Open Forum! August 19, 2022 / Jack Marshall Come on in! Speak up! Share this:TwitterLinkedInFacebookRedditPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading... Related
30 thoughts on “Open Forum!”
Pa-thetic. I’ve never used a dating app, but I think if typical dating apps are asking you for pronouns or to put up a liberal sticker or affirm your support for BLM, you don’t want to be there anyway. Then again, what man with any sense wants to date a pink pussy-hatted crypto-dominatrix who will treat him like he has no right to hold opinions of his own, leave alone speak them? Sorry, but a lot of liberal women suck all the air out of the room when the enter, and I like breathing.
“What man with any sense wants to date a pink pussy-hatted crypto-dominatrix who will treat him like he has no right to hold opinions of his own?”
Well, when you put it that way . . . .
“It’s even harder for Republican men. A 2020 Pew poll found that only 41% of women would be willing to date someone who voted for the opposing candidate, while 67% of men were OK with someone who voted differently.”
Gee, I keep getting told that it is Republican men that demand fealty by their significant other with respect to voting choices. ~You know, that Handmaids Tale thingy ~
We must keep in mind that 41% of Democrat women would date someone that voted opposite their choice, so all is not lost.
I hold the belief that if you are unwilling to entertain competing ideas then you have little faith in or understanding of your own positions and simply wish to live in a bubble of your own making. With that said, no one wants to be in a relationship in which one party chooses to remain closed minded.
And I wonder how many men just fold because the women control the access to sex and they’ll sell their soul to get some. I can think of more than a few formerly conservative guys I know who did a 180 once they got involved with a woke woman. That said, I can also think of more than a few divorces because one or the other spouse would NOT fold, including at least three conswervative husbands who became tired of woke wives trying to lead them around by the… nose.
You are mistaken. Men have every right to decline sex.
That is true, but when last did you hear of a situation in which the woman was the one eager to do the deed and the man wasn’t up for it? At the bare minimum the stereotype is the horny guy whp is anxious to do the deed, and it’s the woman giving him the red light, saying things like “not tonight, honey, I got a headache,” or somesuch.
‘I really didn’t want to have sex last night’ isn’t the usual conversational opening gambit I hear from men or women. D-do you hear it a lot from people you’re not involved with?
The stereotype is just that. A bit of generalization, a bit of social pressure to conform, a bit harmful as it makes some men think they’re supposed to always want sex and some women think they’re always supposed to refuse it. It’s not reality.
People have sex drives, sometimes it’s strong, sometimes you just ate a big meal and just want to cuddle, sometimes you just watched a horror movie and have in the back of your mind exactly what happened to the nice teenagers who tried to get it on right before the axe-murderer got them. It’s all valid and all between the two (or I suppose more but I’ll skip that, thanks) adults involved.
Talking about situations that appear in fiction can be very useful for examining societal attitudes and reactions to situations, general or specific in a way that doesn’t bring unwelcome attention on any actual living breathing people who’d be angry or embarrassed. What it’s not useful for–because of the generalities and shortcuts inherent in storytelling–is examining the real day to day lives people live. Lucy and Ricky didn’t really sleep in twin beds and real life doesn’t have a convenient well-paced scrip. It’s improv, read the room and do your best.
A writer gets turned down, channels the rejection into a story. Another writer receives some unwelcome advances, channels the frustration into a story. Neither reflect any of the times the writer actually got laid.
Hahahaaha. 😀 No. I thought it was women who gossiped about their adventures in the sack while waiting for that second cup of overpriced coffee or for their pedicures to dry.
All silliness and storytelling aside, my original point was that I have known men who basically abandoned any and all principles, no matter how dearly held, because the women in their lives told them to basically come over to where they were politically or they’d be exiled to the couch or their monthly sex night would be withheld.
What about “what-aboutism?” This blog worshipping erudite comments regarding ethics abhors “what-aboutism,” as well it should. Setting aside “what about the FBI’s unethical behavior,” “what about Hunter,” “what about Hillary’s emails,” what about John P. O’Neil,” “what about (fill in the blank with your favorite what-aboutism),”for an ex-President to take classified material to his private residence is unethical. Certainly, a President has almost unfettered power to declassify material, and his right to do that is not constrained by any statutorily mandated process. If he really did have a standing verbal order to declassify material, such sloppiness is, in itself, unethical for someone occupying that position of trust and power. (As an aside, but an important one, under the Atomic Energy Act. the President does not have such unfettered authority to declassify nuclear weapons information). And “what-aboutism” is irrelevant to a determination that this ex-President acted unethically.
In general, I agree that whataboutisms are deflections. However, my concern is that there are two systems of justice: one for the ones we like, and one for the ones we don’t. For example, that guy in New York who cold-cocked the man standing on the train platform is out on bond. The January 6th Insurrectionists are sitting in jail, some in solitary confinement for the crime of trundling through the Capitol Building. That seems wrong on too many levels.
Some of them are in jail, some are out on bond, some having finished the guilt phase are serving or have completed their custodial sentences, some are on probation, one was acquitted. Each had a bond hearing. Can you provide the names of people who were charged with, erm, just trundling through the capitol building (while congress was supposed to be in season, while the doors were locked and broken down, while windows were broken and entered through, while we have video of capitol police being overrun and injured) and not something a bit more serious who are in solitary confinement?
It’s probably on Wikipedia. I wonder how that list would stack up against the list of folks held, charged, and ultimately prosecuted and convicted from Fuersommer (I decided to apply that title to summer of 2020). It probably won’t catch on, but oh well.
You might disagree but I think attacking an ongoing season of congress, is a bit more serious. If they had trashed the national mall instead it might be comparable.
It isn’t a perfect comparison, but that summer involved actual destruction of building and about 50 homicides.
“Whataboutism,” when used to excuse unethical or wrongful conduct, is a rationalization. It never does. However, “Whataboutism” for the purpose of flagging a double standard–which is unethical—or selective and biased enforcement–also unethical—or hypocrisy is legitimate and essential. Law and politics can’t be Calvinball and maintain any respect or legitimacy.
That’s been the issue with the treatment of all things Trump, and highlighting the myriad examples of where he has been held to radically different standards than prior POTUSes and contemporary politicians is necessary.
To take one example, the “Axis” made great hay over the “Lock her up” chants Trump smilaed at and encouraged during his rallies in 2016. This was cited as an ominous authoritarian tell, with Trump seeking to criminalize politics. But since his election, many, many Democratic leaders and supporters have been openly seeking to “lock Trump up,” and this is called “protecting democracy.”
Either we have a “norm” of forgiving many legal violations by leaders and politicians, or we hold them to the same standards as each other, regardless of party, and the public generally, except more stringently.
A similar bad idea is “so and so is living rent free in your head.” I got this thrown at me when I brought up the Clintons when discussing some supposedly objectionable Trump behavior. The point of course is that Bill and Hillary could get away with anything because they were Democrats. Trump locker room talk years ago: Bad. Clinton getting blow jobs from interns in the Oval Office: verging on admirable (the French do it!). But obviously, Bill Clinton was living rent free in my head. It’s almost if you’re old enough to remember things from the past, you’re dismissed.
Understood. Great spiel. Humbly insist: whataboutism has zero relevance to whether an action was ethical. It may point out double standards or inequities, but it is irrelevant to a determination of whether an action was ethical.
Absolutely. Never have argued otherwise, unless an ethical act is being called unethical by the same people who have claimed the identical act was fine before. If conduct is in an ethics gray zone, precedent is relevant. Example: Al Gore and Democrats had a valid justification to demand a review of the 2106 tally in Florida, which, if you recall, was launched before the real problems were flagged. (Remember the butterfly ballot?) Trump had valid reasons to question the 2020 vote too, but it was all put in the context of predictions (from 2016!) that he would never give up the Presidency. After the SCOTUS (correct) ruling ending the recount, Gore conceded, said he accepted the result, and then Democrats continued to claim Bush had “stolen” the election—and many still do. Yet that was all treated as justified by the media, and Democrats, of course. It wasn’t. Neither is Trump continuing to say the 2020 election was stolen, but Democrats are estopped from criticizing Trump—especially while they lionize Stacey Abrams, on eof their own who has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of her defeat.
Not to mention using Justice Department resources to give the illusion of credibility to the “Russians®™ Stole the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign.
To say nothing of the fact that she wasn’t locked up at all nor was there any substantive attempt to do so, much less harass her associates with endless DOJ investigations.
None of us know what was marked classified or Top Secret. Therefore, to claim that his having them constituted a breach of security at a minimum and espionage at the other extreme is hyperbole.
The fact is that the FBI was at Mar a Lago in June and told him he had to increase his security by installing additional locks. This is no different than when a client/tenant of mine, who developed portable communications systems for use in Afghanistan, was told by the FBI to install additional deadbolts on their exterior office door and the inside office door where the safe was located because they had top secret documents on hand. When the company built their new facility, the FBI required a SCIF. This is normal operating procedure so a President can be expected to have highly classified documents at the residence from time to time because the job of the President is not 9-5.
Much of what I heard was that some of it dealt with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that the FBI launched against Trump. If that is the case, then I can understand why he would want to keep copies of what may in fact have been a conspiracy to undermine his presidency. It is not unreasonable to assume that the FBI would not want documents that would prove his allegations correct to be made public. At this stage, I want everything made public. The supporting affidavit must be made public irrespective of the impact on their investigation and the name of the agent attesting to the information should be named in order to determine if he or she was involved in Crossfire Hurricane or the Mueller investigation.
“If he really did have a standing verbal order to declassify material, such sloppiness is, in itself, unethical for someone occupying that position of trust and power.”
These are the established rules so while they may be sloppy all laws come from legislation which is Congress’ sphere of influence. Further, it was none other than Amy Berman Jackson – a Trump antagonist – who ruled that the President has unlimited authority to determine what was claimed personal and not subject to demands by the National Archives. In that case, she ruled against Judicial Watch that sought to have some Clinton tapes turned over to the archives. Don’t blame the person following rules and standards that he did not create.
The fact is that having documents in and of itself does not prove sloppiness when the President had full knowledge of their contents anyway.
My comment has been eaten twice, that’s really weird.
I’ll break it up and try again to see what’s making it fail.
It appears that WordPress doesn’t allow any links to Rumble but yet they allow very similarly styled links to YouTube. Interesting.
Over the last 10 days Alan Dershowitz, a life long Liberal Democrat, has proven to me to be an ethical hero with his public stance regarding the Mar-a-Lago FBI raid on President Trumps home. Dershowitz is again bucking the Democratic Party’s rhetoric and standing up for what he believes is right and standing up for the United States constitution regardless of the fact that he really doesn’t like Donald Trump, he never voted for Donald Trump and he has been and is being publicly shunned for standing up for the Constitution and President Trump. Dershowitz has repeatedly shown to me his ethical courage and conviction regarding what’s right and the Constitution.
Here is a link to “The Dershow” videos on YouTube, check out the videos from August 9th to today. The videos are titled…
The professor has been a pleasant surprise. He’s the anti-Lawrence Tribe.
I, for one, am certain that all of those excess cardiopulmonary-related deaths are, as that article suggests, because of the delayed effects of the lockdowns, and that there has been no other (safe and effective) factor introduced into a large portion of the population in the last 18 months that could account for serious heart problems suddenly developing in otherwise healthy people. It’s gotta be the lockdowns.
I ran across this yesterday. I’m wondering if something like this might fit under the first niggardly principle or the third niggardly principle.
It’s a few years old, so keep that in mind.
I hope you cover this in your daily ethic topics. Hopefully, this post will be noticed as it’s Sunday and a little late for Friday Open Forum.
No Whites Allowed: Private Housing At UC-Berkeley Bans White People From Common Areas
“Many POC members moved here to be able to avoid white violence and presence, so respect their decision of avoidance if you bring white guests.”