"Pornography is the theory, and rape is the practice." That was 70s rad feminist Robin Morgan, think Dworkin et al held that sexual intercourse between men and women was 'rape' on some level. It was the marxist-like 'power relations' theory which is now so dominant in discourse that no-one questions it. Treating women as objects of desire was the sin, materialised in porn or even erotic classical art. It's ultra puritanism from another viewpoint - but puritans, orthodox catholics and muslims did not have general omerta against heterosexual sex and desire - on the contrary they felt it was so precious that it should be sanctified by marriage and the privacy of the home - with lots of children its sacred fruit. The family was all.
For the rad fems though it was a power grab necessitating family destruction. There were two means of inducement : money and power. It only became realised through high profile lawsuits and women taking control of academia and socially related professions including law. The killer punch was allegations of under-age or wide age disparity. An allegation of 'pedophilia' a death knell. Even though the term is really only clinical in respect of pre-pubertal attraction any allegation re under 16 then 18 or even 21 might apply. That it should become a political weapon of choice was always implicit. It won't last.
A huge issue here is that media operatives are not writing stories to inform and let readers come to their own conclusions. That would be considered wasteful. My best guess is they start with an objective to create an emotional narrative out of something that seems like it has the potential for popularity and engagement. They are trying to make as many people as possible form particular beliefs resulting in certain behavior, such as hating the other tribe, voting a certain way, or boycotting something or someone. At times it feels like these big mainstream left-leaning outlets (that are supposed to be exemplars of wisdom and principled methodology) are coordinating slop with each other in a chatroom somewhere (of course the right does as well, but the left should know better). It could just be that such "journalists" (not all) are driven by their own personal ideological and tribal biases along with the dreams of being regarded as a hero or changemaker that led them to choose that career in the first place. They understand that their outlet and it's editors share similar views (that's why they chose to work there) and will publish their work. It doesn't take long for like-minded outlets to pick up on each other's narratives and echo them for increased results. I get the impression that in their minds, they subscribe to the notion that if they feel like their intentions are good (by their own judgement) then divergence from the truth in order to craft a narrative that fullfills that intention is permissable. This could also be referred to as "ends justify the means" deception. A method promoted in communist propaganda. A small % of society is sufficiently media literate to recognize this type of manipulation, which is why it works. I find it to be arrogant and reprehensible, in that a person unaware or in denial of externally observable biases and undeveloped metacognition , deems their subjective interpretation to be worthy of broadcast to a maximum audience.
27:12: "we're now attacking the notion of getting a blowjob in a limousine" Should at least make sure the windows are sufficiently tinted. Is that too much to ask?
I have heard that platner's accusers are CIA assets ! This is corroborated by the fact that Maine's main Democratic donor is David Ellison. His father owns oracle and he is a very bad actor
Because she conspired with the female attorney that Michael wrote about, in order to take down Platner. Either the attorney actually thinks that she's being a hero by preventing Platner from being elected, or she expects this to boost her career as a metoo lawyer, or she hates men and is a sociopath.
Michael just explained who the accuser was and how it all went down. It makes sense and is not shakey or hard to beleive. Not only does it not need further explanation, but it doesn't leave room for any. The CIA has no reason to interfere with a state election. Larry Ellison is just a wealthy tech billionaire, there's nothing "bad" about him. It's not like CIA and billionaires are all buddies. Your suggestion is indicative of underlying errors in thinking and erroneous beliefs.
Michael, if you want to run for office on an anti-“genocide” (in the terminological sense), you’ve got my vote.
And Catharine MacKinnon did basically say the stuff you were alluding to.
"Pornography is the theory, and rape is the practice." That was 70s rad feminist Robin Morgan, think Dworkin et al held that sexual intercourse between men and women was 'rape' on some level. It was the marxist-like 'power relations' theory which is now so dominant in discourse that no-one questions it. Treating women as objects of desire was the sin, materialised in porn or even erotic classical art. It's ultra puritanism from another viewpoint - but puritans, orthodox catholics and muslims did not have general omerta against heterosexual sex and desire - on the contrary they felt it was so precious that it should be sanctified by marriage and the privacy of the home - with lots of children its sacred fruit. The family was all.
For the rad fems though it was a power grab necessitating family destruction. There were two means of inducement : money and power. It only became realised through high profile lawsuits and women taking control of academia and socially related professions including law. The killer punch was allegations of under-age or wide age disparity. An allegation of 'pedophilia' a death knell. Even though the term is really only clinical in respect of pre-pubertal attraction any allegation re under 16 then 18 or even 21 might apply. That it should become a political weapon of choice was always implicit. It won't last.
Good writing
Thanks both!
Here’s the real trafficking scheme. It’s run by local governments.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1EgdZ44pyd/?mibextid=wwXIfr
A huge issue here is that media operatives are not writing stories to inform and let readers come to their own conclusions. That would be considered wasteful. My best guess is they start with an objective to create an emotional narrative out of something that seems like it has the potential for popularity and engagement. They are trying to make as many people as possible form particular beliefs resulting in certain behavior, such as hating the other tribe, voting a certain way, or boycotting something or someone. At times it feels like these big mainstream left-leaning outlets (that are supposed to be exemplars of wisdom and principled methodology) are coordinating slop with each other in a chatroom somewhere (of course the right does as well, but the left should know better). It could just be that such "journalists" (not all) are driven by their own personal ideological and tribal biases along with the dreams of being regarded as a hero or changemaker that led them to choose that career in the first place. They understand that their outlet and it's editors share similar views (that's why they chose to work there) and will publish their work. It doesn't take long for like-minded outlets to pick up on each other's narratives and echo them for increased results. I get the impression that in their minds, they subscribe to the notion that if they feel like their intentions are good (by their own judgement) then divergence from the truth in order to craft a narrative that fullfills that intention is permissable. This could also be referred to as "ends justify the means" deception. A method promoted in communist propaganda. A small % of society is sufficiently media literate to recognize this type of manipulation, which is why it works. I find it to be arrogant and reprehensible, in that a person unaware or in denial of externally observable biases and undeveloped metacognition , deems their subjective interpretation to be worthy of broadcast to a maximum audience.
27:12: "we're now attacking the notion of getting a blowjob in a limousine" Should at least make sure the windows are sufficiently tinted. Is that too much to ask?
In terms of the profile of his donor support, Platner somewhat resembles Sanders https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/big-money-the-maine-senate-race-and-us-party-competition-a-tale-in-two-pictures
I have heard that platner's accusers are CIA assets ! This is corroborated by the fact that Maine's main Democratic donor is David Ellison. His father owns oracle and he is a very bad actor
Seems like a very low probability assessment.
how come the “ rape victim” haven’t gone to the police?
Because she conspired with the female attorney that Michael wrote about, in order to take down Platner. Either the attorney actually thinks that she's being a hero by preventing Platner from being elected, or she expects this to boost her career as a metoo lawyer, or she hates men and is a sociopath.
nope it is not
Michael just explained who the accuser was and how it all went down. It makes sense and is not shakey or hard to beleive. Not only does it not need further explanation, but it doesn't leave room for any. The CIA has no reason to interfere with a state election. Larry Ellison is just a wealthy tech billionaire, there's nothing "bad" about him. It's not like CIA and billionaires are all buddies. Your suggestion is indicative of underlying errors in thinking and erroneous beliefs.
Ummm ok i know way more than u. I really don’t trust Ellison or specifically CNN
Anyone can tell you are more likely to be incorrect just by the way you write.
It has been 3 weeks and platner’s accuser has yet file a police report . Y?
The Cusack movie is “Say Anything”, 1989.
Yes, I realized I screwed that up afterwards. Thanks. (Never saw “Say Anything” either…)
Political valence that was imbued - God damn Michael 🤯