Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 02 2019 04:12 IgnE wrote: you know guys, ultimately it might be useful and good to appreciate the fact that rules can change. that human activity changes our being-in-the-world
I've written two posts on the last pages that address your rule thingy regarding how to achieve the sex thingy. Not inclined to comment?
You're also posting the same schtick in the dating advice thread and got some replies there. I'm struggling to grasp what you are really interested in here. (which might very well be due to the hedged posting style of yours)
On March 02 2019 04:02 IgnE wrote: the fact that its hard to define does not mean that it doesnt exist. if i had used the term “norms” would you still be so invested in how specifically i could outline all of them?
I would easily argue that norms are vague, shitty and an artifice that should not used to discuss a topic like romantic relations in a society as large as the entire population of the US. It works for things like "congressional practices" because of the contained nature of congress itself. It does not work on a topic as varied as dating.
In an attempt to discern what you are attempting to discuss, I would posit that you are talking about the a shift in the perceived "power" the act of seeking a romantic relationship. That women have asserted themselves to claim "new power" through increasing awareness the fraught nature of dating and existing as a woman. This "power" exists through their assertion redefine how they are allowed to respond to unacceptable and creepy behavior. Creepy behaviors, intentionally or accidentally, that would have received a polite rejection in the past now will receive an aggressive response. And that new response is an aggressive rejection of the behavior, which many men feel is an unfair change in the social dynamic. The articles you referenced detail this through the viewpoint of the women and find resonance in the readers. It changes peoples understandings of relationships and the social dynamics at play. It articulates the idea that asking a woman to enter a romantic relationship puts as much pressure and stress on her as it does on the man asking, especially if she is not interested. A concept we previously understood existed, but did not appreciate its scope and potential risks associated with rejection.
Now one could say these are "rules", but that is a poor definition of what I just detailed. What is or is not acceptable could not be listed with any assurance of accuracy. And what is an acceptable aggressive response could not be detailed. No "if-when flow chart" could be created showing how to respond to any given set of behaviors. What you are attempting to articulate exists, but its poorly defined by what we understand to word "Rules" to mean.
no i am talking about rules. below is a clip from mad men, which i believe to be “true” in the sense that it captures something “really existing” and important about the social rules that governed interpersonal relations at the time period.
it seems to be entirely fair to say that this behavior didn’t break the rules (understood within its specific context), and it also seems entirely obvious that saying this has nothing to do with how we might interpret or judge this behavior from within our context. it also seems utterly wrong, not to mention pointless, to say “no the rules havent changed”
i shouldnt have to offer this disclaimer but i will here because there seems to be a lot of confusion: the “rules” are not homogeneous across space and time, neither are they “timeless.” they are material, embedded in the world and in relations between people
yea, then i think (speaking for only myself i guess,) we’ve found exactly where we disagree. even in the 60s that’s clearly against the ‘rules.’ instead it is the consequences that have changed.
even in the sixties that is ‘sexual harassment,’ as defined by not only the norms, but the EEOC. possibly even sexual assault.
On March 02 2019 05:07 IgnE wrote: no it isnt. its difficult to even say if it was unwanted. in fact it likely both was and was not wanted, simultaneously
i mean it is. the eeoc was created in 65.
that you are ready to dive into ‘she clearly liked it’ territory i think ends the conversation, in that we clearly just disagree on the fundamentals of what we’re talking about. the idea that a woman in any time period wants to be chased around an office and tackled is idiotic.
i can’t see where you’d even go from here other than to point out victim blaming was more PC in the good old days. but then hopefully you’d understand that the change here, that victim blaming isn’t cool, again is not a change of the rules. it’s a change in the consequences of breaking them, as it remains that they were victims before and after.
On March 02 2019 05:07 IgnE wrote: no it isnt. its difficult to even say if it was unwanted. in fact it likely both was and was not wanted, simultaneously
Well, that was a bit creepy from igne just now. Funny thing is, that was the most comprehensible post he has written in the last few pages. I guess that was what he was trying to write all along before he lost his thesaurus.
its probably helpful to introduce the concept of ethics, which is not simply rules, and is better conceived of as a practice.
i didnt say “she clearly liked it.” i said it was murky, ambivalent. and it is. it is shot through with the dynamics of power and desire. life is murky.
but we are talking about rules here, and you guys can put words in my mouth and moralize all you want but that doesnt change anything ive said about rules and norms, or how uncomfortable that scene is, precisely because it is conflicted
On March 02 2019 04:02 IgnE wrote: the fact that its hard to define does not mean that it doesnt exist. if i had used the term “norms” would you still be so invested in how specifically i could outline all of them?
I would easily argue that norms are vague, shitty and an artifice that should not used to discuss a topic like romantic relations in a society as large as the entire population of the US. It works for things like "congressional practices" because of the contained nature of congress itself. It does not work on a topic as varied as dating.
In an attempt to discern what you are attempting to discuss, I would posit that you are talking about the a shift in the perceived "power" the act of seeking a romantic relationship. That women have asserted themselves to claim "new power" through increasing awareness the fraught nature of dating and existing as a woman. This "power" exists through their assertion redefine how they are allowed to respond to unacceptable and creepy behavior. Creepy behaviors, intentionally or accidentally, that would have received a polite rejection in the past now will receive an aggressive response. And that new response is an aggressive rejection of the behavior, which many men feel is an unfair change in the social dynamic. The articles you referenced detail this through the viewpoint of the women and find resonance in the readers. It changes peoples understandings of relationships and the social dynamics at play. It articulates the idea that asking a woman to enter a romantic relationship puts as much pressure and stress on her as it does on the man asking, especially if she is not interested. A concept we previously understood existed, but did not appreciate its scope and potential risks associated with rejection.
Now one could say these are "rules", but that is a poor definition of what I just detailed. What is or is not acceptable could not be listed with any assurance of accuracy. And what is an acceptable aggressive response could not be detailed. No "if-when flow chart" could be created showing how to respond to any given set of behaviors. What you are attempting to articulate exists, but its poorly defined by what we understand to word "Rules" to mean.
no i am talking about rules. below is a clip from mad men, which i believe to be “true” in the sense that it captures something “really existing” and important about the social rules that governed interpersonal relations at the time period.
it seems to be entirely fair to say that this behavior didn’t break the rules (understood within its specific context), and it also seems entirely obvious that saying this has nothing to do with how we might interpret or judge this behavior from within our context. it also seems utterly wrong, not to mention pointless, to say “no the rules havent changed”
i shouldnt have to offer this disclaimer but i will here because there seems to be a lot of confusion: the “rules” are not homogeneous across space and time, neither are they “timeless.” they are material, embedded in the world and in relations between people
I think the primary confusion is what you're getting at or, even, clearly what it is you even want to discuss.
Do you want to talk about what the rules of dating are? A broader discussion about dating as it exists in the US right now? Something more nebulous? The #Metoo movement, even? The role of rules inside dating?
On March 02 2019 05:05 brian wrote: yea, then i think (speaking for only myself i guess,) we’ve found exactly where we disagree. even in the 60s that’s clearly against the ‘rules.’ instead it is the consequences that have changed.
even in the sixties that is ‘sexual harassment,’ as defined by not only the norms, but the EEOC. possibly even sexual assault.
The concept of sexual harassment did not exist in the public discourse before the Anita Hill hearings. It existed in the legal world prior to that, but was not taken very seriously. A lot has changed for women in the last 30 years.
That being said, the concept that the “rules” seems to center around what men were permitted to get away with, which is a problematic framing to stay the least. Even by the standards of the era, the actions of the characters in Mad Men might not have been considered in bounds. The “rules” as we have framed them, varied by industry and by region.
And by culture. And by historical period. And by position on the social hierarchy. And by specific social situation.
On March 02 2019 05:05 brian wrote: yea, then i think (speaking for only myself i guess,) we’ve found exactly where we disagree. even in the 60s that’s clearly against the ‘rules.’ instead it is the consequences that have changed.
even in the sixties that is ‘sexual harassment,’ as defined by not only the norms, but the EEOC. possibly even sexual assault.
The concept of sexual harassment did not exist in the public discourse before the Anita Hill hearings. It existed in the legal world prior to that, but was not taken very seriously. A lot has changed for women in the last 30 years.
That being said, the concept that the “rules” seems to center around what men were permitted to get away with, which is a problematic framing to stay the least. Even by the standards of the era, the actions of the characters in Mad Men might not have been considered in bounds. The “rules” as we have framed them, varied by industry and by region.
The dynamic on gun laws has shifted dramatically in the last couple of years and the Democrats have decided to take a stance of strengthening existing gun laws by assuring they are enforced. I am personally pumped, as it a tactic I have long advocated for. Especially with gun ownership on the decline in the US.
On March 02 2019 05:46 Plansix wrote: The dynamic on gun laws has shifted dramatically in the last couple of years and the Democrats have decided to take a stance of strengthening existing gun laws by assuring they are enforced. I am personally pumped, as it a tactic I have long advocated for. Especially with gun ownership on the decline in the US.
And this will likely continue as people realize emblems of masculinity are really weird and outdated. Plenty of people buy guns for legitimate reasons, but in rural communities, gun ownership carries different cultural significance. It's really cringey.
On March 02 2019 06:54 JimmiC wrote: I think most non Americans think hunting is about the only legitimate reason for gun purchase. But I guess protection is somewhat legitimate when there is so many guns out there. However don't the study's all show that gun owners are way more likely to be victims of gun violence (yes I get suicide is often included in these numbers) than non gun owners?
The simple answer could be that people in dangerous areas are more likely to want a gun for protection. Like, I live in a nice area right now and have no need for a gun. If I moved to a slum, I would probably want a gun for protection and also be much more likely to be a victim of gun violence (even excluding suicide).
A lot of those are hand guns. To be honest, the entire gun control movement would do well to find a way to convey that hand guns are the least safe of all guns and owning a shot gun is just a better route for self defense purposes(in the home).
We have a gun control thread but its always been a worse pit then what this thread ever is.
I was at a peasants forever banquet and it was explained that you could go home with a shotgun or a long rifle with just a background check but to keep a pistol you won you needed a special permit given out by the county Sharif. That seems like a good compromise for all parties.
On March 02 2019 10:19 Sermokala wrote: We have a gun control thread but its always been a worse pit then what this thread ever is.
I was at a peasants forever banquet and it was explained that you could go home with a shotgun or a long rifle with just a background check but to keep a pistol you won you needed a special permit given out by the county Sharif. That seems like a good compromise for all parties.
Not gonna lie that is the funniest typo in this thread in a longggggggggggg time
On March 02 2019 10:19 Sermokala wrote: We have a gun control thread but its always been a worse pit then what this thread ever is.
I was at a peasants forever banquet and it was explained that you could go home with a shotgun or a long rifle with just a background check but to keep a pistol you won you needed a special permit given out by the county Sharif. That seems like a good compromise for all parties.
Is the peasants forever banquet or ask the شريف for a special permit the best part of this post?
On March 02 2019 10:19 Sermokala wrote: We have a gun control thread but its always been a worse pit then what this thread ever is.
I was at a peasants forever banquet and it was explained that you could go home with a shotgun or a long rifle with just a background check but to keep a pistol you won you needed a special permit given out by the county Sharif. That seems like a good compromise for all parties.
Is the peasants forever banquet or ask the شريف for a special permit the best part of this post?
So this week, on the gun control bill the Democrats were pushing, Republicans used a procedural motion to call a vote on a last-second amendment. 26 Democrats voted with the Republicans to add an amendment to notify ICE when an illegal immigrant attempts to purchase a gun. If memory serves, this was formally proposed as an amendment a few days ago either in committee or on the floor. The Democrats, because they are totally not radical on immigration and ICE, voted it down. But the Republicans got this in the bill at the end with the help of those 26 purple districts Democrats. This procedural motion has twice now caught Democrats off guard. Throughout all of 2011 to 2019 when the GOP held the chamber, the majority always caught these and killed them. So today the Democrats fought about it. Pelosi in particular was not happy.
It reminded me yesterday that Pelosi is not really a mastermind, as some have painted her to be. Henry Olsen today in WP summerizes this very well:
Reports indicate that House Democrats are in turmoil over some moderates’ recent votes with Republicans on the House floor. The internal squabbles are more than an inside baseball battle; they indicate that the party still hasn’t figured out why they lost so badly in the 2010 midterm elections.
It may be hard to recall, but Democratic moods were giddy in early 2009. They held the presidency, a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a whopping 257 seats in the House. Collectively, Democrats held more power in Washington than they had since before President Ronald Reagan’s election nearly 30 years prior. National magazines featured pictures of President Barack Obama as the new Franklin D. Roosevelt, ready to usher in a new period of Democratic dominance.
It was all gone in just two years. The 2010 midterms gave Republicans their largest House seat gains and their biggest majority since 1948. Senate Republicans picked up six seats, and likely would have gained three more but for the nomination of fatally flawed tea party candidates in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware. Democrats have been clawing back from those losses ever since.
Any outside observer could see why this happened. On a host of issues — especially Obamacare, climate change and a massive economic stimulus package — the party got too far out in front of public opinion. The long-frustrated Democratic base wanted quick movement on all its priorities at once.
The mood was summed up by one exchange between Obama and his treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner. According to reports, Obama and Geithner were on a conference call shortly after the election, and Obama was talking about the expansive agenda he would pursue. Geithner objected, telling the president that his “legacy is going to be preventing the second Great Depression.” Obama responded, “That’s not enough for me.”
It would have been more than enough for the people who elected him.
Obama and the congressional leadership forgot that they won their majorities by persuading people who had voted for President George W. Bush just four years prior to entrust them with power. Those voters were willing to try a new course, but they had not signed on board for a different voyage.
Nevertheless, in vote after vote, leaders pushed, cajoled and compelled members representing Republican-leaning districts to back the party line. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was especially tough, pushing for House passage of an ambitious climate change bill with red-seat Democratic votes, even though Senate passage was highly unlikely.
The result was damning. Since 2010, Democrats have found it increasingly difficult to win in areas in which they once had dominated or at least been competitive. In 2009, Democrats held 98 House seats and 23 Senate seats in states Bush carried in 2004. Today, they hold only 74 House seats and a mere seven Senate seats in those same states.
The current Democratic House majority rests on holding seats that President Trump carried in 2016. Twenty-nine House Democrats hold districts that Trump won. Others hold seats that had long been Republican but swung to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Members in these seats recognize their voters are different and don’t want all of the progressive agenda forced down their throats.
Yet that is exactly what Pelosi and Democratic progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) seem to want them to do. “We are either a team or we’re not,” the speaker reportedly told moderates who voted Thursday for Republican amendments to a bill expanding background checks for gun purchases. The 29-year-old member from the Bronx characteristically went further, threatening to put those moderates who sided with Republicans “on a list” for primary challenges.
Neither Pelosi nor Ocasio-Cortez seems to understand why they hold the majority at all. They did not win because a majority of Americans suddenly decided that Sweden is a global paradise. They won in part because many Democratic candidates promised to deliver “new leadership” on both sides of the aisle. Most of all, they won because moderate former Republicans want Trump checked and out of office.
The don’t want a Green New Deal that promises a federal-led “mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II.” They don’t want to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. They don’t want the mandatory government health-insurance system envisioned by the Medicare-for-all proposals. They don’t even want to impeach the president. They just dislike Trump.
Democrats who vote for Republican floor amendments do so because they aren’t getting what they want from the bills the Democratic leadership is putting forth. If the speaker wants them to get on the team, maybe, as the team manager, she needs to get them into the game.
The article doesn't really have a good stopping point, so I posted it all. But I think all of this Pelosi-love misses how the House works. It's a majoritarian institution. She's not a master operative (though she raises lots and LOTS of $$$$). She's a strongman (strongwoman?). Purely from a political point of view I am fascinated watching these moderates (as I think I've said before) try to avoid something that happened to them a short eight years ago. Will they eventually be cowed? If Trump wins reelection will that save their seats? Especially interesting is what Olsen says about Democrats thinking '08 was the beginning of a period of Democrat dominance. They still act this way. "The Emerging Democrat Majority" is still just around the corner. It's espeically interesting because it's watching one of the main problems with the progressive mindset play out in real time. They behave like history just started.
Now to be fair, if your goal was actually to slow push to the left, it kinda works because the Republican party is such a spineless institution (and honestly, has been for much of its history) these days that they never go for the goal and try to reverse things. Only to slow them down (Obamacare was not repealed or replaced, Planned Parenthood was never defunded). The reasons for that are for another time. But as the saying goes, "that's how you got Trump."
Sorry if this more boring than whatever was being argued about, but if you like observing the game of politics then focusing on these members is something you should be doing. Me, I think they'll be fine until Trump is gone at least. But my, are they skittish.
EPT
