Dumb Political Correctness

Seattle Husker said:
I'm not a journalist but isn't it common practice to share your article with the subjects just before publishing to get their comment/response?
Click to expand...

Only for puff pieces, or if you're a partisan hack who wants to score political points. And yes, I was a journalist.

The idea is to get their comments during the INTERVIEW... that's sort of why you do that.
 
Joe Fan said:
Liberals have never been very good at self-examination


Click to expand...


Considering it was the radical left who praised Manson back then (Bill Ayers' wife, anyone???), this is beyond pathetic.

The utter hypocrisy and dishonesty that's been on display the past week is just disgusting, but it points out a pretty significant issue in our culture. Liberals have been at war for about 40 years to get rid of sexual ethics - women want sex as much as men do and should be just as open about it. "Sex doesn't have to mean anything, there should be no stigma attached to it, and as long as it's consensual, it's all good." So guys are like "great!!! let's dive in! Why should she care about me grabbing her butt? It's all good! If she doesn't want it, she can just say no!" Of course, Hollywood has also spent the last century telling us that "no" usually means "maybe" - even in a culture when we're also told "no" means "no" - and even yes can be changed to MEAN no after the fact, in which case yes can be yes or no, and no can be no or yes. And you should always respect women enough to not make unwanted advances - except I'm great so my advances are always wanted unless they say no after I've made the advance, in which case they might actually mean yes, or maybe I can talk them up to a yes..."

Do you kinda see an issue here? Reasonable people should see very clear boundaries of contact and treatment, except contexts, surroundings, judgments, part experiences... all of those come into play because we're in a society that says we should all be having sex with each other, but that can't happen unless someone makes a move. So you make the move, and if it's a go, then you're all clear. If it's not, you get hit with a sexual harassment charge because of an unwelcome advance - which might well have been welcome had you been better looking, more interesting, taller, etc... or maybe it wouldn't have been because oddly enough, different women have different ideas on what is appropriate!

There are reasons for society to not allow itself to be driven by sex. We decided we were sophisticated enough that we didn't need to be bothered by all that (actually I think High Hefner and a bunch of guys who wanted women to have more sex with them decided that, and a bunch of people bought in), and now we're in a society where simple social interaction is becoming more and more muddled.
 
Joe Fan said:
Enough to call it a pattern?

DPKKLAEVoAACkN-.jpg


DPKKKKpUQAAcjcZ.jpg


DPKKJQ5UMAAJ2NM.jpg
Click to expand...

Ask Arriana Huffinginton:
Huffington, however, denies anything was amiss — saying the touchy-feely photos were a nod to a TV sketch they did together in 1996.

“The notion that there was anything inappropriate in this photo shoot is truly absurd,” she said in a statement to The Post.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry... what exactly is your point? You asked if it was common practice to share stories in advance (which was a laughable interpretation of what was going on with Podesta, and in other examples we've seen where journalists were basically vetting their stories through the Democratic party), and I gave you an answer. So you're posting something about a shoot with Ariana Huffington and Al Franken? What???

If you're arguing against Joe's post that this is a pattern of images, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the other picture, along with the multiple other accusations show that there WAS a pattern.

And so how does that relate to my post? I have no idea.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
The utter hypocrisy and dishonesty that's been on display the past week is just disgusting, but it points out a pretty significant issue in our culture.
Click to expand...

I'm too am upset at JoeFan. :P

ProdigalHorn said:
"Sex doesn't have to mean anything, there should be no stigma attached to it, and as long as it's consensual, it's all good." So guys are like "great!!! let's dive in! Why should she care about me grabbing her butt? It's all good! If she doesn't want it, she can just say no!" Of course, Hollywood has also spent the last century telling us that "no" usually means "maybe" - even in a culture when we're also told "no" means "no" - and even yes can be changed to MEAN no after the fact, in which case yes can be yes or no, and no can be no or yes. And you should always respect women enough to not make unwanted advances - except I'm great so my advances are always wanted unless they say no after I've made the advance, in which case they might actually mean yes, or maybe I can talk them up to a yes..."
Click to expand...

If you translated the sexual revolution to be a formal approval for sexual molestation of the opposite sex then I'm not sure that's a "liberal" problem.

I think the message is that these activities have been going on since the advent of "power". The inference that these latest revelations are a result of cultural changes is like saying homosexuality only started when they were allowed out of the closet.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I'm sorry... what exactly is your point? You asked if it was common practice to share stories in advance (which was a laughable interpretation of what was going on with Podesta, and in other examples we've seen where journalists were basically vetting their stories through the Democratic party), and I gave you an answer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I mistakenly "replied" to your post without actually replying. Thank you for the answer. Do we know what articles were in question? Isn't that key to making a determination whether the article should be shared for comment?

So you're posting something about a shoot with Ariana Huffington and Al Franken? What???

If you're arguing against Joe's post that this is a pattern of images, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the other picture, along with the multiple other accusations show that there WAS a pattern.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing against Joe's post because the person who JoeFan infers is the victim is claiming it was a photo shoot done in jest. Is JoeFan claiming that Al Franken is simply joking with these women? If you believe that is JoeFan's intention I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
The inference that these latest revelations are a result of cultural changes is like saying homosexuality only started when they were allowed out of the closet.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, let me ponder on that one for awhile. Lots to think about right there.......oh well, it just pisses me off my tax $ are paying for there hush up settlements, oughta be coming from their own pockets.
 
nashhorn said:
Hmmmm, let me ponder on that one for awhile. Lots to think about right there.......oh well, it just pisses me off my tax $ are paying for there hush up settlements, oughta be coming from their own pockets.
Click to expand...

We are in violent agreement on that latter point. Of course, corporations pay out settlements like this all the time. These Congressman are employees of the government, right? Then again, most companies would settle then fire the employee depending on their level.
 
mchammer said:
Geez, who hasn’t palmed a cute co-worker’s *** like a honeydew melon? I thought this was part of the French benefits offered by corporations.
Click to expand...

Only if you work for a France-based company.

Now might be a good time to be young and in journalism or politics. Lots of FOG's (Fu$%ing Old Guys) going down due to prior nefarious behavior.
 
Seattle Husker said:
We are in violent agreement on that latter point. Of course, corporations pay out settlements like this all the time. These Congressman are employees of the government, right? Then again, most companies would settle then fire the employee depending on their level.
Click to expand...
Of course, corporations are owned privately by their shareholders, who have to opportunity to express their displeasure by voting their shares or divesting.

What recourse do we have against the government (not the individual representative) when they make secret settlements on behalf of perverted democrats?
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Of course, corporations are owned privately by their shareholders, who have to opportunity to express their displeasure by voting their shares or divesting.

What recourse do we have against the government (not the individual representative) when they make secret settlements on behalf of perverted democrats?
Click to expand...

I think you're illustrating the difference. A corporation is settling with its own money. The government is settling with someone else's money.
 
Take a stroll down memory lane (from 2010)
Two 'progressive' sexual predators discussing a 3rd
The irony here is thick -- these people have been extremely condescending for a very long time.
Where virtue signaling becomes dangerous

“I was always there… I was a true friend. I never doubted him. I never stopped believing him.”​

 
Joe Fan said:
Republican, if it needs to be said


Click to expand...


I disagree with barring the use of taxpayer money to pay settlements, because that would that would effectively deny the victim of a remedy. What I'd do instead is allow the government to pay out settlements, publish the names of all wrongdoers and the allegations, and then garnish the wages of the wrongdoers until the settlement is repaid.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I disagree with barring the use of taxpayer money to pay settlements, because that would that would effectively deny the victim of a remedy. What I'd do instead is allow the government to pay out settlements, publish the names of all wrongdoers and the allegations, and then garnish the wages of the wrongdoers until the settlement is repaid.
Click to expand...

For your proposal to work, I think it would need to be accompanied by some type of objective mechanism removing the offendor from office, which does not now exist.
 
Joe Fan said:
For your proposal to work, I think it would need to be accompanied by some type of objective mechanism removing the offendor from office, which does not now exist.
Click to expand...

That would take a constitutional amendment. But if the victim has no remedy except directly against the wrongdoers (who are likely judgment proof), nobody will take the cases, and there will be no more accountability than there is now.

The victims should recover, and if the wrongdoers are acting in the course and scope of their employment with the government, then the government should pay just as a business would have to pay.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It'll work a lot better than removing the financial incentive to pursue the bad actor.
Click to expand...

I think its something in need of further discussion. My personal kneejerk is always towards sunshine (military, law enforcement, natsec excepted).

But put yourself in their shoes for a moment -- what if you are accused of something that you did not do. But for $10,000, they will go away and never bring it up again? Settlements are made for many reasons. Not always because the defendant or the accused did what he is accused of doing. The settlement might also include some attempt at nondisclosure. Even if they stick to the terms, the details might still get leaked anyway and published.

On the other hand, if you stick to your principles and fight, the accusation will become public. And, if you are a Republican, it will stick to you because the MSM will reflexively cover any accusation against an R, and will always present it as if you did it (for the contrast, see the coverage of Menedez). You are screwed in either case, even though you did nothing.
 
Joe Fan said:
But put yourself in their shoes for a moment -- what if you are accused of something that you did not do. But for $10,000, they will go away and never bring it up again? Settlements are made for many reasons. Not always because the defendant or the accused did what he is accused of doing. The settlement might also include some attempt at nondisclosure. Even if they stick to the terms, the details might still get leaked anyway and published.
Click to expand...

I care more about the taxpayer's right to know than the congressman's well-being. If he wants to handle the matter entirely on his own (meaning he's paying for his own defense and funding the settlement with personal funds, not taxpayer or campaign funds), then I don't have a problem with him negotiating a confidentiality clause. At that point, he's a private citizen and can do what he wants. However, if the United States is a defendant or is putting up the money to defend the congressman or to pay off the plaintiff, then the taxpayer has a right to know why that money is being spent. If that means having to explain paying off a nuisance value settlement, then so be it.

Joe Fan said:
On the other hand, if you stick to your principles and fight, the accusation will become public. And, if you are a Republican, it will stick to you because the MSM will reflexively cover any accusation against an R, and will always present it as if you did it (for the contrast, see the coverage of Menedez). You are screwed in either case, even though you did nothing.
Click to expand...

This is true, and yes, it sucks. I can't count the number of times that I've heard Al Franken defended on the basis that he admitted to the allegations (and therefore is showing sincere contrition) but that Roy Moore was terrible because he denied them. (Of course, during the Slick Willie days, his denials were hailed as righteous justifications to distrust and personally attack his accusers.) The idea that Moore might be denying the allegations because they're actually not true isn't even taken seriously as a possible scenario. Contrast that with Rep. James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), who refuses to call for Conyers' resignation because he says you can't jump to conclusions about allegations, because they could be made-up. Link. He's right, of course, but couldn't that same thing be said about Roy Moore as well? If someone took the Clyburn approach to Moore's situation, would that person be taken seriously? No.

Personally, I think Moore did do what Leigh Corfman says he did. However, I don't know that for sure. Only Corfman and Moore know that. If he actually didn't do what she claims, should he admit it? I don't think he should. And if he had, would he be getting the Al Franken treatment - meaning being hailed as a decent guy showing contrition for what he did? No chance in hell. He'd be called "admitted pedophile Roy Moore."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top