Mrebo

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.

Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.

For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.

Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.

You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.

It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.

You’re confusing facts and arguments.

chyron is right about the ronto metaphor on obfuscation too.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I think you can understand at least some of it if you tried.

The first sentence suggests each of us can see different things than you in the exchange with Jay.

The ronto crossing the screen in ANH SE right before the conversation with Stormtroopers didn’t make sense either. If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

moviefreakedmind said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/trump-will-not-sign-gop-immigration-daca-bill-without-border-wall.html

Anybody who thinks that this wall is going to get built is delusional at this point.

A decade ago I would have agreed Big Wall is delusional, now it’s just unlikely.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

I only drank the Kool-Aid so I should be fine.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m very familiar with the accusation that standing up for a conservative viewpoint (even just to object to its mischaracterization) renders one hard right. It just doesn’t make any sense.

That’s never happened to you. I think the confusion has more to do with going extremely hard on the fringiest elements of the left whilst ignoring the mainstream crazy of the right.

I don’t think I’ve gotten that accusation here. Elsewhere I have but I’m not talking about just me/here. I also don’t talk much about the fringiest Left either. Frink offers the supposed justification but it doesn’t explain his response to Jay. The problem is calling mainstream conservatives ideas crazy as if that makes it so.

TV’s Frink said:

I know you said you’re no longer hard left, but you sure sound hard right when you go on about the mainstream media like this.

Why should it be seen as hard right to go after the media for misrepresentation?

I’m very familiar with the accusation that standing up for a conservative viewpoint (even just to object to its mischaracterization) renders one hard right. It just doesn’t make any sense.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/23/media/judge-rules-trump-cant-block-twitter-users/index.html

Makes some legal sense but still dumb.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

some folks who binge-watched The Handmaid’s Tale and were looking for stuff to be angry about

Sheesh.

I have no idea what that show is about.

chyron8472 said:

I’m getting really sick of this “Lando is pansexual” bullshit that keeps popping up on my Google news feed. Like, really? Does every popular franchise need to retcon characters’ sexuality behind the scenes as some ridiculous attempt at inclusiveness?

And why is this plastered all over the dang place?

Aside from the obvious pandering, I think it’s a way for them to deal with a character that some would consider retrograde. If Lando is a guy who tries to seduce the ladies it’s way too easy offend a vocal minority.

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

In response to your post Mrebo, I would say that women should be able to wear makeup for whatever reason they see fit, without a fear of being harassed. Let women choose how they want to express themselves and put the pressure upon us as a society to change, not the makeup choices of a women.

Exactly.

I also agree.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.

Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.

Depends on the circumstances. If men smile a bit more at you, CatBus, it won’t be so easy. Maybe you don’t mind or maybe it’s horribly objectifying. If it’s the former, then no problem! If you’re walking down the street there’s less control over reactions.

Sexual harassment has two legal yardsticks: quid pro quo (which is usually an unprovably high hurdle, so it’s safe to ignore) and hostile environment. Convincing people smiling is of a nature that it caused a hostile environment is either also a really high hurdle, or else “smiling” isn’t the best term for describing the behavior in question. Either way, go for it. Offending people has never been the issue. Creating a hostile work environment is. The law knows the difference.

You are correct that crimes and civil offenses can happen anywhere. You can get mugged at work or in the street. You can implement security at work to prevent muggings, but on the street you have less control.

The basic principle is sound that others will behave badly and there’s no easy fix and a person might choose to go about things a certain way.

Sure, and there are penalties for when your behavior crosses a line of civil society. That’s reasonable.

Forget the law! Extreme cases are assault and harassment (as legally defined) but that’s not the whole story here. If a man whistles at you on the street, that’s not harassment. If 5 men whistle at you, still no. If a man creeps you out at work for smiling and being friendly and you think it has something to do with you looking good, that’s not legally actionable, but all these things are relevant to Peterson’s ill-made argument.

If you’re a person who objects to even minor displays of sexual interest or feel you’re not being taken seriously, you might choose to put yourself together more modestly. Or not. I don’t see anyone demanding or blaming women either way.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.

Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.

Depends on the circumstances. If men smile a bit more at you, CatBus, it won’t be so easy. Maybe you don’t mind or maybe it’s horribly objectifying. If it’s the former, then no problem! If you’re walking down the street there’s less control over reactions.

The basic principle is sound that others will behave badly and there’s no easy fix and a person might choose to go about things a certain way.

On video games, I’ve killed my fair share of Nazis and don’t think video games are detrimental in the main. If you’re a troubled person and they fill your life, I can see the danger. I agree I don’t see any reasonable way of addressing that. Some bad apples will be bad no matter what.

I think there are warning signs we should be attuned to and violent games could be one among many. It’s angering how in so many of these shootings there are an abundance of major clues that go ignored. In Texas the kid actually threatened a girl he was going to kill her, two weeks before he did.

I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them. We can try, and in many situations should, but at the end of the day one can only control oneself. To avoid unhappy interactions that can mean changing one’s own behavior and how one communicates with others. I understand the anger and belief that others should change, but that’s a foolhardy way to go through life.

Most people do make adjustments, limit their own freedom. Not saying it’s good, just is.

Talking about causes allows one to avoid risk. Doesn’t mean anything else.

The anger that anyone would feel entitled to harass or assault someone because they look good is obvious. The idea that makeup is some kind of trigger should seem absurd to right-thinking people. Obviously we take steps to educate/punish. But the ugly reality is there and willful ignorance about it does not help.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.

It doesn’t matter, though, because we all have the right to a poor mental diet.

What if poor mental diets do lead to harmful action? There is the argument that pornography causes men to have unrealistic expectations and act in harmful ways to fulfill them. Is there ever a point where society’s needs overwhelm an individual’s right to shoot virtual people and look at sexual imagery?

moviefreakedmind said:

I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?

When they try to ban them, let me know.

The argument that troubled individuals engaging in simulated violence can lead to real life violence is plausible.

There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that women who wear makeup are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed is misogynist, and it’s pathetic, and it’s disgusting.

Yeah, it is. Nobody should be harassed, sexually or otherwise.

But we don’t live on fantasy island.

Should you walk around Detroit in the middle of the night in a fancy suit carrying a briefcase full of cash? No. Why? You’ll get mugged. Should you get mugged? No. Do you deserve it? No. But you will, and you know why? There are terrible people in the world and no amount of bitching about it and activist movements will stop people from being terrible. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that doing certain things are going to set off shitty people who want to do shitty things to you.

So yeah, if a woman spends three hours on makeup before work dolling herself up, wears a sexy dress and god knows what, she’s going to get attention. And she knows it.

Does she deserve negative attention? No, nobody does, but she’ll get it, and hopefully the ass-holes perpetrating it get reprimanded. But it won’t stop her getting it again in the future.

Being an asshole is gender-less but you can typically avoid attracting assholes by not walking around Detroit with a briefcase of cash.

Calling people who wear makeup “hypocrites” is a stretch and I don’t think that’s the right word to use, but I get what he’s at least trying to say.

Wow.

You can try and qualify it all you like, but you just made the “she was asking for it” defense of harassment (and assault/rape, by the way, since that’s often where this goes). Disgusting.

Funny last time we discussed Peterson I referenced an article by Mayim Bialik. If I recall correctly you made some sarcastic remark suggesting her article was totally different and I was doing something untoward in raising it.

She wrote basically the same thing Ryan is saying. I can’t understand your different reaction. Your reaction now is completely silly. Ryan is extraordinarily clear there is no justification for harassment/assault.

I know you don’t like this recognition of reality, neither does Ryan. I don’t see Ryan saying women need to do anything differently but rather recognizing an unfortunate risk.

That said, I think it is easy to overstate the issue too. Women are harassed without doing much of anything to “doll” themselves up.

dahmage said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Missed the movie in theaters, but discovered that it was a book first, so I’ve started to read it. I like it so far.

I listened to the audiovisual book.

It took me a moment.

moviefreakedmind said:

dahmage said:

moviefreakedmind said:

You couldn’t pay me to work tech support. Or any other kind of customer support for that matter.

me either. well you could, but i would avoid it.

i am not help desk type support, we provide level 2 support to various clients, support specific technologies. So we are the people that the help desk calls. So we avoid most of the headache of directly dealing with end users, but some help desk people are extremely frustrating as well. (they try a bajillion things before they call us, 99% of them things they shouldn’t have done) thankfully this type of work is only like 20% of my job.

I’ve quit jobs before over not liking 1% of my job.

Speaking of workplace woes, I recommend to A Confederacy of Dunces. Such a good book.

TV’s Frink said:

To be perfectly honest, I find this whole thread (and similar threads on other sites) to be kinda creepy.

Hey guess what, Frink, we agree on something. At least the beautiful man thread allows us to pretend this thread is a little less creepy 😉

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsz0DHwzAvc

When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.

But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.

It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.

mfm and I (and Frink) went round on that quote too. Likewise I disagreed with Peterson and noted there is a perfectly fine rebuttal. I guess it’s easier to label people insane or evil but I think that’s a losing way to go about things.

Relevant to all this, there was a debate recently with Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson on one side and Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg on the other. The debate was supposed to be about political correctness but failed to really find a focus. Sadly the latter two engaged in superficial and personal attacks on Peterson. Fry was noticeably frustrated at the end by the inability of the opposition to engage on the topic. It’s a 2 hour long youtube video but you all might enjoy Fry’s opening statement at about 30:20.

moviefreakedmind said:

Hold on a minute. I really hope you just punked me, or something, because the insanity of that latter tenant just hit me. What kind of moron would advocate touching strange animals? That’s the kind of thing that kindergarten teachers tell five year-olds not to do. You don’t just pet a random animal. That’s not safe. For Christ’s sake!

I pet random dogs all the time. Sometimes random cats.

There’s something - well, actually a lot - to be said for reading/listening to the person’s views oneself, and not relying on third hand accounts. I think most of what is written by Peterson is superficial blather and doesn’t engage with his actual ideas in a critical way. Esquire had a balanced piece about him.