that's one of the things my post criticised - that the world pretends to hate Trump, but actually voted for him — Agustino

The world didn't vote for Trump. 62,979,879 people voted for Trump. And I'm sure a good number of those voted for Trump only because he was a Republican or only because he wasn't Hillary. There is a good amount of genuine hate for Trump.

The world didn't vote for Trump. 62,979,879 people voted for Trump. And I'm sure a good number of those voted for Trump only because he was a Republican or only because he wasn't Hillary. There is a good amount of genuine hate for Trump. — Michael

Do you agree that a majority, or at least close to a majority voted for Trump? Again, a polemical writing uses hyperbole to make a point. Do you actually think I meant to say that the world - namely China, India, etc. - voted for Trump? :s How can you interpret that writing so stupidly and literarily?!

Oh, so they're pseudo-scientific the way yours is. lol. Man! — Πετροκότσυφας

:s "Mine" is just the scientific facts I cited in the articles linked. Those scientific facts weren't recorded or written by me.

Apart from quoting different sentences and calling them crap, you've proved nothing. Even a child can do the same thing. Thanks for admitting you're here just to throw stones.

Just as if I were to say "London is the capital of England and women are inferior to men" then my statement would be sexist, even though my claim that London is the capital of England isn't. — Michael

Yes, largely because 50% of that is sexist. If you wrote an entire essay of 5000 words, which contained the sentence "women are inferior to men" in one single random instance which had little to do with the topic of the essay, the essay wouldn't be sexist. That sentence may be sexist, but not the essay.

Do you agree that a majority, or at least close to a majority voted for Trump? — Agustino

No, a majority didn't vote for Trump. There are 7 billion people in the world, 323 million people in the United States, 231 million eligible voters in the United States, and 129 million actual votes were cast. Trump's 63 million isn't a majority by any measure. And I don't know if 46% of the actual votes cast counts as close to a majority.

Do you actually think I meant to say that the world - namely China, India, etc. - voted for Trump? :s How can you interpret that writing so stupidly and literarily?!

Then who were you referring to when you said "[the world] actually voted for him"? And who were you referring to when you said "the world pretends to hate Trump"? Is this some false equivalency where you're using the term "world" to refer to two different groups of people? In which case your criticism of hypocrisy rests on a very obvious and nonsense equivocation.

The best you can do is claim that anyone who hates Trump but voted for him is a hypocrite. And I'd agree.

But it is as likely that the moderators will have fairly fuzzy ideas of how sexists, homophobes, and racists write, and will get it wrong -- at least sometimes. (That's not a deficiency on the part of moderators. It's just life.) — Bitter Crank

Which is another problem especially since most moderators lean on the same side with regards to their personal political and religious views. We should try to have a balanced moderator team, without an overwhelming number leaning towards one side. I've criticised this many times before, and even nominated people I'd think would make great moderators, but alas, they don't seem to be interested in altering the moderator team.

Then who were you referring to when you said "[the world] actually voted for him"? And who were you referring to when you said "the world pretends to hate Trump"? Is this some false equivalency where you're using the term "world" to refer to two different groups of people? — Michael

I referred to the same group of people. The majority who voted for him. The polls were wrong because many people were dishonest with the polls, but not dishonest in the voting booth.

I referred to the same group of people. The majority who voted for him. The polls were wrong because many people were dishonest with the polls, but not dishonest in the voting booth. — Agustino

What? It is a fact that Trump received 46.1% of the votes. That's not a majority.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the people who hate and criticise Trump didn't vote for him, so your accusation of hypocrisy against Trump-haters in general doesn't work.

Again, the best you can say is that anyone who hates Trump but voted for him anyway is a hypocrite. But that number is going to be even less than the 46.1% who voted for him (and he does have genuine supporters, given his current 34% approval rating). Definitely not a majority.

No, a majority didn't vote for Trump. There are 7 billion people in the world, 323 million people in the United States, 231 million eligible voters in the United States, and 129 million actual votes were cast. Trump's 63 million isn't a majority by any measure. And I don't know if 46% of the actual votes cast counts as close to a majority. — Michael

Right, so I couldn't be referring to that right? Or do you take it that I'm just very dumb and ignorant and am not aware of the population of the world vs the population of the US?

Okay, so let's discuss this from the ground up then. Why do you think that specific part was sexist? — Agustino

Is it because the word "all" was used with regards to the women on TV? — Agustino

You never addressed those points.

What is the Point with this thread?

What is the Point with this thread? — Beebert

To get Agustino under watch and eventually banned ;)

You made a disparaging remark about the women on TV on the basis that they're women. That's sexism.

Right, so I couldn't be referring to that right? Or do you take it that I'm just very dumb and ignorant and am not aware of the population of the world vs the population of the US? — Agustino

So who are you referring to when you say "the world hates Trump"? And who are you referring to when you say "the world voted for Trump"? Because it's pretty obvious that these are two separate groups (with perhaps only a small overlap). Most of his haters didn't vote for him, and I'm sure a lot of his voters don't hate him (or even pretend to hate him).

Clearly you don't think it's wrong enough to be honest about it.

You would spread the myth that, somehow, being on TV means a woman wants to be harassed or assaulted. You would approve the falsehood that a women on TV who is attracted to a foamier, rich man desires to be harassed and/or assaulted. You would claim opposition to the harassment and assault of women who appear on TV, is somehow inconsistent with those women appearing on TV, as the women on TV "really wanted it."

The polemic itself is based on sexist values. That, somehow, the right of women not to be subjected to harassment and assault, is dependent on their own behaviour, as if "women who appear on tv" were to be justly subjected to some sort of corrective harassment or assault.

You made a disparaging remark about the women on TV on the basis that they're women. That's sexism. — Michael

Okay, so let's look at it. Finally we have an explanation that we can discuss intelligently!

The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show. — Agustino

I think that quite the contrary I made disparaging remarks about women on TV on the basis that they're HYPOCRITES - and I may be wrong that they are (certainly that's what you will claim) - NOT on the basis that they're women.

I think that quite the contrary I made disparaging remarks about women on TV on the basis that they're HYPOCRITES - and I may be wrong that they are (certainly that's what you will claim) - NOT on the basis that they're women. — Agustino

No, you're accusing them of hypocrisy because you believe that they secretly desire him. But on what grounds do you base this accusation/belief? On the grounds that they're women, and according you women desire men like Trump.

You would spread the myth that, somehow, being on TV means a woman wants to be harassed or assaulted. You would approve the falsehood that a women on TV who is attracted to a foamier, rich man desires to be harassed and/or assaulted. You would claim opposition to the harassment and assault of women who appear on TV, is somehow inconsistent with those women appearing on TV, as the women on TV "really wanted it." — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, that's not at all true. I don't understand how you essentially tie being on TV with hypocrisy. I'm criticising hypocrisy, and giving the example of "the women on TV" to do it. The fact that they are women, and that they are on TV are secondary to the underlying hypocrisy that my post is targetting. Namely that our society wants to abolish sexism on the surface - we criticise Trump on TV and in the polls - but in the voting booth we cast our votes for him.

No, you're accusing them of hypocrisy because you believe that they secretly desire him. But on what grounds do you base this accusation? On the grounds that they're women, and according you women desire men like Trump. — Michael

So if Trump was gay, and he grabbed men by the whatever, and I therefore said that men on the TV pretend to hate Trump but actually love him and desire what he'd do to them, would I be a sexist? Or is it only being a sexist when the same is said with regards to women?

No, the accusation that they desire him isn't based on their sex, but rather on their lust combined with their heterosexuality and the values of our society. We encourage people - both men and women - to want to have sexual intercourse with rich and famous people. If Trump was attracted to men, I would've said the same thing about them.

Probably on the basis that all people want to be at the Centre of attention. I agree that agustino formulated himself and his standpoint in a bit clumsy way, but you all look at this in a too black and white way. The way people act and what they desire isnt either/or in most cases, but BOTH. Agustino can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand his posts as meaning something in that direction. And People should be aware and honest that they most often desire both while pretending to condemn one side and stand on the other.

But that's just the problem-- they're aren't hypocrites. Even if they were attracted to Trump, they could still object to his harassment and assault without any issue. They could even vote for him and they still wouldn't be hypocrites in identifying his sexist behaviour, harassment and assault of women.

For the argument of your polemic to function, you have to equivocate attraction with consent, voting for Trump with identifications of his sexist character, etc. For you polemic to have any force, you literally have to believe a lie, confuse the significance of different actions for each other.

What People most often desire is conflict, problems and something that happpens; action and reaction. The rest is just acting.

Even if they were attracted to Trump, they could still object to his harassment and assault without any issue. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If a woman wants a man to touch her, is that assault if the man touches her? I am condemning their lust in that part - namely that they secretly desire such things - NOT excusing Trump. Trump's behaviour is still immoral - EVEN IF - they actually do want to be touched by him.

So if Trump was gay, and he grabbed men by the whatever, and I therefore said that men on the TV pretend to hate Trump but actually love him and desire what he'd do to them, would I be a sexist? — Agustino

Depends on why you believe that the men on TV secretly desire it. If it's because they're men, and you believe that men desire this kind of attention from men like Trump, then you're making a disparaging remark about people based on a stereotype of their gender. That's sexism. If, however, your accusation has nothing to do with their gender then no, it wouldn't be.

No, the accusation that they desire him isn't based on their sex, but rather on their lust combined with their heterosexuality and the values of our society.

So you're claiming that heterosexual women are lustful and desire the sexual attention of men like Trump, and so the heterosexual women on TV are hypocrites who secretly desire Trump. That's a disparaging remark about people based on a stereotype of their gender, i.e. sexism.

Even worse, if we do consider people who are hypocrites, that is, who calling we ought to disavowal Trump becasue of his sexism but who then turn around and vote for him, their statements are actually trustworthy with respect to the given moral goal.

If it were true, as the hypocrite stated, that we ought not vote for Trump because of his sexism, then we'd ought to agree with the statement, even if the person ended up being a hypocrite and voted for Trump.

So why do you think that the women on TV secretly desire Trump's attention? — Michael

I think some of them secretly desire Trump's attention because we are educated, as a society, to draw self-esteem from sex, especially with people in a position of authority/power. That's why people, including women, do sometimes desire that. As you can see, it's a critique of a social value - women on TV in this case are just an example.

If it's because they're men, and you believe that men desire this kind of attention from men like Trump, then you're making a disparaging remark about people based on a stereotype of their gender. — Michael

Yes, except that it's not their gender which causes them to desire attention from men like Trump, but their values.

Even if they were attracted to Trump, they could still object to his harassment and assault without any issue.
— TheWillowOfDarkness
If a woman wants a man to touch her, is that assault if the man touches her? I am condemning their lust in that part - namely that they secretly desire such things - NOT excusing Trump. Trump's behaviour is still immoral - EVEN IF - they actually do want to be touched by him.

This one may be even worse than the original post.

This one may be even worse than the original post. — John Harris

Care to explain why? If a woman actually wants to be touched by a man, that isn't assault, by definition it's not assault. Now if the woman doesn't want to be touched, then yes, that would be assault.

And I've stated that Trump's behaviour (touching them) would be immoral even if they wanted to be touched in that post. So how you can possibly claim that's sexist, I have no idea.

Your post explains it all. I warned you about digging your hole deeper. You should have listened.

That's incoherent. If a woman had consented, it would not be assault or harassment, whether it was immoral or not.

This instance cannot be applied to any instance of harassment or assault we might be talking about. If we are talking about an instance of assault or harassment, the morality of a consensual activity isn't at stake.