Kavanaugh

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:53 am

Emperor Norton I
Joshua Abraham Norton (February 4, 1818[3] – January 8, 1880), known as Emperor Norton, was a citizen of San Francisco, California who proclaimed himself "Norton I, Emperor of the United States" in 1859. He later assumed the secondary title of "Protector of Mexico". Norton was born in England but spent most of his early life in South Africa. He sailed west after the death of his mother in 1846 and his father in 1848, arriving in San Francisco possibly in November 1849.
White guy?

LIVED IN SOUTH AFRIKA??

SOMETHING SOMETHINGMUMBLE ANTAGONIZING MEXICO?!?!

He must have radiated evil.
Norton initially made a living as a businessman, but he lost his fortune investing in Peruvian rice due to a Chinese rice shortage. He bought rice at 12 cents per pound from Peruvian ships, but more Peruvian ships arrived in port which caused the price to drop sharply to 4 cents. He then lost a lawsuit in which he tried to void his rice contract, and his public prominence faded. He re-emerged in September 1859, laying claim to the position of Emperor of the United States.
A historico-actuality Rhett Butler/Donald Trump love child. The seventh trumpet surely sounded.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Maddy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:11 am

As all of these women's testimony unravels, the response of the "true believers" has become even more shrill and even hysterical. I was the unfortunate attendee of an agricultural seminar last weekend in which the topic turned, without warning, to the Kavanaugh hearings. Several of the women in attendance started visibly melting down--tears, shaking, you name it. And, of course, they got center stage. They claimed to have never experienced sexual assault themselves, but to be victims of a "rape culture" and to be reliving the repetitive trauma of this status. All I could think was, Lordy, here we are, 60 years into the women's movement and all we've got are these ineffectual little girl victims to show for it.
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by jacksonM » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:12 am

Maddy wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:11 am
As all of these women's testimony unravels, the response of the "true believers" has become even more shrill and even hysterical. I was the unfortunate attendee of an agricultural seminar last weekend in which the topic turned, without warning, to the Kavanaugh hearings. Several of the women in attendance started visibly melting down--tears, shaking, you name it. And, of course, they got center stage. They claimed to have never experienced sexual assault themselves, but to be victims of a "rape culture" and to be reliving the repetitive trauma of this status. All I could think was, Lordy, here we are, 60 years into the women's movement and all we've got are these ineffectual little girl victims to show for it.
You might find this an interesting read .... https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/aca ... holarship/

It's about a group of people who did an experiment submitting ridiculous and absurd "grievance studies" to see if they would be accepted for publication. Many of them were. One of them was even a rewrite of Mein Kampf with a feminist viewpoint.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3083
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by sophie » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:29 am

I worry that there is an even simpler explanation here: the more prominent the person & the more attention paid in the media, the more likely that nut jobs will try to claim some notoriety by jumping in with ever more fantastic accusations that they well know can never be disproven. I am guessing that the majority of the "#metoo" accusations are of this ilk. Unfortunate, then, that the new standard in these cases is that the man must be guilty until proven innocent.

In Kavanaugh's case, I am guessing that there is some substance to the initial accusation by Ford, but that the others are follow-on nut cases - especially that last one about the gang-rapes, ridiculous on so many levels. The question in my mind is whether the event occurred as described, or whether it had its roots in an episode that was probably fairly innocent in reality and the story got embellished over time.

Also, I would bet that right now, Ford is wishing she'd kept her mouth shut. She is probably not too happy at becoming the latest political football, and there's a good chance it will ruin her career as a professor also. On the other hand, I'm sure she'll be drowning in lucrative book deals and speaking engagements soon enough.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Maddy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:42 am

I tend to agree with you Sophie, that something probably did occur, but most likely it involved drunkenness, mixed messages, the usual teenage fumbling, and a good dose of Saturday morning remorse. But that's a far cry from what's being alleged.

We live in a culture where much of communication consists of "signals," and nowhere is this more apparent than in the sexual realm. The obvious corollary, which every self-respecting woman knows, is that you don't play fast and loose with culturally resonant signals if you don't intend to invite the consequences. I found the following YouTube clip of an interview by Camille Paglia--the left-wing lesbian feminist professor of criticism (wouldn't that be a hoot of a job?), who, it seems to me, has a pretty level-headed view of the issue. And it's not complimentary of a good number of today's young women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Zj-buRsvA

An entirely different video which I don't seem to be able to locate this morning included a clip from a young woman bloviating about the Kavanaugh hearings and insisting that she should be able to show up at a frat house party wearing a g-string or a short skirt without underwear, and that she should be able to get flat-on-her-ass drunk, and that none of that should have any bearing on how she is treated by men. This is really an astounding assertion that not only infantilizes women but that ignores the manipulative reality behind her mixed messages. This is one aspect of the problem that I think Paglia misses. When a woman shows up at a chaotic frat party drunk in sexually revealing garb, and then proceeds to behave in an overtly seductive manner (including, in many instances, going up to a guy's room), does anyone think to ask why she's doing that? Why would a woman choose to behave in a manner that sends unambiguously sexually-charged signals if she does not intend to invite sex? This is an easy question, because women have been doing it for ages. In the old days, we used to call it "playing hard to get," and although the game was much tamer then, the point then--as now--is power. Specifically the power to manipulate a man to the point where he's ready to burst a zipper and then toy with him. This is the unfortunate reality of most "date rape" situations.
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by jacksonM » Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:14 pm

"Playing hard to get" is simply evolutionary biology at work, don't you think? I mean it's like, "okay guys, who is the fittest among you who would like your genes to survive with me - show me what you got". Rape is when someone takes away the woman's power of natural selection that she already has. Apparently the offspring of rape doesn't inherit an evolutionary benefit for reasons of its own, or we would probably have more of it than we do.

As for Kavanaugh, he denies he was ever at a party where this incident took place. I'm taking his word for it until one credible scintilla of evidence is presented to prove he might be lying. So far I haven't seen any. And it has nothing to do with whether he or she should be believed because he or she is a man or a woman. That is all complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned. To me it's about the presumption of innocence and the presentation of facts.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Maddy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:26 pm

jacksonM wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:14 pm
"Playing hard to get" is simply evolutionary biology at work, don't you think? I mean it's like, "okay guys, who is the fittest among you who would like your genes to survive with me - show me what you got". Rape is when someone takes away the woman's power of natural selection that she already has. Apparently the offspring of rape doesn't inherit an evolutionary benefit for reasons of its own, or we would probably have more of it than we do.
Evolutionary biology occurs just as well when self-respecting women, who are direct and above-board in their relationships, choose mates. The game-playing ("maybe I will, maybe I wont, but keep giving me attention and I'll think about it") serves no constructive purpose, evolutionary or otherwise. It's the currency of a narcissistic, self-absorbed generation of women who are starving for attention and who couldn't care less who they confuse and/or hurt.
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by jacksonM » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:50 pm

Maddy wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:26 pm
jacksonM wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:14 pm
"Playing hard to get" is simply evolutionary biology at work, don't you think? I mean it's like, "okay guys, who is the fittest among you who would like your genes to survive with me - show me what you got". Rape is when someone takes away the woman's power of natural selection that she already has. Apparently the offspring of rape doesn't inherit an evolutionary benefit for reasons of its own, or we would probably have more of it than we do.
Evolutionary biology occurs just as well when self-respecting women, who are direct and above-board in their relationships, choose mates. The game-playing ("maybe I will, maybe I wont, but keep giving me attention and I'll think about it") serves no constructive purpose, evolutionary or otherwise. It's the currency of a narcissistic, self-absorbed generation of women who are starving for attention and who couldn't care less who they confuse and/or hurt.
Totally agree, except for the part about the game-playing serving no constructive purpose.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:35 pm

sophie wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:29 am
I worry that there is an even simpler explanation here: the more prominent the person & the more attention paid in the media, the more likely that nut jobs will try to claim some notoriety by jumping in with ever more fantastic accusations that they well know can never be disproven. I am guessing that the majority of the "#metoo" accusations are of this ilk. Unfortunate, then, that the new standard in these cases is that the man must be guilty until proven innocent.

In Kavanaugh's case, I am guessing that there is some substance to the initial accusation by Ford, but that the others are follow-on nut cases - especially that last one about the gang-rapes, ridiculous on so many levels. The question in my mind is whether the event occurred as described, or whether it had its roots in an episode that was probably fairly innocent in reality and the story got embellished over time.
Agreed.
Also, I would bet that right now, Ford is wishing she'd kept her mouth shut. She is probably not too happy at becoming the latest political football, and there's a good chance it will ruin her career as a professor also. On the other hand, I'm sure she'll be drowning in lucrative book deals and speaking engagements soon enough.
Evidently she has "earned" quite a bit of money through GoFundMe.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Maddy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:59 pm

jacksonM wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:50 pm
Maddy wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:26 pm
jacksonM wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:14 pm
"Playing hard to get" is simply evolutionary biology at work, don't you think? I mean it's like, "okay guys, who is the fittest among you who would like your genes to survive with me - show me what you got". Rape is when someone takes away the woman's power of natural selection that she already has. Apparently the offspring of rape doesn't inherit an evolutionary benefit for reasons of its own, or we would probably have more of it than we do.
Evolutionary biology occurs just as well when self-respecting women, who are direct and above-board in their relationships, choose mates. The game-playing ("maybe I will, maybe I wont, but keep giving me attention and I'll think about it") serves no constructive purpose, evolutionary or otherwise. It's the currency of a narcissistic, self-absorbed generation of women who are starving for attention and who couldn't care less who they confuse and/or hurt.
Totally agree, except for the part about the game-playing serving no constructive purpose.
Are you saying that men enjoy the chase, and that it plays into the biology of getting revved up? I'd concede that's probably right, but only when there's a common understanding of the ground rules. Nobody likes being manipulated or deceived.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:00 pm

Maddy wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:42 am
We live in a culture where much of communication consists of "signals," and nowhere is this more apparent than in the sexual realm. The obvious corollary, which every self-respecting woman knows, is that you don't play fast and loose with culturally resonant signals if you don't intend to invite the consequences. I found the following YouTube clip of an interview by Camille Paglia--the left-wing lesbian feminist professor of criticism (wouldn't that be a hoot of a job?), who, it seems to me, has a pretty level-headed view of the issue. And it's not complimentary of a good number of today's young women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Zj-buRsvA
Camille Paglia being based as fuck. Literally the entire thing.
An entirely different video which I don't seem to be able to locate this morning included a clip from a young woman bloviating about the Kavanaugh hearings and insisting that she should be able to show up at a frat house party wearing a g-string or a short skirt without underwear, and that she should be able to get flat-on-her-ass drunk, and that none of that should have any bearing on how she is treated by men. This is really an astounding assertion that not only infantilizes women but that ignores the manipulative reality behind her mixed messages. This is one aspect of the problem that I think Paglia misses. When a woman shows up at a chaotic frat party drunk in sexually revealing garb, and then proceeds to behave in an overtly seductive manner (including, in many instances, going up to a guy's room), does anyone think to ask why she's doing that? Why would a woman choose to behave in a manner that sends unambiguously sexually-charged signals if she does not intend to invite sex? This is an easy question, because women have been doing it for ages. In the old days, we used to call it "playing hard to get," and although the game was much tamer then, the point then--as now--is power. Specifically the power to manipulate a man to the point where he's ready to burst a zipper and then toy with him. This is the unfortunate reality of most "date rape" situations.
Please tell Corto to earmuff it before this kind of college sex realtalk*. 40% of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." So they haven't forgotten ALL of the old tricks!
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:22 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:00 pm
Please tell Corto to earmuff it before this kind of college sex realtalk*. 40% of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." So they haven't forgotten ALL of the old tricks!
All I would say is if it got to that point, where the girl was in my room with whatever limited intentions vs. what I thought and she said stop, or not now, or no, sorry, I would be frustrated as hell, but I guarantee you 100% I would stop.
Post Reply