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.
in spite of countless posts distrusting unnamed sources, not only do you buy it, but now you’re selling it on Tucker Carlson’s credibility? Surely you’re in the twilight zone..
On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote: If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board.
I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once.
Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go.
What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up
new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One
when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested".
Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't.
I'm not sure why you're referring to the "Podestas" in the plural, other than to try to drag the Clinton camp into things. It is the case that the Mueller investigation is, first and foremost, an investigation of the Trump campaign (by the terms of Mueller's authorization as special counsel).
The main event is still very much the Trump campaign, and the George P revelations, combined with other campaign willingness to obtain dirt on Hillary from Russia, start to reveal at least a desire to collude.
i would like to say i'm shocked by the false equivalence between tony podesta's work and everything papadou, manafort and gate have done, but i'm not.
You realize that Mueller has alleged that Podesta conspired with Manafort to do all of Manafort's allegedly illegal stuff, right?
And if your beef is with the allegation of John being lumped in with his brother, the allegation is neither unfounded nor unsubstantiated. In particular, per Carlson's reporting, Mueller has a witness who will testify to just that.
manafort lied to the feds about lobbying for the party of regions. who's to say he didn't lie to his business partners about it either? i posted this yesterday.
sure it's possible tony podesta knew everything. it's also very possible that he didn't. or it could be somewhere in between where he felt manafort/ ECMU wasn't being completely straight, but he didn't bother looking into (i) maintain plausible deniability and (ii) keep the money flowing. the last option is what i think is the most likely - it's not admirable, but it also keeps him clear legally.
also lol tucker carlson. i would place him only a couple hairs more credible than a youtube video.
On November 01 2017 01:39 brian wrote: in spite of countless posts distrusting unnamed sources, not only do you buy it, but now you’re selling it on Tucker Carlson’s credibility? Surely you’re in the twilight zone..
That's a fair point. But what the witness is saying is common knowledge anyway. Everyone knows how the Podestas operate and what their ties to the Clintons are, and more importantly, how the Podestas leverage their ties to the Clintons to promote their lobbying business. There's no mystery to what lobbying is and how it works.
On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote: If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board.
I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once.
Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go.
What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up
new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One
when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested".
Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't.
I'm not sure why you're referring to the "Podestas" in the plural, other than to try to drag the Clinton camp into things. It is the case that the Mueller investigation is, first and foremost, an investigation of the Trump campaign (by the terms of Mueller's authorization as special counsel).
The main event is still very much the Trump campaign, and the George P revelations, combined with other campaign willingness to obtain dirt on Hillary from Russia, start to reveal at least a desire to collude.
i would like to say i'm shocked by the false equivalence between tony podesta's work and everything papadou, manafort and gate have done, but i'm not.
You realize that Mueller has alleged that Podesta conspired with Manafort to do all of Manafort's allegedly illegal stuff, right?
And if your beef is with the allegation of John being lumped in with his brother, the allegation is neither unfounded nor unsubstantiated. In particular, per Carlson's reporting, Mueller has a witness who will testify to just that.
manafort lied to the feds about lobbying for the party of regions. who's to say he didn't lie to his business partners about it either? i posted this yesterday.
sure it's possible tony podesta knew everything. it's also very possible that he didn't.
You could be right. But Mueller very clearly disagrees with you.
On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote: If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board.
I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once.
Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go.
What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up
new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One
when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested".
Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't.
I'm not sure why you're referring to the "Podestas" in the plural, other than to try to drag the Clinton camp into things. It is the case that the Mueller investigation is, first and foremost, an investigation of the Trump campaign (by the terms of Mueller's authorization as special counsel).
The main event is still very much the Trump campaign, and the George P revelations, combined with other campaign willingness to obtain dirt on Hillary from Russia, start to reveal at least a desire to collude.
i would like to say i'm shocked by the false equivalence between tony podesta's work and everything papadou, manafort and gate have done, but i'm not.
You realize that Mueller has alleged that Podesta conspired with Manafort to do all of Manafort's allegedly illegal stuff, right?
And if your beef is with the allegation of John being lumped in with his brother, the allegation is neither unfounded nor unsubstantiated. In particular, per Carlson's reporting, Mueller has a witness who will testify to just that.
manafort lied to the feds about lobbying for the party of regions. who's to say he didn't lie to his business partners about it either? i posted this yesterday.
sure it's possible tony podesta knew everything. it's also very possible that he didn't.
You could be right. But Mueller very clearly disagrees with you.
mueller is looking into it. it's far from 'very clear' that there's anything going on. you're projecting your own opinion of guilt onto the facts of the investigation.
even weirder is you said manafort is a nothingburger, or rather that failure to report foreign lobbying isn't that big of a deal. why with regards to tony podesta are you making it such a huge issue then? can't really have that both ways.
On November 01 2017 01:39 brian wrote: in spite of countless posts distrusting unnamed sources, not only do you buy it, but now you’re selling it on Tucker Carlson’s credibility? Surely you’re in the twilight zone..
That's a fair point. But what the witness is saying is common knowledge anyway. Everyone knows how the Podestas operate and what their ties to the Clintons are, and more importantly, how the Podestas leverage their ties to the Clintons to promote their lobbying business. There's no mystery to what lobbying is and how it works.
yea i don’t disbelieve it myself. i don’t have the same distrust of unnamed sources personally. on the other hand, i wouldn’t ever repeat anything Carlson said. but there’s nothing worth defending (from what very little i know) about either Podesta. if they’re guilty and we can actually put them away too it’ll be a red letter day for american politics.
i’m a bad juror. it would actually bring me great joy to convict a lobbyist (assuming though that they are actually guilty.)
regardless of any personal opinion of the podestas (i'm pretty much neutral), innocent until proven guilty is kind of one of the tenets of our justice system. obviously this is internet court/ the court of public opinion, but "guilty because i don't like them" doesn't sit right with me.
Finally got around to reading the Manafort / Gates indictment. How much of this indictment do you think can be made to stick against Company B? I am pretty hardcore pro-Mueller and I don't see how he gets the 'Conspiracy Against the United States' stuff to stick on even Manafort without someone else flipping. The money laundering stuff has specific amounts and dates and looks very solid on Manafort/Gates, but none of that is going to spread to Company B. The FARA filing failure charges are specific to Manafort / Gates. If Tony Podesta also lied / failed to file then yeah, he could be comparably in trouble on analogous grounds. But the Conspiracy Against USA and Money Laundering sections are not going to extend to Tony/Company B.
On November 01 2017 02:00 Wulfey_LA wrote: Finally got around to reading the Manafort / Gates indictment. How much of this indictment do you think can be made to stick against Company B? I am pretty hardcore pro-Mueller and I don't see how he gets the 'Conspiracy Against the United States' stuff to stick on even Manafort without someone else flipping. The money laundering stuff has specific amounts and dates and looks very solid on Manafort/Gates, but none of that is going to spread to Company B. The FARA filing failure charges are specific to Manafort / Gates. If Tony Podesta also lied / failed to file then yeah, he could be comparably in trouble on analogous grounds. But the Conspiracy Against USA and Money Laundering sections are not going to extend to Tony/Company B.
Isn't the whole point to go wide in your claims and then drop the more outline charges if you can't hold them up in court (while having a solid core you can get a conviction on). Rather then claiming what your sure of and missing the chance of a higher sentence if you get more info?
Especially if your running into issues with statues of limitations and have to move now while your still investigating.
He played trump like a fiddle over the weekend with the announcement and the indictment, and he does it not for show but for good old service to the country. He must at least be 10 steps ahead of the trump side on this.
On November 01 2017 02:00 Wulfey_LA wrote: Finally got around to reading the Manafort / Gates indictment. How much of this indictment do you think can be made to stick against Company B? I am pretty hardcore pro-Mueller and I don't see how he gets the 'Conspiracy Against the United States' stuff to stick on even Manafort without someone else flipping. The money laundering stuff has specific amounts and dates and looks very solid on Manafort/Gates, but none of that is going to spread to Company B. The FARA filing failure charges are specific to Manafort / Gates. If Tony Podesta also lied / failed to file then yeah, he could be comparably in trouble on analogous grounds. But the Conspiracy Against USA and Money Laundering sections are not going to extend to Tony/Company B.
Isn't the whole point to go wide in your claims and then drop the more outline charges if you can't hold them up in court (while having a solid core you can get a conviction on). Rather then claiming what your sure of and missing the chance of a higher sentence if you get more info?
Especially if your running into issues with statues of limitations and have to move now while your still investigating.
Yeah, for sure. Mueller has indicted more than he has shown. My prediction is that Gates rolls over an Manafort because Gates is 45 with a young family and not very much money and few job opportunities after he was blackballed by movement conservative employers (see him getting fired yesterday).
My point was that extending this to Tony Podesta / Company B is going to be rough.
[QUOTE]On November 01 2017 01:28 Artisreal wrote: [QUOTE]On October 31 2017 19:32 Danglars wrote: [url=https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/924813949446639617]https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/924813949446639617[/url] Boehner’s having some fun in his retirement.
[url=https://twitter.com/heminator/status/925070118048141312]https://twitter.com/heminator/status/925070118048141312[/url] Deserved because Trump is just that bad?
[url=https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/925154895073648640]https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/925154895073648640[/url] For farva and Mr Kulturkampf. [/QUOTE] if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably. The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though. Important take-away from her text might be: [quote] Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute] Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman. What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women.+ Show Spoiler +
Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women?
It's about equality.
And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +
If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon
This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration.[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t get much better/different in light of the quoted portion. It’s not about separating toxic from regular and recuperating the term ... it’s about rejecting the entire idea in her view. It’s pretty much straight radical egalitarianism. It stuck out to me because farva pulled out toxic masculinity by saying its just I’ll defined in English compared to machismo. I was interested if he (and others from those pages) were willing to admit the term and it’s use does apply broadly in areas of academia and it’s a natural takeaway from today’s use of the term. As opposed to defined narrowly and having natural limits. For all I know, the conversation has shifted again and the people from that conversation are in wholehearted agreement.
if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably. The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though. Important take-away from her text might be:
Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute] Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman. What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women.+ Show Spoiler +
Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women?
It's about equality.
And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +
If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon
This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration.
It doesn’t get much better/different in light of the quoted portion. It’s not about separating toxic from regular and recuperating the term ... it’s about rejecting the entire idea in her view. It’s pretty much straight radical egalitarianism. It stuck out to me because farva pulled out toxic masculinity by saying its just I’ll defined in English compared to machismo. I was interested if he (and others from those pages) were willing to admit the term and it’s use does apply broadly in areas of academia and it’s a natural takeaway from today’s use of the term. As opposed to defined narrowly and having natural limits. For all I know, the conversation has shifted again and the people from that conversation are in wholehearted agreement.
In addition to what kwark said, can you rephrase the bolded part? I'm too dumb to understand it. Might also be an autocorrect issue but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
I think Mr. Legum is getting a little ahead of himself by presuming that Mr. Trump is the person who should be worried. After seeing what's in the indictments, I can think of several people who have more to worry about now.
EDIT: Speaking of which, where is the ChristianS police? Here's the opportunity for him to prove my charge of hypocrisy wrong.
Still catching up on the thread, a bit busy at work atm. Is the quoted post supposed to be the offending one? Because I can kinda see how you'd argue that a lot of the current talk about Trump/Russia would qualify for the "vague insinuation conspiracy theory" criticism, except little enough is known at the moment that it's a bit hard to tell which are people being intentionally vague and which are judt people doing the best with the info they have. At least, it's hard for me to tell without following the Russia investigation more thsn I have.
Feel free to make the case yourself, if you think someone's playing the same games you've been accused of. Alternatively, feel free to rebut the criticisms of yourself, rather than trying to deflect with "double standard" (implying I'm obligated to give the same level of scrutiny to everyone because I did it to you once) or "hypocrisy" (apparently I'm somehow guilty of the same thing I accused you of even thouh I haven't even been posting?)
if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably. The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though. Important take-away from her text might be:
Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute] Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman. What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women.+ Show Spoiler +
Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women?
It's about equality.
And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +
If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon
This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration.
It doesn’t get much better/different in light of the quoted portion. It’s not about separating toxic from regular and recuperating the term ... it’s about rejecting the entire idea in her view. It’s pretty much straight radical egalitarianism. It stuck out to me because farva pulled out toxic masculinity by saying its just I’ll defined in English compared to machismo. I was interested if he (and others from those pages) were willing to admit the term and it’s use does apply broadly in areas of academia and it’s a natural takeaway from today’s use of the term. As opposed to defined narrowly and having natural limits. For all I know, the conversation has shifted again and the people from that conversation are in wholehearted agreement.
In addition to what kwark said, can you rephrase the bolded part? I'm too dumb to understand it. Might also be an autocorrect issue but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
The entire three paragraphs are the basic screed. She says we need to attack masculinity directly, not recuperate (separate out toxic, what I understood to be farva’s point). That it’s all about feeling good about yourself and the need to stand opposed. That masculinity itself is suspicious for arousing feelings of superiority. Masculinity is a hazardous ideology. These are her arguments and are stunning. Femininity and masculinity were previously realized as a broad range of personality traits, attitudes, and sometimes virtues that stood somewhat opposed to each other and somewhat not (compare how innocent it is for asking a man to get more in touch with his feminine side). Abandoning one side of that structure is core sexual egalitarianism. It’s right there in the writing.
I’m too much convinced that people have made up their mind on third wave feminism and toxic masculinity to argue someone into believing that today’s emanations are dangerous to society. My first question was if the forum leftists agreed with this person’s take or disagreed: its masculinity itself that needs to be opposed and talking about toxic (as differentiated) falls by the wayside. Not reform but dismantlement. My second question from people that remember the machismo discussion was if they could now see why some men conclude toxic masculinity was always about making the term overbroad and attacking the base.
I think Mr. Legum is getting a little ahead of himself by presuming that Mr. Trump is the person who should be worried. After seeing what's in the indictments, I can think of several people who have more to worry about now.
EDIT: Speaking of which, where is the ChristianS police? Here's the opportunity for him to prove my charge of hypocrisy wrong.
Still catching up on the thread, a bit busy at work atm. Is the quoted post supposed to be the offending one? Because I can kinda see how you'd argue that a lot of the current talk about Trump/Russia would qualify for the "vague insinuation conspiracy theory" criticism, except little enough is known at the moment that it's a bit hard to tell which are people being intentionally vague and which are judt people doing the best with the info they have. At least, it's hard for me to tell without following the Russia investigation more thsn I have.
Feel free to make the case yourself, if you think someone's playing the same games you've been accused of. Alternatively, feel free to rebut the criticisms of yourself, rather than trying to deflect with "double standard" (implying I'm obligated to give the same level of scrutiny to everyone because I did it to you once) or "hypocrisy" (apparently I'm somehow guilty of the same thing I accused you of even thouh I haven't even been posting?)
Yep, that's the post. It's very clearly even more unsubstantiated than what you interrogated me over this past weekend (and no, that wasn't the first time that you'd pulled that stunt, either). And in case you haven't noticed, I have spent the past several pages making the case myself, which should make your job quite easy. So please, feel free to demonstrate your fairness to everyone.
EPT
