wait a second - are we supposed to uncritically believe women without any attempt to fact check, or not?
it seems like that principle is really only as good as it is useful as it is to run a good story. and, the ladies here should realize that they're really being taken of advantage of by a media that doesn't actually care about what they have to say, but sees exploiting them as a good way to make a lot of money.
in the end, if what they say gets in the way of the story, it gets jettisoned. and, that was predictable.
so, when ariana huffington says the photos weren't harassment in any way, that should be enough, based on the logic of this lacking movement, itself. instead, we're invited by the same media that pushed these ideas of female purity to question her motives, as the media tries to figure out what she was thinking from her body language [her lips said yes, but her body said no. she clearly wasn't asking for this.] and questions her allegiance to women's advocacy for the sin of refusing to take part in an obvious smear campaign.
are you starting to understand what's going on, yet?
https://pagesix.com/2017/11/20/new-pics-show-al-franken-grabbing-arianna-huffingtons-breasts-and-butt/
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Monday, November 20, 2017
that's almost as bad as the time he called somebody on the phone.
i especially like the clinical term, "buttocks", in the article.
the narrative that they're pushing here is that franken is too unattractive to run for president and that any kind of casual touching is just enough to leave any halfways attractive woman grossed out. the democrats would be better off with a sexier guy that can grab woman at state fairs for selfies without them complaining about it, or even have them line up for it. whatever kind of bullying this is, and however much it's designed to cover up the reality that he's being a problem in the senate, it might be reasonably true.
but, that's the kind of logic that got us stuck with a right-wing neo-liberal pawn like justin trudeau, who has revealed a set of truly awful political positions on the gamut of traditional left-wing voting issues, even relative to historical liberal party standards. at least barack obama passed a couple of meaningful pieces of legislation on climate change. he's useless to anybody but identity voters. and, that might be all he has left in the next election.
democrats should focus on building a political coalition. this strategy of just running a model on neo-liberal platitudes is going to leave them with the bottom fallen out.
this "accusation" is probably more likely to convince people that he's being targeted than that he's actually guilty of anything. it seems like this is all they've got.
the article really reads off like some kind of joke at the expense of the puritanical morass of middle america.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i especially like the clinical term, "buttocks", in the article.
the narrative that they're pushing here is that franken is too unattractive to run for president and that any kind of casual touching is just enough to leave any halfways attractive woman grossed out. the democrats would be better off with a sexier guy that can grab woman at state fairs for selfies without them complaining about it, or even have them line up for it. whatever kind of bullying this is, and however much it's designed to cover up the reality that he's being a problem in the senate, it might be reasonably true.
but, that's the kind of logic that got us stuck with a right-wing neo-liberal pawn like justin trudeau, who has revealed a set of truly awful political positions on the gamut of traditional left-wing voting issues, even relative to historical liberal party standards. at least barack obama passed a couple of meaningful pieces of legislation on climate change. he's useless to anybody but identity voters. and, that might be all he has left in the next election.
democrats should focus on building a political coalition. this strategy of just running a model on neo-liberal platitudes is going to leave them with the bottom fallen out.
this "accusation" is probably more likely to convince people that he's being targeted than that he's actually guilty of anything. it seems like this is all they've got.
the article really reads off like some kind of joke at the expense of the puritanical morass of middle america.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
17:00
see, again: i've never heard of this show and i don't know who any of the actors are.
but, reading this very brief write-up, i'm able to come up with a clear motive from the supporting actress, who seems to want to take over the show.
and, he appears to have quit.
what do you do if you're amazon and you run your careful investigation and you figure out that that's true? it says in the article that this guy has won two emmys. he's old. but, you'd think you'd want to write a character like that out, not get them turfed like this. and, it's going to hurt the show.
even if it's completely true, it's going to hurt the show.
it could be that every single one of these accusations this month is legit. but, out of all of the accusations i've seen, the only one that seems void of an ulterior motive (excluding the ones that don't really even strike me as problematic) is the weinstein case. case after case has a really plausible take down scenario.
it's insane to take this line that you can or should make accusations without proof, in context, when every single one of these cases require a serious cross-examination to rule out obvious ulterior designs.
this is all just insanity.
at least the show, here, is doing an investigation. nobody else seems to be.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/19/jeffrey-tambor-wont-return-to-transparent-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations.html
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
but, reading this very brief write-up, i'm able to come up with a clear motive from the supporting actress, who seems to want to take over the show.
and, he appears to have quit.
what do you do if you're amazon and you run your careful investigation and you figure out that that's true? it says in the article that this guy has won two emmys. he's old. but, you'd think you'd want to write a character like that out, not get them turfed like this. and, it's going to hurt the show.
even if it's completely true, it's going to hurt the show.
it could be that every single one of these accusations this month is legit. but, out of all of the accusations i've seen, the only one that seems void of an ulterior motive (excluding the ones that don't really even strike me as problematic) is the weinstein case. case after case has a really plausible take down scenario.
it's insane to take this line that you can or should make accusations without proof, in context, when every single one of these cases require a serious cross-examination to rule out obvious ulterior designs.
this is all just insanity.
at least the show, here, is doing an investigation. nobody else seems to be.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/19/jeffrey-tambor-wont-return-to-transparent-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations.html
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
08:39
so, it's supposed to be about some kind of power differential as though somebody is actually taking foucault seriously.
never take foucault seriously.
when i was a kid, the left didn't argue that people with power should use it responsibly, it argued that these power imbalances produce concepts of struggle and that if somebody has power over you, you need to fight them to take that power from them, and then deal with all of the people trying to take it from you. does a lion use it's power over a gazelle responsibly? it's absurdity.
and, if somebody asks you to do something, and you don't want to do it, you don't do it. you don't pretend that they have some kind of magic power over you, and you don't have a choice. this is not reality, it's twilight zone bullshit. what the actual fuck.
but, i should have known that this is what was going on, because this always happens with the foucauldians, they just end up back where burke was at. so, these so-called progressives start waving their foucault around and they just sound like conservatives - because that's what they actually are. and, they just piss me off as badly as any other conservative does, because they're not actually any different than any other conservative is.
this is exactly what my thesis about the christian right and the puritan left coming together is all about. and, foucault himself put the model in place: the iranian revolution, which came together via the same forces. you need to be very careful with burkeanism/foucauldianism. it is not socialism. it is not liberalism. it is a type of hierarchical monarchism that doesn't have any use for individual liberty.
again: i don't know anything about louis ck. but, i don't buy into these conservative theories of power: i think masturbating in front of somebody with their consent is actually perfectly ok. weird, but ok. and, i might suspect that most people are probably reacting not to any kind of harassment, but to the gross factor. and, they should probably just be honest about it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
never take foucault seriously.
when i was a kid, the left didn't argue that people with power should use it responsibly, it argued that these power imbalances produce concepts of struggle and that if somebody has power over you, you need to fight them to take that power from them, and then deal with all of the people trying to take it from you. does a lion use it's power over a gazelle responsibly? it's absurdity.
and, if somebody asks you to do something, and you don't want to do it, you don't do it. you don't pretend that they have some kind of magic power over you, and you don't have a choice. this is not reality, it's twilight zone bullshit. what the actual fuck.
but, i should have known that this is what was going on, because this always happens with the foucauldians, they just end up back where burke was at. so, these so-called progressives start waving their foucault around and they just sound like conservatives - because that's what they actually are. and, they just piss me off as badly as any other conservative does, because they're not actually any different than any other conservative is.
this is exactly what my thesis about the christian right and the puritan left coming together is all about. and, foucault himself put the model in place: the iranian revolution, which came together via the same forces. you need to be very careful with burkeanism/foucauldianism. it is not socialism. it is not liberalism. it is a type of hierarchical monarchism that doesn't have any use for individual liberty.
again: i don't know anything about louis ck. but, i don't buy into these conservative theories of power: i think masturbating in front of somebody with their consent is actually perfectly ok. weird, but ok. and, i might suspect that most people are probably reacting not to any kind of harassment, but to the gross factor. and, they should probably just be honest about it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
07:45
ok, one more.
i don't actually know who louis ck is. he seems to be an acquaintance of some comedians i know better. but, i don't actually know anything about him.
as far as i understand it, he's admitted to asking women if he can masturbate in front of them, then doing it.
see, i actually don't understand what's wrong with that. like, really. there's consent. what's the problem, here?
it's weird, maybe. but it doesn't strike me as wrong in any conceivable way. i mean, who is coming down on him for this, the fucking pope? what is this actually even about?
i don't get it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i don't actually know who louis ck is. he seems to be an acquaintance of some comedians i know better. but, i don't actually know anything about him.
as far as i understand it, he's admitted to asking women if he can masturbate in front of them, then doing it.
see, i actually don't understand what's wrong with that. like, really. there's consent. what's the problem, here?
it's weird, maybe. but it doesn't strike me as wrong in any conceivable way. i mean, who is coming down on him for this, the fucking pope? what is this actually even about?
i don't get it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
07:22
i need to forget about this; there are few things that push my buttons like puritanical christians, and i have better things to do than obsess over this, right now.
jameet singh must cut his beard.
jameet singh must cut his beard.
at
07:01
this was
meant to be the last rabit is wolf track, but instead morphed into the
first trivial group song. this single explores the track from various
angles.
sean wanted a song that just went "lalalala". i think his intent was to try and simplify my thought process, because what i'd been doing sounded more like FTIeikdTY7isdD7E5dk!. he was just kind of like "how about.....lalalala.".
it got a bit of an eye roll from me, as you could imagine, but i played with it. he wasn't really that excited about what i did, and it just didn't move forward. there were no further sessions, as he became interested in working with a more conventional early 00s "emotional hardcore" (think at the drive in) style guitarist and i got very involved in a relationship.
despite his initial suggestion, i'd consider the result to clearly be of my own doing. so, i took the core of what i did and warped it into the first track on the reflections symphony. this track has lain dormant since, comfortably completed.
it's now 2015, and i'm completing my discography. that puts this track in a blurry space: it was completed, but not as initially intended. while there may have been a vocal part recorded, i don't have it any more. yet, the intention is clear enough - and the manipulation would have been thick enough - that i do not consider it to be invasive to complete it on my own.
i'm releasing it as rabit because it's collaborative in the abstract, despite sean not actually existing in the track. this track was written in late 2002 and completed over april and may, 2015. final completion date is may 11, 2015. disc finalized on nov 20, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of the track (track 3) also appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2015, 2017).
sean wanted a song that just went "lalalala". i think his intent was to try and simplify my thought process, because what i'd been doing sounded more like FTIeikdTY7isdD7E5dk!. he was just kind of like "how about.....lalalala.".
it got a bit of an eye roll from me, as you could imagine, but i played with it. he wasn't really that excited about what i did, and it just didn't move forward. there were no further sessions, as he became interested in working with a more conventional early 00s "emotional hardcore" (think at the drive in) style guitarist and i got very involved in a relationship.
despite his initial suggestion, i'd consider the result to clearly be of my own doing. so, i took the core of what i did and warped it into the first track on the reflections symphony. this track has lain dormant since, comfortably completed.
it's now 2015, and i'm completing my discography. that puts this track in a blurry space: it was completed, but not as initially intended. while there may have been a vocal part recorded, i don't have it any more. yet, the intention is clear enough - and the manipulation would have been thick enough - that i do not consider it to be invasive to complete it on my own.
i'm releasing it as rabit because it's collaborative in the abstract, despite sean not actually existing in the track. this track was written in late 2002 and completed over april and may, 2015. final completion date is may 11, 2015. disc finalized on nov 20, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
the album version of the track (track 3) also appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2015, 2017).
credits
released November 15, 2002
j - guitar, effects, bass, drum programming, soundscaping, sound design, sampling, vocals, vocoders, digital wave editing
sean - lyrical concept
j - guitar, effects, bass, drum programming, soundscaping, sound design, sampling, vocals, vocoders, digital wave editing
sean - lyrical concept
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
06:49
no.
i need to be absolutely, unambiguously clear: we cannot create a climate where anybody is free to make unchallenged accusations against anybody else.
that is not "progress". that is backwardsness. that is totalitarian. that is dystopic.
and, it is imperative that this be resisted, before it is too late.
i will never support any movement that seeks to dispense with the presumption of innocence or due process of law. and i would hope that any group of people that is championing such a thing would be roundly defeated in the court of public opinion.
remember: the mainstream media is not an echo chamber of public opinion, but a tool that the elite uses to bludgeon delusions into us. it rarely reflects what anybody is actually thinking. rather, it seeks to manufacture viewpoints for us. and, the truth is that it usually fails in it's tasks.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i need to be absolutely, unambiguously clear: we cannot create a climate where anybody is free to make unchallenged accusations against anybody else.
that is not "progress". that is backwardsness. that is totalitarian. that is dystopic.
and, it is imperative that this be resisted, before it is too late.
i will never support any movement that seeks to dispense with the presumption of innocence or due process of law. and i would hope that any group of people that is championing such a thing would be roundly defeated in the court of public opinion.
remember: the mainstream media is not an echo chamber of public opinion, but a tool that the elite uses to bludgeon delusions into us. it rarely reflects what anybody is actually thinking. rather, it seeks to manufacture viewpoints for us. and, the truth is that it usually fails in it's tasks.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
06:17
what is my experience with assault and/or harassment?
i've never been raped.
i've been hollered at. i've been followed. i've been groped. i've had people expose themselves to me. i've been kissed without consent, albeit not with a tongue.
the truth is that the only time it's bothered me is when it's been an issue of safety - being followed, mostly. generally, i'm going to laugh at you if you try to act indecently around me.
i remember one night a few years ago, when i ended up in a park with a stranger in downtown ottawa that is known for two things at the wee hours - marijuana and public sex. i was there for the marijuana. it seemed like this dude also wanted sex. but, he was too drunk to get his pants off, and his attempt to expose himself just ended up cracking me up. rather than accuse him of assault or exposure, i ended up helping him to a different and safer park bench, with his pants around his ankles, and left him with instructions not to lay on his back.
a lot of women would have put this guy away for that. i just thought it was funny.
and, there is a difference in mindset here, and it is a result of a difference in conditioning. i simply wasn't raised in a conservative environment, or with conservative values. and, i usually have this conversation when i'm attempting to explain that i haven't had to unlearn anything, but in this context it's more like i have to try and figure out what people are even so indignant about, because these are legitimately values - and a value system - that is simply foreign to me. these aren't things that anybody ever told me to get angry about.
i was raised to laugh at the absurd, not to get angry or feel victimized. and, i was raised to give as much deference to the free will of others - as absurd as it may be - as i give to myself.
so, when somebody gropes me, i push them off of me. and, then i forget about it. and, i don't quite understand what the purpose of acting further might be. when somebody hollers at me or slows down in their car to check me out, i make sure i'm in a lit area and keep walking. and, i tell them to fuck off if i have to. and, when somebody exposes themselves to me, i just laugh it off - because it is usually comical, if viewed from enough distance.
i don't think i'm oppressed. i don't think i'm carrying around some systemic burden of being at the bottom of some hierarchy. if anything, maybe my indifference is a sign of liberation, or at least a lack of repression. i just think i'm a human being navigating it's way through an unending sequence of complex social interactions, and trying to make the best of it.
there's lines to be drawn, of course. as mentioned, i've never been raped. but, i don't think i'd shrug it off, if i had been.
but, as a liberal anarchist, i'm going to draw these lines very differently than a conservative - or, as it seems, a progressive - might. and, i'm going to insist that people see the relativism in this, and the necessity of being careful about where the law puts these lines down, as a result of it.
not everybody shares your values.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i've never been raped.
i've been hollered at. i've been followed. i've been groped. i've had people expose themselves to me. i've been kissed without consent, albeit not with a tongue.
the truth is that the only time it's bothered me is when it's been an issue of safety - being followed, mostly. generally, i'm going to laugh at you if you try to act indecently around me.
i remember one night a few years ago, when i ended up in a park with a stranger in downtown ottawa that is known for two things at the wee hours - marijuana and public sex. i was there for the marijuana. it seemed like this dude also wanted sex. but, he was too drunk to get his pants off, and his attempt to expose himself just ended up cracking me up. rather than accuse him of assault or exposure, i ended up helping him to a different and safer park bench, with his pants around his ankles, and left him with instructions not to lay on his back.
a lot of women would have put this guy away for that. i just thought it was funny.
and, there is a difference in mindset here, and it is a result of a difference in conditioning. i simply wasn't raised in a conservative environment, or with conservative values. and, i usually have this conversation when i'm attempting to explain that i haven't had to unlearn anything, but in this context it's more like i have to try and figure out what people are even so indignant about, because these are legitimately values - and a value system - that is simply foreign to me. these aren't things that anybody ever told me to get angry about.
i was raised to laugh at the absurd, not to get angry or feel victimized. and, i was raised to give as much deference to the free will of others - as absurd as it may be - as i give to myself.
so, when somebody gropes me, i push them off of me. and, then i forget about it. and, i don't quite understand what the purpose of acting further might be. when somebody hollers at me or slows down in their car to check me out, i make sure i'm in a lit area and keep walking. and, i tell them to fuck off if i have to. and, when somebody exposes themselves to me, i just laugh it off - because it is usually comical, if viewed from enough distance.
i don't think i'm oppressed. i don't think i'm carrying around some systemic burden of being at the bottom of some hierarchy. if anything, maybe my indifference is a sign of liberation, or at least a lack of repression. i just think i'm a human being navigating it's way through an unending sequence of complex social interactions, and trying to make the best of it.
there's lines to be drawn, of course. as mentioned, i've never been raped. but, i don't think i'd shrug it off, if i had been.
but, as a liberal anarchist, i'm going to draw these lines very differently than a conservative - or, as it seems, a progressive - might. and, i'm going to insist that people see the relativism in this, and the necessity of being careful about where the law puts these lines down, as a result of it.
not everybody shares your values.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
01:24
and, let us not be naive.
for, the abolition of due process will not make it easier to bring the evasive and wealthy corporate criminal to justice. this person will preservere as always.
but, it will make it so much easier for that evasive and wealthy corporate criminal to put troublesome activists and those who would otherwise challenge power away for good, as they will lose their primary means of defence. it will make it easier for all kinds of rich to oppress all kinds of poor, based on whatever it is that defines such things. and, that is all.
maybe you're speaking from the other side of the class war, and understand what you're doing. but, i suspect you're not - i suspect you're just not thinking this through.
and, that's what i'm here for.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
for, the abolition of due process will not make it easier to bring the evasive and wealthy corporate criminal to justice. this person will preservere as always.
but, it will make it so much easier for that evasive and wealthy corporate criminal to put troublesome activists and those who would otherwise challenge power away for good, as they will lose their primary means of defence. it will make it easier for all kinds of rich to oppress all kinds of poor, based on whatever it is that defines such things. and, that is all.
maybe you're speaking from the other side of the class war, and understand what you're doing. but, i suspect you're not - i suspect you're just not thinking this through.
and, that's what i'm here for.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
00:56
listen, al, man, i know you're trying to avoid a faux feminist backlash, and i get it, there's good reason to choose your words carefully in defending yourself, but i actually think we really need a "have you no decency?" moment regarding the presumption of innocence, because this is just going to get worse if nobody steps up.
there are some things that we can let the pendulum swing too far on out of a sense of retribution. maybe, some dude somewhere needs to suck it up when he doesn't get the promotion that he really does legitimately deserve - because his father got a promotion he didn't deserve, and that put him through pre-school and on the track to outcompeting his peers for his whole life. these are pendulum overshoots that we can all adjust to, under the expectation that an equilibrium is in reach.
but, due process is not one of those things. when you lose due process, you lose democracy. and, nobody can be smug about that. that's existential. and, it requires a really serious response.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
there are some things that we can let the pendulum swing too far on out of a sense of retribution. maybe, some dude somewhere needs to suck it up when he doesn't get the promotion that he really does legitimately deserve - because his father got a promotion he didn't deserve, and that put him through pre-school and on the track to outcompeting his peers for his whole life. these are pendulum overshoots that we can all adjust to, under the expectation that an equilibrium is in reach.
but, due process is not one of those things. when you lose due process, you lose democracy. and, nobody can be smug about that. that's existential. and, it requires a really serious response.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
00:00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)