Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So you basically don't think Republicans are serious? Huh.

On what?

On some things, like taxes, they're deadly serious.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I stopped reading after he started like this:



Yes, the most important thing to discuss on that topic is not what the President says (or the fact that he said it as he was blowing up a bipartisan deal to save DACA, which is to say that he said "shithole" in the process of holding hostage lots of people who have lived in this country their whole lives, for demands which are shifting and unclear -- making it increasingly apparent that he is screwing those people not as the means to some other goal, even a goal as tawdry as re-election, but as an end in itself) -- no, the most important thing for Goldberg is "the competition be most offended." I find no principle there at all, just a cheap rejection of other people's principles. And an obsequiousness, a commitment to anti-anti-Trumpism not because of the principles involved but despite them. It's a little reminder that the thing that really binds conservatives together is not any principle, it's opposition to the left. Goldberg could have principles if only they weren't so tedious.

eta: It's symptomatic that everyone is focused on Trump's calling other countries "shitholes," and not on the fact that only days after he held a photo op to say he would sign whatever Congress brought him, he rejected a bipartisan deal to fix DACA. A principled conservative might find a way to have a problem with that, if not for the fact (as above) that conservatives are bound together by opposition to the left, and so bipartisan deals are categorically suspect.

I think Trump's comment was appalling. It demonstrates severe mental issues and insensitivity. Who the fuck does that? (Well, Trump does it... that's who.)

But I think one can be disturbed that kind of remark and at the same time critical of some of the overwrought responses to it. I see people freaking out at this and do feel a bit of, "Really? You realize this is Trump we're talking about here. You're upset he's acting like an assh--, er, uh, himself?"

Goldberg, of course, doesn't do both. He uses the over-emotional responses to it to duck the issue: The President is an ass, an uninformed bigot, and has no judgment.

It's disingenuous to act shocked at Trump. He's a man in search of a nadir he's never going to find.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Trump's comment was appalling. It demonstrates severe mental issues and insensitivity. Who the fuck does that? (Well, Trump does it... that's who.)

But I think one can be disturbed that kind of remark and at the same time critical of some of the overwrought responses to it. I see people freaking out at this and do feel a bit of, "Really? You realize this is Trump we're talking about here. You're upset he's acting like an assh--, er, uh, himself?"

Goldberg, of course, doesn't do both. He uses the over-emotional responses to it to duck the issue: The President is an ass, an uninformed bigot, and has no judgment.

It's disingenuous to act shocked at Trump. He's a man in search of a nadir he's never going to find.

Someone, somewhere is overwrought. Well, I'm glad we've put a stop to it now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On what?

On some things, like taxes, they're deadly serious.

You said,

And Trump has taken a thing (many things) too far. But the reaction of serious people to him should not be something similarly overheated. The reaction should be, "This man is a fool, a sexist, and a predator. But he is also an aberration. We can and will have a post-Trump tomorrow. We will survive. 2018 will show you." And it will.

Republicans (generally) are not reacting to Trump by saying, "This man is a fool, a sexist, and a predator." So do you mean that Republicans are not serious? Or do you just use the word "serious" to rhetorically dismiss those you don't want to engage with on the left? What is "seriousness"? How do you figure out who is "serious" and who isn't?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You said,



Republicans (generally) are not reacting to Trump by saying, "This man is a fool, a sexist, and a predator." So do you mean that Republicans are not serious? Or do you just use the word "serious" to rhetorically dismiss those you don't want to engage with on the left? What is "seriousness"? How do you figure out who is "serious" and who isn't?

The GOP are serious enablers, and serious opportunists. I guess you’d have to say they’re serious nihilists re: Trump.

I was focusing on normal people, who would find Trump’s comment offensive and beneath the office. The GOP is not normal here. They’re conspirators with a lunatic.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Trump's comment was appalling. It demonstrates severe mental issues and insensitivity. Who the fuck does that? (Well, Trump does it... that's who.)

But I think one can be disturbed that kind of remark and at the same time critical of some of the overwrought responses to it. I see people freaking out at this and do feel a bit of, "Really? You realize this is Trump we're talking about here. You're upset he's acting like an assh--, er, uh, himself?"

Goldberg, of course, doesn't do both. He uses the over-emotional responses to it to duck the issue: The President is an ass, an uninformed bigot, and has no judgment.

It's disingenuous to act shocked at Trump. He's a man in search of a nadir he's never going to find.

Yes, you have identified the real challenge of our time, which is to be able to recognize that Trump's comment was appalling and a sure sign of sever mental issues (and insensitivity!) but at the same time avoid seeming freaked out and overwrought and shocked by the fact that the president is making appalling racist comments that are signs of severe mental issues. Nothing you write has any meaning.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Yes, you have identified the real challenge of our time, which is to be able to recognize that Trump's comment was appalling and a sure sign of sever mental issues (and insensitivity!) but at the same time avoid seeming freaked out and overwrought and shocked by the fact that the president is making appalling racist comments that are signs of severe mental issues. Nothing you write has any meaning.

Circumspection and measured response are challenges for most Americans. We tend to be reactive.

I don't even actively listen to or read news about Trump anymore (I'll turn the channel if I can). It only gets to me because the man seems to infect everything, and I can't block him from my news feed.

I've never watched reality TV, and I don't intend to start now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Yes, you have identified the real challenge of our time, which is to be able to recognize that Trump's comment was appalling and a sure sign of sever mental issues (and insensitivity!) but at the same time avoid seeming freaked out and overwrought and shocked by the fact that the president is making appalling racist comments that are signs of severe mental issues. Nothing you write has any meaning.

Once again, you seek to dismiss racism - this time as a "severe mental issue." He likely has cognitive difficulties. He is a racist. Those two things are not necessarily related.

As, what he said wasn't just racist. It was stupid, jeopardizing our relationship with any number of reasonably important allies.

It's also just plain old lacking in empathy. People do indeed emigrate from shithole countries. Why wouldn't you want them to?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Once again, you seek to dismiss racism - this time as a "severe mental issue." He likely has cognitive difficulties. He is a racist. Those two things are not necessarily related.

As, what he said wasn't just racist. It was stupid, jeopardizing our relationship with any number of reasonably important allies.

It's also just plain old lacking in empathy. People do indeed emigrate from shithole countries. Why wouldn't you want them to?

Yeah, but you want to see something racist, stupid and lacking in empathy take on whole new dimensions, you really want a cognitively impaired person to espouse it, right?

Or, as Penske would say:

QUAD-FECTA!!

[SEC_Chick]

At the risk of re-engaging Sebby on the topic, I found much of the reporting about Aziz Ansari to be deeply irresponsible.Who among you hasn't awkwardly propositioned sex from a date? (Except for Flower who doensn't have to solicit) And how is a guy supposed to know that she's not into him if she gives a BJ when asked?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0557f48b100c

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

At the risk of re-engaging Sebby on the topic, I found much of the reporting about Aziz Ansari to be deeply irresponsible.Who among you hasn't awkwardly propositioned sex from a date? (Except for Flower who doensn't have to solicit) And how is a guy supposed to know that she's not into him if she gives a BJ when asked?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0557f48b100c

This is part of why extramarital sex is a sin. Jesus loves us and doesn't want us looking like douche-bags.

Have no fear, I understand Aziz has a tape to use in his defense.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

At the risk of re-engaging Sebby on the topic, I found much of the reporting about Aziz Ansari to be deeply irresponsible.Who among you hasn't awkwardly propositioned sex from a date? (Except for Flower who doensn't have to solicit) And how is a guy supposed to know that she's not into him if she gives a BJ when asked?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0557f48b100c

I don't know about "much of the reporting" as I haven't done a survey, but the original story definitely shows him being a creep. It should not be hard to know a woman isn't into you when she says maybe "next time" or "I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you."

Asking for a bj after someone tells you that she feels like you're forcing her into sex is actually kind of the behavior we want men to realize they shouldn't do. It's not the most egregious example, but it's still on the side of nope.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

At the risk of re-engaging Sebby on the topic, I found much of the reporting about Aziz Ansari to be deeply irresponsible.Who among you hasn't awkwardly propositioned sex from a date? (Except for Flower who doensn't have to solicit) And how is a guy supposed to know that she's not into him if she gives a BJ when asked?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0557f48b100c

While it is difficult for me to empathize with him, I do feel sympathy. But my impression is that his accuser is being ridiculed by pretty much everyone except millenials on Twitter.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

To make a difference, I think you need someone whose job it is to go after bad cops and prosecutors, and who is sufficiently insulated from the rest of them to be independent.

Every single police department needs an independent prosecutor who only prosecutes police officers and other government officials. This will never happen, of course, because the system is set up the way it is set up specifically to shield government wrongdoers from any kind of accountability. Hell, prosecutors don't even want to admit when they've got someone locked up who clearly didn't commit the crime.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...nvictions.html

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

At the risk of re-engaging Sebby on the topic, I found much of the reporting about Aziz Ansari to be deeply irresponsible.Who among you hasn't awkwardly propositioned sex from a date? (Except for Flower who doensn't have to solicit) And how is a guy supposed to know that she's not into him if she gives a BJ when asked?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0557f48b100c

I'm not engaging on this one. I'll just note, this is exactly the confusion to which Deneuve's letter was pointing. The sort of confusion regarding boundaries of behavior that a few people here said did not exist.

Two very blurry boundaries are being considered. First, where does harassment/abuse start? Second, where does license to accuse start?

Good luck with all of that.