EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9287
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
1: Continue the very troubling policy of long term conflicts and use of automated weapons across the globe 2: End literally every policy even mildly redeemed us under the guise that it’s about “America First,” | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 21 2017 23:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I don't know why I still hadn't realized that the most likely reason for Mueller to be fired was potentially exposing Trump's real worth, financial assets, and the depths of his past utter failures rather than Russia ties. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
urmomdresslikafloozy
191 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On November 22 2017 01:50 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote: Is Gillibrand preparing for a presidential bid? I hope so. This sort of yolo "fuck the Clintons" is exactly what we need loud voices in the party to say. It is time to move on. Political movements work differently now. Trump and Bernie have done a great job at showing how irrelevant party establishments can be. They only become relevant when they try to unfairly exert their influence over outsiders. Democrats need someone prominent to help sever ties with the Clintons. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
ALEX MARLOW (HOST): Rape used to have a narrow definition. Rape used to have a definition where it was -- it was brutality, it was forced sexual attack and penetration. Now it's become, really, any sex that the woman ends up regretting that she had. And that leaves us without a lot of clarity, because when words lose their meaning, then they can be manipulated. And so now the left has made it so that women who are, maybe are -- I don't want to paint a scenario because the freaks at Media Matters are listening and they want to take me out of context, so I'm not going to give specific scenarios -- but you guys can do this in your own mind, where rape used to mean something. We used to all knew what it meant. And then now we don't know what it means. And then we don't know what's credible and what's not. And now everyone is going to come forward. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9771 Posts
I've heard the same thing said by quite reasonable people. The difficulty is that we are being encouraged to assume guilt in rape cases because of their sensitive nature. Any words that doubt the story of the accuser are immediately filed under 'victim blaming'. I've found the best way to deal with individual cases is to offer no opinion at all until a court has decided. On November 22 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote: We used to know the line where we could harass and abuse women without fear of repercussion. But now it changed and we can’t do that anymore. Now the women get to decide when men abuse them, which isn’t fair because I no longer have a safe space to treat women like shit. Think about what this means. The accuser gets to decide when the accused is guilty. Its not a good precedent really. Things have improved a hell of a lot in terms of women's rights but we should probably take care. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
edit: People really need to understand that the court of public opinion is not a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply, because we dont all agree on what "proven" means. There is no judge or rules of evidence in the court of public opinion. There is no judge to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. If you need the court of law to tell you what you should think about sexual assault claims, you may need to avoid any opinion on the subject ever. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9771 Posts
On November 22 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote: People should not look to the Court to tell them what is true and what isn’t. The law attempts to find the truth, but it rarely succeeds. So why should we have any opinion at all. What I get a lot of social media is people thinking that we should accept the word of a woman who says she was raped because she is a woman. Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. The court is the best system we have of getting some truth. I know it sucks, especially in America where verdicts are given by the same kind of people who voted for Trump, but its better than making up your own mind that every accusation must be true because a woman said it. Obviously there are cases where the evidence is overwhelming like Weinstein, but a single rape accusation against a man could easily be a total fabrication. Innocent until proven guilty should be assumed at all times regardless or race, gender etc. On November 22 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote: edit: People really need to understand that the court of public opinion is not a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply, because we dont all agree on what "proven" means. There is no judge or rules of evidence in the court of public opinion. There is no judge to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. If you need the court of law to tell you what you should think about sexual assault claims, you may need to avoid any opinion on the subject ever. I don't get what you are trying to say here. Maybe that people should make their minds up about stuff based on absolutely nothing. That won't work out well. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7326 Posts
On November 22 2017 02:17 Jockmcplop wrote: I've heard the same thing said by quite reasonable people. The difficulty is that we are being encouraged to assume guilt in rape cases because of their sensitive nature. Any words that doubt the story of the accuser are immediately filed under 'victim blaming'. I've found the best way to deal with individual cases is to offer no opinion at all until a court has decided. Think about what this means. The accuser gets to decide when the accused is guilty. Its not a good precedent really. Things have improved a hell of a lot in terms of women's rights but we should probably take care. Everything is tried in the court of public opinion now because drama. The whole sexual assault thing is a mess. Even the wording sexual assault is a mess. Quite often its used to be synonamous with rape. I think its important that we dont discourage women from coming out when they are assaulted but we have to be very careful with our language when dealing with the accused. Overall people just need to be better. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45309 Posts
The word "consent" appears zero times in that paragraph. Also, Breitbart, so... facepalm. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 22 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I hope so. This sort of yolo "fuck the Clintons" is exactly what we need loud voices in the party to say. It is time to move on. Political movements work differently now. Trump and Bernie have done a great job at showing how irrelevant party establishments can be. They only become relevant when they try to unfairly exert their influence over outsiders. Democrats need someone prominent to help sever ties with the Clintons. i'm not sure it's time to so heavily discount party establishments just yet; nor to consider a couple exceptional cases so strongly. on the breitbart note: I mock it for the obvious problems with it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote: So why should we have any opinion at all. What I get a lot of social media is people thinking that we should accept the word of a woman who says she was raped because she is a woman. Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. The court is the best system we have of getting some truth. I know it sucks, especially in America where verdicts are given by the same kind of people who voted for Trump, but its better than making up your own mind that every accusation must be true because a woman said it. Obviously there are cases where the evidence is overwhelming like Weinstein, but a single rape accusation against a man could easily be a total fabrication. Innocent until proven guilty should be assumed at all times regardless or race, gender etc. I don't get what you are trying to say here. Maybe that people should make their minds up about stuff based on absolutely nothing. That won't work out well. It could easily not be a fabrication too. I don’t understand why you can’t just read up on the story and make a decision for yourself. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7326 Posts
On November 22 2017 02:36 farvacola wrote: Seemed inevitable after many of the women who worked with him were like, "yeahhhhhh, dude's a creep." Do we think it matters if he even realized he was a creep? This guy has a long pattern of stuff and hes intelligent so he probably knew. I think going forward its good as certain behaviors are brought to light and shamed but i do wonder if some guys are gonna be caught up for behavior they didnt realize was socially unacceptable. | ||
KwarK
United States43611 Posts
On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote: Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying we should believe women because women are unlikely to lie. | ||
| ||
