Official Sexual Harrassment Thread

[chancellor]

Toxic masculinity knows no party, chancellor. You know that. Silly to make this a partisan thing (which I've seen people on both sides of the aisle doing).

Actually, I'll respectfully disagree. "Toxic masculinity" is entirely a creation of the academic left, and amorphously used to further their ends. I could quote chapter and verse on here examples of what's called "toxic masculinity" on college campuses that's either simply a speech control issue or an intentional degredation of men.

And I'll stand by my statement. I find it interesting that any group that uses gender related attitudes or behaviors as a political weapon is found to be overwhelmingly guilty of the behaviors they're politicizing. Schneiderman is no different than Jim Bakker, for example.

[Sour Masher]

Actually, I'll respectfully disagree. "Toxic masculinity" is entirely a creation of the academic left, and amorphously used to further their ends. I could quote chapter and verse on here examples of what's called "toxic masculinity" on college campuses that's either simply a speech control issue or an intentional degredation of men.

And I'll stand by my statement. I find it interesting that any group that uses gender related attitudes or behaviors as a political weapon is found to be overwhelmingly guilty of the behaviors they're politicizing. Schneiderman is no different than Jim Bakker, for example.

Did you read the article B-Fly posted that used this term? Taking the term out of context might lead one to believe it is a nefarious leftist term, but in the context of the article that brought its usage into question in this conversation, it seems entirely appropriate to me. Here is the excerpt:

"To the extent that angry straight men dominate these spaces, it’s less because they’re more lonely, but rather because they’re more willing to shout women down, denigrating other people’s worldviews. The toxic masculinity that erases women’s voices is the same toxic masculinity that treats violence as an acceptable solution to one individual’s unhappiness."

In this context, it isn't being implied that all masculinity is toxic, but merely the male aggressiveness in these forums--which is gendered, because it is specifically coming from men and targeted toward women--is toxic. And to imply that leftists are more guilty of this sort of thing than those on the right is just silly. Now, if you are saying that the left is hypocritical because they are ALSO guilty of these things--I agree with that.

I also agree with the notion that legitimate concerns over equality and justice can sometimes be overly politicized and weaponized, and that does happen on the left, especially by overly eager, but not always well-informed college students. One need only look at the embarrassing-for-the-left collection of Jordan Peterson videos available to see what happens when young, eager, but not fully competent advocates engage an intelligent, much more prepared and articulate conservative. Of course, these are carefully selected encounters being highlighted, and one can just as easily find examples of inarticulate right-leaning voices fending poorly against more articulate and informed leftist voices. But some of Peterson's experiences on his University of Toronto campus regarding the use of language as it relates to free speech do show what you are talking about. In conceding that point to you, I hope you are willing to concede that in specific syntactical contexts, like the one above, terms like "toxic masculinity" are not just academic leftist constructs, but legitimate phrasings meant to articulate truths.

While on the subject of smart conservatives, like yourself, Chance. Can you answer me why is it that successful conservative politicians are by and large inarticulate blockheads? Why does someone who talks and acts like Trump get raised up by your party over someone like Peterson? Wouldn't you prefer someone like Peterson (I know he is Canadian, but someone with his intellectual capacities to express nuance--are there even any conservative politicians in America who fit that description? If so, why are they not as successful as Trump, with his simplistic pandering to the worst aspects of our society?).

[Bernie Brewer]

Did you read the article B-Fly posted that used this term? Taking the term out of context might lead one to believe it is a nefarious leftist term, but in the context of the article that brought its usage into question in this conversation, it seems entirely appropriate to me. Here is the excerpt:

"To the extent that angry straight men dominate these spaces, it’s less because they’re more lonely, but rather because they’re more willing to shout women down, denigrating other people’s worldviews. The toxic masculinity that erases women’s voices is the same toxic masculinity that treats violence as an acceptable solution to one individual’s unhappiness."

In this context, it isn't being implied that all masculinity is toxic, but merely the male aggressiveness in these forums--which is gendered, because it is specifically coming from men and targeted toward women--is toxic. And to imply that leftists are more guilty of this sort of thing than those on the right is just silly. Now, if you are saying that the left is hypocritical because they are ALSO guilty of these things--I agree with that.

I also agree with the notion that legitimate concerns over equality and justice can sometimes be overly politicized and weaponized, and that does happen on the left, especially by overly eager, but not always well-informed college students. One need only look at the embarrassing-for-the-left collection of Jordan Peterson videos available to see what happens when young, eager, but not fully competent advocates engage an intelligent, much more prepared and articulate conservative. Of course, these are carefully selected encounters being highlighted, and one can just as easily find examples of inarticulate right-leaning voices fending poorly against more articulate and informed leftist voices. But some of Peterson's experiences on his University of Toronto campus regarding the use of language as it relates to free speech do show what you are talking about. In conceding that point to you, I hope you are willing to concede that in specific syntactical contexts, like the one above, terms like "toxic masculinity" are not just academic leftist constructs, but legitimate phrasings meant to articulate truths.

While on the subject of smart conservatives, like yourself, Chance. Can you answer me why is it that successful conservative politicians are by and large inarticulate blockheads? Why does someone who talks and acts like Trump get raised up by your party over someone like Peterson? Wouldn't you prefer someone like Peterson (I know he is Canadian, but someone with his intellectual capacities to express nuance--are there even any conservative politicians in America who fit that description? If so, why are they not as successful as Trump, with his simplistic pandering to the worst aspects of our society?).

I thought this was a very good response SM, at least until the bolded part! Were I you, and of course I'm not, I might try to remove the judgment pretext of "successful conservative politicians are by and large inarticulate blockheads" and ask the question in a different way, ya know, if you really want Chance to respond.

Again, fighting the unwinnable fight, if you think (and I betting you don't really) that all or a large percentage of conservative politicians (and therefore indirectly conservatives themselves) are truly inarticulate blockheads, that again is how you ended up with Trump.

[Sour Masher]

I thought this was a very good response SM, at least until the bolded part! Were I you, and of course I'm not, I might try to remove the judgment pretext of "successful conservative politicians are by and large inarticulate blockheads" and ask the question in a different way, ya know, if you really want Chance to respond.

Again, fighting the unwinnable fight, if you think (and I betting you don't really) that all or a large percentage of conservative politicians (and therefore indirectly conservatives themselves) are truly inarticulate blockheads, that again is how you ended up with Trump.

Well, I may be blinded by just how big an inarticulate blockhead I think the current Republican president is Bernie. I admit that once again Trump may be coloring my larger opinion of the GOP. I'm not going to cut the offending paragraph now, but I'll offer the olive branch that I think inarticulate blockheadism is easy to find on both sides of the aisle. And I'll add the corrective to your concern that I'm insulting conservatives--it is the opposite. I respect reasonable, thoughtful conservatives who know their stuff and can engage in meaningful dialogue, like the fellow I cited---Jordan Peterson. I just don't understand why intellects like that don't get elected. Instead, we get Trump. I will admit I think I see more intellects rise on the left. I count Obama as one (I'll wait for the push back on that notion).

But again, I'll soften the blow by saying, in general, American politicians from both parties (but I can't help but feel at the moment, especially on the right) do not seem to be the best and brightest their parties have to offer. That frustrates me. I think Chancellor is a far more articulate defender of GOP ideals than Trump is, but yet he and his party seem cool with raising up a blockhead like Trump when better and brighter people exist in the party. Chancellor is careful not to insult our POTUS, so I'm curious if he will push back on my contention that he is smarter and more articulate than Trump, the man his party decided should be their leader. Chance, I'm willing to accept your rebuke, if you want to correct me on my opinion that you are smarter, and a better conservative, than Trump.

[Bernie Brewer]

Well, I may be blinded by just how big an inarticulate blockhead I think the current Republican president is Bernie. I admit that once again Trump may be coloring my larger opinion of the GOP. I'm not going to cut the offending paragraph now, but I'll offer the olive branch that I think inarticulate blockheadism is easy to find on both sides of the aisle. And I'll add the corrective to your concern that I'm insulting conservatives--it is the opposite. I respect reasonable, thoughtful conservatives who know their stuff and can engage in meaningful dialogue, like the fellow I cited---Jordan Peterson. I just don't understand why intellects like that don't get elected. Instead, we get Trump. I will admit I think I see more intellects rise on the left. I count Obama as one (I'll wait for the push back on that notion).

But again, I'll soften the blow by saying, in general, American politicians from both parties (but I can't help but feel at the moment, especially on the right) do not seem to be the best and brightest their parties have to offer. That frustrates me. I think Chancellor is a far more articulate defender of GOP ideals than Trump is, but yet he and his party seem cool with raising up a blockhead like Trump when better and brighter people exist in the party. Chancellor is careful not to insult our POTUS, so I'm curious if he will push back on my contention that he is smarter and more articulate than Trump, the man his party decided should be their leader. Chance, I'm willing to accept your rebuke, if you want to correct me on my opinion that you are smarter, and a better conservative, than Trump.

No olive branch needed to me. Just saying that you’re always one of the more rational and reasonable postures and you can do better than leading with a punch to the face. Asking a question while your punching someone in the jaw, probably isn’t the way to start a conversation. I agree that the Republicans find themselves in a difficult position. It sucks. I completely get that if your not a fan of Trump he is pretty infuriating. His style is his own, thank goodness. And we will collectively survive him. And, you know as a rehabilitating Republican, I contend that he is not reflective of the majority within “his party of convenience.” Sure there are crazies but there are in both sides and the right or crazies are on stage right now.

As for your Obama comment, if someone push’s back on him not being an intellectual, then consider the source. You might get push back whether he used his intellectualism effectively to connect with all people or even he may have been too smart for his own good on occasion.

[Bernie Brewer]

Hey SM, I think I might owe you an apology. I wasn’t meaning to call you out. But I meant what I said about you being one of the more reasonable, rational and respectful posters. Keep being you. Nevermind me. I’m just kinda cranky these days. Work is increasingly frustrating, lots of other stuff going on in life right now, so I’m venting. Life has a way of knocking you in the nuts right about when you deserve it. Oh well, this too shall pass. The Trump thing gets to me too but I am really afraid we collectively are losing our way back to civility as a country and we’re becoming more and more divided. Any way, sorry about calling you out. May be time for another break for me.

[Sour Masher]

No olive branch needed to me. Just saying that you’re always one of the more rational and reasonable postures and you can do better than leading with a punch to the face. Asking a question while your punching someone in the jaw, probably isn’t the way to start a conversation. I agree that the Republicans find themselves in a difficult position. It sucks. I completely get that if your not a fan of Trump he is pretty infuriating. His style is his own, thank goodness. And we will collectively survive him. And, you know as a rehabilitating Republican, I contend that he is not reflective of the majority within “his party of convenience.” Sure there are crazies but there are in both sides and the right or crazies are on stage right now.

As for your Obama comment, if someone push’s back on him not being an intellectual, then consider the source. You might get push back whether he used his intellectualism effectively to connect with all people or even he may have been too smart for his own good on occasion.

I may have expressed myself poorly, but I certainly didn't mean to rhetorically punch anyone in the face. The only folks I'm insulting are politicians in general, and at the moment, especially Republican politicians, and most especially the president. Generally, insulting politicians is a pretty safe thing to do in mixed company, since just about everyone agrees they aren't always the best and brightest. I'll even add to that list the third party politicians. Gary Johnson shouldn't have led that ticket. He was less than half as smart as Weld. Jill Stein was also pretty clueless. Trump, despite his claims to the contrary, is not well-informed, particularly bright, or articulate. If anything, I think I'm pulling punches in making those claims. I think the Republicans can do better by putting forth intellectually capable students of conservative values who won't embarrass themselves and our country. People with such qualifications certainly exist within the party, but they are not the ones leading the party right now.

Edit: All that said, I am veering this thread more and more off topic. For that, I apologize, and you are right that my last paragraph was where that started, so I shouldn't have written it here.

[Sour Masher]

Hey SM, I think I might owe you an apology. I wasn’t meaning to call you out. But I meant what I said about you being one of the more reasonable, rational and respectful posters. Keep being you. Nevermind me. I’m just kinda cranky these days. Work is increasingly frustrating, lots of other stuff going on in life right now, so I’m venting. Life has a way of knocking you in the nuts right about when you deserve it. Oh well, this too shall pass. The Trump thing gets to me too but I am really afraid we collectively are losing our way back to civility as a country and we’re becoming more and more divided. Any way, sorry about calling you out. May be time for another break for me.

BB, I'm sorry to hear things are going rough for you. I feel you on that--got a few issues myself now. I'm reminding myself exactly the same thing you are--this too shall pass (great minds think alike, right?). Life is a roller coaster for most people. I'm fortunate to have had as many ups as downs. I try to remember the ups on the downs. I'm hopeful your up is coming soon my plumber-butted snowman friend!

[Bernie Brewer]

BB, I'm sorry to hear things are going rough for you. I feel you on that--got a few issues myself now. I'm reminding myself exactly the same thing you are--this too shall pass (great minds think alike, right?). Life is a roller coaster for most people. I'm fortunate to have had as many ups as downs. I try to remember the ups on the downs. I'm hopeful your up is coming soon my plumber-butted snowman friend!

Lol, it was my first attempt at a selfie! And, thanks. Things aren’t bad, just a lot of frustration. In the grand scheme, I shouldn’t complain. 97% of the worlds population would gladly accept my problems for their own! I made up 97% but you know what I mean. That’s the thing that helps me get up in the morning.

[Sour Masher]

Lol, it was my first attempt at a selfie! And, thanks. Things aren’t bad, just a lot of frustration. In the grand scheme, I shouldn’t complain. 97% of the worlds population would gladly accept my problems for their own! I made up 97% but you know what I mean. That’s the thing that helps me get up in the morning.

A great man once wrote on a forum that I read that a friend of his once told him that 87% of statistics on the interwebs (that Al Gore invented) are made up, so your 97% statistic being made up does not surprise me.

[Bernie Brewer]

A great man once told me that 87% of statistics on the interwebs (that Al Gore invented) are made up, so your 97% statistic being made up does not surprise me.

I don’t believe I said he was great! And, wrong thread.

[Sour Masher]

I don’t believe I said he was great! And, wrong thread.

You got me mid-edit. I was calling you great. But you are right. Wrong thread. And that is something you were right on with the paragraph you called out. I veered this thread off topic with that paragraph, so I should not have included it for that reason. I promise my next post here will be on topic!

[chancellor]

Did you read the article B-Fly posted that used this term?

Yes, but that is merely one interpretation of the term "toxic masculinity". I've also seen it used in many other interpretations, almost all of them totally bogus.

Let me be perfectly clear, however: violence against women isn't "toxic masculinity", it's criminal. Rape isn't "toxic masculinity", it's criminal. And while I'd not go to the extremes Fresno Bob elucidated, if I sat on a jury after he was caught doing exactly what he stated, I'd sure as hell not vote to convict.

And to imply that leftists are more guilty of this sort of thing than those on the right is just silly. Now, if you are saying that the left is hypocritical because they are ALSO guilty of these things--I agree with that.

Those on the left have chosen to weaponize the concept of "toxic masculinity". It's certainly not a concept from the right. And, yes, the stunning hypocrisy major figures on the left who proclaim to preach women's rights who engage in disgusting conduct as Schneiderman is my point.

While on the subject of smart conservatives, like yourself, Chance. Can you answer me why is it that successful conservative politicians are by and large inarticulate blockheads?

Hmmm...methinks you're allowing your distaste for Trump to color your point of view here. But first, thank you for the nice compliment.

But I can think of some successful conservative politicians who were good to brilliant communicators - Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan all come to mind.

I think Chancellor is a far more articulate defender of GOP ideals than Trump is, but yet he and his party seem cool with raising up a blockhead like Trump when better and brighter people exist in the party.

Again, thanks for the nice compliment. Certainly, much of the initial enthusiasm for Trump was driven by the distaste for his opponent. And while there was (and still remains) a segment of "Never Trump" in the GOP, there's nothing like a Hillary to galvanize the remainder of the base. For me personally, my major driver for voting Trump was his commitment to conservative SCOTUS and appellate judges during the campaign; I had serious doubts he'd live up to a number of other campaign promises, but was fairly confident he'd hold to this one, as it had little risk for him with high return.

I've certainly been pushed farther to the right than when I first came on this board; the key turning point is when the Democratic Party decided to go full-Alinsky on Mitt Romney. Romney, much to my chagrin was too nice (or, in a less charitable view, too much of a pussy) to fight fire with fire. Since then, I've basked in schadenfreude that the Trump campaign won using a number of Alinsky-like methods, and moreover, has delivered more key conservative victories than both Bush presidencies combined in about a year and a half.

Chance, I'm willing to accept your rebuke, if you want to correct me on my opinion that you are smarter, and a better conservative, than Trump.

Again, thanks for the thought, but no, I can't agree. No rebuke necessary, though. I have no idea what President Trump's IQ is, but I certainly haven't built a business empire, nor have I won two elections I was given virtually no chance to win (GOP Primary and the general election). At one time I might have been a more principled conservative than Trump, but through the last four elections have learned the bitter lesson through two extended bet-bannings with GITH and numerous election results ruthless bastards win and principled individuals lose. I don't like it, but that's objective reality, and I'd much rather have my ruthless bastard in place than the other.

[Bernie Brewer]

I promise my next post here will be on topic!

Thank you! I think I mentioned that I’ve been stressed out lately stop adding to it. I need some order in all this chaos!

[Sour Masher]

Thanks for the responses Chance. It is good to get your perspective. A lot about your, and perhaps a decent number of conservatives', support for Trump makes more sense to me now, and for that, I am very grateful. The idea of fighting fire with fire--of backing a guy you knew would get dirty to win after seeing Romney perhaps not get dirty enough (I don't think that is why he lost, but I agree he was a largely a classy and more classic, and cautious politician). I can see how seeing the other side go low on your guy and him taking the high road, and losing, could swing voters to backing a guy willing to get nasty. I'm hoping that is a pendulum swing that settles back toward the middle though. I don't think Trump's rhetoric and tactics are good for politics in this country.

But I promised to keep my next post in this thread on topic, so I'll also address the issue of terminology you bring up related to the topic of this thread. I get that sometimes the left creates neologisms and weaponizes phrases in a way that actually polarizes discussions on matters I think most reasonable people actually agree on. I think most people agree with you that men who abuse women are guilty of crimes that should be punished severely. I contend that sometimes terms that come off as just leftist nonsense are often legitimate attempts to label what many believe to be realities related to these and other crimes/injustices.

It is hard to argue against the idea, sticking with the term "toxic masculinity" that many of the biological and social aspects of male behavior, including are increased proclivity toward aggression and violence biologically, and repression of "softer" emotional responses culturally, are toxic tendencies, to society and to the individual, in 21st century society. But I get bristling at the term. I personally avoid some terms and phrases like this, because I know they carry so much baggage of misuse and abuse by others that me using them is going to pretty much shut down dialogue. This phrase clearly fits the bill, since echo said he stopped reading what I thought was a pretty reasonable, not crazy academic leftist, piece.