|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
What bothers me most about these arguments about rape is that they usually focus exclusively on a male raping a female. Female - female, male - male, transgender and females raping males are huge problems as well yet hardly mentioned.
|
On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic.
Wait--does that mean you don't think she's hawkish or does this mean you don't think she's a liar? Its unclear.
|
On October 14 2016 23:38 RvB wrote:
What bothers me most about these arguments about rape is that they usually focus exclusively on a male raping a female. Female - female, male - male, transgender and females raping males are huge problems as well yet hardly mentioned.
Its actually why I talk about rape culture and not just "the raping of women"
|
On October 14 2016 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Wait--does that mean you don't think she's hawkish or does this mean you don't think she's a liar? Its unclear.
It means she's quite obviously both.
|
On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic.
Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree.
I was just questioning your modus operandi.
Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on.
Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion.
See, that's why private is private and public is public.
Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her.
But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything.
It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous.
You call her a liar. Ok, she's probably lied sometimes. But what the fuck does "a liar" mean? For you it seems that she lies 100% of the time, that nothing she says can be trusted. Well I lied sometimes too (especially to cover my ass when I fucked up). Yet I'm a rather genuine person and I have a word.
So again, you are frustrating to discuss with because you are black and white. Hillary is black, when she says something that you might agree with she lies and everything that could be bad she does reveal her for a monster. Even a line in a private discussion, 3 years ago. I'm not trying to change you, just to explain you why I think almost everybody here finds extremely tedious to argue with you when you come up with that attitude.
|
On October 14 2016 23:31 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Lord, forgive me for what I have done to this thread by bringing up rape culture and sexism. Shouldve known it was a waste of time. People who dont think its a problem at this point arent going to be convinced otherwise.
And there are people who will rush to any thread discussing it to explain that it isn’t a problem.
|
|
|
On October 14 2016 23:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:17 Little-Chimp wrote:On October 14 2016 22:33 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 22:19 Little-Chimp wrote:On October 14 2016 21:59 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 21:54 Little-Chimp wrote:On October 14 2016 17:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 16:56 WhiteDog wrote:On October 14 2016 14:08 JW_DTLA wrote:On October 14 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Haven't followed the thread much yesterday so I've got no idea if the Michelle speech has been posted but it was pretty great, best one of the election imo I just watched it after work. I teared up. Michelle: + Show Spoiler +I am now watching the DJT Florida speech in full. DJT literally can't say a true thing. He has gone completely Assange/Wikileaks. DJT doesn't even bother to offer counter evidence to all the accusers. All he has is "false smears" and "lies". He talks and talks about everyone in the world is lying about him, but he won't sue anyone. Can't his goons see this? + Show Spoiler + "This is so bad, this is so sad, Trump is obscene and brag about gropping women. He is so bad. Moral, moral, moral, moral, moral." I'm not defending Trump at all, especially if he actually did what he was bragging about. But the fact is that a campaign that has nothing to say aside than talking about the moral of its candidates is a failed campaign. It's the degree 0 of politics. And this is somewhat described as a great speech. It's not just "moral". Sexism and rape culture are among the n.1 pronlems of today's society. I know that in France we are veeeeery tolerant to people's private life, but the fact that the president might be a sexist pig who brag about sexual aggressions is not ok. Sexism and rape culture are among the number 1 problems in today's society? Are you high? Or in saudi arabia? It's exaggerations like this that make it hard to take this term seriously. It effects 50% of the population. The majority of women you speak with will tell you they have been sexually assaulted and/or had to deal with unwanted sexual advances for a protracted period of time. That population feels powerless to speak out against sexism or sexual harassment when it happens. It’s a big issue that is pretty widely ignored. Much like racism it is a very hard issue to talk about because the standard response is always “but I’m not sexist, I’m not causing this problem. Why are you talking to me?” I'm going to need a source on the majority of women being sexually assaulted over a protracted period of time. A huge problem with this is you guys never source anything or you source that bogus 1 in 4 study and then post huge bomb statements like that. There are 100% pockets of dudes that what you talk about is real (like young biff and his friends in that story), but the majority of people that get called out for "rape culture" are just skeptics that have become jaded by hearing stories of where these 1 in 4 stats come from, or from women who have ruined some guys lives by regretting a sexual encounter later. It's because of people padding out rape stats with things like being drunk = rape even with consent that you get skeptism when stories come out. When doubt is removed NO ONE defends rapists (see Brock Turner). I don't think it's a bad thing to say "let's wait to hear both sides", and I don't think it's right to say these people are pushing "rape culture". http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdfThey don’t have a straight up report for all woman across the US, but the number is in the mid 40s for straight women and much higher for bisexual and lesbians. So while I was hasty to say it was the majority, it is a lot of women. The numbers in the mid 40s are sourced from this survey (citation P): http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdfIn this survey, on page 10, sexual violence is split up into sexual coercion (non physical), unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. By this definition, I'm not sure how the numbers aren't at 100% for everyone male and female. Look at some of these inclusions: Sexual coercion: includes being lied to, being promised something untrue, have someone threaten to end the relationship for sex. Reprehensible, but not sexual assault. Unwanted sexual assault: includes things like getting your ass or dick grabbed in a club. I'm positive this has happened to everybody (although more with attractive women, and it is completely unacceptable). Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences: includes getting sent nude photos, getting flashed You can see how these numbers get so over exaggerated by bullshit that it turns people into skeptics. To be clear, all of the things listed above are bad things. Are they sexual violence? Maybe the club stuff but the non-physical stuff 100% no. Anyone who's gotten mooned or flashed by cars of people have been victims of sexual violence according to this survey. Unacceptable. The numbers are large because the people putting them together are trying to make the point that women worry about unwanted sexual advances at all times. That it invades every aspect of their life. That even if they go dancing with female friends, they cannot avoid unwanted sexual contact. And that is the reason why they go dancing in groups. That the fear is constant and people disregard it as a normal part of life. It is the main reason why Trump’s comments about being able to do whatever he wants to women really hit home and gained traction.
That's valid but it still doesn't excuse bullshit surveys claiming 40% of women have been sexually assaulted. You might even be pushing more fear on women by saying "hey look, 40% chance!". In regards to going out dancing, people are getting hammered, wearing next to no clothes and grinding up on each other packed in like a can of sardines. People know they're going to be hit on at these things, you need to treat women more like adults and less like coddled children.
There are some desperate pieces of shit that walk around groping people at these things, but I'm not sure any education on rape culture will ever fix these people, just like a violence culture discussion won't make walking down a dark alley late at night any less scary.
|
On October 14 2016 23:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree. I was just questioning your modus operandi. Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on. Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion. See, that's why private is private and public is public. Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her. But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything. It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous.
"Yeah Clinton is a repeated liar, but calling her one isn't fair"...
The DNC lied repeatedly, cheated, and manipulated the process against their own rules, characterizing that as "the Democratic party wanted her" is laughable. The discussion may be impossible, but not for the reasons you selected.
She's not a monster, without good intentions, she (like many politicians) is simply addicted to the money/power. As such, she behaves like an addict. Addicts aren't evil people, but they are sick and need help, not enablers.
EDIT: Despite the repeated (ad nauseam) assertions that I think Hillary/Wall st. is "evil" I don't. I think they can easily be explained as addiction. More easily noticed if you replace money/power with something like cheeseburgers. If someone had a million cheeseburgers and told you they were going to spend the year amassing 10 million more you would look at them like the insane person they were, but if someone has $1 billion and they say they are going to amass $10 billion more we prop them up like a hero.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On October 14 2016 23:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Lord, forgive me for what I have done to this thread by bringing up rape culture and sexism.
Atleast you didn't call women vermin. 
|
On October 14 2016 23:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:30 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 23:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:20 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:09 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 22:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 22:40 Kickboxer wrote:
The relationship between genders when it comes to sex and courtship (seduction) is an extremely complicated matter, and there is no simple way to address it. I do agree women remain far too vulnerable to actual assault and sexual bullying, and that this is a real issue we need to work on, but the term "rape culture" is simply not the best one, and the people fighting for the cause need to choose another banner in addition to facing some serious issues they have willfully chosen to ignore.
Women simply do prefer assertive powerful men. They do prefer "aggressive" men. It might be deeply illogical and unfortunate, but it is a pragmatic fact of reality. It is the way Homo Sapiens mates, and anyone honest with themselves who's not angered by their own sexual frustration will begrudgingly recognize this.
A vast majority of females (that have not experienced sexual trauma of course) strongly prefer a hint of "sexual aggression", they do respond to "dominance", they do respond to a certain degree of autonomous boldness, and sometimes you simply do have to kiss the girl (or as "dogs" would figuratively put it "grab her by the pussy"), or you will lose her to a more confident man - even though she is not holding up a consent poster. Until the split second the woman actively resists (which is the clear line of real sexual assault as far as I am concerned) the distinction between "alpha" behavior that often brings great real-life success with women, and cancerous behavior that terrorizes them is nearly impossible to draw.
And that, in a nutshell, is why some people are willing to forgive Trump for his "locker room" talk (though he is still a pig because he's clearly crossed this line habitually).
Cat-calling is also a nuanced concept because it is in many ways an instinctive response to the sexual power an attractive woman willingly exerts upon the male subconsciousness. No, this does not mean they "deserve" to be groped let alone assaulted (!), but it is a particular form of violence against men that I feel is never properly addressed.
What I just said perhaps makes some people facepalm and cringe, but your problem then lies with the factual reality of sexual relations between men and women and not with my speculation.
Women rage about the necessity of wearing make-up 24/7 and about being objectified all the time, but most of them nevertheless spend half their money and time specifically on the task of appearing sexually attractive to men in a radius as wide as possible, because that gives them vast amounts of "soft" power over men.
Our culture has been glorifying female sexual liberation for 30 years non-stop, in addition to enforcing highly dubious ideas of "gender fluidity" marshaled by the exact same people using the term rape culture, to a point where most female celebrities (women adored and mimicked by young girls all across the world) are famous for some kind of porn, and many of them, frankly, act like sluts - or more precisely, they act like men. Why don't we ever talk about that? Do you think this contributes to the problem of rape culture or not?
Post-Samantha, in the age of Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians, is it safe to say we have a "whore culture" problem in addition to a "rape culture" problem? Is this a legitimate topic to discuss or am I deplorable? I don't know but if someone is triggered by the obscene (and deliberately obtuse) way I framed this, they should understand that championing beta behavior as a one-stop solution to the issues of violence between genders triggers many people, too, and directly helps politicians like Trump rally the silent majority. 1.) People are attracted to the options around them. If they live in a culture that values rape, they will be attracted to rapey things. Women are not "illogically" attracted to it, its a side effect that rape permeates so much of the culture that often the choice women have is to either fetish it or become celibate. 2.) Women wear makeup because the west is such a misogynistic culture, it is impossible for women to feel value outside of their own bodies. Western culture emphasizes the importance of the female body as a fuck toy to rape that in order for many women engaged in that culture, beautification to maximize the value they are told to have becomes primary. 3.) There is no such thing as a whore problem. Women enjoying sex is a not a whore problem. A whore problem is when you disallow and make illegal for women to earn an income and women are forced to become whores to make ends meet. A woman enjoying sex is, in and of itself, normal. Now if women walked around, grabbing little boys dicks, going to school and and took videos of little boys peeing, broke into peoples houses and fucked men at gun point, then you can talk about women acting too much like men. But just because they like having sex too--that's a fairly stupid thing to bring up. 4.) The reason women are doing the things you observe them doing is because the west glorifies rape. Women, also being part of western culture, can't help but be forced to engage in it as well. That's what the fucking word culture means--its the thing a group of people do. The reason its illogical and seems to serve people's interest other than the woman's is because the west is a misogynistic culture that doesn't give a fuck about the woman's thoughts and ideas. And then teaches the woman to think the same. This is probably the most anti-women thing I read in a very long time. You are saying that women are too weak to have a mind of their own, make decisions for themselves or just do anything not for men. It's not western society but you who think they are only fuck toys. Read it again. Slower, and use a dictionary for the words you don't understand. Because I fail to see how women enjoying things in the culture they are in equates to being weak minded to you. I don't even see how that equates to them being fuck toys being I don't actually talk about anything in those points about them being fuck toys. 'Use a dictionary' - one hell of an arguement lol. "Women wear makeup because the west is such a misogynistic culture, it is impossible for women to feel value outside of their own bodies." "Women, also being part of western culture, can't help but be forced to engage in it as well." As I said, you claim they are helpless. Moreover, if you now claim they are enjoying it, why is it a bad thing? Seriously, a dictionary, use it. Look up culture. See what it means. Because I don't think you understand words. Lets use a different example since you get very emotional and defensive with rape culture. Lets talk Movie Star Culture. There are good looking movie stars (citation needed), that people desire (citation needed), because they are a big part of movie star culture. People talk about movie stars (citation needed), admire them (citation needed), lust after them (citation needed), and they do this because a lot of people talk about them (citation needed). Since we are in a movie star culture, we can't help but enjoy talking about, fantasizing, and relating things to movies, movie stars, etc... Since it is cultural, we naturally tend to bring it up as a topic of conversation, thoughts, ideas, etc... Its the same with our idea of placing value in the looks of women. As a culture, we highly value good looking women. As such, just like people can't help talking about the Kardashians (you even know who I am talking about just saying Kardashian) women can't help but embody that cultural ideal. Much like it isn't weak to enjoy watching a Star Wars movie, it isn't weak to enjoy the things the culture you are in emphasizes as important. Now, go read a dictionary, and learn words. Once you know what words mean, you can better understand what is being talked about. I won't argue with someone whose only arguement is 'read a dictionary'. EDIT: dumbs happened. I'm serious about it though. In fact, get an anthropology 101 book. I really don't think you understand what the word culture means. I even shifted the subject away from rape culture into celebrity culture to show you that people love talking, thinking, and fantasizing about things in their culture. But somehow you still don't understand what culture means. Please, look it up, it will be very helpful to you.
You can define culture very broadly or very narrowly. I always assume culture in common usage to be defined as human group behaviour within a context of 25-50 years and in a limited region.
The sub/dom situation within human relations that Kickboxer so adequately described has existed within humanity for thousands of years. It might even actually predate the homo sapien. So yeah, I don't think you can attribute the sexual relation between man and woman that exists today to "rape culture". It is part of the human condition.
And yeah, obviously we need to be aware of the dangers and pitfalls of this, and we need to ensure that people are educated enough and sufficiently capable of reason to know not to force themselves on someone against their will. But to attribute this problem that exists to today's culture is denying the human condition.
|
On October 14 2016 23:46 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:24 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 23:17 Little-Chimp wrote:On October 14 2016 22:33 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 22:19 Little-Chimp wrote:On October 14 2016 21:59 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 21:54 Little-Chimp wrote:On October 14 2016 17:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 16:56 WhiteDog wrote:On October 14 2016 14:08 JW_DTLA wrote:[quote] I just watched it after work. I teared up. Michelle: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ45VLgbe_E I am now watching the DJT Florida speech in full. DJT literally can't say a true thing. He has gone completely Assange/Wikileaks. DJT doesn't even bother to offer counter evidence to all the accusers. All he has is "false smears" and "lies". He talks and talks about everyone in the world is lying about him, but he won't sue anyone. Can't his goons see this? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3hJjWTLRB0 "This is so bad, this is so sad, Trump is obscene and brag about gropping women. He is so bad. Moral, moral, moral, moral, moral." I'm not defending Trump at all, especially if he actually did what he was bragging about. But the fact is that a campaign that has nothing to say aside than talking about the moral of its candidates is a failed campaign. It's the degree 0 of politics. And this is somewhat described as a great speech. It's not just "moral". Sexism and rape culture are among the n.1 pronlems of today's society. I know that in France we are veeeeery tolerant to people's private life, but the fact that the president might be a sexist pig who brag about sexual aggressions is not ok. Sexism and rape culture are among the number 1 problems in today's society? Are you high? Or in saudi arabia? It's exaggerations like this that make it hard to take this term seriously. It effects 50% of the population. The majority of women you speak with will tell you they have been sexually assaulted and/or had to deal with unwanted sexual advances for a protracted period of time. That population feels powerless to speak out against sexism or sexual harassment when it happens. It’s a big issue that is pretty widely ignored. Much like racism it is a very hard issue to talk about because the standard response is always “but I’m not sexist, I’m not causing this problem. Why are you talking to me?” I'm going to need a source on the majority of women being sexually assaulted over a protracted period of time. A huge problem with this is you guys never source anything or you source that bogus 1 in 4 study and then post huge bomb statements like that. There are 100% pockets of dudes that what you talk about is real (like young biff and his friends in that story), but the majority of people that get called out for "rape culture" are just skeptics that have become jaded by hearing stories of where these 1 in 4 stats come from, or from women who have ruined some guys lives by regretting a sexual encounter later. It's because of people padding out rape stats with things like being drunk = rape even with consent that you get skeptism when stories come out. When doubt is removed NO ONE defends rapists (see Brock Turner). I don't think it's a bad thing to say "let's wait to hear both sides", and I don't think it's right to say these people are pushing "rape culture". http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdfThey don’t have a straight up report for all woman across the US, but the number is in the mid 40s for straight women and much higher for bisexual and lesbians. So while I was hasty to say it was the majority, it is a lot of women. The numbers in the mid 40s are sourced from this survey (citation P): http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdfIn this survey, on page 10, sexual violence is split up into sexual coercion (non physical), unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. By this definition, I'm not sure how the numbers aren't at 100% for everyone male and female. Look at some of these inclusions: Sexual coercion: includes being lied to, being promised something untrue, have someone threaten to end the relationship for sex. Reprehensible, but not sexual assault. Unwanted sexual assault: includes things like getting your ass or dick grabbed in a club. I'm positive this has happened to everybody (although more with attractive women, and it is completely unacceptable). Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences: includes getting sent nude photos, getting flashed You can see how these numbers get so over exaggerated by bullshit that it turns people into skeptics. To be clear, all of the things listed above are bad things. Are they sexual violence? Maybe the club stuff but the non-physical stuff 100% no. Anyone who's gotten mooned or flashed by cars of people have been victims of sexual violence according to this survey. Unacceptable. The numbers are large because the people putting them together are trying to make the point that women worry about unwanted sexual advances at all times. That it invades every aspect of their life. That even if they go dancing with female friends, they cannot avoid unwanted sexual contact. And that is the reason why they go dancing in groups. That the fear is constant and people disregard it as a normal part of life. It is the main reason why Trump’s comments about being able to do whatever he wants to women really hit home and gained traction. That's valid but it still doesn't excuse bullshit surveys claiming 40% of women have been sexually assaulted. You might even be pushing more fear on women by saying "hey look, 40% chance!". In regards to going out dancing, people are getting hammered, wearing next to no clothes and grinding up on each other packed in like a can of sardines. People know they're going to be hit on at these things, you need to treat women more like adults and less like coddled children. There are some desperate pieces of shit that walk around groping people at these things, but I'm not sure any education on rape culture will ever fix these people, just like a violence culture discussion won't make walking down a dark alley late at night any less scary.
There is no world in which people are "coddling women" or "treating them like children" in the context of this subject.
Telling men that they need to actually get consent before they try to do anything isn't demeaning women. It's holding men accountable for their actions.
|
Canada11349 Posts
On October 14 2016 22:52 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 22:51 Dan HH wrote:On October 14 2016 22:40 Kickboxer wrote:
The relationship between genders when it comes to sex and courtship (seduction) is an extremely complicated matter, and there is no simple way to address it. I do agree women remain far too vulnerable to actual assault and sexual bullying, and that this is a real issue we need to work on, but the term "rape culture" is simply not the best one, and the people fighting for the cause need to choose another banner in addition to facing some serious issues they have willfully chosen to ignore.
Women simply do prefer assertive powerful men. They do prefer "aggressive" men. It might be deeply illogical and unfortunate, but it is a pragmatic fact of reality. It is the way Homo Sapiens mates, and anyone honest with themselves who's not angered by their own sexual frustration will begrudgingly recognize this.
A vast majority of females (that have not experienced sexual trauma of course) strongly prefer a hint of "sexual aggression", they do respond to "dominance", they do respond to a certain degree of autonomous boldness, and sometimes you simply do have to kiss the girl (or as "dogs" would figuratively put it "grab her by the pussy"), or you will lose her to a more confident man - even though she is not holding up a consent poster. Until the split second the woman actively resists (which is the clear line of real sexual assault as far as I am concerned) the distinction between "alpha" behavior that often brings great real-life success with women, and cancerous behavior that terrorizes them is nearly impossible to draw.
And that, in a nutshell, is why some people are willing to forgive Trump for his "locker room" talk (though he is still a pig because he's clearly crossed this line habitually).
Cat-calling is also a nuanced concept because it is in many ways an instinctive response to the sexual power an attractive woman willingly exerts upon the male subconsciousness. No, this does not mean they "deserve" to be groped let alone assaulted (!), but it is a particular form of violence against men that I feel is never properly addressed.
What I just said perhaps makes some people facepalm and cringe, but your problem then lies with the factual reality of sexual relations between men and women and not with my speculation.
Women rage about the necessity of wearing make-up 24/7 and about being objectified all the time, but most of them nevertheless spend half their money and time specifically on the task of appearing sexually attractive to men in a radius as wide as possible, because that gives them vast amounts of "soft" power over men.
Our culture has been glorifying female sexual liberation for 30 years non-stop, in addition to enforcing highly dubious ideas of "gender fluidity" marshaled by the exact same people using the term rape culture, to a point where most female celebrities (women adored and mimicked by young girls all across the world) are famous for some kind of porn, and many of them, frankly, act like sluts - or more precisely, they act like men. Why don't we ever talk about that? Do you think this contributes to the problem of rape culture or not?
Post-Samantha, in the age of Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians, is it safe to say we have a "whore culture" problem in addition to a "rape culture" problem? Is this a legitimate topic to discuss or am I deplorable? I don't know but if someone is triggered by the obscene (and deliberately obtuse) way I framed this, they should understand that championing beta behavior as a one-stop solution to the issues of violence between genders triggers many people, too, and directly helps politicians like Trump rally the silent majority. While I don't agree with Biff on the topic, I do have to note the irony in you pointing this out in a post filled with debunked pop sci pack theory 'red pill' garbage Citation needed.
That's not how rule #3 works, when the original post had such nonsense claims such as Cat-calling is also a nuanced concept because it is in many ways an instinctive response to the sexual power an attractive woman willingly exerts upon the male subconsciousness. No, this does not mean they "deserve" to be groped let alone assaulted (!), but it is a particular form of violence against men that I feel is never properly addressed.
That had absolutely no support given. The original bold claim required you to go "citation needed", if you were to say it at all.
Seems as we are long on assertions and short on evidence, I'm shutting down this red pill alt-pop psych. We don't allow it in the Dating thread, and we don't need here either. Move along to other topics.
I will give one parting shot... and that is the speaking highly sexual comments to girls uninvited starts young and has more to do with self-control than anything else. My junior high sports that I coach was subject to such comments while warming up and playing- I was not within earshot and did not hear about it after the fact... most disheartening was that no nearby adult witness to it made any effort to stop it. It was very distressing to the point of some wanting to quit the team when they returned home. When I found out, I called the host school, they identified and banned the boys from the gym for extracurricular sports. Rightly so because it had nothing to do with the 'willing sexual power' and the boys 'instinctive response.' It was unwelcome and intimidating and an ugly form of harassment and bullying. What a demasculating and infantile view of men, who are oh so helpless to control their own actions. Fortunately our school system has hold a higher view of men who are accountable for their own actions and a higher view of women, who need not accept behaviour as just to 'be expected.'
So stop the current conversation and move along.
edit.
Incidentally, if any of you are thinking to yourself 'SJW's have overrun TL... this is the one case and only in this context that I would gladly accept the moniker intended as an insult. They are my players and my students and I will fight on their behalf- quite frankly though I do not get angry about many things, I still am rather angry about the whole incident.
|
|
|
On October 14 2016 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree. I was just questioning your modus operandi. Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on. Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion. See, that's why private is private and public is public. Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her. But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything. It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous. "Yeah Clinton is a repeated liar, but calling her one isn't fair"... The DNC lied repeatedly, cheated, and manipulated the process against their own rules, characterizing that as "the Democratic party wanted her" is laughable. The discussion may be impossible, but not for the reasons you selected. She's not a monster, without good intentions, she (like many politicians) is simply addicted to the money/power. As such, she behaves like an addict. Addicts aren't evil people, but they are sick and need help, not enablers.
Hillary is the DNC? So everything that the DNC does is Hillary's fault.
Your psychological stuff is cheap as fuck. You don't know her and you are not a specialist. You are just making assumptions about her motivations based on your feelings about her. You could say the same crap about any politician and it would bring you nowhere because you have no idea.
You call her a liar if you want. She is a liar insofar she lied about this or that. Then everyone is a liar.
But I say "look, it's not in her platform" and you answer "she is a liar it doesn't matter". Well, in that case there is, again nothing to discuss. You hate her because the DNC favoured her (she didn't need it she crushed Bernie but anyway), you made up your homemade psychoanalytic little tale and you decided there is nothing genuine about her except her thirst for power and money and that anytime she might say something good, it comes from a bad place.
Well, that sounds awfully like bitterness, and there is very little to talk about.
What can we contribute in your thought by talking with you? You are completely hermetic. Your stuff about her is a close system. And how can you contribute? By making us think she is horrible horrible horrible because the DNC was partial? And then what?
Meanwhile, there is Trump on the other side. But carry on with your petty vendetta.
|
On October 14 2016 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree. I was just questioning your modus operandi. Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on. Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion. See, that's why private is private and public is public. Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her. But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything. It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous. "Yeah Clinton is a repeated liar, but calling her one isn't fair"... The DNC lied repeatedly, cheated, and manipulated the process against their own rules, characterizing that as "the Democratic party wanted her" is laughable. The discussion may be impossible, but not for the reasons you selected. She's not a monster, without good intentions, she (like many politicians) is simply addicted to the money/power. As such, she behaves like an addict. Addicts aren't evil people, but they are sick and need help, not enablers. Hillary is the DNC? So everything that the DNC does is Hillary's fault. Your psychological stuff is cheap as fuck. You don't know her and you are not a specialist. You are just making assumptions about her motivations based on your feelings about her. You could say the same crap about any politician and it would bring you nowhere because you have no idea. You call her a liar if you want. She is a liar insofar she lied about this or that. But I say "look, it's not in her platform" and you answer "she is a liar it doesn't matter". Well, in that case there is, again nothing to discuss. You hate her because the DNC favoured her (she didn't need it she crushed Bernie but anyway), you made up your homemade psychoanalytic little tale and you decided there is nothing genuine about her except her thirst for power and money and that anytime she might say something good, it comes from a bad place. Well, that sounds awfully like bitterness, and there is very little to talk about. What can we contribute in your thought by talking with you? You are completely hermetic. Your stuff about her is a close system. And how can you contribute? By making us think she is horrible horrible horrible because the DNC was partial? And then what? Meanwhile, there is Trump on the other side. But carry on with your petty vendetta.
Ideally people at least recognize she is not honest when it suits her and that her struggling this hard against Trump (she can't even get 50%) combined with her (and the DNC's) deception, means that at best, she's our only option until 2020 when people who have been awoken to her real motives and goals realize that she needs to be primaried.
As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it.
|
Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter’s Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself.
In the seven years since we started labeling types of articles in Google News (e.g., In-Depth, Opinion, Wikipedia), we’ve heard that many readers enjoy having easy access to a diverse range of content types. Earlier this year, we added a “Local Source” Tag to highlight local coverage of major stories. Today, we’re adding another new tag, “Fact check,” to help readers find fact checking in large news stories. You’ll see the tagged articles in the expanded story box on news.google.com and in the Google News & Weather iOS and Android apps, starting with the U.S. and the U.K.
Google News determines whether an article might contain fact checks in part by looking for the schema.org ClaimReview markup. We also look for sites that follow the commonly accepted criteria for fact checks. Publishers who create fact-checks and would like to see it appear with the “Fact check” tag should use that markup in fact-check articles. For more information, head on over to our help center.
We’re excited to see the growth of the Fact Check community and to shine a light on its efforts to divine fact from fiction, wisdom from spin.
https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/labeling-fact-check-articles-google-news/
|
|
|
On October 14 2016 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2016 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2016 22:31 Sent. wrote:
Why would you build a missile defense system around China or Russia? I can understand surrounding Iran or North Korea with such systems because they're poor as fuck and can't afford to build thousands of missiles but it doesn't seem logical against great/super/mega powers. If I recall correctly missile defense systems aren't cost effective. I think you misread my comment, but remind us how Russia feels about the "defense system" we're installing over there in your neck of the woods? The US - Russia balance of power holds by the Mutual Annihilation doctrine. If you build an anti missile system around them, suddenly the balance changes drastically: the US can annihilate Russia, but Russia can't annihilate the US. That's a historical doctrine that has existed from the cold war. I don't think the US - Chinese relations are based on any such doctrine. And North Korea, well... But again and again, it's probably a terrible idea and it's not in Clinton platform. What's the deal here exactly? Besides that anyone would know it's a terrible idea before having to be told so (presumably a SoS should be on that list), it's further evidence of her hawkish tendencies. So for people like Plansix who are voting for her with thoughts of their brother not going to war, it's more evidence that it was always a pipe dream. Also, if you think Hillary's platform accurately represents what she intends to accomplish, then I also have a bridge to sell you. Oooooh I see. Hillary is bad because she suggested to make a defense system against NK once three years ago. - So on the one hand, you use one sentence said three years ago to say that she hawkish. - On the other one you assume that nothing in her platform or what she says has any value because she is an evil hypocritical liar. That's a bit paradoxical. My question is, since you have decided that her word was worth 0, why do you try to convince us with one sentence of her 3 years ago. Maybe she was being hypocritical and was lying. She never intended to build a defense system in fact she is a naive stupid liberal dove. See, I can do it the other way round. I get it, you really, really, really hate her. But then there is not much to discuss. She says something good you dismiss it, she says something bad (three years ago, once) it's a further proof she is evil. Not great material for a good discussion, especially with people who are not as enraged against her as you are. Your are being disingenuous or intentionally dense by suggesting I'm using a single sentence from 3 years ago. You are again being disingenuous or intentionally dense by not seeing the obvious difference between what she says in public versus what is said in private. Finally you keep trying to say I "hate" her or think she's "evil" and I've told you several times now that I don't. Plenty of people who share my other opinions do, but you can't dismiss my disagreements as just being rage fueled nothings, because you don't see all of the lies as problematic. Well, for a democrat, Clinton is on the hawkish side, I agree. I was just questioning your modus operandi. Do you realize that what someone writes in private emails is not his definitive conclusion, and not his official position. It's perfectly normal Clinton throws good and bad ideas in private emails. To attack her on that is bat shit crazy. It never made it to an agenda, she probably ended up thinking it was a bad idea or not feasible and counter productive, and moved on. Maybe she was really pissed and frustrated at the Chinese that day and was only expressing anger by making a stupid suggestion. See, that's why private is private and public is public. Also. Come on, your idea of Clinton is completely extreme. Yeah, Clinton has been shady and probably disingenuous about her emails. Ok, she was probably trying to cover her ass for that mistake. And yeah, the Democratic party wanted her. You have the right not to like her. But you don't think one good thing she ever says is sincere, you just make her into some kind of monster serial liar that has no pure intention ever and don't give a fuck about anything. It's your right. Just admit that it makes discussion impossible, because we have no material to discuss. If I say "Hillary has a great plan for education" you will answer "she doesn't mean it". Well, elections are about programs. You can't discuss an election if you first assume that the candidates are 100% disingenuous. "Yeah Clinton is a repeated liar, but calling her one isn't fair"... The DNC lied repeatedly, cheated, and manipulated the process against their own rules, characterizing that as "the Democratic party wanted her" is laughable. The discussion may be impossible, but not for the reasons you selected. She's not a monster, without good intentions, she (like many politicians) is simply addicted to the money/power. As such, she behaves like an addict. Addicts aren't evil people, but they are sick and need help, not enablers. Hillary is the DNC? So everything that the DNC does is Hillary's fault. Your psychological stuff is cheap as fuck. You don't know her and you are not a specialist. You are just making assumptions about her motivations based on your feelings about her. You could say the same crap about any politician and it would bring you nowhere because you have no idea. You call her a liar if you want. She is a liar insofar she lied about this or that. But I say "look, it's not in her platform" and you answer "she is a liar it doesn't matter". Well, in that case there is, again nothing to discuss. You hate her because the DNC favoured her (she didn't need it she crushed Bernie but anyway), you made up your homemade psychoanalytic little tale and you decided there is nothing genuine about her except her thirst for power and money and that anytime she might say something good, it comes from a bad place. Well, that sounds awfully like bitterness, and there is very little to talk about. What can we contribute in your thought by talking with you? You are completely hermetic. Your stuff about her is a close system. And how can you contribute? By making us think she is horrible horrible horrible because the DNC was partial? And then what? Meanwhile, there is Drumpf on the other side. But carry on with your petty vendetta. Ideally people at least recognize she is not honest when it suits her and that her struggling this hard against Drumpf (she can't even get 50%) combined with her (and the DNC's) deception, means that at best, she's our only option until 2020 when people who have been awoken to her real motives and goals realize that she needs to be primaried. As of now I'm inclined to think there is literally nothing she could do or say that would prevent her supporters (who can vote) from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it.
"As of now Im inclined to think that nothing she could do or say would prevent her detractors from voting for her. I'd happily take an example of something should someone think they could provide it."
So easy, and the funny part is my version is easier to believe than yours and is actually a real thing, where as your version is made in whiny loser "shes a liar" land.
This is a nothing discussion. Your opinion has had generated no value or insight since the primary, if I look at the postiing history since its actually embarrassing how one track it is. Just wanted to point it out, not going to engage this further.
|
On October 14 2016 23:48 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 23:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:30 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 23:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:20 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 23:09 Antyee wrote:On October 14 2016 22:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2016 22:40 Kickboxer wrote:
The relationship between genders when it comes to sex and courtship (seduction) is an extremely complicated matter, and there is no simple way to address it. I do agree women remain far too vulnerable to actual assault and sexual bullying, and that this is a real issue we need to work on, but the term "rape culture" is simply not the best one, and the people fighting for the cause need to choose another banner in addition to facing some serious issues they have willfully chosen to ignore.
Women simply do prefer assertive powerful men. They do prefer "aggressive" men. It might be deeply illogical and unfortunate, but it is a pragmatic fact of reality. It is the way Homo Sapiens mates, and anyone honest with themselves who's not angered by their own sexual frustration will begrudgingly recognize this.
A vast majority of females (that have not experienced sexual trauma of course) strongly prefer a hint of "sexual aggression", they do respond to "dominance", they do respond to a certain degree of autonomous boldness, and sometimes you simply do have to kiss the girl (or as "dogs" would figuratively put it "grab her by the pussy"), or you will lose her to a more confident man - even though she is not holding up a consent poster. Until the split second the woman actively resists (which is the clear line of real sexual assault as far as I am concerned) the distinction between "alpha" behavior that often brings great real-life success with women, and cancerous behavior that terrorizes them is nearly impossible to draw.
And that, in a nutshell, is why some people are willing to forgive Trump for his "locker room" talk (though he is still a pig because he's clearly crossed this line habitually).
Cat-calling is also a nuanced concept because it is in many ways an instinctive response to the sexual power an attractive woman willingly exerts upon the male subconsciousness. No, this does not mean they "deserve" to be groped let alone assaulted (!), but it is a particular form of violence against men that I feel is never properly addressed.
What I just said perhaps makes some people facepalm and cringe, but your problem then lies with the factual reality of sexual relations between men and women and not with my speculation.
Women rage about the necessity of wearing make-up 24/7 and about being objectified all the time, but most of them nevertheless spend half their money and time specifically on the task of appearing sexually attractive to men in a radius as wide as possible, because that gives them vast amounts of "soft" power over men.
Our culture has been glorifying female sexual liberation for 30 years non-stop, in addition to enforcing highly dubious ideas of "gender fluidity" marshaled by the exact same people using the term rape culture, to a point where most female celebrities (women adored and mimicked by young girls all across the world) are famous for some kind of porn, and many of them, frankly, act like sluts - or more precisely, they act like men. Why don't we ever talk about that? Do you think this contributes to the problem of rape culture or not?
Post-Samantha, in the age of Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians, is it safe to say we have a "whore culture" problem in addition to a "rape culture" problem? Is this a legitimate topic to discuss or am I deplorable? I don't know but if someone is triggered by the obscene (and deliberately obtuse) way I framed this, they should understand that championing beta behavior as a one-stop solution to the issues of violence between genders triggers many people, too, and directly helps politicians like Trump rally the silent majority. 1.) People are attracted to the options around them. If they live in a culture that values rape, they will be attracted to rapey things. Women are not "illogically" attracted to it, its a side effect that rape permeates so much of the culture that often the choice women have is to either fetish it or become celibate. 2.) Women wear makeup because the west is such a misogynistic culture, it is impossible for women to feel value outside of their own bodies. Western culture emphasizes the importance of the female body as a fuck toy to rape that in order for many women engaged in that culture, beautification to maximize the value they are told to have becomes primary. 3.) There is no such thing as a whore problem. Women enjoying sex is a not a whore problem. A whore problem is when you disallow and make illegal for women to earn an income and women are forced to become whores to make ends meet. A woman enjoying sex is, in and of itself, normal. Now if women walked around, grabbing little boys dicks, going to school and and took videos of little boys peeing, broke into peoples houses and fucked men at gun point, then you can talk about women acting too much like men. But just because they like having sex too--that's a fairly stupid thing to bring up. 4.) The reason women are doing the things you observe them doing is because the west glorifies rape. Women, also being part of western culture, can't help but be forced to engage in it as well. That's what the fucking word culture means--its the thing a group of people do. The reason its illogical and seems to serve people's interest other than the woman's is because the west is a misogynistic culture that doesn't give a fuck about the woman's thoughts and ideas. And then teaches the woman to think the same. This is probably the most anti-women thing I read in a very long time. You are saying that women are too weak to have a mind of their own, make decisions for themselves or just do anything not for men. It's not western society but you who think they are only fuck toys. Read it again. Slower, and use a dictionary for the words you don't understand. Because I fail to see how women enjoying things in the culture they are in equates to being weak minded to you. I don't even see how that equates to them being fuck toys being I don't actually talk about anything in those points about them being fuck toys. 'Use a dictionary' - one hell of an arguement lol. "Women wear makeup because the west is such a misogynistic culture, it is impossible for women to feel value outside of their own bodies." "Women, also being part of western culture, can't help but be forced to engage in it as well." As I said, you claim they are helpless. Moreover, if you now claim they are enjoying it, why is it a bad thing? Seriously, a dictionary, use it. Look up culture. See what it means. Because I don't think you understand words. Lets use a different example since you get very emotional and defensive with rape culture. Lets talk Movie Star Culture. There are good looking movie stars (citation needed), that people desire (citation needed), because they are a big part of movie star culture. People talk about movie stars (citation needed), admire them (citation needed), lust after them (citation needed), and they do this because a lot of people talk about them (citation needed). Since we are in a movie star culture, we can't help but enjoy talking about, fantasizing, and relating things to movies, movie stars, etc... Since it is cultural, we naturally tend to bring it up as a topic of conversation, thoughts, ideas, etc... Its the same with our idea of placing value in the looks of women. As a culture, we highly value good looking women. As such, just like people can't help talking about the Kardashians (you even know who I am talking about just saying Kardashian) women can't help but embody that cultural ideal. Much like it isn't weak to enjoy watching a Star Wars movie, it isn't weak to enjoy the things the culture you are in emphasizes as important. Now, go read a dictionary, and learn words. Once you know what words mean, you can better understand what is being talked about. I won't argue with someone whose only arguement is 'read a dictionary'. EDIT: dumbs happened. I'm serious about it though. In fact, get an anthropology 101 book. I really don't think you understand what the word culture means. I even shifted the subject away from rape culture into celebrity culture to show you that people love talking, thinking, and fantasizing about things in their culture. But somehow you still don't understand what culture means. Please, look it up, it will be very helpful to you. You can define culture very broadly or very narrowly. I always assume culture in common usage to be defined as human group behaviour within a context of 25-50 years and in a limited region. The sub/dom situation within human relations that Kickboxer so adequately described has existed within humanity for thousands of years. It might even actually predate the homo sapien. So yeah, I don't think you can attribute the sexual relation between man and woman that exists today to "rape culture". It is part of the human condition. And yeah, obviously we need to be aware of the dangers and pitfalls of this, and we need to ensure that people are educated enough and sufficiently capable of reason to know not to force themselves on someone against their will. But to attribute this problem that exists to today's culture is denying the human condition.
Culture does not have a time limit...
And just because there was rape culture in the past does not mean we are bound to it now. Much like just because we had cannibalism in the past does not mean we are bound to it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
