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.
On November 23 2016 14:19 kwizach wrote: The idea of Tom Perez as chairman of the DNC is growing on me. He's a great secretary of labor, has a fantastic pro-labor record, he's shrewd and competent, and in my opinion the DNC chairmanship needs to be a full-time job rather than a side occupation of a member of Congress.
I don't know Perez well enough to comment. But I do think the DNC needs a zero budge policy on campaign finance, healthcare and social security. We need a Bernie perspective in the DNC because people vote with their hearts. We gotta play the populism game.
I still like Keith Ellison. He seems to grasp the most basic concept, which is that more people lean left now, just way less left-leaners vote. So if a candidate isn't talking about how they've done it (increased voter participation) and how they will expand that to a national scale I can't get on board with them.
Politically, Perez has probably been the most palatable Clinton operative that's been proposed, but progressives are going to fight tooth and nail over someone so close to the Clinton's being put in the DNC We don't want a 2020 Clinton run and if we put one of her most fervent supporters at the head of the DNC it pretty much guarantees we get one (whether it's actually her or just one of her followers).
Loyalists can fight over this, but it's already been shown that you can't just presume we'll vote for you or you'll win without us.
As for the "Full-time" thing, there are several co-chairs, congress doesn't seem to do anything, the only thing Dem Congresspeople are going to be doing is voting no on stuff that passes anyway, doing the fillibuster where no one is there, or fundraising.
Two of those don't need the congressmen from MN, and the last is something that's part&parcel of the job. I don't think this "full-time" thing is anything but a crude attempt to point it toward people who's future work was tied to a Clinton administration that will never be.
Is there anyone who didn't endorse Hillary over Bernie that would be acceptable to Democrats like Kwiz or are only people who happened to be loyal to Hillary viable candidates?
Ellison says he'd be a full-time chair anyway so I'm not even sure who people are talking about with that.
On November 23 2016 14:19 kwizach wrote: The idea of Tom Perez as chairman of the DNC is growing on me. He's a great secretary of labor, has a fantastic pro-labor record, he's shrewd and competent, and in my opinion the DNC chairmanship needs to be a full-time job rather than a side occupation of a member of Congress.
I don't know Perez well enough to comment. But I do think the DNC needs a zero budge policy on campaign finance, healthcare and social security. We need a Bernie perspective in the DNC because people vote with their hearts. We gotta play the populism game.
Well any insider playing that game probably won't win. Trump sold people on all the grand populist promises because he had just enough credibility in the public eye being an outsider. Even then the margin was paper thin and most people know he was purely talking out of his ass with all his promises but they wanted to stick it to the establishment.
If the Dems play that game I hope they actually back them up because Trump's promises about jobs and the economy are just empty words since it is obvious he has no idea what he is talking about going from his campaign. At best he defaults to the conservative position, which isn't really great at generating anything for people in the low-middle class and below.
From what I've read, I'd probably be fine with Ellison as chair as well if he takes it full time (I didn't know he had said he would give up his seat in Congress -- do you have a source?). I've liked Perez for a long time though, and I'm sure he'd do a great job.
On November 23 2016 13:30 Mohdoo wrote: When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times.
Well I don't know the legal lingo, but is sexual assault related to the assault part of assault and battery? That is assault is the verbal part and battery is the physical contact part? Because that would suddenly make the 1 in 5 stat quite a bit more viable considering the number of verbal things certain males hurl at pretty women.
Sexual assault is when one is forced into sexual activity against their will, through coercion or physical violence. Verbal insults and instigation would fall under sexual harassment. Technically sexual assault is a subsection of sexual harassment, but the scope of acts that fall under the latter are considerably broader.
On November 23 2016 15:02 kwizach wrote: From what I've read, I'd probably be fine with Ellison as chair as well if he takes it full time (I didn't know he had said he would give up his seat in Congress -- do you have a source?). I've liked Perez for a long time though, and I'm sure he'd do a great job.
Well, full-time and exclusive aren't the same thing. Ask any of the people working more than 1 full time job. Also either one can be full time and in congress or DWS's entire chairmanship was illegitimate, and if Hillary would have won, none of the people saying they expect it now would have even brought it up.
I can't take this "full time" thing seriously, when it didn't come up after Kaine or during DWS. Particularly when it's coming from the people who didn't have this thought expressed when people were complaining about getting whooped in midterms.
It's something that conveniently impacts a particular candidate and I don't see it as anything more.
EDIT: This will sound random if one hasn't followed my posts closely, but one of my problems with Perez is that he may be a bit too friendly with labor leadership (which I think of as distinct from labor itself). Beyond the whole Hillary aspect.
Whatever the smoke and mirrors that are created in the course of a campaign may make people believe, I lived with this man day and night for a year and a half, and I have no doubt that my assessment of his character is accurate. And there unfortunately isn't virtually anybody else who's had as close of a relationship with Donald Trump, and didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Stopped after 9 minutes when he said why he wrote the book. He put his own greed above all. Why should I believe a single word he said?
On November 23 2016 13:30 Mohdoo wrote: When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times.
Well I don't know the legal lingo, but is sexual assault related to the assault part of assault and battery? That is assault is the verbal part and battery is the physical contact part? Because that would suddenly make the 1 in 5 stat quite a bit more viable considering the number of verbal things certain males hurl at pretty women.
You can't simply keep expanding the definition to claim woman got "raped". If 1 in 5 woman got raped it would mean that they get gang raped on dorms regularly and that College campuses are more dangerous to them than sub saharan African countries. This is non sense, who could possibly say this?
On November 23 2016 13:30 Mohdoo wrote: When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times.
Well I don't know the legal lingo, but is sexual assault related to the assault part of assault and battery? That is assault is the verbal part and battery is the physical contact part? Because that would suddenly make the 1 in 5 stat quite a bit more viable considering the number of verbal things certain males hurl at pretty women.
You can't simply keep expanding the definition to claim woman got "raped". If 1 in 5 woman got raped it would mean that they get gang raped on dorms regularly and that College campuses are more dangerous to them than sub saharan African countries. This is non sense, who could possibly say this?
To start off, I have no idea on the stats and where they come from, but to compare rape in the US and rape in sub-saharan Africa (why only sub-saharan, btw? It's not as if women´s rights is a big deal in northern Africa aside from Tunisia) is mindbogglingly stupid. Women´s rights is pretty low on the list of priorities in sub-saharan Africa, and what is considered rape there is generally far more restrictive than what someone who ascribes equal rights to women (you do, don't you), classifies as rape. For starters, marital rape simply doesn't exist legally in those countries. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
If women are systematically oppressed, then rape has a different meaning than when women have equal rights. From my knowledge of rural communities in both South Africa and Morocco (two of the more enlightened countries on the continent), it is generally only the case that a woman is reported as having been raped, when either her husband or her father says she has been raped. Her own word is worth less than dirt. So you can see that the statistics of "rape in Africa" means something completely different from the statistics of "rape in the US", right?
On November 23 2016 13:30 Mohdoo wrote: When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times.
Well I don't know the legal lingo, but is sexual assault related to the assault part of assault and battery? That is assault is the verbal part and battery is the physical contact part? Because that would suddenly make the 1 in 5 stat quite a bit more viable considering the number of verbal things certain males hurl at pretty women.
You can't simply keep expanding the definition to claim woman got "raped". If 1 in 5 woman got raped it would mean that they get gang raped on dorms regularly and that College campuses are more dangerous to them than sub saharan African countries. This is non sense, who could possibly say this?
To start off, I have no idea on the stats and where they come from, but to compare rape in the US and rape in sub-saharan Africa (why only sub-saharan, btw? It's not as if women´s rights is a big deal in northern Africa aside from Tunisia) is mindbogglingly stupid. Women´s rights is pretty low on the list of priorities in sub-saharan Africa, and what is considered rape there is generally far more restrictive than what someone who ascribes equal rights to women (you do, don't you), classifies as rape. For starters, marital rape simply doesn't exist legally in those countries. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
If women are systematically oppressed, then rape has a different meaning than when women have equal rights. From my knowledge of rural communities in both South Africa and Morocco (two of the more enlightened countries on the continent), it is generally only the case that a woman is reported as having been raped, when either her husband or her father says she has been raped. Her own word is worth less than dirt. So you can see that the statistics of "rape in Africa" means something completely different from the statistics of "rape in the US", right?
My point is that making up numbers or definitions ("he said mean things drunk, I GOT RAPED") takes legitimacy from the argument. College campuses are obviously a lot safer than African countries are for woman. To deal with the issue apropiately, we should not be emebelishing numbers to make it sound worse, or an ever expanding definition.
Imagine we got around saying everyone who's been mugged got murdered, or that now for victimization crime rates we used "micro agressions". It's not true, and makes any analisis impossible.
It's EXACTLY the same thing as Trumps critics. Instead of trying to critizice him, they call him an actual Nazi who will start targeting people. Muslim, latinos, even handicaped; read the non-sense about having kids send him letters to "be kind" with their latino/muslim fellow students.
Anyone actually thinks the police will start picking up and rounding up latino kids from schools? And build POW camps for them? Execute disabled kids and put them in trash cans? Collective graveyards?
No, it's fucking stupid. So stop exaggerating (or completely making up) facts, and then there can be a civil discussion.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue: "Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often.
Anyone else notice people close to Hillary's camp increasingly floating this "challenge the election" message?
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri did not respond to a request for comment. But some Clinton allies are intent on pushing the issue. This afternoon, Huma Abedin’s sister Heba encouraged her Facebook followers to lobby the Justice Department to audit the 2016 vote. “Call the DOJ…and tell them you want the votes audited,”
On November 23 2016 20:43 GreenHorizons wrote: Anyone else notice people close to Hillary's camp increasingly floating this "challenge the election" message?
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri did not respond to a request for comment. But some Clinton allies are intent on pushing the issue. This afternoon, Huma Abedin’s sister Heba encouraged her Facebook followers to lobby the Justice Department to audit the 2016 vote. “Call the DOJ…and tell them you want the votes audited,”
Idk wtf you guys are complaining about the statistics being expanded, I literally posted the source and the definition of rape they used, which was about penetration, not just general assault.
you also conveniently ignore that rape victims of any gender tend to underreport incidences of rape and assault.
this victimising crap about the numbers or the definition of assault is exactly why women look like feminists to you when you completely fail to even acknowledge that they were sexually assaulted and brush it off as some drunk mishap.
stop making generalizations of the problems people have experienced based off of your biased as fuck experiences and opinions. go read the damn studies to find out how they defined rape like I did instead of armchair debating here trying to demonize women because of your biased experiences of how rape isn't as big of a problem as people are making it out to be. how insensitive can you even be.
On November 23 2016 21:27 Blisse wrote: Idk wtf you guys are complaining about the statistics being expanded, I literally posted the source and the definition of rape they used, which was about penetration, not just general assault.
you also conveniently ignore that rape victims of any gender tend to underreport incidences of rape and assault.
this victimising crap about the numbers or the definition of assault is exactly why women look like feminists to you when you completely fail to even acknowledge that they were sexually assaulted and brush it off as some drunk mishap.
stop making generalizations of the problems people have experienced based off of your biased as fuck experiences and opinions. go read the damn studies to find out how they defined rape like I did instead of armchair debating here trying to demonize women because of your biased experiences of how rape isn't as big of a problem as people are making it out to be. how insensitive can you even be.
Indeed, and thanks for that.
I must say that i personally am also iffy about the whole "drunken sex" part, just because it is unclear to me from the study whether those instances would be those that i personally see as rape or not. There clearly are situations when drunken sex is basically rape (getting someone to pass out drunk and then having sex with them, or slipping a roofie in a drink), and there clearly are those where it isn't (two people having a few glasses of wine over a nice dinner and then having consensual, albeit drunken, sex afterwards). And the statistics don't clearly state where exactly they put the bar here.
But that is not that important a question in this case. Because even ignoring those case, and also ignoring the attempted penetrations, we still have 11.9% of females who have been successfully forcefully penetrated, which is something that is definitively inside of any reasonable definition of rape, and a far larger number than i would have expected. Also interesting to note is that the perpetrator is rarely a stranger. It is in a great majority of cases either a current/former sexual partner or an acquaintance.
So now it's up to Elon Musk, and possibly Jeff Bezos to start building stellites and renting them to NASA and other groups to study the climate. Unfucking believable.
Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.
Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.
This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.
Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.
“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
Trump has previously said that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, although on Tuesday he said there is “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate. There is overwhelming and long-established evidence that burning fossil fuels and deforestation causes the release of heat-trapping gases, therefore causing the warming experienced in recent decades.
On November 23 2016 21:27 Blisse wrote: Idk wtf you guys are complaining about the statistics being expanded, I literally posted the source and the definition of rape they used, which was about penetration, not just general assault.
you also conveniently ignore that rape victims of any gender tend to underreport incidences of rape and assault.
this victimising crap about the numbers or the definition of assault is exactly why women look like feminists to you when you completely fail to even acknowledge that they were sexually assaulted and brush it off as some drunk mishap.
stop making generalizations of the problems people have experienced based off of your biased as fuck experiences and opinions. go read the damn studies to find out how they defined rape like I did instead of armchair debating here trying to demonize women because of your biased experiences of how rape isn't as big of a problem as people are making it out to be. how insensitive can you even be.
I was about to make a long post about how I had actually gone to the study and read it, and Velr was full of shit, but you already did so.
Really, this is not about drunk sex being reported as rape. It's about rape.
Even if we disregard all the groping and boobgrabbing, and we disregard all the "penetration when incapacitated" as potential cases of drunk sex, we are left with 6.9% of surveyed girls were forcefully penetrated at Harvard. That is 7 out of 100 girls at Harvard. Pretty fucking terrible if you ask me. And I'm sure Harvard has a comparatively safe campus (being a top notch Ivy league school, and all that).
Now I'm sure some people will come and say that that is nowhere near 1 in 4, and the SJW were touting that number. It doesn't really matter. You're not talking to some fictitious strawman SJW. You're talking to us, who have looked at the actual data, and even if you go right down to the smallest number in there, that is 7 out 100 girls who are forced to have sex with someone against their will on an Ivy league college campus.
Oh, and just in case people start arguing methodology, I suggest reading Appendix 4. It probably already addresses your issue.
On November 23 2016 13:30 Mohdoo wrote: When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times.
Well I don't know the legal lingo, but is sexual assault related to the assault part of assault and battery? That is assault is the verbal part and battery is the physical contact part? Because that would suddenly make the 1 in 5 stat quite a bit more viable considering the number of verbal things certain males hurl at pretty women.
Essentially, misogynists don't count it as rape unless penetration is involved. Femenists don't require penetration to call it sexual assault.
As an example: if you drug a woman it is assumed as fucking under the influence, or sexual assault. If you are drugged or drunk while driving it is considered driving under the influence. But to some people, being drunk while fucking is not considered "fucking under the influence"
So depending how you define rape those numbers shoot way up. But even with strict definitions of rape you're still at the 20% range. If you told me 20% of Americans were being physically assaulted each year by a specific demographic that demographic would be hog tied unless the demographic is men.
Whatever the smoke and mirrors that are created in the course of a campaign may make people believe, I lived with this man day and night for a year and a half, and I have no doubt that my assessment of his character is accurate. And there unfortunately isn't virtually anybody else who's had as close of a relationship with Donald Trump, and didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Stopped after 9 minutes when he said why he wrote the book. He put his own greed above all. Why should I believe a single word he said?
And no, I am in no way a Trump supporter.
Because he's credible. His initial motivation for writing the book doesn't change what happened after he started. And if greed was still his motive he wouldn't be saying this.
On November 23 2016 20:43 GreenHorizons wrote: Anyone else notice people close to Hillary's camp increasingly floating this "challenge the election" message?
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri did not respond to a request for comment. But some Clinton allies are intent on pushing the issue. This afternoon, Huma Abedin’s sister Heba encouraged her Facebook followers to lobby the Justice Department to audit the 2016 vote. “Call the DOJ…and tell them you want the votes audited,”
Unfortunately their Wisconsin evidence was debunked by Nate Silver and Nate Cohn. It was not very intellectually impressive. All it was was that counties that used electronic machines were 7% in favor of Trump compared to counties that did not.
I could certainly believe that 15 percent of women or so in college were kissed involuntarily at least once, possibly with alcohol involved. That qualifies as sexual assault by their definition. But it's almost trivial by comparison to the emotional reaction "sexual assault" invokes.
EPT
