Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Sculptor]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Nobody is being treated as "guilty until proven innocent" -- thank God.

...I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

[Sculptor]

Let me first point out that Critical Race Theory is not even noticable as any formal 'theory' by the Left OR I will demand that you provide the evidence of what anyone specifically FROM these people have defined their SPECIFIC theory to be and by someone who invented this.

Very, very easy to do. Where do you want to start?

Let me point you to what must surely be the best single book on the subject. It has an exhaustive list of all the different theorists, in all the different "areas" of CRT, what they said, where they published, what they think...all of it.

It's Lindsay and Pluckrose's book, Cynical Theories, recently reviewed in PN. It will give you all the stuff you could ever want.

What are you referencing when only partially quoting the parts that do not relate to your response?

The parts I leave in.

Not everything anyone writes warrants a comment. Some of it is bound to be redundant, some just unobjectionable, some perhaps ill-considered, and other stuff just unnecessary to the point.

One has to select, or every subsequent message becomes twice the length of the previous one...a procedure that cannot continue beyond one or two messages without becoming totally burdensome to the reader and too long for the format.

Your own responses are very, very long and, if I may point out, largely rhetorical and repetitive. If I just clicked-and-copied, then even one response from me would fill most of a page.

Here is the proper quote in full:

The reason for the women now taking a strong stance against the normal "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance, for instance, is due to how the stereotypical males ON THE RIGHT are predominating the POWER in exclusive ways regardless of any lipservice to compassion.

The argument I made expresses WHY women ANYWHERE are inverting the normal assumption of innocence: they are being falsely maligned by the stereotypes OF the Right-wing conservative thinkers who are EXCLUSIVELY dominating the power in ways that prevent even the complaints of abuse to be heard in the first place.

No, I don't think that's true at all. But even if I granted it, subverting the "innocent until proven guilty" standard would only hurt everybody. It would mean, for example, that a woman accused of poisoning her husband would be presumed to have done it...unless she could find a way of showing that it was not even possible she had time, opportunity or motive to do it. So no, I thought that explanation was...well, let's just say, not perhaps best repeated.

...the women abused do not even get heard, would be harassed with real threats of harm, and gaslit where they do get heard.

You must be referring to the Clinton and Biden accusers. Yes, I agree. They have been threatened, harassed and gaslit, and nobody would hear them. But I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

Guilty of what, exactly.
Last time I looked, spaffing over your intern's dress might have aspects of moral consequences but it is not illegal.
Lewinski and that woman that accused him were over 21.

[Immanuel Can]

...the women abused do not even get heard, would be harassed with real threats of harm, and gaslit where they do get heard.

You must be referring to the Clinton and Biden accusers. Yes, I agree. They have been threatened, harassed and gaslit, and nobody would hear them. But I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

Guilty of what, exactly.

Guilty of what at least twelve women have independently alleged, without even taking the Lewinski case into consideration. And most of them alleged actual assault and rape, not mere Lewinski lewdness.

Check it out. It's even on Wiki. Just type in "Bill Clinton accusers," and you get a list of the names.

[Sculptor]

You must be referring to the Clinton and Biden accusers. Yes, I agree. They have been threatened, harassed and gaslit, and nobody would hear them. But I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

Guilty of what, exactly.

Guilty of what at least twelve women have independently alleged, without even taking the Lewinski case into consideration. And most of them alleged actual assault and rape, not mere Lewinski lewdness.

Check it out. It's even on Wiki. Just type in "Bill Clinton accusers," and you get a list of the names.

However many women there are making allegarions they were all over 21.
Last time I looked courts decided who is guilty not rabid little wankers like you who get excited by the thought that other people have actually had sex.
Women are attracted to power and the payouts that often come when blackmailing important powerful men.
WHy not take your fantasies elsewhere.

[Immanuel Can]

Guilty of what, exactly.

Guilty of what at least twelve women have independently alleged, without even taking the Lewinski case into consideration. And most of them alleged actual assault and rape, not mere Lewinski lewdness.

Check it out. It's even on Wiki. Just type in "Bill Clinton accusers," and you get a list of the names.

However many women there are making allegarions they were all over 21.

So a woman over 21 can be raped at the preference of a more powerful man...? That's that you think?

Well, so much for justice, I guess, and so much for "believing" the women.

I'll let the women here explain life to you.

[Scott Mayers]

...the best single book on the [Critical Race Theory]...[is]....
... Lindsay and Pluckrose's book, Cynical Theories, recently reviewed in PN. It will give you all the stuff you could ever want.

So you personally are reporting second-hand author's efforts without an example of a particular Critical Race theorist of note?

Crenshaw. Bell. Marcuse. Marx...

Then you are not borrowing the term of those who call themselves this but to some proprietary meaning from the Rightwing propaganda. Certainly Marx was not an authority on race, let alone 'Critical Race' theory. [Note the capitalization that you use cannot mean something generic unless you believe that there is or is not some theory about race that the term, 'critical' implies. Darwin would be more of someone who might have something 'critical' to say about race, as do any evolutionary biologists, for instance.]

But knowing their names doesn't help you, does it? Cynical Theories will give you everything you need, and far more than you can probably digest. It's all there. Nobody can do better for you.

I would likely agree to a lot of it given the fuller title emphasizes the concern: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity – And Why This Harms Everybody (2020). I'll have a look at it but already understand this as a problem regardless. My issue of contention is not about the problem of this but the CAUSE, to which I believe comes from conservative activism that utilizes strict Machivellian tactics that include intentional lying or deception because of the intrinsic belief: anything sufficiently worthy to fight shall unapologetically use any means necessary to WIN! This is a "Rightwing" general ideology that comes straight from the ideals of capitalism. The "Left" extremes, like the Neo-Marxism [not Marx per se] would only believe this is necessary if the system in question has LOCKED OUT any other avenues to fight. Thus, the particular extreme of countering this is "revolution", a violent revolt to overthrow the totalitarian system that locks IN the powers of exclusive subsets of society and locks out the effective power of free speech to matter. When someone is interpreted as 'cheating', the gloves come off and the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR rules the rhetoric.

I'm not FOR this type of behavior.

I'm explaining that due to HOW this kind of behavior is being used as a normal acceptable behavior on the Right,

It's not, actually.

Nobody is being treated as "guilty until proven innocent" -- thank God. But there is some push for that, which you rightly identify with the "believe all women" idea. And that's coming from the Feminist Left, not at all from the Right or the centrists.

FALSE: The actual power of influence is coming from the "Right" by the likes of the religious 'progressive' side of the conservatives. This was always the intial cause for women's extreme successe politically in Western democracies. They just coincide with the extremes of the "Left" forms of feminism. [They are as diverse a collective in which many do NOT believe in strict advocacy, including the present accusations. All initial multiple women's group advocates originate by the religious feminists of the fundamentalists who disapprove of men's DISRESPECT of the women....a kind of matriarchal opposition in kind to the patriarchal versions.

SEE: Robin McGraw's Interpretation of abuse that although I agree exists, I disagree with their extent of belief in what constitutes 'abuse' given they do NOT believe that men and women are 'equal'. For instance, Dr Phil's belief that only men should never be physically violent towards women (and that it is impossible for men to be abused in certain KINDS of ways)

I recognize the problem: that, for example, most sexual assaults are committed in private. So sexual assault becomes a he-said-she-said situation, and the perpetrator, whether male or female (and yes, there are those) gets off every time. That's not fair, I recognize. But it's also not possible to remedy one kind of injustice by perpetrating another. And the side-effects of such a policy are truly monstrous. What they would mean is that if a woman ever accused you of improper conduct (say, because she wanted to intimidate you or get your job) you would have no defense. The prosecutor would say, "Well, unless you, Scott, can show that you never had any opportunity to do what the accuser says you did, you did it." And none of us can defend such a standard, except in instances in which there were cameras on us every minute of every day.

So there's no cure in changing the standard of evidence. All we can do is prosecute the perpetrators vigourously in all those cases when sufficient evidence is available, and not let the opposition bury the evidence, as they have done for the Clintons or Biden, for example.

Dr Phil and his wife are strong Southern Texan believers and support the general Rightwing ideals. Dr Phil actually LITERALLY asserts the reversal of presumption of innocence to women and children's claims of abuse REGARDLESS! In fact, his program and the various Conservatively connected organizations supported through them are one of the greatest influences of them adopting the same beliefs that Trudeau here in Canada believes in this respect.

This is just ONE instance I found by Googling "presumption of innocence". But he is outspoken and influential on why the change has occurred more lately world wide: "YouTube: "You're Going to be Guilty until proven innocent" [Watch it to be sure you literally hear what he is saying and arguing!! This one happens to be about children but he supports this with women too.]

So stop asserting this is coming from the Left. The Left is less attractive in appealing to this UNLESS the Rightwing feminists religious people are leading the cause as they do. The "Left" feminists then borrow the lead where even the ones doing the most extremes of this type there are RELIGIOUS feminists.

You must be referring to the Clinton and Biden accusers. Yes, I agree. They have been threatened, harassed and gaslit, and nobody would hear them. But I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

Ha ha...

No, it's actually true. And it isn't Fox news that's saying so: it's the victims of Bill Clinton et al. If you were really to say, "Believe all women," then why would you doubt the Clinton accusers...of which there are at least 12 on record. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... ccusations.

Who gives a fuck about the private indiscretions of sex scandals of Bill other then the religious arrogance of those of the Right? It is NOT the Clinton's who require being non-hypocritical because the Left is "liberal" with respect to sex. ONLY where actual rape is concerned does it matter.

BUT, if, by contrast, the Right-wing politicians do this, they ARE being hypocritical because they support the arrogant religious concern about infidelity with FERVER!

So you are jumping on the nutcase followers of ragmag/entertainment shallow minded fucks when you think that such issues are even relevant! [And don't you dare try to come back with any 'accusations' that have not been proven given this issue is something that you are contesting. See the above regarding the McGraws.]

So...

Due process is not what we saw in the Epstein case, either. That was something else entirely. But due process is more what we saw in the Smollett case, and it worked rather well, in spite of presuming Jussie innocent until proven guilty. After all, he was found guilty.

So I would say, don't blame due process for the things done by people who avoid due process. The cure is to insist on due process, not to subvert it.

...
then, why is it alright to used ANY tactic of deception when selling any idea, product, or political point of view that is intrinsic DEFAULT position of Right-wing political opinion?

It isn't. It's wrong if either side does it. People should be honest, instead.

However, at present, the Right doesn't have the means the Left possesses to do that. Most media outlets are strongly Leftist. There's no way for the Right to get a monopoly on information, but the Left darn near has it....at least on major networks. Take a look at the Canadian media, for example, which are all on Trudeau's payroll now, with hardly an exception. His "funding" plan has meant that no media outlet dares to call him out anymore, for fear of losing their money. This is a violation of the freedom of the press; and I'm surprised that no classical-liberal Canadians have called him out on that, except that they can't get a voice in the media today either.

NO, all media OWNERS are some form of political Right. The tendency of JOURNALISTS are more "LEFT" but do not have the say except when granted passage by these owners. The distinction between Fox and the rest is itself a joke given Fox is intentionally being overt about their meanings and needs to make the rest SEEM 'LEFT' because it makes YOU think they are. The rest of the media owners are more 'progressive' RELATIVELY but only disrespect Fox for feigning being serious when they aren't OR, where they approve of conservative behaviors in kind, they differ in the belief that the owners should HIDE their preferences or it would appear as though biased. It is like the difference between Al Capone's brazen will to be a celebrity mobster in contrast to those of the same who believe the trick is to NOT be so brazen so as to risk being caught!

HOW is it possible in principle for a LEFTist media to exist without it denying advertising or sponsors? The normal "LEFT" forms of media are government owned AND are empowered most when the present system HAS a 'social democratic' representation in parliament. CBC and BBC are more culpable of this (and should be). Also, the only other comparable version in the U.S. are the independent versions like their PBS stations or NPR.

Media OWNED at all is "Rightwinged" because media by LIBERAL thinkers should not be owned any more than the air we breathe. It risks manipulation of free speech also should any particular media ADMIT their bias and why whether there is influence by those on the "LEFT" or not, we have no choice but to accept not being certain as those like Fox appears to do.

I also agree with you that all of this accusations without appropriate charge and trials should exist. I just saw an update on the accusations against Peter Nygard and while it is likely he's a pervert and comes across as 'creepy', this would not necessarily be anything but intentional maligning based upon reflective anger for some form of rejection, greed, or some other unknowns. I found it highly suspect. BUT, the founding cause of the WAY media is overtly accepting these stories is due to its ability to sell to the advertisers (as well as the audiences they are double-dipping into given they also own the channels and cable networks.)

But the grievances against things like sex is proven 'religious' when you hear how the accused are overtly called "sex traffickers" when that term used to refer to the literal kidknapping or entrapment schemes that lack any remotely APPARENT choices of these (women) victims.

Make no mistake....I am against this BUT am STILL "Left" of center IN PRINCIPLE because I believe in 'liberal democracy' and am against a 'right to inherit' based upon private choices, including rights to have children without general community supports able to assure the same economic foundations equally for all. It is not a "LEFTIST" ideal to have a Matriarchal alternative to a Patriarchal one because these opposites are both "Rightwing" Imperialistic (Queens or Kings rule) philosophies. I only support the equality of individual respect that requires a system that does not DEFINE economic causes as due to cultural ones.

So, I am against the belief that if there is an apparent majority or plurality of women, say, who are presumed isolated and abused, that the cause is necessarily due to misogeny because absent of rape, ONLY women have the power to select the men they are with. So they 'OWN' the equal nature of selection of the very types of supposedly 'abusive' men that predominate. If the general concensus of women is to NOT be abused, STOP selecting men who are a head taller and more physically dominating by contrast to them who lead to differentials in power. The women are potentially MORE powerful also where they can default an apparent 'innocence' in the same way a "white collar'' criminal can get away with a crime by using intentional deceptive strategic thinking which makes them MORE culpuble.

We agree on the particular problems of the accusations. I disagree with presuming them as merely political. I stopped voting in my country because I don't count in any party PRACTICE given they are all run by the rich 'conservative' (small 'c' at the least) with SOME cultural association to a belief in inheritant 'superiority' OR 'inferiority' of select subsets of people (regardless of their pretense in being non-biased). So please SEPARATE the political party affiliations when speaking against the particular issues. NO political party is ideal because they all have SOME value for both good and bad (and can switch which is which).

[Immanuel Can]

So you personally are reporting second-hand author's efforts without an example of a particular Critical Race theorist of note?

Crenshaw. Bell. Marcuse. Marx...

Then you are not borrowing the term of those who call themselves this...

Crenshaw and Bell do.

Marx and Marcuse are the people whose theories they depend on.

If you did any research at all, Scott, you'd already know that.

But knowing their names doesn't help you, does it? Cynical Theories will give you everything you need, and far more than you can probably digest. It's all there. Nobody can do better for you.

I would likely agree to a lot of it given the fuller title emphasizes the concern: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity – And Why This Harms Everybody (2020). I'll have a look at it...

Excellent. Thank you. It will deal with all your remaining questions.

Nobody is being treated as "guilty until proven innocent" -- thank God. But there is some push for that, which you rightly identify with the "believe all women" idea. And that's coming from the Feminist Left, not at all from the Right or the centrists.

FALSE:

No, it's true. "Innocent until proven guilty" remains the axiom of all our courts, so far. Everybody, Right, Left and Centrist, male, female and confused, young and old, of all backgrounds and cultures gets exactly the same rule.

I disagree with their extent of belief in what constitutes 'abuse' given they do NOT believe that men and women are 'equal'. For instance, Dr Phil's belief that only men should never be physically violent towards women (and that it is impossible for men to be abused in certain KINDS of ways).

I'm with you on that.

Dr Phil actually LITERALLY asserts the reversal of presumption of innocence to women and children's claims of abuse REGARDLESS!

I don't know if he does, but I'm not really concerned. Dr. Phil means nothing to me.

Trudeau

...has also made a career of pretending to support women; but he fires any that confront him. He has a reputation as a "fake Feminist," which you will already know, no doubt.

So stop asserting this is coming from the Left.

I don't have to. It is.

Who gives a fuck about the private indiscretions of sex scandals of Bill

You should. When a powerful man uses his advantages to rape women, a good person should be appalled.

ONLY where actual rape is concerned does it matter.

Well, I'll let the women here explain to you why that's not so. But in point of fact, Clinton is not just accused of "impropriety" or "abuse of power" but actual violent rape. He's accused, in fact, of being a serial predator.

...the arrogant religious concern about infidelity ...

You're in favour of infidelity? I find that surprising.

...all media OWNERS are some form of political Right.

The opposite is true, of course; and you'll find that pratically everybody (but you, perhaps) knows it.

HOW is it possible in principle for a LEFTist media to exist without it denying advertising or sponsors?

Because, like all Leftist ideologues, they're hypocrites. They want the money, and don't really care about people. They just care about being seen to care.

Media OWNED at all is "Rightwinged"

Not in Canada, for sure. It's heavily funded by Trudeau, using public money, not his own.

I also agree with you that all of this accusations without appropriate charge and trials should exist.

I think maybe you left a "not" out of this sentence, correct?

But the grievances against things like sex is proven 'religious' when you hear how the accused are overtly called "sex traffickers" when that term used to refer to the literal kidknapping or entrapment schemes that lack any remotely APPARENT choices of these (women) victims.

No, the term "sex traffickers" is not religious at all. It's neutral. It simply describes how the people "make money." They "traffic" in "sex."

I am against a 'right to inherit'

I don't see why. Your father's money is nobody's but yours. It certainly doesn't belong to me.

But even so, it's a really unimportant point, I think: because most wealth today is not made by inheritance anyway. Trudeau himself would be an exception, of course.

...they [political parties in Canada] are all run by the rich 'conservative' (small 'c' at the least) with SOME cultural association to a belief in inheritant 'superiority' OR 'inferiority' of select subsets of people (regardless of their pretense in being non-biased).

No, they're not, really.

Canada has three main parties, only three with any chance of receiving power: the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. There is also the Quebec Party, but they only draw in Quebec, not the rest of Canada, and have no chance of forming a national government; and the Greens, who are a waste of space wherever they appear. Canada used to have a Communist Party, but nobody really ever voted for them. I'm not sure they ever sat a single member in parliament. They're dead now.

The last two of the major parties are decidedly Leftist. The NDP is economic-nationalist, meaning they believe in government ownership of all important industries and services. The Liberals used to be more centrist, but in the last couple of decades, have drifted far to the Left, and now advocate policies that the NDP used to advocate. They're presently in power. And the Conservatives are criticized even within their own party of having drifted too far Left themselves, but in any case, have no national power at the moment, as Canada is run by a combo of the Liberals and the NDP.

But you know all this, I'm sure. You live in Saskatchewan. You can't not know it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you're mistaking "wealthy" for "conservative." But they're not the same things at all. Trudeau's very Left, and is wealthy by inheritance, to the tune of about $10 million. The whole community in Hollywoood or in San Fran are so far left they've lost their minds, but they're very wealthy, too...millionaires and billionaires. Bernie Sanders is worth at least $3 million, and shows no signs of sharing any of it. Biden's worth $9 million that we know of, and Nancy Pelosi has a worth of $196 million.

A lot of very rich, very privileged people claim to support "redistribution of wealth" (for you and me, of course, not for them), and actually live in opulent luxury. This raises a real question: if Leftists support redistribution, why do so many of their big leaders hold wealth themselves? And why do they, who demand higher taxes for us, evade taxes themselves, using things like offshore accounts?

[Sculptor]

Guilty of what at least twelve women have independently alleged, without even taking the Lewinski case into consideration. And most of them alleged actual assault and rape, not mere Lewinski lewdness.

Check it out. It's even on Wiki. Just type in "Bill Clinton accusers," and you get a list of the names.

However many women there are making allegarions they were all over 21.

So a woman over 21 can be raped at the preference of a more powerful man...? That's that you think?

Well, so much for justice, I guess, and so much for "believing" the women.

I'll let the women here explain life to you.

PLONK!

[simplicity]

It's not 'anger', but frustration. We are all in essence animals to the core and thus 'greedy'.

Of course it's frustration. The notion that you can manufacture a world based on some type of utopian framework is absurd.

The principle of the "Right" is IMPOSSIBLE to be 'democratic' because even for one person to be better off of any three people requires that the one has more literal dominant RIGHTS over the others unequally.

Again, you are being idealistic. You can not have a pure democracy [nor would you want one]. There must be rewards for people who are willing to do the lion's share of the work [and innovation].

Yet we still individually WANT the same power of the RIGHT even if one is on the LEFT and so even if the RIGHT is necessarily in the minority, they always have the POWER to deceive the vast majority that they are 'equal' in popular support.

Perhaps you could explain yourself here. I am not sure I am getting your meaning.

Biology will favor the DEMOS when the suffering becomes extreme by those on the RIGHT who can only maintain their power where they have UNNATURAL means individually to hold off the crowd [weapons of mass destruction].

In contrast though, the RIGHT tends to literally BE the most ANGRY because they have MORE TO LOSE!

I believe you should divorce the notion that the Right represents wealth and the Left, the rest. It is certainly not that way now.

The Left is miserable because they desire to live in a world that can never be. Look at the extremes Leftist regimes have gone to in order to implement their "utopia." Movement forward is incremental regardless of what VI Lenin had to say about change.

There is no question that there are many, many problems to be solved in this world, but you cannot ignore the good...as this leads to what typically characterizes Leftists, anger, blame, misery, and nihilism. If you cannot balance your life with the good, you will help nobody. Nobody like people who only see the bad in life [no matter how empathetic they might be].

There is a reason [other then the obvious] why young people are typically left-leaning and become more conservative with age. Experience teaches one that you must accept the bad as well as the good that is human nature and try to make the best of it. It's an incredibly complicated world.

[Sculptor]

It's not 'anger', but frustration. We are all in essence animals to the core and thus 'greedy'.

Of course it's frustration. The notion that you can manufacture a world based on some type of utopian framework is absurd.

It's not absurd since many have done it. WHilst I agree the anbsurdity might be in the implementation, the framework is certainly manufacturable. Generally what systems lack is the ability to change without loss of design.

The principle of the "Right" is IMPOSSIBLE to be 'democratic' because even for one person to be better off of any three people requires that the one has more literal dominant RIGHTS over the others unequally.

Again, you are being idealistic. You can not have a pure democracy [nor would you want one]. There must be rewards for people who are willing to do the lion's share of the work [and innovation].

But that's just an excuse for inequality. WE would need far more democracy to ensure a fair days pay for a fair days work, and that would mean changing the economic system so that elites do not earn money for doing nothing - that is the biggerst evil.
At the moment the elites and media moguls are very good for castigating "scroungers" - poor people with no jobs who get tiny handouts for doing no work but they are silent when a rich man sits on his butt and gathers coin for the vary fact that he already has lots of money.

Yet we still individually WANT the same power of the RIGHT even if one is on the LEFT and so even if the RIGHT is necessarily in the minority, they always have the POWER to deceive the vast majority that they are 'equal' in popular support.

Perhaps you could explain yourself here. I am not sure I am getting your meaning.

Biology will favor the DEMOS when the suffering becomes extreme by those on the RIGHT who can only maintain their power where they have UNNATURAL means individually to hold off the crowd [weapons of mass destruction].

In contrast though, the RIGHT tends to literally BE the most ANGRY because they have MORE TO LOSE!

They are angry for many reasons. Many are angry because they have nothing and think it is someone elses fault like immigrants, whilst other hwo are rich want them to blame immigrants to avoid them looking at the idle rich.

I believe you should divorce the notion that the Right represents wealth and the Left, the rest. It is certainly not that way now.

The Left is miserable because they desire to live in a world that can never be. Look at the extremes Leftist regimes have gone to in order to implement their "utopia." Movement forward is incremental regardless of what VI Lenin had to say about change.

There is no question that there are many, many problems to be solved in this world, but you cannot ignore the good...as this leads to what typically characterizes Leftists, anger, blame, misery, and nihilism. If you cannot balance your life with the good, you will help nobody. Nobody like people who only see the bad in life [no matter how empathetic they might be].

There is a reason [other then the obvious] why young people are typically left-leaning and become more conservative with age. Experience teaches one that you must accept the bad as well as the good that is human nature and try to make the best of it. It's an incredibly complicated world.

[Scott Mayers]

Crenshaw. Bell. Marcuse. Marx...

Then you are not borrowing the term of those who call themselves this...

Crenshaw and Bell do.

Marx and Marcuse are the people whose theories they depend on.

If you did any research at all, Scott, you'd already know that.

You mean like actually reading Marx (as well as the opposing political philosohies)? If someone borrows the views of another in some part, does the borrowing person's own view not OWN the interpretation? You are being arrogantly (uneducated) about this.

But knowing their names doesn't help you, does it? Cynical Theories will give you everything you need, and far more than you can probably digest. It's all there. Nobody can do better for you.

I would likely agree to a lot of it given the fuller title emphasizes the concern: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity – And Why This Harms Everybody (2020). I'll have a look at it...

Excellent. Thank you. It will deal with all your remaining questions.

You assume YOU are the author and feign the author would identify specifically with you. This too is arrogant and assuming. If you have a view regarding what you 'borrow', you require explaining your particular intepretation or you are maligning the credit of another's efforts as your own and potentially misleading them.

Nobody is being treated as "guilty until proven innocent" -- thank God. But there is some push for that, which you rightly identify with the "believe all women" idea. And that's coming from the Feminist Left, not at all from the Right or the centrists.

FALSE:

No, it's true. "Innocent until proven guilty" remains the axiom of all our courts, so far. Everybody, Right, Left and Centrist, male, female and confused, young and old, of all backgrounds and cultures gets exactly the same rule.

If that was the case, you would have nothing to complain about. The reality is that this IS being reversed in laws...especially here in Canada but is also being pressed for in the U.S..

I disagree with their extent of belief in what constitutes 'abuse' given they do NOT believe that men and women are 'equal'. For instance, Dr Phil's belief that only men should never be physically violent towards women (and that it is impossible for men to be abused in certain KINDS of ways).

I'm with you on that.

Dr Phil actually LITERALLY asserts the reversal of presumption of innocence to women and children's claims of abuse REGARDLESS!

I don't know if he does, but I'm not really concerned. Dr. Phil means nothing to me.

OH....so when I disagree with the relevance of those "Leftwing" names you ONLY throw out in bias, you think that I cannot also say, "they mean nothing to me"? Do your homework. I just told you his relevance to the powers on the Right and you completely dismiss it?

Trudeau

...has also made a career of pretending to support women; but he fires any that confront him. He has a reputation as a "fake Feminist," which you will already know, no doubt.

Trivial. You are also quoting the "Left" as though you now trust them simply for saying something you agree with. This proves that you are not concerned about the truth, but seeking ONLY confirming evidence FOR the Right.

So stop asserting this is coming from the Left.

I don't have to. It is.

That's it? NO proof? No counter defence for signficant evidence that goes against your position?

The Israeli Constitution, as I mentioned in the other thread is biased to favor Semitic Judaism. This is purely National Socialistic and Rightwing conservativist. The Left CAN have its biases in subsets given this behavior is universally applicable to humanity, but it is NOT able to target SPECIAL FAVOR for ONE cult uniquely. As such, IF or where there exists racism and sexism on the LEFT, it ONLY exists by subverted Rightwingers utilizing the Left's DEMOCRATIC representation (until they too have the wealth and power in kind)!

Who gives a fuck about the private indiscretions of sex scandals of Bill

You should. When a powerful man uses his advantages to rape women, a good person should be appalled.

OH.....so NOW you are being hypocritical! Fuck you for accusing Bill Clinton of crimes you hypocrit without actual proof! If you've got something, formalize an accusation and get him in court. I certainly do not see him in prison. How do you think YOU have some 'special' privileged right that you deny others of?

ONLY where actual rape is concerned does it matter.

Well, I'll let the women here explain to you why that's not so. But in point of fact, Clinton is not just accused of "impropriety" or "abuse of power" but actual violent rape. He's accused, in fact, of being a serial predator.

By whom and where is the 'due process' that you arrogantly think only the Right should be permitted access to?

...the arrogant religious concern about infidelity ...

You're in favour of infidelity? I find that surprising.

I assert that it has fuck all to do with you and that you are proving to be the INTOLERANT one IMPOSING some belief that you deny others of the same. Should we now place some Big Brother camera in your home to be sure that you aren't wacking off to Hillary when no one is looking? It is NONE of your business when his own wife is not concerned. Or do you think it should be illegal for married persons to even have an OPEN relationship? ONLY your Rightwing religious beliefs should apply to YOU or you are IMPOSING YOUR RELIGION upon others. You are proving to be against the First Amendment now too given the separation of Church and State. In fact why do you not recognize that even Trudeau's beliefs are inline with this. [I don't think you know that the "Liberal Party of Canada" is a label but that they are actually Center-Right conservatives who embrace religion.]

...all media OWNERS are some form of political Right.

The opposite is true, of course; and you'll find that pratically everybody (but you, perhaps) knows it.

Then you are absurdly stupid.

HOW is it possible in principle for a LEFTist media to exist without it denying advertising or sponsors?

Because, like all Leftist ideologues, they're hypocrites. They want the money, and don't really care about people. They just care about being seen to care.

If you were correct, how do you possibly think that a 'conservative' Rightwing government would be MORE 'liberal'? A "Rightwing" ideal favors the belief in Kings and Queens who rule SUPREME; The "Leftwing" ideals are the ONLY option for 'liberal' views, you know, FREEDOM to be who you are so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others of the same freedom! Do you think you are a God who should DICTATE upon us lowly commoners to BELIEVE BLINDLY that under your dicatorial leadership, you PROMISE to be kind?

Give me a break.

Media OWNED at all is "Rightwinged"

Not in Canada, for sure. It's heavily funded by Trudeau, using public money, not his own.

(1)The Liberal Party is Right-of-center, not LEFT. And given how Fox proves to rule their staff with IRON FISTS, and kicks out anyone who dares to challenge their AUTHORITY, you have no leg stand on. As to the media here, the CBC is run through the present powers of Trudeau. CTV and Global are NOT friends of him in their reporting nor are they enemies. His centrist position means that he has only select views of interests that are "LEFT" and you quoted above a comment of distrust by those on the LEFT, not the Right.

I also agree with you that all of this accusations without appropriate charge and trials should exist.

I think maybe you left a "not" out of this sentence, correct?

Correct. Also, "this" should be "these" of course.

But the grievances against things like sex is proven 'religious' when you hear how the accused are overtly called "sex traffickers" when that term used to refer to the literal kidknapping or entrapment schemes that lack any remotely APPARENT choices of these (women) victims.

No, the term "sex traffickers" is not religious at all. It's neutral. It simply describes how the people "make money." They "traffic" in "sex."

NO, traditionally, 'trafficking' is the inanimate selling of people (not necessarily sex-based) such that it transfers people illegally from some state to another without the tacit agreement of the people involved. It has POWER over the choices of them and often comes with an 'indentured' clause or entrapment that requires they pay off in time their freedom.

The modern 'borrowing' of this term is an intentionally religious bias by religious people who are BEGGING the definition to include anyone who prostitutes because they falsely assume no one FREELY chooses this.

As to the accusations of sex trafficking to the many males of late, these are accusations regarding ANY sexual overatures by a male whom is unwanted. The rightful charge of 'rape' where they exist are not 'trafficking' but the rhetoric is used to intensify the agreed degree of injustice that actual trafficking WOULD imply when one is sold as chatel to a sex-slave 'owner'. In other words, ALL acts of prostitution are relabeled as "sex trafficking" by religious sexually insecure religious morons who think that the ONLY permissible relationship should be to those in formal "marriages" and NEVER to anything beyond the tradition of one-to-one relationships.

I'm definitely FOR the right of ANYONE LEGAL AGED to have sex with whomever they choose and their right to sell their body as a "sex worker". This should be legalized (or decriminalized) so as to ENABLE them to rightfully protect themselves.

I am against a 'right to inherit'

I don't see why. Your father's money is nobody's but yours. It certainly doesn't belong to me.

But even so, it's a really unimportant point, I think: because most wealth today is not made by inheritance anyway. Trudeau himself would be an exception, of course.

False. Wealth begets wealth and for those who often declare stories of rising out of 'poverty', their claims prove more to be about those who still had the VIRTUES of being 'wealthy' that in contrast to the average is at least 'middle class' and often more 'upper middle class'.

This is what those who refer to "White Privilege" are referring to. That those who declare their own as reflective of us all universally is pretentious and often reflective of their own privilege that they assume all whites have. But to be more clear without requiring concern to the politics is the LOGIC:

Given any three 'equally' privileged people, for one to be 'wealthy' to the others NECESSARILY implies that they gained it over the other two. But if there is 'unequal' privilege, such as one is without, the ones WITH ANY wealth has a unique advantage to succeed by the mere fact that they can AFFORD to fail more often where they tried. The ones who HAVE value inherited (not simply the fiscal value of money but to the fortune of having been raised without things like abuse), these do not even EARN their places.

And NO, I disagree with a right to pass on inheritance by some single personal decision because it grants them the unique power to foster biased favor to their own KIND that assures the very foundation that leads to racism and sexism.

Besides, it is mathematically impossible to have Billionaires that are predominantly from unrepresentatively unique genetic backgrounds, who represent only a tiny percentage of the population, and who LACK the very DISTRIBUTION of race (and sex) among all people everywhere if it were true that rich people 'earned' their fortunes from 'scratch'. We wouldn't HAVE the issues we do now if actual fairness of MERIT applied.

Nature is 'conservative' to the ENERGY limitations that money represents among people. As such, if wealth was 'fairly' earned, it should not even go beyond the necessary energy input one expends as they put out in the same period of time. That is, the POWER (energy expended in time) would always be equal and no one would be richer nor poorer than anyone else.

Wealth generation is also EXPONONENTIAL such that the MORE wealth you begin with, the EASIER it is to MULTIPLY your returns. This cannot mathematically be possible if it is normal that people actually 'earned' wealth without some DECEPTION in taking more than you give somewhere.

...they [political parties in Canada] are all run by the rich 'conservative' (small 'c' at the least) with SOME cultural association to a belief in inheritant 'superiority' OR 'inferiority' of select subsets of people (regardless of their pretense in being non-biased).

No, they're not, really.

Canada has three main parties, only three with any chance of receiving power: the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. There is also the Quebec Party, but they only draw in Quebec, not the rest of Canada, and have no chance of forming a national government; and the Greens, who are a waste of space wherever they appear. Canada used to have a Communist Party, but nobody really ever voted for them. I'm not sure they ever sat a single member in parliament. They're dead now.

The last two of the major parties are decidedly Leftist. The NDP is economic-nationalist, meaning they believe in government ownership of all important industries and services. The Liberals used to be more centrist, but in the last couple of decades, have drifted far to the Left, and now advocate policies that the NDP used to advocate. They're presently in power. And the Conservatives are criticized even within their own party of having drifted too far Left themselves, but in any case, have no national power at the moment, as Canada is run by a combo of the Liberals and the NDP.

But you know all this, I'm sure. You live in Saskatchewan. You can't not know it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you're mistaking "wealthy" for "conservative." But they're not the same things at all. Trudeau's very Left, and is wealthy by inheritance, to the tune of about $10 million. The whole community in Hollywoood or in San Fran are so far left they've lost their minds, but they're very wealthy, too...millionaires and billionaires. Bernie Sanders is worth at least $3 million, and shows no signs of sharing any of it. Biden's worth $9 million that we know of, and Nancy Pelosi has a worth of $196 million.

A lot of very rich, very privileged people claim to support "redistribution of wealth" (for you and me, of course, not for them), and actually live in opulent luxury. This raises a real question: if Leftists support redistribution, why do so many of their big leaders hold wealth themselves? And why do they, who demand higher taxes for us, evade taxes themselves, using things like offshore accounts?

NO, our Western countries are mostly CONSERVATIVE but have RELATIVE representation of the "LEFT". That is why we are the 'wealthiest' in contrast to the rest of the world's population are here and not there. Canada is actually MORE 'conservative' in that it is constituted as a Constitutional Monarchy, in contrast to the U.S..

The default tendency is ALWAYS towards Conservative wealth regardless of initiating 'liberal' equality because as individual animals, we are assured to demand KEEPING what we have but demanding others GIVE when or where we suffer. This is true of all creatures, from viruses and bacteria all the way up. This contradiction is what leads us to REQUIRE eating other living things in order to be on the top of the POWER chain of species. But given humans evolved to reflect our ability to ALTER nature, this requires us to favor PROGRESS unnaturally and why we need to keep fighting for 'democratic' ideals with more strength then the Conservative norm. That is, even the most "Left" successes that occur in systems will lead to those with privilileged reigns of control will eventually turn them into "Right" supporters but some of them will HIDE this fact in a veil of supporting the masses.

The EASE of power is in favor of the Conservative and who still tend to make those on the LEFT become elite wealthy people in generations to come. The difference OF the wealth on the LEFT to those on the RIGHT is to HOW they believe in 'appropriate' conduct (etiquette....and thus their, political correctness) and recognize a need to INCLUDE others less fortunate versus the RIGHT who will tend towards an ideal to return to the West World and capitalize on the losses of others without a concern for the same compassion.

In response to your additional post I see above arguing against utopian ideals, it should be clear that I am not in any delusion. But for the same reason that you nor I should expect to lay down as sacrifices FOR others based upon biology alone, the "Left" is already the majority of those left out and why they are ACTING as COLLECTIVE CONSERVATIVES. If you are born to a poor Native Reserve here, for instance, why do you have to be the one who has to 'accept' the unlikelihood of getting ahead by keeping the status quo just because life is unfair. So when the present "Left" is standing up, however 'cruel' they may behave, are they not just 'capitalizing' by the same standards as those of the dominating classed of people by utilizing the POWER through the ENERGY of multiple beings rather than 'promises' (money or other 'equity' ownership) that represents the ENERGY units of POWER that the Conservatives are capitalizing upon?

I think we have HOPE as thinking being to try to PROGRESSIVELY tackle this by going against our inevitable tendency towards greedy self-destruction that we are heading towards now. We CANNOT continue to live in this overpopulated world without stepping back to check our natural greed or we'll kill ourselves off. The "Left" is NOT evil but 'artificially' constructed by collecting individuals (civilized) against our "Right" natural default 'evil'. [If you are aware of Genesis, don't you recognize the curse of us is defaulted to be 'evil' this way?]

[simplicity]

Getting back to the subject-matter at hand, I will still maintain that the most important institution to center your society is the family [and particularly the nuclear family]. Obviously nobody should be compelled to do anything [other than obey the laws of the land], but if you wish to "rig the system," why not tilt the board so it favors that outcome which will facilitate the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people?

What changed [in the U.S., anyway] in the 70's/80's was policy that supported the family previously [low cost of living, high quality public education, sound money that encouraged savings, etc.] was gutted as the greediest generation of all-time [baby boomers] traded their idealism for any material thing that would publicly acknowledge just how shallow they were [are].

This generation destroyed the family, Education, sound[er] money, and the political system by allowing those who didn't get the notice that Leftist policies only lead to 10 trillion tears, to take power. Still to this day, these nincompoops are still at it with all their hair-brain schemes like "de-fund the police," everybody is a racist, and all the rest of their nonsense that has exposed these folks for the complete morons they truly are.

This is what happens when you take you eye off the ball. The family is now on life-support as the inmates continue to run the asylum.

It is time to re-think what is important...

[Scott Mayers]

...

Sorry Simplicity, I responded in Immanuel Can's post at the last two paragraphs to this quickly but after now noticing, I need a break for today.

Basically, I propose constant change (a middle ground), not the Communistic ideals because no system is ideal BUT the 'conservative' forms are our default when we HAVE power regardless of who we are. Nature favors this without concern of its inevitable annihilation just as bacteria or viruses do. As such, we are tending towards self-destruction. The relatively less natural (artificial) "democratic" ways have to be utilized for its progress or our species is through. I'll get back to you later if not satisfied.

[simplicity]

But that's just an excuse for inequality. WE would need far more democracy to ensure a fair days pay for a fair days work, and that would mean changing the economic system so that elites do not earn money for doing nothing - that is the biggerst evil.
At the moment the elites and media moguls are very good for castigating "scroungers" - poor people with no jobs who get tiny handouts for doing no work but they are silent when a rich man sits on his butt and gathers coin for the vary fact that he already has lots of money.

And this is what it ALL comes down to...EQUALITY...and worse, its truth-challenged cousin, EQUITY.

There is no such thing as equality when it comes to human beings. We are all different. Some have advantages, other do not. The thing is that the average person out there can be quite successful given the right circumstances. You do not have to be the best looking, the smartest, the richest, to succeed. You just have to have a chance...two parents helps a great deal, a good education that teaches you critical thinking skills and most importantly, how to learn on your own, and most important, you must be self-motivated.

Given an entire population, there will always be people who will do better, work harder, achieve more, etc. That's the way it is in human life the same way it is in nature. The best we can do is give people opportunity. What happens with that opportunity will depend on many factors...but one thing should be perfectly clear, you cannot engineer this from the top. This must be a grass-roots effort...the individual, the family, and the community [where it can help].

The system now is MASSIVELY corrupt. I agree that people should be paid for what value they create and this is something that I believe will happen in the future. The way capitalism is constructed at present allows great rewards at the top at the expense of the average working person and this is not right. Everybody knows this, but the solution to this problem is not an easy one to figure. Top-down management will only make things worse [as demonstrated time and again].

Making money for doing nothing is one of the great crimes of humanity but when you look at what capitalism has accomplished globally, you must admit it has been worth it. Look at the progress that has been made over the past century. You can't have everything you want right now.

So try to enjoy life. It's not all bad.

[simplicity]

...

Sorry Simplicity, I responded in Immanuel Can's post at the last two paragraphs to this quickly but after now noticing, I need a break for today.

Basically, I propose constant change (a middle ground), not the Communistic ideals because no system is ideal BUT the 'conservative' forms are our default when we HAVE power regardless of who we are. Nature favors this without concern of its inevitable annihilation just as bacteria or viruses do. As such, we are tending towards self-destruction. The relatively less natural (artificial) "democratic" ways have to be utilized for its progress or our species is through. I'll get back to you later if not satisfied.

No problem. Do you get paid by the word?

Btw, I've enjoyed your comments. Very well thought out!