present these interactions, especially the wordless, romantic kiss. He leans forward, she leans forward. His eyes close, her eyes close. They are very close now, he can smell her perfume. She turns her face and lips upward. The lights are dim, the candles flicker.

"Can I kiss you?"
"Oh, yes!"
"No, I mean in a totally unpressured way, unrelated to my physical dominance and our disparate incomes. Without any possibility for recompense, gifts or inducements, whether those be through employment, recommendation for employment, or any other goods or services."
"Well, when you put it that way... no, I think your brother is actually more my type."
"That cad? He would kiss you without asking first."
"Exactly."

No the premise is that a man admits to sexually assaulting women because he knows he can get away with it, there is no confusion here of some kind of implied consent he clearly stated he could and did assault women because he knew he could get away with it.

Darat · 18th November 2016, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

I rub my wife's shoulders and scratch her back because I am coerced into doing it. She likes it, but it's emotional blackmail. She's taking advantage of my love for her and making me do things I probably wouldn't do if I didn't care so much about her.

I'd actually feel much better about the deal if she ponied up some folding money...

On a positive note, it turns out gays haven't ruined my marriage after all.

And I suppose when you want to have sex with her if she says no you are like Trump and his lawyer and hold that a man can't rape his wife. Let me make it 100% clear I simply do not believe that you would do or say that, yet it would appear from your apparent confusion about Trump's confession of assaulting women you find understanding consent in such a situation confusing or difficult.

You wouldn't and neither would the vast majority of people.

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

Nope, again that's your strawman, not what I said. When you're willing to discuss what I'm actually saying, I'll be happy to continue the debate, until then, I see absolutely no point.

What part of this:

Originally Posted by luchog

I am fully aware of them, and I'm pointing out how you're setting them aside in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that roughly half of the country actively disagrees with you one one or more of those principles, in your rush to defend said people from being called bigots or ignorantly supportive of bigots, which they have clearly demonstrated themselves to be.

We don't need to "understand" middle-America. We understand them far too well. The problem is that they do not, and in most cases will not, understand us.

Do you think implies something other than that you believe all of middle-america to be bigots?

Originally Posted by luchog

That's about the most ridiculous thing you've posted so far. Congratulations!

For anyone more reasonable, anyone who supports Trump is by definition is a bigot supporter, because Trump is a proudly declared bigot. Lots of us have distanced ourselves from Trump and do not support him, so we're not supporting his bigotry, by definition. We're talking about people who supported Trump, in case you've forgotten.

Try again, with better reading comprehension this time.

Yeah, no. Several people in this thread have repeated slandered anyone who voted third party as being "supportive of bigotry" too. It's been repeatedly implied (and even outright said if memory serves), that anyone who did not vote for Clinton was supporting bigotry.

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"?

Thanks.

When the acronym because some complicated that we can't remember what order they go in

phiwum · 18th November 2016, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

And I suppose when you want to have sex with her if she says no you are like Trump and his lawyer and hold that a man can't rape his wife. Let me make it 100% clear I simply do not believe that you would do or say that, yet it would appear from your apparent confusion about Trump's confession of assaulting women you find understanding consent in such a situation confusing or difficult.

You wouldn't and neither would the vast majority of people.

With due respect, which Trump doesn't deserve, back in the day when this issue arose, it wasn't quite so obvious that a wedding ring was different than perpetual consent.

I'm with you that this should've been obvious, but it was the responsibility of Trump's attorneys to pretend otherwise.

marplots · 18th November 2016, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

And I suppose when you want to have sex with her if she says no you are like Trump and his lawyer and hold that a man can't rape his wife. Let me make it 100% clear I simply do not believe that you would do or say that, yet it would appear from your apparent confusion about Trump's confession of assaulting women you find understanding consent in such a situation confusing or difficult.

You wouldn't and neither would the vast majority of people.

First, I have to disagree that Trump confessed to assaulting women. The "assault" part has been supplied by his detractors. He said he kissed them without asking and something about them letting him "grab them by the pussy."

He is describing the special position he think he holds because of his celebrity (and perhaps money). I think if you take him at his word on this, you must simultaneously take his phrasing, "they let you do it" as indicative as well. From Trump's point of view, he does have permission, or at least acquiescence.

I am neither rich, nor a celebrity, nor aggressive toward women. In fact, I'm thoroughly domesticated. But a "reasonable man" standard requires me to attempt to put myself in his shoes. Do I believe that women are willing to put up with what he describes because he is a rich celebrity? I think some women would, yes. I also believe groupies go backstage after the concert and willingly perform sexual favors. Heck, I even believe such a thing as dominance and submission as sexual acts exist.

What I dispute is that, for outsiders, the situation is clear or that unwanted behavior - including things like "stealing a kiss" are equivalent to sexual assault. Here I think is where we part ways and why juries are such handy things to have.

Here's a celebrity kissing girls. Does he have their consent or does the venue coerce the behavior? Is it sexual assault?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Here's Trump doing it (skip to 2:20):

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Sexual assault?

luchog · 18th November 2016, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

What part of this:

Do you think implies something other than that you believe all of middle-america to be bigots?

You quoted it, and you still can't read it? Little hint, read beyond the first highlighted word.

Quote:

Yeah, no. Several people in this thread have repeated slandered anyone who voted third party as being "supportive of bigotry" too. It's been repeatedly implied (and even outright said if memory serves), that anyone who did not vote for Clinton was supporting bigotry.

And since I wasn't one of those, putting that on me is even more disingenuous than your usual in this thread. Though given your penchant for distortion displayed so far, I'm not going to accept that claim at face value either. Evidence?

Although I can understand their point, especially in states where that may have made a difference between electing Clinton and electing Trump. Not saying it's right, but I understand it. Have you tried understanding their point of view, or just dismissed them because you hate all Clinton supporters.

luchog · 18th November 2016, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

When the acronym because some complicated that we can't remember what order they go in

I so apologize for frightfully offending people by rearranging letters in an acronym. Perhaps if you can point me to the appropriate standards agency documentation on the proper ordering of the letters I can be more politically-correct in the future.

</sarcasm> - tagged for the irony-impaired.

Do you all really not have anything better to whinge about?

Regnad Kcin · 18th November 2016, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's interesting to me that I had never seen the second paragraph of that quote.

It totally changes the meaning.

She said "half", but she was really drawing two categories, and I don't think she meant to express a size relationship of any kind. In a way, she was saying something almost exactly like what Emily's Cat has been saying. She is saying, "Sure, there are racists and sexists among Trump supporters, but they aren't all racist and sexist, and we have to reach out to those people who have reason to believe government has let them down."

Yup. Context is (usually) everything.

marplots · 18th November 2016, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think you guys are missing the probably-a-narcissist aspect of this. **I think that Trump is less likely to be a pig in order to exert his dominance and overpower another's will. I rather suspect he genuinely thinks that all women want him, and that his attentions to them are a gift. I doubt the idea that it might be unwanted ever entered his mind.

Does anyone doubt he plays power games with men as well? Bet he does.

Ron_Tomkins · 18th November 2016, 02:04 PM

Trump doesn't have to be a good President. It's not like he's the one running the country anyway. I'd focus more on, pretty much every other guy around him on the House of Representatives, The Senate, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, that white supremacist guy whose name I forgot, Sarah Palin, etc.

Captain_Swoop · 18th November 2016, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"?

Thanks.

They got promoted.

Stacko · 18th November 2016, 02:24 PM

Statement By A.G. Schneiderman On $25 Million Settlement Agreement Reached In Trump University Case

Quote:

In 2013, my office sued Donald Trump for swindling*thousands*of innocent Americans out of*millions*of dollars through a scheme known at Trump University. Donald Trump fought us every step of the way, filing*baseless charges and fruitless appeals and refusing to settle for even modest amounts of compensation for the victims of his phony university. Today, that all changes. Today's $25 million settlement agreement is a stunning reversal by Donald Trump and a major victory for the over 6,000 victims of his fraudulent university.

I am pleased that under the terms of this settlement, every victim will receive restitution and that Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws.*The victims of Trump University have waited years for today's result and I am pleased that their patience--and persistence--will be rewarded by this $25 million settlement.

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

You quoted it, and you still can't read it? Little hint, read beyond the first highlighted word.

Oh yes, I see, you draw a really huge moral distinction between "bigots" and "ignorantly supportive of bigots". Go on then.

lionking · 18th November 2016, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Statement By A.G. Schneiderman On $25 Million Settlement Agreement Reached In Trump University Case

Buying his way out of trouble yet again. I wonder where the $25m came from? Trump Foundation?

alfaniner · 18th November 2016, 02:45 PM

Remember, we don't elect just a President. We elect all the people that they decide to bring along.

Dr. Keith · 18th November 2016, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Remember, we don't elect just a President. We elect all the people that they decide to bring along.

The Best People! ^TM

Emily's Cat · 18th November 2016, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

I so apologize for frightfully offending people by rearranging letters in an acronym. Perhaps if you can point me to the appropriate standards agency documentation on the proper ordering of the letters I can be more politically-correct in the future.

</sarcasm> - tagged for the irony-impaired.

Do you all really not have anything better to whinge about?

I wasn't whinging. I honestly can't keep the order straight.

Segnosaur · 18th November 2016, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Statement By A.G. Schneiderman On $25 Million Settlement Agreement Reached In Trump University Case

But... but... Trump never settles! And he could have won that case easily! Oh no, my faith in Trump is now shattered.

Sadly, I doubt this settlement will involve Drumph making any sort of admission of wrongdoing.

18th November 2016, 11:03 AM	#881
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by marplots Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Remember, sexual assault is not about sexual gratification for the perpetrator. It is about the overthrow of another person's will. Sex is the weapon used to impose debilitating humiliation and shame on another human being as a vehicle for validating the attacker's supremacy. It is not the goal in and of itself. And I'm still at a loss to figure out how someone who is rich and powerful is supposed to distinguish unwanted sexual attention from wanted sexual attention, since they can't divorce themselves from their station in life. I think you guys are missing the probably-a-narcissist aspect of this. I think that Trump is less likely to be a pig in order to exert his dominance and overpower another's will. I rather suspect he genuinely thinks that all women want him, and that his attentions to them are a gift. I doubt the idea that it might be unwanted ever entered his mind. Reworded from "I doubt that Trump would be a pig... " That made it sound like I think he wouldn't be a pig, which wasn't my intent. It's quite possible that he may on occasion be trying to exert dominance or something of the sort. It just think it's more likely in general that he is so arrogant and self-centered that he can't even imagine that his advance aren't wanted.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me. Last edited by Emily's Cat; 18th November 2016 at 11:20 AM. Reason: Reworded sentence, the way I phrased it really didn't capture what I meant

18th November 2016, 11:05 AM	#882
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by Darat Surely you see the error in your reasoning? If no one had voted for Clinton would she have still won? I'm not following you.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

18th November 2016, 11:12 AM	#883
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by luchog Translation: "I refuse to read something that might challenge my deeply held beliefs, therefore I have absolutely no clue what it is actually in the article and will just use a pat dismissal to pretend I have the moral high ground." luchog, I think you're very selectively ignoring all of my actual beliefs, all of my actual viewpoints, and all of the positions I've actively taken and defended on this forum. Why don't you take a few moments, and go find the supporting evidence for my views on white privilege, gender bias, and GLBTQ rights? It shouldn't take long, I believe I've been fairly vocal on those topics, and my arguments speak for themselves. If you still wish to pursue this witch-hunt, then by all means, continue.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

18th November 2016, 11:13 AM	#884
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by turingtest I don't think that Trump supporters are generally bigots; I do think that bigots are generally Trump supporters. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think anybody would question it. (Channeling some John Stuart Mill) I would agree with that assessment.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

18th November 2016, 11:14 AM	#885
Spindrift Time Person of the Year, 2006 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 19,246	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat I think you guys are missing the probably-a-narcissist aspect of this. I doubt that Trump would be a pig in order to exert his dominance and overpower another's will. I rather suspect he genuinely thinks that all women want him, and that his attentions to them are a gift. I doubt the idea that it might be unwanted ever entered his mind. I think he knows he's a pig and just doesn't care.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

18th November 2016, 11:17 AM	#886
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by luchog And you are completely unable to see the clear and obvious potential for abuse, not to mention the dramatic ethical problems with that scenario? Leaving aside the clear problem with power imbalance and their modification of the question of consent, you can't see how damaging that is to the work environment in general? When rewards are not based on merit, not based on the quality of work and reliability of the individual, but on willingness to prostitute one's self to authority figures, that creates an environment that is not only ripe for abuse, but effectively demands abuse. Not to mention effectively guaranteeing the enshrining of incompetence. Yes, I see problems with it, despite the fact that society seemed to function well enough when the rules weren't in place. (Well enough from a profit taking, corporate viability standpoint, not an ethical one.) But there's a paradox in play. On the one hand, we now have looser sexual mores in that what I choose to do with my body and who I have sex with is none of your business. I can (or should be able) to prostitute myself if I wish. On the other hand, sexual transactions still have an element of Victorian approbation and are not treated like other forms of commerce. I doubt we would react quite so strongly if, through sheer capricious power, a CEO demanded male employees wear ties. It's this holdover that "sex is special" which cultures struggle with. "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't work overtime on Fridays" means something different to us than, "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't wear sexy dresses." Both constrain behavior, both are "forced" by a power asymmetry, but only one will get the boss sued. And, I think that's the best we can do - create a system where there are real penalties for unwanted behaviors we deem cross the line (wherever we set that line), and accept there will always be borderline cases we don't like, wouldn't do ourselves, and would react strongly negative to if they happened to us.
	Last edited by marplots; 18th November 2016 at 11:19 AM.

18th November 2016, 11:21 AM	#887
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,492	Originally Posted by turingtest I don't think that Trump supporters are generally bigots; I do think that bigots are generally Trump supporters. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think anybody would question it. (Channeling some John Stuart Mill) It depends on what sort of bigotry. Anti-mulsim bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-black bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-gay bigots? Trump supporters, which is kind of odd in a way, since Trump seems at worst gay-neutral, but still, Trump supporters. Anti-Christian bigots? Or are we denying those exist?
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?

18th November 2016, 11:28 AM	#888
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat luchog, I think you're very selectively ignoring all of my actual beliefs, all of my actual viewpoints, and all of the positions I've actively taken and defended on this forum. Why don't you take a few moments, and go find the supporting evidence for my views on white privilege, gender bias, and GLBTQ rights? It shouldn't take long, I believe I've been fairly vocal on those topics, and my arguments speak for themselves. I am fully aware of them, and I'm pointing out how you're setting them aside in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that roughly half of the country actively disagrees with you one one or more of those principles, in your rush to defend said people from being called bigots or ignorantly supportive of bigots, which they have clearly demonstrated themselves to be. We don't need to "understand" middle-America. We understand them far too well. The problem is that they do not, and in most cases will not, understand us.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

18th November 2016, 11:35 AM	#889
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Quote: Originally Posted by turingtest View Post I don't think that Trump supporters are generally bigots; I do think that bigots are generally Trump supporters. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think anybody would question it. (Channeling some John Stuart Mill It depends on what sort of bigotry. Anti-mulsim bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-black bigots? Trump supporters. Anti-gay bigots? Trump supporters, which is kind of odd in a way, since Trump seems at worst gay-neutral, but still, Trump supporters. Anti-Christian bigots? Or are we denying those exist? Again, the operative word, for both clauses of the first sentence, is "generally." So if that last question of yours is the point of the post...no, I wouldn't deny that anti-Christian bigots certainly exist. I don't really believe in black-and-white absolutes, and this is especially so when it comes to human behavior. Even bigotry is a spectrum.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

18th November 2016, 11:44 AM	#890
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by marplots But there's a paradox in play. On the one hand, we now have looser sexual mores in that what I choose to do with my body and who I have sex with is none of your business. I can (or should be able) to prostitute myself if I wish. On the other hand, sexual transactions still have an element of Victorian approbation and are not treated like other forms of commerce. I doubt we would react quite so strongly if, through sheer capricious power, a CEO demanded male employees wear ties. Yes, you shold be free to prostitute yourself how you wish. You should not be free to create and environment where people feel that doing so is necessary to their personal well-being. Do you honestly think that a corporate environment based on sexual availability is in any way as desirable, ethically or economically, than one based on merit? Quote: It's this holdover that "sex is special" which cultures struggle with. "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't work overtime on Fridays" means something different to us than, "My boss says I'll get fired if I don't wear sexy dresses." Both constrain behavior, both are "forced" by a power asymmetry, but only one will get the boss sued. The fact that you're unable to see the profound difference between those two conditions pretty much negates any chance you'll understand why the latter is far, far more damaging to both corporate and overall social cultre than the former. Quote: And, I think that's the best we can do - create a system where there are real penalties for unwanted behaviors we deem cross the line (wherever we set that line), and accept there will always be borderline cases we don't like, wouldn't do ourselves, and would react strongly negative to if they happened to us. Which is a pointless truism in one part, and outright wrong in the other. You're committing a Middle Ground Fallacy here; as well as engaging in a Special Pleading Fallacy. Edge cases in this scenario simply do not need to exist, as this is not a complicated ethical dilemma, but one of the few that has clear demarcations of right and wrong. If you believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then you have to have a clear line regarding the acceptability of making employment and reward decision based on non-job-performance factors such as race, religion, gender, sexual availability, familial status, or appearance. The fact that some people still make job decisions based on non-job-performance factors does not make these "borderline cases", it simply makes them ethical violations that happen to occur despite the undesirability of such cases. If you absolutely cannot survive without a sexual relationship with someone you have that much power over, the ethical thing to do would be to remove yourself from that position of power before making advances; not engage in special pleading to try and convince yourself and others that this is a borderline case that should be tolerated. Likewise if you absolutely need to have sex with someone in a position of authority over you, then the ethical thing to do would be to move to a different position where that power imbalance no longer exists, rather than, again, committing a special pleading fallacy and by doing so contribute to creating an environment where sexual availability becomes a significant factor in job decisions. Of course, if you do not believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then all bets are off, and you'll have the live with the culture you help create.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won. Last edited by luchog; 18th November 2016 at 11:47 AM.

18th November 2016, 11:46 AM	#891
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Anti-Christian bigots? Or are we denying those exist? Given that Trump pandered to the evangelical Christian bloc, and they turned out to vote for him in record numbers, I doubt anti-Christian bigotry was a significant contributing factor in his election.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

18th November 2016, 11:46 AM	#892
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	There's a misapplication of a principle here. It means something different if I have bigoted friends than if I vote for someone who is bigoted. The difference is one of scope. I can make new friends, and the friends I have reflect my own ethical stance. However, when it comes to broad policy, I am always forced to accept, or at least work around, differences of opinion and behaviors. I only have limited options. A slash and burn approach doesn't work for policy-level decisions, in the same manner we have to deal with other nations, some who have internal mores we vehemently disagree with. We do it, not because we agree with the behaviors, but because we are not free to ignore large parts of the world - it's a limited selection and one we aren't empowered to create in our image.

18th November 2016, 12:17 PM	#893
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by luchog I am fully aware of them, and I'm pointing out how you're setting them aside in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that roughly half of the country actively disagrees with you one one or more of those principles, in your rush to defend said people from being called bigots or ignorantly supportive of bigots, which they have clearly demonstrated themselves to be. We don't need to "understand" middle-America. We understand them far too well. The problem is that they do not, and in most cases will not, understand us. Fine. I'll take this opportunity to point out that you're broad-brushing a bunch of people, with no consideration to whether the views you and I both find unacceptable actually belong to them. You're acting as if the entirety of "middle-America" are ALL bigots. How is this materially any different from collectively deriding all people of middle eastern descent as terrorists or terror supporters? I mean, if they were not supportive of terrorism, they'd leave those countries, right? Or at least attack their terrorist neighbors, right? If it's perfectly acceptable to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from Trump is a bigot/bigot supporter, then it's equally valid to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from muslims is a terrorist/terror-supporter.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

18th November 2016, 12:23 PM	#894
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by luchog Yes, you shold be free to prostitute yourself how you wish. You should not be free to create and environment where people feel that doing so is necessary to their personal well-being. Do you honestly think that a corporate environment based on sexual availability is in any way as desirable, ethically or economically, than one based on merit? "Merit" is itself a value judgment and variable. You will hear jargon like "team player" or "self starter" bandied about as if they had independent, observable meaning. They have replaced such notions as "easy on the eyes," but they are value judgements none the less. Besides, these things are not swapped in and out as replacements - it is perfectly possible to be both a good lawyer and a good looking lawyer, someone who answers the phone and someone who answers the phone and displays cleavage. In a competitive workplace, I fully expect some might leverage their desirability to gain on their peers. This would be true for other attributes as well. If I can tell a good joke to please the boss, I might as well. Who knows what's going to be in his mind when it's time to trim the budget? Quote: The fact that you're unable to see the profound difference between those two conditions pretty much negates any chance you'll understand why the latter is far, far more damaging to both corporate and overall social cultre than the former. Would it truly be that difficult to find countries where sexual mores differ but where corporations manage to succeed? I'm not well informed on this, but I seem to recall Japan ballooning economically while retaining very strict gender roles. The point isn't that how we treat each other doesn't matter, the point is that it doesn't have to rise to the level of a significant driver of profits. Quote: Which is a pointless truism in one part, and outright wrong in the other. You're committing a Middle Ground Fallacy here; as well as engaging in a Special Pleading Fallacy. Edge cases in this scenario simply do not need to exist, as this is not a complicated ethical dilemma, but one of the few that has clear demarcations of right and wrong. If you believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then you have to have a clear line regarding the acceptability of making employment and reward decision based on non-job-performance factors such as race, religion, gender, sexual availability, familial status, or appearance. The fact that some people still make job decisions based on non-job-performance factors does not make these "borderline cases", it simply makes them ethical violations that happen to occur despite the undesirability of such cases. Here we might depart ways if you are an ethical objectivist, since I am a relativist. It is not apparent to me that there is a clear line in these matters, and I have seen standards change over time. Quote: If you absolutely cannot survive without a sexual relationship with someone you have that much power over, the ethical thing to do would be to remove yourself from that position of power before making advances; not engage in special pleading to try and convince yourself and others that this is a borderline case that should be tolerated. Likewise if you absolutely need to have sex with someone in a position of authority over you, then the ethical thing to do would be to move to a different position where that power imbalance no longer exists, rather than, again, committing a special pleading fallacy and by doing so contribute to creating an environment where sexual availability becomes a significant factor in job decisions. I think you've overlooked the power relationship inherent in sexual congress itself. To be consistent, it seems you'd have to deny there are always conflicting evaluations and asymmetries. Even when we access our own mental states, we sometimes find internal struggles and confusion. But as to power, the term denotes asymmetry. To hold power over someone is to (at least partly) control them. I don't think you can escape such relationships and still deal with your fellow men. Quote: Of course, if you do not believe in equality of opportunity and meritocracy, then all bets are off, and you'll have the live with the culture you help create. I actually do think equality of opportunity and meritocracy are the way to go, it's just that I refuse to believe in a cartoon version without the complexities of actual human behavior. There are men and women who exploit their beauty, who use sex to gain advantage, and there are others who use other tools to get what they want. Some of those tools are illegal and should be. But so long as we allow people to make their own choices as to what they will allow with their bodies, some of those people will make choices we disagree with. There will always be borderline cases and gray areas because of the variability across the population. I cannot both be desirous of setting my own limits on what is acceptable and then deny that ability to others - at least I can't do that and say I want people to be free to make their own decisions.

18th November 2016, 12:49 PM	#895
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Fine. I'll take this opportunity to point out that you're broad-brushing a bunch of people, with no consideration to whether the views you and I both find unacceptable actually belong to them. You're acting as if the entirety of "middle-America" are ALL bigots. Nope, again that's your strawman, not what I said. When you're willing to discuss what I'm actually saying, I'll be happy to continue the debate, until then, I see absolutely no point. Quote: If it's perfectly acceptable to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from Trump is a bigot/bigot supporter, then it's equally valid to assume that anyone who doesn't completely distance themselves from muslims is a terrorist/terror-supporter. That's about the most ridiculous thing you've posted so far. Congratulations! For anyone more reasonable, anyone who supports Trump is by definition is a bigot supporter, because Trump is a proudly declared bigot. Lots of us have distanced ourselves from Trump and do not support him, so we're not supporting his bigotry, by definition. We're talking about people who supported Trump, in case you've forgotten. Try again, with better reading comprehension this time.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won. Last edited by luchog; 18th November 2016 at 01:01 PM.

18th November 2016, 12:53 PM	#896
Arcade22 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 6,823	Quote: Islam is a political ideology. It is a political ideology. It definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion. And I have a very, very tough time because I don’t see a lot of people screaming ‘Jesus Christ’ with hatchets or machetes or rifles shooting up clubs or hatcheting, literally axing families on a train, or like they just killed a couple of police officers with a machete. It’s unbelievable. So we have a problem. It’s like cancer. You know, I’ve gone through cancer in my own life. So it’s like cancer. And it’s a like a malignant cancer, though, in this case. It has metastasized. Looks like Michael Flynn, Trumps pick for his national security advisor, is a really sensible, moderate and reasonable person. Of course he's not prejudiced or even outright islamaphobic
	__________________ We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann Last edited by Arcade22; 18th November 2016 at 12:57 PM.

18th November 2016, 12:57 PM	#897
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by marplots "Merit" is itself a value judgment and variable. So? The fact that it's variable means nothing. Different jobs have different requirements and performance standards. People can still be judged on their ability to meet those requirements and performance standards. Quote: You will hear jargon like "team player" or "self starter" bandied about as if they had independent, observable meaning. Actually, they can be, to some extent, observable. To the extent they can't, they've nothing to do with merit, only personal preference. Quote: They have replaced such notions as "easy on the eyes," No, they haven't. The fact that you can equate the two means that you have no idea what they actually mean. Quote: In a competitive workplace, I fully expect some might leverage their desirability to gain on their peers. This would be true for other attributes as well. If I can tell a good joke to please the boss, I might as well. Who knows what's going to be in his mind when it's time to trim the budget? Which doesn't make it any less wrong to use that as a basis for judgement. The fact that unethical judgements exist does not make them less unethical, it just means that unethical judgements exist. Quote: Would it truly be that difficult to find countries where sexual mores differ but where corporations manage to succeed? I'm not well informed on this, but I seem to recall Japan ballooning economically while retaining very strict gender roles. The point isn't that how we treat each other doesn't matter, the point is that it doesn't have to rise to the level of a significant driver of profits. I addressed this. If all you care about is profitability for a tiny minority, then slavery and indentured servitude are quite effective for that, as demonstrated historically, and in modern sweatshop and prison labour systems. Have fun with that. Quote: Here we might depart ways if you are an ethical objectivist, Nope, not sure where you could even manage to get that from anything I've said. Quote: since I am a relativist. It is not apparent to me that there is a clear line in these matters, and I have seen standards change over time. Thus demonstrating both the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of relativism. Quote: I think you've overlooked the power relationship inherent in sexual congress itself. To be consistent, it seems you'd have to deny there are always conflicting evaluations and asymmetries. Even when we access our own mental states, we sometimes find internal struggles and confusion. No, this is nonsensical in any but the most hair-splitting academic context. Not going to bother addressing the rest of the post, since it was just more of the special pleading I pointed out earlier.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

18th November 2016, 01:05 PM	#898
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,732	Originally Posted by Argumemnon I use Twitter but only to get news from various commercial sites, music bands and NASA and the like without having to go through a list of 50 sites every morning. I didn't mean to suggest that Twitter users are deplorable (they are), but just to point out that reposting a 140 character tweet is not conducive to conversation.

18th November 2016, 01:11 PM	#899
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,732	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I think the question is, if there's not widespread suffering under Trump, then how will people realize that voting in an incompetent bigot is a bad thing. The worst possible scenario: Trump's policies harm certain groups (e.g. muslims), but the majority see him as a success, and see no reason to vote Trump (or a similar Candidate) again. Better scenario: Trumps policies harm everyone, people realize that voting for incompetent bigots is a bad thing all around and don't do that again. Yes, people suffer, but they actually learn something. I am not thrilled with this view, but I must agree. What might be good for the long-term health of the nation is that Trump is abysmal enough that we take future elections more seriously than we took this one. Just abysmal enough that he resigns or is impeached, but no worse. It's not pleasant to be hoping for a bad future for my nation.

18th November 2016, 01:11 PM	#900
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 22,906	Originally Posted by phiwum I didn't mean to suggest that Twitter users are deplorable (they are), but just to point out that reposting a 140 character tweet is not conducive to conversation. Can I just say I have never agreed with a post more in all of my time here. And I laughed out loud.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

18th November 2016, 01:13 PM	#901
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,732	Originally Posted by luchog Really? How is their acceptance of GLBTQ people? My experience with people in those regions is that it's pretty bad. Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"? Thanks.

18th November 2016, 01:14 PM	#902
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,770	Originally Posted by marplots Except the premise is that women may feel coerced into saying "yes" when they don't want to do those things. By requiring them to object you are right back where we started. As an aside, we need to seriously change the way movies and literature present these interactions, especially the wordless, romantic kiss. He leans forward, she leans forward. His eyes close, her eyes close. They are very close now, he can smell her perfume. She turns her face and lips upward. The lights are dim, the candles flicker. "Can I kiss you?" "Oh, yes!" "No, I mean in a totally unpressured way, unrelated to my physical dominance and our disparate incomes. Without any possibility for recompense, gifts or inducements, whether those be through employment, recommendation for employment, or any other goods or services." "Well, when you put it that way... no, I think your brother is actually more my type." "That cad? He would kiss you without asking first." "Exactly." No the premise is that a man admits to sexually assaulting women because he knows he can get away with it, there is no confusion here of some kind of implied consent he clearly stated he could and did assault women because he knew he could get away with it.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th November 2016, 01:18 PM	#903
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,770	Originally Posted by marplots I rub my wife's shoulders and scratch her back because I am coerced into doing it. She likes it, but it's emotional blackmail. She's taking advantage of my love for her and making me do things I probably wouldn't do if I didn't care so much about her. I'd actually feel much better about the deal if she ponied up some folding money... On a positive note, it turns out gays haven't ruined my marriage after all. And I suppose when you want to have sex with her if she says no you are like Trump and his lawyer and hold that a man can't rape his wife. Let me make it 100% clear I simply do not believe that you would do or say that, yet it would appear from your apparent confusion about Trump's confession of assaulting women you find understanding consent in such a situation confusing or difficult. You wouldn't and neither would the vast majority of people.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th November 2016, 01:20 PM	#904
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by luchog Nope, again that's your strawman, not what I said. When you're willing to discuss what I'm actually saying, I'll be happy to continue the debate, until then, I see absolutely no point. What part of this: Originally Posted by luchog I am fully aware of them, and I'm pointing out how you're setting them aside in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that roughly half of the country actively disagrees with you one one or more of those principles, in your rush to defend said people from being called bigots or ignorantly supportive of bigots, which they have clearly demonstrated themselves to be. We don't need to "understand" middle-America. We understand them far too well. The problem is that they do not, and in most cases will not, understand us. Do you think implies something other than that you believe all of middle-america to be bigots? Originally Posted by luchog That's about the most ridiculous thing you've posted so far. Congratulations! For anyone more reasonable, anyone who supports Trump is by definition is a bigot supporter, because Trump is a proudly declared bigot. Lots of us have distanced ourselves from Trump and do not support him, so we're not supporting his bigotry, by definition. We're talking about people who supported Trump, in case you've forgotten. Try again, with better reading comprehension this time. Yeah, no. Several people in this thread have repeated slandered anyone who voted third party as being "supportive of bigotry" too. It's been repeatedly implied (and even outright said if memory serves), that anyone who did not vote for Clinton was supporting bigotry.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

18th November 2016, 01:22 PM	#905
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by phiwum Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"? Thanks. When the acronym because some complicated that we can't remember what order they go in
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

18th November 2016, 01:22 PM	#906
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,732	Originally Posted by Darat And I suppose when you want to have sex with her if she says no you are like Trump and his lawyer and hold that a man can't rape his wife. Let me make it 100% clear I simply do not believe that you would do or say that, yet it would appear from your apparent confusion about Trump's confession of assaulting women you find understanding consent in such a situation confusing or difficult. You wouldn't and neither would the vast majority of people. With due respect, which Trump doesn't deserve, back in the day when this issue arose, it wasn't quite so obvious that a wedding ring was different than perpetual consent. I'm with you that this should've been obvious, but it was the responsibility of Trump's attorneys to pretend otherwise.

18th November 2016, 01:52 PM	#908
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat What part of this: Do you think implies something other than that you believe all of middle-america to be bigots? You quoted it, and you still can't read it? Little hint, read beyond the first highlighted word. Quote: Yeah, no. Several people in this thread have repeated slandered anyone who voted third party as being "supportive of bigotry" too. It's been repeatedly implied (and even outright said if memory serves), that anyone who did not vote for Clinton was supporting bigotry. And since I wasn't one of those, putting that on me is even more disingenuous than your usual in this thread. Though given your penchant for distortion displayed so far, I'm not going to accept that claim at face value either. Evidence? Although I can understand their point, especially in states where that may have made a difference between electing Clinton and electing Trump. Not saying it's right, but I understand it. Have you tried understanding their point of view, or just dismissed them because you hate all Clinton supporters.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

18th November 2016, 01:55 PM	#909
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by phiwum Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"? Originally Posted by Emily's Cat When the acronym because some complicated that we can't remember what order they go in I so apologize for frightfully offending people by rearranging letters in an acronym. Perhaps if you can point me to the appropriate standards agency documentation on the proper ordering of the letters I can be more politically-correct in the future. </sarcasm> - tagged for the irony-impaired. Do you all really not have anything better to whinge about?
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

18th November 2016, 01:55 PM	#910
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,265	Originally Posted by Meadmaker It's interesting to me that I had never seen the second paragraph of that quote. It totally changes the meaning. She said "half", but she was really drawing two categories, and I don't think she meant to express a size relationship of any kind. In a way, she was saying something almost exactly like what Emily's Cat has been saying. She is saying, "Sure, there are racists and sexists among Trump supporters, but they aren't all racist and sexist, and we have to reach out to those people who have reason to believe government has let them down." Yup. Context is (usually) everything.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

18th November 2016, 02:02 PM	#911
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat I think you guys are missing the probably-a-narcissist aspect of this. **I think that Trump is less likely to be a pig in order to exert his dominance and overpower another's will. I rather suspect he genuinely thinks that all women want him, and that his attentions to them are a gift. I doubt the idea that it might be unwanted ever entered his mind. Does anyone doubt he plays power games with men as well? Bet he does.

18th November 2016, 02:04 PM	#912
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 44,000	Trump doesn't have to be a good President. It's not like he's the one running the country anyway. I'd focus more on, pretty much every other guy around him on the House of Representatives, The Senate, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, that white supremacist guy whose name I forgot, Sarah Palin, etc.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

18th November 2016, 02:16 PM	#913
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 32,661	Originally Posted by phiwum Minor derail, but when and why did we decide to transpose the "L" and the "G"? Thanks. They got promoted.

18th November 2016, 02:24 PM	#914
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Statement By A.G. Schneiderman On $25 Million Settlement Agreement Reached In Trump University Case Quote: In 2013, my office sued Donald Trump for swindlingthousandsof innocent Americans out ofmillionsof dollars through a scheme known at Trump University. Donald Trump fought us every step of the way, filingbaseless charges and fruitless appeals and refusing to settle for even modest amounts of compensation for the victims of his phony university. Today, that all changes. Today's $25 million settlement agreement is a stunning reversal by Donald Trump and a major victory for the over 6,000 victims of his fraudulent university. I am pleased that under the terms of this settlement, every victim will receive restitution and that Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws.The victims of Trump University have waited years for today's result and I am pleased that their patience--and persistence--will be rewarded by this $25 million settlement.

18th November 2016, 02:39 PM	#915
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,352	Originally Posted by luchog You quoted it, and you still can't read it? Little hint, read beyond the first highlighted word. Oh yes, I see, you draw a really huge moral distinction between "bigots" and "ignorantly supportive of bigots". Go on then.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

18th November 2016, 02:43 PM	#916
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 47,154	Originally Posted by Stacko Statement By A.G. Schneiderman On $25 Million Settlement Agreement Reached In Trump University Case Buying his way out of trouble yet again. I wonder where the $25m came from? Trump Foundation?
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill