The Pledge Drive continues! If you enjoy this blog, and can afford it, please click on the “donate” button below! Thanks!
If you thought Chuck Tingle’s version of the Clinton-Trump debate last night was surreal, well, take a look at what Dilbert creator and wannabe master persuader Scott Adams has to say about it.
Unlike some of Trump’s superfans, Adams is willing to admit that, yeah, Hillary kind of won the debate, at least by normal debate standards.
Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner.
But Adams thinks this “victory on the 2D chess board” doesn’t really matter, because in his mind, apparently, Trump is playing some kind of 95th Dimensional mashup of Chess, Cribbage, and Hungry Hungry Hippos, or something. And in this game, Trump is the clear winner.
“Clinton won the debate last night,” Adams explains. “And while she was doing it, Trump won the election.”
IS YOUR MIND BLOWN YET
On the off chance that your mind is not, in fact, blown, let’s look at exactly why Adams thinks Trump is the real victor in this game of 95th Dimension Chesscribbippos.
As he sees it, Hillary needed to prove to skeptical Americans (or at least to Dr. Adams) that she’s healthy. And she failed.
Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event.
Huh. This is your takeaway from a debate in which Trump sniffled so much that people started to wonder if he wasn’t hopped up on the cocaine?
Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn’t cough, collapse, or die right on stage.
But that’s not enough for Adams, who raises the serious medical question: Is Hillary’s smile kind of weird?
Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. … My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.
CLEARLY UNQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT
Trump, by contrast, was the perfect model of health and handsomeness! Well, not entirely.
To be fair, Trump’s physical appearance won’t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him … .
But Trump didn’t WIN THE ELECTION LAST NIGHT just by being somewhat less orange than usual. He showed what a calm, cool, and collected customer he is.
Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.
Wait, what?
Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy.
MASSIVE WIN
And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals.
You actually think he lost the debate … on purpose?
In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.
As I put it in a tweet to Adams last night (you’ll have to forgive my typo):
Yeah, Trump throwing a tantrum as the same exact moment he was attacking Hillary for having a bad "temperament" was super duper reassuring. https://t.co/RQnRLxd66C
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) September 27, 2016
Trump definitely looked presidential, not at all like a giant petulant baby who shouldn’t even be in the same city as the nuclear codes.
BLINKING SARCASM.GIF
The most memorable moments of the first debate: Clinton laughs off Trump’s temperament barb https://t.co/NW6ToTCDFS https://t.co/IR90V9KcLc
— POLITICO (@politico) September 27, 2016
Ladies and gentleman, Donald J. Trump! https://t.co/H9Uy8yzNYZ by @RiosJose559 via @c0nvey
— FLOR DO DESERTO (@FlorDeserto) September 27, 2016
https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/780607277938147328
https://twitter.com/CCW000/status/780897508310458368
Oh, wait, that last one isn’t Trump. Hard to tell sometimes.
And here’s the latest Pledge Drive capybara, with a friend:
More of this? Ah, me. I’ve just had a nice long chat with a friend from across the world, who is very much of the same mind as I when it comes to a lot of this stuff, but is just slightly out of step. Just enough to get my brain moving, looking for errors in my positions. Things like the difference between equality, equity and justice; the complex roles of affirmative action in the workplace; universality of consciousness and the means of instigating social change. Really good conversation, always lovely to talk to her. Very calming. Sorta hippy-dippy. But that’s me.
So, let’s take a look at what we have here?
You’re right in that Trump doesn’t have to set up a complex causal chain right there on stage in order to be able to say that thing. He can of course say what he wants. That’s not really the point at all. Here’s the difference.
– When Hillary Clinton makes a statement about Donald Trump being a racist or bigot or whatnot, there’s easily-accessible video of him saying racist, bigoted things all over the place. The evidence is first-hand.
– When Donald Trump makes a statement about Hillary Clinton being led by his policy statements, there’s no easily-accessible video, no written word, no evidence that this is the case. The evidence is personal opinion and, therefore, subject to bias.
Do you see the difference in weight that should be placed on these two statements? The difference in class?
I don’t at all mean that people with different priors are objectively wrong, and that mine are objectively right. I realize that you feel this to be the position we’re taking, but it’s not, really. We- ah, well, let’s deal with the second half of this quote first, perhaps.
Where’s this conflation happening? I’ve said, bluntly, that certainty is not required. I said it here:
You’re reading our positions as being things which they are not, and you’re seeing our statements as saying things which they do not.
And I’m pretty sure you know this. You aren’t here to defend anything in particular – this is why you have retreated from any defense of Trump at all into the swampy morass of “I feel it and you can’t logic my feelings away.”
Which – well, you’re right, no one can argue you out of that position. Just be aware – you’ve decided to reject all evidence in favour of your feelings. This isn’t humility, though you seem to have decided to define it that way, somehow.
Enjoy your solipsism?
@Axe, that whole #BasementDwellers thing is annoying as heck, but at least it lets you filter out who has actual complaints about Clinton versus those who just want to pile hate on her. I mean, jeeby-creeby, the whole context of the clip has her supporting and sympathizing with them!
She sympathizes with the fact that the terrible economy has forced them into a situation they don’t want. How’s that hate on Millennials? Ohhhh, wait, if you’re just a jerkbutt who wants to trash on Hillary, then sure, you can interpret it that way, I guess. If evidence doesn’t matter to you, n’stuff.
Gee, that sounds familiar…
I’m with WWTH and am also perfectly happy to own this. Donald Trump is virulently racist, misogynist, ableist, Islamaphobic, classist and fatphobic. He reminds us of this on a daily basis by mocking autistic people, calling all Mexicans rapists, threatening to deport Muslims, attacking women for having gained a few pounds 20 years ago, offering to pay legal fees for those of his supporters who assault black people, implying that those of us who pay taxes are stupid and so on. He does this so publicly and with such regularity that it beggars belief that anyone could possibly be unaware of it. If you support him, you are totally fine with this and there is no meaningful distinction between that and being racist, misogynist, ableist, Islamaphobic, classist and fatphobic yourself. I will not assist anyone in protecting their ego from this demonstrable reality.
Roger you appeal to emotion
For blatantly bigoted men.
There are no points for devotion
Nor praise for words so hate-sodden.
Re: being *ist vs supporting *ism
Hear, hear! Same diff!
@Scildfreja
Sure, but I fear diminishing returns
Voting with vaginae, [slurs], neoliberal, shill, shrill, emails, Bernie marched with King, rigged primary, rigged debate, rigged election, crime bill, Vince Foster, drone strikes, smile, dynasty, political correctness, career politician, body double, Parkinson’s, warmonger, socialist, communist, earpiece, Benghazi, stamina, status quo, criminal, wikileaks, smug, overprepared, Lewinsky, etc, etc, etc
Odds are, if you’re jumping on this, you’ve probably been spouting at least some of that other stuff too. How effective is this, given all the other filters? *sigh*
Either she’s condescending, or she’s outta touch, or she hates the poor, or she’s corrupt… When they make up their mind about why it’s insulting, I’m sure they’ll let everyone know
I’m gonna guess they think it’s insulting because they’d mean it that way themselves if they said someone lived in their mother’s basement and had a dead end job, etc. They can’t brain empathy.
Seconded
Our resident troll in this thread has made a pretty good demonstration for why they ain’t ever gonna make up their mind on the reason they think it’s insulting. Reasons can be disproved, feels can’t. So it’s just gonna be an endless regression of excuses.
Yup. Trump supporters are motivated by bigotry, principally racism and misogyny. All of them, without exception.
@Axe
Reminds me of when Obama said something about people in devastated rural economies clinging to the few certainties left to them, and the right spun it the same way.
OT:
I just got really blindsided yesterday with something and I’m really uncomfortable about it. I like lurking in the comment section around here because I don’t know many people and most of those I do know are not feminism-friendly. Plus people I know, either know the person and have made up their own minds or else don’t know and I don’t want to be the one to tell them.
I thought I knew how I wanted to handle this, but then when faced with it today in the flesh, I just froze. I didn’t want to bring it up on the book thread because the whole thing comes with a giant
TRIGGER WARNING
anybody willing to have a listen and possibly offer advice and perspectives I haven’t thought of?
Eli,
I have no idea whether I can be of any help, but I’m sure at least one of us here will have good advice. Feel free to post about it. I’m sure no one would mind.
Go right ahead, eli. I’m sorta having similar problems with a friend over here, too.
We’re all ears eli. Feel free to tell on your own terms On another note:
Roger stay out of it.
@Scildfreja Unnýðnes
I hope you’re not having the same problem that would be really weird.
TW for assault; child pornography and LONG
So the good news is I got a new job and I don’t know how to explain this at all without some specifics. I’m the new music director at a small church. I knew the pastor from a different church where I used to play organ. They also like having a band a couple of times a month. I don’t really have contacts or experience with the band side of things, so when pastor said he was talking to some people, I thought, great!
He told me a lot about some guy I’ll call Peter.* I’ve met Peter’s Dad. I don’t know Peter. No opinion. Mom says he’s personable. Whatever.
So yesterday, we’re over there doing something else and pastor pulls me and the congregation president in to chat. Pastor says he has two guitars lined up. PAUL* and Peter.
He keeps talking, but I’m stuck on Paul, who last I knew was on his way to prison for possession (am I in moderation for my trigger warning?). And then I realize he’s saying Peter is on probation for assault and it was his girlfriend and witnesses say she hit him first and florida and they just arrest the man automatically blah blah
I feel like I’ve fallen into a hole both from they way he’s talking about it and having to work (and direct) these guys. He starts to talk about Paul and I just held up my hand and said “I KNOW” (oh please I don’t want to hear your apologetics for him). Paul was supposed to be in for 15 years (I guess he served 8). Didn’t know he was out. I’ve met him before. He used to do work for my mom. She tried to set us up.
He came to church today. He was polite, but pastor sent him up to the organ loft just the two of us. I mumbled that I had to start my prelude (which was true). I shook his hand. I saw him stop on the stairs and look back at me. Weirded me out. I was just breathing.
I am really uncomfortable about this. The council knows, but both men are volunteers and they say they can’t stop anyone from coming to church. Our time together will be two services, plus rehearsals. I don’t know yet if they’ll be weekly or every other week.
I’ve already invited a church member who I really like(under plausible circumstances) to join our rehearsals. I really don’t like any of this.
you may not know things about me. I’m 45, female, cis-het, extreme introvert. I’ve been trying to find a job like this for about 6 or 7 years.
Both untrue, and not the point. Even if the church doesn’t want to kick these guys out the door (and I can see why they are motivated not to), they are not required to accept volunteer work from them. It’s baffling that they would throw up their hands helplessly just because someone volunteered.
That’s a snow job you’re being fed, so recognize it for what it is. Not being willing to get rid of a parishioner is not the same as being required to let them do whatever volunteer work they feel like doing.
Yes. Thank you. I was having so many feelings ping-ponging around, but, I think this is the truth and what I was having trouble articulating to myself.
I think the church is being fed a snow job by pastor, too, now that I consider a bit.
@ eli
Other people here might be best able to offer support and advice, so I’ll just throw a few things into the mix.
First you’re very correct to trust your instincts. That may seem obvious; but it’s something you might have to force yourself to remember if you raise your concerns and people suggest you’re paranoid or over reacting. There’s a lot of social pressure on women to not make a fuss and unfortunately, but understandably, women end up succumbing to that and either remaining in situations that make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, or feeling that it’s incumbent on them to vacate the situation rather than the men.
If you can get hold of a copy of Gavin De Becker’s ‘Gift of Fear’ I’d highly recommend that as it covers this in a lot more detail.
Secondly, and related, I appreciate the dilemma you’re in. This is you’re dream job and it’s not something you want to jeopardise. That puts a lot of pressure on you not to ‘rock the boat. I can’t pretend there’s an easy answer to that. Obviously you’re safety and well being is the highest priority; but I completely understand that it’s trite to say ‘just walk away if you don’t get a satisfactory solution’.
I would though suggest you take steps to raise this issue. Is there anyone you can talk to about this? Even if theyre not the people who can make the ultimate decisions you can run this by them. They might be able to offer support when you do bring this to the relevant people, even if it’s just a bit of hand holding. Also it may be you’re not alone in your concerns. It can be hard to be the first person to speak out, but it might be there are others just waiting for someone else to do so. If you can identify each other beforehand, well, theres strength in numbers.
Best wishes for however you decide to deal with this.
Eli,
It sounds like quitting and finding a new job is not an option or is a very poor option for you. So it seems like you don’t have the leverage to say something along the lines of “get rid of them or I get.” But I do think it’s reasonable to tell them that you won’t be alone with them because it wouldn’t be safe. I’m also guessing that the one with the child abuse imagery (trying to use that term more often as opposed to child porn, even though it’s somewhat cumbersome) conviction is not allowed to work with children or be alone with him as part of his parole, so if the church were try to allow him to be around kids, I would report to the police or CPS.
I suck at giving advice on interpersonal relationships, so I’m pretty useless at giving advice as to how to handle this with your employer, but if it makes you feel better, you’re in the right to feel uncomfortable with this situation. You’re not being irrational, oversensitive, silly or whatever else people might try and tell you.
Oh my gosh, eli, that’s so terrible :c It sounds like it must be incredibly stressful. You absolutely, certainly, definitively don’t have to be around the guy, and the church should be supporting you, not just shrugging their shoulders. There’s no reason at all for it, beyond them not wanting to “cause a scene”. Instead they’re just letting you shoulder the burden of it all. But it’s a job, and I totally get how important that is to have. That’s a really uncomfortable situation to be in :s
It sounds like the pastor’s just trying to evade dealing with the problem, and is leaving you out in the cold. I mean, at the bare minimum he could get some extra people up in the loft to sit with you so that you aren’t alone! I’m glad that you were able to arrange that on your own at least.
@eli
Everyone else has solid advice, so imma leave it to them. I’ll just say that this:
or being “weirded out” or “uncomfortable” or whatever else are perfectly OK reactions to have. It’s OK to ask for advice or just to talk. And it’s OK not to know what to do or how to feel
Anyway, I hope everything works out. Hugs, love, and good luck
Since this is right now an active dumping ground for Awful, Just Plain Awful Shit, here’s a link.
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/november/1446296400/jess-hill/suffer-children
CN: Laws hosing children in Australia, MRAish arguments from the law-side, abso-fucking-lutely gut-wrenching and awful “research” and writing somewhere in the middle from Richard Gardner whose access to any writing tools should have been removed right after the first sentence put to paper, sexual abuse, murder… and I haven’t even finished reading it, I gotta read it in tiny chunks to avoid Hulk-level rage, so expect anything, up to surprise-assholes flying out of the page, spewing shit.
@Seven of Mine
Yes, Trump implied that all Mexicans were rapists. But — and it will surely cheer poor, beleaguered Roger to know that someone on this board is willing to be fair to Mister Trump — I’m sure he didn’t mean that.
No, he meant to say that all Mexican men were rapists.
Roger, you’re welcome.
@Alan Robertshaw
I’m the weirdo who picks up every flea market copy of Gift of Fear I find and gives them out to people. I should probably take another gander at the one I have right now to reassure myself. 🙂
@everyone
I have been typing and backspacing and typing and backspacing!
I really was blindsided. Pastor had never mentioned Paul before, only Peter. And he kept asking me if I knew Peter and I just kept saying no.
I have talked to the church president, yesterday. He’s young and he didn’t seem entirely comfortable with things and maybe I need to talk to him again.
So much of the problem is being new and not fully understanding the power dynamics at the church. I was just hired. I don’t even know who is on the council! (yeah, talk to prez)
Everyone has given me much good food for thought. I think I was angry when I found out and immediately smushed it down. I’m not going to pretend to be comfortable. And the more I think about it, I think today with Paul was just how it should be. I shouldn’t think of it as freezing. I was polite, but distant and that’s ok. I told him I needed to get to work. His reaction is his business.
@Eli
What a horrible situation. I’m so sorry that you’ve encountered this.
Just to be clear: Are you saying that one guy possessed child porn and one guy assaulted his girlfriend?
Echoing both you and Alan and maybe some other commenters, I’m going to suggest that you get other people involved. I think that this church is not the one you attend, or else I’d suggest that you approach your trusted friends there.
This church appears to be your employer only. Does the church have a board of directors? Then I suggest that you call the president of the board or another member of the board and share your concerns. Does the church have a secretary? Maybe you can ask her out for coffee and share your concerns. See what she says.
You can do this cautiously and discreetly and see how it goes. Worst case scenario: Nobody cares. In that case, you might want to consider resigning.
But I don’t think that will happen. A church is supposed to care about its members and employees. Also, a church needs to care about its image and its vulnerability to a lawsuit.
Does this church have a Sunday school? Plus a guy employed by the church who has been to prison for child porn?
I think that the president of the board might see your point about the church needing to protect itself — and, not incidentally, you.
I believe that the arguments you make about the guy with the child porn could also apply to the guy who’s on probation for assault, although maybe to a lesser degree.
@Eli
As always, great minds think alike. I’m glad you approached the president of the board of directors.
If that doesn’t work, try another member of the board. Maybe a woman this time.