Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 306257 times)

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1732
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1550 on: April 29, 2018, 08:50:16 AM »
I think it is fairy unlikely anything related to the Russian interference with the election will affect Trump directly, either in office or as a private citizen afterward, legally speaking.  The exception would be if there are actual phone/email records that prove without doubt state of mind/intent of Trump planning on direct aid of some sort to Russia in trying to influence the election.  Like a payoff etc. 

On the other hand, obstruction of justice could nail  him.  Or, if he ever allows himself to be interviewed under oath (which I doubt his lawyers will allow), perjury.

He also might become prosecute-able under various laws for laundering money for Russians; or for campaign finance violations, etc.

However, I doubt any of these will result in him being indicted while in office, though he could certainly be in legal jeopardy afterward.  The exception would be the unlikely event that the Dems take both houses of Congress in November.  However, even then I doubt he will be impeached, let alone be kicked out of office.  And if Dems pursue impeachment in the House, with no chance of it going anywhere, I think they will actually drive UP Trump's popularity and the GOP vote in the next presidential election. Hell, the GOP is already running on this very idea to try to increase their voter turnout for the midterms!

Personally, I think the Dems should NOT pursue impeachment, even if they hold the House.

Trump will also pardon any of his family/close associates that get nailed in this investigation, but they at least might be gettable under state law.

I doubt Trump will resign, either. 

Basically, we need to boot him ourselves, as voters.  And hopefully any lawmakers that won't stand up to him.  Americans did this moronic shit to ourselves, and we are now suffering the consequences.  ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.  Hopefully we'll finally learn that politics is not a reality show, but I doubt it.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6980
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1551 on: April 29, 2018, 09:35:32 AM »
The exception would be if there are actual phone/email records that prove without doubt state of mind/intent of Trump planning on direct aid of some sort to Russia in trying to influence the election.  Like a payoff etc. 

The one thing the Russians kept asking for was an easing of sanctions.  The one thing Trump did when he became the nominee was change the party platform to remove those same sanctions.  That's what the Trump Tower meeting was about, too.

Trump gave them exactly the one thing they wanted to get in exchange for their help.  How is that not a "payoff"?

Of course, the President's power is somewhat limited and Congress eventually overturned him and restored the sanctions, over Trump's objections.  That doesn't change the fact that Trump engaged in a clear tit for tat exchange with a foreign power to sway an American election.  The question is not whether this happened, or whether it is illegal if you or I did it, the only question is whether it's still illegal when the President does it (or in this case, when the presidential nominee does it).

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8429
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1552 on: April 29, 2018, 11:03:04 AM »
The one thing Trump did when he became the nominee was change the party platform to remove those same sanctions.

Not according to either of these:
2016 RNC Delegate: Trump Directed Change To Party Platform On Ukraine Support : NPR:
Quote
The revision to Denman's proposed amendment to the Republican platform scaled back the party's position on pro-Western elements in Ukraine — from supporting supplying weapons for fighters there to a more general assistance.
Byron York: What really happened with the GOP platform and Russia
Quote
But that is not what happened. In fact, an already-tough portion of the Republican platform dealing with Russia was strengthened, not weakened, at the GOP convention. Here is what took place:

In short, both of those articles agree
- there was an existing party platform
- an amendment to the platform was proposed
- the amendment was accepted with some revisions.  It did not remove anything from the original platform.

See the articles for the anti- and pro-Trump spins.

Then, with background from the articles above, one can read Did Trump campaign soften platform language to benefit Russia? | PolitiFact and form one's own conclusions.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1553 on: April 29, 2018, 11:06:57 AM »
I heard Donny Boy was using his personal cell phone. Why isn't he reprimanded for that? I remember when Obama was elected he said the hardest thing for him was to give up his personal cell phone. Isn't this a threat to national security using his personal phone?

It depends on what was being discussed.  If he did discuss sensitive material it will be difficult for us to ever know, since that would have to be revealed. There does seem to be a double-standard though, partly because DJT has done so many outrageous things that a non-sanctioned cell phone is too far down the list for most people to care.

Quote
[quote author=Roadrunner53 link=topic=76231.msg1989434#msg1989434 date=1525011871
If Michael Cohen paid Stormy out of election funds, what do you think will happen? How would he have obtained the funds?
[/quote]

Cohen is in severe legal peril. The search warrant was issued specifically because Mueller had evidence showing that Cohen had broken the law - no warrant would have been issued otherwise.  I think a plea-bargain is imminent. A good sign that a plea-deal is in the works is when the subject goes completely silent.  Remember the month leading up the Flynn's plea-deal? He and his lawyers said virtually nothing.  In that light it's noteworthy that Cohen has been saying very little, and actually undercut DJT's assessment of the FBI 'kicking down his door' by saying everything was very professionally done and he was treated with respect. 
He knows Mueller has him by the balls, and he's weighing his options.

How could he have obtained the funds?  I think DJT will say he had unfettered access to some accounts and that Cohen did this without his knowledge - oh what a breach of trust - etc. Cohen is now a liability, and we've seen DJT already shrink away from him proclaiming that he dealt with only a very, very tiny portion of his legal affairs, that Cohen is primarily a businessmen.  As a businessman Cohen's actions would be his own, and not tied to his client (Trump).

Quote
Michael Cohen says he will plead the 5th. How will they conduct a court case if he won't tell the truth or spill the beans?
The same way all prosecutors build hteir cases - with evidence and testimony of people involved. Mueller raided his home and offices and took lots of digital files.  What did he find? Federal crimes go one of two ways - the defendant cops to the charges, often as part of a plea bargin OR they fight the charges and plead the 5th.

Ultimately though I think Cohen will cut a plea-deal.  He might be willing to go to jail for a year or two, but he could be looking at over a decade if there's multiple counts of tax fraud, campaign finance violations and whatever else he's been up to. I doubt he'll decide that spending the rest of his 50s (he's 51) behind bars would be worth staying mum.  To be sure he'll do what he can to not implicate DJT (and hope for a pardon) but when push comes to shove he's a guy from an upper-middle class background that is accustomed to redonkulous luxury and the idea of being incarcerated for even a few months must be terrifying to him.  In his mind he's weighing the likelihood of going to jail until he's an old man with the certainty of a much reduced sentence, one where he could still spend most of his life free and probably still a wealthy man.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1554 on: April 29, 2018, 11:13:45 AM »
Very good synopsis nereo! Food for thought for sure!

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1555 on: April 30, 2018, 01:29:05 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no allowed to have. You may say that everything is not 50:50 and that is what you will call equality. I don't agree with that. How do you get there? Why? Is it important to have 50:50 in every field? Garbage collection? Construction? Nursing? What policies and practices would you institute to make sure you get that 50:50 equality everywhere? Something like google, practicing illegal hiring practices to hire more women?

Then we have a good example of self segregation above, not allowing someone to comment or have ideas because of the person's race. Did you see what happened at evergreen state when a professor said the same thing, that your participation in the race conversation shouldn't be based on your skin color? I have a mexican friend that was really into socialism and social justice. He attended a black lives matter protest and wasn't allowed in the building because of his skin color. He told me from that point on he was done with BLM. My black friends do not agree with BLM either. As black people that opinion is not popular, paradoxically mostly with whites. 

In regards to the boy scout thing I just think it is sad where we don't have a place for boys to learn how to be men. To have male role models to help them grow into healthy male adults. In this day and age it is ok to have women/girl only groups but not boy/male only groups. Many boys grow up without a father and scouts is a good way to find male role models and learn about what it is to be a man. Do you not think that is important?

In my view men and women are not the same. We are not equal. We both have our strengths and weaknesses and luckily those strengths and weaknesses work together beautifully to make us stronger as a whole. I know that is not a popular opinion but that's what I think.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2925
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1556 on: April 30, 2018, 01:34:38 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no[t] allowed to have.

What do you mean "not allowed to have"? You have that opinion. Will you be fined for having that opinion? Jailed by the authorities?

Or do you just want to be free of critiques and criticism?

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1557 on: April 30, 2018, 01:47:00 PM »

I really think that we are so much worse off than in the past, and it is not because there is more oppression than in the past. We are now becoming more tribal, self segregating, and self policing. I am of the opinion that the thought police have been running rampant these days. No it is not an external force, it is in your head. It's that voice that tells you not to think or say that certain "bad" or "immoral" thought.

I'm curious why you think things are so much worse now than in the past.  From my perspective there isn't another decade in history where I think 'we' (those of us in developed nations) have had it better off.

As for external voices (I'm asuming you mean 'other people' and not an alternate personality?) telling you not to say bad or immoral things, how has is this different from other points in history and why do you consider it a bad thing?

I certainly think that we have a better standard of living than the past and less crime too. It's just as i said, i think we are worse off because now we are self segregating into identity groups, and I don't personally think that can lead anywhere good. The narrative of oppressor/oppressed can be and has been used in the past to justify great atrocities. Some say we know better this time, yeah right.

Can you please elaborate a bit on these thoughts?  Specifically:
- When has simply being aware and mindful of existing oppression (and the people who are oppressed) ever been used to justify a great atrocity?  I can think of many things that have come out of this (women's rights, an end to slavery, gay rights, transgender rights, etc.) but not too many atrocities.
It's not just that though. For example college campuses are having re-education programs for males to unlearn rape and violence. What if you said any other gender or race was innately violent?
- In what way are you seeing people self-segregate?  The group of people I work with daily is quite diverse culturally, ethnically, religiously, and in sexual orientation.  The same with my close group of friends.  In fact, the city I live in is incredibly diverse.
Self segregating into identity groups, and the weight of your opinion is based on which identity group you belong. diversity is one thing, self segregating into identity groups to define where you are on the oppression scale is wrong, IMO.

Just try and have a conversation with someone possessed by the oppressor/oppressed ideology. You can't because you will be labeled a racist, misogynist, mansplainer, privileged, and so on, people will shut down the conversation.

I'm not sure what the oppressor/opressed ideology that you're referring to means exactly.  I've had many conversations with a wide variety of people and never been labeled a racist, misogynist, or mansplainer.  If this is happening often to you, maybe it's your approach that is leading all these people to react that way to what you say.  I do recognize that as a straight white middle-class guy I am privileged in many ways - not because people told me so . . . but because it's self-evident from research done on wages, hiring practices, world average wages/living standards, etc.
You are illustrating my point above. You are self segregating into your identity group and qualifying your opinion based on that group. Also see how I cannot disagree with letting girls into boy scouts without not understanding history, that women are oppressed, etc. In reality I am thinking more of the loss to boys than anything to do with girls. Maybe that makes me sexist. But again, that would illustrate my point 


I opposed letting girls into the boy scouts and was having a debate with a friend. She said it was good for girls because historically girls have been oppressed, and at least I can agree that women are oppressed. I said I did not agree with that and she shut down the conversation stating she can't continue it if I don't admit that women are oppressed, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

While things are certainly much better than they were in the 60s, which was still better than things were in the 20s, it's very evident that women are not currently treated equally as men in the United States:
- How many women have been president?  How many men?
Is it only equality until we are 50:50?
- What percentage of people in congress are women?  What percentage of people in the country are women?
Again, is it only equality when we have 50:50
- Men are given full autonomy over their bodies in all situations.  Are women?
Male circumcision. No male birth control pill.
- How often are women raped in comparison to men?
Hard to say since when a man is raped it is called "forced penetration" in the stats instead of rape. This is a criminal justice issue though, rather than one of oppression. If more men commit suicide than women do we need to make that 50:50 too? What about deaths on the job which is currenlty around 11:1 men:women. Make that equal too?
- Do women make the same amount as men when doing the same job?
In general yes, but there tends to be a 2-5% difference with men getting paid more. This has to do with negotiations and assertiveness more than anything. My coworker that was hired 8 months before me makes less than me, but I negotiated a higher salary and he didn't, we do the same job. I guess if he was a woman he could claim oppression, but since he is male he is SOL. or he could have just tried to negotiate a higher salary.

It's difficult for many to look at the answers to the above questions and then argue that they're all just a coincidence.  It seems more likely that there's some fundamental disparity still going on.

Except what you are describing above is equality of outcome, which I do not agree with.


Another example is when a black man is not allowed to have an opinion that he "shouldn't" have, such as kanye liking trump, blacks are supposed to be democrats don't you know.

So, to show how black men are not allowed to have opinions that they shouldn't . . . you give an example of a black man who has an opinion that (you allege) he shouldn't?  :P  Can you show an actual example of what you're talking about here?

It is exactly what I said, kayne cannot have an opinion of his own if it goes against "his People". In addition to that my black friends do not agree with BLM or equality of outcome for any race or gender. They also do not agree with affirmative action. Those are not a popular opinions for them to have as blacks among white people.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1558 on: April 30, 2018, 01:48:59 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no[t] allowed to have.

What do you mean "not allowed to have"? You have that opinion. Will you be fined for having that opinion? Jailed by the authorities?

Or do you just want to be free of critiques and criticism?

Ostracized by society, lose friends, lose job, refusal to debate, etc. It happens.   

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2925
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1559 on: April 30, 2018, 01:54:05 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no[t] allowed to have.

What do you mean "not allowed to have"? You have that opinion. Will you be fined for having that opinion? Jailed by the authorities?

Or do you just want to be free of critiques and criticism?

Ostracized by society, lose friends, lose job, refusal to debate, etc. It happens.   

But you still have that opinion. There are plenty of iconoclasts that have radical ideas and thoughts. That's what happens when your ideas aren't popular.

I'm not sure what you're proposing as a solution? Relativism? No debating at all in case someone criticizes a firmly held belief?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2925
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1560 on: April 30, 2018, 02:00:59 PM »
It is exactly what I said, kayne cannot have an opinion of his own if it goes against "his People". In addition to that my black friends do not agree with BLM or equality of outcome for any race or gender. They also do not agree with affirmative action. Those are not a popular opinions for them to have as blacks among white people.

?? Kanya has an opinion of his own. He even has a popular platform for his opinions -- he wrote a song about it and has tweeted about it numerous times.

A lot of people don't like his opinion but he still has it.

What are you suggesting? Everyone agree that he's right because he's a black man that disagrees with others?

What are you, a nancy-pancy "flowers-and-love-solve-everything" socialist? ;)

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1561 on: April 30, 2018, 02:07:06 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no[t] allowed to have.

What do you mean "not allowed to have"? You have that opinion. Will you be fined for having that opinion? Jailed by the authorities?

Or do you just want to be free of critiques and criticism?

Ostracized by society, lose friends, lose job, refusal to debate, etc. It happens.   

But you still have that opinion. There are plenty of iconoclasts that have radical ideas and thoughts. That's what happens when your ideas aren't popular.

I'm not sure what you're proposing as a solution? Relativism? No debating at all in case someone criticizes a firmly held belief?

I have no solution except that in your quest to become woke and open minded don't become more close minded. The true sign of intelligence is to be able to hold conflicting ideas in your head and reach your own conclusion.

Unfortunately it seems to be going towards your last question, people will not debate if you criticize a popular belief, in the case with the boy scouts my friend wouldn't continue the debate unless I said that women are currently oppressed. She never actually gave any good logical reason for letting girls into scouts other than it makes her happy and women are oppressed. It is interesting to see someone so possessed with their ideology that they just spout off the buzz words and there is no original thought in their head. They don't have the mental capacity to take the conversation outside of their already defined moral truth.

erutio

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1562 on: April 30, 2018, 02:10:17 PM »
so..taking this off topic thread back on topic, anyone think Trump really has a chance for the Nobel peace prize?

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1563 on: April 30, 2018, 02:14:22 PM »
It is exactly what I said, kayne cannot have an opinion of his own if it goes against "his People". In addition to that my black friends do not agree with BLM or equality of outcome for any race or gender. They also do not agree with affirmative action. Those are not a popular opinions for them to have as blacks among white people.

?? Kanya has an opinion of his own. He even has a popular platform for his opinions -- he wrote a song about it and has tweeted about it numerous times.

A lot of people don't like his opinion but he still has it.

What are you suggesting? Everyone agree that he's right because he's a black man that disagrees with others?

What are you, a nancy-pancy "flowers-and-love-solve-everything" socialist? ;)

Well I am certainly of the opinion that no one is all good or all bad. I just find it crazy that people flip their shit when he says that he likes trump but doesn't agree with everything that he does. That's a very rational position to take, that you can judge someone by their individual actions instead of labeling them all good or all bad. That level of grey thinking is not common in our black and white world.

I agree with Morgan Freeman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcLj2CVC1VU

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1564 on: April 30, 2018, 02:16:28 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no[t] allowed to have.

What do you mean "not allowed to have"? You have that opinion. Will you be fined for having that opinion? Jailed by the authorities?

Or do you just want to be free of critiques and criticism?

Ostracized by society, lose friends, lose job, refusal to debate, etc. It happens.   

But you still have that opinion. There are plenty of iconoclasts that have radical ideas and thoughts. That's what happens when your ideas aren't popular.

I'm not sure what you're proposing as a solution? Relativism? No debating at all in case someone criticizes a firmly held belief?

I'm not sure Kanye is an ideal anecdote for any of us for any reason, but it turns out that he is still rich, not arrested, is still married, AND has even not lost his friends.  John Legend sent him some pretty darn loving and respectful text messages that were models of civil debate, and it was poor victimized Yeezy himself who rudely shut that shit down by accusing Legend of trying to manipulate him and who blasted their private exchange all over social media.  To top it off, John and Crissy then socialized with him a few days later.  So, um, Kanye is doing just fine.  If Kanye is your worst case scenario for how the left doesn't allow anyone to dissent, I'm unconvinced.

No one is arguing that there are no consequences to having unpopular opinions. You can lose friends and even jobs. But having people be mean to you because you voted for Trump is not some kind of tragic oppression that we should all build museums and memorials about.  And when you say it's just as bad as other types of oppression, or that things are so much worse for poor poor conservatives than they ever were for minorities, or that you kind of don't believe that minorities were even oppressed at all but oppression of Trump voters is definitely real, it makes it sound like you only care about the kind of oppression that might touch you one day.

So I agree that it's hard out there for a Trump voter.  But not that hard.


 

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1565 on: April 30, 2018, 02:20:20 PM »
so..taking this off topic thread back on topic, anyone think Trump really has a chance for the Nobel peace prize?


Some really shitty people have gotten the Nobel in the past, and Trump wouldn't even be the worst of them! 

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1566 on: April 30, 2018, 02:21:15 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no[t] allowed to have.

What do you mean "not allowed to have"? You have that opinion. Will you be fined for having that opinion? Jailed by the authorities?

Or do you just want to be free of critiques and criticism?

Ostracized by society, lose friends, lose job, refusal to debate, etc. It happens.   

But you still have that opinion. There are plenty of iconoclasts that have radical ideas and thoughts. That's what happens when your ideas aren't popular.

I'm not sure what you're proposing as a solution? Relativism? No debating at all in case someone criticizes a firmly held belief?

I'm not sure Kanye is an ideal anecdote for any of us for any reason, but it turns out that he is still rich, not arrested, is still married, AND has even not lost his friends.  John Legend sent him some pretty darn loving and respectful text messages that were models of civil debate, and it was poor victimized Yeezy himself who rudely shut that shit down by accusing Legend of trying to manipulate him and who blasted their private exchange all over social media.  To top it off, John and Crissy then socialized with him a few days later.  So, um, Kanye is doing just fine.  If Kanye is your worst case scenario for how the left doesn't allow anyone to dissent, I'm unconvinced.

No one is arguing that there are no consequences to having unpopular opinions. You can lose friends and even jobs. But having people be mean to you because you voted for Trump is not some kind of tragic oppression that we should all build museums and memorials about.  And when you say it's just as bad as other types of oppression, or that things are so much worse for poor poor conservatives than they ever were for minorities, or that you kind of don't believe that minorities were even oppressed at all but oppression of Trump voters is definitely real, it makes it sound like you only care about the kind of oppression that might touch you one day.

So I agree that it's hard out there for a Trump voter.  But not that hard.

IDk what you are talking about because I never said any of that.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1567 on: April 30, 2018, 02:38:41 PM »
No, i do not think women are currently oppressed in our society. Yes, historically they have been oppressed, but i do not think that is the case today. That is a good example of a thought or opinion you are no allowed to have. You may say that everything is not 50:50 and that is what you will call equality. I don't agree with that. How do you get there? Why? Is it important to have 50:50 in every field? Garbage collection? Construction? Nursing? What policies and practices would you institute to make sure you get that 50:50 equality everywhere? Something like google, practicing illegal hiring practices to hire more women?

Then we have a good example of self segregation above, not allowing someone to comment or have ideas because of the person's race. Did you see what happened at evergreen state when a professor said the same thing, that your participation in the race conversation shouldn't be based on your skin color? I have a mexican friend that was really into socialism and social justice. He attended a black lives matter protest and wasn't allowed in the building because of his skin color. He told me from that point on he was done with BLM. My black friends do not agree with BLM either. As black people that opinion is not popular, paradoxically mostly with whites. 

In regards to the boy scout thing I just think it is sad where we don't have a place for boys to learn how to be men. To have male role models to help them grow into healthy male adults. In this day and age it is ok to have women/girl only groups but not boy/male only groups. Many boys grow up without a father and scouts is a good way to find male role models and learn about what it is to be a man. Do you not think that is important?

In my view men and women are not the same. We are not equal. We both have our strengths and weaknesses and luckily those strengths and weaknesses work together beautifully to make us stronger as a whole. I know that is not a popular opinion but that's what I think.

I think you're making some incorrect assumptions here. You state that you know this isn't a popular opinion but I don't think that's true. I for one agree with the bolded statement. Your opinion that women are not oppressed on the other hand, you're right, that's an unpopular opinion on the forums as far as I can tell and for good reason.

I think when you hear equality, you're turning it into men=women but I don't think that's what is meant (by most people). I think any reasonable person acknowledges men and women deal with different challenges and want different things in life (statistically speaking). When I hear equality, it's about equal rights and opportunity. Not making sure women are equally represented in every occupation, but that they have the opportunity. Figuring out how to achieve this is a difficult path, and there will inevitably be overeager supporters/detractors and missteps in the process.

As for your friend who shut the conversation down based on your opinion, I think she was in the wrong and that she should have discussed with you why you felt that way. In her defense it can be a frustrating topic to discuss and not knowing either of your demeanors it may have been an emotionally difficult conversation for her.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11547
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1568 on: April 30, 2018, 02:50:37 PM »

I really think that we are so much worse off than in the past, and it is not because there is more oppression than in the past. We are now becoming more tribal, self segregating, and self policing. I am of the opinion that the thought police have been running rampant these days. No it is not an external force, it is in your head. It's that voice that tells you not to think or say that certain "bad" or "immoral" thought.

I'm curious why you think things are so much worse now than in the past.  From my perspective there isn't another decade in history where I think 'we' (those of us in developed nations) have had it better off.

As for external voices (I'm asuming you mean 'other people' and not an alternate personality?) telling you not to say bad or immoral things, how has is this different from other points in history and why do you consider it a bad thing?

I certainly think that we have a better standard of living than the past and less crime too. It's just as i said, i think we are worse off because now we are self segregating into identity groups, and I don't personally think that can lead anywhere good. The narrative of oppressor/oppressed can be and has been used in the past to justify great atrocities. Some say we know better this time, yeah right.

Can you please elaborate a bit on these thoughts?  Specifically:
- When has simply being aware and mindful of existing oppression (and the people who are oppressed) ever been used to justify a great atrocity?  I can think of many things that have come out of this (women's rights, an end to slavery, gay rights, transgender rights, etc.) but not too many atrocities.
It's not just that though. For example college campuses are having re-education programs for males to unlearn rape and violence. What if you said any other gender or race was innately violent?

I'm not familiar with these 're-education programs' you're referring to.  These are required programs only aimed at men?  Can you provide some examples?


- In what way are you seeing people self-segregate?  The group of people I work with daily is quite diverse culturally, ethnically, religiously, and in sexual orientation.  The same with my close group of friends.  In fact, the city I live in is incredibly diverse.
Self segregating into identity groups, and the weight of your opinion is based on which identity group you belong. diversity is one thing, self segregating into identity groups to define where you are on the oppression scale is wrong, IMO.

I don't understand the terminology you're using.  What do you consider an identity group, if not sex/race/ethnic/cultural/religious background?  There's very little segregation along those lines occurring in my daily life.


Just try and have a conversation with someone possessed by the oppressor/oppressed ideology. You can't because you will be labeled a racist, misogynist, mansplainer, privileged, and so on, people will shut down the conversation.

I'm not sure what the oppressor/opressed ideology that you're referring to means exactly.  I've had many conversations with a wide variety of people and never been labeled a racist, misogynist, or mansplainer.  If this is happening often to you, maybe it's your approach that is leading all these people to react that way to what you say.  I do recognize that as a straight white middle-class guy I am privileged in many ways - not because people told me so . . . but because it's self-evident from research done on wages, hiring practices, world average wages/living standards, etc.
You are illustrating my point above. You are self segregating into your identity group and qualifying your opinion based on that group. Also see how I cannot disagree with letting girls into boy scouts without not understanding history, that women are oppressed, etc. In reality I am thinking more of the loss to boys than anything to do with girls. Maybe that makes me sexist. But again, that would illustrate my point 

In what way am I segregating?  I'm acknowledging the fact of my sex and ethnicity.  As an example, my best friend is a guy from Trinidad who I met in university.  I didn't have a car, so was always bumming rides with him to places.  When I started driving around with him I pretty quickly realized how differently a middle class black guy gets treated by the police than a white guy.  It was eye opening, and really proved to me why it's important to acknowledge those differences - because they are real and evident.  I'm qualifying my opinion based on my personal experiences, and the research I've done into the issue . . . not because I happen to be a straight white guy.


I opposed letting girls into the boy scouts and was having a debate with a friend. She said it was good for girls because historically girls have been oppressed, and at least I can agree that women are oppressed. I said I did not agree with that and she shut down the conversation stating she can't continue it if I don't admit that women are oppressed, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

While things are certainly much better than they were in the 60s, which was still better than things were in the 20s, it's very evident that women are not currently treated equally as men in the United States:
- How many women have been president?  How many men?
Is it only equality until we are 50:50?

No.  It's reasonable to believe that when 100% of women have been denied a position, it's a likely indicator of inequality though.

- What percentage of people in congress are women?  What percentage of people in the country are women?
Again, is it only equality when we have 50:50

And again, no.  However, it's reasonable to believe that when 54% of the people in a country are female and only 19% are elected to congress it's a likely indicator of inequality.

- Men are given full autonomy over their bodies in all situations.  Are women?
Male circumcision. No male birth control pill.

As far as I'm aware, few (zero?) male circumcisions are performed on adult men against their wishes.  Many procedures are performed on children by parents including body mutilations (ear piercing on young girls is relatively common for example).

Male birth control pills are hopefully coming soon.  (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/health/male-birth-control-pill-study/index.html)  It's not that scientists were attempting to deny men the pill, they're a more technically complex problem than female birth control was.

- How often are women raped in comparison to men?
Hard to say since when a man is raped it is called "forced penetration" in the stats instead of rape. This is a criminal justice issue though, rather than one of oppression. If more men commit suicide than women do we need to make that 50:50 too? What about deaths on the job which is currenlty around 11:1 men:women. Make that equal too?

Tally up the numbers for rape then.  In every study I've seen, it shows that women are raped by men orders of magnitude more than men raped by women.

If more men are committing suicide than women, then we should probably provide extra support to men to try and reduce that number.  If work situations are less safe for men than women, then yes . . . they should be improved as well.  This is self-evident . . . not controversial, isn't it?


- Do women make the same amount as men when doing the same job?
In general yes, but there tends to be a 2-5% difference with men getting paid more. This has to do with negotiations and assertiveness more than anything. My coworker that was hired 8 months before me makes less than me, but I negotiated a higher salary and he didn't, we do the same job. I guess if he was a woman he could claim oppression, but since he is male he is SOL. or he could have just tried to negotiate a higher salary.

Ah.  So you believe that women are paid less because they're inferior negotiators.  Do you believe that this is entirely due to their ovaries, or maybe that a lifetime of gendered expectations has resulted in this situation?


It's difficult for many to look at the answers to the above questions and then argue that they're all just a coincidence.  It seems more likely that there's some fundamental disparity still going on.

Except what you are describing above is equality of outcome, which I do not agree with.

If you fundamentally believe that people are predisposed to inferiority/superiority because of sex, sexual orientation, religion, or race then equality in work conditions, sexual assaults, job availability, etc. will be impossible to achieve.  The thing is, that's the same argument that was used to keep black slaves.  It's the same argument that was used to persecute the Jews.  It was the same argument used to suppress women voters.  If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need some pretty strong supporting evidence that the assumption you're making is correct.


Another example is when a black man is not allowed to have an opinion that he "shouldn't" have, such as kanye liking trump, blacks are supposed to be democrats don't you know.

Quote
So, to show how black men are not allowed to have opinions that they shouldn't . . . you give an example of a black man who has an opinion that (you allege) he shouldn't?  :P  Can you show an actual example of what you're talking about here?

It is exactly what I said, kayne cannot have an opinion of his own if it goes against "his People". In addition to that my black friends do not agree with BLM or equality of outcome for any race or gender. They also do not agree with affirmative action. Those are not a popular opinions for them to have as blacks among white people.

Kanye felt comfortable enough to freely voice his own opinion publicly.  He has experienced no state issued sanction, no persecution by people in power.  If your 'black friends' don't agree with BLM or affirmative action, they can freely voice their own opinions too.  An opinion doesn't have to be popular to be voiced.

What exactly is the problem that you're referring to?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 02:58:09 PM by GuitarStv »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2925
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1569 on: April 30, 2018, 03:03:02 PM »
Back to our main topic...Trump and what his Presidency means

McCain will not run again, which gives us 2 AZ Senate seats without an incumbent. More importantly, it means that a Trump-like candidate, like Arpaio, has a decent chance of winning the primary for one of these open seats.

Given the Democrat's history against bat-shit or scandal-ridden Republicans, there's a fair chance that one of these seats will flip.

There are a few missing puzzle pieces but the Senate could be in play.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1570 on: April 30, 2018, 03:07:18 PM »

No one is arguing that there are no consequences to having unpopular opinions. You can lose friends and even jobs. But having people be mean to you because you voted for Trump is not some kind of tragic oppression that we should all build museums and memorials about.  And when you say it's just as bad as other types of oppression, or that things are so much worse for poor poor conservatives than they ever were for minorities, or that you kind of don't believe that minorities were even oppressed at all but oppression of Trump voters is definitely real, it makes it sound like you only care about the kind of oppression that might touch you one day.

So I agree that it's hard out there for a Trump voter.  But not that hard.

IDk what you are talking about because I never said any of that.
[/quote]

Yes, I apologize.  You specifically said that there's not more oppression than in the past.  But you also said that we are so much worse off.  That really rubbed me the wrong way.  I think that we are hugely better off.  I think it's really just the part about being worse off than in past that I have any problem with in your below statement.  I think everything you said is true that came after it (well, not the thought police part).  Sure, we aren't perfect.  But ideological segregation by choice is just loads better than racial segregation codified into law.  So, all in all, progress.


I really think that we are so much worse off than in the past, and it is not because there is more oppression than in the past. We are now becoming more tribal, self segregating, and self policing. I am of the opinion that the thought police have been running rampant these days. No it is not an external force, it is in your head. It's that voice that tells you not to think or say that certain "bad" or "immoral" thought.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1571 on: April 30, 2018, 03:51:06 PM »
We want legal equality, not biological equality or necessarily outcomes, unless the difference in outcomes is due to discrimination. 100% of pregnancy related deaths are women. According to your comments Zoltani, women should be lobbying for 50/50 pregnancy/labor-related mortality? 

And as far as women being oppressed, that has been the case for thousands of years. It has only been relatively recent that things have changed. The 15th amendment was in 1870. Women weren't granted the right to vote until 1920.

Compared to the past there have been incredible strides. But to tell a female "there is no female oppression" when you can pick up the Bible and read about how women are portrayed and treated in the Bible (God approved of Lot offering his daughters instead of his guests for the mob to rape; Eve corrupted Adam, and thus is responsible for the corruption and evil in the world), those world views permeate our society. Even things like maiden versus married names, and property laws. For much of history in the vast majority of cultures women did not legally own anything.

The reality that in many parts of the world like in India, African countries and Muslim countries women do not, both legally and in practice/implementation have the same rights and value as men. So to say women are not oppressed is tone deaf, but also apparently ignorant of things like child brides (marrying men 20+ years older than them), being stoned to death for having relationships the family does not approve of, Indian widows being literally burned alive, and selective abortion/abandonment of female infants in China. Sorry if I'm harshing on you, but really? Maybe it's because I can look up women's role in the church and find this kind of stuff easily https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2016/02/21/how-to-help-women-learn-their-place/ 
  (I love how in the family photo the women's head/face in the family photo is cut off!)
 
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 04:25:53 PM by partgypsy »

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1572 on: April 30, 2018, 04:19:33 PM »

I really think that we are so much worse off than in the past, and it is not because there is more oppression than in the past. We are now becoming more tribal, self segregating, and self policing. I am of the opinion that the thought police have been running rampant these days. No it is not an external force, it is in your head. It's that voice that tells you not to think or say that certain "bad" or "immoral" thought.

I'm curious why you think things are so much worse now than in the past.  From my perspective there isn't another decade in history where I think 'we' (those of us in developed nations) have had it better off.

As for external voices (I'm asuming you mean 'other people' and not an alternate personality?) telling you not to say bad or immoral things, how has is this different from other points in history and why do you consider it a bad thing?

I certainly think that we have a better standard of living than the past and less crime too. It's just as i said, i think we are worse off because now we are self segregating into identity groups, and I don't personally think that can lead anywhere good. The narrative of oppressor/oppressed can be and has been used in the past to justify great atrocities. Some say we know better this time, yeah right.

Can you please elaborate a bit on these thoughts?  Specifically:
- When has simply being aware and mindful of existing oppression (and the people who are oppressed) ever been used to justify a great atrocity?  I can think of many things that have come out of this (women's rights, an end to slavery, gay rights, transgender rights, etc.) but not too many atrocities.
It's not just that though. For example college campuses are having re-education programs for males to unlearn rape and violence. What if you said any other gender or race was innately violent?

I'm not familiar with these 're-education programs' you're referring to.  These are required programs only aimed at men?  Can you provide some examples?

College campuses are now having program to unlearn masculinity, you can look it up. Northwester and Duke come to mind as two colleges that have such programs. They are not currently mandatory no, but I would not be surprised if that changes in the future. At northwestern you can nominate a man for the program! https://www.northwestern.edu/care/get-involved/nu-men/nu-men-nomination-form/index.html
Please name an entire group of people who are pathologized in the same way.


- In what way are you seeing people self-segregate?  The group of people I work with daily is quite diverse culturally, ethnically, religiously, and in sexual orientation.  The same with my close group of friends.  In fact, the city I live in is incredibly diverse.
Self segregating into identity groups, and the weight of your opinion is based on which identity group you belong. diversity is one thing, self segregating into identity groups to define where you are on the oppression scale is wrong, IMO.

I don't understand the terminology you're using.  What do you consider an identity group, if not sex/race/ethnic/cultural/religious background?  There's very little segregation along those lines occurring in my daily life.

I see it more as a mental exercise, which IMO is more dangerous. It creates in groups and out groups and allows members of the group to think of those outside the group as the evil other.

I will again refer to Nietzche concept of ressentiment:

Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be "blamed" for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external "evil."

Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker someone is, the less their capability to suppress reaction.[8] According to Nietzsche, the more a person is active, strong-willed, and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to them, and their reactions (like imagining they are actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed person (a "wild beast"[9]), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of their intellect.[10]

Take that concept and apply it on a grand scale and you get our current situation of someone else always being to blame. It is a mental thing and not something you will easily recognize in your daily life, especially when you are absolutely convinced you have the moral authority.


Just try and have a conversation with someone possessed by the oppressor/oppressed ideology. You can't because you will be labeled a racist, misogynist, mansplainer, privileged, and so on, people will shut down the conversation.

I'm not sure what the oppressor/opressed ideology that you're referring to means exactly.  I've had many conversations with a wide variety of people and never been labeled a racist, misogynist, or mansplainer.  If this is happening often to you, maybe it's your approach that is leading all these people to react that way to what you say.  I do recognize that as a straight white middle-class guy I am privileged in many ways - not because people told me so . . . but because it's self-evident from research done on wages, hiring practices, world average wages/living standards, etc.
You are illustrating my point above. You are self segregating into your identity group and qualifying your opinion based on that group. Also see how I cannot disagree with letting girls into boy scouts without not understanding history, that women are oppressed, etc. In reality I am thinking more of the loss to boys than anything to do with girls. Maybe that makes me sexist. But again, that would illustrate my point 

In what way am I segregating?  I'm acknowledging the fact of my sex and ethnicity.  As an example, my best friend is a guy from Trinidad who I met in university.  I didn't have a car, so was always bumming rides with him to places.  When I started driving around with him I pretty quickly realized how differently a middle class black guy gets treated by the police than a white guy.  It was eye opening, and really proved to me why it's important to acknowledge those differences - because they are real and evident.  I'm qualifying my opinion based on my personal experiences, and the research I've done into the issue . . . not because I happen to be a straight white guy.

I can state that black people get harassed more than white people without stating my race, and it is still true. Why did you feel that you had to state that you have that opinion as a white person? What does your skin color have to do with the recognition that black people are harassed more than whites? Do you feel that your contribution to the conversation on race is dictated by your skin color?

I opposed letting girls into the boy scouts and was having a debate with a friend. She said it was good for girls because historically girls have been oppressed, and at least I can agree that women are oppressed. I said I did not agree with that and she shut down the conversation stating she can't continue it if I don't admit that women are oppressed, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

While things are certainly much better than they were in the 60s, which was still better than things were in the 20s, it's very evident that women are not currently treated equally as men in the United States:
- How many women have been president?  How many men?
Is it only equality until we are 50:50?

No.  It's reasonable to believe that when 100% of women have been denied a position, it's a likely indicator of inequality though.


You're right, Obama told me if i don't vote for Hillary I must be sexist. I should have voted for her based on her gender not her policies, so we can get us some more of that sweet equality.


- What percentage of people in congress are women?  What percentage of people in the country are women?
Again, is it only equality when we have 50:50

And again, no.  However, it's reasonable to believe that when 54% of the people in a country are female and only 19% are elected to congress it's a likely indicator of inequality.

Is that all it is? Is there really such a simple solution to a complex issue? One cause, inequality, and that's it? In any case I am interested to see what happens in the midterm elections

- Men are given full autonomy over their bodies in all situations.  Are women?
Male circumcision. No male birth control pill.

As far as I'm aware, few (zero?) male circumcisions are performed on adult men against their wishes.  Many procedures are performed on children by parents including body mutilations (ear piercing on young girls is relatively common for example).

Male birth control pills are hopefully coming soon.  (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/health/male-birth-control-pill-study/index.html)  It's not that scientists were attempting to deny men the pill, they're a more technically complex problem than female birth control was.

I find it interesting that you can justify mutilating a baby boy that has no consent and equate it to ear piercing. At least the holes in your ears will close if you take the earrings out. And boys grow up knowing they had a part of their penis cut off because it is "dirty".

- How often are women raped in comparison to men?
Hard to say since when a man is raped it is called "forced penetration" in the stats instead of rape. This is a criminal justice issue though, rather than one of oppression. If more men commit suicide than women do we need to make that 50:50 too? What about deaths on the job which is currenlty around 11:1 men:women. Make that equal too?

Tally up the numbers for rape then.  In every study I've seen, it shows that women are raped by men orders of magnitude more than men raped by women.

If more men are committing suicide than women, then we should probably provide extra support to men to try and reduce that number.  If work situations are less safe for men than women, then yes . . . they should be improved as well.  This is self-evident . . . not controversial, isn't it?

Nope, not controversial at all, but it's not inequality. In the UK it is only possible for males to commit rape as it is defined as penetration. Men and boys who are raped is called "forced to penetrate". Now can you explain why the statistics look the way they do? More women are certainly raped than men, but again this is a criminal justice issue not proof of oppression or inequality.


- Do women make the same amount as men when doing the same job?
In general yes, but there tends to be a 2-5% difference with men getting paid more. This has to do with negotiations and assertiveness more than anything. My coworker that was hired 8 months before me makes less than me, but I negotiated a higher salary and he didn't, we do the same job. I guess if he was a woman he could claim oppression, but since he is male he is SOL. or he could have just tried to negotiate a higher salary.

Ah.  So you believe that women are paid less because they're inferior negotiators.  Do you believe that this is entirely due to their ovaries, or maybe that a lifetime of gendered expectations has resulted in this situation?

That's not what I said, and I even gave you an example of a male coworker that is not assertive and a bad negotiator. On average women are more agreeable and will not be as assertive during negotiations, that does not mean all women will act a certain way any more than men will. I don't think it is gendered expectations as I think there are likely biological reasons for this such as raising children and survival. You really want to twist my words to be able to fit me into the box that you have constructed for me.


It's difficult for many to look at the answers to the above questions and then argue that they're all just a coincidence.  It seems more likely that there's some fundamental disparity still going on.

Except what you are describing above is equality of outcome, which I do not agree with.

If you fundamentally believe that people are predisposed to inferiority/superiority because of sex, sexual orientation, religion, or race then equality in work conditions, sexual assaults, job availability, etc. will be impossible to achieve.  The thing is, that's the same argument that was used to keep black slaves.  It's the same argument that was used to persecute the Jews.  It was the same argument used to suppress women voters.  If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need some pretty strong supporting evidence that the assumption you're making is correct.

Again you are trying to place me into a box you have constructed for me. I never said any of that nor believe it. I say I do not believe in equality of outcome which leads you to think that I think some people are inferior or superior than others. Are you saying that equality of outcome is necessary to for some groups to be successful? Cause that seem pretty racist to me.


Another example is when a black man is not allowed to have an opinion that he "shouldn't" have, such as kanye liking trump, blacks are supposed to be democrats don't you know.

Quote
So, to show how black men are not allowed to have opinions that they shouldn't . . . you give an example of a black man who has an opinion that (you allege) he shouldn't?  :P  Can you show an actual example of what you're talking about here?

It is exactly what I said, kayne cannot have an opinion of his own if it goes against "his People". In addition to that my black friends do not agree with BLM or equality of outcome for any race or gender. They also do not agree with affirmative action. Those are not a popular opinions for them to have as blacks among white people.

Kanye felt comfortable enough to freely voice his own opinion publicly.  He has experienced no state issued sanction, no persecution by people in power.  If your 'black friends' don't agree with BLM or affirmative action, they can freely voice their own opinions too.  An opinion doesn't have to be popular to be voiced.

What exactly is the problem that you're referring to?

Ah yes, but the moral authority forces apologies. You can voice your opinion but you have to be sorry for it. Not sure why you put black friends in quotes.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1573 on: April 30, 2018, 04:29:25 PM »
We want legal equality, not biological equality or necessarily outcomes, unless the difference in outcomes is due to discrimination. 100% of pregnancy related deaths are women. According to your comments Zoltani, women should be lobbying for 50/50 pregnancy/labor-related mortality? 

And as far as women being oppressed, that has been the case for thousands of years. It has only been relatively recent that things have changed. The 15th amendment was in 1870. Women weren't granted the right to vote until 1920.

Compared to the past there have been incredible strides. But to tell a female "there is no female oppression" when you can pick up the Bible and read about how women are portrayed and treated in the Bible (God approved of Lot offering his daughters instead of his guests for the mob to rape; Eve corrupted Adam, and thus is responsible for the corruption and evil in the world), those world views permeate our society. Even things like maiden versus married names, and property laws. For much of history in the vast majority of cultures women did not legally own anything.

The reality that in many parts of the world like in India, African countries and Muslim countries women do not, both legally and in practice/implementation have the same rights and value as men. So to say women are not oppressed is tone deaf, but also apparently ignorant of things like child brides (marrying men 20+ years older than them), being stoned to death for having relationships the family does not approve of, Indian brides being literally burned alive, and selective abortion/abandonment of female infants in China. Sorry if I'm harshing on you, but really? Maybe it's because I can look up women's role in the church and find this kind of stuff easily https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2016/02/21/how-to-help-women-learn-their-place/ 
  (I love how in the family photo the women's head/face in the family photo is cut off!)
 

I won't argue with the past. I stated that currently I do not believe women are oppressed in America, as I was talking about the Boy Scouts of America. If you want to move the goalposts and talk about the rest of the world that's a different story.

I never made a 50:50 argument and I think that's dumb, as I stated above.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1574 on: April 30, 2018, 04:41:53 PM »
Why won't you argue the past? I mean, black people can vote so I guess all racial discrimination is in the past? That the past is irrelevant to our present situation? I believe the past does inform the present. And why is talking about how women are treated worldwide, not an issue to you?
 
Can you at least agree that in the present time in the US, Fundamentalist Christians have a disproportionate influence on politics. Politics as in, laws and protections, and rights. And Fundamentalist Christians do not believe women are equal to men.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 04:43:48 PM by partgypsy »

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1575 on: April 30, 2018, 05:19:36 PM »
Why won't you argue the past? I mean, black people can vote so I guess all racial discrimination is in the past? That the past is irrelevant to our present situation? I believe the past does inform the present. And why is talking about how women are treated worldwide, not an issue to you?
 
Can you at least agree that in the present time in the US, Fundamentalist Christians have a disproportionate influence on politics. Politics as in, laws and protections, and rights. And Fundamentalist Christians do not believe women are equal to men.

I won't argue with the fact that women were oppressed in the past. Pretty much everyone was oppressed in the past in feudal systems, so I guess we all win. Of course women are treated like shit in some places worldwide, so go fight for their rights over there. In America I do not believe women are oppressed. So far I haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise.

I do not agree with your second statement. They have a voice but i don't think it is disproportionate. I tried to find a list of fundamentalist christians in government but I only found a huffpost article about the choke hold of fundamentalist christians on america.

From the article it seems like both sides are guilty of the same thing:

"The fundamentalist chokehold on American politics seeks to destroy the religious and cultural plurality on which the country, and the Declaration of Independence, was based. These theological divisions – which pit believers against non-believers, and those who believe correctly against those who don’t – are a major contributor to America’s sharply divided politics. When someone believes he or she holds absolute truth, there can be no compromise, no middle ground, and no discussion."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fundamentalist-christian-chokehold-on-america_us_598109dae4b02be325be0206

Hmm..... they are talking about theological differences but I see a connection. Absolute truth, like women are oppressed, gender is a social construct, white privilege, wage gap, toxic masculinity and on and on. How many in this thread said they would end the discussion with me if i don't admit women are oppressed in america? How is that different than the Christians quoted above? Is it because you know you are morally correct? I bet they do too.



nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1576 on: April 30, 2018, 05:34:00 PM »
@ zoltani - lots of lively and interesting responses so far.  One comment you made jumped out at my but I do not believe has been address yet, specifically:


In regards to the boy scout thing I just think it is sad where we don't have a place for boys to learn how to be men. To have male role models to help them grow into healthy male adults. In this day and age it is ok to have women/girl only groups but not boy/male only groups. Many boys grow up without a father and scouts is a good way to find male role models and learn about what it is to be a man. Do you not think that is important?

the reason I find this so interesting is the assumption that boys need to be segragated from girls while in the presence of a positive role model in order for them to learn what it is to be a man.  For the life of me I cannot understand why there needs to be an gender-specific environment for this to happen, and I can see many reasons why we shouldn't intentionally segregate children (most obviously the unintended message that 'females don't belong here').  I look back at my own life and was fortunate to have several strong male role models, including my father, several teachers and a swim coach.  In all cases girls were a constant feature.  In fact, these same people served as positive role models for the girls as well, which I think is equally important.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1577 on: April 30, 2018, 05:42:07 PM »
Why won't you argue the past? I mean, black people can vote so I guess all racial discrimination is in the past? That the past is irrelevant to our present situation? I believe the past does inform the present. And why is talking about how women are treated worldwide, not an issue to you?
 
Can you at least agree that in the present time in the US, Fundamentalist Christians have a disproportionate influence on politics. Politics as in, laws and protections, and rights. And Fundamentalist Christians do not believe women are equal to men.

I won't argue with the fact that women were oppressed in the past. Pretty much everyone was oppressed in the past in feudal systems, so I guess we all win. Of course women are treated like shit in some places worldwide, so go fight for their rights over there. In America I do not believe women are oppressed. So far I haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise.

I do not agree with your second statement. They have a voice but i don't think it is disproportionate. I tried to find a list of fundamentalist christians in government but I only found a huffpost article about the choke hold of fundamentalist christians on america.

From the article it seems like both sides are guilty of the same thing:

"The fundamentalist chokehold on American politics seeks to destroy the religious and cultural plurality on which the country, and the Declaration of Independence, was based. These theological divisions – which pit believers against non-believers, and those who believe correctly against those who don’t – are a major contributor to America’s sharply divided politics. When someone believes he or she holds absolute truth, there can be no compromise, no middle ground, and no discussion."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fundamentalist-christian-chokehold-on-america_us_598109dae4b02be325be0206

Hmm..... they are talking about theological differences but I see a connection. Absolute truth, like women are oppressed, gender is a social construct, white privilege, wage gap, toxic masculinity and on and on. How many in this thread said they would end the discussion with me if i don't admit women are oppressed in america? How is that different than the Christians quoted above? Is it because you know you are morally correct? I bet they do too.

Well, I have experienced sexual discrimination in my lifetime, and I'm an American woman. So I would argue in the present time, it's still going on. However I also have to say I am very happy and grateful that I was born in this time and place, than many other times in history or locations (look up the term "missing women"), where who knows whether I would have been able to even grow up, let alone get an education and a job and all those good things. So things ARE better. I think these things are important to fight for.  Though Zoltani I definitely feel there is room for discussion. For example, I am not personally bothered by Boy Scouts. I don't mind that there are Boy scouts and Girl scouts (I was a girl scout, and my ex was an boy scout). I don't mind that there are only things girls participate in, and boys only participate in like sports teams. I am NOT for say marathons, golf courses, and private clubs and societies excluding women however, which up to recently was common practice, yes even here in the US. And serious injury and death of women due to domestic violence is a problem in pretty every country, including the US. Domestic violence as a concept wasn't even coined until the 1970's. Before then it was just called "wife beating".
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 05:56:34 PM by partgypsy »

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1578 on: April 30, 2018, 05:55:49 PM »
@ zoltani - lots of lively and interesting responses so far.  One comment you made jumped out at my but I do not believe has been address yet, specifically:


In regards to the boy scout thing I just think it is sad where we don't have a place for boys to learn how to be men. To have male role models to help them grow into healthy male adults. In this day and age it is ok to have women/girl only groups but not boy/male only groups. Many boys grow up without a father and scouts is a good way to find male role models and learn about what it is to be a man. Do you not think that is important?

the reason I find this so interesting is the assumption that boys need to be segragated from girls while in the presence of a positive role model in order for them to learn what it is to be a man.  For the life of me I cannot understand why there needs to be an gender-specific environment for this to happen, and I can see many reasons why we shouldn't intentionally segregate children (most obviously the unintended message that 'females don't belong here').  I look back at my own life and was fortunate to have several strong male role models, including my father, several teachers and a swim coach.  In all cases girls were a constant feature.  In fact, these same people served as positive role models for the girls as well, which I think is equally important.

That may be the best argument I have heard yet. However, it seems to me that boy/men's organizations are increasingly pressured to let women join while there is no such pressure on women's organizations. Men's organizations are disappearing while women's organizations are growing, and there seems to be a disconnect where people say men's organizations are sexist but not women's organizations. If there is that much demand for a coed scouts type group then create one and if popular maybe there will be no more boy scouts anyway.

AnswerIs42

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1579 on: April 30, 2018, 06:15:17 PM »
Children are typically not considered adult, and have many decisions made for them by their parents (right or wrong).  A baby boy is not a man.

"FGM doesn't affect a woman's autonomy over their bodies because it's done to girls, not women". Sorry, that's a terrible argument.

You've not mentioned the massive loss in sensitivity to the tip of the penis caused by circumcision, greatly reducing sexual pleasure. Which is a pretty crappy thing for someone to do to their kids.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1580 on: April 30, 2018, 06:20:08 PM »
@ zoltani - lots of lively and interesting responses so far.  One comment you made jumped out at my but I do not believe has been address yet, specifically:


In regards to the boy scout thing I just think it is sad where we don't have a place for boys to learn how to be men. To have male role models to help them grow into healthy male adults. In this day and age it is ok to have women/girl only groups but not boy/male only groups. Many boys grow up without a father and scouts is a good way to find male role models and learn about what it is to be a man. Do you not think that is important?

the reason I find this so interesting is the assumption that boys need to be segragated from girls while in the presence of a positive role model in order for them to learn what it is to be a man.  For the life of me I cannot understand why there needs to be an gender-specific environment for this to happen, and I can see many reasons why we shouldn't intentionally segregate children (most obviously the unintended message that 'females don't belong here').  I look back at my own life and was fortunate to have several strong male role models, including my father, several teachers and a swim coach.  In all cases girls were a constant feature.  In fact, these same people served as positive role models for the girls as well, which I think is equally important.

That may be the best argument I have heard yet. However, it seems to me that boy/men's organizations are increasingly pressured to let women join while there is no such pressure on women's organizations. Men's organizations are disappearing while women's organizations are growing, and there seems to be a disconnect where people say men's organizations are sexist but not women's organizations. If there is that much demand for a coed scouts type group then create one and if popular maybe there will be no more boy scouts anyway.

I'll admit, the presence of female-only clubs is something I am also inherently uncomfortable with. One justification I have heard is that these organizations are necessary for some to feel safe, and given the stats on sexual harassment and rape of women I can at least understand why some women feel this way.  Still, I don't think its a good message to have, particularly for younger children.  In essence we are saying "you can only be safe or be heard or be respected when boys are not around".  And it certainy doesn't stop with young boys and girls.  As you pointed out there are a large and possibly growing number of women only clubs.


zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1581 on: April 30, 2018, 06:34:26 PM »
@ zoltani - lots of lively and interesting responses so far.  One comment you made jumped out at my but I do not believe has been address yet, specifically:


In regards to the boy scout thing I just think it is sad where we don't have a place for boys to learn how to be men. To have male role models to help them grow into healthy male adults. In this day and age it is ok to have women/girl only groups but not boy/male only groups. Many boys grow up without a father and scouts is a good way to find male role models and learn about what it is to be a man. Do you not think that is important?

the reason I find this so interesting is the assumption that boys need to be segragated from girls while in the presence of a positive role model in order for them to learn what it is to be a man.  For the life of me I cannot understand why there needs to be an gender-specific environment for this to happen, and I can see many reasons why we shouldn't intentionally segregate children (most obviously the unintended message that 'females don't belong here').  I look back at my own life and was fortunate to have several strong male role models, including my father, several teachers and a swim coach.  In all cases girls were a constant feature.  In fact, these same people served as positive role models for the girls as well, which I think is equally important.

That may be the best argument I have heard yet. However, it seems to me that boy/men's organizations are increasingly pressured to let women join while there is no such pressure on women's organizations. Men's organizations are disappearing while women's organizations are growing, and there seems to be a disconnect where people say men's organizations are sexist but not women's organizations. If there is that much demand for a coed scouts type group then create one and if popular maybe there will be no more boy scouts anyway.

I'll admit, the presence of female-only clubs is something I am also inherently uncomfortable with. One justification I have heard is that these organizations are necessary for some to feel safe, and given the stats on sexual harassment and rape of women I can at least understand why some women feel this way.  Still, I don't think its a good message to have, particularly for younger children.  In essence we are saying "you can only be safe or be heard or be respected when boys are not around".  And it certainy doesn't stop with young boys and girls.  As you pointed out there are a large and possibly growing number of women only clubs.

You are right, and The Wing, currently under investigation by the human rights commission, states that as the reason for its existence:

“I think it’s patently absurd for New York’s human rights commission to be focusing on The Wing when we’ve had, over the last six months, numerous complaints about workplaces being absolutely hostile to women in terms of pervasive and endemic sexual harassment,” she said. “Leaving aside the fact that so many workplaces seem to be rife with incidents of sexual harassment, now, after #MeToo, I think there are a lot of men in positions of authority who are going to be really skeptical and afraid to mentor women and that might make a space like this even more necessary.”

These women are arguing for more segregation. I understand that women are harassed in the workplace, but i do not think segregation is the right answer to that.



partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1582 on: April 30, 2018, 07:40:06 PM »
And I probably shouldn't step into it. But Zoltani talks about what Fundamental Christians think, which he doesn't really let us in what he thinks their absolute truths are, versus apparently liberals or (whoever he is thinking are opposite of fundamentalists) say are "absolute truth" like (his examples) gender is a social construct wage gap, white supremacy, toxic masculinity.
I would argue that the real division is not between Christian fundamentalists and "identity politics" people, but between fundamentalism which does trade in absolute moral truths, and that of rationalism. Rationalism and the Enlightenment brought us to democracy, and social contracts between the people and it's government. In some senses any kind of fundamental or extremely conservative religion is antithetic to the idea of a constitution, social contract, and freedom from discrimination, because they hold that they have a higher truth, a religious truth that should trump secular laws. We saw this in the things that Roy Moore said and did before he was stripped of his judgeship. So rightly, rationalists, and people who are for separation of church and state see the rise of fundamentalism as antithetical to the kind of government we now emjoy, where people regardless of color, gender, sexual orientation are afforded freedom from discrimination. I do think it's interesting that Zoltani assumes that people think of these concepts as "absolute truths", because maybe that's how you see certain things? In turn I see something like "wage gap" as concepts that may or may not be factually true at this time and place, and under certain conditions, and they can be defined and then examined and discussed. Not something sacred.   
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 07:56:30 PM by partgypsy »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1583 on: April 30, 2018, 11:55:26 PM »
Uh, OP here, and much of this is not 'Speculating on Trump'.  I have lots of my own thoughts and opinions on your discussions, but those should be started on other threads.  I'll be more than happy to ask a mod to shut this thread down if people want to keep foaming this open and important discussion with totally different (and perfectly great thread material) off-topic stuff.

Came back to this speculation thread in the midst of Trump reacting to Netanyahu's grooming of Trump.  In fact, many world leaders are picking up on how to curry favor with Trump.

Reminds me of the primaries and how easy it was to set up Trump in the debates.  First, you had bully Trump, then you had the final Presidential debate that Hillary clearly won.

So where we go from May 12th onward may be down a pretty sad rabbit hole.  As Reagan called to our Countries' need for morning in America, Trump seems to be willing to burn the last American advantage (like enthusiastic access to the best minds of the world), guarantee the last American tax cut (1 trillion dollar deficits doesn't sound sustainable), and watch America's sun set while the rest of the world takes a leadership position. 

As long as we are not going to complain when France, Germany, and China tell us how trade is really going to work in 2020 then we have 2 more years of awesomeness!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11547
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1584 on: May 01, 2018, 08:08:57 AM »

I really think that we are so much worse off than in the past, and it is not because there is more oppression than in the past. We are now becoming more tribal, self segregating, and self policing. I am of the opinion that the thought police have been running rampant these days. No it is not an external force, it is in your head. It's that voice that tells you not to think or say that certain "bad" or "immoral" thought.

I'm curious why you think things are so much worse now than in the past.  From my perspective there isn't another decade in history where I think 'we' (those of us in developed nations) have had it better off.

As for external voices (I'm asuming you mean 'other people' and not an alternate personality?) telling you not to say bad or immoral things, how has is this different from other points in history and why do you consider it a bad thing?

I certainly think that we have a better standard of living than the past and less crime too. It's just as i said, i think we are worse off because now we are self segregating into identity groups, and I don't personally think that can lead anywhere good. The narrative of oppressor/oppressed can be and has been used in the past to justify great atrocities. Some say we know better this time, yeah right.

Can you please elaborate a bit on these thoughts?  Specifically:
- When has simply being aware and mindful of existing oppression (and the people who are oppressed) ever been used to justify a great atrocity?  I can think of many things that have come out of this (women's rights, an end to slavery, gay rights, transgender rights, etc.) but not too many atrocities.
It's not just that though. For example college campuses are having re-education programs for males to unlearn rape and violence. What if you said any other gender or race was innately violent?

I'm not familiar with these 're-education programs' you're referring to.  These are required programs only aimed at men?  Can you provide some examples?

College campuses are now having program to unlearn masculinity, you can look it up. Northwester and Duke come to mind as two colleges that have such programs. They are not currently mandatory no, but I would not be surprised if that changes in the future. At northwestern you can nominate a man for the program! https://www.northwestern.edu/care/get-involved/nu-men/nu-men-nomination-form/index.html
Please name an entire group of people who are pathologized in the same way.

OK, so optional courses are being offered at universities.  A few minutes of Googling would appear to indicate that the goal of the courses is not to 'unlearn masculinity' as you put it, but to discuss and challenge the more toxic aspects of masculinity that have been accepted as norms.  If you can find specific parts of the program that you object to, or things that you define as essential to masculinity that the programs are against, I'd be interested to discuss them.



- In what way are you seeing people self-segregate?  The group of people I work with daily is quite diverse culturally, ethnically, religiously, and in sexual orientation.  The same with my close group of friends.  In fact, the city I live in is incredibly diverse.
Self segregating into identity groups, and the weight of your opinion is based on which identity group you belong. diversity is one thing, self segregating into identity groups to define where you are on the oppression scale is wrong, IMO.

I don't understand the terminology you're using.  What do you consider an identity group, if not sex/race/ethnic/cultural/religious background?  There's very little segregation along those lines occurring in my daily life.

I see it more as a mental exercise, which IMO is more dangerous. It creates in groups and out groups and allows members of the group to think of those outside the group as the evil other.

I will again refer to Nietzche concept of ressentiment:

Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be "blamed" for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external "evil."

Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker someone is, the less their capability to suppress reaction.[8] According to Nietzsche, the more a person is active, strong-willed, and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to them, and their reactions (like imagining they are actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed person (a "wild beast"[9]), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of their intellect.[10]

Take that concept and apply it on a grand scale and you get our current situation of someone else always being to blame. It is a mental thing and not something you will easily recognize in your daily life, especially when you are absolutely convinced you have the moral authority.


It's a nice Nietzche quote, but you have failed to answer my question in your response.  My question was:
- What do you consider an identity group, if not sex/race/ethnic/cultural/religious background?

Just try and have a conversation with someone possessed by the oppressor/oppressed ideology. You can't because you will be labeled a racist, misogynist, mansplainer, privileged, and so on, people will shut down the conversation.

I'm not sure what the oppressor/opressed ideology that you're referring to means exactly.  I've had many conversations with a wide variety of people and never been labeled a racist, misogynist, or mansplainer.  If this is happening often to you, maybe it's your approach that is leading all these people to react that way to what you say.  I do recognize that as a straight white middle-class guy I am privileged in many ways - not because people told me so . . . but because it's self-evident from research done on wages, hiring practices, world average wages/living standards, etc.
You are illustrating my point above. You are self segregating into your identity group and qualifying your opinion based on that group. Also see how I cannot disagree with letting girls into boy scouts without not understanding history, that women are oppressed, etc. In reality I am thinking more of the loss to boys than anything to do with girls. Maybe that makes me sexist. But again, that would illustrate my point 

In what way am I segregating?  I'm acknowledging the fact of my sex and ethnicity.  As an example, my best friend is a guy from Trinidad who I met in university.  I didn't have a car, so was always bumming rides with him to places.  When I started driving around with him I pretty quickly realized how differently a middle class black guy gets treated by the police than a white guy.  It was eye opening, and really proved to me why it's important to acknowledge those differences - because they are real and evident.  I'm qualifying my opinion based on my personal experiences, and the research I've done into the issue . . . not because I happen to be a straight white guy.

I can state that black people get harassed more than white people without stating my race, and it is still true. Why did you feel that you had to state that you have that opinion as a white person? What does your skin color have to do with the recognition that black people are harassed more than whites? Do you feel that your contribution to the conversation on race is dictated by your skin color?

Again, you have failed to answer my question in your response.  My question was:
- What segregation is occurring?

In answer to yours:
- I didn't feel a need, but it seemed relevant to the discussion.
- People who are not members of oppressed groups don't always have a full understanding of what living that life entails.  As such, they're much more likely to say things like "There's no racism any more", "Sexism doesn't exist", etc.
- No.

I opposed letting girls into the boy scouts and was having a debate with a friend. She said it was good for girls because historically girls have been oppressed, and at least I can agree that women are oppressed. I said I did not agree with that and she shut down the conversation stating she can't continue it if I don't admit that women are oppressed, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

While things are certainly much better than they were in the 60s, which was still better than things were in the 20s, it's very evident that women are not currently treated equally as men in the United States:
- How many women have been president?  How many men?
Is it only equality until we are 50:50?

No.  It's reasonable to believe that when 100% of women have been denied a position, it's a likely indicator of inequality though.


You're right, Obama told me if i don't vote for Hillary I must be sexist. I should have voted for her based on her gender not her policies, so we can get us some more of that sweet equality.


I don't agree with your viewpoint at all on this matter.  Of course everyone should be absolutely free to vote for whoever they choose . . . without that, one of the fundamental tenants of democracy is broken.  It doesn't change the fact that only twelve women have ever run for president, and that the American people didn't vote for any of them.  This appears to be indicative of long standing systemic inequality.  Being forced to vote for a woman simply because she's a woman would absolutely not solve the inequality problem that exists in the US to this day.

- What percentage of people in congress are women?  What percentage of people in the country are women?
Again, is it only equality when we have 50:50

And again, no.  However, it's reasonable to believe that when 54% of the people in a country are female and only 19% are elected to congress it's a likely indicator of inequality.

Is that all it is? Is there really such a simple solution to a complex issue? One cause, inequality, and that's it? In any case I am interested to see what happens in the midterm elections

I didn't propose a solution, just identified a problem.  If inequality responded well to simple solutions we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

- Men are given full autonomy over their bodies in all situations.  Are women?
Male circumcision. No male birth control pill.

As far as I'm aware, few (zero?) male circumcisions are performed on adult men against their wishes.  Many procedures are performed on children by parents including body mutilations (ear piercing on young girls is relatively common for example).

Male birth control pills are hopefully coming soon.  (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/health/male-birth-control-pill-study/index.html)  It's not that scientists were attempting to deny men the pill, they're a more technically complex problem than female birth control was.

I find it interesting that you can justify mutilating a baby boy that has no consent and equate it to ear piercing. At least the holes in your ears will close if you take the earrings out. And boys grow up knowing they had a part of their penis cut off because it is "dirty".

Punching a hole in a girls ear for decorative reasons vs. cutting off some skin because it's medically shown to prevent some disease/cancer . . . to me they're comparable events.  Piercing the ear might grow back (it might not), but is mutilation for purely decorative reasons, like foot binding or wearing a corset.  Circumcision probably won't grow back (although there exist procedures to re-stretch the foreskin) but has medical support for doing it.  Either way, they're things that happen to children under their parents direction, not things that are done to adults against their will . . . so have nothing to do with my original point.

- How often are women raped in comparison to men?
Hard to say since when a man is raped it is called "forced penetration" in the stats instead of rape. This is a criminal justice issue though, rather than one of oppression. If more men commit suicide than women do we need to make that 50:50 too? What about deaths on the job which is currenlty around 11:1 men:women. Make that equal too?

Tally up the numbers for rape then.  In every study I've seen, it shows that women are raped by men orders of magnitude more than men raped by women.

If more men are committing suicide than women, then we should probably provide extra support to men to try and reduce that number.  If work situations are less safe for men than women, then yes . . . they should be improved as well.  This is self-evident . . . not controversial, isn't it?

Nope, not controversial at all, but it's not inequality. In the UK it is only possible for males to commit rape as it is defined as penetration. Men and boys who are raped is called "forced to penetrate". Now can you explain why the statistics look the way they do? More women are certainly raped than men, but again this is a criminal justice issue not proof of oppression or inequality.

Inequality : difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality.

If there exists a difference in the number of men committing suicide than women, then there's a problem.  We should work to fix this inequality by providing more services to men in need.

If there exists a difference in number of women vs men being raped there is a problem.  We should work to fix this inequality by providing preventative services to the men and women involved in this act.

While you have admitted that there's no problem with the former statement, earlier you said that attempts to do the latter (via optional programs being offered to men on college campuses) were deplorable.  That seems to be rather inconsistent.

- Do women make the same amount as men when doing the same job?
In general yes, but there tends to be a 2-5% difference with men getting paid more. This has to do with negotiations and assertiveness more than anything. My coworker that was hired 8 months before me makes less than me, but I negotiated a higher salary and he didn't, we do the same job. I guess if he was a woman he could claim oppression, but since he is male he is SOL. or he could have just tried to negotiate a higher salary.

Ah.  So you believe that women are paid less because they're inferior negotiators.  Do you believe that this is entirely due to their ovaries, or maybe that a lifetime of gendered expectations has resulted in this situation?

That's not what I said, and I even gave you an example of a male coworker that is not assertive and a bad negotiator. On average women are more agreeable and will not be as assertive during negotiations, that does not mean all women will act a certain way any more than men will. I don't think it is gendered expectations as I think there are likely biological reasons for this such as raising children and survival. You really want to twist my words to be able to fit me into the box that you have constructed for me.

You're saying that women are 'more agreeable' and not as assertive during negotiations as men and that 'there are likely biological reasons for this such as raising children and survival'.  While you've carefully avoided using the word 'inferior', everything you've listed is an inferior trait when negotiating . . . which is the reason that you believe women are paid less than men.

Is anything that I've just said incorrect?  If so, could you please clarify/correct me?

It's difficult for many to look at the answers to the above questions and then argue that they're all just a coincidence.  It seems more likely that there's some fundamental disparity still going on.

Except what you are describing above is equality of outcome, which I do not agree with.

If you fundamentally believe that people are predisposed to inferiority/superiority because of sex, sexual orientation, religion, or race then equality in work conditions, sexual assaults, job availability, etc. will be impossible to achieve.  The thing is, that's the same argument that was used to keep black slaves.  It's the same argument that was used to persecute the Jews.  It was the same argument used to suppress women voters.  If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need some pretty strong supporting evidence that the assumption you're making is correct.

Again you are trying to place me into a box you have constructed for me. I never said any of that nor believe it. I say I do not believe in equality of outcome which leads you to think that I think some people are inferior or superior than others. Are you saying that equality of outcome is necessary to for some groups to be successful? Cause that seem pretty racist to me.

Your previous comment indicated that women on average are inferior negotiators for biological reasons, and that's why they make less money on average.  If that is not your view point, could you please clarify/correct it?

Quote from: GuitarEsteban
Another example is when a black man is not allowed to have an opinion that he "shouldn't" have, such as kanye liking trump, blacks are supposed to be democrats don't you know.

Quote
So, to show how black men are not allowed to have opinions that they shouldn't . . . you give an example of a black man who has an opinion that (you allege) he shouldn't?  :P  Can you show an actual example of what you're talking about here?

It is exactly what I said, kayne cannot have an opinion of his own if it goes against "his People". In addition to that my black friends do not agree with BLM or equality of outcome for any race or gender. They also do not agree with affirmative action. Those are not a popular opinions for them to have as blacks among white people.

Kanye felt comfortable enough to freely voice his own opinion publicly.  He has experienced no state issued sanction, no persecution by people in power.  If your 'black friends' don't agree with BLM or affirmative action, they can freely voice their own opinions too.  An opinion doesn't have to be popular to be voiced.

What exactly is the problem that you're referring to?

Ah yes, but the moral authority forces apologies. You can voice your opinion but you have to be sorry for it. Not sure why you put black friends in quotes.

No.  You don't ever have to be sorry for your opinion.  You're always free to voice it.  This is true for everyone.  It doesn't just work for you.  If your opinion is unpopular, others are just as free to voice their opinion of your views.

Everyone's free to voice their opinion, nobody's allowed to be free of criticism though . . . which appears to be what you want.  If this is incorrect, please directly answer the question that you've ignored the two previous times it has been asked:

What exactly is the problem you're referring to?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 10:38:24 AM by GuitarStv »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1585 on: May 01, 2018, 10:16:02 AM »
I thought this was an interesting angle on the supposed leaked Mueller questions:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385602-muellers-former-assistant-says-grammatical-errors-prove-leaked-questions-came

Time will tell!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4859
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1586 on: May 01, 2018, 10:30:14 AM »
I thought this was an interesting angle on the supposed leaked Mueller questions:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385602-muellers-former-assistant-says-grammatical-errors-prove-leaked-questions-came

Time will tell!

Given that 'leaker" is one of his common go-to accusations/insults, it wouldn't surprise me all that much if it was him after all.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1587 on: May 01, 2018, 11:30:55 AM »
Nothing surprises me with this presidency. Just when you think it can't get any worse it does.

How can one man lie and connive so much? How do you keep track of the zillions of lies and deceptions?

Time to drain the sewer.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1588 on: May 01, 2018, 12:19:30 PM »
Nothing surprises me with this presidency. Just when you think it can't get any worse it does.

How can one man lie and connive so much? How do you keep track of the zillions of lies and deceptions?

Time to drain the sewer.

Isn't this largely what got us to where we are now?

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1589 on: May 01, 2018, 12:37:21 PM »
Nothing surprises me with this presidency. Just when you think it can't get any worse it does.

How can one man lie and connive so much? How do you keep track of the zillions of lies and deceptions?

Time to drain the sewer.

Isn't this largely what got us to where we are now?

Yes, and why I and others speculated that whoever comes after trump could potentially be much worse.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1590 on: May 01, 2018, 12:39:50 PM »
Nothing surprises me with this presidency. Just when you think it can't get any worse it does.

How can one man lie and connive so much? How do you keep track of the zillions of lies and deceptions?

Time to drain the sewer.

Isn't this largely what got us to where we are now?

Yes, and why I and others speculated that whoever comes after trump could potentially be much worse.
I don't follow.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1591 on: May 01, 2018, 12:54:53 PM »
Nothing surprises me with this presidency. Just when you think it can't get any worse it does.

How can one man lie and connive so much? How do you keep track of the zillions of lies and deceptions?

Time to drain the sewer.

Isn't this largely what got us to where we are now?

Yes, and why I and others speculated that whoever comes after trump could potentially be much worse.
I don't follow.

Well I won't get back into it, but when people are in a reactionary state and looking for a savior (drain the swamp, sewer, stick it to the billionaires, etc) in my view they are prime to be manipulated. When there is someone put up against trump that makes great promises people will vote for them if only to not vote trump. That person could very well be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The nice thing about trump was that we knew exactly who he would be as president. At this moment nothing he does is really that surprising.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1592 on: May 01, 2018, 01:01:41 PM »
No, I don't think anyone could have ever known that this could have gotten so out of control as it has. We knew he was different and outspoken but never in a million years did anyone expect this.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3183
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1593 on: May 01, 2018, 01:03:06 PM »
No, I don't think anyone could have ever known that this could have gotten so out of control as it has. We knew he was different and outspoken but never in a million years did anyone expect this.

I did.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1594 on: May 01, 2018, 01:08:32 PM »
No, I don't think anyone could have ever known that this could have gotten so out of control as it has. We knew he was different and outspoken but never in a million years did anyone expect this.

I did.

And I'm surprised at how well it's going :)

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1595 on: May 01, 2018, 01:11:35 PM »
No, I don't think anyone could have ever known that this could have gotten so out of control as it has. We knew he was different and outspoken but never in a million years did anyone expect this.

So with all of trump's failed history in business dealings, shady lawsuits, TV personality, and his talk during the campaign you didn't think it would be this bad? I thought it would be worse, honestly.

Russia is a fucking scapegoat so our media doesn't have to take responsibility for creating him. IMO they had more to do with influencing the election than some Russian trolls. It's like the comedian said at the dinner, they say they hate him but really the media loves him, it sells them papers, gets them clicks, they make money off of him.

I kind of thought he would just be a sacrificial lamb for the republicans, they would impeach him, denounce him, and be the ones that save us from trump, in an attempt to make themselves look good. I guess I was wrong on that one cause all they have done is double down on him.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1596 on: May 01, 2018, 01:14:18 PM »
When there is someone put up against Clinton that makes great promises people will vote for them if only to not vote Clinton. That person (Trump) could very well be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The nice thing about Clinton was that we knew exactly who she would be as president.

Hmm, isn't this exactly how we ended up with someone much worse already?  Edited your quote to clarify.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 01:16:24 PM by caracarn »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1597 on: May 01, 2018, 01:31:55 PM »
Nothing surprises me with this presidency. Just when you think it can't get any worse it does.

How can one man lie and connive so much? How do you keep track of the zillions of lies and deceptions?

Time to drain the sewer.

Isn't this largely what got us to where we are now?

Yes, and why I and others speculated that whoever comes after trump could potentially be much worse.
I don't follow.

Well I won't get back into it, but when people are in a reactionary state and looking for a savior (drain the swamp, sewer, stick it to the billionaires, etc) in my view they are prime to be manipulated. When there is someone put up against trump that makes great promises people will vote for them if only to not vote trump. That person could very well be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The nice thing about trump was that we knew exactly who he would be as president. At this moment nothing he does is really that surprising.

I don't think you understood me.  I do not understand how those two statements connect. I understand that Trump's supporters largely voted for him over promises to 'drain the swamp', and I was part of the discussion about how what follows could be much worse.  BUt there was a jump between what has happened and what you expect will happen that didn't connect, for me.  The placement of "why" in your response I think is what is confusing me.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1598 on: May 01, 2018, 01:35:05 PM »
When there is someone put up against Clinton that makes great promises people will vote for them if only to not vote Clinton. That person (Trump) could very well be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The nice thing about Clinton was that we knew exactly who she would be as president.

Hmm, isn't this exactly how we ended up with someone much worse already?  Edited your quote to clarify.

My thoughts exactly. Fear mongering as a political tactic goes way back and was used very effectively to shut down the cerebral cortex (where reasoning takes place) of a lot of voters this time around. My feeling is that it already happened on one side and next time around it will probably be happening on both sides and to a greater extent. That doesn't mean a decent candidate can't find their way into the fray but so could a terrible one.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1599 on: May 01, 2018, 01:56:11 PM »
When there is someone put up against Clinton that makes great promises people will vote for them if only to not vote Clinton. That person (Trump) could very well be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The nice thing about Clinton was that we knew exactly who she would be as president.

Hmm, isn't this exactly how we ended up with someone much worse already?  Edited your quote to clarify.

My thoughts exactly. Fear mongering as a political tactic goes way back and was used very effectively to shut down the cerebral cortex (where reasoning takes place) of a lot of voters this time around. My feeling is that it already happened on one side and next time around it will probably be happening on both sides and to a greater extent. That doesn't mean a decent candidate can't find their way into the fray but so could a terrible one.

It's kind of like overt vs covert narcissists, at least you can see the overt narcissist coming. Trump was pretty clear about exactly what kind of shitty he is, he is a wolf in wolf's clothing, apparently they like red ties.