121–130 of 499 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why Lewinsky got ridiculed that much. If anything she was a victim in the whole thing. Or am I missing something?
How is she a victim?
Maybe he was fed up and wanted a real exit. There are other stories of people giving away huge fortunes prehumously because they might think the money is better used elsewhere.
Money isn't a finite resource that "goes elsewhere" if you don't generate it through business activity. This is probably one of the biggest popular misconceptions of how business works, that there is only a limited amount of value to go around, instead of it just being a near unlimited balloon that can expand or contract.
Or Maybe you don't like hanging out with rich people, when you're very rich you can't hang out with poor people. You can but you have to probably lie about your wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the best "public shaming" talk I've seen are the ones given by Monica Lewinsky. When you consider that Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old during the time of the scandal, a lot of the stuff going on was simply outside of her control. Seeing things from her perspective is pretty interesting, to say the least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7Eh6JTKIg John Oliver starts the discussion, but there is a Lewinsky…
I never understood why Lewinsky got ridiculed that much. If anything she was a victim in the whole thing. Or am I missing something?
The following is how it gets interpreted by a lot of people and has no connection whatsoever to my own opinions of these two people:
Clinton having an affair with an intern was seen as bad because of the infidelity, but at the same time it makes him look virile and manly. It’s a mixed bag but he comes out looking pretty good overall.
An intern having an affair with Clinton is bad because it makes her a slut and she should have resisted her carnal urges. And she had an affair with a married man, so she’s a home wrecker too! There’s no positive aspect to this at all, and it’s all her fault for not behaving. And then her misbehavior gets plastered all over the national news, and she gets the shaming she deserves!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry to be pedantic, but I'm confused by what seemed to be a recommendation to read this link because it's going to be awesome, but then you say "incredible interviews." I'd feel a lot better if you clarified, before I read, "incredible" as in "extraordinary" or "difficult to believe."
That's incredibly pedantic, and in any event even the dictionary gives extraordinary as a synonym. But I'd never before considered the derivation of incredible before, so I learned something today :) On the other hand, you've ruined me as I'll never be able to unsee in-credible. :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Leary_(businessman...
It's funny how people will paint being honest as a gaffe. The original gaffe was selling people crap and not telling them it's crap.
Imagine the difference in how you’d feel as a middle-class working guy buying from them. The CEO could say: “We work hard to keep our prices low by carefully selecting affordable materials while still providing stylish, attractive and fashionable products our customers love.” ...or: “Our products are crap, the materials in them are crap, and by virtue of buying them, our customers assert that all they want is crap.”…
The previously implied sentiment was "I'm selling you upmarket glamour at an affordable price."
Branding isn't about the product, it's about buying a relationship with an entity that has more power and charisma than you do.
If you change the implied terms of the relationship, you damage the brand's value.
It's why people get so furious when Apple stiffs them with products that fail and then fobs them off with poor after-care.
Apple's implied sentiment used to be "You're an important and unusually gifted person with excellent taste."
After Cook it's more like "We've taken your money. Why are you still here?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why Lewinsky got ridiculed that much. If anything she was a victim in the whole thing. Or am I missing something?
I think the issue is that she kept the clothing with the semen, which speaks about planning and cunning. People talk about the power imbalance, but at the end of the day there are a lot of people who sleep with their superiors because they want to rather than being coerced (explicitly or implicitly). I don't think we'll ever truly know if she was coerced or not, but we know for sure that she kept that clothing. And I…
You believe Lewinsky was a victim of what, exactly? She might have been extensively mistreated by the press but that's it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is she a victim?
You can debate if Lewinsky was a victim of Clinton but she absolutely was a victim of Linda Tripp, who had her own vendetta against the Clintons. Tripp manipulated her, secretly recorded their conversations, lied, betrayed her confidences, and served her up to the machinery that was working to take down Clinton.
This should be a lesson for adolescents who wonder why people tend to get less and less "edgy" as they grow up. Just takes one moment of too much edge to lose the gamble and end up throwing everything away.
Perhaps being edgy is the best way to force oneself into self reliance, and self reliance being the best way to hold ground against corruption... maybe the edgelessness of "adults" is just a sign of forfeit within a corrupt system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He'd made the same jokes in speeches several times before, and it had gone down well with the audience. Presumably he just didn't consider the possibility that the press would think it worth making a story out of.
Interesting; what was difference about this audience? Or was it just a slow news day this time?