Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

[iceaura]

You implied I was like a woman who endorsed a paedophile

No, I didn't.
You cannot post honestly on this thread, or without slander. Why is that?

Which I addressed.

No, you didn't.

The alternative would have been to leave Franken and Conyers in place, while trying to pass the party as being the party that supports the #MeToo movement.

No, that's stupid.
Several other alternatives existed, beginning with an obvious reframing, central to the posts you claim to be responding to, which you flat out and reflexively refuse to even acknowledge: separating Franken and Conyers, not treating them as equivalent.

I mean, you get how and why what I just quoted above is problematic, right?
You get why victims are fed up with this kind of attitude, yes?
You get why his final speech was a disaster, yes? Casting doubt on women who speak out was the worst thing he could have done.

Of course. Take your bullshit framing for granted, as reality, and the rest follows directly. You've been clear about it, repetitively and regardless of circumstance, no problem.

I think the root of your incessant dishonesty and slander - the framing - is invisible to you. You actually can't see where you're abandoning reason, and throwing in with power and money. Hence the OP contention - even badly founded in an illegitimate sense of being picked on unfairly, its naively read contention - that this has and will damage the Democratic Party and aid the Republican Party, specifically and disproportionately, is likely correct.

But will the GOP itself be more comfortable with Roy Moore there and Trump in the White House now?

Assuming Roy's election? It will be better able to accomplish the agenda of its backers.
That will be so even if Roy gets booted - unlike on the Progressive side, the Republicans can pretty much swap out their parts and pieces without regard for individual ability or competence.

Will the Senate be a more comfortable place for the GOP? Probably yes.

For this entire budget cycle, and all the lifetime Federal judge appointments of the next year, and the fallout of Mueller's investigation coming up shortly.
And that's even if the Democrats win both Senate elections in ten months - which were not at serious risk a month ago. This could take down Klobuchar, even.

You tell me?
70% of Americans believe the U.S. Congress should investigate allegations of sexual harassment against President Trump, a new Quinnipiac University poll finds. 25% say Trump should not be investigated.
The party breakdown: Of registered voters surveyed, 86% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans and 66% of Independents want a congressional probe into Trump's alleged behavior. Asked if they think its hypocritical for Trump to criticize men accused of harassment, 73% responded yes — including 94% of Democrats, 46% of Republicans and 71% of Independents.

I just did tell you, in the post you quoted. Then you post a pile of irrelevancies.
Why are you posting citizen's poll opinions? If they were the power here the US would have had single payer health insurance thirty years ago, and the current Republican tax bill would not even be on the table.
The fraction of people in the US who approve of Congress and its behavior, in polling surveys, is less than 20%. The re-election rate of incumbents is over 80%.

 

[ElectricFetus]

the idea of going their own way and only needing women to see them not needing women is going to compel men, en masse, to abstain from seeking contact and congress with women.

See that is a construct of your own creation: we don't need women to see anything. More and more men are already en masse abstaining from seeking contact and congress with women, whole countries of men like japan, a majority of their male population no less!

Seriously? Revenge abstinence?

it not revenge abstinence, again your strawman. The goal is not to piss off women, the goal is irrelevant of women, the goal is to find happiness and satisfactions in life via self-sufficiency.

That's what will do it? Okay, then; this I gotta see. Will you be offended if women celebrate the idea and hope the heterosexual men can actually deliver on the promise?

Nope, not in the least! Does this guy sound offended?

No, gay men aren't going to rescue their heterosexual brothers on this one. And, sure, we can imagine mgtows would "find a way"; is "paleomasculinity" already taken?

What? why would we want to go back to the past where men had to fight and die for women??? I think you are confusing MRA Tradcons for MGTOW. Tradcons want a return to traditional conservatism, where women stayed home, squeezed out babies and men would slave their lives away providing for and protecting women. MGTOW want the exact opposite, we want complete freedom from any obligation to women. Women are independent and free now, women can go their own way, so why can't we?

There's an old joke about white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, playing on a stereotype of prudery that even the British attended at least to the end of the twentieth century, which is somehow significant since it is, fundamentally, the Anglican Church at the heart of the joke when Mark Steel or Monty Python gives it a go. The American version goes:

Q: What do WASPs say after sex?

A: Thank you; it will never happen again.​

Really? It's the twenty-first century and we're back to, "you don't need to enjoy it"? And this time for men who are pissed off at women? That would be funny except it is also predictable save for the fact that it really is rude to presume so poorly of people. That is to say, was a time when it would have been denounced as a misandrist joke, but here we are, considering the proposition that "human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it.

Another strawman. MGTOW can have sex, there are sex friends and tinder and prostitutes for those that are willing to risk it, there are sex toys and porn for those that are not. There are so many other options for men now than the old tradconnery of prostrating our self before women, playing the dating game, you don't want men doing that as it leads sexual harassment, I don't want men doing that because it leads to sexual harassment, loss of time, loss of money, loss of dignity, etc, so what bothers me here is why don't we agree?

And the sad thing is this: Imagine that heterosexual men really do manage to convince themselves to stop wanting to have sex with women.

Another strawman. Sure we want women, but artificial women can satisfy that want, so why should we go for the real thing?

Did you see the new blade runner sequel? How many men do you think would risk time and money and livelihood chasing real women if they could get a facsimile like Joi?

Heck we don't even need technology that advance, we have already lost most of the younger generation of Japanese men to just cartoon porn!

At any rate, women might actually decide that's just fine with them.

Good! Great! why not? the death of man? Why should I care?

And then some men will break rank, and instead of returning to sanity they're going to blame women for making them crawl like dogs when nobody did but some echo of their own consciences.

I would put a good bet that what men remain chasing women will have their pick of the flock! As is women only want the top 20% of men anyways, the other 80% might as well be chopped liver, what happiness is there for those men: MGTOW provides the solution. Imagine if a fat ugly slob, lets say Harvey Weinstein, instead of trying to force himself on women, simply had a collection of love dolls instead? What if all the ugly and/or poor men simply diverted their sexual desires on artificial women (porn and sex toys): no more sexual harassment!

What mgtow comes down to is that men can't rape women so, fine, they don't want anything to do with women. It's an ugly pathology.

Yeah that is a stawman, how about it comes down to men who can't get any love at all, because they are too ugly, too quircky, too poor, the list can be very long, women are very picky. So why should these men even waste their time trying and ultimately end up harassing women? And if any of them do want to rape women, then why for the love of god should they have anything to do with women??? Sound like mgtow is the solution for such a pathology!

Setting that part aside, though, perhaps according to your variation on the theme—"Conditioning men of all persuasions not to be obsessed with touching women for personal gratification"—we're right back to explaining that to the heterosexual men. Have fun stormin' that castle.

We have been, and we have been gaining numbers.

And the bit about how "human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it just reminds me of the Comic Book Guy trying to institute a Pon Farr law, and noting while that means most people will have less sex, he at least, will be getting more.

Ok, you a few post ago advocated women reproduce via artificial means, do you think that is a enjoyable process? I think what Capracus was getting at is that we have the technology now, so why should we reproduce the old fashion way?

Any excuse, like the one guy looking to tell people about his wanking.

And maybe the problem is that it's time we discuss the question ... I mean, seriously, am I really saying this?

There's a term nobody really understands because, quite frankly, nobody wants to touch it. But we're actually down to: Poor men, it's okay, you don't have to enjoy it; be strong, be heroic.

So, a question for the boys: Do we actually, really, truly need to sit down and have a talk about rape envy?

Huh? yes I guess so because I have no clue what your getting at.

It is true I would not be surprised, but this is one of those things that sounds like an ugly stereotype to the point that one need not be a masculinist to find reason to object. But, hey, you know what else it reminds me of? It reminds me of the time that someone defended masculine sexual belligerence by comparing men to a hand grenade, because exploding is what the grenade does if you pull the pin. The thing is, when a male says these things in defense of masculine sexual belligerence, we don't hear a peep from masculinist quarters. And I recall that occasion because taking your argument seriously at present includes potential application of rape envy without clear pathology as a masculine characteristic, and the only people who can unpack that are the people who think there is some utility in arguing "the fact that human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it as part of a discussion ostensibly considering sexual harassment, belligerence, and assault.

I think I get what you have done, you seem to think "the fact that human beings do not have to enjoy" as meaning "wanting to rape", I don't know how that logic works but I will let Capracus explain him self then.

 

[birch]

As is women only want the top 20% of men anyways, the other 80% might as well be chopped liver, what happiness is there for those men: MGTOW provides the solution. Imagine if a fat ugly slob, lets say Harvey Weinstein, instead of trying to force himself on women, simply had a collection of love dolls instead? What if all the ugly and/or poor men simply diverted their sexual desires on artificial women (porn and sex toys): no more sexual harassment!

this is an outrageous fallacy that has been going around for some time but society proves otherwise. beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are all types of people of all different ethnicities, backgrounds and shapes/sizes/looks that have no problem finding a mate or people who are interested in them. it's just that harassers continually bother those who are not interested in them particularly or do not care if the other is interested because they have a narcissistic mindset.

i've known couples who are of different races that are couples, even huge disparity in background, and when it comes to looks, everyone has different tastes. the majority of men who are not the stereotypical gq magazine model have plenty of women to choose from that are interested in them. it doesn't matter if they are poor, fat, short, skinny, tall, rich, good or bad character, low or high intelligence. there are couples of all kinds and they are everywhere.

every male that i was not interested in there were women who were interested in them or had other or prior relationships with women and vice - versa.

technically, there is no such thing as beauty or ugly. that is all up to individual taste and preference and society proves that. there are men i have been interested in that some other women would never be and vice versa.

 

[Bells]

No, I didn't.
You cannot post honestly on this thread, or without slander. Why is that?

Oh sorry. You stated I had the same level of integrity as the woman who endorsed a paedophile.

And you want to whine about slander?

No, you didn't.

I actually did.

"Neither".

The question was answered.

No, that's stupid.
Several other alternatives existed, beginning with an obvious reframing, central to the posts you claim to be responding to, which you flat out and reflexively refuse to even acknowledge: separating Franken and Conyers, not treating them as equivalent.

You mean such as leaving them in place and going through the ethics committee hearings, where his victims and Conyers would be forced to testify in public? Because such hearings have gone so well historically, haven't they?

You want to separate Franken and Conyers? Okay. To what end? Both sexually harassed women. One sexually harassed women in public areas where he knew he could get away with it, the other harassed his staff. But let's say we speak of them differently. What then? Do you think it somehow lessens what Franken did? Do you think what Franken did is only bad because it is being "framed" in the context of the sexual harassment that Conyers, etc did?

Of course. Take your bullshit framing for granted, as reality, and the rest follows directly. You've been clear about it, repetitively and regardless of circumstance, no problem.

After what you have stated in this and the other thread, the manner you tried to frame it?

This is where failing to distinguish the Frankens and Bartons (and Spitzers and Keillors and so forth) from the Moores and Trumps and Ailes's takes you: to a place in which you can't separate predators from jerks, crime from offensiveness, calculation from impulse, fear from disgust, injury from insult; to a place in which reason does not govern.​

That was you, remember?

It was a vapid attempt to water down what Franken did. You cast doubt on his accusers, by framing it as you did.

I think the root of your incessant dishonesty and slander - the framing - is invisible to you. You actually can't see where you're abandoning reason, and throwing in with power and money. Hence the OP contention - even badly founded in an illegitimate sense of being picked on unfairly, its naively read contention - that this has and will damage the Democratic Party and aid the Republican Party, specifically and disproportionately, is likely correct.

I said sexual harassment is sexual harassment.

When you try to frame it as being:

to a place in which you can't separate predators from jerks, crime from offensiveness, calculation from impulse, fear from disgust, injury from insult; to a place in which reason does not govern.​

You try to change the subject from sexual harassment.

Perhaps you believe that treating Franken's actions as "sexual harassment" is "disproportionate", for reasons just cited above. When it was sexual harassment. Pure and simple.

Perhaps you need to go back and revise how you view sexual harassment as a problem affecting women and how you think men in power or powerful positions, as Franken was and still is, should be dealt with when they go out of their way to grope women who want to take a photo with him due to his position and fame. That one's on you.

Assuming Roy's election? It will be better able to accomplish the agenda of its backers.
That will be so even if Roy gets booted - unlike on the Progressive side, the Republicans can pretty much swap out their parts and pieces without regard for individual ability or competence.

Unlike the progressive's, who hopefully will no longer field sexual harassers on their ballots, yes, the Republicans have thrown down for men who sexually abuse women. But even with Franken and Conyers in place, the Republicans would still be fielding their agenda, since they do have a majority. Progressives must now push for an ideology that demands those who sexually harass not be in positions of power in the Government, with the tide changing in regards to how sexual harassment is viewed in society, they are in a better position to do so. Which makes your tanty about what followed in my previous post even more bizarre..

For this entire budget cycle, and all the lifetime Federal judge appointments of the next year, and the fallout of Mueller's investigation coming up shortly.
And that's even if the Democrats win both Senate elections in ten months - which were not at serious risk a month ago. This could take down Klobuchar, even.

It could, or it could not. Democrats have to ensure they field clean candidates. It could even strengthen her standing amongst voters in her state.

As for the budget cycle.. Again, Republicans already have a majority. Sooo.. Next election, the Democrats will need to field proper candidates, focus on the Republican's budget disaster, health care, and the fact that they knowingly fielded and endorsed sex offenders and a paedophile. Even if Moore does not win in Alabama, their endorsement of his candidacy, their support of a known sexual abuser in Trump, will hang on them. The benefit the Democrats have is that Franken's behaviour was not known before he was elected, the same with Conyers. They can literally campaign on the fact that they demanded those two resign, while showing independent voters (who aren't voting just for partisan politics) and the women in particular, that this behaviour is not tolerated by them, and present healthcare that will directly affect them as individuals. Because the Republican majority has been a complete disaster for the country and in individual states. Their endorsing and protecting sex offenders just makes their position even worse.. Their budget was a hack job, and their constituents are now starting to wake up to that.

As for Mueller.. Right wing media are trying to portray him as a partisan hack. If Trump fires him, then the GOP are screwed regardless of how they are trying to frame him and his investigation at present.

Republican incompetence and their obscene embrace of the far far right has the propensity to destroy them. Their endorsement of candidates like Moore is making many conservatives antsy for what that will do to the conservative cause and movement and with good reason.

I just did tell you, in the post you quoted. Then you post a pile of irrelevancies.
Why are you posting citizen's poll opinions? If they were the power here the US would have had single payer health insurance thirty years ago, and the current Republican tax bill would not even be on the table.
The fraction of people in the US who approve of Congress and its behavior, in polling surveys, is less than 20%. The re-election rate of incumbents is over 80%.

I posted about how voters see Trump in particular in regards to his sex offenses. How do you think that will now play out if they elect Moore and leave him in the Senate? How do you think that will impact them when Democrats can cite people like Ted Cruz, who declared Franken should resign, but made excuses about voters deciding when it comes to Moore?

 

[Bells]

this is an outrageous fallacy that has been going around for some time but society proves otherwise. beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are all types of people of all different ethnicities, backgrounds and shapes/sizes/looks that have no problem finding a mate or people who are interested in them. it's just that harassers continually bother those who are not interested in them particularly or do not care if the other is interested because they have a narcissistic mindset.

It's his way of blaming women and changing the subject.

 

[ElectricFetus]

this is an outrageous fallacy that has been going around for some time but society proves otherwise. beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are all types of people of all different ethnicities, backgrounds and shapes/sizes/looks that have no problem finding a mate or people who are interested in them. it's just that harassers continually bother those who are not interested in them particularly or do not care if the other is interested because they have a narcissistic mindset.

Aaaah no it is fact:

What fallacy you have committed it the lottery fallacy, that if someone wins the lottery then anyone can... well sure they can, but very few will. With the difference in attractiveness differential between and men and women, we have a less then 1 in 5 chance of being satisfied with a partner (13% is the number brought back by one study). Now those are ~1/8 odds, not lottery like 1/1,000,000,000 odds, so go right ahead and try finding your life partner, but those are not odds I'm willing to work with, thank you very much.

i've known couples who are of different races that are couples,

aaah ok, so? I don't think I was questioning if people of different races could couple... are you?

even huge disparity in background, and when it comes to looks, everyone has different tastes. the majority of men who are not the stereotypical gq magazine model have plenty of women to choose from that are interested in them. it doesn't matter if they are poor, fat, short, skinny, tall, rich, good or bad character, low or high intelligence. there are couples of all kinds and they are everywhere.

yeah and a pot of gold is at the end of every rainbow. I'm sure out of 7.5 billion people there is someone else out therefor me, but the chance of finding her are unlikely and worse I would need to risk a high chance of mistaking the wrong one for the right one, and then having my heart stomped, my assets raided and 18+ years supporting a child I never wanted. Now porn, vidya, lefty, these things do not judge me, demand of me, do not divorce me, do not demand alimony, do not demand child support, do not accuse me of sexual harrasment, they will not destroy me at a human whim, I do not need to search the world of sirrens for them, they are right here.

every male that i was not interested in there were women who were interested in them or had other or prior relationships with women and vice - versa.

And they are all happily married now? You argument is a market one, of saying hey just put our self out there someone is bound to buy, the problem is people are not money. Compatibility between any two people is difficult to attain, impossible frankly for many people, who are literally incapable of having a sustainable committed relationship despite the fact they want one. Sure you can play the numbers game and try to go throw as many people as possible to find "the one" but that only works to an extent and actually becomes a detriment eventually as some people become accumulated and dependent on going through relationships like tires on a race car (my father is a prime example of this and is my model for what not to do in life)

technically, there is no such thing as beauty or ugly. That is all up to individual taste and preference and society proves that. there are men i have been interested in that some other women would never be and vice versa.

Its a numbers game, there are far fewer women that would find Wiensteins ugly face lovable then say Brad Pitt's face. Wienstein solution to this numbers game was to use his position of power to force himself on women, I say he should have simply not played the game at all and bought a collect of love dolls, or maybe hanged out in a country were prostitution is legal, he should have noticed that his personality and preferences was fundamental incomparable with monogamy or even acceptable sexual relationships and should have adapted himself to an outcome that would be both legal and would satisfy his sloppery depraved preferences.

It's his way of blaming women and changing the subject.

Blaming women for what? If I would rather stay home, play vidya and jerk off, how is that women's fault? I've ask my self what could women do that would make me play the game again... nothing, I am content with what I got.

 

[iceaura]

It could, or it could not. Democrats have to ensure they field clean candidates

The Dems win and lose on competence, not "cleanliness". They have to ensure they field candidates the public views as competent and reliable - their treatment of Franken was neither.

Oh sorry. You stated I had the same level of integrity as the woman who endorsed a paedophile.
And you want to whine about slander?

Try to pay attention: In your posting here, your rhetoric.
Yes, you do. It's not just a common level - it's a kind, a category, a set of tactics and approaches you share: The same kinds of tricks and lies and continual attack mode, the same constantly shifting context and blatant attempts to wrongfoot, the same repetitive insistence on question-begging Lunz-tested vocabulary and framing - for example in that post (whine? what I "want"? - you can't not do it).

I actually did.
"Neither".
The question was answered.

The question was not answered by you pretending it was a completely different question. It was instead lied about, and avoided. That was dishonest of you.

I posted about how voters see Trump in particular in regards to his sex offenses. How do you think that will now play out if they elect Moore and leave him in the Senate? How do you think that will impact them when Democrats can cite people like Ted Cruz, who declared Franken should resign, but made excuses about voters deciding when it comes to Moore?

Exactly as it has been playing for years now, with the Republican Party. That's how the Republicans took over Congress and won the White House.

That was you, remember?
It was a vapid attempt to water down what Franken did. You cast doubt on his accusers, by framing it as you did.

That was me; No, it wasn't any such attempt; No, I don't. You are hiding behind those women again - that's dishonorable.

When it was sexual harassment. Pure and simple.

Cartoon world doesn't actually exist. .

You try to change the subject from sexual harassment.

The subject of that post was not sexual harassment. It was your mode of "reasoning", and what it will lead to as it has in the past.

You want to separate Franken and Conyers? Okay. To what end?

Reason, competence, adult judgment, sanity, not being stupid about stuff in public.
Avoiding this:

It could, or it could not. Democrats have to ensure they field clean candidates. It could even strengthen her standing amongst voters in her state.

That's a steep price: "could or could not" - a suddenly looming risk that wasn't on the table a month ago. She was widely believed to have a safe seat. The Dems went from a small chance of losing one Senator to a fair chance of losing two.

Progressives must now push for an ideology that demands those who sexually harass not be in positions of power in the Government, with the tide changing in regards to how sexual harassment is viewed in society, they are in a better position to do so

With Franken out, they are (we hope temporarily) in a worse position to do so.

Sooo.. Next election, the Democrats will need to field proper candidates, focus on the Republican's budget disaster, health care, and the fact that they knowingly fielded and endorsed sex offenders and a paedophile. Even if Moore does not win in Alabama, their endorsement of his candidacy, their support of a known sexual abuser in Trump, will hang on them. The benefit the Democrats have is that Franken's behaviour was not known before he was elected, the same with Conyers. They can literally campaign on the fact that they demanded those two resign, while showing independent voters (who aren't voting just for partisan politics) and the women in particular, that this behaviour is not tolerated by them, and present healthcare that will directly affect them as individuals. Because the Republican majority has been a complete disaster for the country and in individual states. Their endorsing and protecting sex offenders just makes their position even worse.. Their budget was a hack job, and their constituents are now starting to wake up to that.

And what a nice world we would be living in already, if the world could be backed up thirty years and rerun like a junior high school formal debate - if there were "independent" voters as you describe, if the Democrats could just "show" people stuff, if Republican constituents could "wake up" before they hit bottom, if everything you are talking about there did not depend on the unusual abilities of a few people battling the media who may or may not succeed at getting a foothold - one of whom just got kicked to the curb on the eve of the budget vote and Trump/Russian debacle, and the rest crippled a bit, just in time for 2018 campaign season.

 

[Tiassa]

this is an outrageous fallacy ....

I might ask you to consider the idea that heterosexual men will finally figure this out by simply abstaining↑ from all intimate contact with women and pursuit thereof.

If you can take that idea seriously, well, sure, go ahead and worry about the rest of whatever it is he's on about. But whatever it is, he's gotten himself so worked up he can't read, so ... good luck.

 

[Bells]

The Dems win and lose on competence, not "cleanliness". They have to ensure they field candidates the public views as competent and reliable - their treatment of Franken was neither.

He groped 8 women.

What would you do to a man who groped 8 women?

Try to pay attention: In your posting here, your rhetoric.
Yes, you do. It's not just a common level - it's a kind, a category, a set of tactics and approaches you share: The same kinds of tricks and lies and continual attack mode, the same constantly shifting context and blatant attempts to wrongfoot, the same repetitive insistence on question-begging Lunz-tested vocabulary and framing - for example in that post (whine? what I "want"? - you can't not do it).

*Snore*

No, really, you're boring as batshit. Because you seem incapable of actually discussing the topic of Franken groping women without accusing everyone of lying if they *gasp* are critical of what he did without doing stuff like saying I have the same integrity as a person who endorsed a paedophile.. There are no tricks. No lies. No tactics. So perhaps you should step back from your conspiracy driven rhetoric. It's boring. It's repetitive and it just makes you look hysterical. Not hysterical funny. But hysterical as in the guy who's screaming while standing on a park bench.

The question was not answered by you pretending it was a completely different question. It was instead lied about, and avoided. That was dishonest of you.

I answered the question. I said neither.

I could have said both are shit, for example, if that is what you prefer or registers for you or is less triggering.

Exactly as it has been playing for years now, with the Republican Party. That's how the Republicans took over Congress and won the White House.

And yet, you pitched a fit about it before.

Do you complain just for the sake of complaining?

That was me; No, it wasn't any such attempt; No, I don't. You are hiding behind those women again - that's dishonorable.

Well, that is how it came across.

And which woman am I hiding behind again?

Cartoon world doesn't actually exist. .

I take it this is you not diminishing it or denying it again?

The subject of that post was not sexual harassment. It was your mode of "reasoning", and what it will lead to as it has in the past.

In a thread about sexual harassment, you posted that in response to Birch's comments:

It's not about being vindictive at all. the problem with just a lip service apology is that it can give anyone who is not even genuine the idea that one can do anything and get away with it if they just make a simple apology afterward.​

Now tell me that it was not about Franken or sexual harassment, in particular when one considers what she was responding to to begin with. Not only was it about Franken, it was about his apology. You returned with:

So what is the "idea" people are being "given" about actual apologies and genuinely decent reactions and modes of behavior?

This is where failing to distinguish the Frankens and Bartons (and Spitzers and Keillors and so forth) from the Moores and Trumps and Ailes's takes you: to a place in which you can't separate predators from jerks, crime from offensiveness, calculation from impulse, fear from disgust, injury from insult; to a place in which reason does not govern.

But that's ok, in the case of Franken's takedown for example, because the people advocating for it are confidant in their empowerment - they are going to be the powerful who govern in place of reason. Franken's resignation is - in their view - an accomplishment of their empowerment, and a step of progress toward their goal of dismantling oppression and empowering the formerly vulnerable.

Firstly, you tried to diminish what he did by implying that women and others are incapable or unable to distinguish between "predators from jerks", "crime from offensiveness", "calculation from impulse", "fear from disgust", "injury from insult".

Secondly, you basically snidely implied that the women who did eventually demand he resign, were somehow incapable and you implied that their demands he resign after an 8th victim came forward, was a way to accomplish or gain power. In other words, you came across like a misogynistic snot. I know, I know, you'll whine about slander, but after your display in this and the other thread, you are in no position to complain.

Reason, competence, adult judgment, sanity, not being stupid about stuff in public.

Except for the part where he groped women in public.....

That's a steep price: "could or could not" - a suddenly looming risk that wasn't on the table a month ago. She was widely believed to have a safe seat. The Dems went from a small chance of losing one Senator to a fair chance of losing two.

I think their finally demanding that he step down, will present them with better chances of maintaining the two.

But what do I know.. I apparently have the same level of integrity as people who endorse paedophiles and am apparently lacking in reason.

With Franken out, they are (we hope temporarily) in a worse position to do so.

And if he had stayed in, they would be in a worse position nationally.

And what a nice world we would be living in already, if the world could be backed up thirty years and rerun like a junior high school formal debate - if there were "independent" voters as you describe, if the Democrats could just "show" people stuff, if Republican constituents could "wake up" before they hit bottom, if everything you are talking about there did not depend on the unusual abilities of a few people battling the media who may or may not succeed at getting a foothold - one of whom just got kicked to the curb on the eve of the budget vote and Trump/Russian debacle, and the rest crippled a bit, just in time for 2018 campaign season.

Yep. Much better to keep serial gropers of women in Congress instead. Because that makes you look soooo strong and looks so good to voters, particularly female voters.

That was sarcasm, by the way, in case you find it difficult to differentiate. I know, I know.. "slander", etc.

 

[Capracus]

In the first place, conditioning adults at such a level is a bit difficult.

To the other, that's a different issue than mgtow.

So let us be clear about your change of terminology:

"Conditioning men to not be obsessed with touching women for personal gratification", is not the same as complete abstinence from sexual context with women.

Ideally conditioning would begin as early as practical, but people of any age are capable of behavior modification to attain a variety of personal goals. MGTOW isn’t strictly about abstainance, it’s more concerned with a reduction of reliance on women to meet their physical and emotional needs. A beneficial result of this strategy for women would be a reduction of unwanted advances towards them by these men.

What part of "you don't need to be inflicting your sex life on other people" is unclear?

Honestly, sir, would it be so difficult to at least include occasional cues in your post that you're actually responding to something real, and not simply making it up as you go?

What part of "you don't need to be inflicting your sex life on other people" confuses you? Is it the predictable part when some men simply need any excuse to discuss their sexual behavior with an audience?

Furthermore, it really is hard to take this particular poster seriously when posting unrealistic bullshit is part of is point.

I don’t know about you, but I find that more detail tends to be more instructive than less. I was unaware that you were gay until I read it in one of your recent posts, and that aspect of your personality could be better understood with added detail. Some might find some of your personal details offensive, but I would consider an unwillingness to receive such detail their intellectual loss.

You, too, are perfectly welcome to try to explain to heterosexual men that abstinence from women is their salvation. Because I also find it quite hilarious that after years of showing two fingers to the churches, politicians, and feminists, to the point that men have even gone and invented what seems to be a fake academic discipline arguing the evolutionary roots of men's sexual appetites and belligerence, the idea of going their own way and only needing women to see them not needing women is going to compel men, en masse, to abstain from seeking contact and congress with women.

Seriously? Revenge abstinence? That's what will do it? Okay, then; this I gotta see. Will you be offended if women celebrate the idea and hope the heterosexual men can actually deliver on the promise?

There’s no need to frame this as a movement against women, it would be more fitting to frame it as a viable alternative for men who want to avoid the potential pitfalls of traditional heterosexual relationships. As a heterosexual man I’ve been conditioned to selectively abstain from engaging in behaviors with various categories of women. For example, while I feel no sexual attraction to my daughter, I easily could towards another women of the same age and appearance. So if life experience can shut down desire in this case, I can imagine that our male adult psyches are plastic enough to do so in other cases as well.

No, gay men aren't going to rescue their heterosexual brothers on this one. And, sure, we can imagine mgtows would "find a way"; is "paleomasculinity" already taken?

You wouldn’t deposit your seed in a turkey baster to father a child of your own, or to restore a decimated human population?

Really? It's the twenty-first century and we're back to, "you don't need to enjoy it"? And this time for men who are pissed off at women? That would be funny except it is also predictable save for the fact that it really is rude to presume so poorly of people. That is to say, was a time when it would have been denounced as a misandrist joke, but here we are, considering the proposition that "human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it.

My point was that human beings will engage in countless undesirable activities to attain a particular goal. Men and women regularly sexually service their undesirable partners for some kind of personal gain. Prostitutes for the money. Melania Trump for the money. A gay man to save the human race.

It is true I would not be surprised, but this is one of those things that sounds like an ugly stereotype to the point that one need not be a masculinist to find reason to object. But, hey, you know what else it reminds me of? It reminds me of the time that someone defended masculine sexual belligerence by comparing men to a hand grenade, because exploding is what the grenade does if you pull the pin. The thing is, when a male says these things in defense of masculine sexual belligerence, we don't hear a peep from masculinist quarters. And I recall that occasion because taking your argument seriously at present includes potential application of rape envy without clear pathology as a masculine characteristic, and the only people who can unpack that are the people who think there is some utility in arguing "the fact that human beings do not have to enjoy" sexual intercourse in order to have it as part of a discussion ostensibly considering sexual harassment, belligerence, and assault.

There’s a myriad of reasons why individual men might want to mitigate their relationships with women, and for the individuals psychologically primed to unload violence into those relationships, alternative strategies that might channel that violence away from the real to the virtual would seem to be a good thing.

 

[birch]

Aaaah no it is fact:

What fallacy you have committed it the lottery fallacy, that if someone wins the lottery then anyone can... well sure they can, but very few will. With the difference in attractiveness differential between and men and women, we have a less then 1 in 5 chance of being satisfied with a partner (13% is the number brought back by one study). Now those are ~1/8 odds, not lottery like 1/1,000,000,000 odds, so go right ahead and try finding your life partner, but those are not odds I'm willing to work with, thank you very much.



aaah ok, so? I don't think I was questioning if people of different races could couple... are you?



yeah and a pot of gold is at the end of every rainbow. I'm sure out of 7.5 billion people there is someone else out therefor me, but the chance of finding her are unlikely and worse I would need to risk a high chance of mistaking the wrong one for the right one, and then having my heart stomped, my assets raided and 18+ years supporting a child I never wanted. Now porn, vidya, lefty, these things do not judge me, demand of me, do not divorce me, do not demand alimony, do not demand child support, do not accuse me of sexual harrasment, they will not destroy me at a human whim, I do not need to search the world of sirrens for them, they are right here.



And they are all happily married now? You argument is a market one, of saying hey just put our self out there someone is bound to buy, the problem is people are not money. Compatibility between any two people is difficult to attain, impossible frankly for many people, who are literally incapable of having a sustainable committed relationship despite the fact they want one. Sure you can play the numbers game and try to go throw as many people as possible to find "the one" but that only works to an extent and actually becomes a detriment eventually as some people become accumulated and dependent on going through relationships like tires on a race car (my father is a prime example of this and is my model for what not to do in life)



Its a numbers game, there are far fewer women that would find Wiensteins ugly face lovable then say Brad Pitt's face. Wienstein solution to this numbers game was to use his position of power to force himself on women, I say he should have simply not played the game at all and bought a collect of love dolls, or maybe hanged out in a country were prostitution is legal, he should have noticed that his personality and preferences was fundamental incomparable with monogamy or even acceptable sexual relationships and should have adapted himself to an outcome that would be both legal and would satisfy his sloppery depraved preferences.



Blaming women for what? If I would rather stay home, play vidya and jerk off, how is that women's fault? I've ask my self what could women do that would make me play the game again... nothing, I am content with what I got.

No, genius. do this experiment: just take a look around you, at any time, of any day, anywhere as well as people in your own life that you know and you will notice most people are not what is considered good-looking yet they have relationships, friends, boyfriends/girlfriends and spouses.

You are assuming that everyone goes for the same types of people. Many people know better than to go for the top 20 percent if that is not what they are and even they are not attractive to everyone, depending on who they are, their personal taste, criteria and personality and their motives for attraction. Someone wanting someone just for money or power is not a real personal attraction, it's a partial one that is based on a benefit they can obtain, for example. Attraction is very personal and you are not automatically attracted to someone even if they fit some ideal set by a general standard. The question is, are you aware of that?

For instance, i've known plenty of women who put looks over intelligence and do not like any type of males who are nerdy in any way or even intelligent. You can even parse it further than that as what someone considers attractive, would be hideous or a joke to someone else. a well-known example would be that model Fabio and if you pay attention to different women's perception based on their tastes, it will veer from hunk to creep to hideous to weirdo.

You do realize that a person can be very physically attractive or be attractive in ways that another may not appreciate or care about or prefer, don't you? that is very common. why? because that's not what they may want. another can point out how attractive they are til the cows come home and it still doesn't mean you will be attracted to them, do you realize that?

In the reverse, there are women who only go for men who have substance, intelligence, education, good character as foremost important etc. but even that is artificial on a general level because each person will have a different personality, looks, values, tastes, idiosyncrasies etc and so therefore may or may not be attractive to you personally.

If your assumption was true, every female out there would be attracted to the same men i am and vice versa and that is farthest from the truth. as a matter of fact, it is a regular occurrence for women to note certain men as attractive to them that i think are not attractive at all and vice versa. Besides that, i see ugly to average looking people (relative to an artificial standard set by beauty industry) all the time who have hookups and relationships of all kinds. Even people who are considered attractive are not attractive to someone else, simply because they are not their "type." That is the norm, not the exception.

You are also purposefully being dishonest, are changing/twisting the subject because you have gone on a tangent of finding the 'one' or best person/mate who is best for you when this topic is just the opposite which is sexual harassment based on the most shallow of criteria or none whatsoever as to render to a ridiculous extent the victim and perpetrator as a one-dimensional being.

Your video is not only a little hogwash, it's TOTAL bs. Life experience proves it.

 

[iceaura]

I think their finally demanding that he step down, will present them with better chances of maintaining the two.

And there we have a material, substantive sentence that is relevant to my posting and can be accountable - why would you think that? My reasons for thinking otherwise are posted.
- - - -

But what do I know.. I apparently have the same level of integrity as people who endorse paedophiles and am apparently lacking in reason.

Your rhetoric, remember? As you illustrate, once again.

That was sarcasm, by the way, in case you find it difficult to differentiate. I know, I know.. "slander", etc.

Yep. If you want sarcasm, you can't embed a lie in the assumptions. Doesn't work, rhetorically - it's just another way to deal in falsehood.

I answered the question. I said neither.

Pretending that answered the question was dishonest. Still is.

Because you seem incapable of actually discussing the topic of Franken groping women

No matter how often you try to reframe my posts, and slander and lie when the gambit is refused.

I take it this is you not diminishing it or denying it again?

Yep.

Firstly, you tried to diminish what he did by implying that women and others are incapable or unable to distinguish between "predators from jerks", "crime from offensiveness", "calculation from impulse", "fear from disgust", "injury from insult".

No, I didn't. (Hiding like that is dishonorable)

Secondly, you basically snidely implied that the women who did eventually demand he resign, were somehow incapable and you implied that their demands he resign after an 8th victim came forward, was a way to accomplish or gain power

No, I didn't. (You're hiding again.)

And yet, you pitched a fit about it before.

No, I didn't.

You cannot post honestly, or without slander, in this thread. Why is that?
- - -

And if he had stayed in, they would be in a worse position nationally.

Maybe. Depends on how it was handled. They would be in a better position in the Senate, almost any way they handled it other than this; and likely better off in Minnesota if Franken had stayed in past the 2018 elections.

He groped 8 women.
What would you do to a man who groped 8 women?

Depends on what he did, situation, etc. Same answer as before.

Consider: pilot habitually gropes wait staff at the airport restaurant, you have to deal with said pilot - does it matter whether the plane is still in the air? Does it matter whether and where the passengers would be stranded? Does it matter what he actually did within that category?
Doctor gropes women at school reunions and New Year's parties: does the welfare of his patients - midsurgery, evaluation, recovery, etc - affect how you handle the situation? Does the nature of what he did within that category make any difference?

Because lack of consideration and common sense is visible. And politically, it's damaging.

 

[ElectricFetus]

No, genius. do this experiment: just take a look around you, at any time, of any day, anywhere as well as people in your own life that you know and you will notice most people are not what is considered good-looking yet they have relationships, friends, boyfriends/girlfriends and spouses.

well first of all relationships and friends are not the issue, the issue is are people happier chasing after the lie of love? Generally no they are not, at best they end up in a failing marriage, at worse they end up with a restraining order and legal payments.

You are assuming that everyone goes for the same types of people. Many people know better than to go for the top 20 percent if that is not what they are and even they are not attractive to everyone, depending on who they are, their personal taste, criteria and personality and their motives for attraction. Someone wanting someone just for money or power is not a real personal attraction, it's a partial one that is based on a benefit they can obtain, for example. Attraction is very personal and you are not automatically attracted to someone even if they fit some ideal set by a general standard. The question is, are you aware of that?

No I'm assuming the average person, as backed by studies goes for the same type of people, in aggrogate. What you call "many people" are a statistical minority, who have to wade through the others like a human through a pack of apes. But hey I'm not stopping you with your pratical ideas about love, by all means if you succeed, good for you, I'm just happier with my self though.

For instance, i've known plenty of women who put looks over intelligence and do not like any type of males who are nerdy in any way or even intelligent. You can even parse it further than that as what someone considers attractive, would be hideous or a joke to someone else. a well-known example would be that model Fabio and if you pay attention to different women's perception based on their tastes, it will veer from hunk to creep to hideous to weirdo.

You do realize that a person can be very physically attractive or be attractive in ways that another may not appreciate or care about or prefer, don't you? that is very common. why? because that's not what they may want. another can point out how attractive they are til the cows come home and it still doesn't mean you will be attracted to them, do you realize that?

Yeah I do, again the problem is a numbers game. Far more women are going for Fabio then Weinstein, do you realize that? Attraction is a lizard brain process, are you saying we should just follow it?

If your assumption was true, every female out there would be attracted to the same men i am and vice versa and that is farthest from the truth.

Oh god the "not all fallacy" in reverse! I'm talking about on average, I'm talking about number game, your talking about some unicorn that is certainly out there somewhere, ok how do I find her and why should I even waste the time trying?

You are also purposefully being dishonest, are changing/twisting the subject because you have gone on a tangent of finding the 'one' or best person/mate who is best for you when this topic is just the opposite which is sexual harassment based on the most shallow of criteria or none whatsoever as to render to a ridiculous extent the victim and perpetrator as a one-dimensional being.

Ok then back to the topic: lets say your a man and you find a women who you are attracted to, for totally not shallow criteria, so you ask her out, "hey would you like to go out for coffee sometime?" and she looks as you, is not attracted to you and then say "are you sexually harrassing me?" and you respond, "what? no no of course not." and she responds "get away from you creep!". Anyways years later she brings up the event from her perspective to the media, in a time after reveals of real sexual predators like weinstien and there is a sexual panic frenzy, a warlock hunt is on! Now is a chance for attention and even money, she remembers you coming at her trying to grope her or something, you are now accused of being a sexual harrasser in the same vain as weinstien, other women you can't even remember start coming out the wood works with claims against you, and without a trial, without an ethic committee, just based on public opinion, your career and livelihood and respectability is ruined.

Now all of that could have been prevented had he simply ignored his lizard brain telling him who he is "attracted" to, redirected those desires on pornography and sex toys, and focused on self-sufficiency instead. If a woman likes him SHE CAN ASK HIM OUT.

So lets go over again my solutions to sexual harassment:
1. The "guy on guy rule", any heterosexual man should treat women like he would other heterosexual men.
2. Don't ask women out, women should ask men out, since few are going to take seriously the idea of women sexually assaulting men.
3. Tinder and other dating apps: there women ask you out and state explicitly what they want. Traditional courting is now archaic and obsolete, it is almost 12018!
4. Co-workers = incest, just don't and never.
5. Redirect all sexual urges on to pornography and sex toys, all urges for relationships with hobbies and friends and family and pets.
6. There are 4 babies born every second there are 7.5 billion people now, reproduction is so last century, with the rate AI is developing humans will hopeful be obsolete and in decline by the end of this century, the final humans living lives of bliss fucking sex bots until death.

Your video is not only a little hogwash, it's TOTAL bs. Life experience proves it.

Well I'm glade your life experience is outside the norm, hey if while we are trumping science with personal experience: did you know aliens abduct us and probe us all the time, I have experienced it repeatedly.

 

[Tiassa]

#rapeculture | #antisocialisantisocial​

Content Warning: Click for mgtow.​

Stating the obvious:

Ideally conditioning would begin as early as practical, but people of any age are capable of behavior modification to attain a variety of personal goals.

The fact that you insist on telling me makes the point that this isn't to be taken seriously.

Tell it to the straight men. Convince them going their own way is a good idea ... er ... ah ... oh:

MGTOW isn't strictly about abstainance, it's more concerned with a reduction of reliance on women to meet their physical and emotional needs.

I just want to point out we started with EF, abstinence, and mgtow; you added non-mgtow variation; and now here we are with you pushing mgtow but neither of you standing on abstinence.

So much for going their own way, and this is nobody will take mgtow stupidity seriously except as a really petulant tantrum of rape culture.

I don't know about you, but I find that more detail tends to be more instructive than less. I was unaware that you were gay until I read it in one of your recent posts, and that aspect of your personality could be better understood with added detail. Some might find some of your personal details offensive, but I would consider an unwillingness to receive such detail their intellectual loss.

Good for you.

There are times and places when such discourse is appropriate, but standing in the public square in order to declare unto everyone what one does to get off is itself a form of sexual harassment. People need to be very careful about how they discuss their own sex lives in the context of not trying to annex other people as part of that sex life. Furthermore, this point is only underscored by the fact of this behavior being intentional disruption.

In questions of rational consideration, the performance is a disaster; as a mockery of men and masculinity, okay, whatever, but it's not particularly original. As clearly and simply as possible:

• We see our neighbor go from, "Now I would not make sexual advances on another man, heck I would not even touch another man, ergo I do not make sexual advances on women or touch women" (#52↑), to "tinder and prostitutes" (#102↑).

• Thus our neighbor has the appearance of pitching two disparate, even opposed, circumstances.

• We can, of course, reconcile these elements by considering prostitutes and tinder dates "sex toys" (ibid; see also #65↑).​

Going one's own way is going one's own way. Our mgtow neighbor is back to run-of-the-mill, welcome-to-America misogyny.

Look at his question: "How many men do you think would risk time and money and livelihood chasing real women if they could get a facsimile like Joi?"

"Chasing real women" for what? Intimacy? And if is the priority for how a man identifies and relates to women, yeah, well, one thing I can agree with EF about is those men should probably stay the hell away from women. And you? The fact that neither of you can make a consistent, principled argument simply reminds that it's all bullshit.

There's no need to frame this as a movement against women, it would be more fitting to frame it as a viable alternative for men who want to avoid the potential pitfalls of traditional heterosexual relationships.

On of the really stupid things about your pitch is that, given evidence to the other, two advocates who cannot manage a clue between them want to just sit there and say otherwise, while neither of them can keep their stories straight even unto themselves, and there really is a possibility they actually expect to be taken seriously for behaving this way.

And, yes, I personally take these efforts to advertise one's bigotry against women seriously. It's important to know who and where the wannabe dangerous men are.

My point was that human beings will engage in countless undesirable activities to attain a particular goal. Men and women regularly sexually service their undesirable partners for some kind of personal gain. Prostitutes for the money. Melania Trump for the money. A gay man to save the human race.

And?

There's a reason people won't take this shit seriously in the context you want.

Meanwhile, go out of your way to signal danger to women like that, and women will notice.

There's a myriad of reasons why individual men might want to mitigate their relationships with women, and for the individuals psychologically primed to unload violence into those relationships, alternative strategies that might channel that violence away from the real to the virtual would seem to be a good thing.

And?

If you want to be taken seriously, then behave as if you do. Meanwhile, changing the subject is changing the subject.

Nonetheless, consider your paragraph in the context of why does this outcome need to be an identity movement?

Self-improvement is self-improvement; anti-identification is anti-identification. We're capable of reading the mgtow testimonials, and seeing the differences when insincere advocates behaving antisocially cannot seem to get on the same page, even with themselves; watching you race to redefine your context because you didn't think of the obvious on the front side only reiterates your insincerity. So, no, turkey basters might be good for turduckens, but you're making a great case for soliux.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I just want to point out we started with EF, abstinence, and mgtow; you added non-mgtow variation; and now here we are with you pushing mgtow but neither of you standing on abstinence.

No, that is not "non-mgtow", mgtow is a not a set philosophy, in fact the only thing mgtows agree on is "no marriage", everything after that is debatable and is debated among mgtow. Is it not the same among feminist, are there not a whole range of feminist philosophies from the empower women to the "any sex with men is oppression" types?

So much for going their own way, and this is nobody will take mgtow stupidity seriously except as a really petulant tantrum of rape culture.

Ok, why should we care if you take us seriously? Look you clearly deny our growing numbers, clearly deny that we are talking to other hetersexual men and gaining numbers, clearly ignore that countries like japan already have a majority population of men that have forgone women, you do not take this seriously... ok so why should we care what you take seriously?

There are times and places when such discourse is appropriate, but standing in the public square in order to declare unto everyone what one does to get off is itself a form of sexual harassment. People need to be very careful about how they discuss their own sex lives in the context of not trying to annex other people as part of that sex life. Furthermore, this point is only underscored by the fact of this behavior being intentional disruption.

A form of sexual harassment, oh boy are you finally going to define what is and is not sexual harassment? As for intentional disruptive, that your perspective, I suggest what I believe is a valid solution to sexual harrasment: men minimize and forgo sexual interactions with women. And you seem to think that is stupid, impossible and disgusting, well some people find your lifestyle gross and disgusting as well, ok then well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then.

In questions of rational consideration, the performance is a disaster; as a mockery of men and masculinity, okay, whatever, but it's not particularly original. As clearly and simply as possible:

• We see our neighbor go from, "Now I would not make sexual advances on another man, heck I would not even touch another man, ergo I do not make sexual advances on women or touch women" (#52↑), to "tinder and prostitutes" (#102↑).

• Thus our neighbor has the appearance of pitching two disparate, even opposed, circumstances.

• We can, of course, reconcile these elements by considering prostitutes and tinder dates "sex toys" (ibid; see also #65↑).​

​

First of all to each there own, second of all prostitutes and tinder are legal (country depended) your comparison to sex toys is only because you think of everything as objectifying women, but objects don't charge men for sexual harassment. An agreement with a legal prostitute or a written digital record of what is and is not wanted in a sexual encounter via tinder is safer then traditional courtship, for both men AND WOMEN. Now I would not consider that safe enough, but your suggesting that straight men are such sex addicts that they have to release on human women somehow, well then there is that for them, there are ways for men to do sex with women safer if they really have too. And of course women could just ask men out instead.

Going one's own way is going one's own way. Our mgtow neighbor is back to run-of-the-mill, welcome-to-America misogyny.

Look at his question: "How many men do you think would risk time and money and livelihood chasing real women if they could get a facsimile like Joi?"

"Chasing real women" for what? Intimacy? And if is the priority for how a man identifies and relates to women, yeah, well, one thing I can agree with EF about is those men should probably stay the hell away from women. And you? The fact that neither of you can make a consistent, principled argument simply reminds that it's all bullshit.

How is minimizing sexual interaction with women, "bullshit?", your the one saying heterosexual men can't live without women, we say ok fine, tinder and prostitutes for them then, and your reply is the fallacy to absolutes, that it has to be absolute abstinence or it is all bullshit without providing an arguement for why a gradient would not provide benefit. Ok then I ask: if men MINIMIZED sexual interactions with women, would that not reduce sexual assault?

And yes why would intimacy with a machine not be better? A machine has no selfishness, does not desire of a man other then to optimize his happiness, Joi willing died for a man, how many human women would do that?

And, yes, I personally take these efforts to advertise one's bigotry against women seriously. It's important to know who and where the wannabe dangerous men are.

How is this bigotry against women? How are we "dangerous men" if we choose to reduce are chances of harming women? Are very actions are to minimize our danger to women!

And?

There's a reason people won't take this shit seriously in the context you want.

Meanwhile, go out of your way to signal danger to women like that, and women will notice.

Yeah and? why should we care? women will stay away from us, what is the problem? Is that not what you want?

And?

If you want to be taken seriously, then behave as if you do. Meanwhile, changing the subject is changing the subject.

Nonetheless, consider your paragraph in the context of why does this outcome need to be an identity movement?

But we don't need to be take seriously, at least not by you, you admitted as much by demanding we preach to straight men, we do, any heterosexual man can read and watch what we say and consider it for themselves. It needs to be an identity movement TO REDUCE SEXUAL HARASSMENT!

Ok is Alcoholic Anonymous not a identity movement? Mgtow is the same thing basically just replace "alcohol" with "women" and "higher power" with "none". We advocate men forgo their addiction, and if they fall off the wagon to temptation that at least they do so in minimized controlled ways. "Hey I am [Electricfetus] I am a mgtow and I have been celibate for 5 years now." Everyone claps then we go on to next names and talk about ways of dealing with our temptations and remaining clean.

Self-improvement is self-improvement; anti-identification is anti-identification. We're capable of reading the mgtow testimonials, and seeing the differences when insincere advocates behaving antisocially cannot seem to get on the same page, even with themselves; watching you race to redefine your context because you didn't think of the obvious on the front side only reiterates your insincerity. So, no, turkey basters might be good for turduckens, but you're making a great case for soliux.

And so? women can go their own way, breed a race of only women (assuming we would even need humans anymore in the future), good for them! what is the problem?

 

[pjdude1219]

And? Did you expect her to say any differently?

yes.

Women who are victims are in this sort of place whereby we have to be accommodating. Tell me, how do you think it would have gone down if she had come out and declared "he should resign"? Did you see what was said about Tweeden in some parts of leftist media when she came out? She said he should not resign. What else could she have said? Even saying that, she was slut shamed, photos of her as a Playboy model were plastered all over the place.

every one who is a victim of sexual assualt goes through this. your specificlly taking away her agency here.

So yeah, what else could she or any other victim of sexual harassment say when faced with a public figure?

what ever feel should be done. i unlike you refuse to demand victims be what i want them to be.

Sorry, but that's not good enough.

Those excuses are not good enough.

there not excuses, there reality. oh and thank you for deligitimizing as a sexual assault survivor. Forgive me for having a penis and daring to have a different view than you. You need to understand that you are the final arbitor of what assault victims get to feel and think. your demand that everyone has to be a saint and that good has to be stupid is only going to get more people hurt.

 

[pjdude1219]

Oh sorry, I didn't realise that you aren't counting all women...

In other words, white women voted for Trump more and that margin widened because he was able to garner a higher percentage of uneducated white female voters. On the whole, Clinton did draw the majority of the female votes. Not Trump. One could only argue what you just did, if you deliberately choose to ignore minority female voters entirely. Are you?

I called and supported the calls for her husband to resign, due to the allegations against him. Why would I blame his wife for something he did?

Secondly, Hillary Clinton is as much a victim of misogyny and abuse as all other women are. So again, why would I blame her for what her husband was accused of?

The irony is that you accuse me of using Republican lines, when you come out with this sort of rubbish.. Really?


I did?

Because I dared to suggest that men who sexually harass and sexually molest women should be held accountable? Oh noes! Democrats do it too, so I'm supposed to turn the other way, ignore it while pointing out the Republicans who are sexually harassing and sexually assaulting women? Something something about glass houses and rocks applies here.

Your whine is that I dared to compare it to Moore or Trump. And? As far as I am concerned, any man who uses opportunity to prey on women like this, is an abuser. But no, you are whining because you don't even see it as problematic, or as being sexual harassment, it was what? Ah yes, he was a "jerk", "offensive", that his groping women was merely "impulsive", that the women were apparently unable to tell the difference.. You know, you set the bar for how you think women should behave when sexually harassed.. Since they aren't Republicans and since they failed to match the criteria you have set up for Democrats, I doubt you think what he even did amounted to sexual harassment. Because anyone who talks sexual harassment and the women who shouted it down to something like this:



And you accuse me or repeating Republican talking points?


Wait.. wait..

Conway went to the media and endorsed a paedophile.

I said there should be zero tolerance of sexual harassment and sexual assault in society, regardless of politics.

And apparently I am speaking at the same "rhetorical level of integrity" as Conway?

How much lower and desperate are you willing to go and become to throw down for a man who has a string of sexual harassment and assault allegations against him, against women from all walks of life, some involved in Democratic politics, some Republican women, one performer, a journalist (a Democrat) who writes for The Atlantic (the latest one)..? You should read her article. It is brutal and raw. The very fact that you are choosing to minimise sexual harassment and sexual assault for politics, says a lot about you, iceaura and I have to say, I am not just disgusted, but disappointed, because I had always been under the impression that you weren't one of those guys. Alas, here we are.

You are one of those guys.

what are you going to do in 2018 when the republican party declares the democrats the party of sexual predators and defenders of such people? cause with what your pushing is exactly how its going to go down

 

[Kittamaru]

what are you going to do in 2018 when the republican party declares the democrats the party of sexual predators and defenders of such people? cause with what your pushing is exactly how its going to go down

This is a concept that seems to escape her. If we were dealing with two morally competent and capable parties, then it wouldn't be an issue... however, the GOP has no qualms with throwing morality to the wind and doing whatever it takes to win. Sadly, it seems our neighbor either refuses to, or is unable to, understand that fact, and why it is important.

 

[spidergoat]

I suggest what I believe is a valid solution to sexual harrasment: men minimize and forgo sexual interactions with women.

Good for you, you must have issues with self control. I find it ridiculously easy not to sexually harass anyone.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Ultimately this all comes down to people like Bells (who I think is not american and thus our suffering under republican domination is purely academic to her, but I could be mistaken) do not believe in rule of law but rather in public justice where any man can be destroyed by mere accusation, oh mind you it needs to be many accusations, for example if you get a group of 11600's virginal christian school girls together and they all claim someone else abused them sexually, perhaps with satanic influence, why they got to be telling the truth, right, I mean why would they lie? It is not like they are people, riiiiggggghhhttt? No need for an ethic committee, impeachment hearing, court of law, just a good old demand he admits his wicked guilt followed by a public burning at the stake.

The fact public justice in antithetical to civilized society and morality is irrelevant to her. The fact public justice does not work on those that are protected by a loyal voter following of ignorant white trash who have proven they will elected an open misogynist that proclaims he has the right to grab women by the genitals with impunity, and in fact enables the likes of Trump by destroying his opponents who are susceptible to public justice, all this is irrelevant to Bells. All Bells wants is the right for any women to burn a man down to the ground at her whim, not even be questioned: consequences, order, morality, be dammed.

Good for you, you must have issues with self control. I find it ridiculously easy not to sexually harass anyone.

It is ridiculously easy not to sexual harass anyone. The steps I laid out are very easy to follow. I'm glade we agree!

As for your back handed insult about self control: I drink moderately because I have self control, I once had a girlfriend who would bing drink and I had to puke her in a bathtub and I was flabbergasted how anyone could let themselves go like that! I don't proposition women, because I have self control. When a graduate student shakes her ass and flirts with me I do not reciprocate because I have self control.