We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I need to explain why a 110 lb actress sleeping with a 150 lb boy is different from a 200 lb high school lineman forcing himself on a 110 lb cheerleader, we've gone into the Bizarro Universe.

Is there any set of power dynamics you won't adopt the stupidest possible version of?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No offense, but is it nice to always give everyone the benefit of the doubt in every interaction? Seriously. I have many faults, and a big one is that I absolutely do not have this ability (based on experience, mind you, but that can't be the only reason). Do you feel even more angry when it turns out you were completely wrong?

TM

You know, I was going to make a flip remark and move on, but I think that your question is worth an actual response. (And, no, I am Not Offended.)

I probably do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions more than is normal/warranted. The one area in which I give fewer benefits of the doubt (is that how one would make that plural? I miss dtb) regarding people is that I almost always assume that, no matter what they may say, they are acting mostly out of self-interest.

Who knows the cause of my pathological* niceness? Insecurity? A need to be liked? Residual Catholic guilt? Irregardless** of the cause, I think it’s not always served me well professionally. I hate doing performance reviews, and if I think someone is trying, I will cut them (too much?) slack. That’s caused many annoyances, additional unbillable work for me, and one major problem for me with a client because an associate sent the wrong version of a document to him for review. It was repaired, but it wasn’t easy.

Anyway. Um, carry on.

*An exaggeration, but not a huge one.

**I really do miss dtb.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You know, I was going to make a flip remark and move on, but I think that your question is worth an actual response. (And, no, I am Not Offended.)

I probably do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions more than is normal/warranted. The one area in which I give fewer benefits of the doubt (is that how one would make that plural? I miss dtb) regarding people is that I almost always assume that, no matter what they may say, they are acting mostly out of self-interest.

Who knows the cause of my pathological* niceness? Insecurity? A need to be liked? Residual Catholic guilt? Irregardless** of the cause, I think it’s not always served me well professionally. I hate doing performance reviews, and if I think someone is trying, I will cut them (too much?) slack. That’s caused many annoyances, additional unbillable work for me, and one major problem for me with a client because an associate sent the wrong version of a document to him for review. It was repaired, but it wasn’t easy.

Anyway. Um, carry on.

*An exaggeration, but not a huge one.

**I really do miss dtb.

Fair enough. I really wasn't trying to be a dick. And no matter what you said, I'm not sure I could make myself into something I'm not. I was just curious.

You may be surprised that my wife has even less patience for fools and bullshit than I do. She can't understand why I ever explain shit, debate, or even discuss points to the extent that I do. And when she's mean to someone, they often end up in the fetal position.

(Don't tell her how often the Dead Horse sock came for me.)

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Fair enough. I really wasn't trying to be a dick. And no matter what you said, I'm not sure I could make myself into something I'm not. I was just curious.

You may be surprised that my wife has even less patience for fools and bullshit than I do. She can't understand why I ever explain shit, debate, or even discuss points to the extent that I do. And when she's mean to someone, they often end up in the fetal position.

(Don't tell her how often the Dead Horse sock came for me.)

TM

Maybe you could find a better way to work out your issues? A second job maybe? https://sports.vice.com/en_us/articl...gn=sharebutton

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You know, I was going to make a flip remark and move on, but I think that your question is worth an actual response. (And, no, I am Not Offended.)

I probably do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions more than is normal/warranted. The one area in which I give fewer benefits of the doubt (is that how one would make that plural? I miss dtb) regarding people is that I almost always assume that, no matter what they may say, they are acting mostly out of self-interest.

Who knows the cause of my pathological* niceness? Insecurity? A need to be liked? Residual Catholic guilt? Irregardless** of the cause, I think it’s not always served me well professionally. I hate doing performance reviews, and if I think someone is trying, I will cut them (too much?) slack. That’s caused many annoyances, additional unbillable work for me, and one major problem for me with a client because an associate sent the wrong version of a document to him for review. It was repaired, but it wasn’t easy.

Anyway. Um, carry on.

*An exaggeration, but not a huge one.

**I really do miss dtb.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/f23d974...c-e90302924924

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No it's not. It is a feature of our society that boys, even young ones, should be focused on conquests. Mind you, I am as guilty as anyone else, so I am not targeting you specifically. As recently as last year I would have said that the kid was lucky as fuck. But the reality is that boys who are used for sex by adults are abused and are robbed of a meaningful, loving relationship, and a healthy (initial) view of sex.

You ever see Louis C.K.'s "Of course... but maybe" bit? My comment is offered with the same ironic context. (Adder, please don't take a shot at C.K. We're adults. We can separate art from the artist.)

Think back to the few dudes you knew in junior high who managed to have sex with women. Tell me they weren't or didn't end up fucked up. My group of friends thought they were gods when they were really just screwed up kids who were being taken advantage of.

I agree with that. But 17 isn't Junior High. That's sophomore year in HS. I'd already had sex by then. So had half of my friends. Two observations on that:

1. Yes, a lot of people having sex early wind up screwed up. But not because they had sex early. Because they came from screwed up backgrounds. Correlation, not causation.

2. Your first time's always anti-climactic, npi. It's fun, you're psyched, you're definitely doing it again and as often as possible. But it's also a "That's all there is to it?" moment.

Bennett (the guy she abused) characterizes the interaction as, "trauma." Argento was allegedly receiving nudes of this guy when he was fucking 12. The fact that a grown ass woman (32 at that point) can receive nude photos of a confused, young boy, not inform his parents or even tell him that they are inappropriate and to stop, cultivate that relationship, and then fuck him when he's 17 and she's 37 shows you that she is completely screwed up.

Those additional facts make the story a lot more seedy. And I never said she wasn't screwed up. I said it could be argued she deserved a pass. I did not state that this "pass" could be partial. I believe it can be. I believe if she was abused, her punishment should take that into account. I base this on studies I've read linking childhood abuse to proclivity to abuse as an adult.

Sometimes I am floored by how dense you are. They shrug it off because they are conditioned to shrug it off. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

I understand what you're saying and do not think it applies.

They shrug it off sober because they think they'll be seen as seedy. Drunk, they'll laugh about it. I've saw a female friend bust one guy's ass about it just last year and he laughed and responded "sshhhh..."

Re-read what you just wrote. You know people who were abused by an adult and who don't talk about it, but will reluctantly joke about it when they're really fucking drunk. Do you think that might be because we all pressure them to feel lucky about it and that maybe they think about it differently? Holy shit.

These cats really do not care. I mean, seriously. But I hear your point. YMMV.

You need to explain why you've chosen to characterize the sexual interaction with an athlete as forcible rape and not something consensual, because what you just did was really, really fucking weird.

I was responding to this line from you:

I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't often completely screwed up. It's either abuse or it's not. We don't say, "That girl shouldn't complain. The dude who took advantage of her is an athlete!"

You were the one raising the analogy of an athlete taking advantage of a girl. Is there a way to consensually take advantage of someone? I was just following the analogy and noting why, physically, it's a lot different than the Argento situation.

TM[/QUOTE]

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe you could find a better way to work out your issues? A second job maybe? https://sports.vice.com/en_us/articl...gn=sharebutton

Link doesn't work.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree with that. But 17 isn't Junior High. That's sophomore year in HS. I'd already had sex by then. So had half of my friends. Two observations on that:

1. Yes, a lot of people having sex early wind up screwed up. But not because they had sex early. Because they came from screwed up backgrounds. Correlation, not causation.

I'm specifically not talking about people who have just had sex young. I'm talking about young boys who had sex with adult women.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those additional facts make the story a lot more seedy. And I never said she wasn't screwed up. I said it could be argued she deserved a pass. I did not state that this "pass" could be partial. I believe it can be. I believe if she was abused, her punishment should take that into account. I base this on studies I've read linking childhood abuse to proclivity to abuse as an adult.

We are talking past each other on this point. I'll drop it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I understand what you're saying and do not think it applies.

They shrug it off sober because they think they'll be seen as seedy. Drunk, they'll laugh about it. I've saw a female friend bust one guy's ass about it just last year and he laughed and responded "sshhhh..."

I obviously wasn't in the room. But the fact that you said that they think it's "seedy" and don't want to talk about unless they're drunk seems important, especially since men typically don't want to talk about issues they have--especially ones of a sexual nature. But whatever. Your take on your anecdotal evidence doesn't persuade me much.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was responding to this line from you:

I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't often completely screwed up. It's either abuse or it's not. We don't say, "That girl shouldn't complain. The dude who took advantage of her is an athlete!"

You were the one raising the analogy of an athlete taking advantage of a girl. Is there a way to consensually take advantage of someone? I was just following the analogy and noting why, physically, it's a lot different than the Argento situation.

No. You read a bunch into the hypo that isn't there. All I did was switch the sexes and pick a physical specimen that our culture finds attractive.

I assume the Argento encounter was consensual. The fact that we are talking about it at all is because she is deemed (by law and by most people's casual standards) to have taken advantage of a 17 year old boy. I didn't say anything about an athlete forcing himself on anyone.

The reason why we're talking about this topic at all is because if you are underage, you cannot consent to sex with an adult. Period. If a 15 year old girl wants to have sex with Derek Jeter (and I'm not sure why you turned the hypo into a football player forcing himself onto a tiny cheerleader) and he does it, he has taken advantage of her.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Link doesn't work.

TM

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/articl...gn=sharebutton

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/articl...gn=sharebutton

Is that James Harden in the offseason?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'll call you a priggish ponce.

NTTAWWT, but this seems inherently recursive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I've read a wide smattering of his stuff over the years, but my suggestion would be to follow his podcasts not read his books. He can be pretty entertaining for a wonk. He's the first person I can think of Sebby has suggested whom I think is actually pretty bright and has his head screwed on.

One warning: there are not a small number of sovereigns who retain the Eurasia group, and take what he says about his own clients with about a billion grains of salt.

I was just joking. I would need to read Augustine in the original Latin before I could truly understand free will, and before I do that I'm going to learn Ancient Greek to better appreciate the Odyssey. And before I do that, I have a whole life to live.

The dude doesn't sound wrong, but I would just like to be realistic that it may be a while before I am in a position to have a conversation in which I have read that book. And, podcasts: I don't listen to them. I like the idea of them, but I find that I either space out and miss things, or I pay close attention and find the best bits thin. And when I'm going home, I prefer to listen to the Red Sox.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was just joking. I would need to read Augustine in the original Latin before I could truly understand free will, and before I do that I'm going to learn Ancient Greek to better appreciate the Odyssey. And before I do that, I have a whole life to live.

The dude doesn't sound wrong, but I would just like to be realistic that it may be a while before I am in a position to have a conversation in which I have read that book. And, podcasts: I don't listen to them. I like the idea of them, but I find that I either space out and miss things, or I pay close attention and find the best bits thin. And when I'm going home, I prefer to listen to the Red Sox.

Well, that's fair.

Of course, you also could just follow him on twitter then.

You know, that works for St Augustine, too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nerd Fight! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/t...ical-bias.html

Facebook and China have the same problem: How to maintain a completely undemocratic power structure which does not brook internal dissent on anything important, while maintaining a facade of diversity and plurality on unimportant issues. But at Facebook, politics is unimportant, at least until it gets in the way of selling more ads.

[Ty@50]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Facebook and China have the same problem: How to maintain a completely undemocratic power structure which does not brook internal dissent on anything important, while maintaining a facade of diversity and plurality on unimportant issues. But at Facebook, politics is unimportant, at least until it gets in the way of selling more ads.

Every single story about time travel warned me this would happened. Ty in this time is backwards. Facebook and China are the same? I blame myself/ my time myself.