US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9196

On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:

You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at.

On November 10 2017 06:13 NewSunshine wrote:

I would like to see it answered as well. xD has managed to dodge answering Kwark because he can bite on what other people are saying instead, implicitly refusing to answer, so that's what he's done so far. He and Danglars can act like they're put out all they want, but it's a single straightforward question. It shouldn't be that hard to get an answer. That's what I take issue with, at the very least.

On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced

generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt.

On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:


or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with

On November 10 2017 06:39 Plansix wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard set for the state bringing the power of force against a citizen for a crime they committed. Just like beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of public opinion has no judge. No rules of evidence that are enforced. No penalty for lying. The legal standard can’t apply because we can’t prove anything. We don’t even have a system in place to judge is something proven. So you are left with your own personal judgment.

On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:

I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is.

On November 10 2017 06:52 Danglars wrote:

You have a poor understanding of single, straightforward questions.

On November 10 2017 06:52 KwarK wrote:

Are we reading different articles? None of the women in that article gave consent. Or are you suggesting that asking, which he didn't do in all of those cases, is sufficient? The way I do consent you ask and then if they say no, you stop. You're not done just by asking.

On November 10 2017 07:00 Sermokala wrote:
Starts post with "I don't want to get into a pissing match with you" provides to start a pissing match with person.

On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:


i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing

to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally.

im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself

anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . .

On November 10 2017 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about why this isn't true, I think Kwark details that sufficiently above. What I will get at is, don't you ever wonder why you end nearly every conversation you're a part of with "well I said my piece, it's not my fault if literally everybody else was too stupid/mean to understand me"?

Like, I'm not trying to make this personal, obnoxious as I find it, but communication is a two-way street. I know you know this, you're not stupid. When someone claims that the reason no one understands them is because everyone else just didn't "get" them, they're usually full of shit in one way or another. You're the one making the claim or statement, so it's on you to make your position clear to a certain degree. When someone asks you for clarification, you don't go "well you're just stupid and need to reread what I said". Like Kwark said, either clarify your position, or retract it and admit you misspoke.

On November 10 2017 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:

Thank you for your input. I value it highly.

On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:


or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with

On November 10 2017 06:58 warding wrote:


The point that immediately follows is that we should be more empathetic towards criminals.

On November 10 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:

Let me make this abundantly clear for everyone who still doesn't get it: I have neither the time nor the inclination to suffer fools. If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation with me, I'm more than happy to do so. When people stupidly read all sorts of inane shit into my posts rather than just read what I put out there, my reaction is not going to be so good -- if I react at all. I explained my position regarding DC quite directly, making it clear that I don't care, and that to the extent that there is any injustice, it is more than offset by DC's unique position in the country and the economic benefits derived therefrom. That is more than adequate. In light of those statements, Kwark's subsequent question was not only patently stupid but also inherently dishonest in how it was framed. Unsurprisingly, the smart posters in the thread understood that. The dumb ones ... not so much.

On November 10 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:

I'm pretty sure a guy in a bar flirting with girls in short skirts isn't going to worry that she will tweet #metoo later.
Flirting between 'normal' people will be perfectly fine.

Those in the public light might be a little more careful and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Today’s teens are also less likely to date. The initial stage of courtship, which Gen Xers called “liking” (as in “Ooh, he likes you!”), kids now call “talking”—an ironic choice for a generation that prefers texting to actual conversation. After two teens have “talked” for a while, they might start dating. But only about 56 percent of high-school seniors in 2015 went out on dates; for Boomers and Gen Xers, the number was about 85 percent.

The decline in dating tracks with a decline in sexual activity. The drop is the sharpest for ninth-graders, among whom the number of sexually active teens has been cut by almost 40 percent since 1991. The average teen now has had sex for the first time by the spring of 11th grade, a full year later than the average Gen Xer. Fewer teens having sex has contributed to what many see as one of the most positive youth trends in recent years: The teen birth rate hit an all-time low in 2016, down 67 percent since its modern peak, in 1991.

On November 10 2017 07:12 KwarK wrote:

The lack of voting rights is "offset" by the economic benefits they receive?