-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 20, 2019, 11:52:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 215238 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10873


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1875 on: November 11, 2016, 12:28:32 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.

Apparently we haven't, you're right...I mean that's why I realize that there is something horribly wrong with me.  I mean, sh*t, I've known that since I was a kid, but it's really being hammered home now.  If everyone else in this world thinks one way and I don't, well, that let's me know the problem is with me.  Just like in the elections. I mean, I must be a fucking idiot for sticking with my beliefs instead of bowing down to peer pressure.  Well, that's done. I'm done voting. My vote doesn't count, because I don't count. It's about time I accept it.
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1876 on: November 11, 2016, 12:31:29 PM »


I don't think it can be accurately claimed that Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman. And I honestly think that's an extreme, dangerous statement to make as a black-and-white wide brush, because the backlash to that type of all-or-nothing thinking, in my opinion, is largely responsible for the proliferation of Trumpism.

I understand that it's impolitic to hurt white guy's feelings by pointing out their flaws, thanks. I've never been good at the politics of politics.

For example, a way that Hillary has polarized some people, including me: the way that Hillary often (not always, but way too often for my tastes) comes off as to me, and to many people I know personally, is being incredibly arrogant; this is a quality that I personally find deeply repugnant. Just as an example: the way she dismissively brushed off the African-American girl who came to ask Hillary about the "superpredators" comment. Hillary's elitist and dismissive tone with that girl was the opposite way I could ever remotely imagine Barack Obama or Bernie ever being like. Every human, male or female, has their personality quirks. It just happens to be her quirk.
First of all, Sanders is the epitome of arrogant. Much more than Clinton, he takes the stance that his views are unquestionably correct. Of Sanders, Trump and Clinton, Clinton exhibited the least arrogance. But arrogance isn't a flaw in a man. Second, if she weren't a woman, you may have read her body language and tone differently. You probably would have expected a different response from him than the one you expected from her. People criticize Clinton in those situations for not being "warm" (then in other situations, the question is whether she's tough enough.)
The basic training of ALL politicians, and if you ever saw Sanders confronted on the road or Obama or any of the others, is if it's a negative question about something you've addressed, move on as quickly as possible. If you look, you'll find them all doing it. But the MANNER in which it's done is examined (like the manner in which everything she does is done) more closely with Clinton. Because the body language and tone of a man doing it, is the code we recognize as the right body language and tone, so we don't even look at it anymore.
I'll put a caveat below.

Another example: the way she, way back during the primaries, stated on an interview that she WAS going to win the primaries, categorically dismissing the interviewer, without even allowing for the possibility that Bernie could win (which WAS, although improbable, statistically possible at the time). That is dangerous AND stupid. It's like printing a Dewey Defeats Truman newspaper days in advance. Now the fact that she KNEW for sure (because of, IMO, the collusion of her cronies at the DNC helping to rig things in her favor against Bernie) is besides the point; I found it condescending to hear her talk overconfidently and so incredibly dismissively when there were still states that had not yet voted. It's basically her saying: California, your vote does not fucking count. Go f*** yourself, all Bernie supporters. That's how I felt when hearing it. And I'm very not used to feeling quite that way when hearing any politician speak (regardless of gender). I don't like feeling dismissed as a voter in that manner because of someone's ego trip.
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman. Maybe you felt that way because she's a woman being confident, and that's why you're not used to it. How many times have you heard men say they're going to win before it's done? You probably don't know, because you wouldn't have noticed because it wouldn't have bothered you. Go back and look. Obama's done it (before he beat Clinton in the primaries) Trump did it. It's, again, a common campaign thing that back-fired on Clinton. Politicians (and business executives and military officers, etc.) are taught that exuding confidence causes people to accept your leadership. Asserting confidence that your campaign will win is so common it's a trope, but it only works for men, it turns out.
Again, caveat below.
 

Maybe one can say she developed being that way as a response to sexism; I don't know. But regardless of why, it is there, and it's not a non-issue. It's something that I have a real problem with (which is why I point it out when Mike Love acts similarly arrogant on a regular basis, and he's a man). I swear to you, Emily, on my grandparents' graves, that if I witnessed a male politician acting in that way repeatedly, I would be equally as disgusted.
caveat: if you are already predisposed to dislike someone, you read their actions differently and you react to the same things differently. So, when someone you WANT to win, says they're going to win or something arrogant "we've started a revolution." "if Sanders was nominated he would have won" - Sanders himself frequently asserted that he was going to win - it doesn't bother you. The candidate you DON'T support saying the same thing does bother you. This goes back to Hey Jude's point of questioning yourself. We all judge people on unconscious factors. You might THINK you're judging fairly, but if you examine yourself, you often are not.


Now we can certainly agree that Trump can (and did) get away with FAR FAR more repugnant behavior during this election compared to Hillary, and people often just laughed it off. Hillary could not get away with so much of that profane way of speaking that is uniquely Trump's, and that's because of gender. Gender absolutely plays a role in this in the big picture, in many, many ways. But it's quite unfair, inaccurate, and IMO dangerous to make that "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman" comment. It's not true. I am very pro-feminist, a liberal, but I feel it's imperative that people stop thinking in extremes like that. It's not always true. Not saying that there isn't some truth to it, but respectfully speaking, I believe it's far from entirely true, and should never, ever be claimed as such.

I'm pretty confident I'm right. And many, many studies show that people judge girls and women differently, particularly when they assert themselves in mixed-sex groups, as just about every woman who has ever asserted herself in a mixed-sex group can attest. And in this case, the criticisms against Clinton that you raise very closely fit the pattern of the criticisms often raised against women asserting themselves in mixed-sex groups, the denial of it is rather illogical
And, again, if it's TRUE, I don't really care if asserting it is impolitic.

Some evidence:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-new-york-win-221454
Here's Sanders saying "we are going to win New York." Did that bother you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItsTu0Glg-c
Here's Sanders saying "we are going to win here in California."
https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/661312860983705600
Here's Sanders saying "We will win in 2016."

Were you "as disgusted" by his arrogance or over-confidence?

Emily, I respect and admire you, but that’s not entirely true. There are plenty examples of Sanders stepping back, listening to the people, and re-thinking his policies. The example of BLM protestors is relevant here. Bernie clearly was the most receptive of all the candidates (I recall some people even giving him flack because he stepped back and let the protestors take over the mic on one occasion). Blaming Clinton’s failure on her gender is a disservice to women everywhere.

I’m not going to go over my concerns with Clinton as a candidate, but it had little to do with her demeanor and nothing to do with her gender. My opinion is either Bernie and/or Elizabeth Warren would have defeated Trump in a landslide, because they offered conviction, something Clinton sorely lacked. The DNC/Clinton campaign and the mass media should bear the brunt of Trump as a phoenomenon for propping up a seriously flawed and unpopular candidate (Clinton), and also propping up Trump himself as a viable choice because they felt he was the weakest candidate for the general.

Our focus now should be on restructuring the Democratic Party from scratch, because seeing it as anything other than a colossal failure is lying to ourselves, and will result in more of the same down the road.

For those so inclined, here's a good start: Sign this petition to nominate Keith Ellison as DNC Chair:

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/keith-ellison-dnc?source=em161110

To me, we lost when Bernie lost. I was heartbroken, and I mean it. I think time will prove this to be true (it already has partially). I voted for Bernie in the primary (and donated to his campaign), but could not bring myself to vote for either Clinton or Trump in the general.
Thank you. I just wrote a longer response then lost it and my daughter is bored, so this will be shorter, to my regret.
You might notice, if you slog through all the back posts, that I pointed out that CSM has been consistent in his criticisms of Clinton and other mainstream democrats. He hasn't gone on about false scandals or her being "unlikable". He's stuck to policy concerns that he very clearly has with all mainstream democrats and US policy in general. This is legit and I have no problem there. He seems to be judging Clinton without a double standard or an unfair bias. I don't say that EVERYONE against Clinton is misogynist, and I haven't said that, despite CD's assertions. I am saying that it affected public perception, it allowed people to more easily believe smears against her, and it caused people to criticize her for not being "warm" "likable" etc and for those things to stick in ways that wouldn't with a male candidate. Many people in this thread have issues with her that are inexplicable without an underlying bias.
I don't know enough of your views to have an opinion on your consistency or lack there-of.

Separately, I'm a money-giving supporter of Ellison, but i'm surprised he wants to chair the DNC.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1877 on: November 11, 2016, 12:34:10 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.

...yet nowhere near as childish as blindly asserting people think the way they do solely due to some sort of underlining hatred. 
Fine. Then why do you believe so many unproven things against a particular individual?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1878 on: November 11, 2016, 12:36:21 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.

Apparently we haven't, you're right...I mean that's why I realize that there is something horribly wrong with me.  I mean, sh*t, I've known that since I was a kid, but it's really being hammered home now.  If everyone else in this world thinks one way and I don't, well, that let's me know the problem is with me.  Just like in the elections. I mean, I must be a fucking idiot for sticking with my beliefs instead of bowing down to peer pressure.  Well, that's done. I'm done voting. My vote doesn't count, because I don't count. It's about time I accept it.
Not sure what you're saying here. Your beliefs are not so unusual regarding this issue. Evidently mine are, here at least.
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1879 on: November 11, 2016, 12:36:39 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.

Of course we have evolved past such narrow-minded thinking.  But it's much easier to simply label someone as a hateful bigot when you cannot provide any argument of substance.  We have become a thin-skinned and emotionally inept society where words have become far more fearsome than sticks and stones.  Shouting down people you disagree with as hateful played a big factor in catapulting a nut like Trump into the White House.  

 I agree.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1880 on: November 11, 2016, 12:44:18 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.

Of course we have evolved past such narrow-minded thinking.  But it's much easier to simply label someone as a hateful bigot when you cannot provide any argument of substance.  We have become a thin-skinned and emotionally inept society where words have become far more fearsome than sticks and stones.  Shouting down people you disagree with as hateful played a big factor in catapulting a nut like Trump into the White House.  

 I agree.
There's a pretty strong irony here that you evidently can't see.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10873


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1881 on: November 11, 2016, 12:45:10 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.

Apparently we haven't, you're right...I mean that's why I realize that there is something horribly wrong with me.  I mean, sh*t, I've known that since I was a kid, but it's really being hammered home now.  If everyone else in this world thinks one way and I don't, well, that let's me know the problem is with me.  Just like in the elections. I mean, I must be a fucking idiot for sticking with my beliefs instead of bowing down to peer pressure.  Well, that's done. I'm done voting. My vote doesn't count, because I don't count. It's about time I accept it.
Not sure what you're saying here. Your beliefs are not so unusual regarding this issue. Evidently mine are, here at least.

But actually they ARE unusual, that's my point. I mean everyone else is one way, I keep posting how I'm not like that, but that's going unnoticed. I'm always felt like an outsider, and was under the mistaken impression that I was a unique individual. I realize I need to start conforming, and I'm an idiot for not realizing it sooner.
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



View Profile
« Reply #1882 on: November 11, 2016, 12:46:16 PM »


Thank you. I just wrote a longer response then lost it and my daughter is bored, so this will be shorter, to my regret.
You might notice, if you slog through all the back posts, that I pointed out that CSM has been consistent in his criticisms of Clinton and other mainstream democrats. He hasn't gone on about false scandals or her being "unlikable". He's stuck to policy concerns that he very clearly has with all mainstream democrats and US policy in general. This is legit and I have no problem there. He seems to be judging Clinton without a double standard or an unfair bias. I don't say that EVERYONE against Clinton is misogynist, and I haven't said that, despite CD's assertions. I am saying that it affected public perception, it allowed people to more easily believe smears against her, and it caused people to criticize her for not being "warm" "likable" etc and for those things to stick in ways that wouldn't with a male candidate. Many people in this thread have issues with her that are inexplicable without an underlying bias.
I don't know enough of your views to have an opinion on your consistency or lack there-of.

Separately, I'm a money-giving supporter of Ellison, but i'm surprised he wants to chair the DNC.

Emily, just to be clear, I did not assert or make a claim that you believe that "that EVERYONE against Clinton is misogynist", but rather, I questioned if that was the endgame of your argument.  I figured there was some nuance, but you hadn't really expressed it (at the point I started reading in the thread).

But until we can discuss potential nuance in peoples' opinions right off the bat, without a preconceived notion of guilty until proven innocent of sexism, we will be mired in a very problematic environment. People don't like to be wrongly accused. It's not cool. Just as women don't want to be treated in a sexist way. By the way, I'm not comparing the two, as I'm sure it's a cakewalk to be a man wrongly accused of sexism occasionally, compared to a woman experiencing it daily for their whole lives. I get that. Yet that doesn't negate the problematic nature of what I'm talking about. It's still a problem that needs to be addressed. I would really hope that all feminists would see there is truth to this too.

As I mentioned before, I do not want the world to become a place where people lobbying accusations of sexism in others feel scared/shamed/threatened to call sexism out in others. I just think we MUST be careful about painting with wide brushes. It can often seem like MANY people who are educated, and who IMO should really know better about painting with broad strokes, really, really, really don't want to admit or concede there is nuance to this, like they are holding onto some principal in a Cam Mott sort of way, and it is beyond extremely frustrating - it is dangerous, as proven by the rise of Trumpism, which I think is unarguably fed by the wide brush effect.

Also - when you mentioned "I am saying that it affected public perception, it allowed people to more easily believe smears against her, and it caused people to criticize her for not being "warm" "likable" etc and for those things to stick in ways that wouldn't with a male candidate.": I agree with that assertion. That is not untrue. Yet it is far from the full story. There was/is genuine sexism/bias against Hillary for sure. It's mixed in with legit criticism of her policies, legit criticism of her arrogance, and it can be very tough to determine where and how everything blends.

It's a giant snowball. But the fact that the snowball contains unfair smears and actual sexism does not mean that anyone can just dismiss anything and everything with a sexism accusation. There's some very real stuff in that snowball.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 01:09:43 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1883 on: November 11, 2016, 12:57:09 PM »


But actually they ARE unusual, that's my point. I mean everyone else is one way, I keep posting how I'm not like that, but that's going unnoticed. I'm always felt like an outsider, and was under the mistaken impression that I was a unique individual. I realize I need to start conforming, and I'm an idiot for not realizing it sooner.

Billy, I've noticed and admired your attempts at grown-up peacemaking. But the reality seems to me to be that many people here, there, and everywhere are still in a fighting mood. Whether to gloat, to mock the losing sides, complain about the winning side, or prove this or that point, people are pretty raw atm.

Don't get sucked into other people's squabbles, is my unsolicited advice. And certainly don't let it get you down.

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1468


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1884 on: November 11, 2016, 01:14:03 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.

...yet nowhere near as childish as blindly asserting people think the way they do solely due to some sort of underlining hatred. 
Fine. Then why do you believe so many unproven things against a particular individual?

Actually for me personally, I simply don't care for her policies or the Democratic party in general more than anything else about her (actually felt Sanders' insane Socialist policies would have been far more dangerous than Hillary's).  You could throw all her corruption controversies out the window and I still wouldn't vote for her simply due to her political leanings (I'd happily vote for Condi Rice or Carly Fiorina in a heartbeat though).  I'm simply challenging your assertion that Clinton's biggest obstacle against her was her gender.  You've been supplied multiple examples of her many scandals that, when tallied up, played a huge factor in why she is considered so untrustworthy.   Are we that naive to assume it's totally coincidental her name continues to come up scandal after scandal (far more than any other female politician) simply because she has never been criminally busted for any of them?  Is it that inconceivable to consider women are just as perfectly capable of corruption as men are? 
Logged

I'm the man on the mountain, come on up.
I'm the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, I'm fumbling and I know my car don't start.
Yes, I'm stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

Give me little drink from your loving cup.
Just one drink and I'll fall down drunk.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1885 on: November 11, 2016, 03:04:36 PM »


Thank you. I just wrote a longer response then lost it and my daughter is bored, so this will be shorter, to my regret.
You might notice, if you slog through all the back posts, that I pointed out that CSM has been consistent in his criticisms of Clinton and other mainstream democrats. He hasn't gone on about false scandals or her being "unlikable". He's stuck to policy concerns that he very clearly has with all mainstream democrats and US policy in general. This is legit and I have no problem there. He seems to be judging Clinton without a double standard or an unfair bias. I don't say that EVERYONE against Clinton is misogynist, and I haven't said that, despite CD's assertions. I am saying that it affected public perception, it allowed people to more easily believe smears against her, and it caused people to criticize her for not being "warm" "likable" etc and for those things to stick in ways that wouldn't with a male candidate. Many people in this thread have issues with her that are inexplicable without an underlying bias.
I don't know enough of your views to have an opinion on your consistency or lack there-of.

Separately, I'm a money-giving supporter of Ellison, but i'm surprised he wants to chair the DNC.

Emily, just to be clear, I did not assert or make a claim that you believe that "that EVERYONE against Clinton is misogynist", but rather, I questioned if that was the endgame of your argument.  I figured there was some nuance, but you hadn't really expressed it (at the point I started reading in the thread).

But until we can discuss potential nuance in peoples' opinions right off the bat, without a preconceived notion of guilty until proven innocent of sexism, we will be mired in a very problematic environment. People don't like to be wrongly accused. It's not cool. Just as women don't want to be treated in a sexist way. By the way, I'm not comparing the two, as I'm sure it's a cakewalk to be a man wrongly accused of sexism occasionally, compared to a woman experiencing it daily for their whole lives. I get that. Yet that doesn't negate the problematic nature of what I'm talking about. It's still a problem that needs to be addressed. I would really hope that all feminists would see there is truth to this too.

As I mentioned before, I do not want the world to become a place where people lobbying accusations of sexism in others feel scared/shamed/threatened to call sexism out in others. I just think we MUST be careful about painting with wide brushes. It can often seem like MANY people who are educated, and who IMO should really know better about painting with broad strokes, really, really, really don't want to admit or concede there is nuance to this, like they are holding onto some principal in a Cam Mott sort of way, and it is beyond extremely frustrating - it is dangerous, as proven by the rise of Trumpism, which I think is unarguably fed by the wide brush effect.

Also - when you mentioned "I am saying that it affected public perception, it allowed people to more easily believe smears against her, and it caused people to criticize her for not being "warm" "likable" etc and for those things to stick in ways that wouldn't with a male candidate.": I agree with that assertion. That is not untrue. Yet it is far from the full story. There was/is genuine sexism/bias against Hillary for sure. It's mixed in with legit criticism of her policies, legit criticism of her arrogance, and it can be very tough to determine where and how everything blends.

It's a giant snowball. But the fact that the snowball contains unfair smears and actual sexism does not mean that anyone can just dismiss anything and everything with a sexism accusation. There's some very real stuff in that snowball.
So the same question as the one for awsoman: if not for unconscious biases, why do people without evidence believe so many negative things about her?
Frankly, anyone who asserts that they are absolutely not misogynist is suspect because I don't believe anyone raised in our world is absolutely not misogynist. But then, on top, if they are judging a woman differently than they've judged the many many men I find it hard to imagine another reason. Is it her height?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 03:08:55 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1886 on: November 11, 2016, 03:08:14 PM »

Quote
Confidence, too, is something admired in a man and considered offensive in a woman

By who?!
Men, mostly, but women as well. I guess i'I'll dredge up that many studies for you. That this surprises you is surprising.

I don't know...I keep thinking we've evolved past that. I mean, I *do* see sexist pigs still but not as many, and not amongst the people I *choose* to associate with. But then again, I also choose not to lump everyone together.
We haven't. I'll show you recent studies. It's unconscious, but it's there. The idea that many people in this thread have that they are free from unconscious bias is childish.

...yet nowhere near as childish as blindly asserting people think the way they do solely due to some sort of underlining hatred. 
Fine. Then why do you believe so many unproven things against a particular individual?

Actually for me personally, I simply don't care for her policies or the Democratic party in general more than anything else about her (actually felt Sanders' insane Socialist policies would have been far more dangerous than Hillary's).  You could throw all her corruption controversies out the window and I still wouldn't vote for her simply due to her political leanings (I'd happily vote for Condi Rice or Carly Fiorina in a heartbeat though).  I'm simply challenging your assertion that Clinton's biggest obstacle against her was her gender.  You've been supplied multiple examples of her many scandals that, when tallied up, played a huge factor in why she is considered so untrustworthy.   Are we that naive to assume it's totally coincidental her name continues to come up scandal after scandal (far more than any other female politician) simply because she has never been criminally busted for any of them?  Is it that inconceivable to consider women are just as perfectly capable of corruption as men are? 
Do you really find it so hard to imagine any other reason why there are so many "scandals" ?
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



View Profile
« Reply #1887 on: November 11, 2016, 03:41:27 PM »


Thank you. I just wrote a longer response then lost it and my daughter is bored, so this will be shorter, to my regret.
You might notice, if you slog through all the back posts, that I pointed out that CSM has been consistent in his criticisms of Clinton and other mainstream democrats. He hasn't gone on about false scandals or her being "unlikable". He's stuck to policy concerns that he very clearly has with all mainstream democrats and US policy in general. This is legit and I have no problem there. He seems to be judging Clinton without a double standard or an unfair bias. I don't say that EVERYONE against Clinton is misogynist, and I haven't said that, despite CD's assertions. I am saying that it affected public perception, it allowed people to more easily believe smears against her, and it caused people to criticize her for not being "warm" "likable" etc and for those things to stick in ways that wouldn't with a male candidate. Many people in this thread have issues with her that are inexplicable without an underlying bias.
I don't know enough of your views to have an opinion on your consistency or lack there-of.

Separately, I'm a money-giving supporter of Ellison, but i'm surprised he wants to chair the DNC.

Emily, just to be clear, I did not assert or make a claim that you believe that "that EVERYONE against Clinton is misogynist", but rather, I questioned if that was the endgame of your argument.  I figured there was some nuance, but you hadn't really expressed it (at the point I started reading in the thread).

But until we can discuss potential nuance in peoples' opinions right off the bat, without a preconceived notion of guilty until proven innocent of sexism, we will be mired in a very problematic environment. People don't like to be wrongly accused. It's not cool. Just as women don't want to be treated in a sexist way. By the way, I'm not comparing the two, as I'm sure it's a cakewalk to be a man wrongly accused of sexism occasionally, compared to a woman experiencing it daily for their whole lives. I get that. Yet that doesn't negate the problematic nature of what I'm talking about. It's still a problem that needs to be addressed. I would really hope that all feminists would see there is truth to this too.

As I mentioned before, I do not want the world to become a place where people lobbying accusations of sexism in others feel scared/shamed/threatened to call sexism out in others. I just think we MUST be careful about painting with wide brushes. It can often seem like MANY people who are educated, and who IMO should really know better about painting with broad strokes, really, really, really don't want to admit or concede there is nuance to this, like they are holding onto some principal in a Cam Mott sort of way, and it is beyond extremely frustrating - it is dangerous, as proven by the rise of Trumpism, which I think is unarguably fed by the wide brush effect.

Also - when you mentioned "I am saying that it affected public perception, it allowed people to more easily believe smears against her, and it caused people to criticize her for not being "warm" "likable" etc and for those things to stick in ways that wouldn't with a male candidate.": I agree with that assertion. That is not untrue. Yet it is far from the full story. There was/is genuine sexism/bias against Hillary for sure. It's mixed in with legit criticism of her policies, legit criticism of her arrogance, and it can be very tough to determine where and how everything blends.

It's a giant snowball. But the fact that the snowball contains unfair smears and actual sexism does not mean that anyone can just dismiss anything and everything with a sexism accusation. There's some very real stuff in that snowball.
So the same question as the one for awsoman: if not for unconscious biases, why do people without evidence believe so many negative things about her?
Frankly, anyone who asserts that they are absolutely not misogynist is suspect because I don't believe anyone raised in our world is absolutely not misogynist. But then, on top, if they are judging a woman differently than they've judged the many many men I find it hard to imagine another reason. Is it her height?

I'm not sure if you were directing that at me, but please remember that I did, several posts back, admit that I not immune to inadvertently saying things that are sexist, and that I try to learn from mistakes continue to evolve. Maybe it's hard for many other people to admit, and that denial is a problem that is on them. I don't like to qualify things in absolutes, and I think that same nuance must also come from the other side, who CAN over-label things as being sexist. I don't know why it's hard for anyone, woman or man, to admit that CAN happen. I think people are maybe afraid to admit it because they are afraid to lose traction in the fight for equal rights, and that backing down an inch will mean that nobody will take future claims seriously. I don't know, I'm just hypothesizing. Yet there is a cry wolf effect that can happen when the label is overused. It sucks but it's true. Even if it were true 95% of the time, the 5% that it is inaccurately applied is STILL deeply problematic, just as that ratio of, say, wrongly convicted criminals would be/is terribly problematic. Don't you think?

Secondly, the internet is a vast wasteland of misinformation, accurate information, partially accurate information, etc. There are LOTS of convincing arguments to be made for many different sides of things, and Hillary's story is far from any kind of black-and-white thing. There are many shades of grey. It's complex and layered. The problem comes when some things that are indefensible (ie. Hillary essentially helping to promote Debbie Wasserman-Schultz after proven despicable corruption was found via Wikileaks, instead of condemning/excommunicating her) get defended ad naseum - by intelligent, otherwise seemingly ethical people who IMHO really should know better.

It becomes like a FDP-esque echo chamber, where some people just refuse to say "that is just not an acceptable thing she did"... and when a defend-everything-Hillary-ever-does echo chamber of people adds up, and those people create a lynch mob mentality on social media against anyone who dare have an opposing viewpoint... well there's a cumulative effect that makes it hard for people to give her the benefit of the doubt on other stuff which perhaps she may deserve more of a pass on.  Hasn't the Mike Love over-defense thing taught people that over-defensiveness - either by the person or by their fans - is a problem?  And I *get* that people have to defend against all sorts of inaccurate smears, and that sucks, it isn't fair, but that doesn't mean that a hardline defense against everything makes any kind of sense. Even nuanced, educated, open-minded people can see through that misguided defense BS (and yes, I don't deny that those same nuanced, educated, open-minded people can ALSO simultaneously buy into other inaccurate anti-Hillary BS incorrectly). Shades of grey, complexity. There is a truth to be found in this, somewhere. But it ain't gonna be found with blanket statements.

Just as Hillary fans/defenders get really fatigued of dealing with people spreading lies/misinformation (a very real thing)... so do other people get really fatigued by hearing indefensible/shitty behavior (like the example I mentioned) being condoned - and not condemned. I realize during an election people don't want to budge an inch - but it's not smart in the longrun. It makes it seem like a giant cult of personality thing with people wearing blinders, and there is gonna be a backlash to that.

When PROVEN corruption like the incident I mentioned is just ignored by her fans, it's despicable. When "it's just politics!" arguments are used, that doesn't mean peoples' outrage goes away. I don't care if it's someone I am rooting for or someone else... if Bernie got his hands caught in the cookie jar in that manner, I'd be just as critical as I am with Hillary. I'd be outraged by ANY politician in ANY party who got caught rigging a primary with their cronies, and just pretended that it's a non-issue (perhaps that denial makes it look even worse than the act itself). The amount of Mike Love parallels I could continue to make is staggering, by the way.

It's not an acceptable argument to say "just because they do it, it makes it ok if she does it". Personally, being that I am not some major political observer, I may not be aware of specific examples of some other politicians' corruption. Just because I haven't been sitting around for years seeking out corrupt politicians and condemning them, that doesn't mean that when it comes to light that Hillary has done something corrupt, I should just make the illogical leap to think that I need to condone her behavior because I haven't necessarily witnessed how bad everybody else's behavior is also. Bad behavior, when exposed, ain't right. A free pass shouldn't be given. Maybe some more understanding and nuance of there being a systemic issue with political corruption, but not a free pass. Not giving a free pass does not automatically equal sexism.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 04:21:28 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1888 on: November 11, 2016, 03:48:12 PM »


It becomes like a FDP-esque echo chamber

Nooooooooo! A Trump presidency is one thing. This concept is just beyond the pale.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



View Profile
« Reply #1889 on: November 11, 2016, 03:54:01 PM »


It becomes like a FDP-esque echo chamber

Nooooooooo! A Trump presidency is one thing. This concept is just beyond the pale.

 LOL
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10873


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1890 on: November 11, 2016, 03:56:03 PM »

Alright I'm better now....I think though I'm done ever voting for a major party.I also think I'm going to get involved directly and if not directly then as an advocate.  I've seen too many people struggle,  and try to get people divided because if we were to unite, too many people in power (the ones really running the show) would be running scared
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1891 on: November 11, 2016, 03:59:50 PM »

Alright I'm better now....I think though I'm done ever voting for a major party.

Glad to hear you're feeling better. But I'd say never close off your options. There may well be a time when a major-party candidate deserves your vote. Keep your options open.

I also think I'm going to get involved directly and if not directly then as an advocate.  I've seen too many people struggle,  and try to get people divided because if we were to unite, too many people in power (the ones really running the show) would be running scared

Amen. Most smart people--unless they are personally being enriched by the system--would agree wholeheartedly with that last sentiment. There is, I think, literally no question from anyone of any political perspective who honestly thinks the broad interests of the American people are currently well served by the political class.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #1892 on: November 11, 2016, 04:39:34 PM »


It becomes like a FDP-esque echo chamber

Nooooooooo! A Trump presidency is one thing. This concept is just beyond the pale.

 LOL
Captain, your "discussions" with FDP on the pet sounds forum are quite the laughs in these dark times! LOL
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Woodstock
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1613



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1893 on: November 12, 2016, 02:23:47 AM »

Alright I'm better now....I think though I'm done ever voting for a major party.I also think I'm going to get involved directly and if not directly then as an advocate.  I've seen too many people struggle,  and try to get people divided because if we were to unite, too many people in power (the ones really running the show) would be running scared

Why would you say you'll never vote for a major party when you dont know who will be running for those parties? Bernie would have represented the Democrats had he won the nomination. If he wins it in 2020 you wouldnt vote for him?
Logged

♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10873


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1894 on: November 12, 2016, 10:41:05 AM »

Alright I'm better now....I think though I'm done ever voting for a major party.I also think I'm going to get involved directly and if not directly then as an advocate.  I've seen too many people struggle,  and try to get people divided because if we were to unite, too many people in power (the ones really running the show) would be running scared

Why would you say you'll never vote for a major party when you dont know who will be running for those parties? Bernie would have represented the Democrats had he won the nomination. If he wins it in 2020 you wouldnt vote for him?

Yeah..it was just the hurt and anger talking.
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1895 on: November 12, 2016, 12:35:07 PM »

While I like Bernie Sanders, I still think that Jill Stein is a better candidate.
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1896 on: November 12, 2016, 01:57:53 PM »

Trump won and Clinton lost. Stein could have bowed out and put the environment ahead of her ego.
Many articles on how 3rd party candidates were a factor in Clinton losing. Probably so. But the people who voted 3rd party did so with their eyes wide open. I don't want to hear their whining when Republicans start dismantling environmental protection and cutting their food stamps. If they are out their protesting Trump now, shame on them!
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1897 on: November 12, 2016, 02:07:01 PM »

Trump won and Clinton lost. Stein could have bowed out and put the environment ahead of her ego.
Many articles on how 3rd party candidates were a factor in Clinton losing. Probably so. But the people who voted 3rd party did so with their eyes wide open. I don't want to hear their whining when Republicans start dismantling environmental protection and cutting their food stamps. If they are out their protesting Trump now, shame on them!

Sorry, but the evidence shows that Trump would have won with or without Jill Stein in the elections. The Democrats right now are desperate to blame anyone but themselves, hence the many articles that you are referring to.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10873


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1898 on: November 12, 2016, 02:22:12 PM »

While I like Bernie Sanders, I still think that Jill Stein is a better candidate.
Why do you feel that way? I'm asking because I actually am interested in a discussion on this as opposed to the fighting from elsewhere.
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1899 on: November 12, 2016, 02:30:25 PM »

While I like Bernie Sanders, I still think that Jill Stein is a better candidate.
Why do you feel that way? I'm asking because I actually am interested in a discussion on this as opposed to the fighting from elsewhere.

Yes, me too! I think that Sanders is good - kind of like a standard Roosevelt-era Democrat. However, Stein rejects the kind of state socialist economic model of Sanders and replaces it with what I consider to be a stronger democratic economic structure model which is still not perfect, but better. And on many issues, Sanders is still quite centrist, particularly on international affairs. He voted in favour of the devastating sanctions against Iraq and even voted in favour of the Iraqi Liberation Act which was essentially the pre-cursor to the Iraq invasion of 2003. So there are a lot of issues with him, I think.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2016, 02:30:53 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.332 seconds with 21 queries.