No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
if DT was anyone else he would have been held with no bail for having 90+ pending felonies and having been convicted of 32 already. The fact that his passport has not been restricted is clear evidence that being "rich & famous" gets you different treatment.
There was a thing he said back in the early 2000s, and it was leaked around the 2016 election. He was talking about women, and said something to the effect of "When you're rich, and famous, they let you grab em by their pussy".
People at the time were angry that his views were that, but, honestly, that's the life he's lived. That's the life he knows as reality. WE see it as disgusting, because he's saying that women can be treated as sex objects, and that he's ok with that. He see's it as just the world we live in, because women approach him and treat THEMSELVES as sex objects. Those are the women that approach him, so that's the experience he has with women. Women who only want him for his money.
And now we see it even applies to the courts. Maybe we should still be mad at him for having those views, but also understand why he has those views, and start holding society accountable. Maybe we should be angry at parents who don't teach their daughters to have more self respect than to find some rich guy to bang for money.
Because at the end of the day, all trump is saying is "I get treated differently, because I'm rich."
And as angering as that is to hear....he's not wrong. He's just an asshole.
He was tried and found guilty of raping a woman.
She wasn't some sugarbaby coming on to him; she was going about her day and he decided that he could do what he wanted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
He also perved on teenage girls
https://people.com/politics/donald-trump-walks-in-miss-teen-usa-contestants-changing/
That's not true. He's never been convicted of a sex crime. "Found liable" in a civil court and "found guilty" in a criminal court are VASTLY different, and require VASTLY different standards of evidence.
It's important to be accurate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
The judge found that Trump committed rape. The fact that he wasn't tried for that crime doesn't change the facts.
I don't think those Miss America contenders asked him to get handsy
That's some A+ victim blaming right there. E. Jean Carroll didn't do shit
...and what world are you living in that these women are approaching him at all? He had to get a financial arrangement to buy a marriage with Melania, a person who won't fucking touch him, and slaps away his hand when he tries to touch her. He had to pay a shitload of money to have a chance with Stormy Daniels, same with Karen McDougal, and he paid even more money to try to cover up that he did.
Trump is a rapist and the way he treats women is the way of a rapist. You're fucking deluding yourself if you think lots of attractive women have approached Donald Trump. Nearly every woman he has ever touched he has paid for the pleasure of doing so. Even when he has "grabbed women by the pussy" he pays through lawsuits. He just thinks that's the cost of being a gross rapist.
Literally the only woman I can think of off the top of my head who we have proof who has moved on Trump is Laura fucking Loomer who isn't exactly a beautiful woman, my dude.
I can't believe a bogus post arguing that Trump is more of a ladies man than a rapist has so many upvotes.
My post never said anything close to him being a ladies man. My post is that trump views women as transactional property, and that sex is something he gets for free because he's rich.
How did you read my post and think I was describing a ladies man??? His views are gross and a result of his experiences.
But your perspective just confuses me how you got 2 + 2 = potato.
Maybe it's the victim blaming...
It's not victim blaming because he's not referring to the same women you are. Like it or not, there are plenty of women (no one is saying it's all or most women, by the way) who will pursue rich men with the desire for a purely transactional "I'll fuck you so I can have your wealthy lifestyle and/or a part of your fame." They're perfectly content with that arrangement, as are said men.
Johnny Depp's girlfriends for decades have basically all been women in this category, even now that he's way past his prime aesthetically. The women accusing Trump of sexual impropriety are, obviously, NOT in this category.
Women are not a hivemind--different types of them can exist in the same society, you know.
Everywhere I come across you, you're providing yet another example of your username being spot-fucking-on.
I'm like visa. I'm everywhere you want to be!
So by this logic if some 12yo girl is flirting it up big time with a grown ass man and they fuck. Instead of being mad at the man for doing this, we should blame the little 12yo girl and her parents for not raising her better(?) Should we instead sympathize with the man cus "Oh that poor guy, all he's ever known is having sex with children! Lets not blame him! Thats just his life and how he lives!"
It's called having a set of functioning fucking Morals. I'm not going to jump off of a cliff- or better yet, get into a tin can to go and see the titanic just because "oh this is just what I'm exposed to, this is normal for me, other rich men do it so this is my life now." He is a grown ass man in his 70's now. He knows that adultery is wrong; don't blame the woman for her already shitty lifestyle. You think those woman wanna fuck Trump and his soggy ass?? Woman don't typically thrust themselves at old men with cash unless they are severely fuck outta luck and have a terrible life as is... or they just have a fetish for em. Prostitution is their JOB. And 9/10 they're likely fucking slaves to a pimp or are being trafficked. Why tf do you think Trump was friends with Epstein??!
Sorry I got severe ADHD and a lack of a filter. When talking about stuff that pisses me off- pedophilia for that matter- I tend to put far more emphasis on stuff like that as a reminder of just how actually uncomfortable that shit is. I particularly do this to people who don't understand just how god awful pedophilia is. I dont like to sugar coat or dance around subjects like that by using nicer or softer words. I find pedos revolting and uncomfortable, so I'm gonna describe them in a way that is revolting and uncomfortable
TLDR; I get passionately angry about some shit and its reflected in how I type or talk. The worse the subject the more Hard-hitting or offensive my vocabulary may be to express said emotions I have on that subject
The not-so-subtle misogyny of equating adult women with children, depriving them of all agency, strikes yet again.
You seem to only blame one person, and my entire point somehow went right over your head (and quite a few peoples heads to be fair).
You seem to think I'm defending trump. Or normalizing his behavior. I'm not. I'm saying to try to understand someones behaviors, you have to see things from their perspective. If you can understand other people from their perspective, even if you don't agree with it, you can begin to understand that persons actions.
Also if you only blame one person in a situation, you'll always be wrong. There's no such thing as a situation caused by multiple people that don't have multiple people at blame.
In your example, yes I would blame the old guy, the parents, and the girl. Just not in equal amounts. No one talks about why the old guy is responsible for his share of the blame, because that much is obvious. If a tsunami hit Miami, and destroyed lots of buildings, you wouldn't say "You know what did the damage? The water. I blame the water." No, you'd blame city planners, and government officials for not executing a plan decades prior to build flood barriers, and design the city in a way that deals with hurricanes. We know what the natural disasters are going to do. We can plan around the disasters. But if we fail to do so, we don't blame the hurricanes and tsunamis. We blame the people who failed to do anything about the tsunamis and hurricanes. Knowing they're coming. Yes, we all know the disasters are to blame, but that much is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said.
Im not blaming one person. I'm blaming this whole ass country for falling into the way that it did. But your victim blaming is disgusting as fuck, and you write as though we should feel sympathy for a man that is basically the villain. This man alone has done far more harm than the random hooker he wanted to fuck. I see things from a lot of perspective. But I'm not about to put an equal amount of blame on the possibly trafficked Sex worker like I would the Billionaire who's friends with a child rapist. Sure some of that could be her fault, but it takes a bigger person to just fucking say NO. Trump has virtually no excuse, as do the other people that do this. The anonymous Sex workers probably wouldn't be doing what their doing if that had an actual shot at life, at doing something they truly enjoyed. Its naive to think that any woman that "wants" to have sex with trump truly wants it or just wants their money. If we're gonna play your game of "well think about it from all perspectives" then I want you to really put on your thinking cap. Just why in the flying fuck would a grown woman, a sex worker, WANT to have sex with someone as psychically revolting as Trump. And better yet keep her name anonymous after she does it.
I dont express empathy or Sympathy for RICH people; the same people who have all the recourses in the world; that do deplorable shit and then refuse to learn from doing said deplorable shit. I would have sympathy if he LEARNED, but he doesn't. So nah I'm not gonna give him any kind of benefit of the doubt.
You still don't get it. You're still approaching this as if I'm sympathizing with trump. You're acting as if I'm defending him. And as long as you continue to approach this conversion with that mindset, after I've explained three times it's not about blame or sympathy, it's about understanding the world around you by understanding the people at play and why they do what they do.
If you aren't willing to seperate yourself from your own perspective, then you're never going to get what I'm saying. It's not just trump. Take whomever you think is the worst person in history. Now defend their actions. If you're unable to defend the people whom you consider to be the most vile on the planet, then you do not understand their perspective. You don't have to agree with it, but if you can't logically defend them, then you're either inserting your own perspective into their perspective, or you're trying to approach things from an emotional level. I could defend hitler. I could defend ghengis khan. I could defend bill cosby. Doesn't mean I agree with any of them, but if you try to see their perspective, you can UNDERSTAND them.
It's never about sympathy. It's always about perspective and understanding. Then extracting information out of that perspective to gain new insight to the world around you.
But if you're not willing to do that, then we're having two seperate conversations, and I see no point in me continueing. Because I've explained the concept several times, and at this point it's less of a conversation, and more of an arguement, in which both sides are approaching the arguement from completely unrelated perspectives and will never have a resolution.
I understand the perspective dude, but what you don't understand is that trying to suggest this perspective can lead to sympathy or an excusing if his behavior. American citizens are fairly dense, a large majority of people will read this post and get the same ideas that a large amount of everyone else here got, but without the part of "Im not sympathizing with him"
Its understandable how he could think the way that he does, but regardless I feel nothing for him, even if it is tragic he turned out this way.
You still don't get it. You're still approaching this as if I'm sympathizing with trump. You're acting as if I'm defending him. And as long as you continue to approach this conversion with that mindset, after I've explained three times it's not about blame or sympathy, it's about understanding the world around you by understanding the people at play and why they do what they do.
If you aren't willing to seperate yourself from your own perspective, then you're never going to get what I'm saying. It's not just trump. Take whomever you think is the worst person in history. Now defend their actions. If you're unable to defend the people whom you consider to be the most vile on the planet, then you do not understand their perspective. You don't have to agree with it, but if you can't logically defend them, then you're either inserting your own perspective into their perspective, or you're trying to approach things from an emotional level. I could defend hitler. I could defend ghengis khan. I could defend bill cosby. Doesn't mean I agree with any of them, but if you try to see their perspective, you can UNDERSTAND them.
It's never about sympathy. It's always about perspective and understanding. Then extracting information out of that perspective to gain new insight to the world around you.
But if you're not willing to do that, then we're having two seperate conversations, and I see no point in me continueing. Because I've explained the concept several times, and at this point it's less of a conversation, and more of an arguement, in which both sides are approaching the arguement from completely unrelated perspectives and will never have a resolution.