Multi-Billionaire Oprah Whines About Sexism & Income Inequality At DNC

[pood]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

Then it should be “NOT laying …” instead of “not laying BACK…”

Perhaps she is NOT bottoming...

Then it should be “not LYING back.” If she is topping, it should be “not laying x (where x is the direct object of the transitive very “laying” in the sense of topping). As I say, English is a big mess. Especially when you start conjugating all these verbs.

Or, “not getting laid…” if bottoming.

 

[Emily Lake]

About the above, there isn’t much to respond to, because it’s so silly. I’ll just say that anyone who thinks huge numbers of Trump supporters aren’t motivated by racism is living in an imaginary alternative reality.

I think the assumption of racism as the driving factor is errant... and mostly it shows an unwillingness to consider your political opponent as a fully realized human with complex views and competing values. It most demonstrates that you view "the other" as a one-dimensional caricature.

In short, it's the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

I disagree, because as I say, tons of white people SAY THIS — it is not an assumption, it is an observation. See, for example, here. You think this idiot is some kind of rare outlier? But we have tons of other examples, observations and evidence of racism, so no, I am not failing to consider my political opponents as “fully realized humans.” I am observing what they say and do, and drawing the appropriate conclusions.

Yes, I think that idiot is a rare outlier.

I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist. My dad is black, I grew up in a mixed household, with a mixed sister. The black side of my family outnumbers the white side my orders of magnitude. I grew up as a military brat, surrounded by immense diversity. I attended schools where I, as the melanin deficient child, was the minority. Racism certainly does exist. But the vast majority of humans under about the age of 70 do not hold blatantly racist views. Furthermore, to assign racism as the single driving motivation for half the voting public is poor logic.

As I said, it demonstrates a lack of consideration of "the other" as being fully human. You view "them" as being single-dimensional caricatures whose only motivation is malice that you have imagined onto them. At the very most gracious interpretation, you fail to understand your opponent.

Get thee hence to some Sun Tzu: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

 

[pood]

About the above, there isn’t much to respond to, because it’s so silly. I’ll just say that anyone who thinks huge numbers of Trump supporters aren’t motivated by racism is living in an imaginary alternative reality.

I think the assumption of racism as the driving factor is errant... and mostly it shows an unwillingness to consider your political opponent as a fully realized human with complex views and competing values. It most demonstrates that you view "the other" as a one-dimensional caricature.

In short, it's the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

I disagree, because as I say, tons of white people SAY THIS — it is not an assumption, it is an observation. See, for example, here. You think this idiot is some kind of rare outlier? But we have tons of other examples, observations and evidence of racism, so no, I am not failing to consider my political opponents as “fully realized humans.” I am observing what they say and do, and drawing the appropriate conclusions.

Yes, I think that idiot is a rare outlier.

I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist. My dad is black, I grew up in a mixed household, with a mixed sister. The black side of my family outnumbers the white side my orders of magnitude. I grew up as a military brat, surrounded by immense diversity. I attended schools where I, as the melanin deficient child, was the minority. Racism certainly does exist. But the vast majority of humans under about the age of 70 do not hold blatantly racist views. Furthermore, to assign racism as the single driving motivation for half the voting public is poor logic.

As I said, it demonstrates a lack of consideration of "the other" as being fully human. You view "them" as being single-dimensional caricatures whose only motivation is malice that you have imagined onto them. At the very most gracious interpretation, you fail to understand your opponent.

Get thee hence to some Sun Tzu: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

I have never attributed racism as the sole motivating factor for those who vote for Trump or people like the idiot cited above. And no, I see plenty of evidence that this guy is NOT a rare outlier. When I grew up in white suburban Detroit I was saturated with racism against blacks, including in most of my own family, and it was exactly of a piece with how the guy cited above talks. Blacks were routinely characterized not just as the N-word, but with all sorts of Trump-style appellations such as “liver lips” and “jungle bunnies.” It was all over the place. This is reality, then and now. At least one of Trump’s own relatives has said he routinely uses the N-word in private and I’ve no doubt, none, that millions of his supporters do as well.

 

[pood]

I’d add what’s interesting here is that I have OBSERVED and EXPERIENCED, in my own life, what many white working-class people say — and it is THEY who don’t consider the Other as being “fully human.” Not ALL whites, or even all working-class whites, of course, as I’ve already said.

 

[Emily Lake]

About the above, there isn’t much to respond to, because it’s so silly. I’ll just say that anyone who thinks huge numbers of Trump supporters aren’t motivated by racism is living in an imaginary alternative reality.

I think the assumption of racism as the driving factor is errant... and mostly it shows an unwillingness to consider your political opponent as a fully realized human with complex views and competing values. It most demonstrates that you view "the other" as a one-dimensional caricature.

In short, it's the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

I disagree, because as I say, tons of white people SAY THIS — it is not an assumption, it is an observation. See, for example, here. You think this idiot is some kind of rare outlier? But we have tons of other examples, observations and evidence of racism, so no, I am not failing to consider my political opponents as “fully realized humans.” I am observing what they say and do, and drawing the appropriate conclusions.

Yes, I think that idiot is a rare outlier.

I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist. My dad is black, I grew up in a mixed household, with a mixed sister. The black side of my family outnumbers the white side my orders of magnitude. I grew up as a military brat, surrounded by immense diversity. I attended schools where I, as the melanin deficient child, was the minority. Racism certainly does exist. But the vast majority of humans under about the age of 70 do not hold blatantly racist views. Furthermore, to assign racism as the single driving motivation for half the voting public is poor logic.

As I said, it demonstrates a lack of consideration of "the other" as being fully human. You view "them" as being single-dimensional caricatures whose only motivation is malice that you have imagined onto them. At the very most gracious interpretation, you fail to understand your opponent.

Get thee hence to some Sun Tzu: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

I have never attributed racism as the sole motivating factor for those who vote for Trump or people like the idiot cited above. And no, I see plenty of evidence that this guy is NOT a rare outlier. When I grew up in white suburban Detroit I was saturated with racism against blacks, including in most of my own family, and it was exactly of a piece with how the guy cited above talks. Blacks were routinely characterized not just as the N-word, but with all sorts of Trump-style appellations such as “liver lips” and “jungle bunnies.” It was all over the place. This is reality, then and now. At least one of Trump’s own relatives has said he routinely uses the N-word in private and I’ve no doubt, none, that millions of his supporters do as well.

You know that things have changed since the 80s, right?

I think you and I are of similar age, I'm now 50, and IIRC you might be a wee bit older? I'm not sure, I suck at keeping track of random bits of intel about people whose faces I've never seen. Actually, I kind of suck at keeping track of things like that about people I routinely interact with IRL too, so it's clearly a me problem.

Anyway, that was not uncommon when I was a child in the 70s and 80s - but it was adults saying those things at the time. We who were children then didn't carry that forward. Most of my generation, as well as those that have come after me, pretty fully embraced racial equality and the ideals of MLK jr. Thus the bolded red bit in my post above

There's a demographic shift happening right now that a whole, whole, whole lot of people are not taking into consideration: The largest voting block for this election is NOT baby boomers, it's gen x. And Gen X has extremely different motivations, mindsets, and views than Boomers. I keep seeing rhetoric from politicians and media, as well as assumptions from pollsters, that all assume that what has been true in the past about how different blocks vote will continue to be true in the future. I think that's a horrible assumption. The blather that Trump is spewing is the kind of talking points that resonated with conservative boomers. The stuff that Harris mouths are the things that resonated with liberal boomers. Neither of them have much of a fucking clue what's important to Gen X, and both of them are failing to adapt. This is further confounded by the fact that gen x is absolutely the least likely to engage in political polls. Right now, in my opinion, nobody has a clue what the fuck is going to happen in November, and any assumptions anyone makes about why anybody might vote for one part or the other is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong, because those assumptions are based on boomer behavior.

It's a shitshow now, it will continue to be a shitshow through November, it's going to be a bigger shitshow between November and January, and nobody's prognostications hold any water. If anyone manages to be within spitting distance of right, it will be through sheer luck.

 

[laughing dog]

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

While I think that any Trump promise that does not directly benefit his wealth is worth nothing, it is the case that the federal gov't is huge, and it can act without the knowledge of the POTUS. It is not an unreasonable to worry about what the architects of Project 2025 might accomplish if they get access to power.

It's also not unreasonable to worry about what the architects of any politically motivated manifesto published by an unelected group might accomplish if they get power.

None of which is a good justification for imagining atrocities into existence in an effort to scare the fuck out of voters in favor of one side or the other.

Given these architects have a decent chance of implementing some of their plans, it seems scaring the fuck out of the otherwise complacent is a rational game plan.

I don’t know about where you live, but I witness scary political attack ads on a daily basis. Apparently, the market believes they work.

 

[Toni]

The problem is that you see things only through the lens of those like yourself: a certain kind of white make who believes that parity is best achieved only if it does not disturb the comfortable spot you feel entitled to because ‘ you’ve done nothing wrong.’

Loren makes a lot of bad arguments, and holds several views that I strongly disagree with, but I think your assessment here is incorrect. I don't believe Loren feels "entitled" in any way, rather he is happy to share equal consideration without regard for sex or race. But that is based on the assumption of it actually being equal consideration, rather than preferential consideration for one group.

It seems entirely appropriate to me to question whether or not preferential consideration is actually happening, or whether it is merely assumed. For that we would look at the actual policies and practices being employed. If you want to take that approach, I'm all for it.

But turning it into an ad hominem isn't an effective approach.

In fact, my words were chosen to parallel Loren’s.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

While I think that any Trump promise that does not directly benefit his wealth is worth nothing, it is the case that the federal gov't is huge, and it can act without the knowledge of the POTUS. It is not an unreasonable to worry about what the architects of Project 2025 might accomplish if they get access to power.

It's also not unreasonable to worry about what the architects of any politically motivated manifesto published by an unelected group might accomplish if they get power.

None of which is a good justification for imagining atrocities into existence in an effort to scare the fuck out of voters in favor of one side or the other.

Given these architects have a decent chance of implementing some of their plans, it seems scaring the fuck out of the otherwise complacent is a rational game plan.

I don’t know about where you live, but I witness scary political attack ads on a daily basis. Apparently, the market believes they work.

ALL of the political ads are scary fearmongering ads, from both parties.

 

[Toni]

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

While I think that any Trump promise that does not directly benefit his wealth is worth nothing, it is the case that the federal gov't is huge, and it can act without the knowledge of the POTUS. It is not an unreasonable to worry about what the architects of Project 2025 might accomplish if they get access to power.

It's also not unreasonable to worry about what the architects of any politically motivated manifesto published by an unelected group might accomplish if they get power.

None of which is a good justification for imagining atrocities into existence in an effort to scare the fuck out of voters in favor of one side or the other.

Given these architects have a decent chance of implementing some of their plans, it seems scaring the fuck out of the otherwise complacent is a rational game plan.

I don’t know about where you live, but I witness scary political attack ads on a daily basis. Apparently, the market believes they work.

ALL of the political ads are scary fearmongering ads, from both parties.

They are not, tho.

The use of absolutes is so rarely warranted and in this case, it genuinely is not true or useful.

 

[Rhea]

This means that A has access to 10% of the funds exclusively, as well as having an 11.5% chance of obtaining funds from the remaining 90%. That gives them access to 20.35% of the funding.

Except that clearly, obviously, demonstrably,
It does not.
Which is how they ended up at 3%

 

[Bomb#20]

As I say, English is a big mess. Especially when you start conjugating all these verbs.

French gives it a run for its money...

 

[Toni]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

The expression refers to not submitting to unpleasant sex, for the sake of England.

 

[pood]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

The expression refers to not submitting to unpleasant sex, for the sake of England.

Then it should be LYING back.

 

[Emily Lake]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

The expression refers to not submitting to unpleasant sex, for the sake of England.

 

[laughing dog]

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

While I think that any Trump promise that does not directly benefit his wealth is worth nothing, it is the case that the federal gov't is huge, and it can act without the knowledge of the POTUS. It is not an unreasonable to worry about what the architects of Project 2025 might accomplish if they get access to power.

It's also not unreasonable to worry about what the architects of any politically motivated manifesto published by an unelected group might accomplish if they get power.

None of which is a good justification for imagining atrocities into existence in an effort to scare the fuck out of voters in favor of one side or the other.

Given these architects have a decent chance of implementing some of their plans, it seems scaring the fuck out of the otherwise complacent is a rational game plan.

I don’t know about where you live, but I witness scary political attack ads on a daily basis. Apparently, the market believes they work.

ALL of the political ads are scary fearmongering ads, from both parties.

I have seen some positive ones, but the majority are scare tactics.

 

[bilby]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

The expression refers to not submitting to unpleasant sex, for the sake of England.

Then it should be LYING back.

Meh. "Laying" is perfectly correct in many dialects of English. Even in England. That 'a' is routine amongst speakers in the North.

Prescriptivism in this matter seems more than a little strained, when coming from an American.

 

[pood]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

The expression refers to not submitting to unpleasant sex, for the sake of England.

Then it should be LYING back.

Meh. "Laying" is perfectly correct in many dialects of English. Even in England. That 'a' is routine amongst speakers in the North.

Prescriptivism in this matter seems more than a little strained, when coming from an American.

Sorry, I’m just an American grammar Nazi because of the profession I was in. But language is always changing and it hardly matters much. I’ve read the Canterbury Tales both in medieval English and modern and they are really different.

The general rule is that “lay” is a transitive verb that takes a direct object, whereas “lie” in the sense of recline, is intransitive. But if you’re talking about “lay” in the slang sense of sex, it’s not quite clear, but even in that sense “lay” would seen to want a direct object: Today I will lay X, or be laid by x. But if one is being laid, the logic suggests, “I am lying back, being laid.”

 

[Arctish]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

The expression refers to not submitting to unpleasant sex, for the sake of England.

Then it should be LYING back.

Meh. "Laying" is perfectly correct in many dialects of English. Even in England. That 'a' is routine amongst speakers in the North.

Prescriptivism in this matter seems more than a little strained, when coming from an American.

Sorry, I’m just an American grammar Nazi because of the profession I was in. But language is always changing and it hardly matters much. I’ve read the Canterbury Tales both in medieval English and modern and they are really different.

The general rule is that “lay” is a transitive verb that takes a direct object, whereas “lie” in the sense of recline, is intransitive. But if you’re talking about “lay” in the slang sense of sex, it’s not quite clear, but even in that sense “lay” would seen to want a direct object: Today I will lay X, or be laid by x. But if one is being laid, the logic suggests, “I am lying back, being laid.”

Would that be "being laid" or "getting laid"?

 

[Toni]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

The expression refers to not submitting to unpleasant sex, for the sake of England.

Then it should be LYING back.

Meh. "Laying" is perfectly correct in many dialects of English. Even in England. That 'a' is routine amongst speakers in the North.

Prescriptivism in this matter seems more than a little strained, when coming from an American.

Sorry, I’m just an American grammar Nazi because of the profession I was in. But language is always changing and it hardly matters much. I’ve read the Canterbury Tales both in medieval English and modern and they are really different.

The general rule is that “lay” is a transitive verb that takes a direct object, whereas “lie” in the sense of recline, is intransitive. But if you’re talking about “lay” in the slang sense of sex, it’s not quite clear, but even in that sense “lay” would seen to want a direct object: Today I will lay X, or be laid by x. But if one is being laid, the logic suggests, “I am lying back, being laid.”

Lots going on so I wasn’t clear: it was a reference to advice given married ladies with reference to their husbands’ sexual attentions. They were not expected to enjoy sex but to tolerate it without complaint. Thinking of England, I suppose was intended as a more noble direction to turn their minds. After all, England needed healthy babies.

I added it to my profile as something I was not willing to do: lay back and take it without complaint or fighting back. If I remember, during my very sleep deprived days when I averaged something like 5 hours of sleep a night.

But surely discussing any aspect of my profile or my posting style is quite boring? I think so anyway. Pretty certain we all agree that we are all a collection of pretty flawed people.

 

[bilby]

Pretty certain we all agree that we are all a collection of pretty flawed people.

I agree; You all are. But I love you anyway.