The Women Show Us How It Should Be Done

A short story with a heartwarming ending. First, here’s the photo of Kellyanne Conway in the Oval Office that had people so upset.

kellyanne-familiar-3

People tweeted that she should get her feet off the sofa, all kinds of bitter ugliness … leading to loads of pictures of Obama with his feet on the furniture, and the exposure of the hollow nature of the knee-jerk opposition to Ms. Conway.

However, then it turned ugly. Here’s the offensive comment of Representative Cedric Richmond, courtesy of the WaPo.

Earlier in the program, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) had joked that “a whole lot worse” had happened on that sofa in the 1990s, an apparent reference to former president Bill Clinton, who carried on an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

kellyanne-familiar-4

Richmond, who followed the South Carolina Republican, picked up the thread in his comedy routine. Here’s the full “joke”: “Tim, you kind of opened the door,” he said. “I really just want to know what was going on there, because, you know, I won’t tell anybody. And you can just explain to me that circumstance — because she really looked kind of familiar in that position there. Don’t answer — and I don’t want you to refer back to the 1990s.”

I was stunned when I read that, blown away. That was vicious, underhanded, and vile.

So I waited to see if there would be a response from the Democrats. To my shock it came as a tweet from Chelsea Clinton, a woman who has never done anything I’ve actually admired until today:

kellyanne-familiar-1

And finally, the tweet in acknowledgement from Kellyanne Conway, noting in passing that they both have daughters named “Charlotte”:

kellyanne-familiar-2

Damn … well done, those women! OK, guys, get with the picture, we’re falling behind …

w.

Advertisements

61 thoughts on “The Women Show Us How It Should Be Done

  1. I’m guessing that she actually had her feet upon the sofa so that she wouldn’t get in the frame when the photo was taken of Donald’s guests.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It was reported that the official photographer asked her to get out from his view. I’ve seen that photo — and so it came to pass.
      I haven’t tried to confirm that story — and don’t care enough to try. My bias.
      I’m making a list of people, mostly elected Democrats, that I do not care to be in the same room with.
      That list is getting quite long.

      Like

  2. How about the idea that this photo was planned in some way. It goes viral, and everyone sees that Trump met with many black leaders, something that would not have been reported otherwise. And then the media goes after a woman, showing their gender bias.

    Liked by 1 person

    • After reading your post I watched the foto again and noticed that most of the people visible are black, coloured, with african ancestry… (what’s currently pc?)

      Like

    • I just made myself laugh and concerned when you mentioned the room full of many black leaders. I was so focused on the story and focus on Kelly, I didn’t notice the room full of black leaders. As I say that concerns me that I can have someone have my focus on one thing and miss the larger picture.

      Like

  3. I rather liked the Russian FM spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to CNN: “Stop Spreading Lies and Fake News”

    Think she’s warned both the US and British crap media before.

    Like

    • Dennis, you need to reread the post. Sen. Tim Scot is one of the good guys. It is Cedric Richmond,in his supposed comedy routine, that turned it obscene.

      Like

  4. She just sits/kneel there like she were in her own living room. The only person not standing. Where are her shoes? Those guys with their ties look quite stuffy to me. I wonder what they thought when they saw her taking off her shoes(?) and sitting down.
    I think there’s a message. Maybe the purpose was to break the ice?

    Like

  5. A Liberal can always find something to be offended by. How about the fact that the black women are all in the back of the room? Where’s the feminist outrage?

    Like

    • Bear: “How about the fact that the black women are all in the back of the room?”

      Closest to President Trump? In the positions of honor? You won’t hear a peep from feminists because more people than just me would notice that.

      Like

      • And you missed my point. Someone can always find something to be outraged about even though you can look at it in a positive sense.

        Like

        • No, no… I got your point, Bear. You were clear. My response, based on what you wrote, was not clear.

          I should have put a winky at the end of my comment as I was having a little fun at the expense of the perpetually offended feminists. They were between a rock and a hard place on this photo and – better than a winky – I should have thrown in “rock/hard place” somewhere in my comment.

          Anyhow, the President ‘Trumped’ the feminists with this grouping and I was being ‘cheeky’ about pointing it out by contrasting your “women are all in the back” with my two questions regarding their positioning.

          My being a bit cheeky about the grouping didn’t come through the written word as it would have if we were talking over a beer. If I had written just a little more then, I wouldn’t be writing twice as much to you now.

          Like

  6. Oh… YAY! Willis has ads!

    Not being sarcastic. I hope you make lots of money off of them, Willis, or at least enough pocket money to buy a piece of furniture grade walnut or mahogany here and there.

    I don’t mind the ads at all so long as they don’t pop up, follow me around on the page, or block the article or comments. I even click on a few here and there, particularly if the ad is for fishing equipment.

    Like

    • H.R., I don’t make any money off the ads. They are part of the price I pay for the free WordPress blog hosting … or I could pay WordPress to get rid of them.

      Weird, huh? It’s almost like a Mafia tactic, viz:

      “Nice blog you got … be a shame if it was to get a bunch of ads, but if you pay me I’ll make sure that doesn’t happen!”

      w.

      Like

      • Willis: “I don’t make any money off the ads.”

        Ohhh.. rats on roller skates! (My grandfather’s strongest epithet.)

        I was obviously hoping you’d get a bit of change from them. I’m sad to hear you’re not getting a dime.

        Like

      • “It’s almost like a Mafia tactic. . .”

        No it isn’t. Nothing is ‘free’. Someone is paying for your WordPress server time and storage space. Some companies will let small-time users in for free in hopes they’ll become big-time users; I have a ‘free’ Zoho IMAP email account which is ad-free (and Zoho doesn’t mine your mail as Google reportedly does). I also have two WordPress blogs. WordPress I would guess has lots more small-time users like me than Zoho does (Zoho is targeted to business users). The ads presumably pay WordPress something for my ‘free’ accounts. I can’t fault them for that.

        /Mr Lynn

        Like

  7. What does Brendan Smialowski of Agence France-Presse have to say about this photo? Or anyone else in it? Nothing about who they are or why they are there? With the media you don’t even need to say “squirrel!”.

    http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a43432/everyone-in-this-photo-is-making-a-strange-life-choice/
    I found this with Google image search. Nothing special about it except it includes another photo which explains what she was doing in the viral photo.

    Since the internet removed the rock over the creepy things, my estimation of humanity has taken a dive. It turns out life is just one big high school. Bullies, popularity contests, cliques. I wouldn’t know except for Hollywood, I’d rather live under my own rock.

    Like

  8. As a PR guy for a number of years, I developed a sixth sense for staying out of the shot when there was photography happening (you ruin the shot if you’re in it). Kellyanne is a pro and clearly has a similar camera awareness.

    Like

  9. Kellyanne is a lightning rod for the Left, I suppose because she is an admirable example of a confident, successful woman, comfortable in the public eye—but a conservative. Right after the election, I posted an admiring screed, suggesting her role in the Trump campaign was like Dorothy destroying the Wicked Witch of the West. Some of the hits on that post were from lefties searching for ‘Kellyanne Conway = Wicked Witch’. Imagine their surprise when they discovered that the Wicked Witch was Missus Clinton!

    The post is here, if you care to peruse:
    https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/kellyanne-and-the-wicked-witch-of-the-west/

    /Mr Lynn

    Like

  10. “The Women Show Us How It Should Be Done”

    You mean pearl clutching, virtue signalling and PC outrage culture? Chelsea does provide a solid example, and you’re applauding? C’mon, Willis. Figure it out.

    Bad jokes should be mocked in return or ignored, not used as a springboard for social preening.

    Chelsea probably only tweeted because of the reference to her rapist daddy. If she truly were a strong women who defends other women, she wouldn’t be so quiet about Billy.

    Like

    • Rob, I like to receive credit where credit is due. As a result, and apparently unliike you, I also like to give credit where credit is due.

      Plus, claiming you know why Chelsea tweeted is a joke. You can’t read minds, you have zero idea of her motives. That is just your groundless fantasy of why she is tweeting.

      I can see that you are upset about the election’s aftermath, but please, be more selective in directing that at people who’ve actually done something wrong.

      Plus, consider the optics. Blasting someone’s daughter because you don’t like her father … remind you of what happens to someone named Ivanka?

      If we expect decency and gentility from the other side, we absolutely need to give it when it is due.

      w.

      PS—If you expect Chelsea Clinton (or almost any daughter) to stand up in public and accuse her father … well, perhaps you don’t have a daughter. I love my daughter, but she is often blessedly blind to my faults … and even when she’s not she doesn’t scream them in public.

      Like

      • “claiming you know why Chelsea tweeted is a joke.”

        Perhaps I have committed some sort of fallacy by imputing her motive so let’s focus on her personal record and the content of the tweet itself. “Despicable” – it’s pageantry and pearl clutchery.

        “please, be more selective in directing that at people who’ve actually done something wrong.”

        Chelsea has done something wrong. She works at the Clinton foundation and personally benefits from the ill-gotten money it launders. She played an active role in promoting her mother, victimizer of victims, as a champion of women.

        “Blasting someone’s daughter because you don’t like her father … remind you of what happens to someone named Ivanka?”

        If the daughter or son in question is an adult and has taken an active role in promoting his/her parent(s)’ interests, then they are fair game. E.g. Ivanka is fair game for fair criticism, Barron is not.

        “If you expect Chelsea Clinton (or almost any daughter) to stand up in public and accuse her father … well, perhaps you don’t have a daughter. I love my daughter, but she is often blessedly blind to my faults … and even when she’s not she doesn’t scream them in public.”

        I don’t expect her to come clean and act against her parents’ and her own interests. You shouldn’t expect me to rationalize her complicity in wrong-doing because she’s a woman. That’s not fair to me or to women. Chelsea doesn’t get to enjoy the benefits of her family’s corruption while hiding behind the guise of some innocent little girl.

        Like

        • Rob Morrow March 6, 2017 at 8:41 am

          “claiming you know why Chelsea tweeted is a joke.”

          Perhaps I have committed some sort of fallacy by imputing her motive …

          There are actually two fallacies. The first one is that you can see into her skull. The second is that her motives matter.

          You’re like a guy who is getting rescued from the ocean and wants to know if your rescuers are politically correct …

          … so let’s focus on her personal record and the content of the tweet itself. “Despicable” – it’s pageantry and pearl clutchery.

          “Focus on her personal record”? What the hell does her “personal record” have to do with anything? We’re not assessing her effect on history, we’re discussing specific actions of hers.

          “please, be more selective in directing that at people who’ve actually done something wrong.”

          Chelsea has done something wrong. She works at the Clinton foundation and personally benefits from the ill-gotten money it launders. She played an active role in promoting her mother, victimizer of victims, as a champion of women.

          Yes, Chelsea has done wrong things. So what? You’ve done wrong things in your life, as have I. Should we be forever cast into the outer darkness? Do the wrong things we’ve done make our current good acts meaningless?

          “Blasting someone’s daughter because you don’t like her father … remind you of what happens to someone named Ivanka?”

          If the daughter or son in question is an adult and has taken an active role in promoting his/her parent(s)’ interests, then they are fair game. E.g. Ivanka is fair game for fair criticism, Barron is not.

          Dang … are my comments really that unclear? Ivanka is certainly fair game for fair criticism. But you are busting Chelsea, not for what she has done, but for what her father did, viz:

          Chelsea probably only tweeted because of the reference to her rapist daddy.

          Whether her “rapist daddy” has anything to do with her actions is immaterial. It is just a pathetic attempt to blacken her actions.

          “If you expect Chelsea Clinton (or almost any daughter) to stand up in public and accuse her father … well, perhaps you don’t have a daughter. I love my daughter, but she is often blessedly blind to my faults … and even when she’s not she doesn’t scream them in public.”

          I don’t expect her to come clean and act against her parents’ and her own interests. You shouldn’t expect me to rationalize her complicity in wrong-doing because she’s a woman. That’s not fair to me or to women. Chelsea doesn’t get to enjoy the benefits of her family’s corruption while hiding behind the guise of some innocent little girl.

          I don’t expect you to “rationalize her complicity”. I expect you to notice that her claimed complicity is completely immaterial to whether she acted correctly in this case.

          Dang, dude, get a heart! When someone does something right, congratulate them with an open spirit on what they’ve done. It is small-minded and petty to claim that their good actions are meaningless, simple because you don’t like some other unconnected act of theirs.

          In addition, praising someone with a warm heart is the best way to encourage that behavior she demonstrated. Your mean-spirited carping has the opposite effect, encouraging her to never do that again … why should she if all she gets for it is you spitting on her?

          With your kind of vindictiveness, I can only hope that you are not a judge or a person in power over others … compassion is your friend, Rob.

          In a curious mix of friendship and mystery,

          w.

          Like

        • Chelsa is the one who called for the audit of the Clinton Foundation that gave everyone a peek under the covers about how horrific it is.

          Like

      • See what happens when you are kind and gentle? Morrow took over the article and turned it into something completely different from what you intended. Being nice to him once was appropriate, Allowing him to respond and show his arrogant stupidity was also kind. After that you should have black listed him since he just got worse. You can’t argue with an idiot, because when you try, the idiot sucks you towards their level, and they dominate the conversation, so to speak. No matter how hard to try, Willis, you cannot back a blind man see.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Tom O March 10, 2017 at 5:25 am

          See what happens when you are kind and gentle?

          Yeah, that damn kindness and gentility, only an idiot would ever practice that … wait, what?

          No matter how hard to try, Willis, you cannot back a blind man see.

          True … but then I don’t write for the blind, I write for the lurkers, so that doesn’t matter at all to me.

          w.

          Like

  11. “There are actually two fallacies. The first one is that you can see into her skull. The second is that her motives matter.”

    Her motives were immaterial to my point. I thought that was pretty clear when I walked that back in my second post and wrote about her actions. Speaking of looking into someone’s skull:

    “apparently unliike you, I also like to give credit where credit is due.”

    You and I simply disagree on whether credit is due. You take this and claim that I don’t like giving credit in general. Wow.

    “I can see that you are upset about the election’s aftermath”

    This is your groundless fantasy. You’re attacking what you believe are my motives, and after blasting me for writing about Chelsea’s, no less.

    “What the hell does her “personal record” have to do with anything? We’re not assessing her effect on history, we’re discussing specific actions of hers.”

    I gave two examples of her specific actions.

    “Yes, Chelsea has done wrong things. So what? You’ve done wrong things in your life, as have I. Should we be forever cast into the outer darkness? Do the wrong things we’ve done make our current good acts meaningless?”

    You seem to be intentionally blind to the inherent contradiction of being complicit in the persecution of sexual abuse victims while also pretending to be a champion for women. That’s what Hillary did, and Chelsea was right there next to her at the DNC saying how good she is for women.

    “But you are busting Chelsea, not for what she has done, but for what her father did”

    Ummm, no, I wrote of her personal actions: “She works at the Clinton foundation and personally benefits from the ill-gotten money it launders. She played an active role in promoting her mother, victimizer of victims, as a champion of women.”

    “I expect you to notice that her claimed complicity is completely immaterial to whether she acted correctly in this case.”

    Immaterial? So you believe that Hillary can be a women’s champion without admitting to her earlier wrong doing? Given Chelsea’s promotion of her mother, she is also a hypocrite and has no ground to stand on. Chelsea is choosing the path of virtue signaling instead of principle. Actions matter more than words.

    “When someone does something right, congratulate them with an open spirit on what they’ve done”

    You see, my whole point is that Chelsea’s pearl clutching tweet was not an example of doing something right. It is moral puffery, and coming from her, it’s hypocritical moral puffery.

    “Your mean-spirited carping has the opposite effect, encouraging her to never do that again … why should she if all she gets for it is you spitting on her?”

    Part of the process of rehabilitating a criminal is an admission of wrong-doing. I would encourage her to actively speak out on womens’ issues once she gives herself some legitimacy by coming clean about her father. Her words are worthless if she doesn’t.

    “With your kind of vindictiveness, I can only hope that you are not a judge or a person in power over others … compassion is your friend, Rob.”

    An excess of compassion doesn’t equal fairness, and blind compassion can be downright destructive. Chelsea’s comments deserve to be interpreted in the context of her actions. That’s fair, if not compassionate. My compassion lies with the taxpayers and the abuse victims.

    Rob

    Like

    • I came back to check for a reply and saw this nugget I missed the first time:

      “praising someone with a warm heart is the best way to encourage that behavior she demonstrated”

      She has a warm heart, does she? What is that statement if not an inference of her motives? C’mon, Willis. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      I immediately pared back my initial comment about her motives because it was admittedly fallacious and immaterial to my point, and instead focused on her actions and her illegitimacy in speaking out for women. With respect to Chelsea, you appear to hold the opinion that words matter more than actions. She is enriched by her parents’ corruption and when she worked to present her mom as a champion for women she became an accessory to their sexual abuse. Simple as that. She is an adult. She can only seek legitimacy or redemption by coming clean, else she needs to keep her mouth shut about women’s issues or expect the same sort of backlash coming from me.

      I think we’d both agree that an unrepentant rapist deserves no praise for acting like a champion of women. How about an accessory to the rapist, or an accessory to an accessory? When moral pageantry is paired with no admission of previous wrong-doing, all of their words and deeds on the subject remain dirty because of their hypocrisy.

      Re: “Your mean-spirited carping”, “your kind of vindictiveness”, “get a heart”…

      I’ll admit that I did take a shot across your bow in my first comment but nowhere did I attempt to impugn your character. I honestly didn’t think this would escalate as it has into an airing of what you believe is my character, as I think I’ve done pretty well to keep things civil otherwise.

      All the best and hopefully still friendly,
      Rob

      Like

      • you should praise behavior that you want to encourage, no matter what the motivation.

        If you take the attitude that people can never improve, that if they have done something you don’t like in the past they can never, ever change and should allways be villified based on what they did (even if it was a teen not speaking out against her Dad), then you are going to live in an ever-shrinking pool of trusted people.

        There are already too many people who take this sort of attitude, don’t be one of them.

        David Lang

        Like

        • David,

          I have no desire to encourage virtue signalling rhetoric, particularly when it’s hypocritical. Chelsea didn’t “do” anything with her tweet other than project to the world what a virtuous person she is. Praise for hypocrites ensures a continuation of falsehoods, and when we’re talking about sexual assault, that means making light of actual crimes and endangering potential future victims.

          People can never improve if their actions are incongruent with their words. There are already too many people who think words matter more than actions. Don’t be one of them.

          Like

          • I’m sorry, but calling out people who are over the edge is a public service, and something that people with significant name recognition should be doing.

            The fact that someone on the Left is pointing out how over-the-edge the original post was is a good thing, no matter how bad they are in other areas. People who call out others on their side for being too extreme should be encouraged, not disparaged.

            Like

          • “I’m sorry, but calling out people who are over the edge is a public service, and something that people with significant name recognition should be doing.”

            I don’t believe that’s true in general, and I definitely don’t believe it when referencing Chelsea Clinton specifically. Do we really need a tribal ritual of righteous solidarity led by all the celebrities A through Z every time somebody says something in public that’s in “bad taste” or “beyond the pale” or whatever else the thought police deem it to be? No thanks.

            “The fact that someone on the Left is pointing out how over-the-edge the original post was is a good thing, no matter how bad they are in other areas. People who call out others on their side for being too extreme should be encouraged, not disparaged.”

            With regards to the general someone, we already have a way of calling out people who go over the edge. It’s called voting. Unless there are potential dangers for speaking out, say in a totalitarian regime with no free speech, speaking out requires very little effort or risk, and apparently personal integrity is not required either. Calling something “despicable” is not an action worthy of praise. Agreement perhaps, but not praise.

            With regards to Chelsea Clinton, she has specifically invalidated anything she has to say about what is appropriate behaviour toward women – not by simple proxy of being her parents’ daughter, but because she grew up and then championed them as pro-woman. She has profited by proliferating their lies.

            Like

    • Rob Morrow March 6, 2017 at 1:22 pm

      I came back to check for a reply and saw this nugget I missed the first time:

      “praising someone with a warm heart is the best way to encourage that behavior she demonstrated”

      She has a warm heart, does she? What is that statement if not an inference of her motives? C’mon, Willis. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Ah, misunderstanding, the bane of the internet. My apologies for my unclear statement, and my thanks for you quoting it so I could clarify my meaning.

      I meant that if you encourage someone and YOU have a warm heart, that warm-hearted praise is the best way to encourage behavior.

      Regards,

      w.

      Like

      • Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I suppose you missed the two other quotes where you acted like a hypocrite by looking into my skull.

        I was direct throughout the thread and challenged all of your wailing attempts to shout me down without resorting to any sort of character attacks aside from the subject at hand, the case against whom is pretty simple and you never cared to address directly: the fact that Chelsea Clinton is a grown woman who has profited in money and power by proliferating her parents’ lies, and those lies are pertinent to sexual assault and a variety of women’s issues. By raising her tweets up as an example for us all, you are declaring that words matter more than actions. She is not without culpability, because she chose to participate in the lies for personal and family gain. Simple as that.

        Like

      • Is that all, Willis, you just came back to pick a sugarless cherry? I re-offer pretty much my entire case on a platter in reply (bold, 4:39), challenge you for never having addressed it, and then… chirp chirp… Dang, you must be busy. I hope you didn’t have a moral, spiritual or corporal emergency for lack of ubiquitous un-unpretentious guidance.
        Forgive me for prying, but are you off somewhere seeking democratic governing advice from “comrade Obama’s” purportedly Marxist civics coach? Dating advice from Bill Cosby’s no-questions-asked drug dealer? Dieting advice from Louis Anderson’s laissez-faire but surprisingly self-assured physical trainer? Maybe they could help with your new foray into #Feminism?
        #WordsNotActions
        #FeelingsNotResults
        #Hypocrisy,What?
        #SafeSpace… Ah, maybe that’s where you went.

        Like

        • Rob Morrow: Chelsea Clinton came to Kellyanne Conway’s defense. It was nice of her. Willis thought so, too, and acknowledged it. It doesn’t meant he was endorsing her or her family. Why are you making such ado? Syria, Ukraine, Korea, South China Sea—any of them could explode at any moment, and you’re obsessed with Chelsea Clinton?

          /Mr Lynn

          Like

          • Willis did endorse Chelsea Clinton’s behaviour as exemplary. As I have been arguing, the integrity of a person who makes a statement has an impact on how much legitimacy that statement is afforded in the real world. Chelsea’s statement pertains specifically to what is and what is not appropriate behaviour toward women. I don’t think I would have objected to Willis’ thesis in writing if he hadn’t chosen such a ridiculous exemplar. Also, I don’t believe that declaring anything to be “despicable” is an act worth of praise or emulation. Agreement perhaps, but not encouragement and repetition. I have no obsession with Chelsea, just fair and honest debate, and Willis was playing dirty (many citations above). Somebody whose blogs I read, and tend to regard as a broadly intelligent and decent man, once wrote something along the lines of “if you hit me and I don’t think I deserve it, I’ll hit back twice as hard”.

            Like

        • Dear heavens, Rob, all of those heavy jangly accusations? You dipping too heavy into your coffee stash, or what?

          Here’s the deal. Chelsea did what I thought was a good deed. Now, unlike you, when someone does a good deed I don’t respond by excoriating them for what their father did. Unlike you, I don’t respond to them doing something right by listing all their past misdeeds. Unlike you, I don’t respond to their beneficial actions by claiming that they are a terrible person and should be exiled to the outer circles of hell.

          Instead, I freely and without reservation commend them for their good deed. Why?

          Because, as you appear to have never noticed, that is the easiest and fastest way to get them change their behavior. Although this concept obviously is foreign to you, it’s so common we even have folk sayings about it, like “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”. You should pay attention to that difference between honey and vinegar, there is a reason it became a folk saying.

          Now, you say:

          I re-offer pretty much my entire case on a platter in reply (bold, 4:39), challenge you for never having addressed it, and then… chirp chirp… Dang, you must be busy.

          Busy? Nope. A combination of bored and repulsed. I just had no further time to waste with your petty vindictiveness. Since your brilliant plan is to get all nasty and bitter and accusational when someone does something nice, me, I just went elsewhere and discussed other interesting things with interesting people who don’t indulge in that kind of bitter, mindless nonsense.

          So sue me …

          w.

          Like

          • Your naivety and obtuseness on this subject beggars belief. Let’s examine the chain of logic which you continue to ignore:
            Bill Clinton is a serial sex abuser.
            Hillary was his enabler by harassing, humiliating and intimidating his victims.
            Chelsea endorses Hillary as a pro-woman candidate for president.
            Chelsea is a grown woman who profits in money and power in the present by maintaining solidarity with the family. Should stood to gain a whole lot more if her deceptive “woman card” ploy had worked.
            Anything Chelsea has to say about appropriate behaviour toward is laughable.
            Your titular thesis favours words over actions.

            If you don’t believe Bill is a sex criminal, we could have agreed to disagree on that basis. That hasn’t been your position, though, yours has been one of slinging mud and pulling hair from atop your high horse, that horse being tall enough that you can’t hear valid rebuttals of your arguments whether ad homimen or logical.

            Re: “Busy? Nope. A combination of bored and repulsed. I just had no further time to waste with your petty vindictiveness. Since your brilliant plan is to get all nasty and bitter and accusational when someone does something nice, me, I just went elsewhere and discussed other interesting things with interesting people who don’t indulge in that kind of bitter, mindless nonsense.”

            |I wasn’t actually speculating about your activities or whereabouts. That was me setting up a joke.

            Like

          • and you miss that we are willing to praise good actions, no matter what a person’s past actions have been.

            If you take the attitude that since someone has done something bad in the past, they can never do good in the future, you give them no reason to change. If you praise them when they do good, no matter what they have done in the past, then you encourage them to keep doing more good in the future.

            why can you not understand this concept?

            David Lang

            On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Skating Under The Ice wrote:

            Like

          • This really needs to be hammered home as a testament to your naivety and selective rebuttals on the subject:

            “Because, as you appear to have never noticed, that is the easiest and fastest way to get them change their behavior. Although this concept obviously is foreign to you, it’s so common we even have folk sayings about it, like “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”. You should pay attention to that difference between honey and vinegar, there is a reason it became a folk saying.”

            It’s exactly the opposite when reinforcing sociopathic behaviour. Criminals, sinners, or whichever cultural equivalent you choose,who are praised for their words while having their bad behaviour ignored, will continue their bad behaviour and perhaps amplify it.

            Like

          • David,

            “and you miss that we are willing to praise good actions, no matter what a person’s past actions have been.”

            I haven’t missed that at all. I agree with your good intentions but not the outcome. I’ve called out the fact that this person continues to shill for personal and family gain in the present. The family would not be so powerful if Bill & Hill were held accountable. Chelsea is a grown woman who endorsed her mother as a pro-woman POTUS. Hell it’s only been 4 months since Hillary lost the election which would have handed the family even more power and money. What would that have done for our society’s “rape culture”?

            “If you take the attitude that since someone has done something bad in the past, they can never do good in the future, you give them no reason to change.”

            I have never taken that attitude. From the very beginning of this thread it has been my attitude that acknowledgement of “something bad in the past” must precede encouragement for spoken niceties, otherwise that encouragement is blind and potentially harmful (victims of sex abuse in this instance).

            “why can you not understand this concept?”

            By praising a serial criminal/sinner/whatever cultural equivalent you choose, for what they say but not what they do, you are in fact encouraging them to continue and probably escalate their behaviour. This is established in psychology as well as religion. I understand it on those bases.

            Rob

            Like

  12. Willis, there’s a couple other things I’ve read about which might interest you:

    Parole boards have been favouring the remorseful for far too long. Studies have shown a huge disparity in the length of prison sentences served by repentant vs. unrepentant felons who committed the same crime. This needs to stop. Nobody should be kept in prison to serve the rest of his sentence just because he’s a dreamer.
    #ParoleBoardsSuck
    #NotMyTruth

    Social psychologists have been gabbing about a wild and exciting new theory on nature vs. nurture which is sure to open new dialogues and create a more inclusive society. They are evaluating political and criminal culpability as it pertains to mental health. The theory is complicated, but this analogy serves as a fair proxy:
    A schizophrenic doesn’t choose his disorder. It is a by-product of genetics we don’t yet fully understand, often combined with traumatic life experience. Similarly, Tony Soprano didn’t choose to be born into a mafia family. He grew up around violence and is not responsible for the criminal choices he’s made as an adult. The adult son and protege of the grand wizard of the k.k.k. does not deserve ridicule and derision for endorsing his mother’s candidacy for the leadership of the NAACP, a seat recently vacated by his ostensibly charming father, because he cannot be blamed for seeing his parents through rose-coloured glasses.
    Humans are a social species and one cannot expect a person to denounce or abandon his family. There are psychological and physiological consequences to social isolation and it would be a form of suicide. As such, these alleged crimes and usurpations are actually natural and healthy forms of self-defense.
    #NotMyFault
    #BornThisWay

    There’s a new golden rule. Studies of social dynamics and game theory have shown that our social conflicts tend have the most fortuitous resolutions for everybody when we lie to each other instead of telling the truth. When a “guilty” party confesses their previous wrongdoing, it’s actually a form of verbal violence which can immediately and permanently injure the other party, and it’s not inclusive because the conflict might escalate which could lead to break-ups, estrangements, falls from grace, loss of money or power, imprisonment etc., depending on the nature of the relationship and conflict. We’re all better off lying, even in the face of overwhelming circumstantial and/or hard evidence, and especially if we’re rich and famous “role models”.
    #StoneWall
    #FakeItTilYouMakeIt

    Like

    • Sorry, Rob, but you’ve cancelled your vote with me. I’m not interested in further examples and explanations of your bitter vindictiveness against anyone who’s ever done something wrong. It turns my stomach and hurts my heart. So you’ll have to take this discussion up somewhere else with someone else. You’ve burnt your bridges with me.

      In other words, amigo, you’ll have to talk to the hand … because my head is moved on and is dealing with interesting people with interesting things to say.

      So long,

      w.

      Like

      • You continue to be disingenuous.

        You’ve called me or my statements vindictive three times now, but you never made a case for why it’s vindictive to be outraged that a pattern of serious crimes committed by the president went and may continue to go unpunished, his wife and president hopeful is his accessory, and therefore anti-woman, and Chelsea stepped up to a political podium to parrot her parents’ lies for ill-gotten personal and family gain, and now Chelsea wants to weigh-in on the topic of the appropriateness of jokes toward and treatment of women. What a joke.

        You have an awfully curious idea of what “vindictive” means, and besides acting like a rude hypocritical mud-slinger (quotes already provided), and you are unwittingly pro-corruption.

        “Sorry, Rob, but you’ve cancelled your vote with me.”

        Boo hoo. I’m not seeking your approval. My style may be direct and occasionally sarcastic, but you appeared to be triggered into full meltdown mode and could do nothing more than paint me as vindictive. Good on ya.

        I have and will continue to enjoy your insights into climate science, but your thesis and disingenuous emotional behaviour here has likewise turned me off the idea of further conversations.

        “So long..”

        Ah, retreat into the comfort of your SafeSpace. So long, Willis. I’ll continue to enjoy your silence because you were already silent about anything I had to say that made your snowflake sweat.

        Like

        • P.S.
          What made your snowflake sweat, you might ask? Any of the many statements that triggered your mental somersaults of cognitive dissonance on the subject of Chelsea Clinton’s behaviour, her legitimacy and exemplar status in sanctioning what she believes is bad behaviour toward women.

          Like

    • We are saying nothing about remorse and forgiveness for old actions. We are talking about new actions only.

      discounting the good that someone does because of bad actions in the past is the type of thing the left does. According to them, Whites are all evil because some whites owned slaves in the past (never mind that there were black slaveowners and that most whites did not own slaves), and therefor nothing that any white can ever do can counter the evil that some white in the past owned a slave.

      Holding grudges like this prevents future cooperation and drives people to take the attitude that if you’re going to treat me like dirt anyway, it doesn’t matter what I do.

      The saying “It’s better for 10 guilty to go free rather than 1 innocent be punished” continues to explain that if people decide that punishment is likely no matter what their behavior, it removes restraint on their behavior.

      David Lang

      Like

      • No point in arguing with RM, who will spend pots of virtual ink spouting “social dynamics and game theory” and call you a “snowflake” for advocating common decency.

        /Mr Lynn

        Like

        • “virtual ink spouting “social dynamics and game theory””

          Man, those were supposed to be jokes. Humour can be an excellent arbiter of truth. It was an admittedly lengthy creative writing exercise, but it was intended to show a variety of satirical SJW-style good intentions gone wrong. I’m no comedian but that’s what I was going for.

          Like

      • David and L.E.,
        I’m not sure David’s comment at 1:16 ended up where it did given the chronology, but please see my reply there.

        Like

      • “We are saying nothing about remorse and forgiveness for old actions. We are talking about new actions only.”

        As to whether I’m just being “vindictive”, “holding a grudge”, or I lack “decency”, I’ll restate this:

        “By praising a serial criminal/sinner/whatever cultural equivalent you choose, for what they say but not what they do, you are in fact encouraging them to continue and probably escalate their behaviour. This is established in psychology as well as religion. I understand it on those bases.”

        Kind regards,
        Rob

        Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s