#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Saelune:

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:
Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

And fuck being on the defensive. Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals. Why is O'Reily getting his job back? Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

There is a thing called being centrist? Ever hear of it? Personally, last time I took a political leanings quiz, I came out as being left centrist.

Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

Apparently I'm whatever Saelune declares I am to be, despite the fact that as of October 2017, this is the only thread I've been on (minus a couple of minor comments on other threads that I don't intend to get into a big debate over, not like here), and thus, any declarations on what my political leanings are would have to be without merit. You'd have pretty much nothing to go off on.

Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals.

Did I ever make the claim that right wingers aren't being rewarded?
No.
What happened with myself is that I saw the claim that right wingers are being rewarded, and did not disagree with it. No what I saw fit to do was point out how that is something not exclusive to the American right.
Given how incredibly biased your own political leanings are Saelune, you saw someone who wrote something criticising the left and automatically in your mind, that translates to that person being right wing.

Why is O'Reily getting his job back?

You'd have to ask the people giving him his job back. I personally don't care about O'Reilly, since I'm not American nor do I watch broadcast television.

Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

Do you want an objective answer, or just my opinion? Maybe its because saying a thing, even something as stupid as that, does not constitute being found unfit for office.
There's more to the quote unqoute qualifications for POTUS than whether or not one has bragged about moving on women.

Centrists seem too intent on defending the current right-wing government. If you're really a centrist, then you need to balance out the imbalance which favors the right currently.

You are what you are regardless of what either of us -say- you are. But you should be aware of what your views actually are and not assume that you are whatever you say you are. Alot of people claim they are not right-wing these days yet do nothing but defend Trump, defend sexism, defend racism, defend Christianity, but take issue with gay rights and Muslims and blacks.

I could say I am 6'4. Im not, but I could say it. I wont suddenly grow bigger though.

Yes you did, by contesting me saying they are. Thats kinda how disagreeing works.

Maybe you should care about O'Reily. You seem to care so much about Clinton.

Trump has said alot of things. Alot of things that if Obama has said just one of those things, it would have been treated as a bigger deal. But I guess bigots are less picky who lets them oppress people.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
And yet you keep trying to go "but both sides are bad therefor lets ignore the issue".

More to power? Sure, but President of the US is still the fucking President of the US. And the US government is decidedly right-wing right now and you CANT IGNORE IT so stop trying to.

Go figure the people making and deciding laws...are powerful.

Im pretty sure everyone getting kicked out of the US, having their lives upended consider Trump powerful.

I'll say to you the same as I said to BeetleManiac. Since you obviously have no intention of actually discussing the thread rather than forcing your own personal agenda on to things, we are kind of done for this thread.

I mean, fucking hell, look at yourselves.

"Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted dozens of women, and it turns out this could be a widespread problem in Hollywood"
"Yeah, but the right..."

"Here's some potential discussion points on how the issues could be addressed"
"HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THESE WHILE TRUMP IS STILL IN CHARGE"

Fine, whatever, good day to ye.

Amazing how frothingly one track the American left has become.

It's really sad the supposed "liberals" have turned into the bigots.

Stare into the abyss and all that.

Replying to Saelune

The views you have are what they are. A right-wing view is a right-wing view.

I have some right wing views, yes, but not a majority. You say you have some right wing views, and yes, you don't consider yourself to be right wing.

But if I said I was right-wing, no one who has any knowledge of my views would be inclined to believe me.

That's just it though, you have little to no knowledge on my views. All Saelune knows about RikuoAmero is that he disagrees vehemently with modern feminism and social justice. That he agrees with one or two other posters on this site on that topic.
You know nothing else about me. You know nothing about my views on economics, religion, etc.

You can say you're Christian, but if you dont believe in Jesus and the Christian God, then you're not really Christian are you?

And if I said I WAS Christian? Would you disagree with that? Would you continue your trend of declaring me to be this, that and the other, with little to nothing to justify it?

You have posted in other threads and none of them have left me with any belief that your views line with mine.

In those other threads, I don't really speak much to politics. I gave very brief thoughts as to how Trump is able to launch nukes...off-hand I can't recall saying anything anywhere else in recent memory.

You oppose those I agree with, side with those I do not.

Wow...partisan much?

If you find yourself agreeing heavily with runic knight, well I know my opinion of him and would make sense then to associate that with you to some degree, atleast in terms of sharing views.

On this one topic. I don't know anything else about Runic Knight, how he or she thinks about religion, economics, anything else.

Right-wing governments keep popping up around the world though.

Along with left wing governments.

And if you're going to play the 'Not American' card, then dont talk about American politics. Clinton, O'Reily, Trump, Weinstein, USA each. So are we talking American or not?

Again, you're not paying attention to what it is I write. I am not American. This means that there are topics or people concerning America that I know little about or pay little attention to.
Bill Clinton, I paid/pay attention to, because he was once your President. He had effects all across the world, including where I am.
Bill O'Reilly? I have to look him up on Google to find out what exactly he is.
As for you telling me to not talk about American politics...who the fuck do you think you are, to order others around like that? Just because one is not American, doesn't mean one is not allowed to talk about it. American politics affect the entire world.
Your self-centeredness really is appalling.

Things are favoring right-wing.

I disagree. 'Things' does not constitute solely who is in the Oval Office. I bet that is your metric, wasn't it? Trump is right wing, Trump is President, therefore 'things' favour the right wing and you think you have to do something about that. (Did you think you had to do something when left-wing Obama was in office?).
Think education, media, etc. Both of those areas are heavily left wing.

If and when things shift left, then so should your attention.

In my view, it has. You don't need a left leaning President for things to shift left.

If you wanted to make a fair fight out of two people, one big and strong, the other small and weak. Its not really a 'centrist and balanced move' to give them both the same weapon. Cause it still just helps the big guy.

The fact you think the left is weak is what gives me a belly laugh.

The right, particularly in the US has defined itself on its bigotry. In some alternate world of equality, there may be a fair right-wing view, but not here. The right has constantly and consistently fought against equality for anyone who is not a straight white rich male. They let blacks get shot, gays get fired, women get raped, and poor people robbed by evil business practices.

If I tell you about some nasty practises the left has done and are doing, would that mean anything to you?

Identity politics was created by the bigots. Dont blame the victims. But thanks for more reason to consider you right-wing.

Notice that not once in my time here did I state who I thought created identity politics. Again, this is you reading things that I simply didn't write.

My point was that right-wing sex offenders get away with it far better than any left-wing sex offender.

Which is not what someone reading Post 161 would have thought. Someone reading Post 161 would have thought "Saelune thinks this is a practise exclusive to the right".

If you want to admit ignorance because you are not American, that is fine, but you are not doing that.

I am aware of and knowledgeable about some things American, and ignorant as to others. Are you proposing some sort of litmus test one has to undergo before they are quote unquote allowed to talk about things American?
If I want to talk about politics in Florida, do I have to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the history of orange farming there first?

Considering Trump is still in power and the right doesnt talk about it, apparently it is not a big deal.

You never qualified that for it to be a big deal, it has to be talked about the right.

Saelune:

The Gnome King:
The entire campaign made women in my life uncomfortable. Could be the circles we run in, but my wife of 20 years has yet to be sexually harassed by anyone; many of our female friends report working in offices all their lives without encountering some of this harassing behavior. Most of the women I talked to said they were simply "opting out" of this latest internet craze - #metoo was actually started by a black woman over a decade ago but it was largely ignored at the time - and this too shall pass.

For everyone that seemed to want to share their victim status there seemed to be another, somewhat embarrassed woman that just wanted to get back to the business of living her life as a non-victim.

As for women telling me how I should behave because I'm "part of the problem" - just no. I've never assaulted or abused or forced myself on a man or a woman and I'm not going to take responsibility for a "rape culture" I had no part in creating, if it indeed exists. I fear this might backfire on women because I know a lot of men now in professional positions that are simply saying, "I won't be alone in a room with a woman, it's too risky. If she gets pissed at me she can say anything and ruin my career."

I respect the right of men to protect themselves. Women too. A shame how the genders just seem to be involved in a petty war at the moment.

image

I interpret this 'response' as meaning that you were going to try to refute what Gnome King said, but just as you were opening your mouth, you realised you had no retort, nothing that made any kind of sense...so you didn't.

RikuoAmero:

Saelune:

The Gnome King:
The entire campaign made women in my life uncomfortable. Could be the circles we run in, but my wife of 20 years has yet to be sexually harassed by anyone; many of our female friends report working in offices all their lives without encountering some of this harassing behavior. Most of the women I talked to said they were simply "opting out" of this latest internet craze - #metoo was actually started by a black woman over a decade ago but it was largely ignored at the time - and this too shall pass.

For everyone that seemed to want to share their victim status there seemed to be another, somewhat embarrassed woman that just wanted to get back to the business of living her life as a non-victim.

As for women telling me how I should behave because I'm "part of the problem" - just no. I've never assaulted or abused or forced myself on a man or a woman and I'm not going to take responsibility for a "rape culture" I had no part in creating, if it indeed exists. I fear this might backfire on women because I know a lot of men now in professional positions that are simply saying, "I won't be alone in a room with a woman, it's too risky. If she gets pissed at me she can say anything and ruin my career."

I respect the right of men to protect themselves. Women too. A shame how the genders just seem to be involved in a petty war at the moment.

image

I interpret this 'response' as meaning that you were going to try to refute what Gnome King said, but just as you were opening your mouth, you realised you had no retort, nothing that made any kind of sense...so you didn't.

Nope. I am just utterly aghast at what Gnome said.

"No one I know has problems therefor no one has problems", fucking really? Gnome just wants to not care about women at all in any way. I should not even NEED to point out the fault in his post it is so glaring.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
And yet you keep trying to go "but both sides are bad therefor lets ignore the issue".

More to power? Sure, but President of the US is still the fucking President of the US. And the US government is decidedly right-wing right now and you CANT IGNORE IT so stop trying to.

Go figure the people making and deciding laws...are powerful.

Im pretty sure everyone getting kicked out of the US, having their lives upended consider Trump powerful.

I'll say to you the same as I said to BeetleManiac. Since you obviously have no intention of actually discussing the thread rather than forcing your own personal agenda on to things, we are kind of done for this thread.

I mean, fucking hell, look at yourselves.

"Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted dozens of women, and it turns out this could be a widespread problem in Hollywood"
"Yeah, but the right..."

"Here's some potential discussion points on how the issues could be addressed"
"HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THESE WHILE TRUMP IS STILL IN CHARGE"

Fine, whatever, good day to ye.

If you really cared then you would be really mad at Fox News right now. Not mad at me.

RikuoAmero:
Replying to Saelune

The views you have are what they are. A right-wing view is a right-wing view.

I have some right wing views, yes, but not a majority. You say you have some right wing views, and yes, you don't consider yourself to be right wing.

But if I said I was right-wing, no one who has any knowledge of my views would be inclined to believe me.

That's just it though, you have little to no knowledge on my views. All Saelune knows about RikuoAmero is that he disagrees vehemently with modern feminism and social justice. That he agrees with one or two other posters on this site on that topic.
You know nothing else about me. You know nothing about my views on economics, religion, etc.

You can say you're Christian, but if you dont believe in Jesus and the Christian God, then you're not really Christian are you?

And if I said I WAS Christian? Would you disagree with that? Would you continue your trend of declaring me to be this, that and the other, with little to nothing to justify it?

You have posted in other threads and none of them have left me with any belief that your views line with mine.

In those other threads, I don't really speak much to politics. I gave very brief thoughts as to how Trump is able to launch nukes...off-hand I can't recall saying anything anywhere else in recent memory.

You oppose those I agree with, side with those I do not.

Wow...partisan much?

If you find yourself agreeing heavily with runic knight, well I know my opinion of him and would make sense then to associate that with you to some degree, atleast in terms of sharing views.

On this one topic. I don't know anything else about Runic Knight, how he or she thinks about religion, economics, anything else.

Right-wing governments keep popping up around the world though.

Along with left wing governments.

And if you're going to play the 'Not American' card, then dont talk about American politics. Clinton, O'Reily, Trump, Weinstein, USA each. So are we talking American or not?

Again, you're not paying attention to what it is I write. I am not American. This means that there are topics or people concerning America that I know little about or pay little attention to.
Bill Clinton, I paid/pay attention to, because he was once your President. He had effects all across the world, including where I am.
Bill O'Reilly? I have to look him up on Google to find out what exactly he is.
As for you telling me to not talk about American politics...who the fuck do you think you are, to order others around like that? Just because one is not American, doesn't mean one is not allowed to talk about it. American politics affect the entire world.
Your self-centeredness really is appalling.

Things are favoring right-wing.

I disagree. 'Things' does not constitute solely who is in the Oval Office. I bet that is your metric, wasn't it? Trump is right wing, Trump is President, therefore 'things' favour the right wing and you think you have to do something about that. (Did you think you had to do something when left-wing Obama was in office?).
Think education, media, etc. Both of those areas are heavily left wing.

If and when things shift left, then so should your attention.

In my view, it has. You don't need a left leaning President for things to shift left.

If you wanted to make a fair fight out of two people, one big and strong, the other small and weak. Its not really a 'centrist and balanced move' to give them both the same weapon. Cause it still just helps the big guy.

The fact you think the left is weak is what gives me a belly laugh.

The right, particularly in the US has defined itself on its bigotry. In some alternate world of equality, there may be a fair right-wing view, but not here. The right has constantly and consistently fought against equality for anyone who is not a straight white rich male. They let blacks get shot, gays get fired, women get raped, and poor people robbed by evil business practices.

If I tell you about some nasty practises the left has done and are doing, would that mean anything to you?

Identity politics was created by the bigots. Dont blame the victims. But thanks for more reason to consider you right-wing.

Notice that not once in my time here did I state who I thought created identity politics. Again, this is you reading things that I simply didn't write.

My point was that right-wing sex offenders get away with it far better than any left-wing sex offender.

Which is not what someone reading Post 161 would have thought. Someone reading Post 161 would have thought "Saelune thinks this is a practise exclusive to the right".

If you want to admit ignorance because you are not American, that is fine, but you are not doing that.

I am aware of and knowledgeable about some things American, and ignorant as to others. Are you proposing some sort of litmus test one has to undergo before they are quote unquote allowed to talk about things American?
If I want to talk about politics in Florida, do I have to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the history of orange farming there first?

Considering Trump is still in power and the right doesnt talk about it, apparently it is not a big deal.

You never qualified that for it to be a big deal, it has to be talked about the right.

I know enough to know you are on the side of right-wingers. You said it yourself, you oppose social justice. That is right-wing. If it wasnt, then why dont right-wingers work at all to change that? Why do they ignore gay rights and women's rights? Is the freedom to live and love really worth throwing away for the right to shoot us? (The answer is no).

If the right wants to not be the side of bigots, it is up to the right to change that. It is up to the left to stop you if you dont.

If you said you were Christian but did not follow the Bible, the Church, or the teachings of Jesus, I would not consider you Christian. Thats how organized beliefs work.

I did come to my conclusions on my views cause I think they are wrong. I have no desire to work with right-wingers since they are completely opposed to what I want, which is equality and fairness. Obama's greatest fault was trying to compromise with the right.

The left-wing ones started popping up after the US, UK, and Turkey really screwed the pooch. Still not enough though.

If you want to talk about American politics, then dont deflect by saying "I am not American" as an excuse. Either talk about American politics acknowledging you arent from here, or dont bother. Plenty of topics about countries I am foreign to that I keep my head out of cause I dont know what I am talking about there.

A big deal means it is a big deal. It was for like a day, then people 'forgot' about it.

I know enough to know you are on the side of right-wingers. You said it yourself, you oppose social justice. That is right-wing. If it wasnt, then why dont right-wingers work at all to change that? Why do they ignore gay rights and women's rights?

This might just cause your brain to explode Saelune, but where I am, I voted for gay marriage and, once the referendum for it comes around, vote for abortion.

Is the freedom to live and love really worth throwing away for the right to shoot us? (The answer is no).

There you go YET AGAIN, displaying a complete ignorance of what it is I actually think, but doing what it is you chastise me for doing. You chastise me for talking about American politics while not being knowledgeable in all areas about it, yet you see fit to lump me in with gun rights owners.
Again...might make your head explode but I am not a gun right owner advocate. We don't have anything like the 2nd Amendment where I am.

If you said you were Christian but did not follow the Bible, the Church, or the teachings of Jesus, I would not consider you Christian. Thats how organized beliefs work.

Are left and right wing organized beliefs? Is there a church of the Left wing? An opposing church of the Right?

I have no desire to work with right-wingers since they are completely opposed to what I want, which is equality and fairness.

Well, at least you admit to your own bigotry. Thanks I guess? Notice how I have said nothing of the sort.

Obama's greatest fault was trying to compromise with the right.

So...not the continuing of the wars in the Middle East, or his deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants? Or being cozy with the banks?
No...Obama is a saint and what you characterise as his greatest fault is that he talked to the right. So either you care little about immigrants, or you yourself know far less than I, the non American, about American politics.

If you want to talk about American politics, then dont deflect by saying "I am not American" as an excuse. Either talk about American politics acknowledging you arent from here,

I have. Several times. In this thread. You know that I have, when I said so in a very recent post within the last couple of hours.
So why demand that I acknowledge something that I have already brought to readers attention?
Is this some sort of non-American bigotry coming from you? You don't want non-Americans talking about American politics? And here I thought you were supposed to be the one on the side of equality and fairness!

A big deal means it is a big deal. It was for like a day, then people 'forgot' about it.

Who or what comprises 'people'? If I talk to people who are against Trump, they almost invariably bring up his pussy comment. 'People' still talk about it and for exhibit A, I give you.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Amazing how frothingly one track the American left has become.

It's really sad the supposed "liberals" have turned into the bigots.

Stare into the abyss and all that.

I'm sorry, can we do a quick recap? Which party is the one doing everything they can to shit on women's reproductive rights, LGBT rights in general, and banning travel based on people's religion.

When the left starts doing all of this, then you can complain about them being bigots.

The Gnome King:
The entire campaign made women in my life uncomfortable. Could be the circles we run in, but my wife of 20 years has yet to be sexually harassed by anyone; many of our female friends report working in offices all their lives without encountering some of this harassing behavior. Most of the women I talked to said they were simply "opting out" of this latest internet craze - #metoo was actually started by a black woman over a decade ago but it was largely ignored at the time - and this too shall pass.

For everyone that seemed to want to share their victim status there seemed to be another, somewhat embarrassed woman that just wanted to get back to the business of living her life as a non-victim.

As for women telling me how I should behave because I'm "part of the problem" - just no. I've never assaulted or abused or forced myself on a man or a woman and I'm not going to take responsibility for a "rape culture" I had no part in creating, if it indeed exists. I fear this might backfire on women because I know a lot of men now in professional positions that are simply saying, "I won't be alone in a room with a woman, it's too risky. If she gets pissed at me she can say anything and ruin my career."

I respect the right of men to protect themselves. Women too. A shame how the genders just seem to be involved in a petty war at the moment.

It makes women in your life feel uncomfortable? And they've never been sexually harassed? Well, those two explain each other nicely. Of course it made them feel uncomfortable. It made me feel uncomfortable too. Learning about ugly truths in our society is SUPPOSED to make you feel uncomfortable. If it made you feel good, no one would ever do anything to fix it.

So in other words, women who didn't experience the same hardship as the women who are posting the hashtag just don't care and want to just ignore it? I'm really not seeing how that can be taken in a good way.

You know, you're not part of the problem because you're a man. You're not part of the problem because you did anything to women, I know you didn't. But you're not part of the solution either, because when women came out and tried to share their experiences, as well as the problems they face because of their gender, you dismissed them. The attitudes that were suggested here? Half of them fall under basic freaking decency. I looked at this list and said "hell, I do most of this already." It's not. Hard. Not that anything here suggested that you were part of the problem, so I can't help but wonder why you're acting like they are. I'm reminded of a certain Martin Luther King Jr. quote about the white moderate.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice."

And now you're pulling the old scare card that women are apparently all scheming liars who will destroy men's lives if they get angry. I mean, can I ask you something? Where did THAT come from? Where did you get the idea that these women were lying? I can't help but notice that happens a lot. Every time a woman actually comes forward to talk about what was done to her, there's always a group of people who will paint her as a lying shrew, with nothing to back it up other than she's a woman.

If you want to criticize people for being involved in a "petty war" maybe you should get out of the trenches first.

Catnip1024:
Since you obviously have no intention of actually discussing the thread rather than forcing your own personal agenda on to things, we are kind of done for this thread.

That can equally be said of someone who keeps drawing false equivalences.

Well, excepting "forcing", as that's silly hyperbole.

Errtheking,
Since you mention you do most of the tips as listed in the op, can you please explain which ones and your thoughts on them? Also the ones you don't do, and your reasons why?
I may have missed such a response but all i can recall from this thread from folk such as yourself who more or less agree with the list of tips is just that and scant on any sort of analysis.

Thaluikhain:
That can equally be said of someone who keeps drawing false equivalences.

Well, excepting "forcing", as that's silly hyperbole.

It can indeed.

This is a thread about the #metoo movement. It shouldn't be comparing the left and right and shouting about who is worse. It shouldn't be a left or right issue because the issue is across the board. The particular incident which sparked this whole fiasco was about Harvey Weinstein, such a political figure that I had never heard of him before this month.

I kept trying to actually discuss the issue as put out there, but it seems nobody wants to do that. Let's all stay in our trenches and take pot shots at the guy with the football...

Catnip1024:
This is a thread about the #metoo movement. It shouldn't be comparing the left and right

Which is what you are doing if you say "both sides". Whether or not that was your intent, saying "the other sides has problems too" is not going to help stop a thread from being derailed at the best of times. This is not the best of times.

In addition, I'd say which group is worse is relevant in a situation where only one of them gets the lion's share of power.

Thaluikhain:

Catnip1024:
This is a thread about the #metoo movement. It shouldn't be comparing the left and right

Which is what you are doing if you say "both sides". Whether or not that was your intent, saying "the other sides has problems too" is not going to help stop a thread from being derailed at the best of times. This is not the best of times.

In addition, I'd say which group is worse is relevant in a situation where only one of them gets the lion's share of power.

This thread is not about left or right. Power is not about who is in government or who isn't. Getting sexually abused by Hillary Clinton is no better than getting sexually abused by Donald Trump just because one happens to be in power.

Weinstein was not a political figure. I'd barely heard of the guy. Polanski was brought into this discussion because he is still a member of the organisation Weinstein has been thrown out of. Reilly got brought into this discussion by people trying to say "oh, look, it's all the right". It's not. It's a common problem across media corporations where certain individuals have far too much influence.

Fuck it. Fuck this thread. Enjoy your pointless re-run where you cover the same shit you cover in every other thread, rather than considering the issues that the thread actually touches on. I mean, it showed promise. Conversation about work culture issues and the likes. But no. Let's talk about the same thing we talk about every night, Pinky.

Catnip1024:

Thaluikhain:

Catnip1024:
This is a thread about the #metoo movement. It shouldn't be comparing the left and right

Which is what you are doing if you say "both sides". Whether or not that was your intent, saying "the other sides has problems too" is not going to help stop a thread from being derailed at the best of times. This is not the best of times.

In addition, I'd say which group is worse is relevant in a situation where only one of them gets the lion's share of power.

This thread is not about left or right. Power is not about who is in government or who isn't. Getting sexually abused by Hillary Clinton is no better than getting sexually abused by Donald Trump just because one happens to be in power.

Weinstein was not a political figure. I'd barely heard of the guy. Polanski was brought into this discussion because he is still a member of the organisation Weinstein has been thrown out of. Reilly got brought into this discussion by people trying to say "oh, look, it's all the right". It's not. It's a common problem across media corporations where certain individuals have far too much influence.

Fuck it. Fuck this thread. Enjoy your pointless re-run where you cover the same shit you cover in every other thread, rather than considering the issues that the thread actually touches on. I mean, it showed promise. Conversation about work culture issues and the likes. But no. Let's talk about the same thing we talk about every night, Pinky.

You mean that thing you never gave a damn about because you were too busy victim blaming? What was it you said again?

Catnip1024:
If you prefer job security over your personal wellbeing / security, that's your personal choice. At least at their level it is. At the breadline, it's a different issue.

Uh-huh. If you're going to pick and chose who's allowed to be considered a victim, you have no right to pretend you hold anything resembling the moral high ground. Hate to burst your righteous anger bubble.

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:

Catnip1024:
moral high ground

Well, the thing about holding a moral high ground is that people find it much harder to argue your position when you've said something right.

The thing about holding a conversation is, people find it much harder to argue anything if the other person doesn't give sufficient context to actually have a point. You got anything other than genericisms?

Sorry for the wait. Got things. I was actually specifically pointing out that moral high ground - which you eschew - has the advantage of being harder to argue against, because it's morally right. I mean, what'd you do to respond? You dodged. You ducked and dodged and weaved. I so have the moral high ground, which you don't fight for. Any argument you have is gonna look pretty terrible when rammed up against it, because you had to handle it sideways instead of just talking to me.

erttheking:

Uh-huh. If you're going to pick and chose who's allowed to be considered a victim, you have no right to pretend you hold anything resembling the moral high ground. Hate to burst your righteous anger bubble.

I'm not really sure how he played the "moral" high horse, but even so, since when do people not judge whether or not someone is to be considered a victim?
A terrorist being shot a drone missile up his arse will not likely be considered a "victim" of assassination.
Not too long ago people argued it's ok to assault Neo-Nazi's. They too have been stripped of their "right" to be a victim.
Some people will argue that a white person/man is a rightful target of institutional racism/sexism through the use of positive discrimination/quota's.
And we could go on.

Everyone judges others and that also includes whether or not they should be considered "victims" in certain situations. On that aspect Catnip is no different from any other poster on this forum.

RikuoAmero:

That is the problem, it is not saying "treat women like you do men" it is saying "treat women differently because they are women" with those examples. it isn't pushing equality, it is using perceived inequality to push other inequality.

Aye. It is what I see a lot of when it comes to modern social justice. They say there is this inequality that is systemic...but yet, it is illegal in reality. We have organisations like the BBC claiming that there is racism in the workplace. So we have a perceived implicit discrimination...and so the solution is for explicit discrimination, literally writing in the job advertisements that it's for non-whites only?

The idea is based on good intention, but it is a terrible solution itself. Sadly, it is near-impossible to argue that with some people as some can not see the difference between arguing against method and arguing against goal. Or to more extreme, where arguing against method is the same as being a sworn enemy.

Saelune:

Its certainly not a left-wing view. You arent left wing, and if you claim you arent right-wing, then what are you?

And we see an example here. The complete rejection of the fact that there is more options than the extreme poles. Heck, complete rejection that there is even disagreement or self-examination by those who share the same pole. Criticism is declared immediate "the other". Criticism of individual's actions is immediately deflected by "but them" by assumed group association.

And fuck being on the defensive. Prove right-wingers arent rewarded when stuck in sexual assault/rape scandals. Why is O'Reily getting his job back? Why did things like 'grab em by the pussy' not stop Trump from being President?

Oh, and since I saw this, thought I would explain this one since it relates well.

Now I could argue that comparing an out of court settled claim or blowhard's bullshitting gymroom bravado is going to have less of a negative effect on those persons than multiple women coming out and laying accusations about a man and a situation where it was probably one of the most well-known not talked about abuses of power in hollywood.

Now I could point out that one "side" regularly decries instantly believing claims while the other has elevated a listen and believe culture to the point that accusations against them hit them harder (hoisted by their own petard).

But I think the best way to explain this is rather to just put it this way.
Power offers protection from consequences. Bill O'Rilely or Bill Clinton, power lets people get away with shit they should not. But you constantly pushing the "but them" makes that far easier for them to do so.

Because in doing so, you show you don't care about the crime at all, regardless how much you might "thoughts and prayers" your response, you just care about whether they are part of your tribe or not. Those abusers, they rely on the protection of the "tribes" they are part of to deflect personal responsibility and pretend that it is instead against the tribe itself. It doesn't matter how they define the tribe, be it race, gender, politics, just being part of the same hollywood town, the tactic itself is the same. Personal responsibility is deflected and the issue becomes distracted by the tribal fights. You, doing as you have here, aid that. You, by ignoring time after time any degree of consistency in your application of outrage or in your convictions of morality, only aid the very abusers and opportunists of the world.

and in doing so, you, Saelune, contribute to the culture that encourages things like hollywood. Not a culture of rape, but one of deflecting personal responsibility. Rape is not tolerated in our culture on the west, but people abusing power to do what others are not tolerated in doing? People deflecting personal failings or horrible actions onto the wider tribal associations? People having a REAL privledge because of their power, connections to power, or wealth and who manipulate the knee-jerk tribalism of fools to avoid consequences? That is the culture that lets these things keep happening without consequence. That is the culture that you embrace whole-heatedly. And it is probably the most bi-partizan position you openly embrace, as it isn't a matter of left or right, there are people just like you on the right too. Excusing the actions from one side that you condemn in the other. "No bad tactics, only bad targets" taken to heart and as terrible as it ever was.

And this is not the same as arguing something done was not as bad as other claimed, or that an accusation is false here. This is not arguing against someone accusing you of being a harasser or sexual assailant because of your association to the politics of the person responsible for the assaults. The weinstien thing is pretty clear cut and dry that he did it, but no one is saying you are responsible for his actions.

It comes off as though you are deflecting the responsibility of that behavior itself because you are afraid it reflects on you through tribal association. And in the process of excusing, defending, deflecting, or downplaying the individual actions of those in your own tribe, you remove the individual responsibility to his own actions because the connection to you. That association to you that, lets be honest, is not any fair metric to judge you by, is so closely tied in your mind that you instead point to the other tribe's dirty laundry and association as if it matters at all.

It does not. And the only reason people keep bringing up one example is often as counter point to wider insinuations if not outright claims about them because of association to the same "tribe" and showing you that that logic would damn you just as much.

But it is especially hypocritical if the identity of the tribe is based around calling such behavior out as the modern radical left is, as it instead comes off as you, personally, do not care about sexual assault when it happens so much as you care about how you can leverage it against the other tribe.

Oh, and I am a center-left politically. Please stop pretending that just because I am willing to call out those on the left makes me whatever political lean is easiest for you to pigeonhole and dismiss. Such intellectual laziness only serves to undermine your positions and prove my point further.

You are not the arbiter of people's political leans or beliefs just because they disagree with you, and with how often you get it wrong in your rush to judge people, that is only a good thing.

runic knight:
Now I could argue that comparing an out of court settled claim or blowhard's bullshitting gymroom bravado is going to have less of a negative effect on those persons than multiple women coming out and laying accusations about a man and a situation where it was probably one of the most well-known not talked about abuses of power in hollywood.

It is perhaps more telling than you would like that you are dismissing Trump's words as "bullshitting gymroom bravado" rather than "the typical mantra of a serial sexual assualter" as others might call it. I don't see what difference being in a gym or locker room has upon someone openly admitting sexual assault either. If he was bragging in the locker room about kicking someone's teeth in I wouldn't ignore that based on location either.

Real or fake, it is certain that Trump is the kind of person to brag about assault which should be beyond any acceptability. And if locker rooms are expected to be so rife with this talk then there is clearly a much larger problem at hand than politicians and film producers.

runic knight:
But I think the best way to explain this is rather to just put it this way.
Power offers protection from consequences. Bill O'Rilely or Bill Clinton, power lets people get away with shit they should not. But you constantly pushing the "but them" makes that far easier for them to do so.

OK, Weinstien and Clinton, but why isn't Trump listed here? Perhaps you have forgotten these women who claimed that Trump had sexually assaulted them? Do those women matter less than the ones who accused Weinstien and Clinton? According to this survey published by the Independent, Republicans sure seem to think so.

Anyway, I have to ask: are you having a laugh? You are complaining about "what aboutism" IN THE SAME POST as bringing up Bill Clinton in a debate about the response to Weinstien. Clinton was last president 16 years ago. Get a grip.

runic knight:
Because in doing so, you show you don't care about the crime at all, regardless how much you might "thoughts and prayers" your response, you just care about whether they are part of your tribe or not. Those abusers, they rely on the protection of the "tribes" they are part of to deflect personal responsibility and pretend that it is instead against the tribe itself. It doesn't matter how they define the tribe, be it race, gender, politics, just being part of the same hollywood town, the tactic itself is the same. Personal responsibility is deflected and the issue becomes distracted by the tribal fights. You, doing as you have here, aid that. You, by ignoring time after time any degree of consistency in your application of outrage or in your convictions of morality, only aid the very abusers and opportunists of the world.

... So I assume you are more than happy to condemn Trump for bragging about sexual assault, then? Since according to you its all about the victims and all. And not just as "bravado" either (that sneaky little get-out), a condemnation of his words as ones that truly reflect his character and beliefs. If you are happy to say that Trump's bragging about grabbing pussy is completely unnacceptable and indicative of how he treats women then maybe you are halfway to practising what you preach here. Unless you have a, uh... "tribal" problem with that?

runic knight:
and in doing so, you, Saelune, contribute to the culture that encourages things like hollywood. Not a culture of rape, but one of deflecting personal responsibility. Rape is not tolerated in our culture on the west, but people abusing power to do what others are not tolerated in doing? People deflecting personal failings or horrible actions onto the wider tribal associations? People having a REAL privledge because of their power, connections to power, or wealth and who manipulate the knee-jerk tribalism of fools to avoid consequences?

Fucking Lol. What was it you described Trump's sexual assault bragging as again? "bullshitting gymroom bravado"? Tell me again about how people "manipulate the knee-jerk tribalism of fools to avoid consequences" in light of you dismissing it as bravado?

People elected Bill Clinton and Trump, one of which was elected after the alleged sexual assault became public. Where's your "tribal deflection of responsibility" now? Unless you are personally criticising everyone who voted for Trump as enabling this culture of sexual assault, oh sorry "this culture of deflecting personal responsibility"?

runic knight:
It comes off as though you are deflecting the responsibility of that behavior itself because you are afraid it reflects on you through tribal association. And in the process of excusing, defending, deflecting, or downplaying the individual actions of those in your own tribe, you remove the individual responsibility to his own actions because the connection to you.

Do you remember what you type from paragraph to paragraph? Here you are once more complaining about "what aboutism" when in the next paragraph:

runic knight:
It does not. And the only reason people keep bringing up one example is often as counter point to wider insinuations if not outright claims about them because of association to the same "tribe" and showing you that that logic would damn you just as much.

You are already defending the practice again. Are you drunk? I know your posts are quite long but it might be a bad sign that you have forgotten what you wrote at the beginning by the time you reach the end. Especially on a paragraph by paragraph basis.

ineptelephant:

It is perhaps more telling than you would like that you are dismissing Trump's words as "bullshitting gymroom bravado" rather than "the typical mantra of a serial sexual assualter" as others might call it. I don't see what difference being in a gym or locker room has upon someone openly admitting sexual assault either. If he was bragging in the locker room about kicking someone's teeth in I wouldn't ignore that based on location either.

the problem with your opinion here is that regardless if he was saying he did either sexual assault or violently kicking someone's teeth in, him saying it in a place of bravado and bullshit would still not be an actionable justification equivilent to the multiple accusations against weinstein which results from years of it being a known occurrence in hollywood. That disconnect on between the two was what I refer to as the difference there. They are not equivalent and the only reason it is being brought up is to go "but what about your tribe, you support this immoral behavior".

Now on that comment speciifcally, since it seems I'll have to address it a lot. Him bragging is the point, he was bragging, and with as dishonest as he is in selling himself, thinking that an example of him talking shit to boost his own ego is equivalent to a serial sexual assailant who presented themselves as for women while abusing their position against them, well, it is just blatant the motivation there.

Real or fake, it is certain that Trump is the kind of person to brag about assault which should be beyond any acceptability. And if locker rooms are expected to be so rife with this talk then there is clearly a much larger problem at hand than politicians and film producers.

Agreed. I touched on that below when I described the problem being one of power affording people a different set of rules. The point I was making was not that trump's actions were in any way acceptable themselves, but that they were not equivalent with weinstien's. Someone claiming they did something to sound bigger than they are is not equivalent to someone who has a long, known history of far worse than the action bragged about itself.

Saying "yeah, I totally beat this guy up" to talk bullshit and try to make myself sound important is not equivalent to someone who has a decade's long history of beating the shit out of people. That such a thing is trying to be pushed as a "but what about them" shows that the motivation behind it is solely about hurting the other "tribe" by association to that and deflecting what the member of your own did.

OK, Weinstien and Clinton, but why isn't Trump listed here? Perhaps you have forgotten these women who claimed that Trump had sexually assaulted them? Do those women matter less than the ones who accused Weinstien and Clinton? According to this survey published by the Independent, Republicans sure seem to think so.

Anyway, I have to ask: are you having a laugh? You are complaining about "what aboutism" IN THE SAME POST as bringing up Bill Clinton in a debate about the response to Weinstien. Clinton was last president 16 years ago. Get a grip.

I am pointing out that regardless of what lean they have, the reason nothing changes is because the shared trait of power and the willingness of people using whataboutism. But as you tip your hand here, it seems you are more interested in perpetuating the whataboutism yourself.

thank you for making my point for me that motivation in doing so has nothing to do with the acts and everything to do with how it can be leveraged to "but them".

seriously, look at that last bit "Republicans sure seem to think so". And? Where did I say they weren't as able to be guilty of the tribalistic bullshit as the left? Heck, I specifically call the behavior bipartisan in the last post. So the only reason you bring it up here is because you are doing the same thing Saleune was, this tribalistic knee-jerk defense by attacking the other "tribe" by association. Funniest part is, that isn't my tribe anyways but the reply to do so being the initial response shows off the mindset and tactic in action.

... So I assume you are more than happy to condemn Trump for bragging about sexual assault, then?

Equivalent to the crime of that action, yes. Such as calling him a blowhard and a bullshitter and a lair and an idiot. And if he actually committed what he said and wasn't just talking big to inflate his fragile ego, I condemn that too.

Since according to you its all about the victims and all. And not just as "bravado" either (that sneaky little get-out), a condemnation of his words as ones that truly reflect his character and beliefs. If you are happy to say that Trump's bragging about grabbing pussy is completely unnacceptable and indicative of how he treats women then maybe you are halfway to practising what you preach here. Unless you have a, uh... "tribal" problem with that?

No, the problem here is that I am pointing out there is not a moral equivalence to someone talking shit about what they "so totally did guys, not lying" and a serial sexual assailant that was known for it for decades finally being called out and accused and no longer being able to use their power to get out of it.

The response to that should not be "but he said something sexist amid his lockerroom bullshiting bravado, why aren't you condemning that, HMM!". That sort of reply is done entirely to attack the other tribe and in the process dismisses, deflects and excuses the actions of the member of your own tribe.

Nor do I have to accept your interpretation of what it means and implies, and nor must I be willing to condemn him for what you think about it in order to be consistent. Trump is a blowhard and bullshitter. That is well established. I can call his "grab em" comment out for that just fine without having to believe like you that it is the confession of a man who hates women with the fury of a spurned god.

You know, it is funny how much people latch onto that comment like it means something or is indicative of something itself, yet ignore that there were actual accusations against him that are infinitely more equivalent to this topic in order to make equivalence to. And, if true yeah I would certainly condemn that behavior too.

But that was my point, that people don't care about the behavior done, just what they can leverage as a "but them" response. Not for equivalence, but to attack those they opposed ideologically. Why else was the "grab them by the pussy" comment what was latched onto in response to weinstien's actions and not, you know, actual allegations against trump themselves. Granted it would still be the same tribalism "but them" thing, but at least it would be more equivalent and at least that could be better used to discuss the problem being one on all sides, not just a sign of one tribe being morally bankrupt throughout and the other just having a few bad eggs as is how this has been presented.

Fucking Lol. What was it you described Trump's sexual assault bragging as again? "bullshitting gymroom bravado"? Tell me again about how people "manipulate the knee-jerk tribalism of fools to avoid consequences" in light of you dismissing it as bravado?

People say they did things they didn't in order to sound more impressive than they really are, even if it is fucked up what they are saying or that they think what they are saying is impressive. People bragging will lie and said they slept with hundreds of women, they kicked the shit out of someone talking shit about them, that their 8-year-olds have important geopolitical opinions, or that they are sexual beasts who can get whatever they want.

The situation that comment is pulled from fits the description of lockerroom bravado and fits Trump's known history for bullshitting about himself. They are no more an actionable admittance of guilt than the gif of him wresting a super-impossed logo of CNN is of his guilt of physically assaulting the company.

As such, I describe his comments as what they were. You are assuming that he was being entirely honest in this time. But the only reason you believe him NOW is because it suits your own tribalism. If he said in the same lockerroom bravado that he fought a man with a knife in the subway system you would probably call him a liar, not because of any difference in his trustworthiness, but because it doesn't reaffirm your personal biases and tribal mindset.

People elected Bill Clinton and Trump, one of which was elected after the alleged sexual assault became public. Where's your "tribal deflection of responsibility" now? Unless you are personally criticising everyone who voted for Trump as enabling this culture of sexual assault, oh sorry "this culture of deflecting personal responsibility"?

No, I wouldn't say they all were because most people who voted for him likely didn't give credence to the claims if they were aware of them at all. Those that pointed to Bill as a "but them so we are morally superior" certainly did though. As I said before, this problem of tribalistic kneejerk defenses a bipartisan issue, though your continued demonstration of the very point I was making is appreciated.

Worth clarifying for you though, that there IS a difference between those calling up differences in the "other" side for the sake of tribalism, and those calling up examples of the other side for the sake of highlighting hypocrisy in the first side's condemnations. I feel if I don't specifically spell this difference out, you may misunderstand me again. People pointing out things like Bill's history and yet the fact he is still embraced by the left status in response to people like yourself calling for condemnations for Trump's bullshiting, well, more often than not that is just done to highlight the hypocrisy.

A rule of thumb for this seems to be if the counter example is being used to attack the association of the other side to downplay their own, or if it is done to just demonstrate the self-harming nature of the logic used of the first side.

In your example.

People going "but Bill clinton did this, so the left is worse" would be tribalism. Notice how it deflects the one actions of the person part of the one tribe all together by moral relativity. The actions of the first don't matter because the action of the representative of the other tribe is bad. This is often even spun as "the actions of the other tribe is worse" even if the same action, or even if it is a far lesser action, as the "trump said this" response falls under.

People going "Why do you care about it when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton" would be pointing hypocrisy. Notice how it is addressing the person's lack of logical consistency. it isn't saying "that first thing is not bad", it is instead saying "you are not being logically consistent."

Do you remember what you type from paragraph to paragraph? Here you are once more complaining about "what aboutism" when in the next paragraph:

You are already defending the practice again. Are you drunk? I know your posts are quite long but it might be a bad sign that you have forgotten what you wrote at the beginning by the time you reach the end. Especially on a paragraph by paragraph basis.

Yes I remember. You seem to have misunderstood my point. I'll try again. Keep up now.

There is a difference between knee-jerk tribalism to attack the other "tribe" because of association, and in pointing out opposing examples to highlight the lack of consistency, or even outright intentional hypocrisy of the position.

But I suppose I should clarify this as well. As beside the process of excusing, defending, deflecting, or downplaying the individual actions of those in your own tribe I mentioned before, there is also an opposite process of inflating, demonizing, misrepresenting and exaggerating the individual actions of those of the oppose tribe.

The "grab em by the pussy" example shows that pretty well too, as unlike the actual allegations against him, it is pretending equivalent between bravado bullshitting and bragging is equivalent to the decades of sexual assault and harassment. Inflating and interpreting the action to something far worse solely to push to maintain a moral advantage over the other tribe.

Christ on any amount of bikes, that is a fucking lot of text for a single post. I will try my best but expect lots to be cut because I do not have all night.

runic knight:

the problem with your opinion here is that regardless if he was saying he did either sexual assault or violently kicking someone's teeth in, him saying it in a place of bravado and bullshit would still not be an actionable justification equivilent to the multiple accusations against weinstein which results from years of it being a known occurrence in hollywood.

What evidence to you have that he wasn't telling the truth about sexually assaulting women? Multiple sexual assault accusations have come out against him and there is solid, undeniable evidence of him admitting to doing things like it. Yet your response is to dismiss it as bragging? Seriously? There's skepticism and then there's unrelenting denial and I feel this falls in the latter category.

The only differences between Trump and Weinstien are A) the number of accusations and B) the amount of power one person holds currently vs the amount of bullshit that was allowed to let slide during the election.

Agreed. I touched on that below when I described the problem being one of power affording people a different set of rules. The point I was making was not that trump's actions were in any way acceptable themselves, but that they were not equivalent with weinstien's. Someone claiming they did something to sound bigger than they are is not equivalent to someone who has a long, known history of far worse than the action bragged about itself.

You have utterly missed my point. No, it is not "just" bragging. The bragging is not evidence of sexual assault by itself but in tandem with numourus accusations of sexual assault they provide more than enough context to put him in exactly the same place as Weinstien.

Saying "yeah, I totally beat this guy up" to talk bullshit and try to make myself sound important is not equivalent to someone who has a decade's long history of beating the shit out of people. That such a thing is trying to be pushed as a "but what about them" shows that the motivation behind it is solely about hurting the other "tribe" by association to that and deflecting what the member of your own did.

Fucking hell, it IS evidence if multiple people are accusing you of beating people up. That would most definitely be brought into a court and used as evidence either in a sexual assault case or in a "beating people up" case. What are you even talking about? This defense is so desperate you should try for a position on Fox News.

I am pointing out that regardless of what lean they have, the reason nothing changes is because the shared trait of power and the willingness of people using whataboutism. But as you tip your hand here, it seems you are more interested in perpetuating the whataboutism yourself.

thank you for making my point for me that motivation in doing so has nothing to do with the acts and everything to do with how it can be leveraged to "but them".

Bullshit. These paragraphs sum up your response to me. After talking so much about the victims you didn't even spend a single word talking about the women that have accused Trump of assault. You are just going to sit there and pretend that their claims have absolutely no validity so that you can wax on in an embarrassing attempt to be philosophical.

My position could have been whataboutism If I was trying to maintain any defense of the left, but I already admitted fully to Clinton being the same as Weinstien. I don't care about Clinton, he isn't in politics anymore. If he were in politics and I knew that he sexually assaulted women I would tell him to fuck off, because he would be a bastard.

But you, my marvelously delusional friend, won't acknowledge any credibility to do with the accusations against Trump. You can see the accusations against Weinstien and the ones against Clinton but when it comes to Trump suddenly such a thing is unthinkable? Has it ever crossed your mind that that's precicely the same attitude that people took to Clinton and Weinstein before the news broke?

How is it in any way a "bi-partisan issue" if Trump got elected after sexual assault allegations and Clinton got impeached after them? I just don't get it. Yes, they aren't equal, but not at in the bizarre way that you have phrased it. You have missed the point so fucking greatly that you might as well be in a different dimension.

There is a difference between knee-jerk tribalism to attack the other "tribe" because of association, and in pointing out opposing examples to highlight the lack of consistency, or even outright intentional hypocrisy of the position.

I... But... That's exactly the definition of whataboutism! From Wikipedia:

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

There is no defense of Trump's actions so people are saying "but Clinton!" in an attempt to distract from the current problem. I can't believe the lack of self-awareness.

I'm not going to endure the rest of this considering what has been covered more than makes the point. Suffice to say that anyone bringing up Clinton to respond to Trump is guilty of Whataboutism. That you are ranting and raving against it while being guilty of it is just depressing. The defense of Trump as "only being guilty of accusations which is totally different to Weinstien no really" certifies this conversation as absolutely dead.

Good day.

but I already admitted fully to Clinton being the same as Weinstien. I don't care about Clinton, he isn't in politics anymore. If he were in politics and I knew that he sexually assaulted women I would tell him to fuck off, because he would be a bastard.

Can you clarify please? Is the only reason you don't care about Clinton (like you do about Weinstein) is because he's not in politics any more?
Do you make a distinction between someone holding an official public office and someone doing political work? Just so you know, Clinton has never left politics. He has been described as being in a 'permanent campaign'. For one example, he has spoken at every Democratic Convention since 1988.

ineptelephant:

What evidence to you have that he wasn't telling the truth about sexually assaulting women?

What evidence do I have that the claim is false? About the same as I do that it is an admission of guilt. That being, none at all save deductive reasoning about the situations. As such, I default to "I don't know" when it comes to Trump's bravado being anything more than that til proven otherwise because of basic burden of proof. A quote-mined lockeroom style comment is not very good evidence after all. Weinstien's response on the other hand, well, there is a difference there but I will touch on it later because it seem that the discussion has shifted here into the very "but them" thing I wanted to avoid. Very well, I'll play devil's advocate here because you confused my point about "but them" tribal mindset motivations with "whataboutism" itself that, while similar, was still a different point intended.

Multiple sexual assault accusations have come out against him

Which is infinitely more valid a point to raise than the lockerroom bravado, yet that quote was what is latched onto because that is the more commonly heard soundbite.

and there is solid, undeniable evidence of him admitting to doing things like it. Yet your response is to dismiss it as bragging? Seriously? There's skepticism and then there's unrelenting denial and I feel this falls in the latter category.

Fortunately, mine is still skepticism. Here's the problem, you are doing exactly what I described in my last post, you are believing something solely because it confirms your previously held bias here. The accusations against him, that would be actual evidence of misconduct. Sure, it would beg the question of why nothing came of those accusations since then after they popped back up into the public eye during the campaign, but it is at least something of evidence that he committed the behavior. The lockerroom quote though? You are again ignoring context and situation solely to pluck it as an example to support your confirmation bias and ignoring that though they relate to the same topic, they are not bound together themselves. The accusations are not confirmation that he was confessing the truth in the comment he made just because they both relate to the same overall topic.

This is like someone being accused of murder against a lawyer having said "If that parking attendant hits my car again, I'll kill him" and claiming that is him admitting to murder, despite the accusation and the parking attendant being about different people.

Furthermore, the original post I quoted didn't mention the allegations, solely the quote-mined bravado which was part of my point there when I said that the actual allegations are ignored for the sake of the comment trump made, solely because it is more well known and easier to sling mud with for the sake of maintaining the "but them" mindset.

I have already said the allegations are far better when arguing equivalence compare to the quoted comment, why does your post sound like you missed that?

The only differences between Trump and Weinstien are A) the number of accusations and B) the amount of power one person holds currently vs the amount of bullshit that was allowed to let slide during the election.

Well I would also add that weinstien's case also involves a different response to the allegations where instead of just denial of the claims, it involved fleeing the country and getting a week of "therapy", his wife leaving him, his board kicking him out, and countless other cases appearing across media itself in a wave of unity against his behavior. That and other parts (like sexual assault awareness being tied into his contacts) suggest there is fact behind those allegations more than the allegations alone.

With trump you just have the allegations and the quote-mined quote. That is not to say he is innocent there, just that for someone complaining I am not being skeptical, you seem to be ignoring the differences to push equivalence to make a point I already agreed on (even if I also said I disagree that the equivalence matters with regard to motivation of bringing up the equivalence in the first place).

Agreed. I touched on that below when I described the problem being one of power affording people a different set of rules. The point I was making was not that trump's actions were in any way acceptable themselves, but that they were not equivalent with weinstien's. Someone claiming they did something to sound bigger than they are is not equivalent to someone who has a long, known history of far worse than the action bragged about itself.

You have utterly missed my point. No, it is not "just" bragging. The bragging is not evidence of sexual assault by itself but in tandem with numourus accusations of sexual assault they provide more than enough context to put him in exactly the same place as Weinstien.

No, the bragging is not evidence of anything here regardless of connection on topic. That is the problem, it isn't evidence any way you slice it because the situation was one where dishonesty was encouraged if not expected. At best, it acts as a confirmation bias, something you feel is adding to the profile of the jackass as a sexual assailant, when it doesn't actual prove anything more than he talks big, which we can demonstrate now. It is someone bullshitting in a situation where the tone was known to be bullshitting, now being taken 100% serious solely because it confirms what you want to believe, not because it itself is supported in any way as meant to be factual.

And again, this is on top of the point that the actual allegations against him were brought up by you after the fact, the post I quoted didn't mention that at all to instead latch onto and parade out just the soundbite as a "but him" thing. and, because I feel it wasn't clear before, the "but them" thing is not the same as the "whataboutism" thing you introduced into the conversation. "but them" as I have been using it is a different motivation than "whataboutism" even if using the same tactic (that of comparing to the other party"). As I have been using it, "but them" relates to the tribal mindset to deflect, dismiss, or downplay the individual connected to their own tribe, while possibly demonizing, exaggerating, or misrepresenting the individual of the opposing tribe. "whataboutism" as you defined it is more just pointing at the hypocrisy itself. Say, this distinction sounds familiar, I said it last post as well.

Saying "yeah, I totally beat this guy up" to talk bullshit and try to make myself sound important is not equivalent to someone who has a decade's long history of beating the shit out of people. That such a thing is trying to be pushed as a "but what about them" shows that the motivation behind it is solely about hurting the other "tribe" by association to that and deflecting what the member of your own did.

Fucking hell, it IS evidence if multiple people are accusing you of beating people up. That would most definitely be brought into a court and used as evidence either in a sexual assault case or in a "beating people up" case. What are you even talking about? This defense is so desperate you should try for a position on Fox News.

The accusations are evidence of the claim, yes. The bravado about beating people up is not. That was part of my original point to the other poster trying to make equivalence of the claims against weinstien and the quote from trump, that they are not equivalent. Or to make my whole point there a second time, the quote is not equivalence, and even if it was, it still falls into the "but them" tribalism mindset I discussed.

If you reread my post you will see I say as much when I even admit that there would be better equivalence between just accusations directed at both, even if it still falls into the same problem of tribalism I described.

I am pointing out that regardless of what lean they have, the reason nothing changes is because the shared trait of power and the willingness of people using whataboutism. But as you tip your hand here, it seems you are more interested in perpetuating the whataboutism yourself.

thank you for making my point for me that motivation in doing so has nothing to do with the acts and everything to do with how it can be leveraged to "but them".

Bullshit. These paragraphs sum up your response to me. After talking so much about the victims you didn't even spend a single word talking about the women that have accused Trump of assault. You are just going to sit there and pretend that their claims have absolutely no validity so that you can wax on in an embarrassing attempt to be philosophical.

Where did I say their claims had no validity? I was arguing trump's bullshitting was not the same as weinstein's situation. There is a difference, please don't misunderstand that.

My position could have been whataboutism If I was trying to maintain any defense of the left, but I already admitted fully to Clinton being the same as Weinstien. I don't care about Clinton, he isn't in politics anymore. If he were in politics and I knew that he sexually assaulted women I would tell him to fuck off, because he would be a bastard.

But you, my marvelously delusional friend, won't acknowledge any credibility to do with the accusations against Trump.

Based on the quote itself? Why would I? Or do you mean after you interjected the actual accusations and not just the quote, where I haven't made a claim about them despite your insistence here that I have?

You can see the accusations against Weinstien and the ones against Clinton but when it comes to Trump suddenly such a thing is unthinkable? Has it ever crossed your mind that that's precicely the same attitude that people took to Clinton and Weinstein before the news broke?

I should point out that the accusations ARE the news, so as soon as they are made public, it makes the news. But at this point you have gotten it into your head that I hold a stance I do not so I have my doubts that you will care, especially when you have already resorted to calling me delusional based on your claims about a stance I don't hold.

How is it in any way a "bi-partisan issue" if Trump got elected after sexual assault allegations and Clinton got impeached after them? I just don't get it. Yes, they aren't equal, but not at in the bizarre way that you have phrased it. You have missed the point so fucking greatly that you might as well be in a different dimension.

Abusing power to get away with crimes is a bipartizan issue. Sexual assault be it from weinstien's decades of it in hollywood, clinton's abuse of power while president, or trump's influence of money to equal power, it is no one side of the political isle that is guilty of it.

Bill Clinton, after his impeachment for lying under oath, you know NOT sexual assault, is still treated as democratic party royalty despite it. Weinstien, despite decades of sexual assaults, was able to leave the country for "treatment" and still has people, including famous actors, defending his actions in hollywood.

There is no "but them" defense here. There is no special advantage one party has over the other in this case. There is just me pointing out that regardless of tribe, this happens when people have power.

There is a difference between knee-jerk tribalism to attack the other "tribe" because of association, and in pointing out opposing examples to highlight the lack of consistency, or even outright intentional hypocrisy of the position.

I... But... That's exactly the definition of whataboutism! From Wikipedia:

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

You are aware I was making that distinction because you called up the word of "whataboutism", yes? Because while the term relates, my point was not whataboutism itself, mine was about the "but them" mindset.

My point was about the motivations of those who call the "but them" in response to others solely to deflect, dismiss, or downplay the actions of the member of their own tribe while demonizing, exaggerating or misrepresenting the actions of the other tribe.

You are right, whataboutism is about pointing out the hypocrisy and when used as an argument is a logical fallacy. The problem here is that you were the one who brought up the term and you were the one who confused yourself about my point ant intention regarding it.

As I said above

"There is a difference between knee-jerk tribalism to attack the other "tribe" because of association, and in pointing out opposing examples to highlight the lack of consistency, or even outright intentional hypocrisy of the position."

There is a difference between the "but them" tribalism mindset I was talking about and the "whataboutism" you brought up that is pointing out hypocrisy.

Do you follow what I mean now?

There is no defense of Trump's actions so people are saying "but Clinton!" in an attempt to distract from the current problem. I can't believe the lack of self-awareness.

I described this in my last post as well, but as you openly admit, you don't bother to read it all, so not surprised you missed this one too.

Now, with the last part above where I tell you that "but them" and whataboutism" are different things being discused, I want you to reread this and please, understand the point being made this time.

People going "but Bill clinton did this, so the left is worse" would be tribalism. Notice how it deflects the one actions of the person part of the one tribe all together by moral relativity. The actions of the first don't matter because the action of the representative of the other tribe is bad. This is often even spun as "the actions of the other tribe is worse" even if the same action, or even if it is a far lesser action, as the "trump said this" response falls under.

People going "Why do you care about it when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton" would be pointing hypocrisy. Notice how it is addressing the person's lack of logical consistency. it isn't saying "that first thing is not bad", it is instead saying "you are not being logically consistent."

Notice the distinction now? Notice me clearly making the difference between the point I made origionally and you defined as whataboutism?

I'm not going to endure the rest of this considering what has been covered more than makes the point. Suffice to say that anyone bringing up Clinton to respond to Trump is guilty of Whataboutism. That you are ranting and raving against it while being guilty of it is just depressing. The defense of Trump as "only being guilty of accusations which is totally different to Weinstien no really" certifies this conversation as absolutely dead.

Good day.

You have misrepresented my stances, misunderstood my points, maligned my character based on that.
Well, you are at least consistent in your being an example of the tribalism I pointed out here.

I've read a pretty interesting opinion about the movement which I think is very correct on as it devolved into "looking at a women or a misunderstanding gesture is rape": in the absolute majority of society it is the man's duty to appraoch women, this creates a catch 22 scenario: Either take the initiative and risk being misunderstood or don't approach and wait forever to a woman to engage you.

runic knight:

This is like someone being accused of murder against a lawyer having said "If that parking attendant hits my car again, I'll kill him" and claiming that is him admitting to murder, despite the accusation and the parking attendant being about different people.

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

This is like hearing a recording of somebody saying "I broke down his door", and responding "He's obviously joking! Haven't you ever heard a knock knock joke?!"

Silvanus:

runic knight:

This is like someone being accused of murder against a lawyer having said "If that parking attendant hits my car again, I'll kill him" and claiming that is him admitting to murder, despite the accusation and the parking attendant being about different people.

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

This is like hearing a recording of somebody saying "I broke down his door", and responding "He's obviously joking! Haven't you ever heard a knock knock joke?!"

Joking about sexually assaulting someone is "absolutely" not common? I'll tell that to my mates (both male and female) who quote unquote threaten each other with rape all day long. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've gone up to one of them and said "Surprise butt sex!"
It may be not common in your own daily experience, but it is in mine. So please, do not say that it "absolutely" is not {common}, as if you are able to say it for a fact.

Your analogy needs more work. As Runic Knight points out, Trump's claim has a lot of context behind it. Your analogy just has someone saying "I broke down his door". That's all we know about it. With Trump, we have him in a situation with some other guys, BS'ing about things they may or may not have done.

runic knight:
snip

I'm going to hazard a guess that someone may have mentioned this before, but have you heard of the word "verbiage"?

I did notice your attempt at a distinction and I pointed out that its nothing but a misinterpretation of the scope of whataboutism. What you have done is outline at prepostorous length two possible ways of persuing whataboutism and then claimed that they are totally different things.

For example: When the U.S. criticised the USSR for invading Afganistan the classic USSR response would often be "How hypocritical of the U.S. to criticise us for "intervening in neighbours security" (What I imagine they would have called it) when they have invaded so many South American countries over the past few decades." I'm obviously paraphrasing, but they would have pointed to hypocrisies in U.S. posititions as an attempt to distract and downplay the seriousness of criticism of USSR affairs. "Why do you care about Afganistan when your country tried to invade Cuba?" is an example of whataboutism. "Why do you care about the Russian invasion of Georgia when the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil?" is another.

Media uses the hypocrisy of one side of an argument in order to portray that argument as meaningless and the actions of both sides as equal. It didn't matter that invading Afganistan was obviously a bad thing to do, so long as attention is diverted by hypocricy people will begin to begrudgingly accept the state of affairs since they "could be worse". See also the attitude to voting fraud in many places across the African continent. These are the very deliberate goals of whataboutism, to fester apathy.

This is such a common tactic that its used on news programmes every single day in exactly the format that you are describing. "It doesn't matter that Trump's campaign manager was raided by the FBI because it turns out Hillary Clinton funded a dossier on Trump. Trump's collusion isn't the real story, Robert Mueller. Wake up because Hillary did it and worse!" And etc. What happens when bad news comes up for the person you support? You play down the news via any means, often by bringing up unrelated or distant examples of similar actions to create an impression of widespread hypocrisy.

And I would have given you the benefit of the doubt but you have called your position into question by that quote you used: "Why do you care about it when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton". What do you mean by that exactly? I mention it because asking people why they care about something is pretty commonly what you do when you think something shouldn't be such a big deal as it being made out to be. That is pretty obviously what that sentence reads as, unless you have an alternative interpretation for me?

You have misrepresented my stances, misunderstood my points, maligned my character based on that.
Well, you are at least consistent in your being an example of the tribalism I pointed out here.

Snap! That's exactly what I think you've done to me as well. The difference being that I have done it at a length that might be considered "civil".

Silvanus:

runic knight:

This is like someone being accused of murder against a lawyer having said "If that parking attendant hits my car again, I'll kill him" and claiming that is him admitting to murder, despite the accusation and the parking attendant being about different people.

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

This is like hearing a recording of somebody saying "I broke down his door", and responding "He's obviously joking! Haven't you ever heard a knock knock joke?!"

You not having heard that yourself is merely a sign of a protected or privileged life then Silvanus.

People joke or exaggerate about what they can do or have done often. This includes sexual history. Are you really unfamiliar with a guy's saying they scored with someone after getting them drunk (arguably rape), or a woman saying that started grinding against or grabbing at a guy (sexual assault), or people outright lying about their sexual conquests, the number of them, or the events of it? Hell, it is so common place in society that it has become a self-parody and become a common character trope in many romance movies, shows and elsewhere. The "big-talking virgin" like the american pie series Stifler or the "hyper-aggressive pervert girl" like will and grace's Karen come to mind off the top of my head as examples. Or Leisure suit Larry's Larry Laffer if we want to get to video games. Because of how common the archetype of "bullshitting about sex" occurs normally, media makes characters reflecting this and not surprising that someone embedded in the culture of media like Trump would be an epitome of that as well.

Are you really saying you have never heard of this before? Or is it just that your lack of personal experience is suppose to convince others, including those who have experienced people just like that?

I am sorry your experiences are so sheltered, but your incredulity alone means very little overall.

RikuoAmero:
Can you clarify please? Is the only reason you don't care about Clinton (like you do about Weinstein) is because he's not in politics any more?
Do you make a distinction between someone holding an official public office and someone doing political work? Just so you know, Clinton has never left politics. He has been described as being in a 'permanent campaign'. For one example, he has spoken at every Democratic Convention since 1988.

By "not in politics anymore" I only mean that he no longer stands for election to any political office. That he continues to hang around is thoroughly unpleasant but there you go.

RikuoAmero:
Joking about sexually assaulting someone is "absolutely" not common? I'll tell that to my mates (both male and female) who quote unquote threaten each other with rape all day long. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've gone up to one of them and said "Surprise butt sex!"
It may be not common in your own daily experience, but it is in mine. So please, do not say that it "absolutely" is not {common}, as if you are able to say it for a fact.

There is a collosal difference between saying what is essentially a meme ("suprise buttsex") and seriously trying to give someone the impression that you frequently sexually assault people ("grab 'em by the pussy"). The idea of equivalence between the two is beyond absurd. Trump clearly wasn't joking in that tape, he may or may not have been lying, but he wasn't joking.

ineptelephant:

runic knight:
snip

I'm going to hazard a guess that someone may have mentioned this before, but have you heard of the word "verbiage"?

Yes, and often. Usually by people who avoid points, rely on constant fallacy, who cut out large swaths off my point to intentionally misrepresent or deflect points, or who are literally sockpuppet accounts so obsessed with arguing with me and others around here they bypass bans to continue to do so.

After a while I simply stopped caring if people don't like the length. I prefer to to be more thorough anyways. Sorry for the inconvenience of length if it somehow prevents you from actually finishing reading what is posted, but if you are unable to read a few paragraphs without eyes glazing over, perhaps a long-form discussion forum is not the best place for you to be arguing.

I did notice your attempt at a distinction and I pointed out that its nothing but a misinterpretation of the scope of whataboutism. What you have done is outline at prepostorous length two possible ways of persuing whataboutism and then claimed that they are totally different things.

You mean when I clarified the difference between the definition of the word you introduced into the conversation and the actual point I was making? Yes, I noticed that too. and that despite multiple attempts to clarify your confusion on the matter, it seems to be getting lost in translation. I suppose that may just be a fault of not reading it all the way though.

In the post you quoted even, I repeated my prior post where I clarified that I meant there to be a distinction between whataboutism that you brought into the conversation, and the overall "but me" tribalism point I was making.

I am not saying the definition is not what you say it is.

I am saying that your definition is not what I am talking about, even if it relates to the idea of whataboutism.

You know, if you want to complain about length, perhaps not forcing me to repeat myself because you misrepresent my points or just fail to read the post all the way may help that endeavor.

For example: When the U.S. criticised the USSR for invading Afganistan the classic USSR response would often be "How hypocritical of the U.S. to criticise us for "intervening in neighbours security" (What I imagine they would have called it) when they have invaded so many South American countries over the past few decades." I'm obviously paraphrasing, but they would have pointed to hypocrisies in U.S. posititions as an attempt to distract and downplay the seriousness of criticism of USSR affairs. "Why do you care about Afganistan when your country tried to invade Cuba?" is an example of whataboutism. "Why do you care about the Russian invasion of Georgia when the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil?" is another.

Media uses the hypocrisy of one side of an argument in order to portray that argument as meaningless and the actions of both sides as equal. It didn't matter that invading Afganistan was obviously a bad thing to do, so long as attention is diverted by hypocricy people will begin to begrudgingly accept the state of affairs since they "could be worse". See also the attitude to voting fraud in many places across the African continent. These are the very deliberate goals of whataboutism, to fester apathy.

Yes. It is a tactic to undermine a position by calling hypocrisy and eroding perceived morality of the person holding that position. A common idea salesman tactic, or for those just looking to mock and laugh at people being hypocrites.

This is such a common tactic that its used on news programmes every single day in exactly the format that you are describing. "It doesn't matter that Trump's campaign manager was raided by the FBI because it turns out Hillary Clinton funded a dossier on Trump. Trump's collusion isn't the real story, Robert Mueller. Wake up because Hillary did it and worse!" And etc. What happens when bad news comes up for the person you support?

Again, yes. The media is constantly invoking the skeletons in the closet about the other side, with both sides actively using the other's hypocrisy to erode the moral standing. CNN points at trump and republicans, fox points at hillary and obama and democrats. Both major political sides are using it to fight for the moral high-ground by calling the other out as hypocrites.

See why I said this is a bipartizan thing? Because it is not limited to one side.

Again, for someone complaining about verbiage, you are wasting a lot of words on something I have agreed with multiple times now.

You play down the news via any means, often by bringing up unrelated or distant examples of similar actions to create an impression of widespread hypocrisy.

I assume that is the general "you" here and not directed at me personally. But yes, that is the definition of whataboutism, so again, I agree. It is a tactic that relies on playing on emotions and is a logical fallacy when used in place of an argument (though has rational uses if character is relevant, such as testimonials).

why are we going over this so much? I thought you wanted me to cut down my words, not be forced to explain that you are arguing a point I wasn't challenging here.

And I would have given you the benefit of the doubt but you have called your position into question by that quote you used: "Why do you care about it when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton". What do you mean by that exactly? I mention it because asking people why they care about something is pretty commonly what you do when you think something shouldn't be such a big deal as it being made out to be. That is pretty obviously what that sentence reads as, unless you have an alternative interpretation for me?

A general "you" directed at a hypothetical audience while invoking the concept without the actual accusation behind it. It was an example of the sort of thing you (this time it is being you the person) might hear in these discussions where it is brought up as a counter point in exactly the way you described it above.

When someone talks about trump, you might here the statement "when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton"

Actually, let me grab that chunk of quote again and have a look...

People going "Why do you care about it when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton" would be pointing hypocrisy. Notice how it is addressing the person's lack of logical consistency. it isn't saying "that first thing is not bad", it is instead saying "you are not being logically consistent."

Oh. Look at that. I did specify that this was people, not you as a specific person when I used it as an example. And it was even an example of "whataboutism" itself amid a comparison between it and "but you" mindset I was making that you seem to have ignored several times now. I suppose perhaps that second "you" mentioned about being logically inconsistent might be confusing if you weren't reading it all the way.

Did you assume I was making that as an actual statement about you as an individual and not a generalized example? Why?

You have misrepresented my stances, misunderstood my points, maligned my character based on that.
Well, you are at least consistent in your being an example of the tribalism I pointed out here.

Snap! That's exactly what I think you've done to me as well. The difference being that I have done it at a length that might be considered "civil".

No, I have taken great length to explain why you are mistaken. You simply refused to read or reply to it and instead have taken great pains to complain about the length throughout your reply that itself was almost entirely wasted words arguing a point I agreed upon and based on a misinterpretation on your part that triggered your knee-jerk response and accusations of what positions I hold.

As I said before, there is a distinction between the topic I brought up with the "but them" mindset and the "whataboutism" you have defined here.

The biggest distinction is that people can use the "whataboutism" in the process of the "but them" mindset, but are not required to be holding the "but them" mindset to use "whataboutism".

People can call up the hypocrisy of a party for any reason, from outright opposition, to disagreement, to their character failing being an actual point of argument, to even just mock and laugh at the inconsistency.

"But them" as I have been meaning and using it on the other hand is a specific motivation. I am not sure if there is a better word for it, but I will stick with "but them" for now to describe it as the use of calling up the actions of a member or members of the opposition side specifically in response to perceived negative association of a member of the tribe that person belongs to in order to downplay, deflect, or dismiss the actions of the person within that person's own tribe, and often to exaggerate, demonize, or misrepresent the other tribe by association to the other member or members brought up.

runic knight:
Yes, and often. Usually by people who avoid points, rely on constant fallacy, who cut out large swaths off my point to intentionally misrepresent or deflect points, or who are literally sockpuppet accounts so obsessed with arguing with me and others around here they bypass bans to continue to do so.

After a while I simply stopped caring if people don't like the length. I prefer to to be more thorough anyways. Sorry for the inconvenience of length if it somehow prevents you from actually finishing reading what is posted, but if you are unable to read a few paragraphs without eyes glazing over, perhaps a long-form discussion forum is not the best place for you to be arguing.

Arf arf and/also yawn. If you seriously consider the two and a half pages of text (at least by my monitor, individual moniter sizes may vary) that you responded to me with to be "a few paragraphs" then I shudder to think what an email from you might look like. Do you not consider something to be a "pond" until it has its own tidal system?

I wouldn't for a moment suggest that you should live your life in accordance to the wishes of others, but sometimes the perspectives of others can be useful in giving perspective on your own position. If people frequently bring up this avalanche of words then perhaps the problem is not with the world, hm?

runic knight:
You mean when I clarified the difference between the definition of the word you introduced into the conversation and the actual point I was making? Yes, I noticed that too. and that despite multiple attempts to clarify your confusion on the matter, it seems to be getting lost in translation. I suppose that may just be a fault of not reading it all the way though.

In the post you quoted even, I repeated my prior post where I clarified that I meant there to be a distinction between whataboutism that you brought into the conversation, and the overall "but me" tribalism point I was making.

I am not saying the definition is not what you say it is.

I am saying that your definition is not what I am talking about, even if it relates to the idea of whataboutism.

So what you are saying is that even though the currently working definition of whataboutism perfectly encompasses everything that you are talking about, whataboutism is in no way related to what you are talking about? Because this new thing that you invented definately isn't whataboutism, right? Not a rehashed idea put through a slightly different context that has been around for decades or anything.

You have completely failed to address my point, which is that your distinction is meaningless and that both of your examples are whataboutism depending on context.

You have essentially just said "Nuh Uh" and are expecting me to go along with it as if you made a satisfactory counter-point.

runic knight:
You know, if you want to complain about length, perhaps not forcing me to repeat myself because you misrepresent my points or just fail to read the post all the way may help that endeavor.

Fucking yawnorama. The problem is not with my reading, sonny boy. I have gutted many a book and read many a madman's scribblings (Personally Hegel tops the list). I'm fully capable of parsing information from stupidly long form text. The difficulty that I have with you is that your point is consistently misguided or indeed lacking any basis whatsoever.

runic knight:
Yes. It is a tactic to undermine a position by calling hypocrisy and eroding perceived morality of the person holding that position. A common idea salesman tactic, or for those just looking to mock and laugh at people being hypocrites.

And you see NO similarity between that and your own position? Really?

runic knight:
Again, yes. The media is constantly invoking the skeletons in the closet about the other side, with both sides actively using the other's hypocrisy to erode the moral standing. CNN points at trump and republicans, fox points at hillary and obama and democrats. Both major political sides are using it to fight for the moral high-ground by calling the other out as hypocrites.

And you consider them equal, because of the use of whataboutism. You display apathy because in your mind the evidence shows that no side can be trusted. This is exactly what I said in my post to you, USSR media mouthpieces would use Tu Ququo fallacies to claim equivalence. And here you are claiming the same thing with a slightly different flavour.

The KGB and the STASI would be embarrassed.

runic knight:
A general "you" directed at a hypothetical audience while invoking the concept without the actual accusation behind it. It was an example of the sort of thing you (this time it is being you the person) might hear in these discussions where it is brought up as a counter point in exactly the way you described it above.

What does the designation of who "you" is have to do with anything? And if its something that you consider innaccurate, then why repeat it? I don't give any kind of a living crap what you think about "me", but what you characterise as "you" is very useful for context.

runic knight:
When someone talks about trump, you might here the statement "when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton"...

What? I didn't ask what some theoretical nonsense trump supporter might argue on this. I didn't even ask to who you addressed the meaningless platitude of a question. I just pointed out the real intention behind that question, in reference to all the Soviet uses of that style of question before. Just because whataboutism comes from a Trump supporter as oppossed to the USSR doesn't change the reality of it.

runic knight:
And it was even an example of "whataboutism" itself amid a comparison between it and "but you" mindset I was making that you seem to have ignored several times now.

The problem was not that your distinction wasn't clear, its that your distinction has no basis whatsoever.

runic knight:
I suppose perhaps that second "you" mentioned about being logically inconsistent might be confusing if you weren't reading it all the way.

Never before has such idiocy been dressed with such arrogance. Well, its my first time anyway.

runic knight:
No, I have taken great length to explain why you are mistaken. You simply refused to read or reply to it and instead have taken great pains to complain about the length throughout your reply that itself was almost entirely wasted words arguing a point I agreed upon and based on a misinterpretation on your part that triggered your knee-jerk response and accusations of what positions I hold.

I would say 1/6th true. You certainly have taken great fucking length to explain your position.

runic knight:
Snip via fucking blub

Holy fucking moly, not in all of my years have I seen someone so proud of their own idea that they would orally pleasure it in front of everyone as much as this.

Lets just be clear for a second here: Calling out the hypocrisy of someone is not necessarily whataboutism. Its whataboutism when the comparison is brought up in reference to the wrongdoing of people on "your" side. For example: It isn't necessarily whataboutism to bring up Clinton's sexual assault. It IS whataboutism when you bring up Clinton's assaults only after someone brings up Trump's assaults (its almost like the thing you made up alread had a definition and everything!). It isn't whataboutism to bring up Reagan's alzheimer's, but it is if you were to only bring it up whenever Trump mentions left wing candidates state of health or whatever.

In case you were wondering, what I wrote here was on average 36 lines (in total much less), whereas you wrote nearly double that in each response to me. Just for reference.

ineptelephant:

RikuoAmero:
Can you clarify please? Is the only reason you don't care about Clinton (like you do about Weinstein) is because he's not in politics any more?
Do you make a distinction between someone holding an official public office and someone doing political work? Just so you know, Clinton has never left politics. He has been described as being in a 'permanent campaign'. For one example, he has spoken at every Democratic Convention since 1988.

By "not in politics anymore" I only mean that he no longer stands for election to any political office. That he continues to hang around is thoroughly unpleasant but there you go.

RikuoAmero:
Joking about sexually assaulting someone is "absolutely" not common? I'll tell that to my mates (both male and female) who quote unquote threaten each other with rape all day long. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've gone up to one of them and said "Surprise butt sex!"
It may be not common in your own daily experience, but it is in mine. So please, do not say that it "absolutely" is not {common}, as if you are able to say it for a fact.

There is a collosal difference between saying what is essentially a meme ("suprise buttsex") and seriously trying to give someone the impression that you frequently sexually assault people ("grab 'em by the pussy"). The idea of equivalence between the two is beyond absurd. Trump clearly wasn't joking in that tape, he may or may not have been lying, but he wasn't joking.

Hmm...okay, I'll grant that my own analogy of surprise butt sex doesn't really pan out here, now that I think about it, since I'm obviously not telling the people I say it to that I am seriously going to rape them. I'm not trying to make myself seem bigger in a way.
Still...joking about rape is common, at least in my life.

As for Clinton vs Weinstein...why is it that Clinton's lack of a political office doesn't really blip your care radar (so to speak) (one of the concerns people like myself had with Hilary's run for the presidency was whether Bill would use this to circumvent the two term limit, and be an unofficial co-president), but the fact Weinstein was at the time in power in Hollywood does?
Bill Clinton in Democrat circles commands enormous respect and influence.

RikuoAmero:

Joking about sexually assaulting someone is "absolutely" not common? I'll tell that to my mates (both male and female) who quote unquote threaten each other with rape all day long. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I've gone up to one of them and said "Surprise butt sex!"
It may be not common in your own daily experience, but it is in mine. So please, do not say that it "absolutely" is not {common}, as if you are able to say it for a fact.

Your analogy needs more work. As Runic Knight points out, Trump's claim has a lot of context behind it. Your analogy just has someone saying "I broke down his door". That's all we know about it. With Trump, we have him in a situation with some other guys, BS'ing about things they may or may not have done.

We hear him stating what he has done to a third party, which is utterly incomparable to the example you brought up. I imagine your mates do not tell eachother jokingly, in detail, about things they've done to other real people they know.

runic knight:

You not having heard that yourself is merely a sign of a protected or privileged life then Silvanus.

Really? You're going down that road? This is one of the most classless things I've read here in a while.

Yet again, none of those examples are equivalent to talking about non-consensual efforts one has made. The justifications here have so far been a parade of false equivalences (dotted with lazy personal insults in your case).

RikuoAmero:
Hmm...okay, I'll grant that my own analogy of surprise butt sex doesn't really pan out here, now that I think about it, since I'm obviously not telling the people I say it to that I am seriously going to rape them. I'm not trying to make myself seem bigger in a way.
Still...joking about rape is common, at least in my life.

That's fair enough, the last thing I want to do is pretend to have any juristiction over something that is completely beyond me (what people joke about behind closed doors). I think the disagreement (such that it is) is not over the issue itself but over context.

As you say, the insincere references to rape are often not an attempt to make someone seem bigger or more important.

I have almost no doubt however that if someone were to be aggresively insistent about others making sexual contact with them, that such a thing would be considered largely negative within your (And I really fucking hope mine as well) friendship group.

RikuoAmero:
As for Clinton vs Weinstein...why is it that Clinton's lack of a political office doesn't really blip your care radar (so to speak) (one of the concerns people like myself had with Hilary's run for the presidency was whether Bill would use this to circumvent the two term limit, and be an unofficial co-president), but the fact Weinstein was at the time in power in Hollywood does?
Bill Clinton in Democrat circles commands enormous respect and influence.

I have huge (HUUUUUUGE) problems with the continued corpse of Bill on the Clinton campaign and Hillary's approach to TTIP, frequently revised as it may be. I don't work in politics but I can clearly see why such a move was abysmal politically. An old family friend of mine (UK speaker, for a while), who had fallen very much out of favour often made the point that a principled politician sits in much the same position as a general. Yes, in theory they have complete choice, but in every concivable reality there are a set number of possible solutions, dictated by various standards.

As he made the point to me, the only uniting factor of Parliament is that whoever doesn't succeed will be demonised either for "not keeping up with the times" or for "trying to create a parallel state". Unless they are considered to boring for either, of course, which is the main medium by which British politics survies, I believe.

ineptelephant:

Arf arf and/also yawn. If you seriously consider the two and a half pages of text (at least by my monitor, individual moniter sizes may vary) that you responded to me with to be "a few paragraphs" then I shudder to think what an email from you might look like. Do you not consider something to be a "pond" until it has its own tidal system?

I wouldn't for a moment suggest that you should live your life in accordance to the wishes of others, but sometimes the perspectives of others can be useful in giving perspective on your own position. If people frequently bring up this avalanche of words then perhaps the problem is not with the world, hm?

Considering the people who bring it up all share common traits as being those who's character and reasoning are terrible flawed, it is a lot less compelling a reason to listen to them.

Being told by someone who regularly treats you as an enemy that it bugs them when you do something generally isn't going to convince me to do it less, especially when amid a long series of petty snipes and attacks, and an unwillingness to address things, or continued and intentional disingenuousness.

So because of that, and because it takes far longer to address someone's junk than it does for them to make it, I am forced to use length to explain an idea with actual nuance instead of the usual sloganism that the most tribal of people want to reduce things to. I will make my posts as long as I feel they need to be.

Arf arf.

runic knight:
You mean when I clarified the difference between the definition of the word you introduced into the conversation and the actual point I was making? Yes, I noticed that too. and that despite multiple attempts to clarify your confusion on the matter, it seems to be getting lost in translation. I suppose that may just be a fault of not reading it all the way though.

In the post you quoted even, I repeated my prior post where I clarified that I meant there to be a distinction between whataboutism that you brought into the conversation, and the overall "but me" tribalism point I was making.

I am not saying the definition is not what you say it is.

I am saying that your definition is not what I am talking about, even if it relates to the idea of whataboutism.

So what you are saying is that even though the currently working definition of whataboutism perfectly encompasses everything that you are talking about, whataboutism is in no way related to what you are talking about?

No, that is not what I am saying.

Read the bold in the quote itself. It is literally the opposite of what you are interpreting there.

It relates to whataboutism, but whataboutism is not what I was talking about specifically. You are using a broad tactic. I am talking about a specific mindset and motivation of those who use it.

See, when you do things like this where despite repeating and explaining myself multiple times you still either misunderstand or just misrepresent what I am saying, it forces me to take more time to explain it so there is less reason or way for you to misunderstand.

Because this new thing that you invented definately isn't whataboutism, right? Not a rehashed idea put through a slightly different context that has been around for decades or anything.

You have completely failed to address my point, which is that your distinction is meaningless and that both of your examples are whataboutism depending on context.

You have essentially just said "Nuh Uh" and are expecting me to go along with it as if you made a satisfactory counter-point.

Considering you misunderstood to the point you can't even repeat what I said without getting it backwards despite it being quoted right above you, I think it is you that is the reason you are failing to understand at this point.

Especially because I have provided clear differences between whataboutism and what I was talking about multiple times now.

Once again, because it seems I have to repeat myself again.

What you brought into the conversation was whataboutism. The usual fallacy of calling out hypocrisy by bringing examples similar in nature.

What I am talking about is the motivations and mindset of a specific use of what you later defined as whataboutism.

Whataboutism relates to what I am talking about, but is not the topic itself.

I am talking about the mindset and motivation of an ax murderer. You are screaming at me about axes as weapons.

runic knight:
You know, if you want to complain about length, perhaps not forcing me to repeat myself because you misrepresent my points or just fail to read the post all the way may help that endeavor.

Fucking yawnorama. The problem is not with my reading, sonny boy. I have gutted many a book and read many a madman's scribblings (Personally Hegel tops the list). I'm fully capable of parsing information from stupidly long form text. The difficulty that I have with you is that your point is consistently misguided or indeed lacking any basis whatsoever.

Coming from someone who could not even repeat a sentence written right above their reply without misunderstanding it, I express great doubt about your honesty about your own ability here.

runic knight:
Yes. It is a tactic to undermine a position by calling hypocrisy and eroding perceived morality of the person holding that position. A common idea salesman tactic, or for those just looking to mock and laugh at people being hypocrites.

And you see NO similarity between that and your own position? Really?

Of course there is similarity, that was why I said as much above and previously in those long posts you are too lazy or intimidated to actually bother reading. The problem here is that you refuse to accept that I am talking about a specific use of it relating to tribal mindset, not the whatboutism you defined and now have latched onto like a bit of floatsom for a man at sea.

runic knight:
Again, yes. The media is constantly invoking the skeletons in the closet about the other side, with both sides actively using the other's hypocrisy to erode the moral standing. CNN points at trump and republicans, fox points at hillary and obama and democrats. Both major political sides are using it to fight for the moral high-ground by calling the other out as hypocrites.

And you consider them equal,

I consider the tactic equally shared. Individual examples may be equal or not, but I consider the overall tactic shared between both and the tactic itself obvious regardless who is using it.

...because of the use of whataboutism. You display apathy because in your mind the evidence shows that no side can be trusted. This is exactly what I said in my post to you, USSR media mouthpieces would use Tu Ququo fallacies to claim equivalence. And here you are claiming the same thing with a slightly different flavour.

The KGB and the STASI would be embarrassed.

No, I did not say no side can be trusted, just that both are guilty of the fallacy. You are leaping to conclusions. Again. The tactic itself is a problem and one that is committed on both sides, but that is not saying both sides are therefore untrustworthy or equal or any other positions you want to shove me into in order to satisfy your now very blatant defensiveness. It comes off as disingenuous when you do it over and over, especially after being called out for doing it and your constant resorting to insults in place of anything of value.

Would you please stop making such claims like this, it makes me take so much longer having to address this stuff than if you just bothered to listen to what my actual stance and opinions are, or just asked if you didn't understand. You complain about length yet force my hand to make posts longer at this point, self-defeating.

runic knight:
A general "you" directed at a hypothetical audience while invoking the concept without the actual accusation behind it. It was an example of the sort of thing you (this time it is being you the person) might hear in these discussions where it is brought up as a counter point in exactly the way you described it above.

What does the designation of who "you" is have to do with anything? And if its something that you consider innaccurate, then why repeat it? I don't give any kind of a living crap what you think about "me", but what you characterise as "you" is very useful for context.

You paraphrased my quote and used it to make a claim about my position while in fact misrepresenting the quote itself and removing it from the context as an examples used in a comparison where I clarified the difference between your word and my actual argument and intention.

Your claim about my position is false based on your misrepresentation of my words. You were wrong.

That was the point, that I wasn't directing the statement of ""Why do you care about it when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton" at you specifically, and that you misrepresented my words even when the statement was originally "People going "Why do you care about it when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton" would be pointing hypocrisy."

I assumed you were arguing in good faith and that your claim was based on misunderstanding based on language. The word "you" making you leap to a conclusion I was directing the statement at you specifically. As it turns out however, this seems like it is just your intentional dishonesty at this point and you are misrepresenting me on purpose.

runic knight:
When someone talks about trump, you might here the statement "when your party still embraces and endorses Bill clinton"...

What? I didn't ask what some theoretical nonsense trump supporter might argue on this. I didn't even ask to who you addressed the meaningless platitude of a question. I just pointed out the real intention behind that question, in reference to all the Soviet uses of that style of question before. Just because whataboutism comes from a Trump supporter as oppossed to the USSR doesn't change the reality of it.

And I was telling you that you were misunderstanding the point I was raising with that quote by removing it from the context of the comparison it was a part of and simply using it as excuse to be offended and leap to conclusions.

Which, you continue to do while ignoring my attempts to explain why it was and still is wrong.

runic knight:
And it was even an example of "whataboutism" itself amid a comparison between it and "but you" mindset I was making that you seem to have ignored several times now.

The problem was not that your distinction wasn't clear, its that your distinction has no basis whatsoever.

Yes, there is a distinction despite your constant rejection of reality and explanation.

I am talking about the mindset and motivations of a specific use of the fallacy.

You are talking about the definition of the fallacy itself.

That is the difference. I am not arguing the definition is not the definition or the use of it as you describe is not whataboutism.

I am saying that what I was talking about was that the poster I quoted was an example of the mindset and motivation that is an issue that helps those in power distract and avoid personal responsibility because knee-jerk reactions that use what you defined as whataboutism in order to protect their tribe by deflecting, dismissing, or downplaying the actions of an individual associated to it through the tactic of attacking another tribe by demonizing, misrepresenting or exaggerating the actions of a member of theirs.

runic knight:
I suppose perhaps that second "you" mentioned about being logically inconsistent might be confusing if you weren't reading it all the way.

Never before has such idiocy been dressed with such arrogance. Well, its my first time anyway.

Once again, coming from the person who couldn't understand a simple statement immediately before his post, I really don't find a lot of bite in your continued insults. Calling me stupid all you like doesn't make it so just because you repeat it, regardless how used to making meaningless ad homs fallacies you might be in place of actually addressing points people made.

runic knight:
No, I have taken great length to explain why you are mistaken. You simply refused to read or reply to it and instead have taken great pains to complain about the length throughout your reply that itself was almost entirely wasted words arguing a point I agreed upon and based on a misinterpretation on your part that triggered your knee-jerk response and accusations of what positions I hold.

I would say 1/6th true. You certainly have taken great fucking length to explain your position.

It takes exponentially more effort to address junk than to make it. You misrepresent what I say often, abandon points, and ignore corrections. Little wonder the length grows when I have to dig that all apart to address the problems.

runic knight:
Snip via fucking blub

Holy fucking moly, not in all of my years have I seen someone so proud of their own idea that they would orally pleasure it in front of everyone as much as this.

Yet for all my repeating it, you still fail to grasp it at all and keep repeating a misrepresentation of it and making claims about it that are false.

Again, for someone complaining about how long my replies are, you force my hand on the matter by making me repeat myself over and over because of your own inability or just unwillingness to actually listen to what I am saying.

Lets just be clear for a second here: Calling out the hypocrisy of someone is not necessarily whataboutism. Its whataboutism when the comparison is brought up in reference to the wrongdoing of people on "your" side. For example: It isn't necessarily whataboutism to bring up Clinton's sexual assault. It IS whataboutism when you bring up Clinton's assaults only after someone brings up Trump's assaults (its almost like the thing you made up alread had a definition and everything!). It isn't whataboutism to bring up Reagan's alzheimer's, but it is if you were to only bring it up whenever Trump mentions left wing candidates state of health or whatever.

Would it be whataboutism if it is not your side but you still bring up an example to call out hypocrisy?

If someone is talking about clinton's assaults and someone else brings up trump's assaults, is it whataboutism if they are not part of the opposing group? If they are part of the same group as the person they are calling out for hypocrisy? If they are part of neither group and are just laughing at the hypocrisy in general?

Because your definition refers to opponents, not sides or tribes, and not the motivation or mindset of those committing it. So all those above examples would match your definition still, despite my point not being related to all of those examples. And it is that more specific motivation and the way the tactic is used with regard to tribes that I was talking about from the start. Calling up hypocrisy to downplay the actions of one's own tribe-mate, or to demonize, misrepresent or exaggerate that of the opposing specifically because of the relation to the tribes themselves.

I repeat myself a lot here, but I have to hope that by now you at least get that distinction. I don't know how I can be any clearer.

In case you were wondering, what I wrote here was on average 36 lines (in total much less), whereas you wrote nearly double that in each response to me. Just for reference.

Only double? I must be making an effort to be concise then considering the amount of junk I have to break apart and address. Usually I am far longer.

I do have to wonder though, for your 36 lines, how much of it was wasted on useless insults and complaining about the length of my post. bet you could get that length down to the lower 20's if you didn't fill it with all that useless fluff.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

You not having heard that yourself is merely a sign of a protected or privileged life then Silvanus.

Really? You're going down that road? This is one of the most classless things I've read here in a while.

You made the case based on your own lack of experience. Your personal incredulity being called out is what would be expected as your lack of seeing something you don't want to see does not mean anything to anyone else who has seen it.

Considering the commonplace nature of such jokes, not being aware of them can only be because of either lack of experience in that would allow you to run across them, or an intentionally protected and privileged life that affords you the means to avoid them.

Furthermore, considering the commonality of complaints about rape and sexual assault jokes and the ties to the notion of rape culture as an example of the normality of rape and sexual assault by downplaying it with humor, your lack of awareness of such jokes and bravado is entirely abnormal and could only come about from being isolated in one form or another, be it by simple lack of experience and awareness that comes from that, or from being protected from it in some way or another.

I suppose there is also the option that you are being intentionally dishonest in your claim about it for the sake of supporting your position, but I always try to avoid assuming that til it is demonstrated.

Yet again, none of those examples are equivalent to talking about non-consensual efforts one has made. The justifications here have so far been a parade of false equivalences (dotted with lazy personal insults in your case).

Handwaving it away doesn't address it.

Sounds like you are making a case of special pleading here.

Should I link to articles bitching about rape jokes on tv, in movies or elswhere? Should I bring up controversies about e-celebs like Spoony making jokes about rape dungeons or video game competitions where people would say they were going to rape their opponents or reference dramas where a character says they can get what they want? Sort of limited to popular culture here to demonstrate the commonality of the occurrence since I can't use personal experiences, but it makes the point about the commonality of it happening. There are countless examples out there, hell, they served as a backbone for defending the very idea of "rape culture", so google makes it easy to find examples of people making sexual assault or rape jokes commonly and getting backlash for it. I could even argue that denying they exists would be denying that rape culture itself exists since they were a fundamental point of arguing about the commonality of rape culture (I don't think we have a rape culture myself, but the examples that are used to support that conclusion are there).

Your position is based on a claim that people don't joke about sexually assaulting someone, yet it seems any example I bring up is casually dismissed. So before you slide that goalpost further, define to me exactly the sort of example that would prove your stance wrong.

Furthermore, for the sake of clarity, would you say that such jokes not being commonplace undermines any argument about there being a rape culture based on the idea that without such jokes being commonplace, a pillar of the idea of rape culture about the normalization of rape through jokes is thereby fundamentally absent?

inu-kun:
in the absolute majority of society it is the man's duty to appraoch women, this creates a catch 22 scenario: Either take the initiative and risk being misunderstood or don't approach and wait forever to a woman to engage you.

Radical notion here: learn how to approach a woman in a non-aggressive fashion that makes your interest known but isn't going to scare, disgust, or creep them out.

You might be amazed how easy it is.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here