Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Options
1…320321323325326…335

Comments

  • Options
    #9662
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,605 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


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

    Forget the term, I'm asking if you think that as a defence of innocence, "she was not hot enough to rape" stands or qualifies as ... maybe not legitimate. Valid? Understandable? It's not a great look, at best.

    Either Trump is lying, or Carroll is lying. The only third potential I see is that it's a big misunderstanding, but one that apparently involves Trump invading Carroll's personal space and whipping his penis out.

    What disgusts me, and what I think IS the key pillar in this, is that in a country where the issue of sexual assault is ongoing and troubled, the President essentially added "she was not hot enough to rape" to the national discourse as a valid, normal response to a rape allegation. It's an inherently misogynistic thing to say as it trivialises the crime. Doesn't matter whether Trump is innocent, the genie is out of the bottle here.


  • Options
    #9663
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,374 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    His ex wife Ivanka 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.

    Yes, the thread seems to meander these days. He needs defending because reasons.


  • Options
    #9664
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,605 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    His ex wife Ivanka 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.

    Didn't she walk that back in subsequent interviews? I feel like she make subsequent comments on TV that she didn't say anything of the sort during a deposition.


  • Options
    #9665
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    So, is it ok?

    Is it ok for people to steal?
    Of course not.

    So you're saying even the poorest people who have 19 children shouldn't steal bread if they're hungry?! - You're a monster!

    Can you see why I'm first asking you to define OK?


  • Options
    #9666
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    @Kimsang

    I asked you a question a few days ago

    Do you believe Roy Moore is unfit for office?

    I didn't get an answer


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9667
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Kimsang wrote: »
    I'll ask a second time.

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


  • Options
    #9668
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Forget the term, I'm asking if you think that as a defence of innocence, "she was not hot enough to rape" stands or qualifies as ... maybe not legitimate. Valid? Understandable? It's not a great look, at best.
    of course not.... I have never alleged anything of the sort. I was pretty sure you didn't know what that meant alright.
    Either Trump is lying, or Carroll is lying. The only third potential I see is that it's a big misunderstanding, but one that apparently involves Trump invading Carroll's personal space and whipping his penis out.
    I disagree, I don't think rape can be a misunderstanding. In my mind one of them must be lying.
    What disgusts me, and what I think IS the key pillar in this, is that in a country where the issue of sexual assault is ongoing and troubled, the President essentially added "she was not hot enough to rape" to the national discourse as a valid, normal response to a rape allegation.

    Yes I can see how you see this as disgusting. I'm asking you to look at it from the other side, they have been seeing things like this equally as offensive to them going on. Trump is their hero becomes he says whatever the hell he likes. Its not what he's saying, its that he's in opposition.
    It's an inherently misogynistic thing to say as it trivialises the crime. Doesn't matter whether Trump is innocent, the genie is out of the bottle here.

    Ok lets use your logic. If it is misogynist to joke about rape, is it also misanthropic to joke about throwing battery acid in someone's face?


  • Options
    #9669
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Kimsang wrote: »
    Is it ok for people to steal?
    Of course not.

    So you're saying even the poorest people who have 19 children shouldn't steal bread if they're hungry?! - You're a monster!

    Can you see why I'm first asking you to define OK?

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


  • Options
    #9670
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Didn't she walk that back in subsequent interviews? I feel like she make subsequent comments on TV that she didn't say anything of the sort during a deposition.

    I will have to look that up, I thought it isn't mentioned because she got payout or NDA.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped


  • Options
    #9671
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Is it ok to say someone is too ugly to be raped?

    What do you mean by OK?

    Is it ok to steal?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9672
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Kimsang wrote: »
    What do you mean by OK?

    Is it ok to steal?

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


  • Options
    #9673
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,605 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Kimsang wrote: »
    Yes I can see how you see this as disgusting. I'm asking you to look at it from the other side, they have been seeing things like this equally as offensive to them going on. Trump is their hero becomes he says whatever the hell he likes. Its not what he's saying, its that he's in opposition.

    The reasons Trump was supported are long and varied, reducing it to the "he says what he thinks" is a subset. My own primary theory is that he latched onto the dying Rust Belt states and promised them a voice, and future that cannot possibly be delivered. I would say even his most ardent supporters will back away from this one (though the Republicans have surprised)
    Kimsang wrote: »
    Ok lets use your logic. If it is misogynist to joke about rape, is it also misanthropic to joke about throwing battery acid in someone's face?

    This again? Yes, whether it necessitated the police to investigate is another matter. Brand has ploughed a career in making crude, shocking jokes, so the sudden offence was a bit :rolleyes:

    But to throw the non-sequitor back at you: If Joe Brand had a running issue where she kept threatening to throw battery acid in peoples' faces, and even had several folk who had accused her of throwing acid in their faces - that also changes the nature of the comments again, does it not? Suddenly there's a reasonable doubt to ask: wait, does Joe Brand throw acid in people's faces? IT KEEPS COMING UP.


  • Options
    #9674
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mod Note
    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Is it ok to say someone is too ugly to be raped?

    The question has been answered. Let's leave it there. Thanks


  • Options
    #9675
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mod Note

    Kimsang has been banned for ignoring mod warnings and failing to read the charter.


  • Options
    #9676
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    hcf500 wrote: »
    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!

    No conspiracy here! You can read about it or look at the actual video for proof. I checked youtube for the video but it appears to have disappeared! It appears to have suffered the same fate as the other video from Project Veritas about bias at Pinterest! You can see it HERE though.

    The Pinterest story is also on that website. I expect a lot more of these stories will be revealed over the coming months. Social media will be ramping up efforts to interfere in the upcoming election. Not many people will see these videos unfortunately. The strategy of the left is to censor and ban anyone that has anything positive to say about Trump, Don't have to look far for evidence!


  • Options
    #9677
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,361 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    The strategy of the left is to censor and ban anyone that has anything positive to say about Trump, Don't have to look far for evidence!

    Yet Trump is most high profile person in the world on social media...

    Nobody gets banned because they are saying positive stuff about Trump online. People are getting banned be it far right, far left, Islamic etc because they are advocating violence against other groups.

    BTW James O'Keefe is not good source


  • Options
    #9678
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    The Pinterest story is also on that website. I expect a lot more of these stories will be revealed over the coming months. Social media will be ramping up efforts to interfere in the upcoming election. Not many people will see these videos unfortunately. The strategy of the left is to censor and ban anyone that has anything positive to say about Trump, Don't have to look far for evidence!

    Like people that break private company's terms and conditions like Alex Jones, Steven Crowder and Milo?


  • Options
    #9679
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Yet Trump is most high profile person in the world on social media...

    Nobody gets banned because they are saying positive stuff about Trump online. People are getting banned be it far right, far left, Islamic etc because they are advocating violence against other groups.

    BTW James O'Keefe is not good source

    Forget about O'Keefe so! He didn't force that google executive to say what she said! He is not creating the algorithms for google either! Once upon a time investigative journalism was seen a good way of uncovering corruption.


  • Options
    #9680
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Like people that break private company's terms and conditions like Alex Jones, Steven Crowder and Milo?

    The terms seem to apply more to one side though. There are many examples of this. Twitter for example, a CNN host enciting violence against a Covington student. Last time I checked, the comment wasn't even removed!


  • Options
    #9681
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,361 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    Forget about O'Keefe so! He didn't force that google executive to say what she said! He is not creating the algorithms for google either! Once upon a time investigative journalism was seen a good way of uncovering corruption.

    O'Keefe is a conman. He does same thing every time ie picks a target, has someone infiltrate said target and secretly film it, has infiltrator ask leading questions and then he edits footage so that target looks really bad.

    He has doing this kind of stuff for years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9682
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,605 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    As said, Trump continues to post freely and happily on Twitter; the "anti conservative bias" on social media is a myth, latched onto by those who would plead legitimacy. Alex Jones, Milo are charlatans who are jumping at the opportunity to martyr themselves. Facebook et al are toxic quagmires but arguing bias is reductive.


  • Options
    #9683
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    pixelburp wrote: »
    As said, Trump continues to post freely and happily on Twitter; the "anti conservative bias" is a myth on social media, latched onto by those who would plead legitimacy. Alex Jones, Milo are charlatans who are jumping at the opportunity to martyr themselves. Facebook et al are toxic quagmires but arguing bias is reductive.

    The anti-conservative bias was very clear on the video that O Keefe did about Pinterest! Type the word Muslim and the search would bring up autocomplete suggestions, type the word Christian and the search would refuse to autocomplete. This was a rule that was implemented into Pinterests search engine manually! Some pro-life websites were classed as porn by Pinterest and censored as a result. Again these sites were added manually to the porn list!


  • Options
    #9684
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    O'Keefe is a conman. He does same thing every time ie picks a target, has someone infiltrate said target and secretly film it, has infiltrator ask leading questions and then he edits footage so that target looks really bad.

    He has doing this kind of stuff for years.

    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."

    That was all said without any cuts or editing!


  • Options
    #9685
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,374 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    The anti-conservative bias was very clear on the video that O Keefe did about Pinterest! Type the word Muslim and the search would bring up autocomplete suggestions, type the word Christian and the search would refuse to autocomplete. This was a rule that was implemented into Pinterests search engine manually! Some pro-life websites were classed as porn by Pinterest and censored as a result. Again these sites were added manually to the porn list!

    Here is an interesting article by NPR excoriating O'Keefe. A quote:

    The videos are edited, and O'Keefe and Project Veritas have a history of selectively — and at times misleadingly — editing their videos.


  • Options
    #9686
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,605 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    The anti-conservative bias was very clear on the video that O Keefe did about Pinterest! Type the word Muslim and the search would bring up autocomplete suggestions, type the word Christian and the search would refuse to autocomplete. This was a rule that was implemented into Pinterests search engine manually! Some pro-life websites were classed as porn by Pinterest and censored as a result. Again these sites were added manually to the porn list!

    No, these are search algorithms, no more than when you type into Google and it suggests results based on popularity, other searches, your own preferences and so on. Frankly, it reads like the only bias is that which was put into the "Research". You don't start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to find some "gotcha!" because oh oh, a search for Muslim yields different results to Christian.

    You also get this asinine argument that conservative pundits are losing Twitter followers, ignoring the boring reality that Bots are a problem, coupled with the fact you can actually buy fake "followers" for your social media account.
    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    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."

    That was all said without any cuts or editing!

    Presumably referring to the issue during 2016 of Fake News proliferated by micro-targetted articles on Facebook etc. Some would debate just how effective these ultimately were, but Pizzagate and the like have demonstrated there was an appetite for intentionally constructed fakery. These web services wanted to be peoples' one stop shop for news, but never put in the effort or time to actually vet the information and articles being served.


  • Options
    #9687
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Here is an interesting article by NPR excoriating O'Keefe. A quote:

    The videos are edited, and O'Keefe and Project Veritas have a history of selectively — and at times misleadingly — editing their videos.

    Is it uncommon for videos to be selectively edited? When there are maybe 20 hours of footage, what is to be done with it? Show it all unedited? Randomly edit it? Arent CNN and every other news source (including Fox) guilty too?


  • Options
    #9688
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    pixelburp wrote: »
    No, these are search algorithms, no more than when you type into Google and it suggests results based on popularity, other searches, your own preferences and so on. Frankly, it reads like the only bias is that which was put into the "Research". You don't start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to find some "gotcha!" because oh oh, a search for Muslim yields different results to Christian.

    But the word Christian would not autocomplete! How is that explained? This has been "fixed" since O Keefe released his video.

    There is an extra influence on Google searches, I think it is called ML fairness, It will return results, not on what is necessarily factually correct but what Google deems fair!


  • Options
    #9689
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,361 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    O'Keefe is responsible for hundreds if not thousands of people losing their jobs in Acorn after his deceptive 'investigation'

    After Acorn nobody should take this guy seriously , he is as said a con-man that probably should be in prison instead of compensating his victims https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/james-okeefe-pays-out-victim-acorn-video-fraud


  • Options
    #9690
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    O'Keefe is responsible for hundreds if not thousands of people losing their jobs in Acorn after his deceptive 'investigation'

    After Acorn nobody should take this guy seriously , he is as said a con-man that probably should be in prison instead of compensating his victims https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/james-okeefe-pays-out-victim-acorn-video-fraud

    So you argument against the Google video is to just smear the source? Forget the Google employees and what they have said? Forget about the documents produced?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9691
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    O'Keefe has a fairly lengthy track record of mounting dubious "investigations". There's was a great piece on him in the New Yorker a few years ago.

    Regarding the current fuss, I'm assuming that "preventing the next Trump situation" is reference to the 2016 election where social media outlets were used to mount a large propaganda operation and preventing that happening again. Poor choice of words on her part, I'd agree, but then again, she didn't know she was being recorded.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement