Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Apprentice: Presidential Producer-This argument is stupid-Your FACE is stupid!!

The Apprentice: Presidential Producer-This argument is stupid-Your FACE is stupid!!
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 09:46 AM
 
Are you guys comfortable with Trump remaining as a producer of the Apprentice?

Some news agencies are reporting this as a conflict of interest, and I haven't bothered to check whether that will indeed be his role. I don't really care too much about the specific role, and I'm not necessarily making the claim that it is a conflict of interest, but what I'm concerned over is if he will have time for that shit when president?

Many presidents have talked about how much of a time drain the job is, it is concerning to me that he sees stupid shit like this as a priority.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you guys comfortable with Trump remaining as a producer of the Apprentice?

Some news agencies are reporting this as a conflict of interest, and I haven't bothered to check whether that will indeed be his role. I don't really care too much about the specific role, and I'm not necessarily making the claim that it is a conflict of interest, but what I'm concerned over is if he will have time for that shit when president?

Many presidents have talked about how much of a time drain the job is, it is concerning to me that he sees stupid shit like this as a priority.
It's fairly low on my list of ethical concerns. It is, however, more than a bit embarrassing that the president will continue to be involved in a reality show.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 11:17 AM
 
If it was already filmed and just going to air during presidency, it would be mildly embarrassing... but if it's going to be filmed/produced during his time in office, then he's not doing the job he was hired to do.
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Dec 9, 2016 at 12:44 PM. Reason: mod powerz)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you guys comfortable with Trump remaining as a producer of the Apprentice?

Some news agencies are reporting this as a conflict of interest, and I haven't bothered to check whether that will indeed be his role. I don't really care too much about the specific role, and I'm not necessarily making the claim that it is a conflict of interest, but what I'm concerned over is if he will have time for that shit when president?

Many presidents have talked about how much of a time drain the job is, it is concerning to me that he sees stupid shit like this as a priority.
I didn't do an exhaustive search, but the first headline I saw said "Executive Producer".

That's not a producer Producer. Executive Producers are money people.

Contrast with "Assistant Producer" who is there to bang the Producer.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 12:48 PM
 
I don't see its a conflict of interest but it is an epic failure of priorities.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 02:39 PM
 
Again... all Executive Producers do is sign checks and cash checks. The former entitles them to make a nuisance of themselves, but it's not a requirement.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 02:47 PM
 
I doubt his continued involvement will make things any more worse than they already will be. There's apparently no limit to the lowly depths this new administration will aspire to acheive.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 03:53 PM
 
What if Campbells Soup pulls advertising from the show, does Donald tweet "Campbell's makes horrible soup, inedible, can't believe anyone eats that stuff. Bad!" from his own account or from @POTUS?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 03:56 PM
 
If Donald crosses Big Soup, he's going to get what's coming to him.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2016, 12:32 PM
 
What if Big Soup wants to get promo on Apprentice? This week, your celebrities are going to come up with a new type of soup. The winner will have it named after them. Thank you to Campbells for generously agreeing to this partnership.

Then again, maybe he's changed his mind. Despite Kelly Ann's comments that he would work on Apprentice in his spare time, he is now lambasting CNN via twitter saying that it's not true:

Reports by @CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!
So can we assume that anything else Kelly Ann Conway has to say is also fake news?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2016, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Again... all Executive Producers do is sign checks and cash checks. The former entitles them to make a nuisance of themselves, but it's not a requirement.
[tap tap tap]

Is this thing on?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2016, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't do an exhaustive search, but the first headline I saw said "Executive Producer".

That's not a producer Producer. Executive Producers are money people.

Contrast with "Assistant Producer" who is there to bang the Producer.
Correct. I've been listed as an EP on many projects, including Daily Tech news, but I'm not making any decisions or influencing the content being produced. It's a lot like an honorary Ph.D. from a university, all show and no substance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2016, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[tap tap tap]

Is this thing on?
It's tunnel vision. They're too busy raging about anything involving Trump, it'll be like this for a while still, no use in wasting your breath. Maybe in a few months they'll chill out, but I'd give it until July.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2016, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[tap tap tap]

Is this thing on?
Would you please stop confusing Trump haters with facts ?

TIA,
-t
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2016, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[tap tap tap]

Is this thing on?
My first response to this, that ethically it doesn't really concern me but that the whole thing is a touch embarrassing, has nothing to do with how much actual work he would be doing on the show.

After some reflection, the possible ethical conflicts are more acute based on the fact that he will be a 'money' person rather than hands on. Not only the possible conflicts of interest over advertising and sponsorship, but that he will appoint people to regulate a business he has a financial stake in.

Do you view this as a possible area of concern?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Do you view this as a possible area of concern?
The topic is a waste of time.
In view of all the problems and scandals with Trump, him keeping his job as executive producer of a reality TV show is really at the very bottom of the totem pole. By now all of us have a list of issues with Trump that keeps on growing. He's the giving tree of scandals, and as long as we don't focus on what is important, Trump will be several steps ahead of everyone else.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The topic is a waste of time.
In view of all the problems and scandals with Trump, him keeping his job as executive producer of a reality TV show is really at the very bottom of the totem pole. By now all of us have a list of issues with Trump that keeps on growing. He's the giving tree of scandals, and as long as we don't focus on what is important, Trump will be several steps ahead of everyone else.
I agree and disagree. During the primaries, as the 'outrages' kept mounting, at some point the electorate gave up and chalked up the latest scandal as 'Trump being Trump.' As the little ones became normalised, the big ones got a pass as well.

But of course you are correct, it's small potatoes compared to the other stuff, but should he be let off the hook for conflicts that would be outrageous if it was anyone else?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 07:36 AM
 
And perhaps more to the point, Subego seemed to be implying that it didn't really matter because he was only the money guy. I would say it only really matters because he's the money guy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 01:43 PM
 
Can I get a hypothetical conflict? One I should be worried about.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 01:52 PM
 
He caused SJW snowflakes to have panic attacks and miss their mid-terms?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can I get a hypothetical conflict? One I should be worried about.
How many people do you think Trump warned before tweeting about the F-35 program this morning?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
He caused SJW snowflakes to have panic attacks and miss their mid-terms?
It's this kind of condescension and name-calling by the regressives that lost Hillary the election.

#narrative
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
How many people do you think Trump warned before tweeting about the F-35 program this morning?
That's an excellent question, and I'm genuinely interested in the legalities of that maneuver. Either way, there's obvious potential for worrisome conflict of interest there.

But I was asking about the TV show.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's an excellent question, and I'm genuinely interested in the legalities of that maneuver. Either way, there's obvious potential for worrisome conflict of interest there.

But I was asking about the TV show.
Someone mentioned corporate sponsorships and brand tie-ins. Trump has no issue calling out specific companies and has proven that his 140 characters move the stock market. So during negotiations for commercial sponsorship of the show, this is the subtext - Trump is involved with the show, and it'd be too bad if he decided to claim your company was poorly run and outsourced 500 jobs to Nowhereistan. It doesn't even matter if it's true, he's proven that people don't care about the truth at all.

Which leads to a similar question - what commercial enterprises can a president be involved in? Book deals seem to be allowed, but do presidents have real estate or other investments? What are the checks and balances on creating policy and taking actions that would affect those investments?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 08:15 PM
 
Probably more worrying than corporate sponsorship are the regulatory issues. NBC airs the Apprentice. Trump will be responsible for appointing regulators for the TV industry. Comcast owns NBC. Trump will be responsible for appointing the regulators looking after ISPs.

There is the potential for genuine meaningful conflict of interest.

Either on the side of benefiting his partners, or holding their feet to the regulatory fire for a better deal- after all, his only interest in the Apprentice at this point is as the money guy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Someone mentioned corporate sponsorships and brand tie-ins. Trump has no issue calling out specific companies and has proven that his 140 characters move the stock market. So during negotiations for commercial sponsorship of the show, this is the subtext - Trump is involved with the show, and it'd be too bad if he decided to claim your company was poorly run and outsourced 500 jobs to Nowhereistan. It doesn't even matter if it's true, he's proven that people don't care about the truth at all.
That sucks if you're an advertiser, but should it be actually worrisome for anyone other than the small subset of people who advertise with the show?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Probably more worrying than corporate sponsorship are the regulatory issues. NBC airs the Apprentice. Trump will be responsible for appointing regulators for the TV industry. Comcast owns NBC. Trump will be responsible for appointing the regulators looking after ISPs.

There is the potential for genuine meaningful conflict of interest.

Either on the side of benefiting his partners, or holding their feet to the regulatory fire for a better deal- after all, his only interest in the Apprentice at this point is as the money guy.
This is a good point, but doesn't the actual danger diminish as you get layers out from the center of the onion?

Helping NBC only nominally helps The Apprentice. If Comcast is the ultimate beneficiary of favored treatment, that's going through lots of layers before it ends up in Trump's pocket as the EP for one show.

This is in marked contrast to giving Campbell's the schlong.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is a good point, but doesn't the actual danger diminish as you get layers out from the center of the onion?

Helping NBC only nominally helps The Apprentice. If Comcast is the beneficiary of favored treatment, that's going through lots of filters before it ends up in Trump's pocket.
Yes, but that doesn't take into account part b of my statement:

Originally Posted by me
or holding their feet to the regulatory fire for a better deal- after all, his only interest in the Apprentice at this point is as the money guy.
Trump going way over the top for a relatively small benefit to himself? Has he ever done this?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I agree and disagree. During the primaries, as the 'outrages' kept mounting, at some point the electorate gave up and chalked up the latest scandal as 'Trump being Trump.' As the little ones became normalised, the big ones got a pass as well.
Yes, and the Trump's strategy was to distract from bigger issues with smaller issues. E. g. the day he started tweeting about flag burning was the day he settled the Trump “University” fraud case for $25 million. The small things won't bring Trump down, he defied all conventions during his campaign already, so don't waste your time here.
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
But of course you are correct, it's small potatoes compared to the other stuff, but should he be let off the hook for conflicts that would be outrageous if it was anyone else?
Him staying on as executive producer doesn't really add any significant conflicts of interest when compared with the other stuff that's going on. Really, save your breath and energy for more important stuff.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It's this kind of condescension and name-calling by the regressives that lost Hillary the election.

#narrative
This just shows that you still don't understand what cost her the election. You may never come to terms with it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Yes, but that doesn't take into account part b of my statement:



Trump going way over the top for a relatively small benefit to himself? Has he ever done this?
Comcast directly gave Hillary close to a half-mil.

Should I be less or more worried about that?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It's this kind of condescension and name-calling by the regressives that lost Hillary the election.

#narrative

And his judgemental tone and lack of empathy that will continue to divide the country.

I'm happy we have SJWs. Martin Luther King was a SJW. CTP seems to get really triggered by SJWing that goes too far based on the number of times he brings this issue up, but I maintain that it is far better to have some people go too far and become too manipulative than it is for the country to be culturally non-empathetic douche bags.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 04:10 PM
 
The claim is people who go too far (for which I would say MLK does not qualify) end up creating non-empathetic dbags.

Does PETA make you more sympathetic towards animals or does it make you want to chow down on a steak just to spite them?

Kinda makes me want to do the latter, and the irony is it's not like it would be that hard to get me on their side. Animals are cuddly and shit.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The claim is people who go too far (for which I would say MLK does not qualify) end up creating non-empathetic dbags.

Does PETA make you more sympathetic towards animals or does it make you want to chow down on a steak just to spite them?

Kinda makes me want to do the latter, and the irony is it's not like it would be that hard to get me on their side. Animals are cuddly and shit.

People are flawed. PETA may go too far in how they draw attention to things, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate underlying concern.

One legitimate underlying concern to me is that factory farming can be gross and incredibly inhumane. However, if I just go around and say that will people care? Some might care more if I show them some disturbing images and get naked and stuff.

CTP is a heterosexual white male, and claims to be rich as well. A heterosexual rich white male is literally as fortunate as one can get in this society, so I don't have much time to hear him bitch and moan about SJWs without at least attempting to acknowledge that he might be disconnected from these populations, and without seemingly showing an interest in listening to these stories.

I say "stories" and not "facts" because sometimes it comes down to emotions and how we feel. If you feel judged/hated/whatever because you are gay, charts and graphs are not going to change that. If you are a black person and you feel threatened when police are around when you walk down the street, it doesn't matter if in fact these particular policemen/women are not going to bother you, you can't help how you feel, you feel how you feel, and you probably aren't going to stop feeling that way by computing some danger probability in your head, you are going to stop feeling that way when people start to show you empathy.

That's why I find many of these conversations about race, gender, sexuality, etc. incredibly counter-productive. It takes the human equation out of things.

In the human equation people get radical sometimes, they exaggerate, they manipulate, they go to far. So what? We are all human.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 03:25 PM
 
Factory farming is an excellent example. You get no argument from me the ethics are dubious. The question is what has PETA gotten you to do about it? For me, I find them so obnoxious they've gotten me to care less.

Unless the claim is obnoxious behavior is the only way to raise awareness to the level achieved by PETA (a creatively bankrupt argument if I've ever heard one), they don't get let off the hook for being total pricks, or for the damage that does in terms of producing the desired result.

While factory farming may not be high on my agenda, empathy for others is. I won't argue in the slightest people's feelings need to be empathized with, and done so relatively independently of whether an objective observer would call the basis of those feelings into question.

As such, convincing people of this is high on my list of priorities. Empathy is not mere serious business, it's the foundation upon which we build an ideal society.

Which is why Social Justice Warriors scare the shit out of me.

Their response to people who need to be convinced of the importance of empathy in this regard is to label them as undeserving of empathy. They're misogynists, or homophobes, or racist, or rich, white males.

I can't think of a method short of physical violence less likely to produce the desired result.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Factory farming is an excellent example. You get no argument from me the ethics are dubious. The question is what has PETA gotten you to do about it? For me, I find them so obnoxious they've gotten me to care less.

Unless the claim is obnoxious behavior is the only way to raise awareness to the level achieved by PETA (a creatively bankrupt argument if I've ever heard one), they don't get let off the hook for being total pricks, or for the damage that does in terms of producing the desired result.

While factory farming may not be high on my agenda, empathy for others is. I won't argue in the slightest people's feelings need to be empathized with, and done so relatively independently of whether an objective observer would call the basis of those feelings into question.

As such, convincing people of this is high on my list of priorities. Empathy is not mere serious business, it's the foundation upon which we build an ideal society.

Which is why Social Justice Warriors scare the trash out of me.

Their response to people who need to be convinced of the importance of empathy in this regard is to label them as undeserving of empathy. They're misogynists, or homophobes, or racist, or rich, white males.

I can't think of a method short of physical violence less likely to produce the desired result.

I don't understand your argument.

Behaviour that one could argue is misogynist, etc. should not be labeled as such because it demonstrates a lack of empathy towards that person's ignorance?

Or, are you trying to say that generally labels don't have a positive outcome?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 04:01 PM
 
Giving a person a label makes it easier to lump that person into a group that you've already decided to hate and less likely to treat that person as an individual human with a backstory and all sorts of emotional complexities.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Giving a person a label makes it easier to lump that person into a group that you've already decided to hate and less likely to treat that person as an individual human with a backstory and all sorts of emotional complexities.

I agree 100%

To me there is a subtle, but very important difference between saying that a particular argument is misogynist vs. saying that the person making the argument is themselves misogynist. Many people can't get away with making this argument without making the other person defensive.

However, this response in labeling the people assigning the labels and behaving like a d-bag in response to the original concern just makes my head spin and creates a death spiral of miscommunication and bad conversation.

The person saying the thing has a responsibility as a human being, I feel, to show some general empathy and care in not crapping over vulnerabilities and things that people care about. The person the thing is said to has a responsibility to not create that death spiral by labeling that person (rather than what they are saying).

I've also learned that you never really know about people's backstories, which can be complex like you said. For example, people often tend to meme up and poke fun of the concept of being triggered, but if your trigger is something that happened while you are serving in the military, or perhaps something that came as a result of your being raped, triggering really is a thing. Very few human beings can imagine what it is like to suffer PTSD or to be raped, so when I hear these sort of "suck it up buttercup/SJW" sort of arguments I often feel enraged.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2016, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
And his judgemental tone and lack of empathy that will continue to divide the country.
It's already divided, the Left's identity politics did short work of it over the last 2 decades.

I'm happy we have SJWs. Martin Luther King was a SJW.
That's painfully ignorant. He certainly was not. He didn't seek to find differences, he worked for integration.

Racial Tensions Flare as Schools Resegregate | The Report | US News

You think MLK Jr would have tolerated such stupid sh*t? Hell no.

I maintain that it is far better to have some people go too far and become too manipulative than it is for the country to be culturally non-empathetic douche bags.
Now that the Left has gone too far and have become the manipulative "douche bags" themselves?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2016, 09:38 AM
 
When you say identity politics what do you mean? Do you have an example?

I'm speaking to culture and people, not to political parties, but I'd like to know what policies you feel are responsible for this culture.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2016, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's painfully ignorant. He certainly was not. He didn't seek to find differences, he worked for integration.

Racial Tensions Flare as Schools Resegregate | The Report | US News

You think MLK Jr would have tolerated such stupid sh*t? Hell no.
Now go ahead and cite the portion of the article that MLK would not have "tolerated". Or did you once again just read the headline?

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2016, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
When you say identity politics what do you mean? Do you have an example?
"Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other..."

Madeleine Albright said this in regards to young women considering voting for Bernie. Things like opinions and free choice are subservient to their identity as women.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2016, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other..."

Madeleine Albright said this in regards to young women considering voting for Bernie. Things like opinions and free choice are subservient to their identity as women.

Okay, so I do understand the definition of identity politics.

Now, is there evidence that our culture is significantly shaped by things politicians say? I buy into the concept that politicians reflect our existing culture as a means to seem connected and empathetic, but they do not shape it all that much. Did Trump create all of the anger that he benefited from? I say no.

I don't think political policy is the cause of an non-empathetic culture, I think it is the symptom. And, I do think that this country is generally really badly lacking empathy for each other.

Unfortunately, if you disagree I'm not sure we are going to be able to agree upon this by asking me to haul out the charts and graphs.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2016, 11:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other..."

Madeleine Albright said this in regards to young women considering voting for Bernie. Things like opinions and free choice are subservient to their identity as women.
Theres something odd about this specific example when she is asking them to vote for their own rights to have free opinions and choices.

A two party system with such concrete partisan voters doesn't allow much room for an alternative to identity politics. You either vote with your identity or you have to render yourself subservient to someone elses in order to get something else you want from the opposition. I think this is the crux of why liberals have such ire for the GOP. In order to vote with your identity as a conservative, you have to bow to the identity of being a racist, sexist, religious bigot as well. People shouldn't have to do that. Women, conservatives and any other groups or identities should be able to vote for a plethora of candidates who will all protect their rights with differing details or ideas. Its especially odd in a country that has championed having masses of choices and options in every other walk of life.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2016, 01:00 AM
 
A vote for Bernie would have been against their own rights to have free opinions and choices?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2016, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other..."

Madeleine Albright said this in regards to young women considering voting for Bernie. Things like opinions and free choice are subservient to their identity as women.
She said this at a campaign rally for Hillary, attended by men and women of varying ages. You make it sound like it was to a forum of Bernie supporting young women.

Add to that, she, Hillary and others break into laughter as soon as she says it. There may have been a bot of subtext, but it was clearly meant comically.

Review the video.

It was a joke in poor taste to many which is why she publicly and profusely apologised.

Bad example.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2016, 11:00 AM
 
I said she was speaking to women because "women go to hell" is addressed towards women.

I said they were young because of the age disparity between people voting for Bernie vs. Hillary.

Here's one of Madeleine's post-speech responses,

"I said that I think that people need to understand who has been really fighting on their behalf on issues that are of interest to women and clearly Hillary Clinton has and I have said there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women a lot—it’s so famous that it ended up on a Starbucks cup—because I do think that just generally, we are very judgmental of each other."

A/K/A sorry I'm not sorry. Women should vote for the Democrat who's been really fighting on their behalf.

I feel this is an excellent example, not only because it precisely fits the definition, it's almost absurdly disingenuous. Yes... the important distinction between the most bleeding heart contender there has been in my lifetime, and the candidate so far to the right of him she pings as Republican, is how one really fights for women.

Shameful.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 16, 2016 at 01:48 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2016, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A vote for Bernie would have been against their own rights to have free opinions and choices?
Sorry, I only read the quote itself. I was thinking it was in reference to Hillary Vs Trump.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2016, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Sorry, I only read the quote itself. I was thinking it was in reference to Hillary Vs Trump.
I forgive you for taking the quote and trying to imagine a context wherein it makes any ****ing sense whatsoever.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2016, 04:06 PM
 
Thanks

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,