Me too

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Zontar:
You'll need to be more specific, since it isn't Texas, Arizona, Utah, Georgia or Florida, since all of them are seeing immigration from blue states like California (though then again, pretty much every state in the midwest, south west and west coast is seeing California immigration since the middle and upper class are bugging out).

Did you bother to look at the ages of those migrating? The baby boomers are selling their overpriced homes and using that money to retire on somewhere cheaper to live. People move to California for jobs and leave to retire. The boomers coming of age in California is a huge chunk of their population. It has been a thing for a good while now. Their housing prices are increasing still, not decreasing. If people were fleeing taxes, that would not be happening as there would be ghost towns not price increases. if the upper class were leaving who else can afford to purchase those homes that have been selling like mad.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/17/southern-california-house-prices-hit-10-1-2-year-high-realtors-report/
http://qconline.com/business/moving-on-baby-boomers-shake-up-migration-patterns/article_7fbf23a7-1198-56c3-8a58-a02fbc9c23af.html

Bill Clinton. I'm pretty convinced he never even touched that woman... /s

CaitSeith:
Bill Clinton. I'm pretty convinced he never even touched that woman... /s

If there is one person that is a friend to women everywhere, it is that there OJ Simpson. Love that lad.

Lil devils x:
Me too was a chance for what? All it is is a bunch of people trying to band together to speak up about what has happened to them for better or worse of what happens to them for doing so. Women have always been taught " safety in numbers" so they were trying it. That is all it is nothing more, nothing less. I do not see it making much of a difference as to what happens to the next girl either way tbh. These things are going to keep happening and I do not see anything slowing it down as it is too ingrained in our current society for that to happen any time soon. All Metoo is people starting to talk about it. I guess that is a start.

Me Too showed a couple of things :

1) If someone has power, he can get away with such misdeeds for a very long time.

2) There are indeed environments where sexual exploitation of power is widespread and common. Without anyone doing anything about it.

3) People generalize too much. Who works in an environment with nearly open sexual harrassment and/or known practices of sex-related corruption think that is just the state of the world and must be true everywhere so there is no use in trying to fight it or to switch jobs. People working somewhere where this is not the case also assume that this is the normal state of the world and have a hard time believing horror stories of sex-abuse clusters. MeToo should have been an eye-opener here considering how concentrated the results were.

4) Aside from those environments, there are also single powerful individuals abusing their power for sex. Those tend to be far more secretive, carefully making sure there is never a witness. And those individuals are often quite successfull hiding their deeds even from close coworkers.

5) Individuals abusing their power this way tend to do it quite often but also tend to spread it pretty instead of abusing the same person again and again. Often most cases in quite a big circle are done by the very same perpetraitor.

6) Outside from those environments where it is an open secret and where everyone in power can be assumed to at least turn a blind eye if not actively participating, there is hardly any way to predict or accurately guess who does this kind of thing. OK, beside having power which is a requirement for power abuse.

7) Public reaction to rape and sexual abuse is pretty equal in most countries. But reaction to "favors for sex" differs a lot based on if prostitution is legal and on how widespread and tolerated corruption is.

Zontar:
Yes, and yet Wahhabists are constantly denied agency for their actions whenever one of them blows themselves up or shoots a place up or drives into people or stabs a bunch of people. Denied agency by many of the same people who go on about how we need to treat everyone equally (as they see it, it would seem). Wahhabism isn't as fringe as people like to think it is, there are more people who follow it then there are Americans, yet all those people are constantly denied agency by the media and a large part of society, for reasons that don't make any sense from an ideological standpoint and certainly don't from a viewpoint of equal treatment.

Who is denying Wahhabists agency? If anyone is, you are; it's what you're doing when you say Muslims behave in whatever fashion or cannot fit into Western society, because you are claiming their religion subsumes their individual nature.

Depending on what we consider Wahhabism to be, it's either about 5 million or 40-50 million people worldwide; the wider figure should more accurately be termed Salafism, with Wahhabism more strictly being a Saudi subset of Salafism. One way or another, that's far less than the population of the USA, and hard to call mainstream in a religion of 1.5-2 billion adherents.

Not really...

You show no apparent sympathy for people sexually attacked, no satisfaction in sex attackers getting caught. You treat sexual harassment and attacks as a "fact of life", as if they're just something natural like a gust of wind or leaves coming out in spring. This demonstrates that in your hierarchy of importance, bashing your political opponents is quite a long way higher than crime and crime victims.

I'll be blunt, I, like most Westerners I do support a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.

No, most Westerners really don't.

They will support various forms of ban or restriction with appropriate functional rationale. Trump could get away with his travel ban in popular opinion because it was time-limited, and was argued through specific and immediate security concerns. In the UK, the criteria of the majority that determine favourability of immigration are good economic productivity and filling gaps in the national skill base. When you start saying "Ban Muslims because they're Muslims", popular support is low.

and the libertarian case for a strong border (contrary to popular belief by socialists they actually believe in the need for a strong border stronger then most groups, and it isn't inconsistent with their ideology)

Actually, strong borders are ideologically problematic for libertarianism. In simple terms, libertarianism is extreme liberty and protection of individual rights. But crossing a border per se infringes no individual rights. Blocking someone crossing a border is surely inhibiting their freedom of movement, freedom of association between people on different sides of the border, economic freedom (movement of labour), etc. Ideologically, libertarianism only has one sensible baseline approach to borders, and that is that they should not exist. The only compelling case for closing borders under libertarianism is to protect against clear threats: criminals, etc.

After that, libertarian cases for closed borders have become politically necessary because lots of small government types are nationalists and/or xenophobes. But they are actually all fudges and dilutions of libertarian ideology to accommodate nationalism, pragmatism in an existing non-libertarian society, etc.

I'm an individualist,

I'm sure in your own way, you mostly are. But then, just about everyone on this forum, and in our counties, is to a large extent an individualist. It's just that we can all have different conceptions about what individualism means and demands. And, for instance, in this very conversation we're having I'm the person sticking up for an individualist approach to immigration, and you are absolutely not.

Consider that when you're arguing with lots of progressives, you're sticking up for individualism in terms of rights of freedom of speech. But the progressives are often also thinking about individualism: specifically, protecting some individuals and their free expression from state and societal oppression. In this sense, you actually share an individualist motivation; what you disagree on are circumstances and methods.

Thaluikhain:

Um, googling "Terry Gilliam abuse" brings back a lot of hits. Now, AFAIK, he's not been accused of abusing people himself, but he's been defending abusers.

Can you link me to where you saw this? I've been trying to find the article everyone's claiming to source but no one has a direct link or attribution I can follow.

Ninjamedic:
Can you link me to where you saw this? I've been trying to find the article everyone's claiming to source but no one has a direct link or attribution I can follow.

http://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/add-terry-gilliam-to-the-pile-of-powerful-assholes-in-hollywood.php
There's him defending Johnny Depp by attacking Amber Heard.

He's also attacked MeToo and specifically people accusing Weinstein:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/19/ellen-barkin-tweets-accusation-against-terry-gilliam-after-directors-metoo-comments

And of people unhappy with him defending Damon saying "but not all men are rapists" and that he'd maybe work with an abuser
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/16/hollywood-director-gilliam-hits-metoo-mob-rule/

Thaluikhain:

http://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/add-terry-gilliam-to-the-pile-of-powerful-assholes-in-hollywood.php
There's him defending Johnny Depp by attacking Amber Heard.

Not much of Gilliam himself in that article beyond what we already knew about the Grimm production. I didn't know about the Heard/Depp case enough to have an authoritative voice on Stanhope's writing there, but given that's a refutation of the accusations I think it's a case of defending someone he thought was innocent until the evidence actually surfaced (I;m noting the use of the word 'after' in regards to the video there.) You can say that doesn't make it better but I'm not comfortable with framing it as him openly defending an abuser.

He's also attacked MeToo and specifically people accusing Weinstein:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/19/ellen-barkin-tweets-accusation-against-terry-gilliam-after-directors-metoo-comments

Well he's not defending Weinstein there, The Guardian admits Gilliam openly refers to him as a monster. The criticisms of metoo look out of context (Gilliam said this in the followup that the Granuiad inserted into their piece about Don Quixote and without that article everyone's sourcing I can't say for certain if the Guardian's reading of it is fair), but with his quote about not much changing I'm assuming he's criticising the methods of metoo and doubting it's long term success.

And of people unhappy with him defending Damon saying "but not all men are rapists" and that he'd maybe work with an abuser
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/16/hollywood-director-gilliam-hits-metoo-mob-rule/

Is Damon the abuser in question here?

Thaluikhain:

There's him defending Johnny Depp by attacking Amber Heard.

He's also attacked MeToo and specifically people accusing Weinstein:

And of people unhappy with him defending Damon saying "but not all men are rapists" and that he'd maybe work with an abuser

1) Gilliam is entitled to have an opinion on Depp-Heard based on what little he's heard. The problem might just be that he's wrong.
2) Saying some actresses deliberately sought and benefitted from Weinstein's casting couch is an unpalatable likelihood; similarly pointing out some of the aggression of the movement against even mild infraction or disagreement is not unreasonable.
3) Matt Damon's comments are almost superficial truism; does anyone actually disagree that there's a difference between a pat on the backside and rape, but both are bad and need to be stamped out?

The problem with the latter two is not so much what's said in a frank evaluation, but the tactlessness of the timing: a bit like pissing into the wind when it's still a gale blowing.

Agema:
Who is denying Wahhabists agency? If anyone is, you are; it's what you're doing when you say Muslims behave in whatever fashion or cannot fit into Western society, because you are claiming their religion subsumes their individual nature.

Depending on what we consider Wahhabism to be, it's either about 5 million or 40-50 million people worldwide; the wider figure should more accurately be termed Salafism, with Wahhabism more strictly being a Saudi subset of Salafism. One way or another, that's far less than the population of the USA, and hard to call mainstream in a religion of 1.5-2 billion adherents.

I don't see how pretending they are lying 100% of the time about their motivation and excusing it with literally dozens of other reasons isn't the denial of agency, or how telling people "I believe you believe what you claim to believe" is. Pew research has been pretty clear on the numbers, and while Wahhabism explicitly is at a few million, when it comes to those who follow what it is trying to spread (a literalist interpretation of the Qur'an and the Hadith) the number is around 400 million, which isn't currently a smaller number then the number of Americans, though give it a few years and that may change.

You show no apparent sympathy for people sexually attacked, no satisfaction in sex attackers getting caught.

I'll have you know I've shown extreme satisfaction in sex attackers getting caught over all this. I won't deny that the fact it makes those who follow an ideology that have been at war with my hobbies look like hypocrites since they not only pretend to be the best society has to offer (while being some of the worst) but are massively over represented in all this (15% of the population politically yet the majority of those involved) does make me care more then I otherwise would, but then distance does remove one from caring about things one way or the other. I don't think anyone here even remembers the fact that last summer California busted a pedoring of over 100 people.

No, most Westerners really don't.

Again, Pew is pretty clear on the fact that the UK and Spain are the only parts of Europe where a blanket Muslim immigration ban isn't the majority opinion, and even then, in both it's the plurality of opinion. And in the UK's case, that may not hold true given the study they did was a year before last years' bombing.

I know that there's always been a view of the UK being a different people then Europe, but both are as Western as Canada and the US. Doesn't fit the progressive world view, but when choosing between how things where before the illegal immigrant crisis and how they are now, people prefer things as they where before.

Actually, strong borders are ideologically problematic for libertarianism. In simple terms, libertarianism is extreme liberty and protection of individual rights. But crossing a border per se infringes no individual rights. Blocking someone crossing a border is surely inhibiting their freedom of movement, freedom of association between people on different sides of the border, economic freedom (movement of labour), etc. Ideologically, libertarianism only has one sensible baseline approach to borders, and that is that they should not exist. The only compelling case for closing borders under libertarianism is to protect against clear threats: criminals, etc.

That hasn't been true for a good 60 years now. Libertarians do support extreme liberty and protection of individual rights, and that extends to keeping out those who would take them away. Libertarians have always been in support of a strong border since the creation of the ideology specifically because it is the only way to protect the rights of the individuals. Allowing in, say, 400 million collectivists of all strides into the US would turn it into a collectivist nation, no matter how many of the 325 million current inhabitants are libertarians.

Immigration and border control is one of the very long list of issues where what libertarians believe and what non-libertarians think libertarians believe are radically different. Like many things people confuse libertarians with anarcho-capitalists on the matter, a mistake similar with confusing liberals and socialists.

I'm sure in your own way, you mostly are. But then, just about everyone on this forum, and in our counties, is to a large extent an individualist. It's just that we can all have different conceptions about what individualism means and demands. And, for instance, in this very conversation we're having I'm the person sticking up for an individualist approach to immigration, and you are absolutely not.

Sorry if I want my country's immigration policy to assume honesty on the part of immigrants when they state that they follow a religion which is irreconcilably at odds with the founding values of my country at its core. Islam hasn't had its equivalent to the Reformation or the Vatican's liberalisation, and the attempts to do so have had their best results be secular dictators like Saddam, Qaddafi, The Shaw, Al Assad, and the repeated full or semi-Junta that we see in Egypt and Pakistan.

Consider that when you're arguing with lots of progressives, you're sticking up for individualism in terms of rights of freedom of speech. But the progressives are often also thinking about individualism: specifically, protecting some individuals and their free expression from state and societal oppression. In this sense, you actually share an individualist motivation; what you disagree on are circumstances and methods.

I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Canada there are no individualist progressives. As it stands the great social civil rights issue of our time is a fight between those who fight for the death of free expression and those who fight to protect it. It's a very solid line where individualists of both wings are on one side, and collectivists of both are on the other. We can see this with the fact that the loudest voices against it are liberals (such as Dr. Peterson and Professor Saad), though most conservatives are also in opposition to the bill (since, like the hate speech bill it's an amendment to, it's an explicit violation of our constitution and a violation of the rights of every citizen, and made so twice over due to the fact they are brought before the Human Rights Tribunals instead of an actual court, which, for those unfamiliar, are a tribunal which exists to rubber stamp a pre-determined guilty verdict and exists solely to extort money thought the state, with only 1 case in their history that wasn't a guilty verdict, where the Parliament had to overturn their ruling with a bill).

You can try and twist things to be everyone fighting for individual rights, but there is a point in which that only holds true if one sees a collective group of people as a single individual, and Canada at least has long passed that point.

Zontar:
Again, Pew is pretty clear on the fact that the UK and Spain are the only parts of Europe where a blanket Muslim immigration ban isn't the majority opinion, and even then, in both it's the plurality of opinion. And in the UK's case, that may not hold true given the study they did was a year before last years' bombing.

See, you say things like this, and yet a cursory search will reveal that a there are too many immigrants in Sweden. The same source also informs us that not even 8% think that immigrants can't be trusted. Bear in mind that this is in studies that has been conducted after.

It is both amusing and disconcerting to see you make statements with such conviction, when the reality is that a vast majority of the time you are way off the mark.

Gethsemani:

Zontar:
Again, Pew is pretty clear on the fact that the UK and Spain are the only parts of Europe where a blanket Muslim immigration ban isn't the majority opinion, and even then, in both it's the plurality of opinion. And in the UK's case, that may not hold true given the study they did was a year before last years' bombing.

See, you say things like this, and yet a cursory search will reveal that a there are too many immigrants in Sweden. The same source also informs us that not even 8% think that immigrants can't be trusted. Bear in mind that this is in studies that has been conducted after.

It is both amusing and disconcerting to see you make statements with such conviction, when the reality is that a vast majority of the time you are way off the mark.

Can't really make a statement about what you linked to since it isn't working for me and leads to an invalid URL link, I can only state what Pew has found, not that anyone should be shocked given Europe's contemporary issues with Islamic immigration, particularly illegal immigration which has seemingly made up the bulk of it in many countries like Germany, Italy and Greece. It's kind of hard to wrap my mind around since out here illegal immigrants who number in the tens of thousands and actually speak the language have created a crisis that will likely see the current provincial and federal government lose the next election, but then again Canadians have historically been far quicker to take action then most when we have to face an issue first hand rather then as a thought experiment.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:
Me too was a chance for what? All it is is a bunch of people trying to band together to speak up about what has happened to them for better or worse of what happens to them for doing so. Women have always been taught " safety in numbers" so they were trying it. That is all it is nothing more, nothing less. I do not see it making much of a difference as to what happens to the next girl either way tbh. These things are going to keep happening and I do not see anything slowing it down as it is too ingrained in our current society for that to happen any time soon. All Metoo is people starting to talk about it. I guess that is a start.

Me Too showed a couple of things :

1) If someone has power, he can get away with such misdeeds for a very long time.

2) There are indeed environments where sexual exploitation of power is widespread and common. Without anyone doing anything about it.

3) People generalize too much. Who works in an environment with nearly open sexual harrassment and/or known practices of sex-related corruption think that is just the state of the world and must be true everywhere so there is no use in trying to fight it or to switch jobs. People working somewhere where this is not the case also assume that this is the normal state of the world and have a hard time believing horror stories of sex-abuse clusters. MeToo should have been an eye-opener here considering how concentrated the results were.

4) Aside from those environments, there are also single powerful individuals abusing their power for sex. Those tend to be far more secretive, carefully making sure there is never a witness. And those individuals are often quite successfull hiding their deeds even from close coworkers.

5) Individuals abusing their power this way tend to do it quite often but also tend to spread it pretty instead of abusing the same person again and again. Often most cases in quite a big circle are done by the very same perpetraitor.

6) Outside from those environments where it is an open secret and where everyone in power can be assumed to at least turn a blind eye if not actively participating, there is hardly any way to predict or accurately guess who does this kind of thing. OK, beside having power which is a requirement for power abuse.

7) Public reaction to rape and sexual abuse is pretty equal in most countries. But reaction to "favors for sex" differs a lot based on if prostitution is legal and on how widespread and tolerated corruption is.

I think the reason I did not see any difference being made with Me too is I already knew how rampant it is here and still see that it is worse than most even realize. The number of women speaking up are but a tiny drop of the reality of how common this is. Every girl I grew up with and know was assaulted, harassed or abused in some form. I was raped, my best friend was raped, my cousin was raped, my grandmother was raped, and not even all in the same region or state. For those of us who have lived this and continue to live with these things happening understand that this is not something that is going to be easily remedied or to stop within our lifetimes. The best we can hope for is to make it happen less than it does now because "now" for us means for girls to grow up and live now expecting this to happen to them repeatedly. The present means to try and make it through these things and help others survive them as well.

The reason why people stay in jobs where they are continuously abused and assaulted is due to lack of support in the US so it is either accept that as your reality in many cases or lose your access to food, shelter, medication, transportation and ability to care for your family and loved ones. People would rather be abused than have their children homeless and starving. The extreme and increasing wealth inequality in the US means that people must accept these things out of desperation to survive due to lack of options. There is no living wage in the US and you can actually work in careers that have require a degree and still be homeless because you cannot afford anywhere to live. You can be homeless and still have thousands of dollars in back taxes and student loans owed to where you cannot even get assistance for basic necessities with the IRS trying to come after you for thousands of dollars you never had in the first place. There are so many things pushing the middle and lower classes down further in the US that thee is no way for them to recover from them without either winning the lottery or getting some "big break".

People seriously do not understand how bad this really is and it is only getting worse due to the current politicians trying to harm the poor even further:

http://neatoday.org/2017/11/01/homeless-professor/
https://medium.com/@saragoldrickrab/homeless-and-in-graduate-school-211e6c7eda3c
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-12-06/us-homeless-count-rises-pushed-by-crisis-on-the-west-coast

These are the homeless people who "got a break":
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-who-were-homeless/celebrity-lists
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/28/adjunct-professors-homeless-sex-work-academia-poverty


The way this works in the US is unless you have a wealthy family that takes care of you, or are very lucky to "get a break" most people are at risk of losing everything and becoming homeless themselves very easily. It is very easy and can happen very quickly to lose your home. Many times to even get a chance to "get a break" you have to deal with being abused, assaulted and raped to even get that far.

I think the thing that differs in different countries is how they view people who were not born into wealth, or were not given the same opportunities. One thing I noticed as the biggest difference in some of the European nations I have visited is that the wealthy in many European countries are embarrassed to be seen as wealthy when they have homeless and poor in their nation and they actually care about taking care of their own people and see that as being what a community is for. The "get mine and screw everyone else" attitude that is rampant in much of the population in the US is not as much of an issue in many other nations. The sheer level of open display of grotesque gluttony and greed and disdain for those less fortunate is not considered socially acceptable behavior in many other nations as it is often encouraged in the US. This is a all part of the problem that is creating the extremely toxic environment in the US for these abuses and others to thrive.

I also do not think the public reaction to is always the same. Unless you think blaming an 11 year old child for being raped by 21 men is a universal reaction. In the US, even young girls are being blamed for being raped.

EDIT: Added links:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/03/a_lot_of_people_in_cleveland_t.html
http://cacjc.org/2016/09/judge-blames-rape-victim-for-not-keeping-her-knees-together/

The "public" reaction is not as universal as you may think it is. Women know they can be raped and be arrested for reporting their rape in the US. Sadly yes, we all know it is better not to say anything than to let people know it happened because once you tell people what happened to you, there is no "undo" button and from then forward, you are "rape girl" and stigmatized personally, publicly, in ability to find employment, housing, and relationships. It is seriously that messed up here.

Once you tell people about what happened to you, you are then "rape girl", all of who you were before, your accomplishments, your credentials, personality and character is irrelevant at that point because people will now just know you as "that girl who was raped" instead of the girl who won the state science fair. That guy you had a crush on? Forget about it, you are "rape girl" guys don't want to take a chance that you would say they raped you if they have sex with you, besides you are not allowed to enjoy sex like everyone else, if you do then they could not have raped you because you "wanted" it to happen. Guys don't want to be seen with you because you "said that thing" about another guy and could do so to them. Employers do not want to hire you because you might claim they did something to you or cause problems to their business due to the rapist family and friends. People really have no idea how bad this can get for people who have been raped, because the rapist did not just take your flesh and crush your spirit, they took away who you are and changed your life forever leaving you never to be the same person again. Yes, sadly not saying anything is still often the best a girl can hope for in the hopes that she will be able to recover what was her life, hopes and dreams.

To report what happened to you means to give up your life and forget about who you were before, even be willing to move and change jobs, even your name. You not only have to be willing to have them make you relive what happened to you and be repeatedly berated and accused of lying, constantly humiliated and ridiculed, you risk them not believing you and prosecuting you for telling anyone. For most, it is simply not worth the risks involved due to what you have to be willing to give up when the reality is even if you report the rape, it is not likely the DA will be willing to prosecute it and if the DA is willing to prosecute it, they are STILL not likely to get a conviction. Meanwhile the rapists friends and family will come after you and your family. Meanwhile the rapist can be out on bail to come after you all the while you never having any normalcy in your life due to the public reaction as well. It is really awful no matter how you look at it tbh.

Zontar:
...and while Wahhabism explicitly is at a few million, when it comes to those who follow what it is trying to spread (a literalist interpretation of the Qur'an and the Hadith) the number is around 400 million,

Oh for heaven's sake. Callings things by deliberately inaccurate and misleading terminology is just lying, you know.

I'll have you know I've shown extreme satisfaction in sex attackers getting caught over all this.

...only when they're your political opponents.

Again, Pew is pretty clear on the fact that the UK and Spain are the only parts of Europe where a blanket Muslim immigration ban isn't the majority opinion, and even then, in both it's the plurality of opinion. And in the UK's case, that may not hold true given the study they did was a year before last years' bombing.

There is no such Pew research. Probably the nearest you can get is:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/negative-views-of-minorities-refugees-common-in-eu/

Interesting correlation that the countries which really dislike Muslims also strongly dislike Jews. I wonder what that might signify?

That hasn't been true for a good 60 years now.

Of course it's true. Libertarian philosophy hasn't changed that much.

What's happened is that a lot of US social conservatives and nationalists have started calling themselves libertarians because they favour small government. They've then found actual libertarian philosophy and ideology deeply unhelpful for keeping foreigners out. So they've been diluting libertarian philosophy with nationalist and conservative ideology to square the circle.

Sorry if I want my country's immigration policy to assume honesty on the part of immigrants when they state that they follow a religion which is irreconcilably at odds with the founding values of my country at its core.

I'm not remotely interested in your prejudices as a guide for good national policy.

I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Canada there are no individualist progressives.

Really? I've got at least two Canadian relatives who would meet that description. Maybe you just need to get out more.

Zontar:

Again, Pew is pretty clear on the fact that the UK and Spain are the only parts of Europe where a blanket Muslim immigration ban isn't the majority opinion, and even then, in both it's the plurality of opinion.

Out of curiosity, have you actually posted a link to those numbers? Because all I can find is this, and its the opposite of what you claim.

Zontar:

Gethsemani:
[quote="Zontar" post="528.1055421.24242974"]Snip

Can't really make a statement about what you linked to since it isn't working for me and leads to an invalid URL link, I can only state what Pew has found, not that anyone should be shocked given Europe's contemporary issues with Islamic immigration, particularly illegal immigration which has seemingly made up the bulk of it in many countries like Germany, Italy and Greece. It's kind of hard to wrap my mind around since out here illegal immigrants who number in the tens of thousands and actually speak the language have created a crisis that will likely see the current provincial and federal government lose the next election, but then again Canadians have historically been far quicker to take action then most when we have to face an issue first hand rather then as a thought experiment.

Mate, do you even have a single source to back up your bs? I mean, you tend not to besides 4chan and r/t_d, but maybe this time?

Well, we can scratch Morgan Freeman off the list.

*sigh*

bastardofmelbourne:
Well, we can scratch Morgan Freeman off the list.

I'd wait until we get confirmation on this at least, they're still allegations.

altnameJag:
Out of curiosity, have you actually posted a link to those numbers? Because all I can find is this, and its the opposite of what you claim.

No, he hasn't posted a link because he doesn't know what his source actually is.

Funnily enough however, I do know exactly what the source he wants to cite is (and it's not Pew). The problem is that this source does not really say exactly what Zontar thinks it does, nor would it survive scrutiny as an accurate reflection of public views.

Ninjamedic:

bastardofmelbourne:
Well, we can scratch Morgan Freeman off the list.

I'd wait until we get confirmation on this at least, they're still allegations.

It doesn't matter! He's forever tainted. Every time I see Morgan Freeman's face, I'll immediately start thinking about sexual harassment.

The same thing happened with James Deen. Do you know how much porn I had to delete because of that motherfucker?

Ninjamedic:

bastardofmelbourne:
Well, we can scratch Morgan Freeman off the list.

I'd wait until we get confirmation on this at least, they're still allegations.

Out of interest, what counts as confirmation? The legal system is very unreliable with this sort of thing, and he's not likely to admit to being guilty.

bastardofmelbourne:
The same thing happened with James Deen. Do you know how much porn I had to delete because of that motherfucker?

I can't hear "Style" by Taylor Swift without thinking of him. Sure, she probably meant James Dean, but still. Which makes the song rather creepy now I think of it.

bastardofmelbourne:

It doesn't matter! He's forever tainted. Every time I see Morgan Freeman's face, I'll immediately start thinking about sexual harassment.

I suspend judgement for now.

Thaluikhain:

Out of interest, what counts as confirmation? The legal system is very unreliable with this sort of thing, and he's not likely to admit to being guilty.

Well I'd rather err on the side of due process unless you have a better solution.

Ninjamedic:
Well I'd rather err on the side of due process unless you have a better solution.

Well, sure, in terms of legal sanction.

Outside that, however, we've all got reasoning capabilities to make a decent "balance of evidence" judgement, and we'd sometimes make ourselves idiots to rely on a court before we come to a reasoanble conclusion.

Agema:

Outside that, however, we've all got reasoning capabilities to make a decent "balance of evidence" judgement, and we'd sometimes make ourselves idiots to rely on a court before we come to a reasoanble conclusion.

Yes, but since I'm not privy to any decisive evidence or information all I can say is "Let's see what happens for now." I'll concede that as I;m not as invested in this as issues closer to home I'm probably not well read enough in the case.

Ninjamedic:

bastardofmelbourne:

It doesn't matter! He's forever tainted. Every time I see Morgan Freeman's face, I'll immediately start thinking about sexual harassment.

I suspend judgement for now.

Thaluikhain:

Out of interest, what counts as confirmation? The legal system is very unreliable with this sort of thing, and he's not likely to admit to being guilty.

Well I'd rather err on the side of due process unless you have a better solution.

I have a harder time believing a bunch of people forming a nefarious conspiracy. People are shit and those things easily fall apart.

I have an easier time believing someone would abuse their power. People are shit and power encourages abuse. (at least in a capitalist or fascist kind)

Agema:

altnameJag:
Out of curiosity, have you actually posted a link to those numbers? Because all I can find is this, and its the opposite of what you claim.

No, he hasn't posted a link because he doesn't know what his source actually is.

Funnily enough however, I do know exactly what the source he wants to cite is (and it's not Pew). The problem is that this source does not really say exactly what Zontar thinks it does, nor would it survive scrutiny as an accurate reflection of public views.

If the Alt-right cared aboot data and evidence they wouldn't be the Alt-right. They just want you to waste time digging up data and typing up arguments.
Trolling 101.

crypticracer:

I have a harder time believing a bunch of people forming a nefarious conspiracy. People are shit and those things easily fall apart.

Now where exactly did I imply that?

Ninjamedic:

bastardofmelbourne:

It doesn't matter! He's forever tainted. Every time I see Morgan Freeman's face, I'll immediately start thinking about sexual harassment.

I suspend judgement for now.

Thaluikhain:

Out of interest, what counts as confirmation? The legal system is very unreliable with this sort of thing, and he's not likely to admit to being guilty.

Well I'd rather err on the side of due process unless you have a better solution.

I mean, I am not going to beat up Morgan Freeman if I see him. I am going to go 'OH! It's Morgan Free...oh...its Morgan Freeman..." then walk away disappointed.

I no longer defend anyone though. I want to believe it is crazy that so many are guilty, but really the problem is...so many are guilty. Sexual Predators are apparently a very very very open secret in well, any place of power. Even many who are not sexually abusing anyone are guilty of knowing and not saying anything.

You know who seems like a nice person? That Allison Mack who used to play "Chloe" in Smallville.

StatusNil:
You know who seems like a nice person? That Allison Mack who used to play "Chloe" in Smallville.

If there is one person who has definitely not done any sex crimes, it is that there Kevin Spacey. Guys who play creepy sociopaths in movies and TV shows never turn out to be actual sociopaths in real life!

I'm honestly torn about this. On the one hand it's good to see people standing up to their abusers... but it's left me with paranoia that someone I like and respect might be next. I won't name any celebrity out of fear of jinxing it...

crypticracer:

I have an easier time believing someone would abuse their power. People are shit and power encourages abuse. (at least in a capitalist or fascist kind)

After reading through the CNN article about Freeman, two things popped into my head. First off, I would believe Freeman if he said he never meant anything bad with any of that stuff. People told him off rarely if ever and he just got used to being a pervy grandpa on the set and wherever else. I mean, nowadays you might see companies, universities and workplaces get anti-harassment hotlines, or support staff, or something and while I've been scoffing at these, Freeman's case here proves they could be useful. Through these channels, this sort of behavior can maybe be stopped instead of being enabled for years. And ultimately it would save the perpetrator a lot of trouble and regret too.

The second point is more personal. Plenty of antics in that long article don't even sound too bad until you know that people were hurt by them. While a big contributor to that was the supposedly professional environment in which it all took place, I'm a pretty laid back guy myself and these news (along with the rest of MeToo) have made me paranoid about how people react to my words. Now I'm much more reserved and stressed out around women my age than I used to be, and yeah, can't help but blame the current zeitgeist a little.

CrazyGirl17:
I'm honestly torn about this. On the one hand it's good to see people standing up to their abusers... but it's left me with paranoia that someone I like and respect might be next. I won't name any celebrity out of fear of jinxing it...

Kill your heroes.

Just in case.

StatusNil:
You know who seems like a nice person? That Allison Mack who used to play "Chloe" in Smallville.

Wait, wasn't she caught running some heinous New Age sex cult?

Oh yeah, here it is. Man, that shit freaked me out. It's like some bizarre pyramid scheme/female empowerment scheme where women were supposed to empower themselves with the founder's dick. After getting fucking branded.

I blame 50 Shades of Grey. That shit ain't healthy.

Saelune:
I mean, I am not going to beat up Morgan Freeman if I see him. I am going to go 'OH! It's Morgan Free...oh...its Morgan Freeman..." then walk away disappointed.

Yeah! Exactly.

Okay, reading this, I had to point out a few things:

Zontar:

I'll be blunt, I, like most Westerners I do support a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.

Source needed. I can speak from experience that the last time Australians were polled, 48% voted for a partial Muslim ban. Key word on "partial," and key that as high as that is, that can't constitute "most."

There's a heavy aversion to learning from history by Millennials (probably because most would find their ideology has failed beyond the point of being able to be defended rationally),

I wasn't aware that a demographic age group had a set ideology. Also, considering that most millennials are into adulthood by now, learning history would be done on their own time. The people who'd be learning history in school right now are Generation Z.

You want me to judge people as individuals when it comes to immigration? Well, don't follow a religion that is impossible to reconcile with the core liberal democratic values of my country without entering outright heresy for your own religion.

That could be applied to almost any other religion if you were a fundamentalist. The caste system of Hinduism is at odds with democracy, should Hindus be banned? Halacha (Jewish law) is at odds with democracy, should Jews be banned? And remember in Christianity when monarchs claimed that they ruled through divine right? Pretty much the antithesis of democracy? That's not even touching on how often religion interweaves with politics (see the US), even as we try and keep them separate.

Now, it's true that Islam does have a political component to it, but is every Muslim going to follow that political component? Trust me, I don't want that political component integrated in any Western nation, but you can easily have a Muslim who follows their religion only on the personal level.

And on a related matter, as a millennial who DID study history, I can tell you that demonizing a group based on their religious beliefs rarely ends well. Or, rather, never ends well. Judge the individual, not the group. Likewise, populist movements don't end well either. And populist movements often get off by demonizing "the other."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 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