Print

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

[smjjames]

I fail to see how just saying that would make all hell break loose. However, I'd definetly rather avoid all hell breaking loose on this thread.

[Cathar]

That's why I just allude to it, take me on my word

[Trekkin]

I fail to see how just saying that would make all hell break loose.

I suspect it might have something to do with this sort of behavior:

finding unusual and creative ways to get banned from forums to the point it is almost a form of art.

If we take him at his word, that is.

At any rate, feminists are more than willing to talk about hypergamy. They'll talk your ears off about it given half a chance; it's part of the whole patriarchy-hurts-everyone thing. They're just also sensitive to the redpill crowd using it to justify their behavior as "beating the system," which may be what they assumed Cathar meant, rightly or no.

[Cathar]

Let's say I was a bit- actually stupidly naive. I was like "eyy someone made a point that made sense to me, so I'm going to expose it, hear your possible rebuttal and form my opinion". I was never antagonistic, when I'm interested in an issue I want to hear multiple points of views. But people think as tribes, so when you don't parrot a discourse that has been validated by consenssus, people will flag you as an enemy and treat you as such rather than explaining how they reach their conclusions.

To their credits, they left me some ways out I didn't take. I'm not going to tell someone they are right if I genuinly don't think they are if we have to have a serious discussion, and now I know it's better to disengage poltiely than just to drag down a discussion where there's no common ground. I'm not opposed to being convinced in general, I'm just more impressed by coherent explanations than collective shouting, in general... and after having discussed with both sides of the fence, none strike me as particulrly more open than the other on that issue, regardless of pretences

[Trekkin]

Let's say I was a bit- actually stupidly naive. I was like "eyy someone made a point that made sense to me, so I'm going to expose it, hear your possible rebuttal and form my opinion". I was never antagonistic, when I'm interested in an issue I want to hear multiple points of views. But people think as tribes, so when you don't parrot a discourse that has been validated by consenssus, people will flag you as an enemy and treat you as such rather than explaining how they reach their conclusions.

Literally everyone thinks of themselves as the reasonable one open to all input and everyone who doesn't like them as unthinking tribalist hordes who dismiss them "simply for having an opinion" or "a preference" or "stating their views" or something similarly innocuous. It necessarily follows that someone (invariably someone else)is being less than truthful in their analysis of themselves.

That aside, this makes sense now. Going to feminists with some argument you heard somewhere that you know they'll disagree with is like going to geologists with a theory you scribbled on the back of a napkin that says Earth is flat or asking a WW2 historian to prove the Holocaust happened. It comes off as slightly arrogant that you expect them to prepare a rebuttal for you specifically on an issue that, to them, is long settled, and it's also a common tactic used by trolls to bog down debate by endlessly rehashing elementary points. I'm not saying they're right to treat you so, but you are coming in late to the argument.

In short, they may be the first people you've asked about whatever point you found, but you may well be the thousandth person to raise it to them, and there are reasons other than tribalist intolerance of opposing views to express consternation that, yet again, someone didn't do their homework and expects people to take the time to explain it to them -- particularly since, to be perfectly frank, they see very little reason to care about what the millionth random Internet guy thinks of what they're passionate about.

[Cathar]

particularly since, to be perfectly frank, they see very little reason to care about what the millionth random Internet guy thinks of what they're passionate about.

I knew those people for three years. I knew who they were, they knew who I was. But, see, I told you absolutely nothing about the argument and you're already written three paragraph of assumptions. You don't even know what you're defending, but hell you got to defend it. This is my point in a nutshell.

[McTraveller]

I hate nutshells. Squirrels leave them in piles all over my driveway.

[Cathar]

To be fair squirells are more responsible than nutshells

[misko27]

I'm going to have to take LW's side on this one. When you're paying to keep something quiet, it's stopped being your personal life and started being something else entirely. To the extent that hounding our politicians for morally upstanding behavior ever has a purpose, it is actually precisely this sort of situation. Someone has already taken the step of leveraging their money towards keeping something quiet; why wouldn't they take the next step as President and leverage their power? If nothing else, it leaves you vulnerable to J. Edgar Hoover types who would keep their public misdeeds quiet with your private ones. It's a conflict of interest.

I'm a churchgoing Christian (aka the sex police) and I could absolutely not care less about whatever stupid sexual BS the President is into.

Also, my liberal friends talk way, way, way more about sex and how wrong people are for not adopting their views on it than anyone in my church. More so than my church in general, even.

These are mine.

Hey, on the positive side, the Evangelical right-wing of our country now agree with you!

[Trekkin]

But, see, I told you absolutely nothing about the argument and you're already written three paragraph of assumptions.

On the contrary, you've told us:

1. It was about hypergamy, which, as I said above, is tricky to discuss.
2. You regurgitated someone else's argument to which you wanted to hear a "possible rebuttal", which implies you felt they would be inclined to offer one.
3. It went more poorly than anticipated.

And at any rate, I'm not trying to defend whatever argument they made against whatever you found. I may well agree with the point you made. I'm simply noting that the way you say you went about presenting it is far from new and has its own history, and part of their reaction may have been to that rather than to you being the only sane and rational person involved.

[Cathar]

Hey, on the positive side, the Evangelical right-wing of our country now agree with you!

I take people on a person to person basis, and judge what they say on a issue-to-issue basis without reguard for miscellanea. You know what they say about assuming Duna is super cool in my books and if he agrees with me, more power to him regardless of anything else

For the rest Im politely refraining, cheers

[Egan_BW]

particularly since, to be perfectly frank, they see very little reason to care about what the millionth random Internet guy thinks of what they're passionate about.

I knew those people for three years. I knew who they were, they knew who I was. But, see, I told you absolutely nothing about the argument and you're already written three paragraph of assumptions. You don't even know what you're defending, but hell you got to defend it. This is my point in a nutshell.

Marching into unknown territory in order to defend neutral ground because hey, it looked undefended before and there might be some allies there. Over-extension of gallantry? You decide!
(We also aren't sure that we're even at war or if the enemy ever existed, but we still march to secure any tactical advantage possible, in case we are at war...)

[Dunamisdeos]

I can't not.

So serial philandering and violation of marriage vows means sod all to you as a christian, and that sort of thing has no bearing on your view of their fitness as a president, gotcha'.

Most sort I've met over the years at least draw up a veneer of sanctimonious babble on the subject.

Are you real with this?

At any rate, I don't care what Trump does with his dick, I care that he's unfit for President on account of his ignorant racism, lack of experience or even interest in diplomacy, pompous and remarkably selfish ego, and propensity for public toddler tantrums. I feel like legal sexual scandals get a ridiculously disproportionate amount of media coverage and if they aren't breaking the law then I have better things to occupy myself with.

I don't apply my Christian beliefs to politics if I can avoid it. Equating religion with politics is a demonstrably dangerous idea. I cast my vote as an American, not some kind of Theocrat. And frankly, your instant reaction that because I don't share your view on the subject that I must be on board with violating my marriage while decrying in the next sentence how awful it is that those other guys talk down to people about sex and relationships is exactly what I'm talking about.

When I wanted to move in with my fiance before marriage (a big traditional Christian no-no) my Christian family and religious leaders checked to make sure we were serious about our marriage and the rest of our lives together because that's the actual endgame of the morals we advocate. They didn't once mention how immoral or un-Christian this was or try to change our minds or try to eject us from their lives, because they actually live the idea that morals are meant to protect us, not manipulate others for our own gain.

I'd trust them far more than the convenient moral fluidity I see from other groups.

Duna is super cool in my books

unrelated: /fistbump Cathar

[smjjames]

I'm going to have to take LW's side on this one. When you're paying to keep something quiet, it's stopped being your personal life and started being something else entirely. To the extent that hounding our politicians for morally upstanding behavior ever has a purpose, it is actually precisely this sort of situation. Someone has already taken the step of leveraging their money towards keeping something quiet; why wouldn't they take the next step as President and leverage their power? If nothing else, it leaves you vulnerable to J. Edgar Hoover types who would keep their public misdeeds quiet with your private ones. It's a conflict of interest.

Not to mention that the fact there are so many unanswered questions on his business, the fact that he behaves so oddly (compared to how he acts with nearly everybody else) towards Putin, plus that he made a habit out of agreeing to NDAs over sex, really opens up the possibility that Putin (or if not Putin, someone else) is blackmailing him on something.

The whole pee tape thing sounds too way out there to be true, but the fact that he regularily did legal blackmail combined with the fact that he's such a womanizer has already begun to give it that slight air of 'could it be possible it's real?'. McDougal didn't indicate anything like that, but it's plausible he does it differently with porn stars vs Hugh Hefner playmates.

I feel like legal sexual scandals get a ridiculously disproportionate amount of media coverage and if they aren't breaking the law then I have better things to occupy myself with.

It has more to do with the rampant use of NDAs which implies blackmail risk.

[WealthyRadish]

Personally, Trump's various liaisons have further diminished my opinion of his character (engaging prostitutes generally reflects negatively on anyone's character) but I'm not convinced that it ought to diminish a person's suitability as an elected official to the extent that it is pushed by the media. For instance, I don't think it necessarily follows that someone who would cover up personal scandals would also cover up misdeeds while in office, or that the vulnerability to personal blackmail like this is really a serious issue in all but the most fantastic of circumstances.

However, this is an entirely separate issue from the naked hypocrisy of the politicians who have been so heavily pushing family and christian values in politics to suddenly turn a blind eye to the greatest affront to those values to occupy the office in living memory. If someone here doesn't think that is happening, they may do well to imagine what the publicly espoused reaction (from people in Congress, state governments, etc) would have been if it was uncovered that Obama engaged in the same activities as Trump.

Most Christians (who are not elected officials) that I've talked to about Trump do indeed think (after the election) that he's full of shit and using religion as a total facade, but I do not doubt for a second that this is only a dispassionate recognition of something indisputable which under different circumstances would be expressed as a passionate condemnation (i.e., if Trump were a democrat). or black