Trump is well known for publicly bullying his political rivals, but the former president’s campaign has also used similar tactics to launch private, relentless attacks against some of its own workers.
Back then, most people didn’t understand the threat that was Trump. I sure didn’t know all of the horrific things he did. This was pre Epstein. This was before Stormy.
I thought he was just a bombastic rich asshole with a shit political outlook.
Someone taking a job in that campaign had no reason to think it would be toxic. Most campaigns are not run by the candidate but by the party.
“Deserved” is a subjective qualifier though. It doesn’t really mean anything without reference to an ethical framework for context.
Saying I deserve a doughnut, basically means I want a donut unless there’s a specific context that alludes to why you should be rewarded with a doughnut.
I don’t really think so, otherwise they probably would have said it. I think you’re just utilizing loaded terminology to suit your argument.
It would be like seeing the guys from jackass injure themselves in a stunt, and then accusing people who witnessed it of being callous for not being sympathetic. “No one deserves to break their penis for entertainment purposes!”… Well, okay, I guess that’s a nice platitude. But that guy was swinging his dick at an angry bull, and no one was making him do it.
I am so tired of this prescriptive bullshit on online forms. If you don’t see it then fine, you don’t see it. But don’t make up some nonsense about me to pretend I didn’t read what I read. We just disagree, it’s that simple.
Sometimes people mean more than the words in front of you. It’s called nuance, implications, etc. People mean more than what they literally wrote sometimes. Yet for some reason when we are on forums people pretend that doesn’t exist, like interpretation can’t exist ever.
There’s a difference in victim blaming via " what was she wearing" and someone knowingly walking into a lions den while wearing a meat dress like Lady Gag.
It would be a little different if she didn’t actively work to empower a person whose platform revolves around harassing and silencing women who have been sexually assaulted.
Being a bad person does not mean you give up any assumption of basic human dignity.
People who take people’s dignity in an inhumane manor do not themselves deserve to be treated with basic dignity. That’s just inviting a paradox of abuse.
That’s okay, people are allowed to have differing opinions. I was just curious about the extent of your world view. It seems to invite internal contradictions, or at least rely on a hefty amount of cognitive dissidence.
For example, if no one deserves that type of treatment, what does the person committing or enabling those acts deserve?
If they deserve a punishment, why not the one they laid upon others? Is it because of the nature of the treatment is somehow worse than other punishments? If it is worse for some reason, why do they deserve better treatment than what they serve to others?
Absolutely losing it over “cognitive dissidence”. I know you meant “dissonance”, but the way you spelled it is probably more accurate.
“Cognitive dissonance” is when a person’s behaviors don’t match their stated values or beliefs. It’s basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate. I’m not seeing it in @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone’s argument here. They’re basically just disagreeing with you about whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering. They’ve been perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and you haven’t offered any actual justification for your position aside from a petty appeal to disgust.
“Cognitive dissidence” reads like “If you disagree with me you’re wrong”, which is exactly your attitude here.
Cognitive dissonance" is when a person’s behaviors don’t match their stated values or beliefs. It’s basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate.
I don’t think thats the definition of cognitive dissonance. It’s just holding two conflicting ideas at the same time, so your behaviour is by default not aligning with your ideas, because it’s impossible.
I think the cognitive dissonance lies in the fact that they state no one should be subjected to that behavior, but they are arguing in favour of a person who is perpetuating the action upon others.
whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering
Right, but they were the only person who brought in the concept of “deserve”, it’s a strawman argument.
Deserve implies some sort of ethical construct to judge the justification of the action. When in reality we are not choosing wether or not this action is being done, just witnessing it.
Cognitive dissidence"
Yeah, for some reason my autocorrect really like dissidence over dissonance. But I’d say that’s a fairly pedantic point to base your argument.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
She was working to make sure that far worse harassment happened to much more vulnerable people.
I’m not going to cry when she gets some splash damage.
Back then, most people didn’t understand the threat that was Trump. I sure didn’t know all of the horrific things he did. This was pre Epstein. This was before Stormy.
I thought he was just a bombastic rich asshole with a shit political outlook.
Someone taking a job in that campaign had no reason to think it would be toxic. Most campaigns are not run by the candidate but by the party.
I mean, he began his political career by a racist attack on Obama.
He started his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers.
He said a judge couldn’t be fair to him because the guy had Mexican heritage.
He openly campaigned on a Muslim ban in the US and commiting war crimes by killing the families of terrorists.
There was a tape where he admitted to sexual assault.
Any ignorance to the fact that he was a vile, racist, bigoted rapist was intentional. Doubly so if she worked to get him elected.
Correct. Everyone full well knew what a sack of shit he was. 2016 at the absolute latest. Everyone in New York knew for decades. She knew.
You’d think someone politically connected enough to work for him would know.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
She worked to make my kids a target because she didn’t think it would impact her life.
I don’t have any sympathy for anyone who did that.
I keep getting reminded of Serena Waterford when it comes to so many Republican women…
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Maybe you should eat something.
You sound a bit grumpy.
We’ll talk after you’ve had your nap, okay buddy?
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Ah, so insulting my parenting was productive, but getting called on it was a bit too spicy.
You truly are the bigger person.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
deleted by creator
In your view, does anyone “deserve” mistreatment?
Because being mangled by the machine you helped build to mangle people, kinda just seems like poetic irony.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
“Deserved” is a subjective qualifier though. It doesn’t really mean anything without reference to an ethical framework for context.
Saying I deserve a doughnut, basically means I want a donut unless there’s a specific context that alludes to why you should be rewarded with a doughnut.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
I don’t really think so, otherwise they probably would have said it. I think you’re just utilizing loaded terminology to suit your argument.
It would be like seeing the guys from jackass injure themselves in a stunt, and then accusing people who witnessed it of being callous for not being sympathetic. “No one deserves to break their penis for entertainment purposes!”… Well, okay, I guess that’s a nice platitude. But that guy was swinging his dick at an angry bull, and no one was making him do it.
I am so tired of this prescriptive bullshit on online forms. If you don’t see it then fine, you don’t see it. But don’t make up some nonsense about me to pretend I didn’t read what I read. We just disagree, it’s that simple.
Sometimes people mean more than the words in front of you. It’s called nuance, implications, etc. People mean more than what they literally wrote sometimes. Yet for some reason when we are on forums people pretend that doesn’t exist, like interpretation can’t exist ever.
There’s a difference in victim blaming via " what was she wearing" and someone knowingly walking into a lions den while wearing a meat dress like Lady Gag.
It would be a little different if she didn’t actively work to empower a person whose platform revolves around harassing and silencing women who have been sexually assaulted.
People who take people’s dignity in an inhumane manor do not themselves deserve to be treated with basic dignity. That’s just inviting a paradox of abuse.
Exactly.
There’s a big difference between blaming the victim and reaping the whirlwind.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
That’s okay, people are allowed to have differing opinions. I was just curious about the extent of your world view. It seems to invite internal contradictions, or at least rely on a hefty amount of cognitive dissidence.
For example, if no one deserves that type of treatment, what does the person committing or enabling those acts deserve?
If they deserve a punishment, why not the one they laid upon others? Is it because of the nature of the treatment is somehow worse than other punishments? If it is worse for some reason, why do they deserve better treatment than what they serve to others?
Absolutely losing it over “cognitive dissidence”. I know you meant “dissonance”, but the way you spelled it is probably more accurate.
“Cognitive dissonance” is when a person’s behaviors don’t match their stated values or beliefs. It’s basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate. I’m not seeing it in @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone’s argument here. They’re basically just disagreeing with you about whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering. They’ve been perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and you haven’t offered any actual justification for your position aside from a petty appeal to disgust.
“Cognitive dissidence” reads like “If you disagree with me you’re wrong”, which is exactly your attitude here.
I don’t think thats the definition of cognitive dissonance. It’s just holding two conflicting ideas at the same time, so your behaviour is by default not aligning with your ideas, because it’s impossible.
I think the cognitive dissonance lies in the fact that they state no one should be subjected to that behavior, but they are arguing in favour of a person who is perpetuating the action upon others.
Right, but they were the only person who brought in the concept of “deserve”, it’s a strawman argument.
Deserve implies some sort of ethical construct to judge the justification of the action. When in reality we are not choosing wether or not this action is being done, just witnessing it.
Yeah, for some reason my autocorrect really like dissidence over dissonance. But I’d say that’s a fairly pedantic point to base your argument.