I decided a long time ago that God must have a very robust sense of humor.

So long as we have outrage incentivised, click driven social media, then no, we will never reach peak man hating because man hating drives clicks, gets attention, etc.

On her twitters, Alexandra is fanning the flames she ignited in the interview....

Spider Robinson nailed God's sense of humor: "If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."

Every failure needs someone to blame.

Rex is on to something.

In short words under his dwindling hourglass, Hitchens described the larger project of the 21st century… From your school board to national engagement to the coherence of humanity.

"I'm tired, as a white male, of being blamed for everything that is wrong with the world."

That's the difference between us. I don't care if The Usual Suspects blame me specifically or in general. Because if I were specifically guilty of even a 1/10 of the crimes they blame me for, they'd pick their words with more caution.

To not anger me, as I might chop their heads off and stick them on pikes in a fit of rage.

I never really found out if anyone agreed with my premise, but I suspect that black people, and minorities in general (except Asians and Jews), recognized that their excuses dried up when we elected a black President.

When a black man became the most powerful man in the world, suddenly there began a mad and desperate race to insist that blacks, women, etc. are still oppressed, so they still must be coddled and still given free money and stuff.

"Oh, we don't have equality! White people are stealing our cultural identity! Cultural appropriation! How oppressive! Oh, no, we can't commit cultural appropriation! We're assimilating to the dominant culture to survive!"

This is also why nationally publicized hate crimes seem to invariably be revealed as hoaxes. "We're still oppressed! We're still victims!"

Never mind that the transgendered are more likely to commit murder than be murdered.

And black activists in particular don't appreciate anyone threatening their place as "Most Oppressed." Even though they aren't. Watch them flip out every time there's a gay protest event, and try to take over the event to make the focus on them.

Mansplaining, 72 cents to the dollar, etc.

“When you're actually powerful -- or work on yourself until you are -- you don't have to be rigid and humorless. You can relax, because you feel you've got what it takes to have command of your life -- which is healthy assertiveness rather than the passiveness that leads to hostile lashing out and the inevitable hatred of men (as well as women who don't give in to the victim role).“

* * * * * *

Amy, I’m curious, what are your criteria for viewing a woman as a true victim of sexual assault?

I’m sure both of us agree at each end of the spectrum: e.g. a woman is a true victim if she is walking down the street, some guy grabs her, drags her into an alley and rapes her. And that she’s not a true victim if she goes to a guy’s apt. after a date, sleeps with him because he’s very persuasive and then regrets it the next day.

But what about if a woman walks into a neighborhood that is known to be dangerous and gets sexually assaulted by a guy? Is she not a true victim because she should have known better? What if a woman goes back to a guy’s apt. after a date and he physically forces himself on her? Is she not a true victim because she should have known better?

"When I announce that I'm a black lesbian in transition, people take offence at that. Why?... Why am I not? How are you saying that I'm not?"

Gilliam is probably no less black or lesbian than Elizabeth Warren is American Indian. He should be just as entitled to reap the privileges and benefits of not being white and/or male as she is.

Terry Gilliam faces backlash after labeling #MeToo a 'witch-hunt'

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/04/terry-gilliam-metoo-witch-hunt-backlash

If there is ever to be a mainstream view again, it will simply have to accept the fact that labeling someone as "privileged" because of his sex or race or sexual preference is no different from labeling someone as inferior to you in 1600 because of his race or religion or ancestry. Intersectionality is the worst kind of prejudice, and is so dishonorable that all who promote it must be assumed malicious liars. There is no doubt to give them benefit of. It is simply self-evident that having been born without (some list of) handicaps can never mean I owe others anything. It is their problem.

The sad truth is that humanity is deeply flawed. Even saints have flaws. We are also prone to mental illness. Hitler was deeply nuts, as was Mao. Nutso people who get power create havoc. The same men who started wars also built highways and invented the iphone. That is our dual nature. It is a fucking miracle that we have civilization at all. To demand perfection is absurd. The demand that men not "objectify" women is to demand that men not be attracted to women. ha. not going to happen (fortunately)

We'll never reach peak hatred - for any group. We may, however, reach a temporary period of calm and sanity. And that may be the best we can hoper for.

I'm with Amy — if you've lost humor (and I don't mean just making fun of people, but a true sense of humor and perspective), you've lost it all.

If you can't take the piss out of Franklin Graham AND Caitlyn Jenner, then your ideology is the problem.

But what about if a woman walks into a neighborhood that is known to be dangerous and gets sexually assaulted by a guy? Is she not a true victim because she should have known better? What if a woman goes back to a guy’s apt. after a date and he physically forces himself on her? Is she not a true victim because she should have known better?

Yes, and yes.

However, it doesn't change the fact that she was dumb. She is a victim of sexual assault, and yes, she should have known better.

If I leave my house unlocked, and I get robbed, I'm still a victim of a burglary and robbery. However, it doesn't change the fact that I was careless in forgetting to lock my house.

The flip side is if that woman went to a guys apartment and had sex with him without any violence or force she is not a victim. She may have made a bad choice. She may have been uncomfortable. Doesn't matter. She was not sexually assaulted and is not a victim.

For the record, I suspect that one main reason girls and young women don't take as many precautions as they might is that they're surrounded by boys and men who constantly complain, loudly, about being treated with suspicion 24/7. Such as teen boys who complain about being treated like nothing but potential thieves, in stores. Or boys who complain about girlfriends who refuse to be alone with them in case the boys want more than kissing. ("What makes her think I'm going to use force, anyway?") Or men who get offended since they have to use their ATM cards at night because female strangers won't hold the doors open for them.

So women are told to be cautious while at the same time told not to be so suspicious. Who wouldn't get confused? A certain man, here, compared warning college women to watch their drinks (alcoholic or not) to "advising blacks to avoid an area where a KKK rally is going to take place in the near future."

Yet most men would be pretty offended to be compared to KKK members, right?

Also, from a well-known writer (just in case anyone doesn't get it):

"A con artist is just as much a thief as if he'd broken into his victim's safe-deposit box. 'The complainant showed incredibly bad judgment, Your Honor,' is not a legal defense. Why is rape different?"

Granted, that was in the 1990s. Not sure how much things have changed in the courts.