[RD] Impeach Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
Resignation of the individuals isn't enough. The political power structures themselves ensure that, not only is this kind of thing going to be possible forever, but will happen forever.

And I think you'll find I don't sexually assault people so I probably won't have these accusations levied against me. That absurd, illogical, slippery slope works even less here than it does for situations like punching Nazis. Accusations of sexual assault almost always follow sexual assault, which isn't something I'm inclined to do.
 
inthesomeday said:
Resignation of the individuals isn't enough. The political power structures themselves ensure that, not only is this kind of thing going to be possible forever, but will happen forever.
Click to expand...
That change is happening though. Seventy years ago, FDR’s affairs were swept under the rug. Fifty years ago, JFK’s were open secrets. Twenty years ago, WJC’s were brought into the fore. In another fifteen years there might be actual consequences for them. Reexamining Clinton’s behavior encourages that continuing change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rah
BvBPL said:
That change is happening though. Seventy years ago, FDR’s affairs were swept under the rug. Fifty years ago, JFK’s were open secrets. Twenty years ago, WJC’s were brought into the fore. In another fifteen years there might be actual consequences for them. Reexamining Clinton’s behavior encourages that continuing change.
Click to expand...

What's the through line that connects all of this? Politicians abusing their power to sexually assault people. Consequences aren't enough, it can be prevented from happening by abolishing the power structures that make it happen.
 
inthesomeday said:
What's the through line that connects all of this? Politicians abusing their power to sexually assault people. Consequences aren't enough, it can be prevented from happening by abolishing the power structures that make it happen.
Click to expand...
I'm watching a recording of Sunday's Meet the Press and Sens. Dingle and Comstock talking about reforming sexual harassments rules on Capitol Hill. They are purposing preventing the confidentiality in settlement agreements that prevent transparency and honesty in these actions. Forcing it into the sunlight would have a significant preventative effect.
 
BvBPL said:
I'm watching a recording of Sunday's Meet the Press and Sens. Dingle and Comstock talking about reforming sexual harassments rules on Capitol Hill. They are purposing preventing the confidentiality in settlement agreements that prevent transparency and honesty in these actions. Forcing it into the sunlight would have a significant preventative effect.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

For one thing, I'm skeptical that these reforms could have any real effect or ever have. The entire culture of politics and open secrets-- read: bourgeois culture-- is too fundamentally a part of these institutions, from the media to the government to the corporate elites. Attempting to apply new laws to people who enforce the law, and have never followed the law themselves, is basically ineffective by nature.

For another, even if these things had any effect it seems like just doing away with the entire source of these problems altogether is the obvious solution. Why settle for creeping progress when the systemic problems can be rooted out by never allowing their basis to exist in the first place?
 
And Weinstein was a politician? Spacey? The problem isn't the political power structure. It's found in any and all form of power structure, whether political, economic, social (Spacey got what he wanted and was protected by little more than being popular. Same for the Steubenville football team).

We might be able to wreck the political power structure (and even then I'd be surprised if that worked). The economic power structure, maybe. But social power structure - the more popular people holding power over the less popular people? (which is what Spacey, a bunch of other actors, and the Steubenville crowd surfed on). That power structure is essentially impossible to alter. There will continue being more popular people and less popular people, and the more popular people will continue having an easier time making others believe them, making others disbelieve less popular people, and generally silencing accusations against them.

Blaming a specific power structure for this is lackdaisical - it's present across all imaginable power structures. Blaming all power structures for this, while accurate, is a waste of time and energy - as pointed out above, even if we take out the formal (politics/government) and semi-formal (economics) power structure, informal power structure (popularity, and for that matter just physical strength) are beyond the reach of any revolution or reform to change. They can't be overthrown, they can't be legislated away. They are what they are. <

Ultimately, the current problem has far more to do with the entirely twisted view of sexuality our culture has been fostering for millenias, than with the existence of any particular power structure.
 
Twisted in that our culture, our advertisement, our entertainment present sex as a reward of success (eg, the hero get the girl as a reward for achieving something) ; ie, something that powerful, successful people (usually men in popular culture) are entitled to.

Twisted in that it projects an image of manliness that emphasizes sexual conquest, assertiveness and prowess as necessary preconditions of being a "real man". If you can,t get a girl (or a person you are pursuing) to give you the sex you want, that culture say, well...you're not very manly are you?

Twisted, in that at the same time, it projects an image of women (and of sexual marks in general, eg the person being pursued) as being naturally reluctant to engage in sex, even while they really want it (and in fact present women (and other marks) who are not reluctant to engage in sex as promiscuous and thus undesirable. This makes a mark's resistance to your advances not only something that you don't see as a reason to stop, but something that the pursuer may actually very well view as desirable.

(The two of them together setting up a notion of sexuality as a predator-and-prey game, where an assertive person (usually a man) move their game forward to win over and conquer a reluctant mark (usually a woman).

Twisted, too, in that it clearly associate sexuality with power and domination ; specifically the penetrative side of sexuality with being assertive, in control, in charge (manly qualities), and the receptive side of sexuality with being weak, dominated, unable to control your own destiny. Think of how we use the f-word and its variant : a f-er is someone who asserts himself at the expanse of others (manly), while being f...ed represent being in an unpleasant situation, a loss of control. The use of the R-word to characterize crushing your opponent in a game (eg, associating rape - positively! - with exercising power over someone else...the list goes on and on. In short, a valorization of the (typically) male role, and a devalorization of the (typically) female role.

(Not to mention what our culture has to say on rape itself, here, and the victim-blaming and distrust that goes with that).

This kind of culture is bound to tell powerful, successful people that it's okay to go after anyone they want, and encourage them to ignore, to avoid listening, to reluctance on the part of the aforesaid marks. Especially when they are unlikely to face consequences
 
Last edited:
Amazing how that's all fundamentally incompatible with love and fidelity.

But whatevs! Self respect certainly shouldn't come from accomplishment, demonstration of work, or devotion. A sort of breezy-yet-ethical hedonism can scratch that itch. If you're horny and reluctant to bone, clearly you're repressed.These guiding principles are far more in tune with capitalist modes of selection and happiness seeking than the alternative frames. Perfect for academia-for-profit.

Sorry, needed a break from what I was doing for a moment. I now return you to your regularly scheduled zeitgeist.

PS: I agree with you about Status being a feature, not a bug, in the organism btw. The systems and values we valorize can either exacerbate, or ameliorate, the pains that come with that feature. Can't change the world, but sometimes you can change who is around you in it.
 
Evie said:
Twisted in that our culture, our advertisement, our entertainment present sex as a reward of success (eg, the hero get the girl as a reward for achieving something) ; ie, something that powerful, successful people (usually men in popular culture) are entitled to.
...
Twisted, too, in that it clearly associate sexuality with power and domination ; specifically the penetrative side of sexuality with being assertive, in control, in charge (manly qualities), and the receptive side of sexuality with being weak, dominated, unable to control your own destiny. Think of how we use the f-word and its variant : a f-er is someone who asserts himself at the expanse of others (manly), while being f...ed represent being in an unpleasant situation, a loss of control. The use of the R-word to characterize crushing your opponent in a game (eg, associating rape - positively! - with exercising power over someone else...the list goes on and on. In short, a valorization of the (typically) male role, and a devalorization of the (typically) female role.
Click to expand...
Farm Boy said:
PS: I agree with you about Status being a feature, not a bug, in the organism btw.
Click to expand...
But if its a feature, not a bug, then is it twisted? You've seen discovery channel where two bucks (or rams, or bulls, or roosters, or lions, etc) are locking horns over who "wins" the right to mate with a particular female, right? Isn't that kind of dynamic common across many species?... the idea that sexuality is associated with power and/or dominion? So why would it be twisted when it manifests in humans? I mean I certainly get that we, as humans are supposed to be able to think through, or around our "animalistic/primal" tendencies, but then that is the real "twisting" isn't it?
 
Last edited:
There is nothing twisted in humans developing complex societies and their rules. It's a natural growth from our identity as both highly social animals with extremely high intelligence that we'd seek to constantly improve on our structure, our mores, our ways. All animal species are different, and one of our key difference is our ability to constantly adapt our ways.

What's twisted, to me, is clinging to ways and perceptions that we are now in position to determine are harmful to numerous members of the group.
 
Right but my point is Budweiser didn't make up the idea that the cock of the walk gets his pick of the hens. That dynamic was already there to begin with. If we want to change that dynamic to something new, we have to recognize that its not a matter of getting rid of the media/social manipulation and letting things settle back into the natural order where there is balance, harmony and equity in sexuality and sexual relationships. We have to make some actual changes and dare I say, sacrifices of, as you say, the old ways and perceptions that we've been sticking to... we have to adapt to the new way we want our society to function and be willing to prioritize that over other things.

Again, the dominion/power dynamic that we are discussing is the natural order. So maybe the real problem is the power imbalance between men and women and the historical difficulties society has had with empowering women... with things like... say... just as a random example... electing a woman POTUS...
 
Last edited:
I don't know that I'd call it natural order. That imply there's something...desirable about it. Or that it's how things should be. Nor do I accept as a given that all aspects of our sexual cultures are necessarily born from animal nature - that would take a great deal more studying (and explaining why not all those mores are universal across human cultures).

And, frankly, it's not really an essential question. Whether the problem comes from nature or nurture, that might (at worse) only change how long it will take to change it, not the actual steps that need to be taken - which is to nurture things going in the right direction.
 
Evie said:
I don't know that I'd call it natural order. That imply there's something...desirable about it. Or that it's how things should be. Nor do I accept as a given that all aspects of our sexual cultures are necessarily born from animal nature - that would take a great deal more studying (and explaining why not all those mores are universal across human cultures).

And, frankly, it's not really an essential question. Whether the problem comes from nature or nurture, that might (at worse) only change how long it will take to change it, not the actual steps that need to be taken - which is to nurture things going in the right direction.
Click to expand...
I don't know that "natural order" implies "desirable". Its the natural order that poop smells bad, nothing particularly desirable about that. I also don't think that calling it the "natural order" necessarily imeans that we're saying that is how things "should be". At a minimum, that's not how I meant it. I think more precisely, the phrase "natural order" in this context, is to state that is how things are, and that we have to do something (as opposed to refraining from doing something) to make it different. You seemed to be implying earlier that it was artificial pressure from society and corporations... advertisements, entertainment, etc that was establishing this connection between sex and power/dominion/success/wealth, thereby implying that if they stopped doing that, the issue would dissipate. I am saying it was already there, they just put it on TV. The issue at play is not simply that power plays a role in sexual relationships, another issue at play is that men have an imbalance of power generally, and thus an imbalance of power sexually, which in turn increases the tendency toward individual cases of abuse, which in turn creates a normalization of those abuses, leading to more and greater abuses by more individuals. So one way to mitigate this is to give women more power generally, which will greatly contribute towards breaking up this cycle.

An implicit recognition of this issue was one of the reasons I was so keen on electing a female POTUS. But it was a priority for me, to the exclusion of other relevant issues, which others, obviously were not willing to overlook to prioritize that goal. Which brings me back to the point about priorities. When I hear the question asked with regard to the accusers "why now?", I think to myself... because its being treated like a priority now, whereas before, as recently as the last election... it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
inthesomeday said:
For one thing, I'm skeptical that these reforms could have any real effect or ever have. The entire culture of politics and open secrets-- read: bourgeois culture-- is too fundamentally a part of these institutions, from the media to the government to the corporate elites. Attempting to apply new laws to people who enforce the law, and have never followed the law themselves, is basically ineffective by nature.
Click to expand...
Removing the ability to engage in confidential settlements dismantles the apparatus of power in the manner you describe. It removes the shield behind which the powerful hide their flaws.
 
BvBPL said:
Removing the ability to engage in confidential settlements dismantles the apparatus of power in the manner you describe. It removes the shield behind which the powerful hide their flaws.
Click to expand...

This is a superficial at best, counterproductive at worst band-aid
 
Evie said:
There is nothing twisted in humans developing complex societies and their rules. It's a natural growth from our identity as both highly social animals with extremely high intelligence that we'd seek to constantly improve on our structure, our mores, our ways. All animal species are different, and one of our key difference is our ability to constantly adapt our ways.

What's twisted, to me, is clinging to ways and perceptions that we are now in position to determine are harmful to numerous members of the group.
Click to expand...

So what is twisted is anything you don't like. Issue with that is that this is exactly what 'the other side' is saying.

Changing others is not only futile, it is something which inherently has a particular quality of futility that makes it an excellent tool of divisions when used by people in power. The differences in mentality from human to human are not just vast, they are vast even when the huge majority of the subject matter isn't even conscious or examinable. In other words: change of this kind is not just difficult but misguided as a driving end to have. You can only learn more about your own self; other people are not known other than through one's own projections, therefore any aspiration for co-existence should lie in easier to achieve common standards and not some will for agreement on particular things.
 
@Evie
Have you listened to anything I've been saying? You've arrived at the correct conclusion; every single power structure in our society is destructive and leads to/enables abuse. Nothing you said contradicts my central point, until you devolve into typical liberal defeatism about social power structures. The thing about social structures is that they exist solely as a product of political and economic hierarchies, and when these are destroyed so will be the social power structures.

Even if you believe this impossible, surely your understanding of the nature of political and economic power demonstrated in the immediate response post to mine should lead you to oppose the systems that implement these powers? Why support such spooky concepts as "the law" and government if you accept that they only serve to hurt?

@BvBPL
No, altering the law won't affect those who have demonstrated their ability to act outside the law. Are you listening? If you can refute this please do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom