Memes and Troll Faces

[machine 52]

..wait for the chorus

[Akazora 293]

On 6/4/2016 at 0:13 AM, machine said:

..wait for the chorus

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

No songs are meme-ier than HIGH QUALITY RIPS

[machine 52]

On 6/12/2016 at 9:39 PM, Akazora said:

No songs are meme-ier than HIGH QUALITY RIPS

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 mrw:

recognizing the Love Live song at the end of that video makes me feel like a weeb :C

 

[arrimasarrington1992 2]

Hey everyone. I can't login because I got 21 content counts.

[Akazora 293]

I JUST CHOKED ON MY UGLY LAUGH OH MY LORD

[Metantei Kiddo 147]

[machine 52]

Not to get too political, but on the front page on NBC News right now, there's a 100% serious article titled "It's Not Easy Being Mean: 'Pepe' Creator Wants His Meme Back" because the Anti-Defamation League declared Pepe a hate symbol recently. There's even a short video at the bottom of the article called "Pepe the Frog's Journey: From Internet Meme to Hate Symbol"

What even is 2016

 

[Akazora 293]

On 10/13/2016 at 6:59 PM, machine said:

Not to get too political, but on the front page on NBC News right now, there's a 100% serious article titled "It's Not Easy Being Mean: 'Pepe' Creator Wants His Meme Back" because the Anti-Defamation League declared Pepe a hate symbol recently. There's even a short video at the bottom of the article called "Pepe the Frog's Journey: From Internet Meme to Hate Symbol"

What even is 2016

Not to escalate this further, but I do have to say...

Anyone who has even an ounce of trust or faith left in mainstream media after this election is a fool.  The bias toward Hillary is so obvious and underhanded, it's honestly revolting.  The recent 24/7 coverage of these new groping allegations against Trump (none of which are credible in the slightest, if you take the time to actually analyze the claims and background check those crying wolf) and the complete blind eye turned toward the Wikileaks reveals prove just that.  Isn't it ironic that Fox News, the butt of jokes years ago for being so unabashedly right leaning, is now the closest mainstream outlet to neutral?  While everyone else, most notably but not limited to Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, and New York Times, have stooped to Buzzfeed level clickbait, misleading and cherry picked information, and overall negligence in journalistic integrity in an attempt to capitalize on ignorance to push for a Clinton presidency?  And I only call Fox "close to neutral" because they hate both Trump and Hillary, but they're really not all that much better.

And for those not in the know, the Anti-Defamation League's current CEO and National Director is Jonathan Greenblatt, former Special Assistant to President Barack Obama.  Yeahhh, tots not suspicious.

 

Ehem, but I digress.  This is the thread for memes, in which case...

[machine 52]

On 10/13/2016 at 10:41 PM, Akazora said:

Not to escalate this further, but I do have to say...

Anyone who has even an ounce of trust or faith left in mainstream media after this election is a fool.  The bias toward Hillary is so obvious and underhanded, it's honestly revolting.  The recent 24/7 coverage of these new groping allegations against Trump (none of which are credible in the slightest, if you take the time to actually analyze the claims and background check those crying wolf) and the complete blind eye turned toward the Wikileaks reveals prove just that.  Isn't it ironic that Fox News, the butt of jokes years ago for being so unabashedly right leaning, is now the closest mainstream outlet to neutral?  While everyone else, most notably but not limited to Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, and New York Times, have stooped to Buzzfeed level clickbait, misleading and cherry picked information, and overall negligence in journalistic integrity in an attempt to capitalize on ignorance to push for a Clinton presidency?  And I only call Fox "close to neutral" because they hate both Trump and Hillary, but they're really not all that much better.

And for those not in the know, the Anti-Defamation League's current CEO and National Director is Jonathan Greenblatt, former Special Assistant to President Barack Obama.  Yeahhh, tots not suspicious.

 

I don't intend this to be passive aggressive or patronizing or anything, and I apologize if it comes across that way at any point

I apologize, I didn't do a good job getting my thoughts across. My post was intended to be more about how odd it is that something as asinine as an internet meme was getting attention from nationally accredited news sources, and not so much about the legitimacy of being it being labelled a hate symbol. 10 years ago when Peanut Butter Jelly Time was at the height of its popularity, no one would've predicted that something in the same realm as that would ever become associated with anything political. It's just an weird thing to happen all around.

As for the integrity of modern mainstream journalism, I can't really comment. Most probably wouldn't disagree that there is some degree of bias in today's journalism, but just how much/how little bias is present, and how common it is is difficult to pinpoint (and a matter of perspective). Regarding clickbait, as disliked as it is, it works. It's a shame multiple news sources have to resort to it, but it's commonplace for a reason. 

To add one last thing though because it sort of bugged me: regardless of your opinion of Trump, it's pretty damning to have him admit to displaying sexually predatory behavior because he believes he has enough power/influence to get away with it. Even if it was tongue in cheek, that doesn't make it any more ok to say stuff of that nature since it sends a potentially very dangerous message to his supporters and anyone else who may have been listening :/ (This next part isn't necessarily directed at you, but more so at the people assuming the backlash was because of his poor word choice, and not the meaning of what he was saying) Regardless of his accusers and their credibility, it's kind of naive to act like the things he says aren't capable of affecting how a large number of people think. I think anyone that's a household name saying anything like that is deserving of a day or two of scrutiny since their words hold a lot of weight to some people. 

---------------

forgot my obligatory meme contribution:

here's an oldie but goodie

 

[Metantei Kiddo 147]

On 10/14/2016 at 10:41 AM, Akazora said:

Not to escalate this further, but I do have to say...

Anyone who has even an ounce of trust or faith left in mainstream media after this election is a fool.  The bias toward Hillary is so obvious and underhanded, it's honestly revolting.  The recent 24/7 coverage of these new groping allegations against Trump (none of which are credible in the slightest, if you take the time to actually analyze the claims and background check those crying wolf) and the complete blind eye turned toward the Wikileaks reveals prove just that.  Isn't it ironic that Fox News, the butt of jokes years ago for being so unabashedly right leaning, is now the closest mainstream outlet to neutral?  While everyone else, most notably but not limited to Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, and New York Times, have stooped to Buzzfeed level clickbait, misleading and cherry picked information, and overall negligence in journalistic integrity in an attempt to capitalize on ignorance to push for a Clinton presidency?  And I only call Fox "close to neutral" because they hate both Trump and Hillary, but they're really not all that much better.

And for those not in the know, the Anti-Defamation League's current CEO and National Director is Jonathan Greenblatt, former Special Assistant to President Barack Obama.  Yeahhh, tots not suspicious.

 

Ehem, but I digress.  This is the thread for memes, in which case...

 

If you believe that Mainstream western news outlets are biased, I rather refer you to BBC which I mostly trust with international news, they tend to be more neutral in their stance (since firstly they aren't American and they are publicly funded as opposed to most media corp out there) albeit they lean abit more towards to liberal views but still they don't tend to go in your face and extreme with modern agendas.

[Akazora 293]

11 hours ago, machine said:

I don't intend this to be passive aggressive or patronizing or anything, and I apologize if it comes across that way at any point

I apologize, I didn't do a good job getting my thoughts across. My post was intended to be more about how odd it is that something as asinine as an internet meme was getting attention from nationally accredited news sources, and not so much about the legitimacy of being it being labelled a hate symbol. 10 years ago when Peanut Butter Jelly Time was at the height of its popularity, no one would've predicted that something in the same realm as that would ever become associated with anything political. It's just an weird thing to happen all around.

As for the integrity of modern mainstream journalism, I can't really comment. Most probably wouldn't disagree that there is some degree of bias in today's journalism, but just how much/how little bias is present, and how common it is is difficult to pinpoint (and a matter of perspective). Regarding clickbait, as disliked as it is, it works. It's a shame multiple news sources have to resort to it, but it's commonplace for a reason. 

To add one last thing though because it sort of bugged me: regardless of your opinion of Trump, it's pretty damning to have him admit to displaying sexually predatory behavior because he believes he has enough power/influence to get away with it. Even if it was tongue in cheek, that doesn't make it any more ok to say stuff of that nature since it sends a potentially very dangerous message to his supporters and anyone else who may have been listening :/ (This next part isn't necessarily directed at you, but more so at the people assuming the backlash was because of his poor word choice, and not the meaning of what he was saying) Regardless of his accusers and their credibility, it's kind of naive to act like the things he says aren't capable of affecting how a large number of people think. I think anyone that's a household name saying anything like that is deserving of a day or two of scrutiny since their words hold a lot of weight to some people. 

I don't see how what you said could be interpreted as anything of the sort.  If anything, I appreciate the chance to engage in this dialogue.

 

And yes, I realize that you obviously didn't take the accusation of Pepe the Frog being an alt-right symbol as anything other than a political stunt.  I didn't mean for what I said to be directed at you.  I was just expressing my incredulity at this entire situation to anyone who might be reading and actually taking it seriously.

 

Concerning the mainstream media, I do not see how the issue of whether or not it's biased can be left to any sort of interpretation.  Clear facts show that the media leans very far left, dare I say alt-left, seeing as how openly they favor Clinton over Trump.  They shamelessly censor any opinions that go against the narrative, they blatantly lie to the viewers, they post negative disclaimers at the end of articles for Trump but not for Clinton, they have given debate questions in advance to Clinton, they don't take responsibility when caught colluding with the Clinton Campaign (an illegal act, by the way), they spin positive stories about Trump from over a decade ago into negative ones for the sake of making him look bad, and they disavow gay people who support Trump.  And these are just one-off examples.  This doesn't even include long-term forms of undermining Trump's campaign, such as by focusing almost exclusively on negative Trump articles to drown out damaging new facts that come to light regarding Clinton.  This also doesn't include all the things the media hasn't done, which is just as damning if not more so.  They undermine what otherwise would be career ending footage of Clinton collapsing and having her body thrown into a van, they downplay and only write a single article covering the time a DNC buss illegally dumped sewage in the streets, they ignore times Trump clearly lays out his plan for when he takes office so as to paint him as a candidate without substance, they fail to note the fact that Trump rallies sometimes completely fill out stadiums, which is only something Clinton rallies are able to do if they invite celebrities, they never mention the fact that Tim Kaine draws such small crowds that he's forced to cancel because only enough people to fill a lobby showed interest, while Mike Pence maintains crowds of hundreds while speaking in the dead of night in the rain.  And this is only a sampling of the evidence.  Think of all the articles that are published every day by all the news outlets, and think of the kinds of things that happen on CNN daily, a 24/7 station.  And I haven't even gotten into how Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all use algorithms to promote pro-Clinton/anti-Trump content and hide anti-Clinton/pro-Trump content.  This is not an issue of difficulty to pinpoint or a matter of perspective.  I'm not just saying this because the candidate I have voted for is on the receiving end of this abuse of power.  This is not a feeling I have, or a hunch, or going with my guts.  This is a fact and I have evidence to back up this fact.  You, and anyone else, is free to argue otherwise so long as evidence to support those claims are provided.

 

And finally, in regards to what you said, I take issue when you claim he "admit[ted] to displaying sexually predatory behavior because he believes he has enough power/influence to get away with it".  He did nothing of the sort.  He said "And when you're a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything" (emphasis added).  That clearly shows consent on the woman's part.  He was also talking about women in the entertainment industry, not just random beautiful women he happens to pass by on the street.  Was the things he said about "mov[ing] on her like a bitch," being "automatically attracted to beautiful" women, "just start kissing them; it's like a magnet," and "grab[bing] them by the pussy" a bit uncouth and unfortunate?  Yes, they were, and he already formally apologized.  But as he has maintained, what he said was "locker room talk."  It's no secret people say these things behind closed doors, it's just human nature.  And this goes for both men and women (think of the things women have said in regards to 50 Shades of Grey for example).  Not only that, but think of the rap songs with lyrics far more vulgar than what Trump has said that are accepted into society.  Where is the outrage when it comes to that?  And the concern that what Trump says has potentially dangerous consequences is completely unfounded.  All of those violent demonstrations at rallies, like the one at Chicago or the one that involved the 69 year old who wearing an oxygen tank, have been proven to be set-up and staged by the DNC and Clinton campaign operatives in order push an agenda.  There is no evidence to show that anything Trump has said or done has, by direct consequence, led to violence.  In fact, the ones that have been shown to be violent and disruptive are the Clinton supports, or at least those in the anti-Trump camp.  Recently, a homeless black women was viciously attacked for supporting Trump, a man was beaten and chased until police intervened for wearing a MAGA hat, students at the University of Pittsburgh were verbally assaulted for distributing pro-Trump merchandise and pamphlets, people leaving a Trump fundraiser were harassed in Minnesota, and the examples continue (none of these were promoted by the mainstream media, because that would go against the narrative).  To blame any of these incidents on Trump's rhetoric would be trying to create causation where there is none, as they are all clearly examples of people violating others' right to free speech and being unable to handle different opinions without resorting to violence and ad hominems.  So again, to bring this back to the original issue, there is no evidence or precedent showing that the remarks Trump made about women all those years ago could be considered dangerous or a threat.  And yes, I concede that those remarks do deserve some news coverage, as you said perhaps a day or two's worth.  But instead the story was pushed for weeks, not just days, and the mainstream media then fabricated false rape and sexual assault victims at the same time in order to sustain the conversation, in an attempt to drown out the Wikileaked Podesta e-mails and newly released Project Veritas videos.

 

--

Obligatory spicy meme (this one's a keeper)

[PhiBrainChild 27]

The last post seems to have a meme in a format I haven't seen before.

 

That aside, here's some old but gold material:

Spoiler

 

[machine 52]

On 11/7/2016 at 2:07 AM, Akazora said:

 

 

I don't see how what you said could be interpreted as anything of the sort.  If anything, I appreciate the chance to engage in this dialogue.

 

And yes, I realize that you obviously didn't take the accusation of Pepe the Frog being an alt-right symbol as anything other than a political stunt.  I didn't mean for what I said to be directed at you.  I was just expressing my incredulity at this entire situation to anyone who might be reading and actually taking it seriously.

 

Concerning the mainstream media, I do not see how the issue of whether or not it's biased can be left to any sort of interpretation.  Clear facts show that the media leans very far left, dare I say alt-left, seeing as how openly they favor Clinton over Trump.  They shamelessly censor any opinions that go against the narrative, they blatantly lie to the viewers, they post negative disclaimers at the end of articles for Trump but not for Clinton, they have given debate questions in advance to Clinton, they don't take responsibility when caught colluding with the Clinton Campaign (an illegal act, by the way), they spin positive stories about Trump from over a decade ago into negative ones for the sake of making him look bad, and they disavow gay people who support Trump.  And these are just one-off examples.  This doesn't even include long-term forms of undermining Trump's campaign, such as by focusing almost exclusively on negative Trump articles to drown out damaging new facts that come to light regarding Clinton.  This also doesn't include all the things the media hasn't done, which is just as damning if not more so.  They undermine what otherwise would be career ending footage of Clinton collapsing and having her body thrown into a van, they downplay and only write a single article covering the time a DNC buss illegally dumped sewage in the streets, they ignore times Trump clearly lays out his plan for when he takes office so as to paint him as a candidate without substance, they fail to note the fact that Trump rallies sometimes completely fill out stadiums, which is only something Clinton rallies are able to do if they invite celebrities, they never mention the fact that Tim Kaine draws such small crowds that he's forced to cancel because only enough people to fill a lobby showed interest, while Mike Pence maintains crowds of hundreds while speaking in the dead of night in the rain.  And this is only a sampling of the evidence.  Think of all the articles that are published every day by all the news outlets, and think of the kinds of things that happen on CNN daily, a 24/7 station.  And I haven't even gotten into how Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all use algorithms to promote pro-Clinton/anti-Trump content and hide anti-Clinton/pro-Trump content.  This is not an issue of difficulty to pinpoint or a matter of perspective.  I'm not just saying this because the candidate I have voted for is on the receiving end of this abuse of power.  This is not a feeling I have, or a hunch, or going with my guts.  This is a fact and I have evidence to back up this fact.  You, and anyone else, is free to argue otherwise so long as evidence to support those claims are provided.

 

And finally, in regards to what you said, I take issue when you claim he "admit[ted] to displaying sexually predatory behavior because he believes he has enough power/influence to get away with it".  He did nothing of the sort.  He said "And when you're a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything" (emphasis added).  That clearly shows consent on the woman's part.  He was also talking about women in the entertainment industry, not just random beautiful women he happens to pass by on the street.  Was the things he said about "mov[ing] on her like a bitch," being "automatically attracted to beautiful" women, "just start kissing them; it's like a magnet," and "grab[bing] them by the pussy" a bit uncouth and unfortunate?  Yes, they were, and he already formally apologized.  But as he has maintained, what he said was "locker room talk."  It's no secret people say these things behind closed doors, it's just human nature.  And this goes for both men and women (think of the things women have said in regards to 50 Shades of Grey for example).  Not only that, but think of the rap songs with lyrics far more vulgar than what Trump has said that are accepted into society.  Where is the outrage when it comes to that?  And the concern that what Trump says has potentially dangerous consequences is completely unfounded.  All of those violent demonstrations at rallies, like the one at Chicago or the one that involved the 69 year old who wearing an oxygen tank, have been proven to be set-up and staged by the DNC and Clinton campaign operatives in order push an agenda.  There is no evidence to show that anything Trump has said or done has, by direct consequence, led to violence.  In fact, the ones that have been shown to be violent and disruptive are the Clinton supports, or at least those in the anti-Trump camp.  Recently, a homeless black women was viciously attacked for supporting Trump, a man was beaten and chased until police intervened for wearing a MAGA hat, students at the University of Pittsburgh were verbally assaulted for distributing pro-Trump merchandise and pamphlets, people leaving a Trump fundraiser were harassed in Minnesota, and the examples continue (none of these were promoted by the mainstream media, because that would go against the narrative).  To blame any of these incidents on Trump's rhetoric would be trying to create causation where there is none, as they are all clearly examples of people violating others' right to free speech and being unable to handle different opinions without resorting to violence and ad hominems.  So again, to bring this back to the original issue, there is no evidence or precedent showing that the remarks Trump made about women all those years ago could be considered dangerous or a threat.  And yes, I concede that those remarks do deserve some news coverage, as you said perhaps a day or two's worth.  But instead the story was pushed for weeks, not just days, and the mainstream media then fabricated false rape and sexual assault victims at the same time in order to sustain the conversation, in an attempt to drown out the Wikileaked Podesta e-mails and newly released Project Veritas videos.
 

 

 

I apologize if my tone sounds impatient at all. I ended up losing everything I wrote here and had to rewrite it from scratch :')

 

Quite honestly, I don't really have much to say in response to the majority of your post. I felt it went a bit off topic from what we originally started with, and I don't know how likely it is that any engagement I could have with you would end up being a worthwhile use of either of our time. You're welcome to continue going in that direction--I don't mean to dissuade you from doing so, but I'd prefer to stay as succinct as possible as I don't have any intention to argue with you. However, if you do continue, I urge you to keep the idiom "two wrongs don't make a right." in mind... 

 

------------------------

 

"That clearly shows consent on the woman's part." But it doesn't. "A person's silence should not be considered consent. A person who does not respond to attempts to engage in sexual activity, even if they do not verbally say no or resist physically, is clearly not agreeing to sexual activity."  To give an example: If a woman standing in a crowded subway car is groped by the man behind her, her not making a scene by swatting his hand away or cussing him out does not mean she consented to him touching her. How the woman responds to being touched neither legitimizes nor delegitimizes the validity of the man's actions. She was still grabbed by a stranger without her permission, and according to the Department of Justice, that is considered sexual assault. "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape." 

We have no way of knowing how whoever he was talking about reacted, or if he had/has enough extrospective in those scenarios to pick up on the fact that his actions might've been making women around him uncomfortable, but consent isn't something that should assumed. The woman/women not making their disapproval of his actions loudly known because they might've felt intimidated, were trying to make a good first impression, or etc doesn't mean they were consenting to any sexual contact. Coercion =/= Consent

 

Where he encountered the woman/women doesn't change anything though. His advances wouldn't be any less unsolicited if the location or women's occupation were any different. It's not as though when women are looking at job descriptions, jobs in the entertainment industry or in male dominated fields come with "May face sexual harassment or sexual assault in the workplace" disclaimers. Adults responsible enough to hold jobs should have the necessary amount of self control to not make their coworkers, or anyone really, uncomfortable by doing or saying unsolicited sexual things in professional settings. This expectation shouldn't be setting the bar too high. His actions shouldn't be excused because his workplace wasn't/isn't your stereotypical, cubicled office space.

 

The conversation being sexual in nature isn't the issue people have with what he said. As you've said, it's not unusual for people to talk about sex and other things that are considered vulgar, but what was said isn't entirely in the same category about someone giving a detailed summary on how their hookup with a hot girl from Tinder went, or a group of friends talking about porn/kinks. The vulgarity, while maybe surprising, pales in comparison to the implication that Trump seemingly doesn't care if the person he's hitting on is comfortable with what he's doing.

While he did release a formal apology, him mentioning Bill Clinton towards the end was unnecessary, and, in my opinion, undermines a lot of what he just said. What Bill Clinton has done/allegedly done is unrelated and an entirely different matter. Bill Clinton's actions don't lessen the brunt of Trump's actions in anyway, or vice versa, and acting like they have any effect on each other completely misses the point on why people were so put off by his explicit comments. He started off fine, and the apology would've been satisfactory had he not turned it into a non-apology by trying to dismissively compare the two at the end. Two things can be bad at the same time while varying in severity; comparing them accomplishes nothing. 

There is a near constant disapproval of the prevalence of sexism and misogyny in hip hop though. Though the criticism is expressed through more of a slow trickle instead of a short lived, dam burst-like increase in articles; opinion pieces; or what have you, that doesn't mean it's not there or that people are generally ok with it.. You're trying to compare an apple to an orange. While there's certainly some semblance between the two, they're ultimately too different to warrant reacting to in similar ways. You would agree that a music artist is overall much less impactful than a politician or leader of some kind, right? And a lot of talk around the first 50 Shades of Gray movie was around whether or not the book's main characters were in an abusive relationship, so it's not the best example either (Though you could make a case with the 2nd movie since, as far as I know at least, the content was similar to the 1st movie's, but its recent release didn't generate much, if any, public concern.). Sexually charged perfume, clothing, and occasionally even food ads are perhaps a more fitting example though since those generate little-to-no backlash despite being incredibly unnecessary, but that's another conversation entirely. 

 

To backtrack slightly: I dunno man. I don't know how tall you are, but I've always been easily pushed around and picked up, so "...I don't even wait." and "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." hardly come across as anything other than potentially threatening to me. There's not exactly any comfort to be found in an influential figure spreading that sort of talk, especially since his confidence in those statements could imply he's not been held accountable for similar things before. (Like from when he was on Howard Stern in 2005: ["I'll tell you the funniest is that I'll go backstage before a show and everyone's getting dressed. No men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it.... 'Is everyone OK'? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. 'Is everybody OK?' And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that."]) 
While not entirely in the same category, worry that his words/actions will affect regular people's lives isn't an unsubstantiated as some may want to believe. In addition to the widely covered recent rise in anti-semitism, following the 2016 election process and Trump's electoral college win, schools started reporting that there had been an uptick in bullying towards minorities and LGBT students. So the effect his rhetoric has had/will have on people's actions will be something we need to keep an eye on over the course of Trump's presidency. 

 

And for what it's worth, it's hard to find a more biased source than the infamous /r/The_Donald. You're not going to convince anyone by linking to that. The direct equivalent is me citing /r/EnoughTrumpSpam for something, and somehow expecting you, and anyone else, to not sit back upon seeing the url and think "Wait a second.. Anything posted on this very upfront anti-Trump subreddit might be promoting a specific viewpoint." 

 

--------------------

 

now please enjoy this Floral Shoppe x Smash Mouth remix

 

[Akazora 293]

On 3/11/2017 at 10:07 AM, machine said:

 

 

I apologize if my tone sounds impatient at all. I ended up losing everything I wrote here and had to rewrite it from scratch :')

 

Quite honestly, I don't really have much to say in response to the majority of your post. I felt it went a bit off topic from what we originally started with, and I don't know how likely it is that any engagement I could have with you would end up being a worthwhile use of either of our time. You're welcome to continue going in that direction--I don't mean to dissuade you from doing so, but I'd prefer to stay as succinct as possible as I don't have any intention to argue with you. However, if you do continue, I urge you to keep the idiom "two wrongs don't make a right." in mind... 

 

------------------------

 

"That clearly shows consent on the woman's part." But it doesn't. "A person's silence should not be considered consent. A person who does not respond to attempts to engage in sexual activity, even if they do not verbally say no or resist physically, is clearly not agreeing to sexual activity."  To give an example: If a woman standing in a crowded subway car is groped by the man behind her, her not making a scene by swatting his hand away or cussing him out does not mean she consented to him touching her. How the woman responds to being touched neither legitimizes nor delegitimizes the validity of the man's actions. She was still grabbed by a stranger without her permission, and according to the Department of Justice, that is considered sexual assault. "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape." 

We have no way of knowing how whoever he was talking about reacted, or if he had/has enough extrospective in those scenarios to pick up on the fact that his actions might've been making women around him uncomfortable, but consent isn't something that should assumed. The woman/women not making their disapproval of his actions loudly known because they might've felt intimidated, were trying to make a good first impression, or etc doesn't mean they were consenting to any sexual contact. Coercion =/= Consent

 

Where he encountered the woman/women doesn't change anything though. His advances wouldn't be any less unsolicited if the location or women's occupation were any different. It's not as though when women are looking at job descriptions, jobs in the entertainment industry or in male dominated fields come with "May face sexual harassment or sexual assault in the workplace" disclaimers. Adults responsible enough to hold jobs should have the necessary amount of self control to not make their coworkers, or anyone really, uncomfortable by doing or saying unsolicited sexual things in professional settings. This expectation shouldn't be setting the bar too high. His actions shouldn't be excused because his workplace wasn't/isn't your stereotypical, cubicled office space.

 

The conversation being sexual in nature isn't the issue people have with what he said. As you've said, it's not unusual for people to talk about sex and other things that are considered vulgar, but what was said isn't entirely in the same category about someone giving a detailed summary on how their hookup with a hot girl from Tinder went, or a group of friends talking about porn/kinks. The vulgarity, while maybe surprising, pales in comparison to the implication that Trump seemingly doesn't care if the person he's hitting on is comfortable with what he's doing.

While he did release a formal apology, him mentioning Bill Clinton towards the end was unnecessary, and, in my opinion, undermines a lot of what he just said. What Bill Clinton has done/allegedly done is unrelated and an entirely different matter. Bill Clinton's actions don't lessen the brunt of Trump's actions in anyway, or vice versa, and acting like they have any effect on each other completely misses the point on why people were so put off by his explicit comments. He started off fine, and the apology would've been satisfactory had he not turned it into a non-apology by trying to dismissively compare the two at the end. Two things can be bad at the same time while varying in severity; comparing them accomplishes nothing. 

There is a near constant disapproval of the prevalence of sexism and misogyny in hip hop though. Though the criticism is expressed through more of a slow trickle instead of a short lived, dam burst-like increase in articles; opinion pieces; or what have you, that doesn't mean it's not there or that people are generally ok with it.. You're trying to compare an apple to an orange. While there's certainly some semblance between the two, they're ultimately too different to warrant reacting to in similar ways. You would agree that a music artist is overall much less impactful than a politician or leader of some kind, right? And a lot of talk around the first 50 Shades of Gray movie was around whether or not the book's main characters were in an abusive relationship, so it's not the best example either (Though you could make a case with the 2nd movie since, as far as I know at least, the content was similar to the 1st movie's, but its recent release didn't generate much, if any, public concern.). Sexually charged perfume, clothing, and occasionally even food ads are perhaps a more fitting example though since those generate little-to-no backlash despite being incredibly unnecessary, but that's another conversation entirely. 

 

To backtrack slightly: I dunno man. I don't know how tall you are, but I've always been easily pushed around and picked up, so "...I don't even wait." and "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." hardly come across as anything other than potentially threatening to me. There's not exactly any comfort to be found in an influential figure spreading that sort of talk, especially since his confidence in those statements could imply he's not been held accountable for similar things before. (Like from when he was on Howard Stern in 2005: ["I'll tell you the funniest is that I'll go backstage before a show and everyone's getting dressed. No men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it.... 'Is everyone OK'? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. 'Is everybody OK?' And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that."]) 
While not entirely in the same category, worry that his words/actions will affect regular people's lives isn't an unsubstantiated as some may want to believe. In addition to the widely covered recent rise in anti-semitism, following the 2016 election process and Trump's electoral college win, schools started reporting that there had been an uptick in bullying towards minorities and LGBT students. So the effect his rhetoric has had/will have on people's actions will be something we need to keep an eye on over the course of Trump's presidency. 

 

And for what it's worth, it's hard to find a more biased source than the infamous /r/The_Donald. You're not going to convince anyone by linking to that. The direct equivalent is me citing /r/EnoughTrumpSpam for something, and somehow expecting you, and anyone else, to not sit back upon seeing the url and think "Wait a second.. Anything posted on this very upfront anti-Trump subreddit might be promoting a specific viewpoint."
 

 

Uhhhhhh soo, I hadn't realized you had posted this at all... until just today......... oops........

In order to keep my response as brief as possible, I'll just post an off-the-cuff reply.  It'll prevent me from overthinking the conversation and will likely reduce the number of tangents I go off on.

 

I admittedly overstepped my argument last time.  From what he said, consent cannot be assumed and I was wrong to have suggested otherwise.  But similarly, neither can coercion.  We don't have any way of knowing what transpired during the events he was referring to in those tapes; it could have been consensual or it could have been coercive, and even then the line between what is legally allowed and what is not isn't entirely clear.  If we view things through simplistic lens, in a merely sexual/physical sense, then perhaps things aren't too complicated.  But sex is not merely physical, it is also emotional.  Physical acts, whether they be acts of advancement such as kissing, groping, etc. or acts of repel-ment such as pushing (in the "away" direction), refusal, etc. are intricately linked to emotional and mental processes.  Trying to land a sexual partner is a game, simply put, in which both sides enter the ring with a certain mindset and attempt to change the opposing player's mindset through emotional and physical appeal.  And in this game, sometimes there is a disconnect between the mental and the physical.  For example, occasionally men and women (who are generally above average in physical appearance) play hard to get in order to leverage the game in their favor.  Perhaps a woman would be fine with having sex with a certain man, but only under certain circumstances.  So when does her consent manifest?  Let's say she'd only be willing once the man has demonstrated a sufficient amount of loyalty to her (taking time out of his schedule, being on time to dates, etc).  At the beginning of the game, if the man attempted to have sex with her it would not be consensual, obviously.  But through repeated interactions, mental games, sacrifices and compromises from both parties (and yes, physical and emotional manipulations that may be interpreted as "coercion" by certain people) a mutual agreement is eventually reached: either "yes" or "no."  By the end of the game, things are consensual.  Of course, this leaves a lot to interpretation, especially since people don't keep journals of their true intentions that clash with their public persona.  And heck, sometimes people don't even know what they want.  If two people have sex when they both believe they're consenting, but then one of them regrets the decision later (certainly reasonable, especially since no one is ever 100% certain about anything, ever) what should be done about that?  The malicious thing to do would be to accuse the other person of rape, which is something women more often than men can rely on as a backup plan for obvious reasons.  Anyway, this is getting way off topic.  To put it shortly, consent is a moving, difficult-to-pinpoint target and coercion is far from self-evident.  Since I'm rushing this, if you would like me to expand on this I'd be happy to, but for now this should be enough.

 

Of course, I say that but I also recognize that state laws have done their best to stabilize these two concepts, and since I'm no law student and am in no place to criticize, I can only assume that they are satisfactory.  But at the same time, this issue with Trump and the tapes is not a legal one.  There is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions.  Could it have been consensual?  Yes.  Could it have been coercive?  Yes.  Because I believe in innocence until guilt is proven, I will defend Trump as far as that goes.  I understand the concern though, insofar as he uses pretty extreme language ("I don't even wait" and "you can do anything"), especially coming from a man of his social stature.  But that's merely just another facet of the "game" I mentioned earlier.  Physical attractiveness gives people a massive advantage, but social standing does as well.  And with that advantage, some people are given an edge in the "game" of love (or sex, or relationships, or whatever, I'm making these terms interchangeable at this point since they aren't significantly independent of each other).  They're free to wield that advantage however they'd like so long as they don't do anything illegal, even if that means being borderline coercive.  Because at what point does strategy morph into manipulation morph into coercion?  When is one's consent established as a result of genuine emotions and not determined by calculated manipulations of the heart?  That's the million dollar question, and there's no answer to it.  Does it suck that things are like this?  Yeah, that's fair to say, I know as someone who doesn't view himself as particularly physically blessed I sometimes think so too.  Is it troubling that people like Trump are able to use their status to push the envelope?  Sure, but as a guy I also find it troubling that females (both anonymous catfishers and ones legitimately so) are worshiped, given free stuff, and interacted with more reverence than males are online.  I'm not going to get particularly upset about either, especially since there is only so much that can be done.  I'm a fan of free market concepts and of all the places a free market has established itself, nowhere else has it been established more successfully than in the realm of dating/relationships/sex.  There are hardly any government or authoritarian forces restricting the market, and thank goodness.  I doubt anyone would be particularly happy if the government forced people, by law, to enter relationships with certain individuals, identified by some factor such as physical attractiveness, age, or social standing, predicated on some lawmaker's arbitrary notion of "fairness."  Love is rough, but codifying restrictions on how you're allowed to feel is just distopian.

 

Anyway, after two fat paragraphs about that, it's clear that there is not much left to say about this topic, at least on my side.  We've both at least come to an agreement on the facts of the matter, which is a miracle in and of itself.  At this point, we're both just arguing how to interpret the facts and debating each other over how problematic or how dismissible this whole fiasco is.  I can't even think of anything more to say that would add to the conversation about the Trump tapes themselves that has not already been said, which is why I'm finding myself discussing the broader philosophical aspect of the issue far more than any of the political parts.

 

And as a postscript, I'll admit that it wasn't the best idea to link to /r/The_Donald as a source, though I still stand by the validity of the research done in that thread. Regardless, to address your point about the rhetoric, I'm still not convinced.  For one, all that is selective information.  The most glaring is that survey by the HRC as evidence of a post-election bullying and harassment spike among young people.  If you check the full report, you'll find that the the 50,000+ respondents were solicited through their social media sites and the social media of their "partner organizations" (among which is the National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance totally not biased at all).  It should be pretty obvious that the only people who would bother to follow the social media accounts of HRC are liberals (and pretty hardcore ones at all).  But to prove it, according to the demographics section of the report, 64% identified as female, 27% identified as male, and 8% identified as another gender.  Not only that, but only 45% of respondents identified as heterosexual, while the rest were either bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer, asexual, or something else.  I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a peer reviewed source to realize that this sample size is nowhere near representative of the average American youth, not even in the slightest.  This alone should have been enough to disqualify this report as biased, but to make matters worse the report doesn't even list, verbatim, every single question asked and pads many of its pages with self-reported stories of individuals.  This survey serves no purpose outside of pushing an agenda.  If you had surveyed individuals from /r/The_Donald, you would have gotten equally skewed demographics and likely an equally alarming number of harassment reports, except the victims would have been conservatives and the perpetrators would have been liberals.  The entire ABC article is just selectively listing one-off examples of incidents at schools, and quoting people denouncing those incidents.  Has there been an uptick since before the election?  I don't know, and no one knows because no legitimate surveys have been taken allowing for a comparison.  Though I have a hard time taking the ADL seriously ever since their Pepe the Frog fiasco, I don't find anything glaringly wrong with their reporting on the rise of anti-Semitism at least.  However, I'm a bit skeptical of how much of a "rise" they claim to report, and of course reports of hate crimes are not the same as actual cases of verified hate crimes (since "reported" hate crimes can and have been found to be hoaxes).  And I'm not quite sure I agree with you about politicians and leaders having more pull than celebrities.  The absolutely insane amount of loyalty that people have for their favorite authors, movies stars, singers, bands, television personalities, etc. shouldn't be overlooked. I'm fairly certain the average kid cares far less about politics than pop culture and dank memes.  But I'll admit that some politicians have somehow entered celebrity status (Obama, Trudeau, JFK, Reagan, and of course, Trump) which is also something to consider.  And this past election was as much as a cultural revolution/upheaval as it was a political one, so there's that too.

 

Okay but yeah I really should cut this short now.  Feel free to respond if you'd like, but don't force yourself to do anything too rash (like rewrite the whole thing after somehow losing all of it how did that even happen??)

 

--

EDIT: OOPS I forgot to post a dank maymay, forgive me.

[machine 52]

 

[SteveAustin 0]