[Hindsite]

Back to the topic at hand...

'DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR' Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson accused of ‘motorboating’ singer by ‘burying head in her boobs’ as Joss Stone looked on

Well if it's true, I have to give Richard Branson points for style. That left me laughing out loud. Of course he was drinking...

Antonia claims the next day Branson’s assistant invited her to use his private jet to fly to the US.
She shared the plane, dubbed the Galactic Girl, with the tycoon and his wife Joan.
If she shared his private plane the next day to fly to the US, then it wasn't that big a deal at the time.

[blackjack21]

NBC fires Matt Lauer after complaint about 'inappropriate sexual behavior'
Today, it's Matt Lauer.

NBC News chairman Andrew Lack said in an early morning memo to staff that the complaint was filed on Monday night. Lack said it was the first complaint lodged against Lauer in his career at the network. But he also said "we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident."

Presumed guilty. That's what happens when you ask unscripted questions to Hillary Clinton...

[blackjack21]

Conyers hospitalized, Pelosi calls on him to resign

"The allegations against Congressman Conyers, as we've heard more and more since Sunday, are serious, disappointing and very credible," she added. "It's very sad. A brave woman came forward...Congressman conyers should resign...Zero tolerance means consequences for everyone, no matter how great a legacy is no license to harass or discriminate. "

Well, she's come around to her own point of view. I wonder why? Perhaps Conyers will be easily replaced by a Democrat.


Apparently, Clyburn isn't quite as plussed by the accusations against Conyers. Sexual harassment standard different for Congress, SC’s Clyburn suggests

“James Clyburn compared Conyers’ accusers to the child murderer Susan Smith, who initially claimed a black man had abducted her kids. Clyburn said, these are all white women who’ve made these charges against Conyers,” Robert Draper tweeted.

When asked if that comment was true, Draper said he verified it through two sources, adding “Clyburn has used the Susan Smith parallel more than once, to members & staffers.”

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Hard to keep track of all the allegations so I appreciate this effort, @blackjack21.

I've recently seen suggestions to ban meetings behind closed doors if they involve a man and women. Perhaps we can just go back to the times when women needed a guardian? On the other hand, the current push to make gender segregated areas unisex seems to run completely counter to that idea.

Not sure how the left is going to square that circle.

[Rancid]

You're missing Andy Rubin. The guy that created the Android operating system.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

MPR drops Keillor over inappropriate conduct

Minnesota Public Radio and its parent organization American Public Media said Wednesday they've cut all business ties with Garrison Keillor as they investigate a report of "inappropriate behavior" by Keillor involving someone who worked with him.

Keillor, whose connections to MPR go back nearly to its founding 50 years ago, retired last year from "A Prairie Home Companion," the renowned weekly music and variety show he'd created. He continued to produce "The Writer's Almanac" for syndication.

The allegations relate to Keillor's conduct while he was responsible for the production of "A Prairie Home Companion." They came to the company's attention last month and were referred to a special committee of its board for investigation, APM chief executive Jon McTaggart said.

Cutting ties with Keillor will bring several big changes, including a name change for "A Prairie Home Companion," which is hosted now by Keillor's successor, Chris Thile.

APM also said it would end rebroadcasts of "The Best of A Prairie Home Companion" hosted by Keillor, end distribution and broadcast of "The Writer's Almanac with Garrison Keillor" and separate from the Pretty Good Goods online catalog and the PrairieHome.org website.

[...]

I can't help but think of this:

[foxdemon]

Speaking from my own personal experience, I have to agree with that. In my experience, about 90% of people are worthless scumbags. It seems to be a corollary of Theodore Sturgeon's Law that "90% of everything is crap". Just as 90% of all novels are crap and 90% of all TV programmes are crap, so 90% of all human beings are crap.

Sigmund Freud reached a similar conclusion: "In the depths of my heart I can’t help being convinced that my dear fellow-men, with a few exceptions, are worthless." It is only once you have listened to another human being confessing their innermost thoughts and desires, pouring out their heart to you on the analyst's couch in utterly honest and unguarded intimacy, that you truly realise what an utterly and irredeemably worthless piece of shit they truly are. Lol.

This, of course, is why I am a Marxist-Leninist. Communism is truly the only hope for humanity. A new type of human being must be created.

I have been trying to explain hear on POFO for some time that humans are essentially a bunch of nasty little monkeys. However, I am not making a moral judgement. Just observing the world as it is. Seriously, how can one honestly expect humans to be anything other than the primates that they are?

Speaking of monkeys, @Godstud . One can only see one’s fellow humans as good by deliberately blinkering one’s perception. Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil.

In order to elicit favourable relations with our fellow monkeys, prepares your philosophy has merit. But it is not objectively the case that the monkeys are fundamentally good.

On topic, I hope nobody here has recently commented on how nice a dress a lady is wearing. That is sexual harrassment. Well, at least it is in crazy contemporary Western society. When will the Chinese finish taking over the world and putting an end to this madness?

[Potemkin]

I have been trying to explain hear on POFO for some time that humans are essentially a bunch of nasty little monkeys. However, I am not making a moral judgement. Just observing the world as it is. Seriously, how can one honestly expect humans to be anything other than the primates that they are?

Precisely. Humans are what we are, and there's no point whining about it. We just have to get on with it, making the most of what we are. We can't change our essential nature, but we can at least try to smooth off some of the rougher edges. Nor should we judge ourselves too harshly. After all, chimpanzees don't exactly live lives of blissful, kind-hearted benevolence, to put it mildly. And the very fact that we are criticising ourselves so harshly is evidence that we (well, some of us at least) have rather high standards, so high in fact that 90% of people fail to live up to them. Lol.

[skinster]

[Godstud]

@foxdemon One can choose to see the good in people, without blinding themselves to their faults. Humans are, as a rule, fallible. Nobody is perfect. We aren't intrinsically evil, either.

Now, if you approach your communications with people, like that, then you have more successful dialogue.

There are things, however, that you cannot overlook, or get your head around, and sexual predation is one of those things. I could have a friend, for instance, who was maybe an ex-thief. I wouldn't be able to have a friend who was a sexual predator, however. I suppose it has a bit to do with the level of harm they're committed.

[foxdemon]

Precisely. Humans are what we are, and there's no point whining about it. We just have to get on with it, making the most of what we are. We can't change our essential nature, but we can at least try to smooth off some of the rougher edges. Nor should we judge ourselves too harshly. After all, chimpanzees don't exactly live lives of blissful, kind-hearted benevolence, to put it mildly. And the very fact that we are criticising ourselves so harshly is evidence that we (well, some of us at least) have rather high standards, so high in fact that 90% of people fail to live up to them. Lol.

Yes, so one can’t really say a cat is bad for eating a mouse. The cat has to eat mice or it will starve.

Good and bad only matter within human groups. Human social behaviour is built on norms. It is a dichotomy for judging adhence to those norms within that group. Of course it is open to manipulation. And we are back to games theory as we discussed in the thread on Puerto Rico. Being a bunch of nasty little monkeys, group norms of behaviour are frequently manipulated to the benefit of some and the detriment of others in the group. Hence why some people make such a public fuss about other people’s behaviour while holding themselves above scrutiny.

Groups whose norms are built on an optimistic view of human nature and which demand a high level of conduct increase the opportunity for manipulation, since there is no recourse to reference of conduct in regard to self interest. The result is a culture of pompous self righteousness in which self interest is masked behind layers of pretence and deceit. Furthermore, since the manipulation of group norms can only result in norms that are deterimental to the self interest of some members of that group, such a culture is inherently unjust.

The superior approach to a just social order, in my view, is to acknowledge what people are really like and build a system that is resistent to this sort of monkey business. Thus accountability is preeminent.

This is the thinking that lies behind the genius of both the British Parliamentry system and the system of governance employed by the Venician Republic. Both systems were created to shape a system in which even dirty rotten scoundrels could trust each other, thus avoiding to a degree the destructiveness of the prisoner’s dilemma. (It is important to recognise some have claimed my thinking is Whiggish). Anyway, I’m sure Shakespeare would agree.


So, what was this thread about? Oh yes, people being judged guilty before any trial.

So OK, here we have a reshaping if norms to suit an agenda. If a man is accused of inappropriate behaviour toward women, that must be accepted at face value. To not do so could cause emotion trauma to the women in question, thus the norm of innocent until proven guilty must be abandoned. The original idea behind innocent until proven guilty was to protect the innocent, it being deemed better to let a few guilty people go that wrongfully punish a single person. This protects all of us as potentially we could all be wrongly accused at some time.

The new norm that a man is guilty without recourse to determining his guilt or innocence, follows the feminist norm that it is all men that are the problem. All men are rapists, it has been claimed. This is objectively not the case. In fact the claim that it is all men constitutes hate speak. It is like saying all Muslims are terrorists.

Now here we see another interesting aspect of good, bad and manipulation of group norms. Such manipulation results in contradictions. I am interested in how the PC people can reconcile objecting the the claim all Muslims are terrorists, as hate speach, while ignoring the fact the claim it’s all men is of the same logic. Ergo: hate speach.

The guilty of some men accused should not allow hate groups to reshape norms such as the principal of a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty, in order to be better able to peddle their prejudice against their targeted outgroup. By moral panic, pompous grandstanding and other means of manipulating the good norms to subjugate others in the group, the PC people increase the level of injustice in society.

Typical monkey business, really. Like other primates, it comes down to dominance behaviour. We might call this ‘status seeking behaviour’ in the human context.

@Godstud , mate. See anything you might recognise in yourself there?

[Godstud]

See anything you might recognise in yourself there?

Nope. You're obviously just being a smartass, or haven't been paying attention to my posts.

The guilty of some men accused should not allow hate groups to reshape norms such as the principal of a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty, in order to be better able to peddle their prejudice against their targeted outgroup. By moral panic, pompous grandstanding and other means of manipulating the good norms to subjugate others in the group, the PC people increase the level of injustice in society.

Hate groups do not have a say in a trial, but everyone is due an opinion. I posted some information showing how truly infrequently false charges are brought up(2% of the time, and as much in sexual assault/misconduct as in any other crime), and this is why I tend to side with the women who are the accusers, in many cases.

Also, were this only 1 woman, I might be less prone to believe that this person is less likely of being guilty, but in many cases, the witnesses are legion, as the crimes have gone unpunished for so long, that their behavior continued.

I'd rather err on the side of the victim and apologize later, than let a guilty person cause even more pain to a victim. Some people get this fucked up idea that the victim is the person being accused of sexual assault is the victim, and not the person who was actually harmed by it.

[foxdemon]

Nope. You're obviously just being a smartass, or haven't been paying attention to my posts.

The other must be bad. We must tell them that over and over, if only to convince ourself.

Hate groups do not have a say in a trial, but everyone is due an opinion. I posted some information showing how truly infrequently false charges are brought up(2% of the time, and as much in sexual assault/misconduct as in any other crime), and this is why I tend to side with the women who are the accusers, in many cases.

Also, were this only 1 woman, I might be less prone to believe that this person is less likely of being guilty, but in many cases, the witnesses are legion, as the crimes have gone unpunished for so long, that their behavior continued.

I'd rather err on the side of the victim and apologize later, than let a guilty person cause even more pain to a victim. Some people get this fucked up idea that the victim is the person being accused of sexual assault is the victim, and not the person who was actually harmed by it.

Your evidence proves there are false accusations. Would it be OK that it is 2% of men if it were you who was falsely accused? Surely you would want your innocent to be protected?

Let’s look at innocent until proven guilty in another context: capital punishment.

The argument against capital punishment is that the worst thing the legal system could do is kill an innocent person. This can and, in those countries with capital punishment, does happen. How would you like to be sitting on death row having been wrongly accused and found guilty? See, that’s why sane societies reject capital punishment.

Then imagine how many more innocent people would be wrongly killed if there was no trial. The rate of 2% false accusations in sexual misconduct cases will inevitably rise if there was no trial to test the evidence.

It is in your self interests to preserve the concept of innocent until proven guilty. And here we have the prisoners dilemma. You can keep the protection of your innocence or you can default in order to gain status by supporting a feminist agenda. In games of prisoners dilemma, the usual result is everyone losses.

[Godstud]

Would it be OK that it is 2% of men if it were you who was falsely accused? Surely you would want your innocent to be protected?

Your logic is flawed. Multiple witnesses, and accusers, are not an indicator of false charges.

Let’s look at innocent until proven guilty in another context: capital punishment.

This isn't even close to the same thing, as sexual harassment/assault/misconduct are often far more difficult to prove, as you don't have a clear cut victim. in murder, the victim is obvious. The penalties are far different, as well. Apples to oranges.

[foxdemon]

Your logic is flawed. Multiple witnesses, and accusers, are not an indicator of false charges.

Your still staying guilty before trial. They have to be charged and then tried. Your logic is that multiple witnesses and accuses is enough to prove guilt. That is flawed logic. The evidence needs to be judged.

This isn't even close to the same thing, as sexual harassment/assault/misconduct are often far more difficult to prove, as you don't have a clear cut victim. in murder, the victim is obvious. The penalties are far different, as well. Apples to oranges.

It is a matter of principle. Innocent until proven guilt.

Now, I note you have avoided the matter of what happens when you get falsely accused.

Mod note by Prosthetic Conscience: Don't get personal.

[Godstud]

The evidence needs to be judged.

I never said it should not be, but people forming opinions aren't doing so on the evidence, are they? He's be tried according to the law, and I never said that should change to match opinions. Kapeesh?

It is a matter of principle. Innocent until proven guilt.

So then why are the people making the accusations being called liars and money-grubbers? Doesn't this also apply to them?

[Potemkin]

Yes, so one can’t really say a cat is bad for eating a mouse. The cat has to eat mice or it will starve.

Indeed. It is the natural order of things for cats to eat mice and for humans to behave like nasty little monkeys. It's what we are, and it's what we do. How could we magically be or do something else?

Good and bad only matter within human groups. Human social behaviour is built on norms. It is a dichotomy for judging adhence to those norms within that group. Of course it is open to manipulation. And we are back to games theory as we discussed in the thread on Puerto Rico. Being a bunch of nasty little monkeys, group norms of behaviour are frequently manipulated to the benefit of some and the detriment of others in the group. Hence why some people make such a public fuss about other people’s behaviour while holding themselves above scrutiny.

I agree, and this is why I am not a moralist. Abstract moral rules are not what govern the way that human beings interact with each other, and are merely an empty abstraction. When real human beings interact with each other, they do so primarily on the basis of status-seeking. The social norms of their in-group are used to lower or raise the relative status of individuals within that in-group - someone publicly found guilty of violating those social norms loses status, and their accuser gains status. This results in 'successful' individuals (successful at this status game) tending to be self-righteous pompous asses, since people with that type of personality tend to be most successful at that sort of status game. All of this is complicated, of course, by the fact that these social norms are changing and evolving all the time. Attempting to construct an abstract system of ethics from all of this mess is both pointless and doomed to failure; and attempting to impose such an abstraction on real human society would merely result in a vast increase in the hypocrisy of human society. All that truly matters, all that truly exists, is the status game.

Groups whose norms are built on an optimistic view of human nature and which demand a high level of conduct increase the opportunity for manipulation, since there is no recourse to reference of conduct in regard to self interest. The result is a culture of pompous self righteousness in which self interest is masked behind layers of pretence and deceit. Furthermore, since the manipulation of group norms can only result in norms that are deterimental to the self interest of some members of that group, such a culture is inherently unjust.

I will merely repeat what I said above: Attempting to construct an abstract system of ethics from all of this mess is both pointless and doomed to failure; and attempting to impose such an abstraction on real human society would merely result in a vast increase in the hypocrisy of human society. All that truly matters, all that truly exists, is the status game. This is why Marx always expressed utter contempt for the moralism of the petty-bourgeoisie, with their copy-book maxims and their abstract, hypocritical 'virtues'.

The superior approach to a just social order, in my view, is to acknowledge what people are really like and build a system that is resistent to this sort of monkey business. Thus accountability is preeminent.

Precisely. We cannot change our own essential nature as nasty little monkeys, but we can at least try to smooth off some of the rougher edges, to make human society marginally more liveable.

This is the thinking that lies behind the genius of both the British Parliamentry system and the system of governance employed by the Venician Republic. Both systems were created to shape a system in which even dirty rotten scoundrels could trust each other, thus avoiding to a degree the destructiveness of the prisoner’s dilemma. (It is important to recognise some have claimed my thinking is Whiggish). Anyway, I’m sure Shakespeare would agree.

I'm sure he would. Shakespeare had no illusions about people. But he always held these nasty little monkeys in a great deal of affection. This is the trick: to understand humanity as the nasty little monkeys which we are, but to still love us anyway....

[skinster]

It’s time to stop using regressive evolutionary theory to justify men’s sexual objectification of women

[redcarpet]

Don Burke has been accused now. He apparently had a home more for than gumtrees and rocking chairs!

I don't know if I feel shocked or convinced. I partly grew up with him on TV

[Drlee]

I have avoided posting on this page.

Clearly women can't handle equality.

Kaiser said: I've recently seen suggestions to ban meetings behind closed doors if they involve a man and women. Perhaps we can just go back to the times when women needed a guardian? On the other hand, the current push to make gender segregated areas unisex seems to run completely counter to that idea.

Not sure how the left is going to square that circle.

There it is in a nutshell. Women should know all there is to know about passive aggressive behavior. They should know enough to understand that they ought not teach it to men.

But congratulations women. You have won a great battle. It is sure going to cost you. Just yesterday I had a friend say that he decided not to hire a new consultant because "she was too pretty" and that he would be "defenseless against her" if she made any accusations.

Clearly Islam is out on front on this one. Burkas would solve a big part of the problem.

I doubt we could get American women to wear burkas so getting women out of the marketplace and back to being homemakers would help even more. And it would have the additional benefit of driving wages for men up because the number of available employees would shrink. This would help to break the oligarchs hold on the workers. Then because women are home where they belong we will no longer need illegal aliens in domestic jobs because the women could do them as before. We would need fewer child care centers so these (mostly) woman workers could stay home. This would help solve the illegal immigration problem. Think of how much nicer our roads and highways would be if women no longer crowded them going to and from work with a stop at day care. And our children would do better at school with mom not to tired to help with their homework. Vacations would be easier because we would not have to align two concurrent vacations. And, of course, with the exception of those women who eat all day, obesity should go down dramatically as honey starts cooking again and we get off of our fast food diet.

I'm sold. Women should go back to the 50's. I remember them. It was a much nicer time.