MSC

Based on what little I have read of their other comments on this thread, I'm inclined to agree with you. Which is a shame really. Why can't we have these discussions without the motivation for it being a sensationalist celebrity fued? The main question in the OP: How best to start including men whom are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse? Ought to be obvious by now. 1. Stop ridiculing men whom are abused by women. While you're at it, stop hurling abuse at women for speaking out about it when they are abused. You can't allow one without the other. 2. Be more willing to talk about your own abuse, by or against someone else and stand up for abuse victims when people don't have anything constructive or helpful to say about them. 3. Try to focus less on separating the discussions based on characteristics of identity. Less of this men vs women crap, acknowledging abuse in homosexual relationships is important too. 4. Recognize that abuse is abuse. Whomever the perpetrator is. 5. Even if you have never suffered from abuse, the best way to include these things in the public discourse... is to be a member of the public, talking about them! Pressuring politicians, local and beyond to take the issue seriously. Prosecution, legislation, affordable mental healthcare, incarceration and rehabilitation. 6. Consistently give a shit. Stop only giving a shit when it impacts on who may or may not get cast in a movie or TV show. 7. Leave the door open for forgiveness of those willing to take responsibility for what they have done. Treat abusers as sick and in need of therapy instead of as evil irredeemable bastards who will be torched when found. 8. Give people claiming to be victims of abuse the benefit of the doubt and don't make your mind up about it based on some stupid celebrity trial that technically isn't even over yet. 9. Be a nicer and kinder person in general. As an individual we can all make ourselves more approachable. This way we are more open to lending an ear and aid to victims and perpetrators both. (By aid of perpetrators, I don't mean shield from responsibility. I mean enable them to feel safe enough to take responsibility and get the help they need to manage their shit. Some of those 9 are easier than others. But then nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Except for making omlettes, super easy but also worthwhile. Okay I'm hungry now.

Can someone help provide me with a brief summary of ground covered in this discussion so far? I will go back and read up as I find the time but a summary would be appreciated. Abortion is actually one of my preferred topics for explaining my research in moral philosophy and moral psychology. I could even upload a brief essay and a PowerPoint on this subject. It has a very interesting history and some rather unexpected conflicts within religious circles as well. In order to get people thinking about this in a different way, I tend to start of this lesson with the question; Are pro-life and pro-choice stances/beliefs/values mutually exclusive and incompatible with one another, or can a person be both pro-life and pro-choice?

Agreed. +1. I suppose this leads me to the question; How does abuse between public figures and abuse between ordinary people differ in presentation and what are the commonalities? Definitely a complicated issue as you say. I definitely don't think this case is a good starting point to talk about domestic abuse or the abuse men face. Maybe the OP would like to cite some different cases for the discussion to proceed effectively?

I'm pretty much reserving my judgement until the judicial processes have run their course. To be honest I didn't like the way it was handled. Jury wasn't sequestered properly, they were allowed to keep their phones. The trial was made public and allowed members of the public to be in the courtroom. The jeers, snickers and laughing created a dramatic atmosphere that could have impacted the jury's perception of testimony and evidence. Now, JD has been in a lot of movies that I have thoroughly enjoyed. I've also enjoyed a number of his performances as an individual. That said; his demeanor in court was quite disrespectful and needlessly dramatic. I've seen court rooms where individuals with non celebrity status, have been warned and found in contempt of court, for less. I had actually never heard of Amber Heard until a few years ago when this all started coming out. The more this started to unfold, the more biased trash came out about her from various sources where I couldn't read half a sentence without coming across some loaded words or phrases used to describe her. This wasn't even news I sought out. This was the "trending" stuff that I usually ignore when its about celebrities. Obviously during this trial, it became inescapable unless you decided not to open any news apps or better yet just turned your phone off. The things that confused me about this trial, were enough to make me question the feelings of defensiveness I get when a person I've only ever been entertained by or had positive interactions with, is accused of something as severe as being a domestic abuser. The thing that confused me the most, was finding Amber Heard guilty on three counts and JD on one. I had always been led to believe that it is only defamation or slander, if what is claimed is untrue. So the verdicts confused the issue because it's as if the jury said "they are both untrue claims, nobody was abused, nobody is a liar, nothing to see here." Which sounds extremely contradictory to me. When it comes to abuse, I don't believe in mutual domestic abuse unless you have the very rare circumstances of where both of the individuals involved have equal power in the relationship and and social circle. Quite frankly, JD has more wealth, fame and social capital than Amber heard. A power difference it would be extremely easy for an abuser to wield. Which lends a lot of plausibility to AHs claims of being abused by JD. In similar cases, where neither parties were a celebrity, but financially successful enough to suffer concrete harm to their reputations, the outcome would have likely been very different if other factors were the same. For example, if the person acused of abuse had a problem with Drugs and Alcohol, like JD admitted to having, this would have severely damaged their credibility when claiming they had done nothing of the sort. I've been black out drunk before, to the point where I was told I was banging on the club door after it closed to get more booze and was essentially trolling a taxi driver by telling him to stop every five minutes, to the point where me and my friend got kicked out of the cab. That stuff is out of character for me, I don't remember any of it, but I do believe it. Drugs and alcohol do that to you. Considering how much we know about the effects of drugs and alcohol, to suggest that you are capable of remembering everything well enough to know you did not do what you are accused of doing, is effectively unscientific to the extreme. Anyone with enough self knowledge of their drug and drinking habits, when being honest with themselves about claims of their wrong doing while under the influence, can only know that they don't know. If they claim they do know, they are lying to themselves. One of the other things I took issue with was the breaking of the goldwater rule by JDs expert witness with a background in mental health, claiming she had histrionic personality disorder. I also have an issue with the history behind that particular psychiatric label and the circular logic associated with its diagnosis, where any and every behavior becomes a symptom of it because of the underlying assumption that everything that motivates the individual, is attempts to seek attention by any means. That's not to say I don't think the condition does not exist, but I truly do doubt it's claim in the context of having never been an official patient of the expert making the claim. I suppose you could say that a lack of due process in clinical diagnoses severely diminishes the credibility of said diagnoses. For this aspect, even if I was a psychiatrist, having never met Amber Heard and only knowing how she behaves on camera, I'd never suggest she is suffering from x, y or z. If I wanted to know, I'd have to try and gain her as a client/patient and do a thorough psychiatric evaluation and she would be entitled to a second opinion after I've concluded my own evaluation. Of course if that was the case, I could never really appear in court to disclose confidential medical information about her, without her consent. I'm not really done listing what I think of the problems this case were but I'll leave it there for now while I carry on trying to catch up with everything that has been said so far. What I definitely don't believe, is the narrative posited by fans or haters of either JD or AH. Nor the journalists who make a living off of dramatic sensationalism.

Being knowledgeable of those conflicts and making those conflicts your own are two completely different things. I'd say the analogy holds quite well. On one side, you've got Canadians doing their own thing, on the other side you've got Americans trying to dictate to Canadians on what is and isn't okay to say. I imagine there was a time in France, where a French person could be shot by a German person for not capitulating to anti-semetici rhetoric. So yeah, the analogy holds pretty well. Both involve a bully pretending to be a victim because other countries won't put its issues first and foremost over their own. More Nukes too, more cities blown up and wiped off the face of the earth too. So Americans get to dictate how others live and use their own dialects of English because they have more? How is that an argument. They have more school shooters and serial killers too. Is that a point in the Americans favour? Would you care to explain how we should all be keeping score of things so we know whom is king? How does that work exactly? You're missing the point, I said that to illustrate that age discrimination is unacceptable whether you are young or old. One of those things did happen here, iNow made a rude comment toward MigL based on his age and has even went so far as to say all from a certain time, are hateful. I mentioned the other to make clear that I found both unacceptable. You and iNow have ignored too much of what I have said and seem to be suggesting that American English and it's history should be more important to Canadians than their own. In what world is that reasonable? iNow doesn't even deem it worthy of him responding or explaining his point of view to me, that alone should tell you something. This has gone too off topic. I really can't be bothered with a new thread about language policing and respecting the context of another culture. I've said what I wanted to say on the matter. But I didn't realize I would be debating within an environment where only Americans get to have the final say on what is and isn't important within our collective moral discourse. Dyou know what is truly the worst extreme, practiced by both sides of the American political camps? Anti-intellectualism. This idea on each side that suggests to question the rhetoric, means you're either stupid or immoral. On the one hand, you've got people calling you stupid for saying we need to do more to help minority groups. On the other, you've got people for calling you stupid for thinking critically about language policing. Either way, being critical gets you judged. iNows entire attitude of "oh you'll just be ignorant or arrogant to disagree with me on whatever I say" is evidence of this. I even mentioned my wife's views on this, but I guess since she is a woman, that's not worth addressing to either of you? I told you once already, don't treat me like I am stupid. You've carried on, by expecting me to buy any of this knee jerk nonsense about Americans having a very vague "more everything". Left, right, I don't give a shit about that anymore. Because each side is where truth goes to die, just in a different way and both sides spend so much time being outraged at and suspicious of the other, that people are too busy being offended to think critically, solve problems, and minimize creating new ones. I'm not talking about your motivations. Just the consequences of your actions. As for your motivations, I could care less but they aren't as mysterious as you seem to think they are. Oh yeah, holding you accountable isn't self righteous. Particularly when I'm defending someone else, not myself. But then what would you know about accountability? You can't even admit the 1963 bit wasn't rude. I'll be back if you ever figure out how to substantively counter argue against anything I've said. But I won't hold my breath.

Yes, I'm well aware. But if you needed to ask me the question, then I don't feel respected by you at all. Yes I know. I'm European. Speak to me like I'm stupid again, and it will be the last I speak with you. Not got the time to put up with crap like that. My point; is that differences in language are just as important as differences in dialect. To speak nothing of the reactionary cost of language policing with people in the same country as you, what about the reactionary cost when they aren't even in the same country? My point with the Spanish portion, was that to most English speakers, saying "negro" is wrong. Yet it is just how you say Black in Spanish. If it sounds ridiculous to come down on a Spanish person for using a word in their own language, that has a different connotation somewhere else, then it's similarly ridiculous to come down on a Canadian for using a word in their dialect that also does not have a negative connotation to it. I'm sorry; this chat is starting to come across more like an ultimatum of The New American way, as dictated by the loudest of young people who haven't sat in either an ethics or linguistics classroom, or you're just a racist. The irony of which should not be lost on anybody. Access to the relevant information of what Americans want them to learn in order to be linguistically acceptable in the USA? Where is this forum exactly? Why do Americans get to push the Agenda of their college students onto the rest of the world so pedanticly? Also why do you or iNow get to speak for all Americans? My wife is also American; yet she doesn't believe that language policing beyond borders is acceptable either. She doesn't use the term "coloured" and uses the PC terms here in the USA. Doesn't mean she is going to visit my family in the UK and call someone homophobic because they ask her for a cigarette but say "You got a spare fag on you?". I really wish people would pick their battles better and take the time to critically think about how to figure out the ways and means of real moral progress instead of assuming that good intent is enough. We are far more than the sum of our intentions, iNows language policing might be well intended, but it comes at a cost and is a good example of the ends not justifying the means. Yeah this was how I interpreted that too. Projecting American problems and their solutions onto other places is a nono for me. I've never once heard of Canada having a widespread lynching problem in its South. I don't get why the border has to be porous in the Americans favour either? Because TV and movies? Please, I wasn't born yesterday. If they could actually reach an intellectual consensus with each other I'd be more inclined to listen. But it's extremism on both sides here in the USA and the centrists in the middle are just part of the "fuck both your factions" faction. Oh so everyone else has to explain themselves to you, but not the other way around? You started this ridiculousness by trying to push someone from a different country as you, to accept your verdict, delivered rudely, that they were wrong to use language the way they did because "American way better". Oh and before you go "where was I being rude?" The "1963 called" line was pretty rude. This whole thread revolves around protected characteristics, something which I see as something we have a duty to protect. But you don't get to pick and choose which ones are more worthy of your protection. They are all worthy of it. That's why they are called protected. Ethnicity, Gender AND age. It irks me just as much when the old disrespect the young as when the young disrespect the old. Oh stop with the self-righteousness. You informed us of nothing but your own preferences and willingness to get right down into the dirt with those you perceive to already be slinging it. Even when they weren't. This is one of those situations where, even though someone is arguing for views similar to your own, you just want them to shut up because they are harming the cause in the long run.

France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. Ahhh linguistics ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. Fair enough. I'll leave that alone. But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way? Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.

Contracts were signed ages ago to pay in other currencies. Contracts are a bitch huh? Doesn't it suck when people have written evidence of what your promises are?

You're being deliberately obtuse. How old are you?

Then what was that about?

My thoughts exactly 😆

This is also a pet peeve of mine. I also don't like it when dialectical differences are ignored. Nor do I like Americans trying to dictate to me how to speak English. My Nana still says colored. Considering that she works for, ministers for and tends to the homeless of all descriptions, I'm pretty sure she isn't racist. I'd only really have a problem if she started saying the N word. Which tbh, I feel as if some of the outrage directed towards people who use old words or dialectical colloquialisms but without in combination with bigoted behaviors, is as proxy for the people who do have those behaviors but are usually underground or not around us very often. So quite often we see this phenomenon in language use where a word, isn't considered a pejorative in usage until someone refuses not to use it upon request or demand. In conclusion; ALUMINIUM! 😆 Only by the ignorant and hateful? You've obviously never met my grandmother. 😆 I agree with the second paragraph, not the first. Also did I detect a hint of anti-canadian animosity in your first sentence? Might want to check yourself a little iNow. Lest you veer into hypocritical territory.

Russia cuts off Gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria, claiming others could be next. This fuckin guy. Now he's weaponising energy demands and trying to divide NATO on their consensus to give more aid to Ukraine. Edit: Link takes you to NBC. Just for clarity.

That's the thing that worries me; it's not just Putins enemies we have to worry about, but NATOs enemies too, within and without Russia. Let's say some group decides to assassinate Putin, seize power in Russia and then uses NATO as a scapegoat. As conspiracy theories go, if Putin were assassinated by anyone, there will be countless conspiracy theories trying to explain it. Blaming NATO or the USA specifically is probably one of the least out there versions of the sorts of things people will think and say happened. Now, some here may be of the opinion that Putin needs to be made an example of. Which is completely understandable given what we know, but one person's example is another person's martyr. Nomatter what you wish to happen, make no mistake, Putin being assassinated would be a very dangerous and uncertain situation that could unfold a number of ways, most of then badly. Better that he is just arrested and charged with war crimes or crimes against the Russian people, than assassinated. Just for the safest approach.

Apparently, because it's racist to point out the demographic makeup of the court... somehow? I don't know anymore. It's the same level of pedanticness that turns people off of the PC thing. Besides intent; there is also the spirit in which something is said or done. Ultimately this was all done in the spirit of inclusion and equity. As for the objections, I don't know how you argue it is with the same spirit as the above, when what is being objected to is inclusive speech and an open desire for more fairness. It certainly wasn't for Ted Cruz.

I dunno Z, I think your one is better 😆 🤣

It would appear Macron won the French elections. So we won't see France getting too friendly with Russia anytime soon with Le Pen defeated again. Do you mean "less lose/lose less"? 😆 But you're right, not a win by any means but a ray of hope. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is so typical of humanity that going green seems like a better option when it is part of a war effort. These damn humans! Hypothetical; What are the chances, that if Putin were assassinated, even by his own people, a worse replacement comes in, then blames the west for the assassination and goes to war with NATO using that as the justification to try and get China on side?

Well... it's better than my one math joke. How many meals a day do mathematicians eat? 9. They eat 3² meals a day.

I'll breathe a bigger sigh of relief if we escape another Trump or Trumpite term in 2024. Apparently Ron DeSantis is thinking of running against Trump... which tbh also fills me with dread. He's going to run on this massive anti-pc rhetoric and will be basically running as a Trump impersonater. I don't know if it is that off topic though, discussing the history and future around this subject. But then we have discussed this to death. My heads spinning and I'm distracted in RL a lot right now. Daughter is sick and I've not really been sleeping that much. There is another thread that has captured my interest but its kind of quiet on it. Gonna see if I can kick up more discussion there just drafting my first comment in it.

None at all my friend. And they were unfair attacks so I understand. I do realize that Biden can make mistakes and he has made plenty. I suppose I am currently less able to think of any that concern me too much aside from his earlier career. I mean; when he was younger he said a few things that I think we both would agree were racist. He changed with the times I guess but as an auld yin, I imagine he still utters something privately where people are a like "dude, I know you're old, but you can't say shit like that anymore." I suppose something that also makes me feel sorry for him, is that I don't think he really wanted the presidency this time around. I think he only went for it because giving people more choices than Trump or Sanders was more important for the USA than what he wanted. There is Valor in that act. I think it does reveal a quality of character that is ideal for leadership. I wish he had gotten in with more power for his party in the Senate though, I feel like he could have done so much more with more potential to pass legislation and he's not going to get much of a fair shake at it. That said though, hyperpartisanship being what it is, it could be a long time before anybody has a supermajority in the senate again. If it happens anytime soon, it'll probably be due to a despicable gerrymandering pulled by one of the parties. Even though you're Canadian, I still think you do have a right through neighborly interest and concern to comment on the situation here in the US. I'm not a citizen and can only vote in state and municipal elections due to policy in this particular state giving me a vote. Although my daughter is Scottish-American... that's basically Canadian right? 😆 I even have some French ancestry!

Because Asian-American is what gets put into all types of forms. I think it's about trying to find a happy medium between combating racism while keeping secure feelings of cultural pride in one's heritage, as well as safety for medical signposting. That said, you can also be more specific than that Japanese-American, Scottish-American etc. Obviously Scottish is not Asian, but I'm not from the Caucasus either so I can't be Caucasian 😂. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like in the very extreme. I'm not white, I'm more of a light rose and peach colour and in the summer I'm light brown. What if I want to be prejudiced against fake tan orange people? Is that okay? Or what if I want to create a new basis for race based on height or areola shape and circumference? What if someone's parents are European but they were born somewhere in Asia? Can they be European-Asian? I suppose we should just be thankful that identity politics isn't as confusing as the above extreme, but it still is pretty confusing. From the perspective of a centrist, it sometimes feels like the left and right political extremes make it feel like there is nothing nice to say anymore. If the rule is if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all, and there is nothing nice to say anymore, that's just a lot of silence. Maybe I should just address everyone and everything by their name or living being? I do like what you said about relationship correctness. I remember watching a Ted talk on something called emotional correctness. It described the idea of being more in line with the feeling of something than the politics of it. For example, in the Abortion debate, both sides could do with better remembering that both views come from a similar sentiment of care toward a living being. Or when disagreeing with one another, not getting angry at being disagreed with or having someone point out a mistake to you and then angrily punishing them on that basis alone. I'm just saying that in general, thats not directed towards anyone here.

True, although I would point out that in this instance, self-serving, could be considered justified here if it enables feelings of restoration and reparation. Seeking justice for one's self or one's community for past wrongs,, is definitely self serving, but not a bad expression of it imo. But you're right, we shouldn't assume what the opinions are either way until these wanker journalists do their damn jobs and get the information that would actually help our discussion, out there.

That dictionary definition was in context but okay. I already apologized in general a few lines ago. But I can be more direct. In regards to the racist accusation, I take it back. I'm sorry. In all honesty after the last time I said that, I regretted it about 20 minutes after I said it because you did actually say that in all you agreed KBJ deserved the job. But at that point it had been up too long so I couldn't edit it away. I didn't actually say simplistic though, I said "not difficult to understand" in response to you insinuating that I was just too stupid to see your point. (In the reverse would you not have reacted similarly?) As for not grasping my points, I still feel like most of it was missed but I'm not overly concerned about that, at least not anymore. I didn't really think it was because you or JC are stupid either, but because I had written a lot and it felt like you were both just skimming it over and reading to respond rather than reading to understand. Especially the holistic review and affirmative action stuff. I said last night, I really am just tired of anger in general and I really don't like falling out with people over arguments like these. We were agreeing to respectfully disagree just a few pages ago, then things escalated and I think we both said things to each other that are beneath us. I regret the things I said to you, sincerely. I was getting frustrated and close to losing my temper at the time. These are the reasons, not excuses. I still feel bad about it and do hope you can forgive me there. I remember when I got my 1year suspension during a mental breakdown and that you had posted kind words to me after the fact. I appreciated those kind words at the time and still do. While I still believe your expectations of Biden are too idealistic, there is nothing wrong with wanting a better world where we genuinely don't have to worry about discrimination anymore and people of all races are confident that a SC nominee is going to do right by them, regardless of who they are. So while I don't agree with you, I do actually wish you were correct. I'm still a bit of an idealist too deep down.

Neither did I. Whether or not Bidens actions we are discussing were disrespectful, is our point of disagreement. But having both of us now done similar searches (My search was their opinions on KBJ specifically, so between us that's two bases covered) I would say that the lack of effort to get or make clearer the opinions of real black people, is disrespectful. Would you agree with that?

Stupidity for some yes. For others, the brutality that came with the propaganda is more of a factor. Fear and ignorance together is a powerful thing. 😕