Forum Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    totally cromulent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Which outlets were doing this? The general take I've been reading has been more along the lines of "It could have been a lot worse" than anything resembling praise, though I've admittedly not seen any cable news. I'm not doubting it happened, I'm just curious how widely it's happening. On a similar note, is anyone looking at conservative outlets? I'm curious how they're taking his cozying up to Saudi Arabia (including that flattery donation to Ivanka's "foundation"). That was such a big talking point against Hillary that Trumpkins kept using-- she and her corrupt foundation had too many ties to the evil Saudis and so forth. Is it good now because leader says it's good? Or are the outlets running distraction stories instead?
  2. Sanders endorsed the candidate running even though the candidate is anti-abortion. Pro-choice is one of the big stances the Democratic party has been taking, so this goes against that. The argument Sanders (and others) give for being more anti-choice-friendly is that Dems shouldn't be keeping (supposedly) otherwise Democrat-friendly people out of the party over hardline ideological stances like abortion. Instead, we should focus on economic issues. It's an argument in favor of putting the social and cultural issues that apparently piss off the "white working class" to the side in order to start winning elections by gathering up more people into the Dem fold. I think (at least) one problem with this view, though, is that these issues aren't separate from economics. Reproductive freedoms (as well as what's been lambasted as "identity politics" and so forth) are "economic issues."
  3. Is there an argument that cases like you describe have a place in civil courts? In the Milo example, when he outs people as part of his tired act, while technically legal, it causes significant damage to the people in question. I'd think there's lawyers out there who'd love to go after Milo and people like him with lawsuit after lawsuit, effectively making this kind of behavior no longer lucrative. I'm sure anonymous bigot donors would backstop Milo, but if the lawsuits were incessant and high profile enough, the funding would probably stop. I think I'm basically asking if civil courts could be weaponized to de-incentivize toxic speech instead of increasing legal restrictions on speech or using (non-government) force or violence to stop speech.
  4. I don't understand how religious registration and registration of weapon ownership are "similar." They strike me as fundamentally different circumstances. Can you explain why you see these as analogous?
  5. do you have reliable numbers to suggest that the kinds of things TP brought up above happen at the same rate for other violent crimes as they do for cases of rape? anyone can find examples to illustrate dropping the ball on/ burying/ excusing x-type of crime, and if you want to prove that rape isn't unique in this regard, then can you show us that it happens as reliably with other violent crimes as it does in cases of rape?
  6. Is this a comment on my post? Are you disagreeing that the term was popularized more recently in the manosphere/ bro culture as an inherently sexist way to describe the state of not getting the attention/ affection of a woman one is owed?
  7. The term "friendzone," as popularized by the manosphere/ American bro-culture is inherently embedded with the idea of entitlement, specifically entitlement to a woman's attention/ affection. I know it's become used more generally to refer to situations in which a party decides they'd prefer to remain platonic, and it's perhaps loosened up across cultures and thrown around without intending to mean the more problematic, judgmental, loaded aspects. But that's not what the term really means, at least in terms of the meaning that emanated from bro-culture. There's neutral ways to describe the phenomenon of being told someone wants to "just be friends" with you, and "friendzone" isn't really a good term for that. "Friendzone" is used to give the rejected male party a kind of victimhood status by faulting the woman for not giving him what he's owed/ earned. When people draw a line from the term "friendzone" to "rape culture," I'm pretty sure it's with this understanding of the term-- the inherently misogynistic, entitled, woman-blaming meaning to it.
  8. I think the term "friendzone" is coded with an underlying idea of entitlement. As I understand it, one uses that term to suggest that a party, usually male, was owed affection back by another party, usually female. Not every situation where one's affection goes unreturned is "friendzoning." It's reserved for situations where it is presupposed that one of the parties should be returning the other's affections, that the other is entitled to it. So presupposition of entitlement has everything to do with that particular term, as I understand.
  9. While I agree with the principle that we should give credit where it's due, I strenuously disagree with your belief that the SotU address was his "doing something right." We should absolutely NOT be giving praise for that speech. That speech was the same xenophobic, hateful messaging, dressed in less outrageous words, delivered with the minimum level of "competency," with "competency" defined by someone who can read off a teleprompter without going on a tangent against Rosie O Donnell. Was it his best speech in terms of style? Yes, probably, but that is not in itself much praise, and it does not mean it was a good speech worthy of praise. I think as much as we should be "measured" as you put it, we shouldn't crave it so much that we ignore substance to rave over style, which is the mistake that all of those pundits made immediately afterwards. It was a terrible, exploitative speech, and that shouldn't be lost in the critique "praising" how he managed to say it without his normal pants-shitting routine. I think it's especially bad to praise these types of displays as "doing something right," because the more honeyed, slightly more disciplined delivery of hateful, exploitative messaging makes it easier to be seduced by. Even when on "good behavior" his message is still wildly problematic, and we need to be clear about that. that speech was maybe "good for Trump standards," because they are abysmal, but utterly mediocre for anyone else. And I don't think we should lose sight of that kind of measured perspective either.
  10. What's the virtue of the "state level" argument for something like this? I thought you had an issue with having to paying into a pool that offers services you don't plan to use. Isn't that still an issue at the state level, since we haven't organized into "breeders" vs "nonbreeders" by state? I know "leave it to the state" is a common refrain on the right for a number of issues, but why? (at least in cases where doing something federally would be most efficient?) As a second question, are the states -- usually red and "states rights"- leaning-- against taking federal money to help their states run? I guess my question is whether the "small federal government" people in many of these states understand that they don't pay federal taxes-- it's mostly the blue states that do-- and that they're actually receiving a ton of federal help? I suppose some do, but maybe resent having it contingent on conforming to federal standards/ regulations?
  11. I have a terrible, sinking suspicion these aren't going to be Donald Trump's returns, but another "Trump's" (one of his mouth-breather kids, a Trump organization return, etc etc).
  12. Sorry I should have elaborated what I meant. I meant that Kushner is the one who's power hungry and with an ax to grind. He's also the one with an actual position in the administration (Ivanka doesn't. She's trotted out when they need a token, or to soften some gaffe). I don't know that Kushner would run for anything in his own right, or that if he did, it would be a success. But I think he's the one with the ambition to stay in politics or otherwise grab power in some capacity. and if any Trump is getting "groomed" I think it's him, by virtue of the 20,000 roles he's allegedly in charge of. Im also a little wary of assuming Repub would automatically flock to a Trump based on the current favorability ratings and how he did against Clinton. Outside of the rabid Trumpkin pop, I would imagine that most right-leaning voters would prefer a more established republican with real experience and without such a direct connection to the trump poison, wouldn't they? A Nikki Haley maybe?
  13. Trump runs his businesses like a bloated mom and pop operation. She was at those meetings for family business, and because Trump seems to believe this family business model translates to running the country. And because these people are tone deaf and clueless. Is it so that she ends up in office, or because that's the stupid racket they've been running in terms of the Trump family business? She's always been portrayed as the softer, "voice of reason" Trump. Trump's been pretending to be the "in your face, hyper masculine super successful" businessman caricature for years, which captures a certain audience/ customer base, and Ivanka's been pretending to be the "having it all super successful competent businesswoman" to capture an additional customer base. Ivanka's line is literally self-described as a kind of "gateway" brand to the overall Trump empire. The idea was that women of means would start off buying Ivanka's crap, grow to love the Trump brand, which would lead into their families staying at the hotels, buying golf memberships, etc. The women in her target customer base tend to be fairly well off, educated and urban, which means they're probably not super socially conservative. Hence, her brand relies on a kind of anodyne, sort of Democratish-sounding messaging. I don't think her being a woman is nearly enough to overcome her being a Trump. ETA: it's Kushner you should be watching.
  14. What leads you to believe one of his spawn will run for office, and who you believe their supporters would be? I also wonder if you might be giving Ivanka too much credit. She's been effective as a fig leaf for Trump; she enabled a bunch of already Republican-leaning white women to feel less shame voting for him by papering over his misogyny and roughness (which conversely loses her a lot a points with liberal women). But I'm not sure how much is really "there" in her own right. She comes across well (sometimes, and to some audiences) in relation to him; I don't know that people will clamor for her after this failed Trump experiment (I'm thinking the Trump name will be pretty done), and after her father is no longer around as a foil.
  15. I thought it was exploitative too, and am baffled by what I see as Van Jone's over-the-top reaction. I'm actually really confused by the response of the mainstream media in general this morning (NYT, WaPo, etc). He merely read a fairly anodyne (yet contradictory and totally quixotic) speech off a teleprompter without soiling himself, while using human props. Why is the media falling over itself about how Trump is now "here to stay," "presidential now," "understanding gravity of the office," "two term material" (all my paraphrase)?