Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-02-2017, 07:34 AM   #101 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,905
Default

Your maturity levels are showing.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
I'd vote for Trump
DwnWthVwls is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 07:46 AM   #102 (permalink)
Boneshaker Baby
 
elphenor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 12,046
Default

Honestly when I woke up this morning I played it 3 more times
__________________
Just another marketing ploy
Quote:
I've got lights in my brain, girl
Quote:
My mind is like a plastic bag
elphenor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 08:37 AM   #103 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
My other two thoughts are (1) really? It took the air of being pro-paedo to cut his book deal? and (2) I really hope this is the nail in the coffin of his career and that he doesn't manufactroversify himself back into the news so that free speech advocates can have a better face to represent them.
I don't think he was misquoted at all. There wasn't any editing tricks like he is claiming. He had to come out later and clarify what he meant in a facebook post but the damage was already done. The publishing house is flaky imo. They draw the line here but just like you said everything before was a-okay? Also this only empowers his argument about free speech and his fans haven't gone anywhere. It has even garnered him new fans because of this incident. I wish it was more detrimental to him that it currently is but he will be fine. This type of stuff fuels him and his cause to troll openly. Same thing with the Berkley riot shutting him down from speaking on campus just ended up giving him more platforms to talk and spew his hatred trolly comments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiomara View Post

..And regarding the other kind that mainly stick to trolling and harassment (while indiscriminately latching on to whatever they perceive as opposite to "sjws", be it Trump or whatever)-- namely the younger MRA guys that enjoy harassing women non-stop-- I notice they all have an enormous entitlement problem (and barrels of weird sexual issues and complexes which they like to blame on random women/female friends), stemming from some perceived but actually extremely minor "betrayal". And then they restrict their social interactions to internet echo chambers without any real, varied real-life experiences to balance it out. But again, I'm assuming that most grow out of this once they gain more life experience/learn that people are not puppets for them to project their internal psychodramas upon.

I really wish they (MRA) spent a bit more time practicing some sort of productive, real activism that doesn't revolve around demonizing others and yelling on reddit behind anime avatars. (What about male rape victims, or men--young adolescent men, especially-- in prison facing abuse and injustice, victims of police brutality, mentally ill homeless men with PTSD, disabled men or men with autism or severe chronic illnesses who are deprived of any real platform or voice, etc.. Or even elderly men experiencing neglect or abuse in nursing homes.. People who all could use help!)


Spoiler for Condensed stats:

That's a bit of a myth, actually. It may have been true many decades ago (and depending on which list of cherry-picked half-true factoids one reads, it may even appear to be partly true on the surface), but it hasn't been for a good while-- that is, when men actively seek out custody in court and don't drop the case. It's fairly likely that they'll be awarded custody, in fact. And a great deal of custody settlements happen outside of the courtroom, and are reached based on mutual agreement.
Source: Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts



..In summary:
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody

Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful

Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)

"...The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers."

There are still plenty of problems in custody cases regardless, (and biases galore, among both judges and jurors) but it is not at all as black-and-white as many assume. I've bolded the most worrying bits:


Spoiler for Long wall of text:
"According to attorneys at listening sessions, there is another type of bias in the enforcement of visitation orders that reflects the different situation of custodial parents, usually mothers, and noncustodial parents, usually fathers. Although the child's interest is supposed to be primary, courts will not order a father to visit his child, even if his failure to visit distresses the child. The psychological harm that missed visits cause children also has an impact on the custodial mother, for it is she who must deal with her child's distress. In addition, female litigants participating in focus groups noted the havoc caused to their lives when fathers fail to exercise visitation or change plans at the last minute. Last minute changes make it necessary for women to scramble to find appropriate child care and impose extra monetary costs. Women expressed anger that the courts do not listen to their complaints in these matters. The essence of their concern is that visitation seems to be viewed entirely as a right of the father, rather than as a responsibility of the father toward the child and the other parent.

Similar bias exists concerning moves out of state. A noncustodial father is free to leave the state at any time, even if his children will miss their association with him. However, a good mother who leaves the state without permission may find custody taken away by the probate court. n65

[*847] The punitive approach taken by some courts toward women who interfere with fathers' visitation rights contrasts with the tolerance shown by some judges to fathers who fail to pay court ordered child support (see "Child Support") and to men who commit acts of violence against women, in violation of the criminal law and court orders (see "Domestic Violence").

Inappropriately harsh punishment for violation of a court order is troubling enough, but the possibility that mothers might be punished for violating orders rooted in gender bias that put them or their children at risk is even more troubling. And this possibility, according to attorneys' testimony in focus groups, is very real. Even if all errors were obvious enough to be corrected on appeal, many women do not have access to legal help. Correcting the bias in the trial court is the only answer.

CONCLUSION

Our charge was to study and make recommendations concerning gender bias. Thus, the goal of the recommendations that follow is to eliminate the gender bias we observed. Before making any recommendation, however, we also considered the effects our recommendations would have on the welfare of children.

Family service officers, probate judges, and appellate judges all say that giving primary consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent is in the best interests of children. n66 In practice, however, it appears that as soon as physical custody is contested, any weight given to a history of primary caretaking disappears. Mothers who have been primary caretakers throughout their child's life are subjected to differential and stricter scrutiny, and may lose custody if the role of primary caretaker has been assumed, however briefly and for whatever reason, by someone else.

We believe there is a need for a clear statement that primary consideration should be given in child custody disputes to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent. Such a statement would advise lawyers and litigants about the applicable legal standard, [*848] and would reduce both the possibility of judgments influenced by bias and the bargaining advantage that men who have not been primary caretakers can gain by merely threatening to seek custody. The requirement that the identity of the primary caretaker and psychological parent be determined by considering each parent's commitment to the child throughout the child's life would promote fairness for both men and women. On the one hand, it would ensure that the actual behavior of individual men is considered, and not stereotypes about fathers. On the other hand, it would ensure that temporary relinquishment of custody does not result in permanent loss of custody, without regard to what went before.

Our research also considered gender bias in the awarding of shared legal custody. We found that the presumption in favor of shared legal custody which is currently held by many family service officers results in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. Such custody is being ordered over the objections of parents, when parents cannot agree about childrearing, and even when there is a history of spouse abuse."


That last bit is especially distressing, yet not even remotely surprising seeing as how inept our legal system is when there's any kind of abuse (child or spousal) involved. I've witnessed both abusive men and abusive women being unfairly granted certain things while the complaints and concerns of the other are dismissed entirely.

I found this thesis floating around that addresses the financial issues which follow divorce; it may be interesting: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstre...BA1?sequence=2

Edit: In conclusion, children are the real victims in these situations, as always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks View Post
I don't know if you're trolling or if this is your thing (hoping it's the former). Legally, people with glasses aren't a protected class; morally, it's obvious I was referring to the common use in argument of philosophical narrow sightedness; and forum-ly, this whole digression is off-topic. Not to mention, pedantic.

edit: 'just ****ing kill yourself' was like every 7th post I made 8 years ago. My oh my how my contributions have changed... Yet another reason I'm sad/scared that 30 year olds behave like this still.

Spoiler for Goofle response:


This is a non-answer, and I think you know it. Campaign rhetoric, while often extreme, sets expectations for policy. Add inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric to an inner circle of advisors with noted ties to hysterically Islamophobic organizations and you have an administration that implements ideaological bans. The differences between Obama's 2011 implementation and Trump's 2017 fiasco are well documented elsewhere. They also don't matter in a way, because Trump repeatedly said that he was calling for a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering America". Intent matters, especially from the Twitter President. So there are direct links to Islamophobia. As for anti-Mexican sentiment, the angst here is more economic. Mexicans are a convenient other. NAFTA, for it's flaws, reduced the flood of immigration, because it moved well-paying jobs to Mexico, where labor (because of the cost of living) is cheaper. Poor Americans still like their cars, their TVs, etc. I'm not saying they must do without, but economics is heartless. Live in an American town where those things are part of the standard of living and I'll show you a Mexican barrio where they can package food/assemble electronics/make widgets as well as their unskilled American counterpart, for 20% of the wage. So the economic and racial resentment is articially manipulated by many of the same people that benefit from it. The millionaire/billionaire class a have it easier when they aim poor white ire at Mexican immigrants and complex trade agreements than the alternative.



Also a non-answer. You can't just assert I'm not living in reality. I asked you to explain your beliefs. Don't point me to a YouTube video. Type them out, learn how to express them. If you don't want to fine, but not being able to argue your positions makes you the rube too many of my friends assume people like you are. I don't, I really want to dialog. Only way I'll survive the next 2-4 years... By the way, sourcing is fine for a conversation like this. I'm being pre-emptive here, but your quick non-answers aren't encouraging.




But justice can have many shadings. Legal, societal, tribal, etc. Doesn't mean they're all moral in the same way. Pure truth in a moral or philosophical sense isn't objectively attainable. I don't know if you're religious, and that's an entirely separate argument, but all but the most stringent of codes recognize circumstance as, at least, influencing action. Regardless, I completely agree that coercion is almost never the answer (outside lawful imprisonment, and the like). Certainly not over things as petty as 'Gamergate'.

I get it. You didn't own slaves. Neither did your parents, or your grandparents, or your great-grandparents. Maybe you're family isn't well-off. Maybe your job sucks. You hear 'white privilege' and you think 'rich privilege'. That's not what white privilege means and any serious thinker will tell you that you shouldn't feel guilty for being white or feel bad for being told that you don't have it as bad as black folk. I get angry when I hear that and rightfully so. It's about the aggregate. It's about the lifetime. Of everyone. In the country. STATISTICALLY, you will have a better life than people of color. The straight line is this is due to slavery. Not your fault. Not my fault. My people were in Ireland until the early 1900's. But as a white man, I will make more money and live longer. If I get arrested for possession of narcotics, I'll likely serve less time.

What you do with this knowledge, I don't know. I'm still recovering from my rejection of the idea of white privilege, which I only seriously thought about within the last few years. But your statement is a meaningless tautology.

This is getting long. Happy to continue (takes me a day to digest and gather my thoughts, so long form correspondence) if you want to take this to email or something.
I'd like to see Goofle's response to these two posts.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 08:44 AM   #104 (permalink)
stay the fukc inside
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 32,707
Default

No, they cut out a part where he qualified how paedophelia is different from what he was talking about. That's misquoting and deceitful editing because accusing someone of being pro paedophelia is a lot more interesting of a headline than accusing someone of being pro mixed age relationships. Still, when you put the context there, it doesn't look better at all lol.

Also it was a press conference, not a FB post (although I'm sure there were a few of those).
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 08:49 AM   #105 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
No, they cut out a part where he qualified how paedophelia is different from what he was talking about. That's misquoting and deceitful editing because accusing someone of being pro paedophelia is a lot more interesting of a headline than accusing someone of being pro mixed age relationships. Still, when you put the context there, it doesn't look better at all lol.

Also it was a press conference, not a FB post (although I'm sure there were a few of those).
He did the FB post before he ended up doing the press conference.

Also I watched the entire video of the podcast and none of it was edited. I don't know if there was an edited version of that podcast floating around that other people ended up seeing but I saw when he qualified what pedophilia is in his terms. He still gave the impression that it was okay for 13 years and up though. That's why he had to follow up with the post and conference to show that's not what he meant.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 08:52 AM   #106 (permalink)
Boneshaker Baby
 
elphenor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 12,046
Default

Guy with disgusting opinions has disgusting opinion much shock wow

I can be a free speech advocate without wanting a Klan Rally hosted in my living room
__________________
Just another marketing ploy
Quote:
I've got lights in my brain, girl
Quote:
My mind is like a plastic bag
elphenor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 08:52 AM   #107 (permalink)
stay the fukc inside
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 32,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
I don't know if there was an edited version of that podcast floating around that other people ended up seeing but I saw when he qualified what pedophilia is in his terms.
The clips I heard on the news from multiple sources cut out that part, yes. I know because I went to the source as well.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 09:34 AM   #108 (permalink)
OQB
 
Ol’ Qwerty Bastard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Frownland
Posts: 8,806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
I can be a free speech advocate without wanting a Klan Rally hosted in my living room
but what's the fun in that
__________________
Music Blog / RYM / Last.fm / Qwertyy's Journal of Music Reviews and Other Assorted Ramblings

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
I'm not even mad. Seriously I'm not. You're a good dude, and I think and hope you'll become something good
Ol’ Qwerty Bastard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 09:36 AM   #109 (permalink)
quarantined
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 6,811
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls View Post
You guys give too much power to words. Do you get offended when comedians make crude jokes too?

Why am I giving too much power to words when what he said didn't even phase me? Not even enough to find his comment remotely humorous. It seems the ones who would put weight on that word would be the ones laughing their asses off because he said "rape." I was only backing up what bulbasaur said, who was commenting on a response to the video. Chiomara and bulbasaur said basically what I was going to say. I'm personally not offended by it, and I can find it not funny without being offended by it.

Just because it didn't phase me, and consequently didn't find it funny at all, doesn't mean I don't care at all whether or not it is appropriate to say. I really don't think it is appropriate. I think he should know better and he should at consider how he should present himself. I'm more of the opinion there are a million of ways to say something, why go after the worse way of saying it?

Should be censored? I think that depends on how accessible that channel is. If it prime time on a public accessible channel where children can hear then I think the broadcasting channel maybe in their best interest it should. If it is a pay to view channel, where the majority of viewers are adults than it doesn't necessarily have to be censored.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhanteimi View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" - ʕººʔ
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” ― Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” – Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." - John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." — Keith Richards ☮ 💖 ♫ ∞ ἰχθύς
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2017, 10:14 AM   #110 (permalink)
.
 
grindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: .
Posts: 6,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
you don't expect the phrase "absolutely rapes him" slipped into an otherwise professional commentary that's the funny
In German a lot of engineering talk uses the term 'rape', for example when referring to some part of material being strained too much. Always bothers me a bit, but older guys use it all the time.
__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.
grindy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.