butterbumps!

Forum Moderators
  • Content count

    9,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    totally cromulent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    I can't address all of this right now but how on earth can you chalk these allegations and characterization a up to the media? He-- himself-- presents himself this way. He clearly believes that this "persona" is of great value and/ or virtue. "The media" is not running his Twitter account! Is trump also part of this media conspiracy against him? You are basically suggesting that trump could be pulling off a Prestige-level deception of his apparently more palatable inner self, despite decades suggesting the contrary. That article you quoted stated that these people who follow trump are powerless and legitimately fucked over by the system: The reason they resonated is that people have been so fucked by the prevailing order in such deep and fundamental and enduring ways that they can’t imagine that anything is worse than preservation of the status quo. You have this huge portion of the populace in both the U.K. and the US that is so angry and so helpless that they view exploding things without any idea of what the resulting debris is going to be to be preferable to having things continue Are these people actually worse off and powerless? Or is their feeling this way the product of thinking only in binaries and seeing the world as zero sum, the idea that if things are better for previously oppressed classes it must be worse for them? As trump supporters have been known to point out the average income for a trump supporter is apparently higher than for Hillary. on the rest of your post I honestly can't believe that you question whether his campaign of fear hate and hypocrisy is "bad" for the country.
  2. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    Altherion, what is your incentive for writing the kinds of posts like the one quoted below and the one wondering whether there's a better man behind Trump's odious public "act?" I'm genuinely asking-- why are you holding out hope that Trump is somehow less disgraceful than he's shown us? Ok, so you say these interviews don't make him seem unreasonable. But how many interviews in general have you read that make their subjects seem utterly reprehensible and unreasonable? If it was common practice, no one would ever agree to an interview with that reporter or publication. Despite that, we do know that he's a misogynist from various comments he's made over the years. We also know he's deeply problematic and petty because of his long history of viciously and totally enforcing confidentiality agreements (I don't think most other companies with non disclosure policies are as litigious about it as he's famous for being). We know he's a con man, because of things like Trump University. We also know that he historically shirks responsibility, as he has a pattern of not paying his workers. We know he's incredibly reckless and not a fraction of the genius businessman he claims to be because of the string of bankruptcies he's left behind. And I could keep going with this. All of which is totally consistent with his public persona. Are you suggesting that all of these actions of his are also an act? I wish NBC would start releasing the unedited Apprentices, as I've heard he's even more odious and outrageous in what was left out. But ok, even if this guy is only Joffrey Baratheon Reborn in public (but has a really good heart behind the facade), why in god's name does that matter??? He's fear-mongering. He's normalizing racism, misogyny, Islamaphobia, ablism, and xenophobia. He's glorifying bullying. Do you honestly believe that the fact that someone with his public persona-- facade or not-- so close to the presidency, is not extremely damaging already?
  3. U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

    @Dr. Pepper Why? Did she present a policy platform that is even remotely palatable? ETA: Just read some snippets. From NPR: "He is colorblind and gender neutral," she said to applause. "When Donald Trump is in charge, all that counts is ability, excellence and effort." Yeah, no. This is fucking offensive. Yea seriously, kill me now. I just honestly don't understand why everyone jumps on the Ivanka train like this. It seems so abundantly clear that she is nothing more than a more polished, better coiffed version of her shameless father. Other than her sexism/ racism apology/ denial, her speech was proposing progressive policies geared toward helping women. The sort of proposals that are in Hillary's platform (and in the Dem platform more generally). Great, you'd think. Except when you remember that A. her entire business is about a lifestyle brand for working women, so this speech about equal pay and affordable child care and the like is basically free advertisement for more street cred for her website and clothing line, B. giving her plausible deniability to preserve her brand (or, god help us, possible political career) in the face of her father's odious politics, C. has nothing to do with anything in Trump's campaign or platform. I mean, none of these things she brought up has fuck all to do with anything (well, outside of Hillary's campaign), D. all to basically mislead women into believing that this super misogynistic candidate has their best interests at heart.
  4. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    Are you sure, though? You argued in favor of Trump because you believe he has more integrity of sorts (that he truly believes these things he says), as well as on your belief that he genuinely intends to make the things better: Can you explain what you believe is behind why "establishment" politicians are afraid of Trump? That is, I'm asking if you wouldn't mind articulating what you believe it is about him that they are afraid of. As an adjacent issue, could you also articulate why alarming the "establishment" in that way is such a self-evidently good thing?
  5. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    In other words the American mentality is basically a Stannis-Dany thread circa 2012-3. Except with consequences. And with one candidate who is objectively unequivocally utterly devoid of virtue. I just really don't understand how anyone can honestly see Trump as anything but comically, uniformly unfit, or as remotely preferable to anyone barring the most petulant toddlers who also happen to suffer from intense auto-erotic narcissism (saying nothing of the relentless assault on truth and human decency for a moment- you'd think his pissant persona would be a turn off no matter what the content). None of the justifications I see make any sense at all that I can tell.
  6. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    These things you say Hillary will do that makes her unfit for presidency are things Trump brags about doing, save, perhaps, adopting accents. Could you expand on what has led you to believe that Trump truly wants to make things better-- specifically where it applies to making things better for those whose last name is not Trump? What does an "i'm a woman in the White House" tour mean? bringing in her #girl squad to insta pics in matching flag onesies?
  7. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    I suspect that for lots of women who support him, either A. They've convinced themselves that he's not actually misogynist for some inexplicable reason (perhaps tribalistic justification to stick with the GOP ticket?), B. They personally subscribe to a sexist worldview despite being women (surprisingly common) or C. They feel like they're taking a stance that differentiates themselves from the more "excitable" and "weak" women/ feminists who need to be coddled with PC behavior-- it establishes them as "winners" of a fashion or something like that.
  8. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    How many people who hold these (what you're calling "beyond the pale") beliefs seek to come here? And how many of those who hold these beliefs and come here act on said beliefs? Is the issue for you that people who want to come here shouldn't hold these beliefs even if they never act on it, that the virtue is simply in keeping one more person with these beliefs out? If this is the idea, then isn't there something to be said for us to let them in instead, on the principle that immersion in this more liberal society might serve to change their beliefs more than remaining in their previous culture will? One possibly fewer adherent of toxic ideology for the world?
  9. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    I remarked on this somewhat in the next post I made-- Are there that many new immigrants to the states who hold these more egregious beliefs who then go on to commit those crimes? It was my understanding that the majority of these more recent attacks have been carried out by second or third gen citizens. Which would not be captured in this questionnaire. And that more "garden variety" misogyny, racism, homophobia and general hate you are distinguishing as less egregious (which yes, seems reasonable to do) seems to be responsible for a lot more tragedy over here-- fully homegrown-- than these more egregious beliefs being isolated from best I can tell.
  10. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    I understand the technical legal argument you're making in favor of this. But there's something really bizare to me in being a nation where almost half hold such avowedly odious beliefs, yet blocking newcomers who hold certain of these beliefs under the auspices that those beliefs are un American. As a second issue, how many first gen immigrants actually go on to commit these acts on their adopted countries in the first place? Haven't the vast majority of these been carried out by second or third generation citizens, radicalized via (essentially) webinars and the like that Isis puts out? What would this questionnaire even really accomplish? Moreover what use is it to make distinctions about a more "garden variety" homophobia or misogyny versus people who believe that women and homosexuals should be stoned? Are there that many instances of women and homosexuals being stoned by first gen immigrants here? I'm not aware of any (has it happened?) but I do know that hate crimes against gays, trans men and women, and violence against women are Very much happening, very much by people holding these "garden variety" levels of -phobia/ -geny. Im not convinced that there's a correlation between the questions you're proposing and reducing hate crimes or terror.
  11. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    It seems really ludicrous to suggest something like this when almost half the country has shown itself to be avowedly racist, misogynistic, bathroom-bill-passing homophobic pieces of shit. surely this admirable screening process you're proposing includes deporting Trump-supporters to some Walled-off hell?
  12. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    oh yea, that's been happening for ages-- she's been excusing and denying his misogyny all along that I think it might be accurate to call her a sexist/ misogynist at this point as well. My view is basically that Ivanka is the same shameless scum her father is, but in a sweeter-smelling package (that sweet-smelling image is basically the foundation of her "company"-- it's pretty much all about the image of success, specifically capitalizing on a very safe, insubstantial, uncontroversial, sanitized idea of "women's empowerment yay!"). The fact that she's one of the major drivers/ advisors of Trump's campaign, and persistently inseparable from the Trump family brand, combined with the fact that she's been branding herself for a decade as a supposedly strong, accomplished role model for women, renders her fair game for such critique in my view. I think more people should be calling her out on this sort of thing.
  13. Makeup V: Inspired by a Diva

    I've tried that one as well, and feel similarly about it-- sufficient, but not fantastic. Lancome's Hypnose (the original version) was the gamechanger for me- the resultant lashes are pretty lush, but with a clean finish.
  14. Feminism - Distractingly Sexy Edition

    I saw this the other day and thought to follow up in here since it directly speaks to the issues that were raised about the accountability of Trump's daughter for defending and promulgating his hateful views: from WaPo In sum, the Latin American edition of Marie Claire magazine just ran a full cover story, largely comprised of letters to Ivanka, questioning her for being so involved in helping to shape (and apologize for) her father's campaign of hate, framed as appeals for her to steer her father's campaign for the better instead of the current trajectory. From the article, I think much of the substance of this cover story (which I have not read first hand) is more focused on Trump's racism and xenophobia than the feminist issues I'd originally brought up, but thought the general idea of this might be appropriate here. I don't have much confidence that Ivanka has a better nature to appeal to for anything like this to have an impact on how she handles her involvement with her father's relentless Campaign of Hate, but I am relieved that the very industry that has built her up as some sort of admirable role model is questioning her fitness in that capacity.
  15. Why do so many people disregard fAegon in their theories ?

    I tend to think one major, impactful purpose of Aegon is to render the idea of Jon's ever being seen as Rhaegar's legit son and heir by the people of Westeros somewhat impossible. To the people of Westeros, Aegon will be the one fulfilling the "prince in hiding returns" storyline. An "Aegon" was known by all to be the product of a sanctioned union between Rhaegar and Elia, so his trueborn legitimacy will be uncontested, and this Aegon looks every bit the part of Rhaegar's son. Those inclined to support an heir of Rhaegar will put their faith behind this Aegon as king. Even in the event Jon might want to publicly adopt a Targ identity (not happening, imo, but for the sake of argument), Aegon beat him to the punch. How many long lost (legitimate) sons of Rhaegar coming out of the woodwork will the people believe? And unlike Jon, Aegon really does look the part. So I think Aegon's presence in the story really detracts from the idea that Jon will be seen by Westeros as Rhaegar's "true" heir and take his "rightful" place on the throne as a Targ.