Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 304

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

Two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination last year, his eldest son arranged a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin, according to confidential government records described to The New York Times.

The previously undisclosed meeting was also attended by Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to interviews and the documents, which were outlined by people familiar with them.

While President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and Russians, this episode at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, is the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national and members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle during the campaign. It is also the first time that his son Donald J. Trump Jr. is known to have been involved in such a meeting.

yhwx said:

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.

The idea that there are no “good guys”

Still not seeing where someone argued this point.

point #5 seems to argue it.

I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally.

possibly, but that is not how it comes off to me.

Your problem. There’s more to writing than just the literal meaning of it.

Think it more than just my problem, but whatever.

I’m sure the author believes that there are good men out there, but she used the phrase “good guy” to illustrate what many men want to present themselves to the world as in these conversations.

I am sure there are plenty of men that wish to be seen one of the good guys when in reality they are not. The problem is, the way the article words point #5 comes off as attacking the real good guys along with the fake ones.

::shrug::

I think you’re reading it wrong, but there’s nothing I can really do about that.

If you say so.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.

Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.

Did you miss it when I said “There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.”? I think some think the privilege is the same was it was back in the 1950’s. Things have changed. Privilege isn’t what it used to be.

True, but it still exists.

and I acknowledged that is still exists, I just think it is exaggerated sometimes.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

Before I would judge something as undermining my points, I would have to know exactly what she said and how she said it. I wouldn’t necessarily take her saying “not all women are like that” as undermining what I was saying.

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Maybe I just sick and tired of articles like this about sexism and racism. Maybe I am tired of being groups with men that act like assholes, just because I am one. I know I am sick and tired of being blamed for slavery and jim crow. I know I am sick and tired of being assumed that I am some sort of racist because I am white. I am sick and tired of being in the group that is blamed by some for all of society’s ills.

Yet again:

::shrug::

whatever.

You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.

Maybe someone should tell the writer of the article to think about her words.

I’m not sure why you’re treating this article like it’s some offensive BS.

I don’t the whole article is wrong or offensive. But I do think some parts of it are bs.

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?

Read? Listen?

I try. But maybe all groups need to do some reading and listening to the other group. Maybe some women could learn from experiences of when men were falsely accused of sexism or were victims of sexism themselves. Maybe some black people could learn from experiences of when white people were falsely accused of being racist or were victims of racism themselves.

The problems you’re pointing out here are compartively small boar to the problems minorities and women face all the time.

I think we disagree on just how bad the problems are that women and minorities face. They still face some problems, but not nearly as bad as it used to be and I think the problem they have today are exaggerated(but the problems do still exist).

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Surprised nobody’s talking about Ivanka filling in for dad at the G20 table…

I didn’t know about this. not good.

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

Two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination last year, his eldest son arranged a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin, according to confidential government records described to The New York Times.

The previously undisclosed meeting was also attended by Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to interviews and the documents, which were outlined by people familiar with them.

While President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and Russians, this episode at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, is the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national and members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle during the campaign. It is also the first time that his son Donald J. Trump Jr. is known to have been involved in such a meeting.

interesting.

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.

Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.

Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.

That was more of a rhetorical question.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.

Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.

Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.

Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.

a few of the whole = some

And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men.

I’m not sure what the point here is. Gender issues are only an problem if they can’t be solved by wide-sweeping gender-neutral reforms?

The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve.

Much like prison rape and circumcision, yes?

Men are still more privelleged than other groups.

If you say so.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.

The idea that there are no “good guys”

Still not seeing where someone argued this point.

point #5 seems to argue it.

Not really.

I disagree with you.

I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally.

possibly, but that is not how it comes off to me.

Your problem. There’s more to writing than just the literal meaning of it.

Think it more than just my problem, but whatever.

Probably just how you read it.

I am willing to bet there are others that read it the same way I did.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.

Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.

Did you miss it when I said “There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.”? I think some think the privilege is the same was it was back in the 1950’s. Things have changed. Privilege isn’t what it used to be.

True, but it still exists.

and I acknowledged that is still exists, I just think it is exaggerated sometimes.

When?

When did I acknowledge it? When I said “There is some truth to it”. When is it exaggerated? often. I articles and opinion pieces in the paper all the time that do so. You would think it was still the 1950s.

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Maybe I just sick and tired of articles like this about sexism and racism. Maybe I am tired of being groups with men that act like assholes, just because I am one. I know I am sick and tired of being blamed for slavery and jim crow. I know I am sick and tired of being assumed that I am some sort of racist because I am white. I am sick and tired of being in the group that is blamed by some for all of society’s ills.

Yet again:

::shrug::

whatever.

*sigh*?

If you say so.

You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.

Maybe someone should tell the writer of the article to think about her words.

I’m not sure why you’re treating this article like it’s some offensive BS.

I don’t the whole article is wrong or offensive. But I do think some parts of it are bs.

Fine. Your problem.

*sigh*?

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?

Read? Listen?

I try. But maybe all groups need to do some reading and listening to the other group. Maybe some women could learn from experiences of when men were falsely accused of sexism or were victims of sexism themselves. Maybe some black people could learn from experiences of when white people were falsely accused of being racist or were victims of racism themselves.

The problems you’re pointing out here are compartively small boar to the problems minorities and women face all the time.

I think we disagree on just how bad the problems are that women and minorities face. They still face some problems, but not nearly as bad as it used to be and I think the problem they have today are exaggerated.

I disagree.

Then we will have to disagree.

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.

Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.

Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.

That was more of a rhetorical question.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.

Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.

Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.

Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.

a few of the whole = some

And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men.

I’m not sure what the point here is. Gender issues are only an problem if they can’t be solved by wide-sweeping gender-neutral reforms?

What I’m saying is that these aren’t men-specific problems, like the ones we’ve been talking about with women.

Such as? Sexual harassment? That isn’t woman specific, though, so it’s not a woman problem, right? Women being underrepresented in some professions? It seems to me like you’re picking and choosing when to care about representation. Do you care that men are graduating college less and less (a problem that particularly affects black and Hispanic men, btw)? How is men being over-represented in the homeless and workplace injuries not a man problem, but women being underrepresented in some professions a woman problem? Wouldn’t the ideal be a nice clean 50/50 ratio, with 0 deaths for either gender?

The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve.

Much like prison rape and circumcision, yes?

I’m not sure what your issue is with circumcision.

It’s existence.

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Is this a fallacy of some sort? I see it all the time, and it’s a line of argument that goes no where.

Some part of everybody’s ego is hurt when your arguments are beaten down. A part of the masculine ego is hurt when it is challenged.

Didn’t realize you were a psychologist. But that’s not the part I was talking about, I meant the “why are you doing this?” part.

That was more of a rhetorical question.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

If the man said something along the lines of “women are privileged,” or said that women have no problems, then yes, I would support her doing that. But what this really is, is a way of shutting down arguments. Someone₁ can claim that men are privileged, and when someone₂ tells them₁ that men get longer sentences, are the victims of anti-gay hate crimes more often, are the majority of the homeless, and are victims of homicide more often, they₁ can just accuse the other person₂ of mansplaining and derailing.

Firatly, what I posted was a purely theoretical thought experiment with nothing to do with the the world we live in now.

Secondly, men are disadvantaged in some areas, but all in all, they’re less disadvantaged than other people.

Some areas? Those seem like pretty big areas to me.

a few of the whole = some

And yes, those are bigger areas, but they are not universally specific to all genders. Fixing core problems with our economy will help homeless people, not just homeless men.

I’m not sure what the point here is. Gender issues are only an problem if they can’t be solved by wide-sweeping gender-neutral reforms?

What I’m saying is that these aren’t men-specific problems, like the ones we’ve been talking about with women.

Such as? Sexual harassment? That isn’t woman specific, though, so it’s not a woman problem, right?

It’s by far a woman problem. You don’t get headlines every day for sexual harassment of men.

I’d say that’s partly because people don’t believe it exists.

How is men being over-represented in the homeless and workplace injuries not a man problem, but women being underrepresented in some professions a woman problem?

Because those are problems that do not exist solely in our conception of gender roles.

Word salad.

Wouldn’t the ideal be a nice clean 50/50 ratio, with 0 deaths for either gender?

Yes. Where did I argue something other than that?

I didn’t claim you did, I was just asking.

The issues women have are much more engrained in society and are much harder to solve.

Much like prison rape and circumcision, yes?

I’m not sure what your issue is with circumcision.

Its existence.

Ok. Care to share some more?

My problem is when it’s done to newborns for the sole purpose of ‘aesthetics’. It strikes me as needlessly cruel. If it’s medically necessary, alright; if someone grows up and decides that they want it done, fine.

Oh god, Jeebus is one of those “circumcision is forced upon males against their will” people.

I find this much more interesting.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

TV’s Frink said:

Oh god, Jeebus is one of those “circumcision is forced upon males against their will” people.

Not really. It’s not an issue I particularly care about, but I don’t see how you can disagree with the fact that it’s forced.

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh god, Jeebus is one of those “circumcision is forced upon males against their will” people.

Not really. It’s not an issue I particularly care about, but I don’t see how you can disagree with the fact that it’s forced.

Well yeah but not letting a child play with matches is also forced.

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

I find this much more interesting.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

That is very interesting and fascinating, but what we were talking about was just as important.

Circumcision being a bad thing is not an important discussion, it’s a silly discussion.

That was me.

yhwx said:

Someone linked this a few months back.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170106034154/https://xyfeminist.wordpress.com/the-male-privilege-list/

I started to read that but when I read the names of the first two privileges and I stopped reading the thing. The privilege to kill and rape. Last I heard, those things were illegal in my country and many others. So, no, those are not things we have the privilege to do. Some people unfortunately get away with those things because there just isn’t enough evidence to convict, but that is quite different than having the privilege of doing them.

I could tell just from the start of the article that it was just the same usual crap and I don’t feel like getting into it anymore for now.

Articles like that are making me feel more and more that rational conversation about these issues can no longer be had.

btw, there is something weird going on with the video at the top of the article. It plays for about 45 seconds and then it reloads.