US Politics, March 2024: The house of illuminati will NOT be holding any other event in the foreseeable future.

Can we dehumanize her for what she said about Carroll?

the conflation of internalized shame she felt about being assaulted and the shame of claiming to be an advocate yet ignoring it because she’s supporting Trump is pretty psychologically messed up. hopefully she’s just being disingenuous to try to derail the conversation because, woof

criticizing? yes. dehumanizing? at your own moral peril

do you feel that being asked these questions about supporting Trump was a dehumanizing move?

There's no more talk of "allegations of assault" etc. It's straight up "Donald Trump has been found liable for rape in court."

how is that 'gloves off' - you literally have to refer to them as allegations when there's no verdict in a court case. changing the wording reflects the changing in his legal status on the matter

it's just a statement of facts, and Nancy Mace wanted to take a bunch of time to parse the out that he was found liable in a civil trial rather than a criminal trial as if that invalidates the result or casts doubt on Carroll

I think it is more in declining to accept the GOP framing, that a civil judgement does not make him a rapist.

The media finds ways to soft peddle what they want to soft peddle

nor does getting caught on a hot mic talking about grabbing women by the pussy

It would be nice, when a politician like Mace pulls some bullshit like that, if the interviewer would respond along the lines of, "Wow — you'll just say anything, won't you?"

That's a part of it too, there's no sugarcoating that case, and any attempts to do so should be challenged. It gets tiresome to keep pointing this out, but this would have ended any other politician's career.

xxxp

No. I don't think being asked these questions about supporting Trump was a dehumanizing move. Stephanopoulos was representing the many women who would have wished to hear her honest answer. She failed that opportunity in a blaze of calculated dishonesty.

When I said it was dehumanizing all the way around I was thinking not only that in order to make the answer she did, she had to shut down the most human side of herself, but that having done so in such a public way, the kinds of criticism she's opened herself to will constitute a similar opportunity for millions of people to shut down their own most human understanding of her predicament and mock her as an evil automaton. That's where the public discourse is and it shows no signs of improving.

what then would you consider an acceptable response? do you consider the conversation about this ITT to be dehumanizing? or are you just saying that this topic, just like every topic ever, will lead someone on the internet to post something shitty about it?

I covered what I think in my four previous posts on this subject, clarifying as best I could. if they haven't been sufficient to understand what I'm getting at, then my trying to answer all your additional questions is only likely to introduce further details you wish me to clarify. I'm not sure that's the best path to go down. why do you need this amount of detail?

because it's not clear who you are talking about when you say she is being dehumanized and I'm trying to understand if you mean this is something happening in this thread or somewhere else

I think he means she dehumanized herself but I don't think it's really the right framing

(pauses to wait for three sentence correction)

Yeah I didn’t think it was that hard to parse

My take is that Aimless said “it’s difficult to watch someone debase themselves like this, it’s dehumanizing” and then got grilled about who in the thread was dehumanizing her

my point is that compromising herself in this way in order to retain her position and power was most likely a painful choice. there's no need to dehumanize her because she shredded her conscience and sold out.

This sounds like its someone else doing the dehumanizing.

That's how I read it, and a follow up post said the problem is that this is giving people the opportunity to mock her or say bad things about her. It sounded like he was saying that there was a problem with the way people were talking about this, but I apologize if I misinterpreted.

as I understand your replies it sounds like you thought I was unjustly criticizing you or some other ilxor's posts as dehumanizing Mace. I was not speaking to any other posts made here. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself.

When I said it was dehumanizing all the way around I was thinking not only that in order to make the answer she did, she had to shut down the most human side of herself, but that having done so in such a public way, the kinds of criticism she's opened herself to will constitute a similar opportunity for millions of people to shut down their own most human understanding of her predicament and mock her as an evil automaton.

Here's the thing — victimhood does not automatically grant, or equate to, virtue. Nancy Mace is a rape victim: sad. Nancy Mace is a piece of shit: infuriating. Nancy Mace being a rape victim does not make her a piece of shit, nor does Nancy Mace being a rape victim ameliorate her shittiness.

xp

fair enough, to the extent that people say things about her that are gross or dehumanizing, I absolutely agree that's a bad thing, but in no way should that make anyone shy away from criticizing her for torching what tiny shreds of credibility she had to support Donald Trump and further her own pursuit of power

fairly sure Aimless has been on board w/ that from the jump.

It's not about virtue or victimhood but actions and statements. Here, it's about answering the question. The way Mace avoided answering the question was to attack the questioner's motive over and over instead of answering the question.

You see this tactic of delegitimizing the question or questioner as a substitute for answering the question frequently.

I would call it more of a cynical or bad faith diversionary tactic. It's extraordinary that she acted like discussing rape is the problem, that it's the discussion's fault for being disgusting instead of the rapists'.

that's exactly right and why I find all this fretting and squeamishness annoying because it feels like we are just falling for Mace's bullshit DARVO response, especially when she is straight up undermining another rape victim

look I think the point is clear you cant support Donald Trump and retain any sense of morality

We're--what?--about 9 years into Trump having a complete stranglehold on the Republican Party. Anyone with a sense of morality would have gotten out by now.

Seriously, I can't spend a bunch of time lamenting the sad "predicament" of a congressional Republican who had on occasion shown some tiny flickers of a conscience, but then decided to torch it in the grossest way possible on national TV. The thing I keep thinking about is that the whole point of going on a show like this is to gain some appeal with people outside of the core demographic, but it's an utter mystery how she thought her response might have accomplished that.

who's being squeamish exactly? I count exactly zero people itt that didn't criticize her for her reaction. does every reply have to be squarely on the nose?

Moodles, who's arguing with you?

that's what comes across to me when we spend our time worrying about the state of the discourse rather than the actual topic, it feels redirecting to an appeal for civility based on what exactly?

excuse my bad syntax

it feels redirecting to an appeal for civility based on what exactly?

I wish I had the time right now to fully develop an answer to this question, because I think it is an extremely important one, but it will have to wait. Life intervenes for now, but hold that thought.

and by "appeal for civility based on what" I'm not asking why should we be civil, I mean what exactly is driving this appeal? Is it based on actual things that you saw people say about this topic? or if it is purely hypothetical, why is it important to raise in this specific instance?

I still have no idea who you're talking to here.

I reread Aimless’s initial post and it still reads to me that he said her tack was gross and the political climate that would have torn her apart had she not been gross was also gross and dehumanizing to everyone involved, ie Republicans, and then a couple of posters decided this was a land mine directed at them and began to vigorously jump up and down on it with a pogo stick.

I agree with his initial post, it's the subsequent ones that had me scratching my head

the thing about this that's so aggravating is that her point would be good if I could believe it was in earnest. nobody has any right to tell any disenfranchised class of people who they have to support, how they have to vote. but do I think that's why she's making this point? absolutely not. she just wants to shut people up who rightly ID trump as a rapist

He didn't tell her who she had to support or how she should vote, he asked how she reconciled her support for rape victims with her support for Donald Trump. It's a tough question and maybe a bit of a gotcha, but there are certainly better ways to answer than splitting hairs about the difference between a civil and criminal trial and talking trash about E. Jean Carroll.

it’s an extremely difficult question for her, and I think it is possible for her to be angry in good faith about the question.

do I believe that is the case here? no. do I believe Stephanopoulos wanted the q to be a straight victim shame? i do not, but can be persuaded otherwise.

and not a gotcha imo— it’s obvious apparent incongruity to me.

I think it’s simple, you can care about rape victims but care more about shutting up the people you don’t like and making sure they suffer

Or you want to be vice president and some twisted moral calculus makes you believe that the "good" you could accomplish one heartbeat away from the presidency outweighs throwing the occasional rape victim under the bus

She was employing the basic DARVO move there, as well as a furious gish gallop (talking rapidly over the top of someone), its classic troll/bad faith arguing.

watching this dumbass biden hearing really makes you realize that the tragic flaw of democracy is that complete fucking idiots get to help run things. we need a king again!

You can have ours, if his God doesn't save get him first

it is kinda fun that the Demz are just going in hard on Trump and ignoring everything else. playing video clips of trump not remembering anything. how do you like it, fucko! everyone should just call trump Fucko now.

In which President Biden engages in a long discussion about cars as Robert Hur tries, unsuccessfully, to get him back on track. Twice, according to the transcript, the president "makes car sound." pic.twitter.com/tEo5X59pjB

— Matt Viser (@mviser) March 12, 2024

Well, I don't know, hearing the president get all jazzed up about electric cars isn't exactly the worst thing in 2024.

makes car sound