Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Eh... Not quite.
You're conflating cultural stereotypes regarding (toxic) masculinity in your own culture with the world-spanning phenomenon of the Patriarchy.
And the thing is, the Patriarchy doesn't have any downsides for men... Because the term itself refers to all the institutional and practical advantages that men as a class have over women as a result of their historical domination of pretty much all society.
The Patriarchy refers to things like the top positions in most institutions being occupied mostly by men, because less than a century ago they were occupied only by men and those in those positions greatly affect who is going to replace them and predominantly selected and continue to select men to do so.
Angry gets shit done.The Patriarchy is the predominate position of men which requires cultural and societal expectations.
It is a role enforced on people that carries expectations as well as promises as well as position.
Old dudes rule over young ones who rule over women.
Theoretically.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.This is something interesting I saw on another board and wanted to pass on. On the twitter of Alan He, a journalist for CBS, he has up a text transcript talking about Flake's decisions both to vote for Kavanaugh in the procedural vote and to call for an FBI investigation. The text is from talking with Senator Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, about the sequence of events.
Long story shortish, Coons worked hard to try to convince the potential swing votes, including Flake, who he's friends with, to get on board with doing an FBI investigation. Flake feels that the Kavanaugh hearing is a new fracture point for a fractured country, and basically saw it as dirty business he wanted to have over and done with, and on top of that he was being pressured heavily by Republicans and there was the sticking point that he wanted to make sure Democrats would actually accept the results of a short investigation and not try to play him and other Republicans by Moving the Goalposts once things were underway.
Everybody from the Judiciary Committee from both parties tried to then influence Flake one way or the other, Flake basically threw them all out of his office to spend 15 minutes talking to Coons alone, then tried to reach the head of the FBI to talk about the matter. He actually wound up talking to Rod Rosenstein (!) instead for about 10 minutes, during which Coons was out of the office and letting Flake have a private conversation.
At that point Grassley called the vote, short circuiting any further efforts to convince Flake to vote no now, but between this and elevator thing it apparently convinced Flake that there at least needed to be further investigation, and that was more important than getting the process over and done with before people get whipped into more of a frenzy or Flake can finally call it a day and leave Congress for the last time.
Full text of the interview and Coons describing events starts with this picture
, and goes on through another two.
I would love an investigation but I confess I'm not sure what they have to investigate. I mean, obviously there's confirming that W, X, and Y are at a party on Z date. But it seems like there's no physical evidence or witnesses other than the accused and victim.
Which is a good thing she came forward with. Because I completely believe her.
But I wonder what they could investigate other than, "This could have happened and there's nothing to contradict it."
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 29th 2018 at 3:20:27 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
If we're talking 1980-1984, there could be actual evidence out there — if not of a single, particular assault, then at least of a pattern of behaviour. The dumbass drunken selfie or the unhelpful friend's snap isn't new, just more common and more easily accessible than it was. Kodak was alive and doing quite well at drunken parties in the '80s, after all. Particularly when the people at those parties had disposable income to burn.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Sep 29th 2018 at 12:07:11 PM
![]()
It is all about who can be believed more.
So, you have on the one hand a victim who describes a floor plan of a house, people who were present at a party, two of which said victim barely knew, and one of which was according to her present during the assault. She also described a later encounter with the main witness to a later date.
On the flip side you have a calendar in which is actually noted that Kavenaugh was planning to meet the people she named during the mentioned time frame. So, if nothing else, there are good reasons to believe that said party happened (because how else should she know who were close friends with Kavenaugh back then?). We also know that his Grandmother has a house in the described area which seems to have a floor plan which matches the descriptions.
So, you naturally figure out if the Grandmother's house is a match, if there was a party or gathering happening and who was present, and then ask the witnesses. We have one statement which says that one of the females wasn't aware of such an assault happening but (no matter what Kevenaugh claimed during the hearing) believes the victim. There is this guy TJ or whatever who supposedly was there, so why not track him down and ask him? But most importantly there is an actual witness/second attacker. There is no reason whatsoever to not cross examine him.
So, yeah, there is a lot an investigation can uncover even about this one incident. And that is assuming that there wasn't a pattern - but it looks like there was one.
So remember when the FBI investigation was supposed to be 'limited in scope'? Turns out the FBI have plans to immediately interview another woman's claims of assault besides Ford.
Whoops.
Regardless of the criticisms that one may or may not make about the FBI as an institution and its history I think it's absolutely correct to say that the career agents are concerned with justice and thus their point was completely right.
Not to mention that due to its role against domestic terrorism and organized crime I think the FBI is absolutely currently a net-good.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 29th 2018 at 11:01:30 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangBy does that contradict the point that they are, overall, a net-good? Nobody was denying they've been up to shady stuff. We all remember 2016.
If the New York FBI office has Trump loyalists, they most be as incompetent as Trump himself given New York is where most of the state level stuff against him is coming from. Not sure what they could do, given they're Federal, but I would be shocked if there was nothing.
Edited by sgamer82 on Sep 29th 2018 at 9:11:23 AM
Incidentally, I took a look at previous Supreme Court nominations on Wikipedia
and it's really amazing how in most of the previous instances before Gorsuch, people were confirmed as Justices with a vast majority approving. Yes, there were a few controversial ones like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, but for the most part they were largely unanimous or at least had a healthy majority, not the hyper-partisan, "down to one or two votes" thing we have now.
Edited by speedyboris on Sep 29th 2018 at 10:26:41 AM
No-one said they were "pure idealists who would save the day" but unless you have some evidence to suggest otherwise I feel it's a safe assumption that the people who make a career in the FBI over being paid better in the private sector are at-least somewhat predisposed towards pursuing justice.
Exactly this, I just view the good they offer as being higher than the very real bad stuff. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be improved but it does mean that referencing their good points is not worshipping them.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 29th 2018 at 11:15:53 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Well, Gorsuch's nomination was on the heels of the GOP absolutely ratfucking
Garland's nomination by refusing to even talk to the guy for nearly a year.
![]()
![]()
No offense, Spartan, but I feel someone who's part of the Minorities the FBI has done overt and covert operations against simply because they dared challenge the status quo (ie their oppression) might not exactly share your...very idealistic view on the organization.
If the FBI manages to tank Kavanaugh, good. Heck, I'll even agree there are probably some FBI Agents who are exactly as you envision it. But as an Agency, I feel it's more 'appreciating the moments of good in the bad' than the other way around.
"You can reply to this Message!"
x3 Yeah, that was lame.
Amazingly, Mitch somehow convinced his colleagues and a large part of the GOP voters that this was perfectly reasonable behavior. "Why should Obama get to fill a vacant seat, even though it's well within his power to do so? Let it wait until we see who wins in November!"
Edited by speedyboris on Sep 29th 2018 at 10:44:27 AM
If the FBI manages to tank Kavanaugh, good. Heck, I'll even agree there are probably some FBI Agents who are exactly as you envision it. But as an Agency, I feel it's more 'appreciating the moments of good in the bad' than the other way around.
My position is not idealistic, you have the right to have a different opinion but "I think the FBI is a net-good and its members probably care about justice on average" is not idealistic by any reasonable definition of idealism.
I stand by my position, the FBI is currently a net-good and there's nothing wrong with saying that its career agents most likely care about justice.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 29th 2018 at 11:46:59 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangReally though,I wouldn't trust any of the three letter agencies
The President appoints the head of the FBI, they do not decide the rest of the people who compose the agency. Just because the American democratic system failed to provide the proper leadership does not mean that the agencies are responsible, especially when Trump has been busy attacking them which should make attempts to smear them by association ridiculous.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

One of the reasons men send dick pictures, why men catcall, why men sexually harass and are openly vulgar, is that men have been raised to reject emotional honesty and act like they don't need intimacy. Men have been trained to not accept platonic sources of kindness, or gentle touching or holding, or to give or accept casual complements on their appearance. Little girls can be very physically close to each other without being accused as being sexual, but little boys can't be.
Men act out sexually partially because they've been trained their whole lives to believe that platonic love is wrong, so they end up emotionally and physically starved for affection and they lash out, trying to take by force the only form of physical intimacy that society has told them is acceptable.