"You can thank the #metoo movement for this insanity. Honestly, if this becomes common place, expect men to just... not date women anymore." #MeToo is about women getting raped and assaulted and it being covered up. It has nothing to do with whether you can stare like a moron at someone who's not interested in you for more than 5 seconds. Do you work at netflix or something? Why are you staring at people without being a man and going up and saying something.
On the face of it, #metoo is about covering up rape and sexual harassment against women. In reality, it is about reframing social interactions as men being predators and women being prey. This is just the next logical step in that line of thinking, because if you start from the premise that all men are predators in waiting, the "obvious" solution is to preemptively criminalize all of their behavior.
I think they’re doing it to prove a point. Prolonged eye contact is literally the most harmless signaling of sexual intent. It’s like the last frontier for sexual harassment claims. Why not just skip to the end. This is literally as far as it goes just to show how silly of a trend this can become if people don’t rationalize a little. Better now then later when we have mountains of cases muddying the waters. Maybe people will start growing a backbone before crying to the administration now.
Netflix has joined the soy OD and become all beta cucks. That's fine. Their service sucks now anyways. Their "original" series all blow and they never have the movies I want to watch. As much as I hate Amazon, Amazon prime blows Netflix away. Well, w/e. Companies like Netflix end up burning sooner or later. The future isn't female. It's segregation.
Well dang... At least a this is only a thing if you work for them. Not just if you're watching Netflix. Cause I've "harassed" lots of people while watching Netflix. Lol
"Something that actually does fact checking and has a long history of doing so"
Yes, I'm aware of what qualifies as a reputable source. I meant, "give me example (s) of publications you consider 'reputable sources'" that aren't "heavily biased" or "right wing troll/fake news factory" tabloid garbage--if that's even possible. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am implying that many once-dignified news organizations have since sold their reputations on the altar of political correctness.
I don't know what you consider a "reputable source", because you didn't give me the names of any publications. Therefore, I am unable to provide said material without knowing if it will also be "right wing troll/fake news factory" tabloid garbage.
You are whining about political correctness. Anything you provide will be skewed right because that’s your belief system. You should try working on a time machine. See if you’re happier when it was still okay to call me a gook.
Incorrect, that is post hoc reasoning. I don't know if you've noticed, but the political discourse lately has skewed so far to the left of classical liberalism, that everyone who is even slightly conservative is now just "the far right". There is no center. Because of this, it is increasingly difficult to find organizations or even individuals on the left who put forth the full truth. They will consider anything counter to the current progressive trend "right-wing trolling".
It's not that right-wing ideology completely agrees with me, it's that a lot of publications which happen to be on the right or what used to be the center tend to publish material that "leftists" won't even touch. It's hard to find the gray overlapping all the black and white when a lot of outlets simply don't cover the topic at all.
"I don't know if you've noticed, but the political discourse lately has skewed so far to the left of classical liberalism, that everyone who is even slightly conservative is now just "the far right"."
The very opposite has been happening the past few years. Look at what political forces are the most successful ones in the US and across Europe. All far right-wing. 10, 20 years ago, what Trump and right-wing governments in Europe are doing was considered so far right that it was taboo. Because everyone knew it was too close to what's happened during WWII. And now? Now it's not only established as acceptable ideologies, it IS the establishment. It used to be a taboo to be openly racist, now it's considered a type of "he says it like it is".
If you even dare to call out these things, you are immediately discredited as an "SJW". Anything that promotes human decency is being ridiculed as "PC culture". If you're outspoken about women's rights, you're a "feminazi".
I could go on and on. Buzzword after buzzword to ridicule and discredit any struggle for progressive ideas. Public discourse has shifted so far to the right, that Hillary Clinton was considered "left".
And if you don't think that Trump these European parties are far right populists, then what in the world would qualify as such according to you? What's left that's even further to the right that isn't an openly Nazi party like the still active NDP in Germany or Golden Dawn in Greece? Because there really isn't much else. Trump is by any reasonable definition of left/right very far right.
And all of that is now considered acceptable. That happened the past 10 years. The shift is to the right. Far, far, far to the right. If you not only can't see that but actually even think it's the opposite, you're so brainwashed by now that there's no point in talking to you further. Basically a conspiracy nutjob.
Where I got which facts from? That Trump is president? That far right-wing parties are highly successful across Europe? I didn't know these were controversial facts...
@Pamina I've already asked @Astoriana and I got no answer. Why is this question so difficult to understand? "What media outlets do you search and browse to have learned and know about politics the way you do?"
They're not "controversial" facts, they're misinformed. It's not as simple as "Trump is President, therefore he has all the power", if it were that easy, we wouldn't even be having this debate because, by your logic, he would have just tried to shut down all the networks he deemed "fake news". Clearly, that has not happened.
I never said he has all the power. I said he's the current leader of the US.
But hey, at least you agree that Trump is an authoritarian who wishes he could get rid of critical press.
And as for your question - you are right that all media is biased. And that's not a problem per se. Complete objectivity is impossible. But that doesn't mean that all media is equally biased one way or the other. Some media is slightly biased, other extremely. For instance, Fox News and RT are strongly biased. Breitbard and Info Wars are downright fake news propaganda. The trick is to stay away from these heavily biased ones. And more importantly to make sure that there's actual fact checking with citing proper sources.
@Pamina "But hey, at least you agree that Trump is an authoritarian who wishes he could get rid of critical press."
I would agree... if it the press was actually critical of Trump. When I say "critical", I mean challenging him from a neutral standpoint, where they try to give their audience the information needed to formulate their own opinions of Trump's agenda in a fair and balanced manner. But that's not the case and it hasn't been.
I don't know what you think of the National Review, but they linked to an article by the Kennedy School (https://shorensteincenter. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/News-Coverage-of-Trump-100-Days-5-2017. pdf) that did an assessment of Trump's coverage in the first 100 days of his Presidency and it was overwhelmingly negative by a huge margin: www.nationalreview.com/.../
@Pamina "The trick is to stay away from these heavily biased ones. And more importantly to make sure that there's actual fact checking with citing proper sources."
Okay, so clearly you know of such better sites that have some in-built error correcting mechanism in their workflow than anything you've listed here, right? Because I'm still waiting for you to give me a list of organizations YOU think are credible. Just one.
"I mean challenging him from a neutral standpoint, where they try to give their audience the information needed to formulate their own opinions of Trump's agenda in a fair and balanced manner. But that's not the case and it hasn't been."
There are such and such. But Trump discredits *any* ciritcism.
And sorry, but what's the problem with negative coverage? That doesn't say anything about how fact-based or not the coverage was.
@Pamina oh I love Snopes. I’m also inclined to trust the New York Times and Washington Post, given that their fact checking is usually pretty rigorous.
Wow we've reached peak snowflake-ism. If people can't handle someone looking at them for 5 seconds without feeling harassed, then they aren't going to get very far in any aspect of life. Sad.
1. It's ridiculous if true and cannot be enforced. This will need VAR 2. Don't blame #metoo for everyone taken too far. I read some of the stories and shed a tear
Holy shit... Imagine all the shy guys and girls... Yep , he/she was watching me for exactly 5.032 secs (shows a picture of a stop watch) . -Whole courtroom : (gasp) apsolute monster!
It's kind of what the church once called a mortal sin, which if a person had an Impure thought and kept thinking about it longer then 5 seconds then you would have to go to confession, under 5 seconds and you were safe.
That's just sounds crazy. I'm a woman and I don't know all the rules to sexual conduct rules. I don't think anybody knows the rules anymore of engaging each other.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
84Opinion
"You can thank the #metoo movement for this insanity. Honestly, if this becomes common place, expect men to just... not date women anymore."
#MeToo is about women getting raped and assaulted and it being covered up. It has nothing to do with whether you can stare like a moron at someone who's not interested in you for more than 5 seconds. Do you work at netflix or something? Why are you staring at people without being a man and going up and saying something.
On the face of it, #metoo is about covering up rape and sexual harassment against women. In reality, it is about reframing social interactions as men being predators and women being prey. This is just the next logical step in that line of thinking, because if you start from the premise that all men are predators in waiting, the "obvious" solution is to preemptively criminalize all of their behavior.
facts. evidence?
I think they’re doing it to prove a point. Prolonged eye contact is literally the most harmless signaling of sexual intent. It’s like the last frontier for sexual harassment claims. Why not just skip to the end. This is literally as far as it goes just to show how silly of a trend this can become if people don’t rationalize a little. Better now then later when we have mountains of cases muddying the waters. Maybe people will start growing a backbone before crying to the administration now.
Netflix has joined the soy OD and become all beta cucks. That's fine. Their service sucks now anyways. Their "original" series all blow and they never have the movies I want to watch. As much as I hate Amazon, Amazon prime blows Netflix away. Well, w/e. Companies like Netflix end up burning sooner or later. The future isn't female. It's segregation.
Well dang... At least a this is only a thing if you work for them. Not just if you're watching Netflix. Cause I've "harassed" lots of people while watching Netflix. Lol
You have any reputable sources or just ones that are heavily biased to the right?
Most publications nowadays are heavily biased and I don’t read enough of it to know which ones are which, hence why I have multiple sources.
What do you even consider a “reputable source”?
Something that isn’t a tabloid or a right wing troll/fake news factory. Something that actually does fact checking and has a long history of doing so.
"Something that actually does fact checking and has a long history of doing so"
Yes, I'm aware of what qualifies as a reputable source. I meant, "give me example (s) of publications you consider 'reputable sources'" that aren't "heavily biased" or "right wing troll/fake news factory" tabloid garbage--if that's even possible. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am implying that many once-dignified news organizations have since sold their reputations on the altar of political correctness.
Ah. You’re one of those.
So you can’t.
Cool. I can just ignore you then.
I don't know what you consider a "reputable source", because you didn't give me the names of any publications. Therefore, I am unable to provide said material without knowing if it will also be "right wing troll/fake news factory" tabloid garbage.
You are whining about political correctness. Anything you provide will be skewed right because that’s your belief system. You should try working on a time machine. See if you’re happier when it was still okay to call me a gook.
Incorrect, that is post hoc reasoning. I don't know if you've noticed, but the political discourse lately has skewed so far to the left of classical liberalism, that everyone who is even slightly conservative is now just "the far right". There is no center. Because of this, it is increasingly difficult to find organizations or even individuals on the left who put forth the full truth. They will consider anything counter to the current progressive trend "right-wing trolling".
It's not that right-wing ideology completely agrees with me, it's that a lot of publications which happen to be on the right or what used to be the center tend to publish material that "leftists" won't even touch. It's hard to find the gray overlapping all the black and white when a lot of outlets simply don't cover the topic at all.
Whatever you say, righty.
"I don't know if you've noticed, but the political discourse lately has skewed so far to the left of classical liberalism, that everyone who is even slightly conservative is now just "the far right"."
The very opposite has been happening the past few years. Look at what political forces are the most successful ones in the US and across Europe. All far right-wing. 10, 20 years ago, what Trump and right-wing governments in Europe are doing was considered so far right that it was taboo. Because everyone knew it was too close to what's happened during WWII. And now? Now it's not only established as acceptable ideologies, it IS the establishment. It used to be a taboo to be openly racist, now it's considered a type of "he says it like it is".
If you even dare to call out these things, you are immediately discredited as an "SJW". Anything that promotes human decency is being ridiculed as "PC culture". If you're outspoken about women's rights, you're a "feminazi".
I could go on and on. Buzzword after buzzword to ridicule and discredit any struggle for progressive ideas. Public discourse has shifted so far to the right, that Hillary Clinton was considered "left".
And if you don't think that Trump these European parties are far right populists, then what in the world would qualify as such according to you? What's left that's even further to the right that isn't an openly Nazi party like the still active NDP in Germany or Golden Dawn in Greece? Because there really isn't much else. Trump is by any reasonable definition of left/right very far right.
And all of that is now considered acceptable. That happened the past 10 years. The shift is to the right. Far, far, far to the right. If you not only can't see that but actually even think it's the opposite, you're so brainwashed by now that there's no point in talking to you further. Basically a conspiracy nutjob.
*and
@Pamina Where are you getting your facts from? What outlets do you browse to inform your politics?
Where I got which facts from? That Trump is president? That far right-wing parties are highly successful across Europe? I didn't know these were controversial facts...
@Pamina I've already asked @Astoriana and I got no answer. Why is this question so difficult to understand? "What media outlets do you search and browse to have learned and know about politics the way you do?"
They're not "controversial" facts, they're misinformed. It's not as simple as "Trump is President, therefore he has all the power", if it were that easy, we wouldn't even be having this debate because, by your logic, he would have just tried to shut down all the networks he deemed "fake news". Clearly, that has not happened.
I never said he has all the power. I said he's the current leader of the US.
But hey, at least you agree that Trump is an authoritarian who wishes he could get rid of critical press.
And as for your question - you are right that all media is biased. And that's not a problem per se. Complete objectivity is impossible. But that doesn't mean that all media is equally biased one way or the other. Some media is slightly biased, other extremely. For instance, Fox News and RT are strongly biased. Breitbard and Info Wars are downright fake news propaganda. The trick is to stay away from these heavily biased ones. And more importantly to make sure that there's actual fact checking with citing proper sources.
@Pamina "But hey, at least you agree that Trump is an authoritarian who wishes he could get rid of critical press."
I would agree... if it the press was actually critical of Trump. When I say "critical", I mean challenging him from a neutral standpoint, where they try to give their audience the information needed to formulate their own opinions of Trump's agenda in a fair and balanced manner. But that's not the case and it hasn't been.
I don't know what you think of the National Review, but they linked to an article by the Kennedy School (https://shorensteincenter. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/News-Coverage-of-Trump-100-Days-5-2017. pdf) that did an assessment of Trump's coverage in the first 100 days of his Presidency and it was overwhelmingly negative by a huge margin: www.nationalreview.com/.../
@Pamina "The trick is to stay away from these heavily biased ones. And more importantly to make sure that there's actual fact checking with citing proper sources."
Okay, so clearly you know of such better sites that have some in-built error correcting mechanism in their workflow than anything you've listed here, right? Because I'm still waiting for you to give me a list of organizations YOU think are credible. Just one.
"I mean challenging him from a neutral standpoint, where they try to give their audience the information needed to formulate their own opinions of Trump's agenda in a fair and balanced manner. But that's not the case and it hasn't been."
There are such and such. But Trump discredits *any* ciritcism.
And sorry, but what's the problem with negative coverage? That doesn't say anything about how fact-based or not the coverage was.
You don't get it, do you? You really don't understand how the whole thing about citing sources works, do you?
But okay, I'll name you one example: Snopes.
It doesn't get any more objective than Snopes, if you ask me.
@Pamina oh I love Snopes. I’m also inclined to trust the New York Times and Washington Post, given that their fact checking is usually pretty rigorous.
So I look for 3 seconds, then walk away to make some coffee!
This is the sort of bullshit that brings themselves an overdose of ridicule!
Netflix is history for me, anyway.
Wow we've reached peak snowflake-ism. If people can't handle someone looking at them for 5 seconds without feeling harassed, then they aren't going to get very far in any aspect of life. Sad.
To quote Huffington Post
"The Five-Second Rule Is Baloney!"
For once, I agree!!!
Unfortunately, they're talking about a completely different rule
What a bunch of crap. Brings a whole new meaning to Netflix and chill.
It's going to make bingewatching illegal. I can't not-stare at characters in the show for 5 seconds or less.
This is cool. My girlfriend says I don't make enough eye contact. Now I know the reason I don't
1. It's ridiculous if true and cannot be enforced. This will need VAR
2. Don't blame #metoo for everyone taken too far. I read some of the stories and shed a tear
Oh lol
So its bad now to look at a girl for 6 second. Ya im a bad boy now. Imma look at her for 5.5 seconds 😛
Opsy. Did i...
It is more Cultural Marxist (social justice) insanity that is intended to put another barrier in the way of men and women forming relationships.
Holy shit... Imagine all the shy guys and girls... Yep , he/she was watching me for exactly 5.032 secs (shows a picture of a stop watch) .
-Whole courtroom : (gasp) apsolute monster!
I just have to finish "Better Caul Saul" season 3, and then I cancel. No money to a Demunist Commiecrat company.
It's kind of what the church once called a mortal sin, which if a person had an Impure thought and kept thinking about it longer then 5 seconds then you would have to go to confession, under 5 seconds and you were safe.
Complete bullshit. I hope this causes netflix to lose money and customers as normal SANE people switch off.
Fucking SJW are more nazis than nazis themselves, this is insane and funny at the same time
That's just sounds crazy. I'm a woman and I don't know all the rules to sexual conduct rules. I don't think anybody knows the rules anymore of engaging each other.
Damn than arrest me. Lol I can’t help looking at hot British singers. Lol