"Why can't we hate men?"

[Ziggurat]

And I still don't see how you get fascism out of all this.

I didn't say you get fascism out of all this. I said it lowers the barriers to fascism. Do you not understand the difference?

 

[phiwum]

I didn't bring up a counterfactual, I brought up what will happen in 2020. The GOP will almost certainly renominate Trump and the Dems won't nominate anyone who even looks like they might have a skeleton in their closet.

Do you disagree with that?

To be pedantic, of course you didn't raise a counterfactual, since it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, but she attacked Bill's victims.

"Trump said that Hillary Clinton "viciously" attacked women who accused Bill Clinton of abuse.

Bill Clinton certainly has been accused of sexual assault and having affairs. The record shows Hillary Clinton played a role in defending her husband, and that the Clintons’ first presidential campaign deployed tough tactics to defend against stories of consensual sex.

But in the cases of alleged abuse by Broaddrick, Willey and Jones, Hillary Clinton was largely silent. The words she allegedly had with Broaddrick are subject to interpretation. Approving the release of Willey’s letters does qualify as an attack, but using a person’s words against them is a fairly tame tactic. And Clinton did not attack Jones directly.

Overall, we rate the claim Mostly False."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/

I'm not wild about Trump endorsing Moore in the general, but you're misrepresenting events. From the start, Trump didn't want Moore to be the Republican candidate.

Breitbart was pushing Roy Moore and Trump's base nominated him over Strange (who you're right, Trump endorsed). THEN all the allegations came, the racist stuff about slavery was dug up, and the RNC and Trump still endorsed Moore. It was indefensible for the GOP to get behind someone like that. But they did.

Compared to Bill or Ted.



Senators don't all have the same clout, and the pressure to resign came from one with more clout than him. Weinstein lost a lot of clout when Hillary lost. I don't think the timing is coincidental. Nor do I think we'd even have this movement if Hillary had won, and not because people would behave any better.

Why was there pressure to begin with? Because the base saw those pictures. He couldn't survive in the #metoo era. There's nothing similar going on with the GOP. The GOP seems to invite moral cretins and racists to run for elections.

Not you personally. But you don't set the agenda. You aren't responsible for the exposure of anyone with clout.

The reason Franken resigned is because the Democratic base will not put up with sexual abusers anymore, not some smoke-filled room decision to stick it to Trump. There's just no way a Democrat with allegations against them will win a primary anymore. The GOP hasn't caught up to that, obviously.

You mock what you cannot comprehend. The point is not that his urges are any worse than anyone else's urges. The point is that it is naive to believe that your urges are better than anyone else's.

I don't believe mine are "better", I believe I'm in better control of them. I don't need my wife in the room when I'm with another woman.

So if you want to behave better, then a very effective way of achieving that goal is to consciously remove temptation. This isn't folly, it is wisdom.

That's good advice for recovering drug addicts. For married men? Being alone with a woman is so much temptation Pence feels he'll be helpless? THAT's what we're mocking. That's the same logic that makes the Taliban make women wear burkas: I can't trust myself so you better not tempt me!

Liberals who mock Pence fall into two categories. The first simply don't care about acting better. The second want to act better, but they imagine falsely that being liberal makes them better. Being liberal is by itself enough to ensure moral superiority. Countless examples of fallen liberals have proven this to be folly.

Pence understands human nature far better than you.

Uh huh.

 

[Ziggurat]

To be pedantic, of course you didn't raise a counterfactual, since it hasn't happened yet.

Actually, he did raise a counterfactual:

Do you think a Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy could get elected in today's Democrat party?

While Bill Clinton could in principle run for some office other than president, Ted Kennedy cannot run for any office ever again. So absent resurrection (which I feel comfortable dismissing), that is indeed a counterfactual.

 

[Fudbucker]

To be pedantic, of course you didn't raise a counterfactual, since it hasn't happened yet.

No, I didn't bring up Trump vs Bill 2016.

 

[Fudbucker]

Actually, he did raise a counterfactual:



While Bill Clinton could in principle run for some office other than president, Ted Kennedy cannot run for any office ever again. So absent resurrection (which I feel comfortable dismissing), that is indeed a counterfactual.

THAT is a counterfactual.

 

[Fudbucker]

I didn't say you get fascism out of all this. I said it lowers the barriers to fascism. Do you not understand the difference?

Ok, I still don't see how this lowers the barriers to fascism.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't believe mine are "better", I believe I'm in better control of them.

You are naive.

I don't need my wife in the room when I'm with another woman.

Neither does Pence.

That's good advice for recovering drug addicts. For married men? Being alone with a woman is so much temptation Pence feels he'll be helpless?

I doubt he feels that way at all.

THAT's what we're mocking.

Like I said, you mock what you don't understand. And I know you don't understand it because you cannot accurately describe it.

That's the same logic that makes the Taliban make women wear burkas: I can't trust myself so you better not tempt me!

It's not even remotely the same logic. The Taliban force others to change their behavior. Pence chooses to change his own. That you fail to recognize such a fundamental distinction proves once again that you simply have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, I still don't see how this lowers the barriers to fascism.

I already told you. Fascism requires placing group identity above individual identity. That isn't a sufficient condition for fascism, but it is a necessary condition.

Quotas and identity politics place group identity above individual identity.

 

[Fudbucker]

You are naive.

I think anyone who follows the "Bill Graham Rule" is very naive. That's why you only see these kinds of things pop up in religious people, who tend to have very naive black-and-white views about the world.

Neither does Pence.

Yes, he does. There are occasions where Pence says he will not be alone with a woman: in any room when they're eating together. As if eating is some gateway activity to rolling around on the food in wanton abandon.

I doubt he feels that way at all.

I think it's a lot like the Billy Graham rule, and the takeaway is obviously the temptation is so great only the presence of another person in the room is enough to stop the animal urges from erupting.

Like I said, you mock what you don't understand. And I know you don't understand it because you cannot accurately describe it.

I mock what is mockable. For Pence to feel the need to have another person present when he's eating with a woman is deserving of mockery.

It's not even remotely the same logic. The Taliban force others to change their behavior. Pence chooses to change his own. That you fail to recognize such a fundamental distinction proves once again that you simply have no idea what you're talking about here.

Of course it's the same logic: I don't trust myself to be alone around you. Now, there are a couple ways I could handle that: not to be alone around you, or to make whatever it is tempting about you go away. The Taliban chose the latter, but the motivation behind it is the same as Pence's.

 

[Fudbucker]

I already told you. Fascism requires placing group identity above individual identity. That isn't a sufficient condition for fascism, but it is a necessary condition.

Quotas and identity politics place group identity above individual identity.

I'm not even sure what this means. And anyway, we already have laws and court decisions that protect and grant rights to certain groups of people. That's not fascist in the least.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't have much comment about this whole fascism/identity politics line of thinking.

I do know that if we'd be opening a can of worms if one political faction or advocacy group instituted political or social change by an edict that subverted the free choice of the electorate. The way to hell is paved with good intentions. The same reasoning that could support gender quotas could be used to restrict or otherwise tamper with election choices and results.

Sure, institutional inertia means that the political body is slow to adapt to changing social norms. With time, I imagine the representation of women in politics will improve. Undercutting the electorate is not a prudent goal, even if it will help reach some state of equity more quickly.

Ask yourself this: Would you trust the current political class to restrict your pool of potential candidates? We don't live in a world of benevolent, wise leaders. Voters should be extremely hostile to anyone trying to limit the already small scope of their electoral power.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't have much comment about this whole fascism/identity politics line of thinking.

I do know that if we'd be opening a can of worms if one political faction or advocacy group instituted political or social change by an edict that subverted the free choice of the electorate. The way to hell is paved with good intentions. The same reasoning that could support gender quotas could be used to restrict or otherwise tamper with election choices and results.

Sure, institutional inertia means that the political body is slow to adapt to changing social norms. With time, I imagine the representation of women in politics will improve. Undercutting the electorate is not a prudent goal, even if it will help reach some state of equity more quickly.

Ask yourself this: Would you trust the current political class to restrict your pool of potential candidates? We don't live in a world of benevolent, wise leaders. Voters should be extremely hostile to anyone trying to limit the already small scope of their electoral power.

Very well said. That's why I'm against quotas, as things stand now. I wasn't at the start of this thread. I complain about how the forum isn't what it once was, and there's a lot of truth to that, but it's still one of the best places I know to bounce ideas off people.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Whoops!

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, he does. There are occasions where Pence says he will not be alone with a woman: in any room when they're eating together. As if eating is some gateway activity to rolling around on the food in wanton abandon.

This is an important qualifier. You left it off before. That was dishonest.

I think it's a lot like the Billy Graham rule, and the takeaway is obviously the temptation is so great only the presence of another person in the room is enough to stop the animal urges from erupting.

Again, no. You can't actually portray their position honestly.

Of course it's the same logic: I don't trust myself to be alone around you.

No. You are clueless. For the Taliban, if a woman dresses provocatively and you rape them because of that, you did nothing wrong. It's not about lack of trust, because the rapist hasn't sinned.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No. You are clueless. For the Taliban, if a woman dresses provocatively and you rape them because of that, you did nothing wrong. It's not about lack of trust, because the rapist hasn't sinned.

Cite for that? The Taliban were never terribly careful about adhering to Islamic traditional law (a source of friction between them and Al-Qaeda), so I wouldn't be terribly surprised, but I'd like to see your source.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not even sure what this means.

What are the primary determinants of your identity? Your individual characteristics, or the groups you belong to, particularly as a function of birth?

And anyway, we already have laws and court decisions that protect and grant rights to certain groups of people. That's not fascist in the least.

Not in all cases, but it certainly can be.

Most group rights enshrined by law are groups defined by actions, not birth: police, lawyers, politicians, etc.

For the most part, anti-discrimination laws do not protect groups, they protect classes. So for example, sex is a class. In many circumstances, you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex. But that doesn't actually protect groups. That protects individuals, regardless of which group they are in, for that class. Anti-discrimination laws of this sort don't just protect women, they protect men too. Men and women have the same rights under these laws.

About the only significant laws I can think of which really give one group of citizens more rights is the disabled. The logic of doing so is quite different than the logic of, say, protecting specifically women's rights.

 

[Fudbucker]

This is an important qualifier. You left it off before. That was dishonest.

Eating is an important qualifier? It's such an unimportant one I forgot about it entirely.

Again, no. You can't actually portray their position honestly.



No. You are clueless. For the Taliban, if a woman dresses provocatively and you rape them because of that, you did nothing wrong. It's not about lack of trust, because the rapist hasn't sinned.

The primary reason that women are required to swathe themselves in fabric, covering their collarbones necks, arms, legs, ankles, elbows, shoulders, throats, thighs, ears, the napes of their collarbones, necks, their hair and in some cases their faces, is because culturally, they are considered untrustworthy and immoral, condemned to the role of seductress. The fine shape of an ankle or tendril of hair are the tools of seduction. In essence, the veil, much lauded by so-called Islamic teachings, is a protection for men against us voracious vixens of the mortal world. Not, as so many pundits state, a protection for women against men.
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/burqas-reveal-more-about-men-than-women-20141020-118mce.html

I think that's accurate and we see it in the Billy Graham/Mike Pence rule: I can't resist these foul temptresses, so I can't be alone with them. Why else would you require your wife to be around you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for civility.

The primary reason that women are required to swathe themselves in fabric, covering their collarbones necks, arms, legs, ankles, elbows, shoulders, throats, thighs, ears, the napes of their collarbones, necks, their hair and in some cases their faces, is because culturally, they are considered untrustworthy and immoral, condemned to the role of seductress.

Exactly: the women are untrustworthy. Not the men.

This doesn't contradict my argument, it supports it. That you thought otherwise demonstrates yet again that you simply don't know what you're talking about here.

 

[pharphis]

She also never sexually harassed anyone, nor was she accused of it. We're talking about the men who actually do this stuff, not their wives.





He resigned for a reason: pressure. That kind of pressure simply doesn't exist on the GOP side. In fact, the pressure goes the opposite way: got someone who's been accused of preying on children? Saying families were better off under slavery? Then Trump's base will DEMAND you support that person, which the GOP and Trump did, to their everlasting shame.





Compared to who? He was a Senator of the U.S. Of course he had clout. #MeToo steamrolled over him. Weinstein had tremendous clout. Didn't help.





Seriously? You think people on the left like me only make an issue of sexual harassment to "knock Trump out"? You don't think we feel passionately about it because it's just plain wrong? Do you ever hang out with liberals? And Trump wasn't the catalyst for #metoo. It was a liberal Hollywood movie mogul.



They mocked him because he apparently can't trust himself to be alone in a room with another woman without his wife present. Just what kind of urges is this guy dealing with?

Was that his reason, though? That he can't control himself? I thought it was to protect himself from any possible questions (false allegations, lack of trust between him and his wife...).

Whether that's a reasonable precaution or not is a different question but it's not completely absurd to keep oneself out of danger. Lots of teachers have a similar policy with "no closed doors" around students