Vort

He's a fool. Aside from the foolishness of his politics, he inserted himself personally into a contentious issue by scolding those of his students who voted in a way he didn't like. That was a 100% self-inflicted wound. He could have just left his mouth shut (figuratively). Shame on him for inflaming the issue, but honestly I put almost no blame on him. He should not be grandstanding with the word of God, but I find his reaction a great deal more understandable than his professor's.

.

You can build a city on rocks, but not on rolls.

Congratulations, @Phoenix_person! You have shamed me with your graceful and polite response. Though we may disagree on a great many social and political topics, you have taught this old man some important truths today. I will try to follow your more mature and Christlike—how about that!—example from this exchange in the future, on this forum and in my life generally. (I said I'll try. No promises.)

I am willing to answer your question honestly. But this will take me some time and effort, which I am essentially gifting to you, a man I don't know except for brief online interactions, I man I will almost certainly never meet. So if you are not willing to read and consider what I'm about to write, but just plan to wave it off or ignore it altogether, then seriously, please let me know so that I never again waste time answering an insincere question from you. Let's start with a simple example. Consider the following X (actually Twitter; this is from five years ago) exchange: Consider for a moment the sheer idiocy of "saira rao" and her claim. "White people have done everything to make my life miserable." Not "some white people", not "some things", not "to make my life uncomfortable". This woman is literally accusing white people as a group of doing everything they can for the intended purpose of making her life miserable. That is how she justifies hating "white people"—meaning you personally, @Phoenix_person. She hates you because you are white and have done all you can to make her life miserable. You horrific waste of human flesh, you. Okay, so it's hyperbole. We hear it all the time. We should just ignore it. Right? But no. Your side has convinced us that "microaggressions" (in this case, really a more macroaggression) should be identified, called out, and refuted. That's your side's philosophy. But what happens if someone calls her absurd hyperbole out? Does she acknowledge that she cannot morally justify hating you personally because you're white? Of course not. And your side, again, backs her up on that, claiming that the institutionalized hatred that this poor darling has experienced in her life explains and even justifies her poisonous hatred. So it's your side that has set the tone of these exchanges. Your side apparently believes that the group being criticized (in this case, white people) is overprivileged, and thus should just keep quiet, bow their heads, and accept the unjust condemnation, because you see, it's really not unjust at all. Just because you personally didn't oppress her, you enjoy the spoils of her oppression because you're a hated white guy. "Microaggressions" and hateful behavior in general need be pointed out and refuted ONLY when directed against a protected class of "minorities", which does not include white people (<50% of the population) or men (<50% of the population). You don't have to be a white guy to see how the math doesn't add up. So how does one appropriately respond to the hateful screed above? Clearly, refuting it point by point is meaningless, because the whole premise of the statement is a lie. The woman herself, "saira rao", is a liar. Honest communication with her is not possible. An effective response, therefore, would be to lampoon her lie so that its poisonous edge is blunted by demonstrating its absurdity; that is to say, respond like John Hawkins responded to saira rao. Now, in reading the response, did you truly believe that John Hawkins was at "the white people's meeting", or that saira rao's "name came up", or that "they were discussing [their] plans to make [her] life miserable"? Or did you manage somehow to sense the irony? Did you figure out that when John Hawkins expressed his happiness at "making a difference" in relief that saira rao didn't blame herself for her own failings, he was actually just being sarcastic? Yes. Of course you did. Since you're culturally American and your IQ is some number north of 85, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'd figure that out all on your own. Now consider the Jon Miller exchange: The whole foolishness of the supposed, mostly fictitious or at least vastly overblown South Korean 4B movement is in play here, wherein women deny sex to men who are not sufficiently woke. This is the idea of the "sex strike". Miller's response is to point out that the women do not even have a say. Here, Miller is clearly doing what John Hawkins did to sarai rao; mocking her idiotic premise to highlight why her statement is not even sincere, much less rational. So let's examine Miller's response. Why don't the women have a say? One possible reason is that the men will come and take sex from the women whenever they (the men) want, and there's nothing those pathetic women can do about it. This would of course be a reference to forcible rape. And that is exactly the sort of conclusion which feminism would inexorably drive one to. But is there another possible explanation, one that does not refer jokingly (or not) to forcible rape? Can you think of anything? Anything? Any normal, moderately intelligent non-feminist would immediately see the obvious alternative: These women don't have a say because they are so immensely unattractive that no man would have them. They can't go on a "sex strike", because no man would ever willingly have sex with them. Maybe they're too hideously ugly, or maybe their breath smells like a sewer, or maybe they're horribly diseased, or maybe their personalities are so grotesque and horrific that no man could stand to be around them, much less gain carnal knowledge of them (DINGDINGDINGDING). Now let us consider the question, Is Jon Miller's comment harmless? In the sense that the feminists want to pretend, that Jon Miller is literally calling for the forcible rape of women, whether or not he's serious about it—yes. Clearly it's harmless. Only a fool or a feminist would interpret what he said that ridiculous way. But if we do away with the stupid feminist interpretation and leave behind the interpretation of a normal and intelligent human being—that the women being referred to are simply too repulsive to merit sexual consideration—is that harmless? Well, that would depend on what you consider to be harmful. It's certainly not a call to forcible rape, either in jest or in earnest. But it indeed does violence to possibility of reasonable and civilized discussion. Of course, the whole statement which Jon Miller was mocking is itself a statement that does violence to civilized discussion. So to blame Jon Miller for doing violence to the discussion is, in your side's terminology, blaming the victim. Jon Miller responded in kind to the absurd claims of the "sex strikers". So no, I don't believe that Jon Miller said anything harmful in the sense that oversensitive and underintelligent feminists wish to pretend: That he was encouraging or laughing at or in any way referencing forcible rape. But he was certainly responding in a way that was harmful to the possibility of civilized discussion, even though that possibility was already almost nonexistent based on the original "sex strike" nonsense to which he was responding. I recognize Jon Miller's perhaps tasteless joke as perfectly suited to the context in which the utterly tasteless original claim was being discussed. That doesn't mean I considered it "harmless", only "harmless" in the idiotic sense that he was supposedly talking about forcible rape. I have taken twenty thousand words to explain what should be immediately obvious to any intelligent and unbiased Westerner. I have done this to avoid giving you any wiggle room to continue to plead justified ignorance. And also, if I'm being honest, in the tiny hope that maybe you really, sincerely just could not figure out what Jon Miller very obviously meant, but if I explained it to you in clear and unambiguous terms, somewhere a tiny light bulb might go off in your head, and you might say to yourself, "Ooooooooooooooh. I get it. Yeah, that does make more sense than the rape thing." Always naively hoping for honest conversation. I'm stupid that way. This is absurd. If it were true, then literally 80% of women would be victims of forcible rape by the time they reached puberty. When my daughter was younger, in her early teens, I think, she would have same-aged friends over. I did not always remember all of her friends' names at the moment I wanted to talk to them, so at the time I continued the habit I had from her earlier childhood of calling her friends "sweetheart" when talking to them about something or other. One of her twelve-year-old friends was over one day, whom I called "sweetheart", and she looked at my daughter and whispered something about me being "creepy". So you are saying that when dealing with adult middle-aged men who use terms such as "sweetheart" to refer to girls and young women, treating them as sincere human beings rather than as rapists will result in forcible rape more than half the time. I think you are wrong. (After that incident, I quit calling girls "sweetheart". A pity; in my day, old men often referred to girls kindly and affectionately in such terms. But apparently, your side's attitude has infected the minds of even our children. We are much worse off for it, in my estimation.)

And yet you seem determined to defend the joke as if it was. So, then, you confirm that you are indeed suggesting that I used, or at least meant, that the comment was harmless. You are lying. Yes. Andrew Tate has been loudly proclaiming that he follows Christ? Jon Miller loudly proclaims to follow Christ? I disbelieve you. Since you have already shown your willingness to lie about me and attribute to me words and attitudes that I did not say or adopt, I do not trust your judgment of them. Please provide proof that Andrew Tate and Jon Miller loudly proclaim to follow Christ. And therefore...? Kate called him a rapist. That is a lie. Legally, at least, he is not a rapist. Now perhaps you think he's a rapist, and so you're just, you know, giving your opinion. Okay, fine. Maybe I think you're a molester of little boys. Can I just go ahead and talk about your little boy molestation, despite your legal lack of guilt, because that's just, you know, my opinion? (And for the record, because I'm 99.9% sure you'll be hypersensitive about this and wilfully misconstrue what I wrote above—because that seems to be par for the course for you—I do not actually believe you are a child molester. What I wrote was an example of an example.)

Um. That was my point. I know nothing about Miller or his jokes. I was responding to the argument immediately before me. Now you're bringing Christlike actions into it? Why didn't you question the non-Christlike actions of your side, such as Kate's false charge of Trump being a rapist? Why do you only holler when your opposition acts in a non-Christlike manner? Btw, I'm pretty sure that Andrew Tate considers himself Muslim, not Christian. I don't have any idea about Miller. But your "Just like Jesus would do" comment probably doesn't apply to those in the conversation. It sure as heck doesn't apply to "Kate".

Why the scare quotes around "harmless"? Are you suggesting I used that word? For the record, I did not. Women don't talk to men who make jokes like that to them because such jokes are antisocial, and the women don't want to engage in social intercourse (or apparently other types) with antisocial men. But this is an incomplete, and thus intrinsically dishonest, line of argument. Such online conversations are not discussions, but verbal donnybrooks. It is naive at best to expect reasoned discourse in such a setting. In "Kate"'s case, it's not naivete, it's simple dishonesty. She wants to lob her grenades and then stare in wide-eyed horror and confusion when the other side does the same.

The bolded part above is the crux of the problem. In Jon Miller's mind (and in mine), no reasonable person would honestly misinterpret the joke in that way. Therefore, those who do misinterpret the joke in that way are (1) not reasonable or (2) not honest or (3) both. If this were an honest, civilized discussion, Miller would immediately have clarified his intent. But then, if this were an honest, civilized discussion, no one would have responded to his joke as your side did. Had there been questions about his meaning, those questions would have been asked in a polite and civilized manner. But the discussion has never been honest and civilized; your side has seen to that. So Miller instead responds in a sarcastic, antisocial way, as befitting those who cry out in absurd objection to his words.

Why should he feel compelled to clarify an already clear statement? Yeah, actually, I think it was. Perhaps because he considered such a ridiculous interpretation to be worthy of mockery. This in particular appears to be the perfect response from Andrew Tate. Kate is a lying idiot, "asking" for a President who is not a "rapist". This is a transparent lie from many angles, the most obvious of which are: 1. She's not asking, she's vilifying. 2. Donald Trump is not a "rapist". As I recall, that charge was leveled based on something his ex-wife said, and she later clarified that he had never in fact raped her. So it's a lie. Andrew Tate might have addressed either or both of the above two points, or otherwise taken her trollish post seriously. Instead, he took it in the same trollish sense in which it was offered. Good for him. Such a post deserves exactly the serious consideration Andrew Tate gave it. Jon Miller simply recognized a brilliant ownage of a troll and reposted it.

A reasonable question, but a reasonable conjecture to answer it could be that the vote wasn't close enough this time for the Democrats' nefarious scheme to succeed or that the Democrats didn't have their mechanisms in place because of blah blah blah whatever their conspiracy is. My question stands: How does 2024 shoot down their disputation of the 2020 results? Saying "Because the Democrats didn't do it in 2024" doesn't actually answer the conspiracy questions. Those who disbelieved the results in 2020 are not likely to feel the least bit compelled to withdraw their conjecture based on 2024 results.

No. That's what Gator said, as is obvious when you read the attribution quote in my post. Go for it.

Those who "added context" are morons and/or liars. Jon Miller's clear, obvious meaning is that the feminists threatening "sex strikes" are women most men would happily pass over, even those men looking to get laid.

Oh, agree. This shoots down their theory that the left cheated in 2020. How so? How do the 2024 results "shoot down" conspiracy theories about the results in 2020?

I don't believe for a second that anyone voted for Trump because they see even one of these qualities reflected in him. You are wrong. Whatever you may think of Trump, if you cannot see his work ethic or intelligence, it is because you are blind. If you can look at Kamala Harris and detect these qualities yet not see them in Trump—yes, even the morals part—then you are incapable of perceiving things as they really are.

...how can skeletons have an overbite?...

@mikbone, I have to hand it to you. When you started this thread right after the first assassination attempt, I thought you were jumping the gun. The superstitious side of my brain almost felt like you were jinxing things. But your prophecy came true. Congrats. As a reformed Never-Trump-er, I'm quite happy about that.

That's what I like to hear. The more the opposition discounts you, the better your position.

It's clear Musk tried to back out of his purchase. But buying Twitter was never about making money in a financially profitable investment. While Musk did not want or intend to take a multibillion-dollar bath, his interest in Twitter was principled, not money-based. That idiot Joe Biden won the presidency in part (possibly in very large part) because Twitter and associated "social media" heavily censored the free flow of information. Musk sought to remedy that, which is why he ever got involved in Twitter in the first place. Musk certainly got more (or more accurately, less) than he bargained for in the purchase. But that's because he allowed himself to get caught up in what he was doing and set aside his objectivity for a time. In the end, he may well end up making money (even possibly lots of it) directly because of X-used-to-be-Twitter. But I am confident that Carb is essentially correct, and that Musk's Twitter purchase was never about making money. He already had (and has) plenty of that. Musk might well have lost a night's sleep, even several nights' sleep, over X. But I bet he doesn't lose sleep over it any more. The man is worth many, many times what he paid for Twitter, and it does give him an in on social media communications.

As one who has worked at such companies, I think I know exactly what Musk was referring to. I mean, I never worked anywhere that went to Twitter-level excesses, but I worked at large software firms where the so-called FTEs had access to private gyms, saunas, massages, food 24/7 including good-restaurant-quality food from 6am to 8pm, and so forth. Many of those amenities were available to some degree to contractors and such. It made for a weirdly comfortable work environment. For the most part, employees did not seem to take unfair advantage of such perks, but they did often stay at work very late. Which was probably the point. But I worked primarily with engineers, and such people tend to be high productivity types, like Musk himself. I had heard tales of marketing groups and bureaucrats engaging in the types of behavior that Musk found so appalling, though none of my groups was ever like that. Having known many marketing individuals and having worked with several, I find it utterly believable.

Amen to all. LOL. I hate to admit it out loud, but the EPA performs a vital function that is well within the scope of reasonable governmental power. Protecting the commons has always been a vital function of government. It's a form of public policing. I dislike the EPA; it's corrupt, inefficient, and utterly lacks impartiality. But the role it plays (or is supposed to play) is something we don't want to do without. Shout AMEN, Brother! Amen amen amen amen.

In the US, governmental power is divided into three camps: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The Executive branch has the power of policing, and the President is literally the chief executive. You cannot try a sitting president unless you remove him from office first. This is what it means to "impeach" a president (or anyone else); it means the Legislative branch finds the president guilty of "high crimes or misdemeanors", which allows them to begin the process of removing the president from office. At that point, the now ex-president can be tried by the Judicial branch. Trump will be the president, and with a Republican House and Senate, will almost certainly not be removed from office, or even impeached for at least his first two years. I don't know how closely you have followed the Trump saga. The authority who pursued Trump's New York state conviction was very literally elected on the promise that he would do exactly that, come hell or high water. The jury did not even agree on what Trump's supposed crimes were; they simply agreed that he did something or other illegal, and the judge found that to be good enough for a conviction. Trump may well have been guilty of some criminal conduct or other, but the trial he faced in New York was a kangaroo court and pure, unadulterated political theater.