Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

3. Outside of my Scottish it turns out I'm around three quarters Rambo which is goddamn amusing.

So you're 3/4 Swedish apple? I didn't know that was possible. Man, gene therapy has come a long way hasn't it?

[Starver]

<facepalm>

[smjjames]

<facepalm>

No surprise really, and even Piers Morgan, a self described ally of Trump, has slammed it.

Edit: Looks like he his going to and is getting slammed in some right wing circles, not for the Muslim stuff, but for retweeting "Britain First" as that isn't great optics. http://thehill.com/homenews/news/362288-top-infowars-editor-criticizes-trump-after-anti-muslim-tweets

[MoonyTheHuman]

<facepalm>

No surprise really, and even Piers Morgan, a self described ally of Trump, has slammed it.

Edit: Looks like he his going to and is getting slammed in some right wing circles, not for the Muslim stuff, but for retweeting "Britain First" as that isn't great optics. http://thehill.com/homenews/news/362288-top-infowars-editor-criticizes-trump-after-anti-muslim-tweets

I'm glad he's finally being rejected further.
I wonder if we'll find a reason to attempt to inpeach him soon?

[MoonyTheHuman]

Not so long as Republicans control the House and Senate.

Yeah, sadly ):
But, incidents like this may start causing them to distance faaar away from him, so there is still hope.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Prying Republicans off of their death grip party loyalty is basically random chance, though the good news is that Trump is so hostile to "traitors" that they're not likely to be brought back into the fold.

That's only good for stalling legislation until 2018 though. We can talk impeachment when the investigation finishes, which should be next March or later.

[Trekkin]

I'm glad he's finally being rejected further.
I wonder if we'll find a reason to attempt to inpeach him soon?

Oh, there's already a reason to attempt impeachment: the midterms. There just hasn't been any one Trump problem big enough for the Republicans to credibly make a show of drawing the line and kicking him out and then campaign on what apolitical bastions of integrity they are. That's partly because Trump has gotten good at generating constant, desensitizing, low-grade outrage, so nothing seems shocking anymore, and partly because Congressional Republican leadership (McConnell, Ryan, etc.) don't have confidence in their ability to push that through and it would look terrible if they failed.

[smjjames]

Prying Republicans off of their death grip party loyalty is basically random chance, though the good news is that Trump is so hostile to "traitors" that they're not likely to be brought back into the fold.

That's only good for stalling legislation until 2018 though. We can talk impeachment when the investigation finishes, which should be next March or later.

Next March? Maybe March 2019, I don't see the Mueller investigation ending anytime soon.

[bloop_bleep]

I'm glad he's finally being rejected further.
I wonder if we'll find a reason to attempt to inpeach him soon?

Oh, there's already a reason to attempt impeachment: the midterms. There just hasn't been any one Trump problem big enough for the Republicans to credibly make a show of drawing the line and kicking him out and then campaign on what apolitical bastions of integrity they are. That's partly because Trump has gotten good at generating constant, desensitizing, low-grade outrage, so nothing seems shocking anymore, and partly because Congressional Republican leadership (McConnell, Ryan, etc.) don't have confidence in their ability to push that through and it would look terrible if they failed.

Trump currently polls better than Congress. Impeachment starting from the Republican side would be nothing short of political suicide.

The point is that if Trump screws up enough, that might change, and therefore impeachment would be a good move.

[redwallzyl]

I think someone just ripped the heart out of Midwestern culture.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/29/567241644/garrison-keillor-accused-of-inappropriate-behavior-minnesota-public-radio-says

[Reelya]

Jesus, your guys are falling left and right. Matt Lauer's been sacked too?

Note: this is going to have unintended negative consequences for women too. If you're a male manager in the media, and you have a choice of a male or female intern, with the amount of sexual misconduct allegations going around, you might think twice now before hiring the woman. One shitty person is all it takes to destroy a career now. It doesn't matter than that person might by 1 in 1000, the risk of losing everything is greater than the benefit of giving people a chance.

Basically, giving excessive punitive powers to one specific group with the intention of strengthening that group is in fact a surefire way to ensure that they're actually excluded because people are scared of what they could do with their power. For example, imagine if a black person could snap their fingers and you lose your job. How many black people would you hire? Pushing too far with "he said, she said" and always siding with "she said" and demonizing the other party ... that's a surefire way to actually create a paranoid "boy's club" mentality. Fear is the #1 motivator. An atmosphere of trust isn't built on witch hunts: it goes both ways.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While there's always a risk of witch hunting, I'd say that this cascade so far has been fairly rational and non-McCarthyist. Most of what we've seen here are independently collaborated testimonies that are either admitted by the accused (CK and Franken) or denied so badly they're obviously lying (Trump and Moore). Weinstein and Lauer seem like they're trying to stay underground, but their organizations weren't hard to convince considering that both were key personnel. They probably know more than the public.

[Reelya]

It's a bit (a lot) more than those few cases you've mentioned, it's basically on the scale of a purge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinstein_effect

While the intentions are good, purges based on untestable allegations don't usually end very well. You're going to see the shit hitting the fan from all this in a not-good way, the medicine being worse than the disease sort of thing, that's my prediction.*

See statistics on prison rape, it's mostly by female guards:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

Among adults who reported sexual contact with prison staff, including some contact that prisoners call “willing” but that is often coercive and always illegal, 80 percent reported only female perpetrators. Among juveniles, the same figure is 89.3 percent. Queer men and women were two to three times more likely to report abuse. “The disproportionate abuse by female staff members does not occur because women are more often staffing facilities,” the authors write. “Men outnumber women by a ratio of three to one in positions requiring direct contact with inmates.”

Basically, power intoxicates and leads to sexual abuses, usually of the other gender. If you replace the powerful men in Hollywood with women but don't change the power structure itself then you're going to see more abuses by women. Actually, having read a lot of the statistics and knowing how far at odds they are with public perception (read articles like the one I linked), I wouldn't be at all surprised if some guy or girl accuses a powerful woman of sexual abuse and then the floodgates open on those allegations, the same way they did for gay ones after the Kevin Spacey stuff went down.

Basically, women are often abusers in roughly equal numbers to men. e.g. in a survey of 43,000 adults in America (see the article)... 43% of those admitting to forcing unwilling people to have sex with them were women. But they completely go under the radar. In fact, replacing men in large numbers with women who have been shown by survey data to sexually abuse in large numbers but basically get away with it scott free because nobody believes the accusers ... that might be a bad thing actually. Men are held accountable for this stuff, women basically never are.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You know what's also not good? Being so skeptical of testimony that your exclusive response to anything less than a 3D film depicting the act in question is "It's utterly unprovable and you all shouldn't have brought it up because now you're just witch hunting everybody, they're out to get us, we won't hire women it's not safe".

And nobody said anything about sex crime being the exclusive realm of men either.

[Reelya]

I didn't say the allegations weren't true, i said they were untestable. That's a different thing altogether. And the fact that men are going to be more wary about hiring a woman if lots of women are making public allegations that bring their employers down is just pragmatic realism, it's not bias. It's just a fact. Even if it's 1 in a million chance, less people will hire you if you could destroy them on a whim. That's just an observation, not a value judgement.

As for sex crimes being exclusive to men, plenty of the media and mainstream push that narrative. I just read an article about a couple of New Zealand men who were sexually abused by women at age 12, one of them was encouraged to go to the police about it, years later by his then girlfriend, and the policeman basically mocked him and said "I can't see how that's a crime!" Basically the cops refused to even process the allegation until the couple made it a media circus. Because a 30 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old boy isn't a sex crime, because nothing women do is a sex crime. Maybe you're more enlightened, but this is the attitude real male child sexual abuse victims get from the police and even from sexual abuse hotline staff / abuse shelters.