Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Again you're conflating the conversation over language with that of guilt vs. innocence. It's not, it never has been and the presumption of Trumps innocence doesn't preclude the disgusting nature of his 'defence'.

He's the US President. There are expectations of behaviour here that aren't unreasonable. And I think you know this, as by your own words you are conducting a "thought experiment"...

The worst aspect of his comments, is that ultimately they normalise - and trivialise - the issue of rape. That the violation is actually some kind of backhanded compliment, objectifying the woman further. A slippery slope that ends with ... Oh well, she was hot, who can blame me?

I said before. Jesus Christ.

You clearly don't understand what a thought experiment is. But if you don't want to play, just say so, don't falsely accuse me of 'conflating' I'm not conflating anything. I think you need to look up the word conflating in the dictionary. Seriously.

Thought experiment - considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.

A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)

Examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

Jesus Christ.

I cannot honestly tell if you are winding people up alternatively are so far gone in terms of your hatred for left wing media that you feel compelled to defend this idiot when he says indefensible things.

There is no left wing media.

hcf500

spacecoyote wrote: »

Yes, arguably Wikipedia is not exactly a benchmark for popularity (wouldn't be surprised if probably a large portion of those visitors were people looking to make snarky updates to his wiki page).

Maybe look at his favourite platform, Twitter, where he sits 12th in the most-followed ranks (arguably he has gained a large portion of that following purely based on being POTUS, as opposed to him personally. in April 2016 he had less than 7m followers):

1 - Katy Perry (107.6m)
2 - Barack Obama (106.7m)
3 - Justin Bieber (105.8m)
4 - Rihanna (91.6m)
5 - Taylor Swift (83.5m)
6 - Lady Gaga (78.8m)
7 - Ronaldo (78.4m)
8 - Ellen DeGeneres (77.9m)
9 - YouTube (71.6m)
10 - Justin Timberlake (65m)
11 - Ariana Grande (63.4m)
12 - Donald Trump (61.2m)

Or if you want to go with what appears to be the current most popular platform, Instagram, he's not in the top 30 (30th place is another man not exactly renowned for his treatment of women, Chris Brown with 49.4m followers, Trump has around 13.3m)

I imagine millions of his followers have probably been banned from twitter. It would make sense that a lot of trump followers would also be promoting and sharing content that would get them banned. Nazi propaganda etc

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

Jesus Christ.

I cannot honestly tell if you are winding people up alternatively are so far gone in terms of your hatred for left wing media that you feel compelled to defend this idiot when he says indefensible things.

I can't honestly tell if you are trolling me or not. So maybe in future, you don't talk about my posts, and i don't talk about yours. happy? Because I'm tired of these underhanded accusations without citation. You are too far gone ideologically I think, and indeed not a troll.

everlast75

Kimsang wrote: »

They are life ending accusations for other people, maybe that's why he's able to joke about it

He should be allowed use that joke based on the fact that it's a life ending accusation, even though its not life ending accusation for him.

Do you see how people think you are wasting their time with this nonsense?

hcf500

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Looks like Google will be working against Trump for the 2020 election!

Quote from Jen Gennai, Head of Responsible Innovation, Google

"Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she's very misguided, like that will not make it better, it will make it worse, because now all these smaller companies who don't have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, its like a small company cannot do that."

Where is your link to this? You should take it to the conspiracy theory forum lol. This is the sort of nonsense that fuels the right!

Igotadose

Kimsang wrote: »

Thank you for this considered response. In principle, I agree with you. A sitting president shouldn't act in this way.

But these things also shouldn't happen:

People shouldn't be able to lose their lives due to a whispering accusation or pointed finger.
Presumption of innocence shouldn't flip to guilty until proven innocent.
All people that make an accusation shouldn't automatically be believed as victims.

In our age of social media, we have moved from a guilt to a shame culture. This has mage huge sweeping changes to how our society conducts itself.

This is exactly the kind of 'joke' trump loves, because he knows liberals will get so upset about it, and he will get so much support among his base. Not because they're sexist , misogynist, etc.. but because they are tired of leftists flipping our culture so recklessly.

If making a joke about rape is misogyny, is making a making a joke about throwing acid in someone's face misanthropy?

Ermm, so exactly what *is* the thought experiment you're running? As you point out, it's an experiment. Fine. What's the hypothesis you're asserting, what are the measurements you're taking, and have you got results to discuss?

Otherwise, it seems like you're engaging in an exercise in whataboutery designed to implicate something nebulous you call 'the left' in something or other.

In the meantime, I'm glad you agree the sitting POTUS shouldn't joke about women he might have raped. That's a nice minimum standard.

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

He should be allowed use that joke based on the fact that it's a life ending accusation, even though its not life ending accusation for him.

Do you see how people think you are wasting their time with this nonsense?

Can you have any respect for nuance?

If he is innocent, I'm saying I can understand how someone might lash out and say something hateful. That is not condoning anything.

If you were put in that situation, you would lash out 100x times more, i'm nearly certain by the way you are in engaging in this discussion.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what a thought experiment is. But if you don't want to play, just say so, don't falsely accuse me of 'conflating' I'm not conflating anything. I think you need to look up the word conflating in the dictionary. Seriously.

Spare the backhanded patronisation. What else can be said if you keep changing the nature of the conversation? You keep wanting to reframe my / other comments as some question of presumption of guilt, when that's not what I'm saying. There are larger issues here than whether Trump is innocent or guilty.

If people keeping failing to see your "Thought experiment"s purpose, maybe the problem is your ability to frame it. But if you keep trying to warp peoples' words, then this is what happens.

I've laid out my point, that this is about what the language is saying, and how it trivialises rape (or allegations thereof). Trump is innocent until proven guilty, that's a given. So move on from that an absorb the comments for what they are.

Igotadose

Kimsang wrote: »

Can you have any respect for nuance?

We're talking about Trump. Nuance?

If he is innocent, I'm saying I can understand how someone might lash out and say something hateful. That is not condoning anything.

If you were put in that situation, you would lash out 100x times more, i'm nearly certain by the way you are in engaging in this discussion.

Not about us, though. It's about our perception of Trump.

Kimsang

Igotadose wrote: »

We're talking about Trump. Nuance?



Not about us, though. It's about our perception of Trump.

That's called hypocrisy.

hcf500

Kimsang wrote: »

Who jokes about a rape allegation? Maybe someone who's just had an abhorrent allegation about them that wasn't true.

So you are presuming that this woman has made up these allegations? Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to her?

Igotadose

As for nuance, I do like this part of what Trump said as an example of how utterly clueless he is:
“I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?” the president said while seated behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

Exactly what does Trump mean by 'great respect?' That instead he might've said, "I wouldn't bang that skank, but I'm sitting in the Oval office so this is what I have to say?" Or, "See, I can do whatever I want wherever I want, but out of respect I'll tone it down."

I think more the latter. Certainly no 'respect' for E. Jean (or by implication any of the other 15 accusers of misconduct.)

Great respect. Hilarious.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Spare the backhanded patronisation. What else can be said if you keep changing the nature of the conversation? You keep wanting to reframe my / other comments as some question of presumption of guilt, when that's not what I'm saying. There are larger issues here than whether Trump is innocent or guilty.

If people keeping failing to see your "Thought experiment"s purpose, maybe the problem is your ability to frame it. But if you keep trying to warp peoples' words, then this is what happens.

I've laid out my point, that this is about what the language is saying, and how it trivialises rape (or allegations thereof). Trump is innocent until proven guilty, that's a given. So move on from that an absorb the comments for what they are.

You are the one accusing me of CONFLATING? What am i CONFLATING? Because you are wrong, i'm not conflating anything. I'm using a thought experiment as a device to FURTHER the conversation. You also seem to be too far gone.
You didn't answer any of the questions I gave to you.


This seems to be the modern tool of the left, when argument fails just spam the forum, so a conversation can't happen. Spam with every petty argument and completely ignore the overarching themes. Not referencing your argument, the amount of similar arguments being made, repetitively without people considering the answers. You've accused me of 'conflating' 4 times without giving me evidence. You are the one obfuscating and diverting this thread in the most trivial ways.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

You are the one accusing me of CONFLATING? What am i CONFLATING? Because you are wrong, i'm not conflating anything. I'm using a thought experiment as a device to FURTHER the conversation. You also seem to be too far gone.
You didn't answer any of the questions I gave to you.

Which questions have I failed to answer? You asked me what I would have done if the accusation was levelled at me; I did so. In fact, the "celebrity rape accusation" isn't that uncommon that you can find how other people in the public eye have handled the case. Paddy Jackson springs to mind and while his statements were a bit ropey, they never amounted to "I didn't do it, she's not my type anyway"

You call us hypocrites, then keep insisting that Trumps innocence negates the nature of his comments. Nobody is presuming his guilt, only his lack of respect for women. Your conflation comes from trying to conflate Trumps innocence into his comments being some exasperated joke from frustration. I really don't think it is.

If that's not the point you're making, then highlight where you made the actual point. It's not a big ask.

If that IS the point you're making, I don't agree with it, at all, and I've outlined the whys. I'm engaging with you either way.

Kimsang

hcf500 wrote: »

So you are presuming that this woman has made up these allegations? Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to her?

Who said that? Can you quote me?

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Fourth sanction applied.

If you don't heed the (by now numerous) mod warnings and read the charter, don't be surprised if you get banned from this thread and forum entirely.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Which questions have I failed to answer? You asked me what I would have done if the accusation was levelled at me; I did so. In fact, the "celebrity rape accusation" isn't that uncommon that you can find how other people in the public eye have handled the case. Paddy Jackson springs to mind and while his statements were a bit ropey, they never amounted to "I didn't do it, she's not my type anyway"

You call us hypocrites, then keep insisting that Trumps innocence negates the nature of his comments. Nobody is presuming his guilt, only his lack of respect for women. Your conflation comes from trying to conflate Trumps innocence into his comments being some exasperated joke from frustration. I really don't think it is.

If that's not the point you're making, then highlight where you made the actual point. It's not a big ask.

If that IS the point you're making, I don't agree with it, at all, and I've outlined the whys.

I called one persons argument hypocritical. I don't not call a group of people hypocrites. I appreciate a correction on that one. I also am not "Insisting that trumps innocence negates the nature of his comments" But only that I might understand that someone would act like this, especially if it is a false accusation.

Also I believe in part Trump made his comment because it would get him more support among his anti-pc base. Politically correct are two of his favourite words

dr.fuzzenstein

Kimsang wrote: »

Can you have any respect for nuance?

If he is innocent, I'm saying I can understand how someone might lash out and say something hateful. That is not condoning anything.

If you were put in that situation, you would lash out 100x times more, i'm nearly certain by the way you are in engaging in this discussion.

Is it ok to say someone is too ugly to be raped?

Kimsang

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Is it ok to say someone is too ugly to be raped?

What do you mean by 'ok'?
Do i find it bordering on repusive? Yes
Should it be illegal? No
Should you lose your job because of it? No
Does it show misogyny? No

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

I called one persons argument hypocritical. I don't not call a group of people hypocrites. I appreciate a correction on that one. I also am not "Insisting that trumps innocence negates the nature of his comments" But only that I might understand that someone would act like this, especially if it is a false accusation.

Also I believe in part Trump made his comment because it would get him more support among his anti-pc base. Politically correct are two of his favourite words

Yet he has shown a crude consistency with his comments towards women: be it pussygate, the "bleeding out of her whatever", and without checking I'm 99% sure he has used the "I didn't touch her, she's not my type" argument before. IIRC he also had a fondness for walking into the Miss Universe dressing rooms, he cheated on his 3rd wife with a porn-star shortly after the birth of Barron.

Like, he's a bit of a creeper by the evidence of testimony and his own words.

No, that doesn't make him a rapist, but as the most powerful man in the world, that makes his words distasteful and normalising.

Here's a thought experiment back to you: do you think that as an argument towards innocence, "she's not hot enough to rape" works? Or indeed, do you feel that it undermines and trivialises sexual assault in general? Rape is a "he said, she said" crime, it's inherently private by nature so it often DOES come down to personal testimony.

Kimsang wrote: »

What do you mean by 'ok'?
Do i find it bordering on repusive? Yes
Should it be illegal? No
Should you lose your job because of it? No
Does it show misogyny? No

Hang on, it's almost quintessentially misogynystic by nature. It's an inherently reductionist, objectifying comment.

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote: »

Also I believe in part Trump made his comment because it would get him more support among his anti-pc base. Politically correct are two of his favourite words

Will get great support among rapists and deplorables. He said it because he is surrounded by yes men who will not tell him he is ever wrong, he thinks this speak is normal. More evidence of his mental health/cognitive issues. Last week it was kicking someone out of the room for coughing, now this.

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

Yet he has shown a crude consistency with his comments towards women: be it pussygate, the "bleeding out of her whatever", and without checking I'm 99% sure he has used the "I didn't touch her, she's not my type" argument before. IIRC he also had a fondness for walking into the Miss Universe dressing rooms, he cheated on his 3rd wife with a porn-star shortly after the birth of Barron.

Like, he's a bit of a creeper by the evidence of testimony and his own words.

No, that doesn't make him a rapist, but as the most powerful man in the world, that makes his words distasteful and normalising.

Here's a thought experiment back to you: do you think that as an argument towards innocence, "she's not hot enough to rape" works? Or indeed, do you feel that it undermines and trivialises sexual assault in general? Rape is a "he said, she said" crime, it's inherently private by nature so it often DOES come down to personal testimony.

This makes no sense. I'd always happily engage with a thought experiment if I understood what you're saying.

hcf500

Im not questioning it but who was the fourth sanction applied to?

Professor Moriarty

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Is it ok to say someone is too ugly to be raped?

No it's not.

Just a thought experiment: Apart from affairs such as Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, why is it that 25 diverse women have accused Trump of sexual assault? Are they all lying? Are McDougall and Daniels lying when they said they had sex with Trump while Melania was pregnant and caring for Trump's newborn baby?

dr.fuzzenstein

Kimsang wrote: »

What do you mean by 'ok'?
Do i find it bordering on repusive? Yes
Should it be illegal? No
Should you lose your job because of it? No
Does it show misogyny? No

So, is it ok?

Kimsang

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No it's not.

Just a thought experiment: Apart from affairs such as Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, why is it that 25 diverse women have accused Trump of sexual assault? Are they all lying? Are McDougall and Daniels lying when they said they had sex with Trump while Melania was pregnant and caring for Trump's newborn baby?

Nice shift of the burden of proof. If you want to advocate to change the law, i'm sure there are plenty of people to support you.

Kimsang

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So, is it ok?

I'll ask a second time.

What do you mean by OK?

FrostyJack

pixelburp wrote: »

Yet he has shown a crude consistency with his comments towards women: be it pussygate, the "bleeding out of her whatever", and without checking I'm 99% sure he has used the "I didn't touch her, she's not my type" argument before. IIRC he also had a fondness for walking into the Miss Universe dressing rooms, he cheated on his 3rd wife with a porn-star shortly after the birth of Barron.

His ex wife Ivana is on record saying he raped her. There appears to be a certain type he will sexually assault. Why do people feel the need to defend him. I have a splitting head ache catching up on a few days worth of posts on this thread, complete train-wreck.

Christy42

Kimsang wrote: »

What do you mean by 'ok'?
Do i find it bordering on repusive? Yes
Should it be illegal? No
Should you lose your job because of it? No
Does it show misogyny? No

Yes it shows misogyny. Final one depends on the job. POTUS. Yup. Although honestly statements like Trump's will rightfully land you in hot water if you say them in the office with firing being a not unlikely event in most jobs.

Occam's razor. Trump says sexist things because he is sexist. Any other conclusion requires jumping through hoops. At best he is willing to encourage the sexist vote and really at that point it still means he is sexist