US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9204

On November 10 2017 12:14 KwarK wrote:

Hard to tell with Igne. Also it's not clear what he means by consent given. Consent to give a blowjob doesn't imply consent to sex etc. And even for a single act, it's still a case of "make a reasonable judgement based on context and cues". If your partner starts freezing or being disassociative the reasonable judgement would be that something has gone wrong and you should check in with them.

It's not the biggest of consent fouls if consent isn't explicitly withdrawn but the person stopped wanting it, that's more of a good faith fuckup. But it's still something that does happen and you should be aware of. Best to continue to make moment to moment judgements rather than assuming.

Or if he's referring to relationships, same principle. Context and cues. The context and cues for consent for someone you're in a sexual relationship with will be very different than they would be for a stranger and you're using your judgement far more, but you're still not assuming.

On November 10 2017 12:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:


No it's pretty easy to understand what he meant by the context, and it being igne. Something to the effect that 'if you have established that it's okay for you to kiss your wife when you feel like it, or grab her ass when walking past her, or put your head in her boobs during hugs, or grabbing her boobs when spooning', then it's okay to continue doing any of those things until she shows discomfort with one of them. But if you've been doing it for a while, you can assume it's okay that you continue. He wasn't saying that 'because you got a blowjob once, you can demand it whenever' and if you were to assume anything to that effect it would be you being deliberately obtuse.

On November 10 2017 12:41 KwarK wrote:

The kissing and grabbing etc you're describing would for me fall under reasonable judgement based on context and cues. You're not just assuming that it's okay because you did it before or because you're in a relationship, you're applying judgement (for example it might not be okay if they're in a shitty mood).

I didn't say anything about if you got a blowjob once you're entitled to it whenever, that wasn't any component of my post. I wasn't sure what he meant so I covered general consent in relationships (what you're talking about), limited consent during sex in case he was talking about assuming broader consent, and how consent still doesn't relieve an obligation to continually apply judgement in case he was talking about sex. I didn't say anything about that though, that wasn't a thing I thought he meant so I didn't respond to it.

Consent is an active state, you're making active judgements based upon your best information and continually refreshing that. Not always consciously, sometimes things will just not feel right, but you're not assuming.

That's not specific to established couples either, it's the same process of making your best judgement if you're deciding to go for a kiss on a first date. The cues and context change but the process doesn't.

On November 10 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote:

I don't know how you're defining "intrinsic" value, but if an employer is willing to pay me $100,000, the market value of my labor is $100,000 (assuming efficient/competitive markets). If the market values my labor more than someone else's, it follows that (again, assuming efficient/competitive markets) society's best estimate of my labor's value is more than that other person's. Should not the fruits of society's labor be distributed, in principle, proportionally to those who created it? Especially given that, for most people, the market value of the labor is--to a pretty large degree--under their control during their lifetime?

You can argue that heirs to large fortunes didn't really create the value that their fortune's create (their parents did) and I think that's fair (though there are counterarguments in favor of the estate tax as well), or that economic mobility isn't possible (I disagree), but to act like the only basis for how society's wealth should be distributed is the tyranny of the masses (who are writing the "book of rules" you're referencing--at least in a democracy) doesn't have any moral or ethical basis in favor of it.

On November 10 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:

The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated. That's pretty much the point of capitalism, the underlying mechanism that makes capitalism work is people attempting to do arbitrage to take advantage of that discrepancy. If you break it down to its very simplest village level bartering, the objective is to find something that you can produce in an hour that you can trade for firewood that took two hours to chop. You perform one hour of labour, and yet you get two hours of stuff.

The mechanism relies upon disproportionate rewards to redistribute labour and direct economic activity. Clearly whatever the guy in the village was doing with his hour was the right thing to do, and other villagers may follow him until an equilibrium where 1 hour = 1 hour is restored. Arbitrage to exploit disproportionate rewards between what you contribute and what you get is the engine that drives capitalism.

By the time we apply it on a modern global perspective the difference is staggering, a ratio of thousands of manhours to one in many cases. These differences are reinforced by artificial impositions upon the ability of many people to engage in arbitrage, such as denying Mexicans the ability to sell their labour in America, and by exploitation grandfathered in by the capital class. However, the basic engine remains the same, the economic systems offers participants in the economy disproportionate rewards for directing their labour in certain ways.

The disproportionate outcome needs to exist for our society to work. We need doctors to get more than grocers to keep kids in school. But it doesn't follow that what the system outputs is what you deserve, or what you earned. It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed. Deserve and earned are subjective moral concepts that aren't relevant to the mechanism, what you get is what you get.

The share of the wealth you get and the share of the wealth you created aren't well correlated.

It's certainly not what you created, any American can tell that the manhours of labour they consume on any given day greatly exceed the manhours of labour they performed.

On November 10 2017 13:54 Mohdoo wrote:
Let's take a moment to compare and contrast how Democrats defended Weiner vs how Republicans are defending Moore.

On November 10 2017 13:50 mozoku wrote:

This is literally nonsense. I barely know where to begin.

Suppose an hour's worth of labor chopping firewood produces $1 of firewood. The new guy creates $2/hr with whatever he's doing. He's twice as productive. If chooses to work the same amount of time, he gets twice as much stuff. That's literally the definition of proportional. How that's supposed to be disproportionate, I have no idea.


??? I'm pretty sure fast-food workers are creating much less wealth than software engineers, successful investors, etc. I literally can't even imagine how society would exist if this statement were true. Why would capitalism even be efficient if this statement were true? What is your definition of "well correlated"? 0.99999999999999999??


I'm not sure this is true at all. In fact, I'd lean towards not true if anything. Ever heard of an economy of scale? I work at a mega-scale tech company. I work 40-50 hrs/week, but my work influences thousands of people directly, and affects millions indirectly. Hell, the marginal cost of someone consuming my work is practically zero. Likewise, the marginal cost (in terms of other's time) of most of the stuff I consume is practically zero. That's how automation works, and is why we're fabulously wealthy compared to several hundred years ago.

WASHINGTON — After a business meeting before the Miss Universe Pageant in 2013, a Russian participant offered to "send five women" to Donald Trump's hotel room in Moscow, his longtime bodyguard told Congress this week, according to three sources who were present for the interview.

Two of the sources said the bodyguard, Keith Schiller, viewed the offer as a joke, and immediately responded, "We don't do that type of stuff."

The two sources said Schiller's comments came in the context of him adamantly disputing the allegations made in the Trump dossier, written by a former British intelligence operative, which describes Trump having an encounter with prostitutes at the hotel during the pageant. Schiller described his reaction to that story as being, "Oh my God, that's bull----," two sources said.

The conversation with the Russian about the five women took place after a morning meeting about the pageant in Moscow broke up, two sources said.

That night, two sources said, Schiller said he discussed the conversation with Trump as Trump was walking back to his hotel room, and Schiller said the two men laughed about it as Trump went to bed alone. Schiller testified that he stood outside Trump's hotel room for a time and then went to bed.

One source noted that Schiller testified he eventually left Trump's hotel room door and could not say for sure what happened during the remainder of the night.

Two other sources said Schiller testified he was confident nothing happened.

Schiller said he and Trump were aware of the risk that hotel rooms in Moscow could be set up to capture hidden video, two sources said.

Schiller was grilled about the Moscow trip as part of four hours of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The questioning around the Moscow trip took a significant amount of time, the sources said. Schiller was also asked about the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and Russians, two of the sources said. He testified that he did not recall much about that day.

In a statement, Schiller's lawyer said "the versions of Mr. Schiller’s testimony being leaked to the press are blatantly false and misleading. "

"We are appalled by the leaks that are coming from partisan insiders from the House Intelligence Committee," said Stuart Sears. "It is outrageous that the very Committee that is conducting an investigation into leaks — purportedly in the public interest — is itself leaking information and defaming cooperative witnesses like Mr. Schiller. The Chairman and Ranking Member should investigate and hold accountable whoever is responsible for leaking false and misleading versions of Mr. Schiller’s testimony. This conduct is indefensible and calls into question the credibility and motives of the Committee’s investigation."

A Navy veteran, Schiller worked part-time as a bodyguard for Trump while still an NYPD officer. He began working for Trump full-time after his retirement from the force in 2002 and became his director of security in 2004. He served as director of oval office operations in the Trump White House from January until September.