Post by poetinahat on Jan 17, 2018 19:54:17 GMT -5
So, the question is whether the overblown accusations are part of the #metoo movement, or whether they are the result of others hijacking and perverting the movement, extending it beyond its purpose, and bringing it into disrepute.
I wasn't of the view that #metoo was a conversation itself; I thought it was a movement that prompted a conversation that needed to happen.
And yeah, people hijack movements all the time (eta -- or zealous members of the movement act beyond their remit, claiming the end justifies the means): people riot in the name of #resist, Antifa or BLM, and then others point to those examples in an attempt to discredit the whole movement. IMO, if you're going to take the high road and claim it, you can't kick rocks onto those below.
But (again, IMO) that's just semantics, and arguing semantics isn't the main point. So I'll step back from it.
Last Edit: Jan 17, 2018 20:00:52 GMT -5 by poetinahat
Well, that's not what I said and certainly not what I meant. Anyone should be able to speak openly about an assault they suffered through, without shame. But when we talk about this in general terms, we should be careful to make sure were speaking about the people who commit such crimes and not lumping all men into the same category. When men as a whole feel threatened, they tune out.
What I quoted, you said. I’m glad that it didn’t mean what it looked like to me.
But all I’ve seen of #metoo is people speaking out about what happened to them, personally. I haven’t seen any “all men” accusations, and if some are appropriating the movement to victimise innocent people, that’s hardly the movement’s fault.
Last Edit: Jan 17, 2018 16:28:17 GMT -5 by poetinahat
I agree that we should have a change, but I don't think the current #metoo movement is helping. Too many men feel as if they're under attack, and when that happens people tend to block out the overall message.
So, women should keep quiet about having been assaulted, because men who weren't involved don't want to hear it?
And it's women's responsibility to speak out less, to make sure the message isn't blocked out?
That line of reasoning sounds familiar, and not in a good way at all. I really hope that's not what you meant.
Post by poetinahat on Dec 21, 2017 22:36:21 GMT -5
Is this whole argument based on anecdotal evidence?
If so, why does one side have to be right and the other wrong?
Not only do different people respond to (or have different success with) different approaches, but the same person may not even respond the same way all the time. Hell, they may not even *want* the same thing every time; in fact, I'd say that the most auspicious beginnings I've had (whether torrid flings or happily-ever-after relationships) happened when I wasn't even looking. As efficient as it would be to have a success formula, how boring life would be if it were that simple.
What's more, the traits that attract one on the first meeting might not even be the same ones that keep the interest in months and years to come.
I don't believe there's one answer, and I'm happy for it to be that way. But it's fun to discuss.
Post by poetinahat on Dec 19, 2017 19:07:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not really sure why it's so hard to differentiate when something is appropriate and when it's not. It may be hard to legislate, and it surely varies with actor, recipient, and situation, but goddamn.
I guess there's the rub (or there it isn't). Do you do what's right, what's good, what's legal, or what you can get away with? And not everyone makes the same choice there.
The idea that the race was close enough for write-ins to be significant is itself telling. The Republican losing in Alabama, then blaming write-in votes, would be like 'Bama losing to, say, Georgia Tech* and blaming it on officiating. It should never come down to that. There's no one to blame but themselves.
Speaking of which, I wonder how many of those write-in votes were for Nick Saban.
*: Those of you who speak Southern football, feel free to substitute a suitable team if this isn't apt.
So yeah, some of this stuff is pure mud-slinging by Trump and company. And yet, there's been some funny business in the bureau and I have a hunch that it's all going to lead back to Comey.
You reminded me of this 'FBI is Trumpland' article from what seems like ages ago: Was Comey pro-Hillary at the head of a Trump-aligned FBI? If so, were these two in the minority? (Yes, I know, it's a Guardian article, so it's surely left-leaning.) And what of Trump's subsequent comments regarding Putin's word vs. American intelligence agencies?
If Comey was really so pro-Hillary, why did he resurrect the email issue a week before the election? Is he that excruciatingly, paradoxically honorable, or does he just have apocalyptically poor timing?
Wasn't there a time recently when things could be made sense of?
Post by poetinahat on Dec 12, 2017 19:51:28 GMT -5
That's about where I am - I don't think he's crazy, but (like Trump) he likes keeping people off-balance. And North Korea being bellicose has been a sore point for a long time, but now it's festering.
As far as the "experts" at State, I'm not sure who's more expert; sometimes even experts don't know the answers, because there isn't necessarily a definitive answer - so air-quoting their credentials doesn't seem apt. I'm not sure that we've had an influx of expertise with this administration, and I reckon KJU might have figured that. Just like every other world leader, he's going to conduct himself differently with Trump than he did with Obama, who was different from Bush, and so on.
Probably the biggest reason for the (not unwavering) faith I have that it will be okay? The people around these two: the advisers and military leaders around Trump, and China at KJU's shoulder. But I'm certainly no expert, air-quotes or not.