Is Trump's golf-swing hitting Hillary GIF sexist?

[civver_764]

Where did he say he is very ashamed of them?

 

[Gori the Grey]

There he:

1) doesn't in fact say he was is ashamed of his comments
2) distances himself in a number of ways from the idea that the comments reflect his character
3) says the concern over the comments is a mere distraction (nullifying the minimal acknowledgement of them he'd made earlier)
4) blames other people for other things
5) evinces not the slightest sign of authentic remorse (including to the point of not even reading his teleprompter properly!)

I could go on.

It's almost a textbook NON-acknowledgment of culpability.

 

[civver_764]

Oh geez, I'm pretty sure nothing short of dropping out of the race and killing himself would have pleased you people.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Here, what would have pleased me was an authentic apology; he didn't offer one. I, for one, never publicly called for his suicide.

 

[metalhead]

Oh geez, I'm pretty sure nothing short of dropping out of the race and killing himself would have pleased you people.

Whether I was pleased or not is irrelevant. You claimed he said he was "very ashamed" of his comments. He never expressed anything of the kind. He said that he "regrets" making them, and that they don't reflect who he is as a person, but he most definitely did not say he was ashamed. Given the tenor of his "apology," one could reasonably conclude that he only regrets making the comments because they became public, not because he believes the comments themselves are regrettable.

This was made even clearer by the fact that his surrogates defended them as "locker room talk," a clear indication that the comments themselves are not regrettable or something to be ashamed of. Had they been seen as legitimately regrettable, they wouldn't have been defending them by basically arguing there was nothing wrong with them.

 

[Lexicus]

and that they don't reflect who he is as a person,

And it is abundantly obvious that those comments do represent who he is as a person.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh geez, I'm pretty sure nothing short of dropping out of the race and killing himself would have pleased you people.

His supporters recognizing such statements as 'bragging about sexually assault' would probably have changed the tone, tbh. If he'd said "yeah, that was wrong." and his supporters had said "yeah, that's bragging about sexual assault", then maybe the conversation wouldn't have degraded.

And thus, a year later, I'm still having to point out to supporters that the man molested at least one women and then bragged about it. And his supporters are denying that his statements were the essence of bragging about being a sexual assaulter.

 

[metatron]

There he:

1) doesn't in fact say he was is ashamed of his comments
2) distances himself in a number of ways from the idea that the comments reflect his character
3) says the concern over the comments is a mere distraction (nullifying the minimal acknowledgement of them he'd made earlier)
4) blames other people for other things
5) evinces not the slightest sign of authentic remorse (including to the point of not even reading his teleprompter properly!)

I could go on.

It's almost a textbook NON-acknowledgment of culpability.

Look, i have defended Kathy Griffin's apology (the one on youtube, not the hideous press conference) as pretty extraordinarily good.
I have to say, the above is actually a half-way decent apology.
Sure there is campaign poopyness involved. Fine.
But the difference between regret and shame is marginal, and when people say something doesn't reflect who they are that is conventionally understood as a contention of shame.

I'm not on the guy's team. There are plenty of reasons to scold the man. This apology isn't one of them.
Stick with the one's that are. There's lying, thieving and insulting the very character of the nation.
The apology being fine-ish, with some ammount charity, doesn't detract from that.

And thus, a year later, I'm still having to point out to supporters that the man molested at least one women and then bragged about it. And his supporters are denying that his statements were the essence of bragging about being a sexual assaulter.

Look, i am a mere bystander to this common law new-worldy culture of yours, but as far as i understand you people settle these things in court. So do that or don't.
He's still hideous. Yet the apology for the comment is still fine.

Like, i'm sorry, but i'm getting slightly tired with this. Like, can't you just do this?
There's plenty of stuff to nail the guy to the nearest wall with. Can't you help yourself with the employing of the double standards that actually helps the guy?
You do understand that he feeds of that, do you?

 

[El_Machinae]

Look, i am a mere bystander to this common law new-worldy culture of yours, but as far as i understand you people settle these things in court. So do that or don't.
He's still hideous. Yet the apology for the comment is still fine.

Like, i'm sorry, but i'm getting slightly tired with this. Like, can't you just do this?
There's plenty of stuff to nail the guy to the nearest wall with. Can't you help yourself with the employing of the double standards that actually helps the guy?
You do understand that he feeds of that, do you?

I have a specific list of issues with Trump. The fact that the majority of his base don't seem to understand sexual assault or cannot rationally judge a sexual assault claim, is one of them. It's a social ill that needs to be handled, all things considered. His inability to read legislation that he's promoting isn't nearly such an issue - no one else who'll yowl about it will either.

There is no court case available for Stoynoff. She excised herself from the situation, and the statute of limitations have run out. That said, I'd morally support her defamation case against him for calling her a liar.

 

[metatron]

I have a specific list of issues with Trump. The fact that the majority of his base don't seem to understand sexual assault or cannot rationally judge a sexual assault claim, is one of them.

This is a perfectly valid concern, yet you run into the same probem that occured in the campaign:
By today's mainstream standards Bill Clinton is a serial sexual harrasser. By the standards of Slate and Salon he's a serial rapist and his wife is an accessory to that.

Don't go down that road. This is exactly what one Vladimir Putin actually wants. That's in fact the thing he wants the most: "Everybody is feces, all aspiration is vain. There's just your crooks and other crooks."

His inability to read legislation that he's promoting isn't nearly such an issue

It should be. This is not a wacky conspiracy theory. I am seriously concerned that he - for reasons of vision or comprehension - can't, in any functional degree, effin read.
That's a problem. That's a bigger problem than whether he imposed himself on some lady. Very few things are. This is one.
He - incredibly - comes with multiple such things. Stop getting distracted.

I'd morally support her defamation case against him for calling her a liar.

Fair enough.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why do people insist on taking the completely artificial constructs created for a court of law, and then applying them outside of the courtroom as if they have any meaning in the real world? If that's your only justification for something, then you've a terrible justification. It also reads as rather intellectually dishonest, because I seriously doubt you apply such rigor across the board.

I already explained why, and I disagree with you very strongly that they're "completely artificial". As I said, if you want to have lax standards and make important judgements of people based on heresay and "no smoke without fire" and other such reasoning then that's your choice. I'm more than happy with my decision not to join you.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is about when you can punish people for crimes, not about what you can conclude in your own mind. In this case, you aren't exhibiting "high standards," you're exhibiting bury-your-head-in-the-sand denial. It's not even really clear why, you don't have any kind of psychological or political investment in Trump that I know about.

See above. Plus my original post directly above metalhead's which I'm quoting, which already fully addressed this point.

You used the word 'unproven claim' in order to encourage people to assume that it didn't actually happen when looking at Trump's behaviour (as a whole). It's an effort to dismiss.

No, it's an entirely accurate and objective description of what it is. It's an effort to describe reality. It is an unproven claim. Just because it's written up into an emotive article that tugs at your heart strings doesn't make it any more evidentially valuable than Trump's counter claim of "that never happened". I really don't see how this is even up for debate.

 

[metalhead]

I already explained why, and I disagree with you very strongly that they're "completely artificial". As I said, if you want to have lax standards and make important judgements of people based on heresay and "no smoke without fire" and other such reasoning then that's your choice. I'm more than happy with my decision not to join you.

Do you apply this rigor across the board for "important questions," like about the existence of god, faith in people to do the right thing, etc.? Or is this just something you trot out when it suits you to try to win arguments on the Internet?

The inadmissibility of hearsay is absolutely artificial. There is no legitimate reason to discount hearsay out of hand in the real world; I'm quite capable of assessing the validity of a given piece of hearsay even if rules in a court of law wouldn't allow it. The whole problem with this line of reasoning is that people don't understand the purpose of courts and rules of evidence. They exist mostly to protect the accused, given that the stakes in a criminal trial often involve imprisonment. I'm sorry you don't possess the faculties to make these judgments for yourself.

Then, of course, there is the issue that even a court of law would allow hearsay of the accused to be admitted. It's an exception to hearsay rules when the person accused of a crime makes an admission. It's also an exception to the hearsay rule when someone makes an admission that is against that person's own interests, because those statements are considered to be reliable. So even if you're going to trot out this stupid line of reasoning, at least some of the evidence - most notably, that the person himself admitted he assaults women - would pass your muster.

 

[Lexicus]

They exist mostly to protect the accused, given that the stakes in a criminal trial often involve imprisonment. I'm sorry you don't possess the faculties to make these judgments for yourself.

I already explained this two pages ago and it was ignored:

Those standards apply in a court of law because they're the absolute best moral standards to adopt in general, not because they're some weird abstract thing that can only apply in legal cases.

Those standards apply in a court of law because society has decided over time to restrict the conditions under which the state can punish people for crimes.

Just because it's written up into an emotive article that tugs at your heart strings doesn't make it any more evidentially valuable than Trump's counter claim of "that never happened". I really don't see how this is even up for debate.

If you seriously believe that her story is no "more evidentially valuable than Trump's counter claim" I can only presume you know virtually nothing about Trump. And that's fine, I guess, but please stop acting like your failure to take the man's measure is some kind of virtue. He has been accused by, what, a dozen(?) other women of similar behavior, he bragged about exactly the same kind of behavior on tape, and he lies almost literally whenever he talks. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Stoynoff is lying and enormous reason to believe Trump is.

So even if you're going to trot out this stupid line of reasoning, at least some of the evidence - most notably, that the person himself admitted he assaults women - would pass your muster.

A court of law (in the US, anyway) also would not consider the testimony of the victim "hearsay" though of course such testimony by itself would not be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[metalhead]

And as I've pointed out in other discussions, the idea that it's improper to believe anything for which there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt is patently absurd. That standard specifically exists only because imprisonment is such a fundamental deprivation of one's rights as a human being. It has absolutely no utility in the real world whatsoever.

 

[Lexicus]

And as I've pointed out in other discussions, the idea that it's improper to believe anything for which there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt is patently absurd.[...]It has absolutely no utility in the real world whatsoever.

Yes, I made that point a couple of pages ago as well - it doesn't just not have utility, anyone who actually applied such a standard to their real-life actions would be paralyzed by ignorance.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Do you apply this rigor across the board for "important questions," like about the existence of god, faith in people to do the right thing, etc.? Or is this just something you trot out when it suits you to try to win arguments on the Internet?

Well yeah... I'm not going to start believing in God just because someone writes an article about how God came and visited them and he's definitely real. So yes, that is exactly analogous and yes I apply the same logic there, because it fits.

Faith in people to do the right thing? People in general or a particular person? You'll have to be more specific there. I don't see how they're comparable anyway because one is about trying to work out if something actually happened, and the other is about trying to predict future events. Not the same.

And as I've pointed out in other discussions, the idea that it's improper to believe anything for which there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt is patently absurd. That standard specifically exists only because imprisonment is such a fundamental deprivation of one's rights as a human being. It has absolutely no utility in the real world whatsoever.

Yeah but I'm not applying it to absolutely everything I do am I? I'm not saying I refuse to believe that the milk I put in the fridge is still there unless I go and check with my own eyes. I'm applying it to this specific case because this specific case is about deciding if a person is guilty of a specific criminal act, and then judging that person accordingly. The fact that that is happening inside my own mind rather than a criminal court doesn't really matter. If I start going around believing people are guilty of criminal acts and then acting really harshly towards them then that's not justified. The consequences are much greater if I do that than if I just have faith that my milk is still there. Again, that's how lynch mobs are formed.

I mean you are literally strawmanning me if you're pretending that I claim to apply these standards to ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING EVER. And you're also wrong if you believe that these standards are held in criminal court for absolutely arbitrary and artificial reasons. If you don't think decisions should be made that way, then shouldn't it really bother you that criminal courts adopt standards that you believe to be entirely artificial and useless? Why would you be happy for courts to operate that way?

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Stoynoff is lying and enormous reason to believe Trump is.

I never said that I believe that she's lying. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[civver_764]

I can think of a few reasons to believe Stoynoff is lying. Why did she wait 11 years to come forward? Why was it only after Trump's tape was leaked that she decided to say anything? The whole thing strikes me as very opportunist.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think of a few reasons to believe Stoynoff is lying. Why did she wait 11 years to come forward? Why was it only after Trump's tape was leaked that she decided to say anything? The whole thing strikes me as very opportunist.

I don't see those as strong reasons to have a positive belief that she is lying, but they are reasons to have doubts.

 

[Lexicus]

I never said that I believe that she's lying. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I never said you said you believe she is lying. Please don't put words in my mouth.

However...

You refer to her story as an "unproven allegation." You say it has "no more evidentially valuable" than Trump's obvious lie. What are we supposed to conclude from this? What are the other options? Either her story is true, or she hallucinated it or otherwise delusionally believes it is true when it isn't, or she is lying. Are you saying you believe she had a psychotic episode? That she is a victim of a delusional belief that she was assaulted by Trump? If not, what are you saying?

 

[metalhead]

you're also wrong if you believe that these standards are held in criminal court for absolutely arbitrary and artificial reasons. If you don't think decisions should be made that way, then shouldn't it really bother you that criminal courts adopt standards that you believe to be entirely artificial and useless? Why would you be happy for courts to operate that way?

You silly, silly person. I quite clearly pointed out why the standards are used in criminal courts, and I believe they exist there for very important reasons. To claim I said the standards are useless shows a profound lack of understanding of the fundamental point of the whole conversation.

You're just not even following the discussion here - this isn't a point of disagreement. Rules of evidence are an artificial construct created for a specific purpose. They are not intended to be a code for people to use outside of a courtroom to determine whether to believe something is true. To use them that way doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You disagreeing means that you don't understand why courts and rules of evidence exist, not that there is a legitimate disagreement to be had.

I'm not strawmanning at all. You said you reach conclusions on "important issues" this way. Does that include if you are relying on a person to do something? If they tell you they did it is that enough, or do you always demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt? That's not a strawman, that seems to be what you're saying you do. Does that mean you also disapprove of the preponderance standard in civil court; shouldn't they also use a reasonable doubt standard, if that is the only way to determine if something actually happened?