-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 15, 2019, 03:16:33 AM

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 ... 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 217175 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #1975 on: November 17, 2016, 04:21:14 AM »

gosh. how hard id it to figure out. people had enough of obozo's programs the past 8 years. clinton offered no change, she was going to continue obummer's crap. if she offered solutions she easily would have won. fact is, she had no solutions. the silent majority, middle class WORKING people, were/are fed up with oblamer's proghrams and their cost...obamacare, immagration, and the  cost of welfare (and having to support the 47% who are getting a free ride). they are the reason clinton lost. they got trump elected. libturds did not count of them to show up in the numbers they did. they decided the election. clinton didn't want 'em. so she lost. end of story. all who want their freebies here are upset cause they may now lose them. hope so. i have to WORK for what i have.

 Undecided Has anyone here seen the movie, "Idiocracy"?  My girlfriend and I watched it last night.  It's a silly movie, but after seeing way too much crap like this on the internet for the last year, it's also kind of scary.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 04:27:01 AM by LostArt » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #1976 on: November 17, 2016, 04:48:39 AM »

"water like in a toilet?" Cool Guy
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
SurfRapGrungeFiend
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 116



View Profile
« Reply #1977 on: November 17, 2016, 05:41:07 PM »

I work two jobs roughly 80 to 90 hrs a week in a 97 jeep thats rugged not nice and fancy, scars all over my hands and arms from WORKING never collected a handout, never filed for unemployment even though i made more than what i did actually working and i lost my job due to the 'recession' in 2009, since then ive had to work twice as hard for a little more than i made at 1 job..
I am glad the free rides coming to an end but god knows I deserve a free ride but im not even 30 and ive been told since elementary school ill never get to retire and my social security wont be there when its time for me to collect.
Dont know where im going with this post but thats how i feel right now towards the bums, parasites and illegal immigrants that get more handouts a week that ive ever got in my life
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Logged

Surf music, Old school rap and The Seattle Sound

DJ Paul- Hi, I'm Chucky

Danny Greene and the Celtic Club

"I have no axe to grind, but if these maggots in this so-called Mafia want to come after me, I'm over here by the Celtic Club. I'm not hard to find'
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1978 on: November 18, 2016, 04:00:32 AM »

I think you've been misinformed about the various forms of welfare, who gets it, how much they get, for how long, and under what conditions.
I also don't think you should be ashamed to take unemployment insurance if you validly qualify.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1979 on: November 18, 2016, 06:11:13 AM »

I work two jobs roughly 80 to 90 hrs a week in a 97 jeep thats rugged not nice and fancy, scars all over my hands and arms from WORKING never collected a handout, never filed for unemployment even though i made more than what i did actually working and i lost my job due to the 'recession' in 2009, since then ive had to work twice as hard for a little more than i made at 1 job..
I am glad the free rides coming to an end but god knows I deserve a free ride but im not even 30 and ive been told since elementary school ill never get to retire and my social security wont be there when its time for me to collect.
Dont know where im going with this post but thats how i feel right now towards the bums, parasites and illegal immigrants that get more handouts a week that ive ever got in my life
GOD BLESS AMERICA

Unfortunately a lot of people are in your situation: working more, making less. But the reason for that is not Pres. Obama. The reason for that is not Obamacare. It is not illegal immigrants. It is not some minority population leaching off your hard work. It is not environmental regulation or financial-industry regulation.

The reason is the bipartisan commitment to the wealthy, same as it ever was...

I hope I'm wrong about this, but think long and hard about whether Donald Trump is a) capable of, and b) interested in doing anything to help the working class. Donald Trump was born rich. Donald Trump was raised rich. Donald Trump's initial business success was based on his daddy's money. Donald Trump went big in his business ventures, and failed, repeatedly. (Trump Airlines, an assortment of casinos, the USFL, etc.) He got famous for being a brash, loud public figure who f***ed around on his various wives before trading them in for newer models. And he has cheated the working class at every opportunity by trying to get out of paying his own taxes, stiffing his contractors, and discriminating against people in his apartments.

There is literally nothing--nothing--in the man's past to suggest he would be a champion for the working class, other than what he began saying only after beginning a run for president. Everything else in the previous 70-something years shows the exact opposite.

It's too late now, but you have to think about whether any of this makes sense. Or whether the country has fallen for a con man, a TV star, whose tough talk and willingness to find scapegoats (Mexicans, Muslims, etc.) confused the real issues. Think hard about who deserves blame. Is it the poor, the weak, and the powerless? Or is it the rich, the strong, and the powerful? Which has more control over the bad circumstances many people, including you, find themselves in? The oldest trick in the book to keep power is to divide the weaker against one another. Pit the poor white against the poor black; the poor Protestant against the poor Catholic; the poor secular against the poor religious; the poor native against the poor immigrant. Notice who is conveniently absent from every scenario? The powerful.

Please think long and hard whether your situation is a consequence of "bums, parasites and illegal immigrants," or whether it is a consequence of employers who have found other countries where they can run their businesses cheaper, of employers who have found they can run their businesses here with fewer people thanks to automation/computerization, of laws where they can pay unfairly low wages or minimal benefits, of a country that doesn't provide sufficient assistance or training to people transitioning from one dying industry to another growing one.
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.
wilsonart1
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 201



View Profile
« Reply #1980 on: November 18, 2016, 06:19:46 AM »

Captain! Take a breath of that country air. Grammatical error's by us mean less to me than someone willing to express a view or just speak out.  If all of us in this room came together would we talk or fight?  I have often wondered this.  People have such a small idea of the welfare system...example 64 year old fathering children with girls in apartment complex's , just so the child gets social sec. til 18.  One individual has 14 children from diff. girls, all wanting to get on the plan ( for better term).  This is the things that have to stop!  The older gent states this is how we do it in Chicago just to make sure children have a income.  This person lives in your state Captain, moved to Mn several years ago.  Cap. your a nice read, hope you have a family to be with this Thanksgiving.  Keep up the voice.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1981 on: November 18, 2016, 06:37:59 AM »

I think the idea of people having kids just for benefits is one of the most overstated myths there is. I'd never say something never happens--always and never are stupid statements that are almost never (see, I said almost!) true--but these are messaging used by one side to do exactly what I just talked about: pitting one subclass against another subclass, both of which are more or less in the same class. Finding examples and pretending they represent "the way it is," or "what they're doing now," is bad logic by extrapolation. Of course I don't want to spend money on abusers of the system, but I'd rather err on the side of overpayment than underpayment to the needy.

As for the rest, I'm entirely calm. And I'd never fight anyone if I could help it, I think violence is for the weak and stupid. I speak, I type, I don't yell, and I don't fight. I spend a lot of time talking to conservatives, of which I do not consider myself one, as well as progressives, of which I do not consider myself one. The conversations are entirely pleasant.

And unfortunately, I do have family with whom I'll spend Thanksgiving. I'm not particularly fond of my family or of holidays, both steal time from what matters in my life, but oh well. I do like the food quite a bit.

EDIT: I meant to also note, I am absolutely thrilled to see people express their opinions and speak out. And I'm thrilled to do the same. Discussion between people with different opinions is, to me, hugely important to improve society. The last thing this world needs is an increase in the little social bubbles where people spend all of their time around people who already agree with them. Don't mistake me criticizing what someone says with criticizing his or her right to say it. Debate and argument aren't a bad thing: they are a good thing.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 06:48:19 AM by the captain » 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.
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 660



View Profile
« Reply #1982 on: November 18, 2016, 08:25:00 AM »

I work two jobs roughly 80 to 90 hrs a week in a 97 jeep thats rugged not nice and fancy, scars all over my hands and arms from WORKING never collected a handout, never filed for unemployment even though i made more than what i did actually working and i lost my job due to the 'recession' in 2009, since then ive had to work twice as hard for a little more than i made at 1 job..
I am glad the free rides coming to an end but god knows I deserve a free ride but im not even 30 and ive been told since elementary school ill never get to retire and my social security wont be there when its time for me to collect.
Dont know where im going with this post but thats how i feel right now towards the bums, parasites and illegal immigrants that get more handouts a week that ive ever got in my life
GOD BLESS AMERICA

I also don't think you should be ashamed to take unemployment insurance if you validly qualify.

I second Emily's point. Whether or not you agree with the existence of unemployment, it does exist, and it exists for hard working people such as yourself. Back in 2012 Hurricane Sandy took my job (and forced me to relocate for 10 months). That's what unemployment is for. Temporary relief to workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The compensation didn't go very far, but it helped. I'm not sure what state you live in, but in NJ state unemployment tax is withheld from employee's wages. I pay directly into it. Either way, if you don't have another job lined up immediately, don't feel like it's beneath you. And I say this as someone who felt similarly about unemployment as a young adult and even to this day am not convinced that programs such as these need to exist. As for Social Security, I'm the same age as you and have the same fears. When the time comes they'll probably just tax the next generation into oblivion and reduce our benefits to ensure we get something. It will be interesting to see if they bother to get more creative than that.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1983 on: November 18, 2016, 09:04:44 AM »

I'm highly skeptical of the possibility of someone who is fully eligible to collect an unemployment check, who has paid into it, choosing to not take it purely and solely on principle.

I'd have to guess there's some other mitigating circumstance or circumstances. Not wanting to fill the paperwork out. Getting rejected for the benefits. Not having paid enough into it. Some other factor that would not allow for collecting it. Or something.

Anything is possible, but even hardcore anti-socialist folks who pay that unemployment insurance via each and every paycheck will tend to collect it, whether they need it or not, and *certainly* if they need it.  

Even Ayn Rand collected her social security check. She may have justified it with convoluted reasoning, but even she took it because she paid into it.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 09:05:32 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 660



View Profile
« Reply #1984 on: November 18, 2016, 10:02:19 AM »

I'm highly skeptical of the possibility of someone who is fully eligible to collect an unemployment check, who has paid into it, choosing to not take it purely and solely on principle.

I'd have to guess there's some other mitigating circumstance or circumstances. Not wanting to fill the paperwork out. Getting rejected for the benefits. Not having paid enough into it. Some other factor that would not allow for collecting it. Or something.

Anything is possible, but even hardcore anti-socialist folks who pay that unemployment insurance via each and every paycheck will tend to collect it, whether they need it or not, and *certainly* if they need it. 

Even Ayn Rand collected her social security check. She may have justified it with convoluted reasoning, but even she took it because she paid into it.

Well, unless you are talking specifically about me (which I don't think you are), most employees don't pay unemployment insurance each and every paycheck. I believe in all but 3 states unemployment benefits are solely funded by employers. Still, I suppose it affects (like any other cost) how much an employer is willing to pay an employee. To your point, I'm surprised it surprises you that either for more intellectual reasons or emotional reasons a person may feel uneasy about collecting unemployment. As I mentioned, I had to talk myself into it a bit, but living in NJ made it easier for me. Still, the max annual contribution to unemployment in NJ for employees is about $120. It doesn't take long at all to recoup your contributions. Then, how would a hardcore anti-socialist rationalize it? I've known people who refused it or begrudgingly collected only to cancel it despite remaining unemployed simply because it made them feel like a bum. And the person I know who cancelled it, literally did just that. He qualified and actively sought a job, but called them up and said "I don't want it anymore". People think all kinds of things.

P.S. why does everyone enjoy bashing Ayn Rand so much? LOL I had to read one of her books in High School (Anthem) and proceeded to read bits and pieces of some of her other work thereafter. I enjoyed it well enough. It is what it is.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1985 on: November 18, 2016, 10:03:06 AM »



Emily, while nobody can unquestionably prove that Wasserman-Schultz or Brazile's actions affected votes (I certainly wouldn't say those actions alone cost Hillary the election, but were IMO certainly a contributing factor), one thing seems pretty clear to me. Hillary NOT completely distancing herself from Wasserman-Schultz IMMEDIATELY after Wasserman-Schultz's corruption was proven was a huge problem, and a giant hit to Hillary's credibility.  

I agree that the popularly accepted interpretation of those actions affected votes, certainly. As did Clinton not distancing herself from Wasserman-Schultz.
I have not seen this proof of which you speak and I think without proof it shouldn't have been a hit to Clinton's credibility, nor should it have affected votes.

Bottom line: if you are a candidate, and you know you have a credibility problem, with people thinking there is collusion, the last thing you want to do is add fuel to the fire and do things that give the appearance of furthering that image. Hillary chose to do that (which to me just smacks of further arrogance, because I cannot for the life of me understand how she would be unaware of - at the very least - the appearance of collusion and favors to someone who did unquestionably proven behind-the-scenes shenanigans, and how she could think that actions like this would not be any sort of problem).

Literally right after the DNC was forced to apologize for behind-the-scenes corruption, and to apologize for the emails proving Hillary's cronies were conspiring to find ways to use Bernie's Judaism against him in certain states (side note: can you imagine for one moment how people would have reacted if the shoe was on the other foot, with proven emails showing Bernie having DNC cronies who were trying to use Hillary's gender against her?), Hillary gave her old pal Debbie an honorary position on her campaign.

Do you have evidence that that one email that nobody acted upon was written by a member of "Hillary's cronies"?

Can't say I have evidence. Here's a question: do you honestly think it's doubtful? Do you blame people for having suspicions?  I frankly don't really put much ethically beyond her campaigns, based upon (just for starters) her fear-mongering in 2008. Not to mention the infamous superpredators comment. I don't think it's probable she has a problem with doing or approving things like race/religion-baiting, as long as she and her team can get away with it. Not saying she would necessarily be laughing like Dr. Evil in the corner, maybe she would do it/approve it regretfully, but I don't really think it's likely to see her saying "no, we can't do that, this would be an unethical thing to do!" if she was aware her team might be able to actually help her campaign by figuring out a way to scare people off to Bernie being Jewish.


Granted, I'm not in any way comparing Hillary's campaign ethics to Trump's. Trump is his own special universe of excrement. I just think that people shouldn't be so quick to think "oh, Hillary would never approve a thing like that!" Frankly, what do you think Hillary would have done if she had found out about the Jewish race-baiting if it were done by some people without her knowledge beforehand, and without Wikileaks being a factor? Do you think she would have said, "I've grown since my superpredators comment; I've grown since the 2008 election, and I think that would be wrong, and I want to make sure that nobody does anything like that on my campaign". Does that sound realistic to you? I'm curious. I believe that's actually something Bernie would say. I don't buy for a moment that this was Hillary's way of thinking. If it was working well, and it was not determined to be risky to be caught, I think she'd gladly have looked the other way if it would help her campaign. I base this guess not on her gender, but by numerous past actions of hers that have left a bad taste in my mouth.


I don't care if anyone wants to minimize what Debbie's honorary position was on the campaign; the fact is that Hillary's statement showed not even a smidge of disappointment at Debbie's unethical corruption. Even if Debbie is Hillary's friend, and she wants to help a friend out (a human emotion I can understand and empathize with), Hillary nevertheless acted in a very, VERY foolish manner. It's not about how important (or not) the honorary position was. It's about the principle of the matter.

Perhaps Clinton was acting on the principle that she should stand by her friend who was being wrongly villainized. Clinton could probably sympathize with that.

There's nothing wrong with people vilifying Debbie for acting in a non-impartial way. People donated hundreds of millions of dollars under the premise of impartiality. Just for a moment consider how you'd feel if a candidate you were diehard about was screwed over by that type of thing. Or how any Democrat would mock the Republicans for doing the same thing (what if there was a moderate Republican who got screwed over by the RNC in this election in the same manner, and then that led to Trump getting the nom - and now, as I want to vomit as I say these words, attaining the presidency?).

There's a giant lawsuit against the DNC right now from Bernie supporters. I hope the plaintiffs win and the DNC gets into deep financial trouble - they deserve to hit rock bottom at this point, it's the only way they will reboot themselves and remove the cancerous corruption and non-impartiality for the next go-round.

Frankly, Clinton's actions not distancing herself from Debbie were rightfully interpreted as a slap in the face to so many people, even if that wasn't the intention. Hillary should have known that would be the case - that the very people she so desperately needed to sway to her campaign were going to be the people outraged by not only the lack of distancing herself, but quite the opposite - giving her a job on her campaign. It's ridiculous. She should absolutely have known better. It speaks to a lack of judgment, like someone who is in their own la-la-la detached-from-reality dream world (cue Mike Love reference).

The rest of your post is based on an unproven premise. Just because everyone believes something doesn't mean it's true.

Again, that can very well apply to anyone who defends Hillary from all sorts of stuff. Doesn't mean the things they are defending are actually defensible, and the things they wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on were in any way grounded in reality. I think Hillary became an iconic figure for many people (especially women, including people I know personally), and I believe that in many cases, that cult of personality thing clouded peoples' judgment. As much as you are able to say (certainty not a statement without truth to it) that some, and perhaps many people judged Hillary negatively because of social conditioning regarding females, I would hope that you (and everyone else trying to maintain a realistic, IMHO, point of view) that some, and perhaps many other people wanted to give her extra passes because they refused to back down from supporting this idealized image they had crafted of her. That's an actual thing too, don't you think?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 10:10:45 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1986 on: November 18, 2016, 11:06:37 AM »


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.

Does that mean that every single person in the world (men, women, trans folks, LGBTQ) is a misogynist?

I wouldn't say a misogynist because that implies a totality. But yes, every single person in the world has misogynistic views.

I can agree with that. I think everyone on the planet probably has some misogynistic views. Doesn't mean that every single action or thought they have is misogynistic, however, because once we start going down that road, then everything is misogynistic, and then nothing is misogynistic. There has *got* to be nuance. A claim of misogyny doesn't necessarily = fact. And an incorrect claim of misogyny IS a problem. It's not ok.


And does that mean that every woman in the world cannot ever be criticized without risk (by the person doing the criticism) that they will be fingered as a misogynist?

Of course not. But if the person criticizing the woman is doing so with a double standard that they haven't applied to the many men who have been in the same position as the woman, I think that indicates misogyny.

Fair enough, but that assumes several things.

One, that assumes that the person criticizing the woman has, by definition, witnessed men doing all sorts of crappy things, and just looked the other way. For me, I don't really dabble too much in politics. Mainly just in presidential elections. I'm too busy obsessing over The BBs  Smiley So if there was a male politician (not a presidential candidate) who was guilty of all sorts of stuff that I believe Hillary to be guilty of, but let's just say this politician guy was some random dude in a relatively obscure US state who wasn't in the news much, he probably wouldn't be on my radar much, nor would he be much of a topic of conversation to get into. So in that way, I might be muted about someone acting in a way that I thought was unethical simply because it would be an obscure thing to talk about, like discussing on the BB message board if Al's nanny's boyfriend ever shoplifted. Still, I might bring the person up in conversation and talk about what a tool I thought they were.

The minute someone runs for president, and becomes a front-runner for a party, of course it changes things, and people get scrutinized far more closely. I was appalled when Obama (a man) took an anti gay marriage stance in the past, and I stated my dismay to people I know in conversations I had in person. Same deal with Hillary. No double standard there (just for example).

Secondly, you don't know my personal life history, and why some people might rub me in a particularly bad way as opposed to other people. I have observed numerous instances of Hillary acting dismissively to others, and frankly it reminds me of one of my parents (not going to say which parent, to leave gender out of the equation). I have a gut-level negative reaction when I observe some people behaving that way to others, based on my own history. Whether it's a politician, a musician, a relative, an actor, you name it - if I see someone acting in a way that seems to be a dismissive pattern, it bugs the crap out of me. That's a thing with me... maybe you can say it's silly to criticize a politician for that, yet that's my thing based on my own baggage. It doesn't have to do with gender. I have pointed out dismissive traits in numerous other people before whenever I see them, and gender does not factor into it. It bugs me deeply regardless of genitals! I'm well aware that Hillary is not running for parent, she is running for president... yet if some people get a really bad vibe from her just as a person, I'm just pointing out that there can be many non-gender related reasons for that. That alone isn't a reason to not support someone, but it's a contributing factor as to why I'm not much of a fan of her.

To make a gender-based claim leveled at me (or anyone else on the internet) without further information assumes that you know my history, the history of every person who got insulted by Hillary being dismissive to the superpredator protester (just one example of many). Again, maybe you will state that people have no right to bring their own personal baggage to the table when assessing whether or not someone rubs them the wrong way - feel free to make that statement. That may be accurate, or that may not be. Either way it does not *necessarily* have to do with gender! It's a case-by-case thing where some people get off-put by certain people, sometimes influenced by someone perhaps "violating" gender norms, but sometimes not.



 Should people have that fear?


No. No one should fear having their misogyny pointed out. I don't. I find it an opportunity to learn and examine myself.


Not sure if my point was misunderstood, but I'm talking about incorrect claims. I was saying that *if someone truly believes that they are not being misogynistic*, they should still fear that someone is going to call them that, and just be ok with it? Everyone just has to accept that they could always be wrong 100% percent of the time, and that's it up to some random person on the internet (I don't mean you necessarily, Emily, but in general on social media) to make a claim, and get a pitchfork mob to join the chants of "sexist! sexist!"?  

I mean, are you saying that everyone needs to have an open mind that every single thing they ever say is in fact misogynistic, even if they are educated, well-read, and have thought long and hard about why a particular point of view is in fact not misogynistic? I believe having an open mind is important, and people should be willing to accept that they are wrong, but I feel that many people leveling accusations of misogyny believe this doesn't apply to them. Does that imply that the person making the claims of misogyny is always correct? What if they are not correct? Is that a problematic thing to you? Isn't overuse of the term (at inappropriate times) and overly claiming it to always be a thing at every conceivable stretch of the way a problem that in fact dilutes when actual misogyny is being pointed out? Could the idea of crying wolf ever apply?

Sorry, there are a lot of questions here, but I feel these are very important questions to ask... and in general I see people who are quick to level accusations of misogyny ducking these questions like Mott and FDP duck Mike Love criticism, and it really bug me.

That said, I have had moments in my life where I have looked at an action or words in hindsight and found that I did in fact have a misogynistic stance, and have also used it as an opportunity to learn and examine myself. I don't dismiss that in any way. Of course, liberal democrats can be misogynistic too.

Again, I'm just striving to point out the fact that nuance is a thing. Can we agree on that?




I agree that people should have an omnipresent awareness that perhaps their views on case-by-case topics are being shaped by societal conditioning, and I believe *to a point* that this is ALWAYS the case; I don't think that is a bad thing to be aware of, yet it has to remain a "perhaps" in each case. My question is when does that educated knowledge turn into walking on eggshells, and when does that eventually lead to people being muzzled for fear of repercussions. And if that muzzling is perhaps what some people ultimately desire.

I truly want to understand this point of view. Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I feel this is a very important topic for people to be having intelligent discourse about at this point in time.

If someone feels deeply in their heart that a woman is worthy of criticism over some (or an accumulation of many) action(s), do they have to fear repercussions for ever voicing their point of view, simply by someone declaring they are being misogynist? I absolutely agree that misogyny remains a huge, huge problem in the world, and in our country, not one morsel of doubt about it. My fear is that if we do away with nuance, then we will have kangaroo courts of public opinion where someone can be accused of being misogynist, and all it takes is for one person to make that accusation, and it's true. IMO it *has* to be a case-by-case thing.

What if a hypothetical woman, who - let's say for the sake of argument - you believe personally mistreated you and acted arrogantly to you (your perception of matters)... does this mean if you criticized them for that, or called them out as being arrogant, then all it takes is that one declaration of misogyny by someone else to make the misogyny qualification absolutely, unquestionably true?

I should add to all this: all one need to do is look at social media to see the amount of nincompoops who have been trolling since Trump's win, trying to espouse the view of minimizing things like sexism and racism. Despite a video of a black veteran being harassed for being accused of not being a real veteran, he shamefully had his food taken away by a moron manager at Chili's, which seems to obviously be a racially-motivated incident, being that it started with another customer (who leveled the accusation) instigating a conversation about whether black veterans were allowed in WWII. Also, the West Virginia mayor and her friend recently referred to Michelle Obama as a "ape in high heels", which is beyond repugnant and obviously racist (which the idiot woman who stated the "ape" comment subsequently denied was racist - talk about chutzpah).

In any event, there are racist/sexist social media trolls who will ridiculously take the notion I'm bringing up to an extreme, where they try to downplay (or negate) irrefutable instances of racism or sexism. I don't want to empower their "cause" in any way, shape or form by simply bringing the subject of nuance to the table. Nor do I think that sexism/racism has to be extremely obvious; it can certainly manifest in very subtle ways. Just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that.



I think my above answers answer the rest of this: yes - we have all absorbed misogynist attitudes. No, that doesn't mean women should not be criticized. No, we should not fear having it pointed out when we are applying double-standards or in other ways expressing misogyny.

Agreed that we have all absorbed misogynist attitudes to a degree. Again, I just think that there is a knee-jerk tendency to label people as being misogynists without knowing what non-gender factors may have shaped their opinions. And also without knowing which other candidates/people they have or have not criticized in the past. It's become a guilty-until-proven-innocent atmosphere on the internet with perfect strangers leveling accusations against others. Surely you must see some truth in that? This has helped enable the vile cancer that is Trumpism, and it scares me to death that more people don't realize that.  If you witnessed me having a pattern of dismissing Obama's flip-floppy nature with gay marriage, saying "oh, it's cool, he just had to take that stance for politics, I don't begrudge him for it", and then hear me tearing Hillary a new one for doing the same thing, well then perhaps there could be a conversation about gender. But just to use that as an example, that's simply not the case here.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 11:41:02 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8544



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1987 on: November 18, 2016, 12:15:40 PM »

I'm highly skeptical of the possibility of someone who is fully eligible to collect an unemployment check, who has paid into it, choosing to not take it purely and solely on principle.

I'd have to guess there's some other mitigating circumstance or circumstances. Not wanting to fill the paperwork out. Getting rejected for the benefits. Not having paid enough into it. Some other factor that would not allow for collecting it. Or something.

Anything is possible, but even hardcore anti-socialist folks who pay that unemployment insurance via each and every paycheck will tend to collect it, whether they need it or not, and *certainly* if they need it. 

Even Ayn Rand collected her social security check. She may have justified it with convoluted reasoning, but even she took it because she paid into it.

Well, unless you are talking specifically about me (which I don't think you are), most employees don't pay unemployment insurance each and every paycheck. I believe in all but 3 states unemployment benefits are solely funded by employers. Still, I suppose it affects (like any other cost) how much an employer is willing to pay an employee. To your point, I'm surprised it surprises you that either for more intellectual reasons or emotional reasons a person may feel uneasy about collecting unemployment. As I mentioned, I had to talk myself into it a bit, but living in NJ made it easier for me. Still, the max annual contribution to unemployment in NJ for employees is about $120. It doesn't take long at all to recoup your contributions. Then, how would a hardcore anti-socialist rationalize it? I've known people who refused it or begrudgingly collected only to cancel it despite remaining unemployed simply because it made them feel like a bum. And the person I know who cancelled it, literally did just that. He qualified and actively sought a job, but called them up and said "I don't want it anymore". People think all kinds of things.

P.S. why does everyone enjoy bashing Ayn Rand so much? LOL I had to read one of her books in High School (Anthem) and proceeded to read bits and pieces of some of her other work thereafter. I enjoyed it well enough. It is what it is.

I agree that it's virtually impossible for an anti-socialist individual to justify collecting unemployment. And indeed, in all but a few scenarios, employers pay that unemployment tax via payroll taxes, which makes collecting it even harder for anti-entitlement folks to justify collecting it. But a ton of them do it. I've known a lot of Republicans, conservatives, anti-socialist, people who rail against welfare and any entitlement programs at the state or Federal level. Many of them collected unemployment at some point or another.

I'm not saying there are zero folks who take a principled stand and refuse unemployment benefits that they *would* be able to collect. I just think that number is *VERY, VERY* low once you factor in all of the reasons outside of solely the principle of it.

As for Ayn Rand, I'm not a fan, but that's another thread. But the reference was simply to the idea that even someone as staunchly capitalist and objectivist and as cold and anti-altruism (and so on) as Rand still found a justification to collect on an entitlement program partially funded by the government.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1988 on: November 18, 2016, 03:32:40 PM »

Double post
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 03:37:55 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1989 on: November 18, 2016, 03:35:03 PM »





Emily, while nobody can unquestionably prove that Wasserman-Schultz or Brazile's actions affected votes (I certainly wouldn't say those actions alone cost Hillary the election, but were IMO certainly a contributing factor), one thing seems pretty clear to me. Hillary NOT completely distancing herself from Wasserman-Schultz IMMEDIATELY after Wasserman-Schultz's corruption was proven was a huge problem, and a giant hit to Hillary's credibility.  

I agree that the popularly accepted interpretation of those actions affected votes, certainly. As did Clinton not distancing herself from Wasserman-Schultz.
I have not seen this proof of which you speak and I think without proof it shouldn't have been a hit to Clinton's credibility, nor should it have affected votes.

Bottom line: if you are a candidate, and you know you have a credibility problem, with people thinking there is collusion, the last thing you want to do is add fuel to the fire and do things that give the appearance of furthering that image. Hillary chose to do that (which to me just smacks of further arrogance, because I cannot for the life of me understand how she would be unaware of - at the very least - the appearance of collusion and favors to someone who did unquestionably proven behind-the-scenes shenanigans, and how she could think that actions like this would not be any sort of problem).
First off, it's going to be a challenge to make this multiquote response work because I'm on a phone, so please bear with me.
Again, You refer to "unquestionably proven" inappropriate activity. I question it.
If you are criticizing her for doing what she believed to be right despite the optics, go ahead. I disagree that one should be criticized for that.
Otherwise, I don't think you've established your premise. Where is the proof?
Literally right after the DNC was forced to apologize for behind-the-scenes corruption, and to apologize for the emails proving Hillary's cronies were conspiring to find ways to use Bernie's Judaism against him in certain states (side note: can you imagine for one moment how people would have reacted if the shoe was on the other foot, with proven emails showing Bernie having DNC cronies who were trying to use Hillary's gender against her?), Hillary gave her old pal Debbie an honorary position on her campaign.

Do you have evidence that that one email that nobody acted upon was written by a member of "Hillary's cronies"?

Can't say I have evidence. Here's a question: do you honestly think it's doubtful? Do you blame people for having suspicions?  I frankly don't really put much ethically beyond her campaigns, based upon (just for starters) her fear-mongering in 2008. Not to mention the infamous superpredators comment. I don't think it's probable she has a problem with doing or approving things like race/religion-baiting, as long as she and her team can get away with it. Not saying she would necessarily be laughing like Dr. Evil in the corner, maybe she would do it/approve it regretfully, but I don't really think it's likely to see her saying "no, we can't do that, this would be an unethical thing to do!" if she was aware her team might be able to actually help her campaign by figuring out a way to scare people off to Bernie being Jewish.
Do I think what's doubtful? That he's one of Clinton's "cronies"? I have no way of knowing. I don't know who hired him. I don't know why. He's probably a crony of a significant Democrat, but not necessarily of H Clinton. There are lots of people with favors to give out. Do you doubt that Sanders has cronies? Do you doubt any candidate at high levels do? Do you doubt that someone related to the Sanders campaign suggested dirty ways to smear Clinton (hint: they did)?
Given that we have access to hundreds of thousands of Clinton related emails and given that there are very few that talk about smearing people based on personal qualities and given that that's not a hallmark of her campaigns, I find it odd that you are trying to paint her as worse in this light than other politicians.
Btw, I also am closely connected to an entirely unqualified guy with a paid Massachusetts state gov't position that's not meant to be a political appointment who did not interview for his job. HR called his boss one day, said he's got a new staff member, they don't know his skills, but E Warren wanted them to give him a job. It's a white collar position that his peers have extensive qualifications for. Guess what? Your outrage at Clinton is misguided.
And, Clinton DID say "no we can't do that" and let go from her campaign in 2008 the staff member who floated the birther thing.


Granted, I'm not in any way comparing Hillary's campaign ethics to Trump's. Trump is his own special universe of excrement. I just think that people shouldn't be so quick to think "oh, Hillary would never approve a thing like that!" Frankly, what do you think Hillary would have done if she had found out about the Jewish race-baiting if it were done by some people without her knowledge beforehand, and without Wikileaks being a factor? Do you think she would have said, "I've grown since my superpredators comment; I've grown since the 2008 election, and I think that would be wrong, and I want to make sure that nobody does anything like that on my campaign". Does that sound realistic to you? I'm curious. I believe that's actually something Bernie would say. I don't buy for a moment that this was Hillary's way of thinking. If it was working well, and it was not determined to be risky to be caught, I think she'd gladly have looked the other way if it would help her campaign. I base this guess not on her gender, but by numerous past actions of hers that have left a bad taste in my mouth.
What are the numerous past actions?

I don't care if anyone wants to minimize what Debbie's honorary position was on the campaign; the fact is that Hillary's statement showed not even a smidge of disappointment at Debbie's unethical corruption. Even if Debbie is Hillary's friend, and she wants to help a friend out (a human emotion I can understand and empathize with), Hillary nevertheless acted in a very, VERY foolish manner. It's not about how important (or not) the honorary position was. It's about the principle of the matter.

Perhaps Clinton was acting on the principle that she should stand by her friend who was being wrongly villainized. Clinton could probably sympathize with that.

There's nothing wrong with people vilifying Debbie for acting in a non-impartial way. People donated hundreds of millions of dollars under the premise of impartiality. Just for a moment consider how you'd feel if a candidate you were diehard about was screwed over by that type of thing. Or how any Democrat would mock the Republicans for doing the same thing (what if there was a moderate Republican who got screwed over by the RNC in this election in the same manner, and then that led to Trump getting the nom - and now, as I want to vomit as I say these words, attaining the presidency?).

There's a giant lawsuit against the DNC right now from Bernie supporters. I hope the plaintiffs win and the DNC gets into deep financial trouble - they deserve to hit rock bottom at this point, it's the only way they will reboot themselves and remove the cancerous corruption and non-impartiality for the next go-round.
I would be very annoyed if my candidate was "screwed over." Where's the evidence that your candidate was?

Frankly, Clinton's actions not distancing herself from Debbie were rightfully interpreted as a slap in the face to so many people, even if that wasn't the intention. Hillary should have known that would be the case - that the very people she so desperately needed to sway to her campaign were going to be the people outraged by not only the lack of distancing herself, but quite the opposite - giving her a job on her campaign. It's ridiculous. She should absolutely have known better. It speaks to a lack of judgment, like someone who is in their own la-la-la detached-from-reality dream world (cue Mike Love reference).

The rest of your post is based on an unproven premise. Just because everyone believes something doesn't mean it's true.

Again, that can very well apply to anyone who defends Hillary from all sorts of stuff. Doesn't mean the things they are defending are actually defensible, and the things they wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on were in any way grounded in reality. I think Hillary became an iconic figure for many people (especially women, including people I know personally), and I believe that in many cases, that cult of personality thing clouded peoples' judgment. As much as you are able to say (certainty not a statement without truth to it) that some, and perhaps many people judged Hillary negatively because of social conditioning regarding females, I would hope that you (and everyone else trying to maintain a realistic, IMHO, point of view) that some, and perhaps many other people wanted to give her extra passes because they refused to back down from supporting this idealized image they had crafted of her. That's an actual thing too, don't you think?
[/quote]
Typically, for very logical as well as ethical reasons, we consider the burden to be on the accuser to provide evidence.
How will you defend yourself if I accuse you of stealing from your workplace? How will you establish that you didn't? It would be on me to establish that you did.
Also, tye Clinton thing is very much not a cult of personality. I know very few Clinton supporters who didn't work hard to overcome their own biases to arrive at their position of support. You can go through my posts with a microscope and you won't find a nanogram of veneration.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1990 on: November 18, 2016, 03:53:13 PM »


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.

Does that mean that every single person in the world (men, women, trans folks, LGBTQ) is a misogynist?

I wouldn't say a misogynist because that implies a totality. But yes, every single person in the world has misogynistic views.

I can agree with that. I think everyone on the planet probably has some misogynistic views. Doesn't mean that every single action or thought they have is misogynistic, however, because once we start going down that road, then everything is misogynistic, and then nothing is misogynistic. There has *got* to be nuance. A claim of misogyny doesn't necessarily = fact. And an incorrect claim of misogyny IS a problem. It's not ok.


And does that mean that every woman in the world cannot ever be criticized without risk (by the person doing the criticism) that they will be fingered as a misogynist?

Of course not. But if the person criticizing the woman is doing so with a double standard that they haven't applied to the many men who have been in the same position as the woman, I think that indicates misogyny.

Fair enough, but that assumes several things.

One, that assumes that the person criticizing the woman has, by definition, witnessed men doing all sorts of crappy things, and just looked the other way. For me, I don't really dabble too much in politics. Mainly just in presidential elections. I'm too busy obsessing over The BBs  Smiley So if there was a male politician (not a presidential candidate) who was guilty of all sorts of stuff that I believe Hillary to be guilty of, but let's just say this politician guy was some random dude in a relatively obscure US state who wasn't in the news much, he probably wouldn't be on my radar much, nor would he be much of a topic of conversation to get into. So in that way, I might be muted about someone acting in a way that I thought was unethical simply because it would be an obscure thing to talk about, like discussing on the BB message board if Al's nanny's boyfriend ever shoplifted. Still, I might bring the person up in conversation and talk about what a tool I thought they were.

The minute someone runs for president, and becomes a front-runner for a party, of course it changes things, and people get scrutinized far more closely. I was appalled when Obama (a man) took an anti gay marriage stance in the past, and I stated my dismay to people I know in conversations I had in person. Same deal with Hillary. No double standard there (just for example).

Secondly, you don't know my personal life history, and why some people might rub me in a particularly bad way as opposed to other people. I have observed numerous instances of Hillary acting dismissively to others, and frankly it reminds me of one of my parents (not going to say which parent, to leave gender out of the equation). I have a gut-level negative reaction when I observe some people behaving that way to others, based on my own history. Whether it's a politician, a musician, a relative, an actor, you name it - if I see someone acting in a way that seems to be a dismissive pattern, it bugs the crap out of me. That's a thing with me... maybe you can say it's silly to criticize a politician for that, yet that's my thing based on my own baggage. It doesn't have to do with gender. I have pointed out dismissive traits in numerous other people before whenever I see them, and gender does not factor into it. It bugs me deeply regardless of genitals! I'm well aware that Hillary is not running for parent, she is running for president... yet if some people get a really bad vibe from her just as a person, I'm just pointing out that there can be many non-gender related reasons for that. That alone isn't a reason to not support someone, but it's a contributing factor as to why I'm not much of a fan of her.

To make a gender-based claim leveled at me (or anyone else on the internet) without further information assumes that you know my history, the history of every person who got insulted by Hillary being dismissive to the superpredator protester (just one example of many). Again, maybe you will state that people have no right to bring their own personal baggage to the table when assessing whether or not someone rubs them the wrong way - feel free to make that statement. That may be accurate, or that may not be. Either way it does not *necessarily* have to do with gender! It's a case-by-case thing where some people get off-put by certain people, sometimes influenced by someone perhaps "violating" gender norms, but sometimes not.



 Should people have that fear?


No. No one should fear having their misogyny pointed out. I don't. I find it an opportunity to learn and examine myself.


Not sure if my point was misunderstood, but I'm talking about incorrect claims. I was saying that *if someone truly believes that they are not being misogynistic*, they should still fear that someone is going to call them that, and just be ok with it? Everyone just has to accept that they could always be wrong 100% percent of the time, and that's it up to some random person on the internet (I don't mean you necessarily, Emily, but in general on social media) to make a claim, and get a pitchfork mob to join the chants of "sexist! sexist!"?  

I mean, are you saying that everyone needs to have an open mind that every single thing they ever say is in fact misogynistic, even if they are educated, well-read, and have thought long and hard about why a particular point of view is in fact not misogynistic? I believe having an open mind is important, and people should be willing to accept that they are wrong, but I feel that many people leveling accusations of misogyny believe this doesn't apply to them. Does that imply that the person making the claims of misogyny is always correct? What if they are not correct? Is that a problematic thing to you? Isn't overuse of the term (at inappropriate times) and overly claiming it to always be a thing at every conceivable stretch of the way a problem that in fact dilutes when actual misogyny is being pointed out? Could the idea of crying wolf ever apply?

Sorry, there are a lot of questions here, but I feel these are very important questions to ask... and in general I see people who are quick to level accusations of misogyny ducking these questions like Mott and FDP duck Mike Love criticism, and it really bug me.

That said, I have had moments in my life where I have looked at an action or words in hindsight and found that I did in fact have a misogynistic stance, and have also used it as an opportunity to learn and examine myself. I don't dismiss that in any way. Of course, liberal democrats can be misogynistic too.

Again, I'm just striving to point out the fact that nuance is a thing. Can we agree on that?




I agree that people should have an omnipresent awareness that perhaps their views on case-by-case topics are being shaped by societal conditioning, and I believe *to a point* that this is ALWAYS the case; I don't think that is a bad thing to be aware of, yet it has to remain a "perhaps" in each case. My question is when does that educated knowledge turn into walking on eggshells, and when does that eventually lead to people being muzzled for fear of repercussions. And if that muzzling is perhaps what some people ultimately desire.

I truly want to understand this point of view. Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I feel this is a very important topic for people to be having intelligent discourse about at this point in time.

If someone feels deeply in their heart that a woman is worthy of criticism over some (or an accumulation of many) action(s), do they have to fear repercussions for ever voicing their point of view, simply by someone declaring they are being misogynist? I absolutely agree that misogyny remains a huge, huge problem in the world, and in our country, not one morsel of doubt about it. My fear is that if we do away with nuance, then we will have kangaroo courts of public opinion where someone can be accused of being misogynist, and all it takes is for one person to make that accusation, and it's true. IMO it *has* to be a case-by-case thing.

What if a hypothetical woman, who - let's say for the sake of argument - you believe personally mistreated you and acted arrogantly to you (your perception of matters)... does this mean if you criticized them for that, or called them out as being arrogant, then all it takes is that one declaration of misogyny by someone else to make the misogyny qualification absolutely, unquestionably true?

I should add to all this: all one need to do is look at social media to see the amount of nincompoops who have been trolling since Trump's win, trying to espouse the view of minimizing things like sexism and racism. Despite a video of a black veteran being harassed for being accused of not being a real veteran, he shamefully had his food taken away by a moron manager at Chili's, which seems to obviously be a racially-motivated incident, being that it started with another customer (who leveled the accusation) instigating a conversation about whether black veterans were allowed in WWII. Also, the West Virginia mayor and her friend recently referred to Michelle Obama as a "ape in high heels", which is beyond repugnant and obviously racist (which the idiot woman who stated the "ape" comment subsequently denied was racist - talk about chutzpah).

In any event, there are racist/sexist social media trolls who will ridiculously take the notion I'm bringing up to an extreme, where they try to downplay (or negate) irrefutable instances of racism or sexism. I don't want to empower their "cause" in any way, shape or form by simply bringing the subject of nuance to the table. Nor do I think that sexism/racism has to be extremely obvious; it can certainly manifest in very subtle ways. Just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that.



I think my above answers answer the rest of this: yes - we have all absorbed misogynist attitudes. No, that doesn't mean women should not be criticized. No, we should not fear having it pointed out when we are applying double-standards or in other ways expressing misogyny.

Agreed that we have all absorbed misogynist attitudes to a degree. Again, I just think that there is a knee-jerk tendency to label people as being misogynists without knowing what non-gender factors may have shaped their opinions. And also without knowing which other candidates/people they have or have not criticized in the past. It's become a guilty-until-proven-innocent atmosphere on the internet with perfect strangers leveling accusations against others. Surely you must see some truth in that? This has helped enable the vile cancer that is Trumpism, and it scares me to death that more people don't realize that.  If you witnessed me having a pattern of dismissing Obama's flip-floppy nature with gay marriage, saying "oh, it's cool, he just had to take that stance for politics, I don't begrudge him for it", and then hear me tearing Hillary a new one for doing the same thing, well then perhaps there could be a conversation about gender. But just to use that as an example, that's simply not the case here.
I wonder if you've thought about your criticism of "guilty-until-proven-innocent" postures and a lack of nuance in the context of your thoughts regarding H Clinton.
I think there's quite sound evidence that:
A. Many people criticize Clinton for policies that they don't criticize Obama for, despite the fact that Obama implemented those policies.
B. The general public discussion regarding Clinton (and her supporters) has been full of misogyny, from the left and right.
C. Many (most) of the Clinton "scandals", based on unproven (and in some cases disproven) claims smack of misogynist tropes.
D. There was outright blatant misogyny featured plainly in the Trump campaign by Trump and his supporters.
E. People criticize Clinton for actions they don't criticize male candidates for (and this includes you regarding male presidential candidates).
So I think there's a sound argument that misogyny is a significant factor influencing many voters.
I also think that you missed posts above in which I specified instances in which the above evidence does not apply. Your accusation of me making a blanket statement about everyone who didn't support Clinton is false.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1991 on: November 18, 2016, 05:52:33 PM »


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.

Does that mean that every single person in the world (men, women, trans folks, LGBTQ) is a misogynist?

I wouldn't say a misogynist because that implies a totality. But yes, every single person in the world has misogynistic views.

I can agree with that. I think everyone on the planet probably has some misogynistic views. Doesn't mean that every single action or thought they have is misogynistic, however, because once we start going down that road, then everything is misogynistic, and then nothing is misogynistic. There has *got* to be nuance. A claim of misogyny doesn't necessarily = fact. And an incorrect claim of misogyny IS a problem. It's not ok.


And does that mean that every woman in the world cannot ever be criticized without risk (by the person doing the criticism) that they will be fingered as a misogynist?

Of course not. But if the person criticizing the woman is doing so with a double standard that they haven't applied to the many men who have been in the same position as the woman, I think that indicates misogyny.

Fair enough, but that assumes several things.

One, that assumes that the person criticizing the woman has, by definition, witnessed men doing all sorts of crappy things, and just looked the other way. For me, I don't really dabble too much in politics. Mainly just in presidential elections. I'm too busy obsessing over The BBs  Smiley So if there was a male politician (not a presidential candidate) who was guilty of all sorts of stuff that I believe Hillary to be guilty of, but let's just say this politician guy was some random dude in a relatively obscure US state who wasn't in the news much, he probably wouldn't be on my radar much, nor would he be much of a topic of conversation to get into. So in that way, I might be muted about someone acting in a way that I thought was unethical simply because it would be an obscure thing to talk about, like discussing on the BB message board if Al's nanny's boyfriend ever shoplifted. Still, I might bring the person up in conversation and talk about what a tool I thought they were.

The minute someone runs for president, and becomes a front-runner for a party, of course it changes things, and people get scrutinized far more closely. I was appalled when Obama (a man) took an anti gay marriage stance in the past, and I stated my dismay to people I know in conversations I had in person. Same deal with Hillary. No double standard there (just for example).

Secondly, you don't know my personal life history, and why some people might rub me in a particularly bad way as opposed to other people. I have observed numerous instances of Hillary acting dismissively to others, and frankly it reminds me of one of my parents (not going to say which parent, to leave gender out of the equation). I have a gut-level negative reaction when I observe some people behaving that way to others, based on my own history. Whether it's a politician, a musician, a relative, an actor, you name it - if I see someone acting in a way that seems to be a dismissive pattern, it bugs the crap out of me. That's a thing with me... maybe you can say it's silly to criticize a politician for that, yet that's my thing based on my own baggage. It doesn't have to do with gender. I have pointed out dismissive traits in numerous other people before whenever I see them, and gender does not factor into it. It bugs me deeply regardless of genitals! I'm well aware that Hillary is not running for parent, she is running for president... yet if some people get a really bad vibe from her just as a person, I'm just pointing out that there can be many non-gender related reasons for that. That alone isn't a reason to not support someone, but it's a contributing factor as to why I'm not much of a fan of her.

To make a gender-based claim leveled at me (or anyone else on the internet) without further information assumes that you know my history, the history of every person who got insulted by Hillary being dismissive to the superpredator protester (just one example of many). Again, maybe you will state that people have no right to bring their own personal baggage to the table when assessing whether or not someone rubs them the wrong way - feel free to make that statement. That may be accurate, or that may not be. Either way it does not *necessarily* have to do with gender! It's a case-by-case thing where some people get off-put by certain people, sometimes influenced by someone perhaps "violating" gender norms, but sometimes not.



 Should people have that fear?


No. No one should fear having their misogyny pointed out. I don't. I find it an opportunity to learn and examine myself.


Not sure if my point was misunderstood, but I'm talking about incorrect claims. I was saying that *if someone truly believes that they are not being misogynistic*, they should still fear that someone is going to call them that, and just be ok with it? Everyone just has to accept that they could always be wrong 100% percent of the time, and that's it up to some random person on the internet (I don't mean you necessarily, Emily, but in general on social media) to make a claim, and get a pitchfork mob to join the chants of "sexist! sexist!"?  

I mean, are you saying that everyone needs to have an open mind that every single thing they ever say is in fact misogynistic, even if they are educated, well-read, and have thought long and hard about why a particular point of view is in fact not misogynistic? I believe having an open mind is important, and people should be willing to accept that they are wrong, but I feel that many people leveling accusations of misogyny believe this doesn't apply to them. Does that imply that the person making the claims of misogyny is always correct? What if they are not correct? Is that a problematic thing to you? Isn't overuse of the term (at inappropriate times) and overly claiming it to always be a thing at every conceivable stretch of the way a problem that in fact dilutes when actual misogyny is being pointed out? Could the idea of crying wolf ever apply?

Sorry, there are a lot of questions here, but I feel these are very important questions to ask... and in general I see people who are quick to level accusations of misogyny ducking these questions like Mott and FDP duck Mike Love criticism, and it really bug me.

That said, I have had moments in my life where I have looked at an action or words in hindsight and found that I did in fact have a misogynistic stance, and have also used it as an opportunity to learn and examine myself. I don't dismiss that in any way. Of course, liberal democrats can be misogynistic too.

Again, I'm just striving to point out the fact that nuance is a thing. Can we agree on that?




I agree that people should have an omnipresent awareness that perhaps their views on case-by-case topics are being shaped by societal conditioning, and I believe *to a point* that this is ALWAYS the case; I don't think that is a bad thing to be aware of, yet it has to remain a "perhaps" in each case. My question is when does that educated knowledge turn into walking on eggshells, and when does that eventually lead to people being muzzled for fear of repercussions. And if that muzzling is perhaps what some people ultimately desire.

I truly want to understand this point of view. Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I feel this is a very important topic for people to be having intelligent discourse about at this point in time.

If someone feels deeply in their heart that a woman is worthy of criticism over some (or an accumulation of many) action(s), do they have to fear repercussions for ever voicing their point of view, simply by someone declaring they are being misogynist? I absolutely agree that misogyny remains a huge, huge problem in the world, and in our country, not one morsel of doubt about it. My fear is that if we do away with nuance, then we will have kangaroo courts of public opinion where someone can be accused of being misogynist, and all it takes is for one person to make that accusation, and it's true. IMO it *has* to be a case-by-case thing.

What if a hypothetical woman, who - let's say for the sake of argument - you believe personally mistreated you and acted arrogantly to you (your perception of matters)... does this mean if you criticized them for that, or called them out as being arrogant, then all it takes is that one declaration of misogyny by someone else to make the misogyny qualification absolutely, unquestionably true?

I should add to all this: all one need to do is look at social media to see the amount of nincompoops who have been trolling since Trump's win, trying to espouse the view of minimizing things like sexism and racism. Despite a video of a black veteran being harassed for being accused of not being a real veteran, he shamefully had his food taken away by a moron manager at Chili's, which seems to obviously be a racially-motivated incident, being that it started with another customer (who leveled the accusation) instigating a conversation about whether black veterans were allowed in WWII. Also, the West Virginia mayor and her friend recently referred to Michelle Obama as a "ape in high heels", which is beyond repugnant and obviously racist (which the idiot woman who stated the "ape" comment subsequently denied was racist - talk about chutzpah).

In any event, there are racist/sexist social media trolls who will ridiculously take the notion I'm bringing up to an extreme, where they try to downplay (or negate) irrefutable instances of racism or sexism. I don't want to empower their "cause" in any way, shape or form by simply bringing the subject of nuance to the table. Nor do I think that sexism/racism has to be extremely obvious; it can certainly manifest in very subtle ways. Just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that.



I think my above answers answer the rest of this: yes - we have all absorbed misogynist attitudes. No, that doesn't mean women should not be criticized. No, we should not fear having it pointed out when we are applying double-standards or in other ways expressing misogyny.

Agreed that we have all absorbed misogynist attitudes to a degree. Again, I just think that there is a knee-jerk tendency to label people as being misogynists without knowing what non-gender factors may have shaped their opinions. And also without knowing which other candidates/people they have or have not criticized in the past. It's become a guilty-until-proven-innocent atmosphere on the internet with perfect strangers leveling accusations against others. Surely you must see some truth in that? This has helped enable the vile cancer that is Trumpism, and it scares me to death that more people don't realize that.  If you witnessed me having a pattern of dismissing Obama's flip-floppy nature with gay marriage, saying "oh, it's cool, he just had to take that stance for politics, I don't begrudge him for it", and then hear me tearing Hillary a new one for doing the same thing, well then perhaps there could be a conversation about gender. But just to use that as an example, that's simply not the case here.
I wonder if you've thought about your criticism of "guilty-until-proven-innocent" postures and a lack of nuance in the context of your thoughts regarding H Clinton.
I think there's quite sound evidence that:
A. Many people criticize Clinton for policies that they don't criticize Obama for, despite the fact that Obama implemented those policies.
B. The general public discussion regarding Clinton (and her supporters) has been full of misogyny, from the left and right.
C. Many (most) of the Clinton "scandals", based on unproven (and in some cases disproven) claims smack of misogynist tropes.
D. There was outright blatant misogyny featured plainly in the Trump campaign by Trump and his supporters.
E. People criticize Clinton for actions they don't criticize male candidates for (and this includes you regarding male presidential candidates).
So I think there's a sound argument that misogyny is a significant factor influencing many voters.
I also think that you missed posts above in which I specified instances in which the above evidence does not apply. Your accusation of me making a blanket statement about everyone who didn't support Clinton is false.


I didn't mean to imply you make a blanket statement about everyone who doesn't support Clinton being misogynistic, yet at the same time I haven't heard any response to my questions about if you think that a misogyny label can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, and if you'd find that to be problematic. And as I mentioned, I think this is something that some people who level that accusation at people don't want to touch with a ten foot pole, and would rather avoid discussion over. It's a sensitive topic to be sure; believe me, in social media I read comments sections, and regularly see people denying that they are sexist, racist, etc, when they are espousing what I deem to clearly be sexist/racist views. And as I said, I don't claim to be the all-perfect never biased person myself. But I think it's important for all sides to let their guard down a little sometimes, and admit that there can be other factors at play other than gender, just as much as people should realize gender at play at various levels (but not ALL levels at ALL times!)

I started this discussion after finding fault, IMHO, with your statement which has a blanket feel to it: "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman."

As I said, there are many, many reasons why Clinton polarizes people. CERTAINLY her gender is a factor to many people. CERTAINLY Trump got away with murder compared to her, and that's obviously a very gender based ridiculous and sick thing. But while I could go on and on about it, just to name two instances that I nevertheless refute your statement:

1. The fact that she was going to bring Bill Clinton back into the White House. Yes, I know she didn't have an affair with Monica. Yes ,I've heard the argument many times that "nobody should ever dare blame a woman for her husband's actions", which I get and agree with in a general sense. But remember how Hillary sh*t-talked, demonized, and publicly shamed/vilified those women... and now she is someone who is saying that all rape victims need to be believed. No matter how a person wants to spin it, that is a problematic contradiction which, as with many things with Hillary, seems to be something where she says something, but the rules never apply to her case. That's a repeating pattern we see, over and over again.

2. The gay marriage flip-flop thing? At least Obama had the decency to try and come up with a reason why he changed his views. When Obama changed his view (probably in actuality for political reasons), he at least tried to speak about how he learned from his daughters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-same-sex-marriage_us_571b9da4e4b0d0042da96ea5

I'll at least give him a tiny bit of credit for trying to concoct some plausible reason for his "evolution". I am glad he evolved, yet his initial stance still is an issue that sticks in my craw, made somewhat less heinous by him actually addressing how he had a change of heart. I realize he is a politician, yes. As is she. Compare to Hillary, who when questioned in an interview about the gay marriage flip-flop thing, couldn't have the decency to say that she learned or evolved, but just got super defensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizU-u7RPcY#t=1m08s

Sorry, but I just find that repugnant, because I not only believe in gay rights, but I believe in owning up to things. As is probably obvious from my Mike Love rants, I have an issue with overly-defensive people. That's my THING. Just know that for me, that goes for both men and women. Just for a moment let's pretend we were talking about an "evolved" opinion after previously condoning colored drinking fountains, and a politician got smarky and acted in any way other than respectful about such a sensitive issue. It would be sick, just as this ridiculous Hillary defensiveness makes me sick.

There are many, many reasons why Hillary polarizes people, but it's on the whole, for many people at least (including me) a cumulative effect of seeing lots of non-gender-related things that rub them the wrong way. A man could piss me off just the same. Please don't doubt that when I say it. I believe it to be true with every fiber of my being.

Now if we want to get into a conversation about how the media doesn't properly expose the public to other such IMO gross behavior that male politicians do, that's a fair conversation to have. I'm sure there are general societal based issues that play into what the media reports and doesn't report. I can tell you that I simply ingest what I see. I try to read numerous sources (yet many sources such as CNN have shown to be polluted from this election), but when I see something that makes me feel icky about someone, I cannot just look at it and make that person not seem icky to me. I can't do a Jedi mind trick on myself to make me think that person doesn't suck when I see many, many, many clips of them acting sh*tty. After seeing Hillary behavior that I find repugnant, I don't go searching for Youtube clips of male politicians acting horribly, just so I can raise Hillary to a higher level where they are all sh*tty.

I'm absolutely not keeping my eye peeled to just look for obvious bad behavior in female politicians; when I see obvious bad behavior in male ones, I'm sickened too. Or transgendered politicians. Their gender or sexual orientation matters not to me. I hope you believe me when I tell you that's the case, because it is.  
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 06:01:00 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1992 on: November 18, 2016, 07:45:33 PM »



I didn't mean to imply you make a blanket statement about everyone who doesn't support Clinton being misogynistic, yet at the same time I haven't heard any response to my questions about if you think that a misogyny label can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, and if you'd find that to be problematic.
Of course it can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, but I probably disagree with you about the frequency and the level of problematicness. I didn't answer because it's a straw man. It's a little trick of asking me to deny something I never claimed. And using the question and answer to imply I claimed it.

And as I mentioned, I think this is something that some people who level that accusation at people don't want to touch with a ten foot pole, and would rather avoid discussion over.
Because it's an insulting question posed to dismiss what the person being questioned is saying. It's a very aggressive, distracting, side-tracking question used to turn a discussion away from the topic to make a counter-accusation.



It's a sensitive topic to be sure; believe me, in social media I read comments sections, and regularly see people denying that they are sexist, racist, etc, when they are espousing what I deem to clearly be sexist/racist views. And as I said, I don't claim to be the all-perfect never biased person myself. But I think it's important for all sides to let their guard down a little sometimes, and admit that there can be other factors at play other than gender, just as much as people should realize gender at play at various levels (but not ALL levels at ALL times!)
If you only bring up that question in response to a topic about whether someone or something is biased, the implication is clear. When someone is discussing misogyny, saying "admit there are other factors at play" is turning the discussion to a distracting straw man. My guess is that you never saw the people discussing misogyny assert there are no other factors at play. To then announce the fact that they don't want to engage with your straw man is evidence that they don't realize there are other factors at play is, again, a very aggressive (passively so, but still very aggressive) way to control the conversation and divert it from the point being made.

I started this discussion after finding fault, IMHO, with your statement which has a blanket feel to it: "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman."


As I said, there are many, many reasons why Clinton polarizes people. CERTAINLY her gender is a factor to many people. CERTAINLY Trump got away with murder compared to her, and that's obviously a very gender based ridiculous and sick thing. But while I could go on and on about it, just to name two instances that I nevertheless refute your statement:

1. The fact that she was going to bring Bill Clinton back into the White House. Yes, I know she didn't have an affair with Monica. Yes ,I've heard the argument many times that "nobody should ever dare blame a woman for her husband's actions", which I get and agree with in a general sense. But remember how Hillary sh*t-talked, demonized, and publicly shamed/vilified those women... and now she is someone who is saying that all rape victims need to be believed. No matter how a person wants to spin it, that is a problematic contradiction which, as with many things with Hillary, seems to be something where she says something, but the rules never apply to her case. That's a repeating pattern we see, over and over again.

2. The gay marriage flip-flop thing? At least Obama had the decency to try and come up with a reason why he changed his views. When Obama changed his view (probably in actuality for political reasons), he at least tried to speak about how he learned from his daughters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-same-sex-marriage_us_571b9da4e4b0d0042da96ea5

I'll at least give him a tiny bit of credit for trying to concoct some plausible reason for his "evolution". I am glad he evolved, yet his initial stance still is an issue that sticks in my craw, made somewhat less heinous by him actually addressing how he had a change of heart. I realize he is a politician, yes. As is she. Compare to Hillary, who when questioned in an interview about the gay marriage flip-flop thing, couldn't have the decency to say that she learned or evolved, but just got super defensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizU-u7RPcY#t=1m08s

Sorry, but I just find that repugnant, because I not only believe in gay rights, but I believe in owning up to things. As is probably obvious from my Mike Love rants, I have an issue with overly-defensive people. That's my THING. Just know that for me, that goes for both men and women. Just for a moment let's pretend we were talking about an "evolved" opinion after previously condoning colored drinking fountains, and a politician got smarky and acted in any way other than respectful about such a sensitive issue. It would be sick, just as this ridiculous Hillary defensiveness makes me sick.

There are many, many reasons why Hillary polarizes people, but it's on the whole, for many people at least (including me) a cumulative effect of seeing lots of non-gender-related things that rub them the wrong way. A man could piss me off just the same. Please don't doubt that when I say it. I believe it to be true with every fiber of my being.

Now if we want to get into a conversation about how the media doesn't properly expose the public to other such IMO gross behavior that male politicians do, that's a fair conversation to have. I'm sure there are general societal based issues that play into what the media reports and doesn't report. I can tell you that I simply ingest what I see. I try to read numerous sources (yet many sources such as CNN have shown to be polluted from this election), but when I see something that makes me feel icky about someone, I cannot just look at it and make that person not seem icky to me. I can't do a Jedi mind trick on myself to make me think that person doesn't suck when I see many, many, many clips of them acting sh*tty. After seeing Hillary behavior that I find repugnant, I don't go searching for Youtube clips of male politicians acting horribly, just so I can raise Hillary to a higher level where they are all sh*tty.

I'm absolutely not keeping my eye peeled to just look for obvious bad behavior in female politicians; when I see obvious bad behavior in male ones, I'm sickened too. Or transgendered politicians. Their gender or sexual orientation matters not to me. I hope you believe me when I tell you that's the case, because it is.  

All of the reasons you've given for your extreme dislike of Clinton are either unsupported by fact, or seriously negligible. Do you despise all of the people who changed their minds about gay marriage during that period?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
That you are managing to turn an evolution of thought that was common throughout the population into a particular point against Clinton - just as you turn a guy on the DNC saying something gross about Sanders, just as you turn her saying she'd win the election, just as you assume a variety of accusations are true without evidence - indicate to me that you've got a bias against her that you have not grappled with.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 07:47:20 PM by Emily » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1993 on: November 19, 2016, 12:05:40 AM »



I didn't mean to imply you make a blanket statement about everyone who doesn't support Clinton being misogynistic, yet at the same time I haven't heard any response to my questions about if you think that a misogyny label can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, and if you'd find that to be problematic.
Of course it can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, but I probably disagree with you about the frequency and the level of problematicness. I didn't answer because it's a straw man. It's a little trick of asking me to deny something I never claimed. And using the question and answer to imply I claimed it.

And as I mentioned, I think this is something that some people who level that accusation at people don't want to touch with a ten foot pole, and would rather avoid discussion over.
Because it's an insulting question posed to dismiss what the person being questioned is saying. It's a very aggressive, distracting, side-tracking question used to turn a discussion away from the topic to make a counter-accusation.



It's a sensitive topic to be sure; believe me, in social media I read comments sections, and regularly see people denying that they are sexist, racist, etc, when they are espousing what I deem to clearly be sexist/racist views. And as I said, I don't claim to be the all-perfect never biased person myself. But I think it's important for all sides to let their guard down a little sometimes, and admit that there can be other factors at play other than gender, just as much as people should realize gender at play at various levels (but not ALL levels at ALL times!)
If you only bring up that question in response to a topic about whether someone or something is biased, the implication is clear. When someone is discussing misogyny, saying "admit there are other factors at play" is turning the discussion to a distracting straw man. My guess is that you never saw the people discussing misogyny assert there are no other factors at play. To then announce the fact that they don't want to engage with your straw man is evidence that they don't realize there are other factors at play is, again, a very aggressive (passively so, but still very aggressive) way to control the conversation and divert it from the point being made.

I started this discussion after finding fault, IMHO, with your statement which has a blanket feel to it: "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman."


As I said, there are many, many reasons why Clinton polarizes people. CERTAINLY her gender is a factor to many people. CERTAINLY Trump got away with murder compared to her, and that's obviously a very gender based ridiculous and sick thing. But while I could go on and on about it, just to name two instances that I nevertheless refute your statement:

1. The fact that she was going to bring Bill Clinton back into the White House. Yes, I know she didn't have an affair with Monica. Yes ,I've heard the argument many times that "nobody should ever dare blame a woman for her husband's actions", which I get and agree with in a general sense. But remember how Hillary sh*t-talked, demonized, and publicly shamed/vilified those women... and now she is someone who is saying that all rape victims need to be believed. No matter how a person wants to spin it, that is a problematic contradiction which, as with many things with Hillary, seems to be something where she says something, but the rules never apply to her case. That's a repeating pattern we see, over and over again.

2. The gay marriage flip-flop thing? At least Obama had the decency to try and come up with a reason why he changed his views. When Obama changed his view (probably in actuality for political reasons), he at least tried to speak about how he learned from his daughters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-same-sex-marriage_us_571b9da4e4b0d0042da96ea5

I'll at least give him a tiny bit of credit for trying to concoct some plausible reason for his "evolution". I am glad he evolved, yet his initial stance still is an issue that sticks in my craw, made somewhat less heinous by him actually addressing how he had a change of heart. I realize he is a politician, yes. As is she. Compare to Hillary, who when questioned in an interview about the gay marriage flip-flop thing, couldn't have the decency to say that she learned or evolved, but just got super defensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizU-u7RPcY#t=1m08s

Sorry, but I just find that repugnant, because I not only believe in gay rights, but I believe in owning up to things. As is probably obvious from my Mike Love rants, I have an issue with overly-defensive people. That's my THING. Just know that for me, that goes for both men and women. Just for a moment let's pretend we were talking about an "evolved" opinion after previously condoning colored drinking fountains, and a politician got smarky and acted in any way other than respectful about such a sensitive issue. It would be sick, just as this ridiculous Hillary defensiveness makes me sick.

There are many, many reasons why Hillary polarizes people, but it's on the whole, for many people at least (including me) a cumulative effect of seeing lots of non-gender-related things that rub them the wrong way. A man could piss me off just the same. Please don't doubt that when I say it. I believe it to be true with every fiber of my being.

Now if we want to get into a conversation about how the media doesn't properly expose the public to other such IMO gross behavior that male politicians do, that's a fair conversation to have. I'm sure there are general societal based issues that play into what the media reports and doesn't report. I can tell you that I simply ingest what I see. I try to read numerous sources (yet many sources such as CNN have shown to be polluted from this election), but when I see something that makes me feel icky about someone, I cannot just look at it and make that person not seem icky to me. I can't do a Jedi mind trick on myself to make me think that person doesn't suck when I see many, many, many clips of them acting sh*tty. After seeing Hillary behavior that I find repugnant, I don't go searching for Youtube clips of male politicians acting horribly, just so I can raise Hillary to a higher level where they are all sh*tty.

I'm absolutely not keeping my eye peeled to just look for obvious bad behavior in female politicians; when I see obvious bad behavior in male ones, I'm sickened too. Or transgendered politicians. Their gender or sexual orientation matters not to me. I hope you believe me when I tell you that's the case, because it is.  

All of the reasons you've given for your extreme dislike of Clinton are either unsupported by fact, or seriously negligible. Do you despise all of the people who changed their minds about gay marriage during that period?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
That you are managing to turn an evolution of thought that was common throughout the population into a particular point against Clinton - just as you turn a guy on the DNC saying something gross about Sanders, just as you turn her saying she'd win the election, just as you assume a variety of accusations are true without evidence - indicate to me that you've got a bias against her that you have not grappled with.

Emily, I sincerely was not trying to be insulting to you, and I hope you don't feel that any of the things I brought up were intended to be that way.  Like I said, I'm just somebody who thinks that it's good when people can just be honest and put all the chips on the table, and talk about how generalizations can be problematic.  I'm not trying to imply that there isn't a great deal of truth to your original comment. Whatever straw man or "trick" argument you think I'm trying to make, my intention is only just trying to clear the air with making sure that we can at the very least be in agreement that there are labels that don't necessarily apply to everyone all the time.  That's just how I was raised.  I don't think it's any kind of unhealthy or inappropriate thing for both of us to be able to agree on. It's basic courtesy in a discussion. It shouldn't feel like pulling teeth or be insulting for either of us to say it.  Ultimately, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I don't think you are trying to do that to me either. Even if it might feel that way, I certainly don't think that is either of our intentions.

You imply that you never made all-encompassing blanket claims directly with your original "polarizing" comment ... yet that very quote which started my entire response in this thread seemed to me to be a very generalized claim, which I happen to find issue with.  I don't think you can now claim that generalizations are problematic (even if you want to minimize how problematic), after having made a quote that generalizes, without at least backing down a little bit from the original claim.  

If you think adding the term "often" or "in many cases" would be inappropriate to be added to your original quote, I'm curious to know why you would think that way.  I think it would help add at least some nuance. I don't think it diminishes your point from having lots of truth in reality.  I'm really honestly not trying to be insulting here,  I swear this to you.  I hope you don't feel I am. I just think it's important that we not speak in absolutes, because I feel that just further divides everyone, and  as I mentioned before, I deeply fear that we are fueling the fire for the cancer of Trumpism by speaking in absolutes.  By the way, that fear is my sole motivation in continuing this conversation. Feel free to dismiss my opinion and tell me I am full of it, if that's your prerogative and if you think that's appropriate.

Just one more thing  in response to your claim that I am Clinton – bashing unfairly… Once again, it's not *just* that she had a change of opinion, but rather the manner in which this extreme defense of the flip-flop manifested.  I pointed to evidence comparing Obama versus Hillary in terms of one person laying out a clear-cut reasoning as to why they changed their mind, versus the other person trying to shut down the conversation.  

Being that I have been open to discussing that I am admittedly predisposed to finding extreme defensiveness highly irritating regardless of gender... how can you say that this gender-neutral predisposition is irrelevant to my feelings on her?  (If you doubt the gender neutrality, I can show you many examples of men who piss me off this way). It just doesn't seem right to me when people think they can get inside my head and tell me that I'm feeling a certain way because of something they've decided is the case. I'm telling you that I have a problem with overly-defensive people (which I have observed Hillary to be one of) and  after giving a clear example of a person, Obama, acting in a markedly different way, a way that I can better stomach because of the actual explanation and lack of defensiveness, you refuse to honor my feelings and claim that I am under some misogynistic mindspell which renders those feelings inaccurate or irrelevant.  That it must, must, must be because of gender, end of story.  Do I need to go find 10 male politicians to criticize, and then I can be allowed to criticize Hillary's overly defensive conversation shutdown incident without the claim of misogyny? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

I really, really want to see your side of this, and I am honestly trying to. But like I said, my feelings, my past (unrelated to gender) have to be honored in part of the conversation, because it's certainly not an irrelevant factor as to why she bugs me.   Those feelings of mine seem to have been completely dismissed in a quest to find gender to be the reason.  And frankly, that kind of sucks.  If my observations of the contrast of Hillary's vs. Obama's actions regarding the same topic isn't enough gender-neutral evidence for you regarding why she bugs me a lot on this issue, while a person like Obama bugs me relatively less... I don't know what will be.   It's not as though I have deeply researched and written a dissertation about either of their opinions on this matter either. My observations are based on several interviews and clips which I have already relayed to you. Maybe there is plenty of evidence out there showing Obama acting like a defensive jerk about his changes regarding this topic too.  If so, I have not seen them.  I'm open-minded to calling him out on that type of behavior too when/if it's shown to me.

I would just like to add that I never said I despised Hillary, just that I find some of her actions very repugnant. Nor do I despise people who have had a change of heart about that issue… But I think politicians have an obligation to discuss why they changed their minds regarding such a sensitive issue.  Obama did. It's absurd to think that this can just be brushed under the table, and for Hillary to get outraged for someone wanting to know more.  Answer me this… How would you feel if a politician who was discriminating against blacks in the 1960s was asked a couple years later why they changed their views, and the person just got defensive and try to shut the conversation down? Wouldn't you find that to be  pretty shitty, especially if you had other politicians of the era who opened up and talked about the nuances of how they arrived at their change of heart?  Yes, people are different from one another, but I will never apologize for having standards, however naive it may be to hope  someone I would vote for wouldn't come from the Mike Love school of over-defensiveness.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2016, 01:12:03 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1994 on: November 19, 2016, 05:47:01 AM »



I didn't mean to imply you make a blanket statement about everyone who doesn't support Clinton being misogynistic, yet at the same time I haven't heard any response to my questions about if you think that a misogyny label can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, and if you'd find that to be problematic.
Of course it can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, but I probably disagree with you about the frequency and the level of problematicness. I didn't answer because it's a straw man. It's a little trick of asking me to deny something I never claimed. And using the question and answer to imply I claimed it.

And as I mentioned, I think this is something that some people who level that accusation at people don't want to touch with a ten foot pole, and would rather avoid discussion over.
Because it's an insulting question posed to dismiss what the person being questioned is saying. It's a very aggressive, distracting, side-tracking question used to turn a discussion away from the topic to make a counter-accusation.



It's a sensitive topic to be sure; believe me, in social media I read comments sections, and regularly see people denying that they are sexist, racist, etc, when they are espousing what I deem to clearly be sexist/racist views. And as I said, I don't claim to be the all-perfect never biased person myself. But I think it's important for all sides to let their guard down a little sometimes, and admit that there can be other factors at play other than gender, just as much as people should realize gender at play at various levels (but not ALL levels at ALL times!)
If you only bring up that question in response to a topic about whether someone or something is biased, the implication is clear. When someone is discussing misogyny, saying "admit there are other factors at play" is turning the discussion to a distracting straw man. My guess is that you never saw the people discussing misogyny assert there are no other factors at play. To then announce the fact that they don't want to engage with your straw man is evidence that they don't realize there are other factors at play is, again, a very aggressive (passively so, but still very aggressive) way to control the conversation and divert it from the point being made.

I started this discussion after finding fault, IMHO, with your statement which has a blanket feel to it: "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman."


As I said, there are many, many reasons why Clinton polarizes people. CERTAINLY her gender is a factor to many people. CERTAINLY Trump got away with murder compared to her, and that's obviously a very gender based ridiculous and sick thing. But while I could go on and on about it, just to name two instances that I nevertheless refute your statement:

1. The fact that she was going to bring Bill Clinton back into the White House. Yes, I know she didn't have an affair with Monica. Yes ,I've heard the argument many times that "nobody should ever dare blame a woman for her husband's actions", which I get and agree with in a general sense. But remember how Hillary sh*t-talked, demonized, and publicly shamed/vilified those women... and now she is someone who is saying that all rape victims need to be believed. No matter how a person wants to spin it, that is a problematic contradiction which, as with many things with Hillary, seems to be something where she says something, but the rules never apply to her case. That's a repeating pattern we see, over and over again.

2. The gay marriage flip-flop thing? At least Obama had the decency to try and come up with a reason why he changed his views. When Obama changed his view (probably in actuality for political reasons), he at least tried to speak about how he learned from his daughters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-same-sex-marriage_us_571b9da4e4b0d0042da96ea5

I'll at least give him a tiny bit of credit for trying to concoct some plausible reason for his "evolution". I am glad he evolved, yet his initial stance still is an issue that sticks in my craw, made somewhat less heinous by him actually addressing how he had a change of heart. I realize he is a politician, yes. As is she. Compare to Hillary, who when questioned in an interview about the gay marriage flip-flop thing, couldn't have the decency to say that she learned or evolved, but just got super defensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizU-u7RPcY#t=1m08s

Sorry, but I just find that repugnant, because I not only believe in gay rights, but I believe in owning up to things. As is probably obvious from my Mike Love rants, I have an issue with overly-defensive people. That's my THING. Just know that for me, that goes for both men and women. Just for a moment let's pretend we were talking about an "evolved" opinion after previously condoning colored drinking fountains, and a politician got smarky and acted in any way other than respectful about such a sensitive issue. It would be sick, just as this ridiculous Hillary defensiveness makes me sick.

There are many, many reasons why Hillary polarizes people, but it's on the whole, for many people at least (including me) a cumulative effect of seeing lots of non-gender-related things that rub them the wrong way. A man could piss me off just the same. Please don't doubt that when I say it. I believe it to be true with every fiber of my being.

Now if we want to get into a conversation about how the media doesn't properly expose the public to other such IMO gross behavior that male politicians do, that's a fair conversation to have. I'm sure there are general societal based issues that play into what the media reports and doesn't report. I can tell you that I simply ingest what I see. I try to read numerous sources (yet many sources such as CNN have shown to be polluted from this election), but when I see something that makes me feel icky about someone, I cannot just look at it and make that person not seem icky to me. I can't do a Jedi mind trick on myself to make me think that person doesn't suck when I see many, many, many clips of them acting sh*tty. After seeing Hillary behavior that I find repugnant, I don't go searching for Youtube clips of male politicians acting horribly, just so I can raise Hillary to a higher level where they are all sh*tty.

I'm absolutely not keeping my eye peeled to just look for obvious bad behavior in female politicians; when I see obvious bad behavior in male ones, I'm sickened too. Or transgendered politicians. Their gender or sexual orientation matters not to me. I hope you believe me when I tell you that's the case, because it is.  

All of the reasons you've given for your extreme dislike of Clinton are either unsupported by fact, or seriously negligible. Do you despise all of the people who changed their minds about gay marriage during that period?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
That you are managing to turn an evolution of thought that was common throughout the population into a particular point against Clinton - just as you turn a guy on the DNC saying something gross about Sanders, just as you turn her saying she'd win the election, just as you assume a variety of accusations are true without evidence - indicate to me that you've got a bias against her that you have not grappled with.

Emily, I sincerely was not trying to be insulting to you, and I hope you don't feel that any of the things I brought up were intended to be that way.  Like I said, I'm just somebody who thinks that it's good when people can just be honest and put all the chips on the table, and talk about how generalizations can be problematic.  I'm not trying to imply that there isn't a great deal of truth to your original comment. Whatever straw man or "trick" argument you think I'm trying to make, my intention is only just trying to clear the air with making sure that we can at the very least be in agreement that there are labels that don't necessarily apply to everyone all the time.  That's just how I was raised.  I don't think it's any kind of unhealthy or inappropriate thing for both of us to be able to agree on. It's basic courtesy in a discussion. It shouldn't feel like pulling teeth or be insulting for either of us to say it.  Ultimately, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I don't think you are trying to do that to me either. Even if it might feel that way, I certainly don't think that is either of our intentions.

You imply that you never made all-encompassing blanket claims directly with your original "polarizing" comment ... yet that very quote which started my entire response in this thread seemed to me to be a very generalized claim, which I happen to find issue with.  I don't think you can now claim that generalizations are problematic (even if you want to minimize how problematic), after having made a quote that generalizes, without at least backing down a little bit from the original claim.  

If you think adding the term "often" or "in many cases" would be inappropriate to be added to your original quote, I'm curious to know why you would think that way.  I think it would help add at least some nuance. I don't think it diminishes your point from having lots of truth in reality.  I'm really honestly not trying to be insulting here,  I swear this to you.  I hope you don't feel I am. I just think it's important that we not speak in absolutes, because I feel that just further divides everyone, and  as I mentioned before, I deeply fear that we are fueling the fire for the cancer of Trumpism by speaking in absolutes.  By the way, that fear is my sole motivation in continuing this conversation. Feel free to dismiss my opinion and tell me I am full of it, if that's your prerogative and if you think that's appropriate.

Just one more thing  in response to your claim that I am Clinton – bashing unfairly… Once again, it's not *just* that she had a change of opinion, but rather the manner in which this extreme defense of the flip-flop manifested.  I pointed to evidence comparing Obama versus Hillary in terms of one person laying out a clear-cut reasoning as to why they changed their mind, versus the other person trying to shut down the conversation.  

Being that I have been open to discussing that I am admittedly predisposed to finding extreme defensiveness highly irritating regardless of gender... how can you say that this gender-neutral predisposition is irrelevant to my feelings on her?  (If you doubt the gender neutrality, I can show you many examples of men who piss me off this way). It just doesn't seem right to me when people think they can get inside my head and tell me that I'm feeling a certain way because of something they've decided is the case. I'm telling you that I have a problem with overly-defensive people (which I have observed Hillary to be one of) and  after giving a clear example of a person, Obama, acting in a markedly different way, a way that I can better stomach because of the actual explanation and lack of defensiveness, you refuse to honor my feelings and claim that I am under some misogynistic mindspell which renders those feelings inaccurate or irrelevant.  That it must, must, must be because of gender, end of story.  Do I need to go find 10 male politicians to criticize, and then I can be allowed to criticize Hillary's overly defensive conversation shutdown incident without the claim of misogyny? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

I really, really want to see your side of this, and I am honestly trying to. But like I said, my feelings, my past (unrelated to gender) have to be honored in part of the conversation, because it's certainly not an irrelevant factor as to why she bugs me.   Those feelings of mine seem to have been completely dismissed in a quest to find gender to be the reason.  And frankly, that kind of sucks.  If my observations of the contrast of Hillary's vs. Obama's actions regarding the same topic isn't enough gender-neutral evidence for you regarding why she bugs me a lot on this issue, while a person like Obama bugs me relatively less... I don't know what will be.   It's not as though I have deeply researched and written a dissertation about either of their opinions on this matter either. My observations are based on several interviews and clips which I have already relayed to you. Maybe there is plenty of evidence out there showing Obama acting like a defensive jerk about his changes regarding this topic too.  If so, I have not seen them.  I'm open-minded to calling him out on that type of behavior too when/if it's shown to me.

I would just like to add that I never said I despised Hillary, just that I find some of her actions very repugnant. Nor do I despise people who have had a change of heart about that issue… But I think politicians have an obligation to discuss why they changed their minds regarding such a sensitive issue.  Obama did. It's absurd to think that this can just be brushed under the table, and for Hillary to get outraged for someone wanting to know more.  Answer me this… How would you feel if a politician who was discriminating against blacks in the 1960s was asked a couple years later why they changed their views, and the person just got defensive and try to shut the conversation down? Wouldn't you find that to be  pretty shitty, especially if you had other politicians of the era who opened up and talked about the nuances of how they arrived at their change of heart?  Yes, people are different from one another, but I will never apologize for having standards, however naive it may be to hope  someone I would vote for wouldn't come from the Mike Love school of over-defensiveness.
I'm not really personally insulted. I'm just saying that your generalization that people who say something is misogynistic don't want to admit that people are not always correct when they say something is misogynistic is perhaps wrong. Perhaps they don't answer that question because they consider the answer to be obvious and the question to be an aggressive distraction. I don't expect anyone except perhaps Catherine McKinnon would disagree with that assertion. But, again, insisting that someone break away from the point of the discussion to add the irrelevant caveat that sometimes some people are wrong is insulting. When's the last time you asked CSM or the Captain to "admit" that sometimes people who make assertions about policy are wrong? When did you ask anyone on this board to "admit" that Beach Boy resources an be wrong? You just feel like it's appropriate to bring up here because there's a thing in our culture that talking about whether something someone said or did is racist or misogynistic is perceived as so insulting that there's an entire cultural backlash to get people to not talk about that. People voted for a president over their little hurt feelings that people have said that things they've done and said are racist or misogynist. Why would that be? Why is it that there's so much anger when people bring that up? Is it because those people can't take criticism of any kind? Or is it because they are angry that people are trying to change the racist and misogynistic aspects of our culture? I suspect the latter. In any case, the comfort you feel in insisting we break from the discussion to "admit" that sometimes when people say what I'm saying might be wrong, is probably due to that backlash, that's been seen in this thread in so many ways - most usually in the form of "you shouldn't say those things because it makes them mad and that's why they voted for Trump". Basically, let's not challenge racism and misogyny, it makes people mad.
About generalizing, that statement about "polarizing" is not a generalization, but you're quite right that it was a blanket statement. In case you ask, I would not say that generalizations are always inappropriate. Sometimes they are accurate and often they are useful. They are mostly problematic when people take a particular quality of some individuals and apply them to a general population based on unrelated qualities that they have in common and then to say, these specific people have that second quality, therefore they likely have that first quality. My problem with generalizations is not generalizations themselves, but the frequent misuse of them. Regarding my statement, I was discussing the specific condition of Clinton being "polarizing". I did not generalize.
Regardiing Clinton's "defense" vs. Obama's. I will never claim that Clinton has the tools of a sales person, while I think Obama does. Also, Obama was president and was talking BEFORE.the Supreme Court decision, thus trying to lead the balance of opinion in that direction. Clinton, on the other hand, was speaking afterward, when the decision had been made, public opinion had changed to a critical mass, and she was responding to a critical question, not presenting a prepared statement. You were very comfortable saying that ALL THREE of the given examples of Sanders asserting he'd win were different because of the circumstances in which it was said, yet the actual differences in political import and purpose at the times and the significant difference of their roles of the Clinton/Obama statements seems to go unrecognized. The differences in this case are actually, practically, real. But, overall, it's ridiculous to expect someone to "defend" changing their opinion from a bad one to a good one (and to call it a "flip flop") when, again, so much of the population changed their mind in the same way at the same time. Would you ask all those other millions of people to "defend" their "flip flop" ? Or are they just allowed to be humans who learn and reconsider their opinions over time? Clinton's been in the public eye for 30 years. If her opinions on many things didn't change in that time, THAT should be a problem. Not that her opinions DID change.
If you go back to the beginning of her time in the public eye, you'll find that there isn't much data regarding that question because it wasn't even being asked.  The change in public opinion on that question has been startlingly rapid. To insinuate that the one individual changed her opinion for suspicious reasons while everyone else is just being human indicates, to me, bias.
 Separately, Clinton has been closely involved with gay rights organizations for decades, much more than Obama or Sanders, neither of whom has shown any particular interest over the course of their careers. To hone it down to this one issue might indicate an attempt to find a point of criticism rather than a seriousness about gay rights in general.
Regarding your question about civil rights, here's an example: Robert Byrd. Early in his life he went so far as to be a member of the KKK. He renounced that and spent decades working closely with the NAACP and became an active civil rights advocate. Republicans STILL like to hold him up as a poster boy for Democrats are racist. If he got irritated by the press bringing that to him, I wouldn't blame him for being irritated and defensive. Similarly, after Clinton's extensive, persistent work since college for social justice - so easily dismissed by white guys for Bernie, because  what does it matter to them if the Supreme Court flips and all of the progress made during her lifetime is overturned as long as they've voted their conscience because economic justice impacts them directly while social justice doesn't, so go ahead- burn it al down! - people are trying to bury that with the one issue on which the entire cultural zeitgeist flipped over a decade, I don't blame her if she's defensive and irritated.
Further, I'd ask you to watch the many, many times Obama has been defensive and irritated and question yourself if you have a visceral reaction to Clinton doing the SAME THINGS as the men you support that you don't have to them.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2016, 07:49:10 AM by Emily » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1995 on: November 19, 2016, 10:06:05 AM »



I didn't mean to imply you make a blanket statement about everyone who doesn't support Clinton being misogynistic, yet at the same time I haven't heard any response to my questions about if you think that a misogyny label can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, and if you'd find that to be problematic.
Of course it can *sometimes* be incorrectly applied, but I probably disagree with you about the frequency and the level of problematicness. I didn't answer because it's a straw man. It's a little trick of asking me to deny something I never claimed. And using the question and answer to imply I claimed it.

And as I mentioned, I think this is something that some people who level that accusation at people don't want to touch with a ten foot pole, and would rather avoid discussion over.
Because it's an insulting question posed to dismiss what the person being questioned is saying. It's a very aggressive, distracting, side-tracking question used to turn a discussion away from the topic to make a counter-accusation.



It's a sensitive topic to be sure; believe me, in social media I read comments sections, and regularly see people denying that they are sexist, racist, etc, when they are espousing what I deem to clearly be sexist/racist views. And as I said, I don't claim to be the all-perfect never biased person myself. But I think it's important for all sides to let their guard down a little sometimes, and admit that there can be other factors at play other than gender, just as much as people should realize gender at play at various levels (but not ALL levels at ALL times!)
If you only bring up that question in response to a topic about whether someone or something is biased, the implication is clear. When someone is discussing misogyny, saying "admit there are other factors at play" is turning the discussion to a distracting straw man. My guess is that you never saw the people discussing misogyny assert there are no other factors at play. To then announce the fact that they don't want to engage with your straw man is evidence that they don't realize there are other factors at play is, again, a very aggressive (passively so, but still very aggressive) way to control the conversation and divert it from the point being made.

I started this discussion after finding fault, IMHO, with your statement which has a blanket feel to it: "Clinton is only polarizing because she's a woman."


As I said, there are many, many reasons why Clinton polarizes people. CERTAINLY her gender is a factor to many people. CERTAINLY Trump got away with murder compared to her, and that's obviously a very gender based ridiculous and sick thing. But while I could go on and on about it, just to name two instances that I nevertheless refute your statement:

1. The fact that she was going to bring Bill Clinton back into the White House. Yes, I know she didn't have an affair with Monica. Yes ,I've heard the argument many times that "nobody should ever dare blame a woman for her husband's actions", which I get and agree with in a general sense. But remember how Hillary sh*t-talked, demonized, and publicly shamed/vilified those women... and now she is someone who is saying that all rape victims need to be believed. No matter how a person wants to spin it, that is a problematic contradiction which, as with many things with Hillary, seems to be something where she says something, but the rules never apply to her case. That's a repeating pattern we see, over and over again.

2. The gay marriage flip-flop thing? At least Obama had the decency to try and come up with a reason why he changed his views. When Obama changed his view (probably in actuality for political reasons), he at least tried to speak about how he learned from his daughters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-same-sex-marriage_us_571b9da4e4b0d0042da96ea5

I'll at least give him a tiny bit of credit for trying to concoct some plausible reason for his "evolution". I am glad he evolved, yet his initial stance still is an issue that sticks in my craw, made somewhat less heinous by him actually addressing how he had a change of heart. I realize he is a politician, yes. As is she. Compare to Hillary, who when questioned in an interview about the gay marriage flip-flop thing, couldn't have the decency to say that she learned or evolved, but just got super defensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BizU-u7RPcY#t=1m08s

Sorry, but I just find that repugnant, because I not only believe in gay rights, but I believe in owning up to things. As is probably obvious from my Mike Love rants, I have an issue with overly-defensive people. That's my THING. Just know that for me, that goes for both men and women. Just for a moment let's pretend we were talking about an "evolved" opinion after previously condoning colored drinking fountains, and a politician got smarky and acted in any way other than respectful about such a sensitive issue. It would be sick, just as this ridiculous Hillary defensiveness makes me sick.

There are many, many reasons why Hillary polarizes people, but it's on the whole, for many people at least (including me) a cumulative effect of seeing lots of non-gender-related things that rub them the wrong way. A man could piss me off just the same. Please don't doubt that when I say it. I believe it to be true with every fiber of my being.

Now if we want to get into a conversation about how the media doesn't properly expose the public to other such IMO gross behavior that male politicians do, that's a fair conversation to have. I'm sure there are general societal based issues that play into what the media reports and doesn't report. I can tell you that I simply ingest what I see. I try to read numerous sources (yet many sources such as CNN have shown to be polluted from this election), but when I see something that makes me feel icky about someone, I cannot just look at it and make that person not seem icky to me. I can't do a Jedi mind trick on myself to make me think that person doesn't suck when I see many, many, many clips of them acting sh*tty. After seeing Hillary behavior that I find repugnant, I don't go searching for Youtube clips of male politicians acting horribly, just so I can raise Hillary to a higher level where they are all sh*tty.

I'm absolutely not keeping my eye peeled to just look for obvious bad behavior in female politicians; when I see obvious bad behavior in male ones, I'm sickened too. Or transgendered politicians. Their gender or sexual orientation matters not to me. I hope you believe me when I tell you that's the case, because it is.  

All of the reasons you've given for your extreme dislike of Clinton are either unsupported by fact, or seriously negligible. Do you despise all of the people who changed their minds about gay marriage during that period?
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
That you are managing to turn an evolution of thought that was common throughout the population into a particular point against Clinton - just as you turn a guy on the DNC saying something gross about Sanders, just as you turn her saying she'd win the election, just as you assume a variety of accusations are true without evidence - indicate to me that you've got a bias against her that you have not grappled with.

Emily, I sincerely was not trying to be insulting to you, and I hope you don't feel that any of the things I brought up were intended to be that way.  Like I said, I'm just somebody who thinks that it's good when people can just be honest and put all the chips on the table, and talk about how generalizations can be problematic.  I'm not trying to imply that there isn't a great deal of truth to your original comment. Whatever straw man or "trick" argument you think I'm trying to make, my intention is only just trying to clear the air with making sure that we can at the very least be in agreement that there are labels that don't necessarily apply to everyone all the time.  That's just how I was raised.  I don't think it's any kind of unhealthy or inappropriate thing for both of us to be able to agree on. It's basic courtesy in a discussion. It shouldn't feel like pulling teeth or be insulting for either of us to say it.  Ultimately, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I don't think you are trying to do that to me either. Even if it might feel that way, I certainly don't think that is either of our intentions.

You imply that you never made all-encompassing blanket claims directly with your original "polarizing" comment ... yet that very quote which started my entire response in this thread seemed to me to be a very generalized claim, which I happen to find issue with.  I don't think you can now claim that generalizations are problematic (even if you want to minimize how problematic), after having made a quote that generalizes, without at least backing down a little bit from the original claim.  

If you think adding the term "often" or "in many cases" would be inappropriate to be added to your original quote, I'm curious to know why you would think that way.  I think it would help add at least some nuance. I don't think it diminishes your point from having lots of truth in reality.  I'm really honestly not trying to be insulting here,  I swear this to you.  I hope you don't feel I am. I just think it's important that we not speak in absolutes, because I feel that just further divides everyone, and  as I mentioned before, I deeply fear that we are fueling the fire for the cancer of Trumpism by speaking in absolutes.  By the way, that fear is my sole motivation in continuing this conversation. Feel free to dismiss my opinion and tell me I am full of it, if that's your prerogative and if you think that's appropriate.

Just one more thing  in response to your claim that I am Clinton – bashing unfairly… Once again, it's not *just* that she had a change of opinion, but rather the manner in which this extreme defense of the flip-flop manifested.  I pointed to evidence comparing Obama versus Hillary in terms of one person laying out a clear-cut reasoning as to why they changed their mind, versus the other person trying to shut down the conversation.  

Being that I have been open to discussing that I am admittedly predisposed to finding extreme defensiveness highly irritating regardless of gender... how can you say that this gender-neutral predisposition is irrelevant to my feelings on her?  (If you doubt the gender neutrality, I can show you many examples of men who piss me off this way). It just doesn't seem right to me when people think they can get inside my head and tell me that I'm feeling a certain way because of something they've decided is the case. I'm telling you that I have a problem with overly-defensive people (which I have observed Hillary to be one of) and  after giving a clear example of a person, Obama, acting in a markedly different way, a way that I can better stomach because of the actual explanation and lack of defensiveness, you refuse to honor my feelings and claim that I am under some misogynistic mindspell which renders those feelings inaccurate or irrelevant.  That it must, must, must be because of gender, end of story.  Do I need to go find 10 male politicians to criticize, and then I can be allowed to criticize Hillary's overly defensive conversation shutdown incident without the claim of misogyny? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question.

I really, really want to see your side of this, and I am honestly trying to. But like I said, my feelings, my past (unrelated to gender) have to be honored in part of the conversation, because it's certainly not an irrelevant factor as to why she bugs me.   Those feelings of mine seem to have been completely dismissed in a quest to find gender to be the reason.  And frankly, that kind of sucks.  If my observations of the contrast of Hillary's vs. Obama's actions regarding the same topic isn't enough gender-neutral evidence for you regarding why she bugs me a lot on this issue, while a person like Obama bugs me relatively less... I don't know what will be.   It's not as though I have deeply researched and written a dissertation about either of their opinions on this matter either. My observations are based on several interviews and clips which I have already relayed to you. Maybe there is plenty of evidence out there showing Obama acting like a defensive jerk about his changes regarding this topic too.  If so, I have not seen them.  I'm open-minded to calling him out on that type of behavior too when/if it's shown to me.

I would just like to add that I never said I despised Hillary, just that I find some of her actions very repugnant. Nor do I despise people who have had a change of heart about that issue… But I think politicians have an obligation to discuss why they changed their minds regarding such a sensitive issue.  Obama did. It's absurd to think that this can just be brushed under the table, and for Hillary to get outraged for someone wanting to know more.  Answer me this… How would you feel if a politician who was discriminating against blacks in the 1960s was asked a couple years later why they changed their views, and the person just got defensive and try to shut the conversation down? Wouldn't you find that to be  pretty shitty, especially if you had other politicians of the era who opened up and talked about the nuances of how they arrived at their change of heart?  Yes, people are different from one another, but I will never apologize for having standards, however naive it may be to hope  someone I would vote for wouldn't come from the Mike Love school of over-defensiveness.
I'm not really personally insulted. I'm just saying that your generalization that people who say something is misogynistic don't want to admit that people are not always correct when they say something is misogynistic is perhaps wrong. Perhaps they don't answer that question because they consider the answer to be obvious and the question to be an aggressive distraction. I don't expect anyone except perhaps Catherine McKinnon would disagree with that assertion. But, again, insisting that someone break away from the point of the discussion to add the irrelevant caveat that sometimes some people are wrong is insulting. When's the last time you asked CSM or the Captain to "admit" that sometimes people who make assertions about policy are wrong? When did you ask anyone on this board to "admit" that Beach Boy resources an be wrong? You just feel like it's appropriate to bring up here because there's a thing in our culture that talking about whether something someone said or did is racist or misogynistic is perceived as so insulting that there's an entire cultural backlash to get people to not talk about that. People voted for a president over their little hurt feelings that people have said that things they've done and said are racist or misogynist. Why would that be? Why is it that there's so much anger when people bring that up? Is it because those people can't take criticism of any kind? Or is it because they are angry that people are trying to change the racist and misogynistic aspects of our culture? I suspect the latter. In any case, the comfort you feel in insisting we break from the discussion to "admit" that sometimes when people say what I'm saying might be wrong, is probably due to that backlash, that's been seen in this thread in so many ways - most usually in the form of "you shouldn't say those things because it makes them mad and that's why they voted for Trump". Basically, let's not challenge racism and misogyny, it makes people mad.
About generalizing, that statement about "polarizing" is not a generalization, but you're quite right that it was a blanket statement. In case you ask, I would not say that generalizations are always inappropriate. Sometimes they are accurate and often they are useful. They are mostly problematic when people take a particular quality of some individuals and apply them to a general population based on unrelated qualities that they have in common and then to say, these specific people have that second quality, therefore they likely have that first quality. My problem with generalizations is not generalizations themselves, but the frequent misuse of them. Regarding my statement, I was discussing the specific condition of Clinton being "polarizing". I did not generalize.
Regardiing Clinton's "defense" vs. Obama's. I will never claim that Clinton has the tools of a sales person, while I think Obama does. Also, Obama was president and was talking BEFORE.the Supreme Court decision, thus trying to lead the balance of opinion in that direction. Clinton, on the other hand, was speaking afterward, when the decision had been made, public opinion had changed to a critical mass, and she was responding to a critical question, not presenting a prepared statement. You were very comfortable saying that ALL THREE of the given examples of Sanders asserting he'd win were different because of the circumstances in which it was said, yet the actual differences in political import and purpose at the times and the significant difference of their roles of the Clinton/Obama statements seems to go unrecognized. The differences in this case are actually, practically, real. But, overall, it's ridiculous to expect someone to "defend" changing their opinion from a bad one to a good one (and to call it a "flip flop") when, again, so much of the population changed their mind in the same way at the same time. Would you ask all those other millions of people to "defend" their "flip flop" ? Or are they just allowed to be humans who learn and reconsider their opinions over time? Clinton's been in the public eye for 30 years. If her opinions on many things didn't change in that time, THAT should be a problem. Not that her opinions DID change.
If you go back to the beginning of her time in the public eye, you'll find that there isn't much data regarding that question because it wasn't even being asked.  The change in public opinion on that question has been startlingly rapid. To insinuate that the one individual changed her opinion for suspicious reasons while everyone else is just being human indicates, to me, bias.
 Separately, Clinton has been closely involved with gay rights organizations for decades, much more than Obama or Sanders, neither of whom has shown any particular interest over the course of their careers. To hone it down to this one issue might indicate an attempt to find a point of criticism rather than a seriousness about gay rights in general.
Regarding your question about civil rights, here's an example: Robert Byrd. Early in his life he went so far as to be a member of the KKK. He renounced that and spent decades working closely with the NAACP and became an active civil rights advocate. Republicans STILL like to hold him up as a poster boy for Democrats are racist. If he got irritated by the press bringing that to him, I wouldn't blame him for being irritated and defensive. Similarly, after Clinton's extensive, persistent work since college for social justice - so easily dismissed by white guys for Bernie, because  what does it matter to them if the Supreme Court flips and all of the progress made during her lifetime is overturned as long as they've voted their conscience because economic justice impacts them directly while social justice doesn't, so go ahead- burn it al down! - people are trying to bury that with the one issue on which the entire cultural zeitgeist flipped over a decade, I don't blame her if she's defensive and irritated.
Further, I'd ask you to watch the many, many times Obama has been defensive and irritated and question yourself if you have a visceral reaction to Clinton doing the SAME THINGS as the men you support that you don't have to them.


 

Generalizations/ blanket statements implying that *everybody* who thinks something negative about a particular person are due to *a* particular factor are never, ever going to fly. It's anything but obvious to insinuate it should somehow be "known" that there are exceptions to rules, when the word "often" or "many times" are omitted in a blanket statement. IMHO the only reason why anybody would want to get insulted and avoid discussion of such omissions (or try to say that discussing the problematic nature of such omissions is a "distraction")  may be because they might sense, on some gut level, that a blanket statement may not entirely be accurate.  Adding the word "often", or even "very often" doesn't diminish your argument. A blanket statement inadvertently does, as its inaccuracy can rub people the wrong way - even people who are allies of your cause.

My calling that out  is absolutely not meant as a distraction. The intention was meant to clear something up and for this conversation to have ended long ago. Words like "often" exist for a reason! Much like Mike Love omitting the failed 2005 lawsuit in his book, there's a reason for omitting this too. And in both cases, it helps neither narrative to just casually remove something that is part of the overall equation/story. It's not being overly aggressive (i've tried very hard to be genuinely polite); it's simply being realistic for me to point out the omission as being inappropriate.

 Blanket statements about a school of thought regarding one particular person are never going to be appropriate, because again, there's no one – size – fits – all designation for an entire group of people, or shall I say a mixed group of people that largely share a particular opinion (which of course will vary with nuance from person to person)… Clinton is a polarizing figure in many cases, or to a significant degree with many people due to gender. Yes, that's overall not any kind of impossible thing for me to get behind. The irony is I'm certain you would agree with me about this if I turned the topic into being about any number of other blanket statements about large groups of people, right? I could say that ALL (fill in the gigantic, multi-million-numbered ethnic/gender/etc group here) are a certain way because of (fill in the reason here), and it would never be a true statement.

Much like your incorrect notion that I "despise" Hillary… Not the case, while I'm sure there are many people who actually would gladly use that term).   I despise Donald Trump. I despise Mike Pence.  I will gladly use that term for those morons.

I could name of dozens of scenarios that would make your blanket statement inappropriate. Just to name one, I could be somebody who was personally screwed over by Hillary Clinton. Maybe she personally referred to my entire family with a derogatory name. As in I could know her in person for years, have been insulted or who knows what on a personal level, and have formulated an opinion from actually personally directly been insulted by her, as opposed to what you would term as some overall socially-conditioned misogyny. Is this an extreme example? Yes. Would personally knowing a candidate be a rare exception to the rule? Yes. It's just a point to make that there are reasons that can go beyond your narrative which can determine why people don't like somebody. I can't even believe it's a conversation that anybody needs to have. The term "always", or the implication of "always" just doesn't work. That's the same reason why I am against the death penalty, by the way. You can't make it right when wrongly convicted people are a thing.

How about that black girl who went to a Hillary rally with a "Bring them to heel" sign, who essentially got casually dismissed by Hillary, and Hillary went right on talking about her previous points to her audience of attendees, as if the incident never even happened. If Hillary is considered to be polarizing to that girl, is that girl making that decision to have a deep dislike of Hillary because of Hillary's gender? Would you tell that to the girl's face? What if the girl said that she saw for example, Bernie treating a Black Lives Matter supporter who crashed a Bernie rally with far more respect than she received from Hillary. Are you going to tell that girl she is wrong if she were to say that she finds Hillary polarizing because she felt personally treated like sh*t/disrespected by Hillary about a very, very sensitive topic, even if the superpredator rhetoric may have adversely affected people she knows? You'd actually going to tell her that she is incorrect, and that you have unquestionably determined that gender is causing her to feel that way? There are many, many exceptions to your "rule". Therefore a blanket statement is inappropriate, even if it may have a lot of truth to it in an overall sense.

Maybe Mike Love acted like a total jerk to somebody at a restaurant one time, to a person who knows absolutely nothing about the band. And maybe that person then just doesn't like the guy. We can't rightly claim that everybody who doesn't like Mike feels that way because of how he talks about his cousin in the media. There could be all sorts of factors that play into the opinion.

And again… my personal life experience which I have related to you which have impacted my feelings on Hillary have gone unrecognized and have in effect been dismissed when I have told you about my predisposition to disliking over-defensiveness. It really just feels like cherry picking and ignoring certain things in order to fit a narrative you want to push. As I said, you can't get inside my head. Nor can you get inside the head of an entire population. That said, I think you can talk about sexism and misogyny against her as a social issue that affects many people. I think that's a fair thing to say. Yet I find it to be inappropriate to make a wide sweeping claim without using the terminology, "many" or "often".

You say that there are plenty of examples of Obama being inappropriately overly-defensive about a very sensitive topic. I haven't seen them yet, maybe they do exist in media. You can't say I'm not open-minded! And maybe my position would change, and I will similarly find issue with Obama and grow to dislike him if I become exposed to them.  Side note… That would only make me dislike him too; that wouldn't raise my opinion of her!  But you do not know how much media I have been exposed to in general (let alone everyone whose views you lump in together). You can make a guess, but you really do not know and cannot answer for how much stuff you think I have somehow "overlooked" in terms of finding fault with Obama inappropriately acting super-defensive about a very sensitive topic.  You may want to claim that some people are under-informed  or haven't been exposed to enough sources  that would paint male politicians in a similar negative light  if you believe that's the case.  You have no idea what media I have or have not seen beyond a handful of clips we have discussed. But that's a completely different thing from being so incredibly certain of your claim of misogyny against me, let alone an entire group of strangers.  This extremism really has to subside to welcome more nuance if this country is to move forward. Of course sexism and misogyny must stop as well, and I do not in any way take those things lightly whatsoever.  They are huge, catastrophic problems.  But like I said… IMHO... Doubling down on blanket statements will only hurt your cause. You can deny that all you want, but it's ultimately true.

Separately from that, over-defensiveness will manifest in case – by – case incidents, which can be apples and oranges from one to the other. You could find an incident of Obama acting very defensive a bout a particular topic, yet I can't *guarantee* it would bug me in quite the same way because it might not be about a sensitive topic regarding peoples' basic rights. Maybe it would, but maybe it wouldn't. Gender does not have to be THE reason for that. If you find a video of Obama acting like a defensive jerk about his position on a particular tax, for example, if it perhaps doesn't piss me off as much as the Hillary video I mentioned, you can't just claim misogyny has to be the reason. It doesn't work.

The reason it sticks in my craw is because it feels like an invasion of privacy of sorts, and attempt to pull a Being John Malkovich and offer an overly-simplistic answer to what is going on in the heads of many people. That's why I pointed out. Does the 2002 (?) video of her making a large, grining smile in reaction to when an audience loudly booed her for professing she was against gay marriage bug me also? Yes, it bugs the crap out of me. I don't care if that's her nervous tick. I don't think it's appropriate to smile about stripping people of rights. Sue me for feeling that way. Call me a misogynist if you want; I will call her smiling out as unconscionably shitty behavior until my dying day, and no amount of incorrect claims of misogyny is going to make those misogyny claims true, or make me think Hillary was not acting like an unconscionable creep for doing it. I expect better of my politicians whether they are men or women.  Again, sorry if I have standards. We can't make everything about sexism, it's really absurd.

Lastly, I would just like to reiterate what I mentioned earlier… I am absolutely, unequivocably, NOT trying to muzzle you, or trying to muzzle your general point of view, nor am I sticking up for the literally millions of people who have acted and continue to act in a racist/sexist/abhorrent manner during this ridiculous time we are living in right now. Those actions happen all the time, to varying degrees across the spectrum.  I want calling that out to be part of the discussion.  I want to be called out if I am legitimately ever acting that way myself.  Does one person's opinion of calling someone a misogynist mean it's fact? Nope.  People can be wrong. I just believe that the overall climate could be made better with a little bit more nuance sometimes.  That's a difficult sentence to disagree with, don't you think? A word like "often" or "largely" in your original quote would have made all the difference in my mind. That's literally all I'm trying to say. Extremism helps no cause. I'm not calling you an extremist, but I will say that blanket statements and the refusal to easily concede that nuance is a necessity is problematic. IMO it *has* to be problematic for all of us, regardless of race, creed, gender, political affiliation, etc... and it should never be a pulling teeth type of situation for anybody to say.

I appreciate that we are having a thoughtful discourse about this topic. However, if we whittled this conversation down to a couple of quick back – and - forth offhand comments between strangers on a Facebook thread,  which seems to be a pretty normal way that people converse and formulate political opinions these days, the level of communication would likely shrivel to zero very quickly if a blanket statement was made and immediate complete defense of it was adhered to. That's why it's dangerous. And that's what our society has turned into. Do I understand the concept that many sexist trolls will try to exploit any little exception to the rule that stating "often" would allow them to take? Yes, I do.  Do I think that sucks? Absolutely. You will find people being blatantly sexist all day long and then denying it. But I do not see how blanket statements are an answer to that problem.   I'm not saying I have any kind of perfect answer  for the problem either. I hope you can find some common ground in the point I'm trying to make.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2016, 06:26:56 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1996 on: November 19, 2016, 10:19:09 AM »

With the obvious caveats like this is just a gut reaction and not a study, or that I can't and don't know other people's motivations, etc., I'd like to present my thoughts on the role of sexism in the election of D. Trump over H. Clinton.

Despite having zero doubt whatsoever that sexism played a part in some voters' minds, I don't think the predominant cause of the unelection of H. Clinton was sexism. And this is why:
  • Democrats lost big-time on election day
  • Hillary Clinton won the popular vote

In other words, she outperformed her own party on a national level. While people tended to vote in more Republicans than Democrats regardless of gender, she won more votes than her opponent. Now, if the sexists in the Trump, Johnson, or McMullin voters had voted Clinton, might she have won the electoral college, too? Maybe. But that's awfully hard to know. My guess is that the primary reason for Trump's win was a sufficient number of "throw-em-out" voters existed after eight years of Obama, and voted what they thought was the change candidate ... especially when that purported change candidate focused on many of their fears (about prospects for ongoing employment, about the unwhitening of America, about the de-Christianizing of America, about the increasingly public presence of non-straight Americans, about increasing challenges to the behavior of institutions like police, etc.). A part of that is sexism, sure. But is sexism a bigger part than economic insecurity? Religious fear? Racial discomfort? I can't answer that, but my guess is no.
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.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1997 on: November 20, 2016, 05:30:38 PM »

A part of that is sexism, sure. But is sexism a bigger part than economic insecurity? Religious fear? Racial discomfort? I can't answer that, but my guess is no.
Why is that your guess?
Disregarding the other stuff in this linked post - note that it counted more misogynist than racist slurs on Twitter.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/03/08/twitter-antigay-sexist?cmpid=tpd-ad-fb-keywee&kwp_0=269279&kwp_4=1032566&kwp_1=487114
The misogyny of Trump and of his followers was more overt than the racism.
The most common hate crimes are against women.

Misogyny is less discussed, less measured, less acknowledged. It's often more subtle and insidious. It's often disguised by the personal relationships that misogynists have with women and by the acceptance of misogyny by some women. But it's also more open, and more prevalent.

Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1998 on: November 22, 2016, 03:34:20 PM »

Why is it my guess? Because those are all almost certainly factors, and in the absence of a convincing breakdown as to voters' motivations, I don't have much I can weigh them on. So if I listed four factors, I'd have to weight them roughly equally barring a reason not to. So non-sexist reasons outweigh sexism 3:1 by that (obviously not accurate) model. And beyond that, my reasoning is what I already laid out in my previous post: she won the popular vote, and Democrats got killed on election day. So she outperformed Democrats. If sexism was the primary reason for her loss, it would mean she was astronomically stronger than Democrats in general, and thus her loss was less (i.e., her small popular victory) than theirs.

The article was interesting, but in that it's not breaking down non-Clinton voters' reasoning, it's only peripherally relevant.

I agree with a lot of what you say, including on this topic, but I don't think I have seen or heard a defensible argument that the primary reason non-Clinton voters voted for someone else is sexism.
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.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1999 on: November 22, 2016, 06:59:43 PM »

Why is it my guess? Because those are all almost certainly factors, and in the absence of a convincing breakdown as to voters' motivations, I don't have much I can weigh them on. So if I listed four factors, I'd have to weight them roughly equally barring a reason not to. So non-sexist reasons outweigh sexism 3:1 by that (obviously not accurate) model. And beyond that, my reasoning is what I already laid out in my previous post: she won the popular vote, and Democrats got killed on election day. So she outperformed Democrats. If sexism was the primary reason for her loss, it would mean she was astronomically stronger than Democrats in general, and thus her loss was less (i.e., her small popular victory) than theirs.

The article was interesting, but in that it's not breaking down non-Clinton voters' reasoning, it's only peripherally relevant.

I agree with a lot of what you say, including on this topic, but I don't think I have seen or heard a defensible argument that the primary reason non-Clinton voters voted for someone else is sexism.
Perhaps I misread your post. I thought you were meaning to imply that race and religious fear were bigger factors. I notice that the media mentions those as general factors more than misogyny unless they are specifically talking about the Trump assault accusations, though misogyny seemed to play a large part in his rallies and campaign-related merchandizing. My post immediately above was more about the idea that misogyny is a stronger force, generally, than most people seem to acknowledge. Because I picked up a "racism, yeah, but misogyny not particularly" vibe from your comment, but I think I was wrong about that reading
I think I've been misread as well. I've just looked at all my posts since the election because I've been feeling like CD and you, just in this post here, were representing my assertions differently from my intent. I do not see, in my posts, myself saying that it is THE primary reason for her loss or for voters' votes. What I have been saying consistently is that I think it's the primary reason people don't apply the same standards of judgment to her as they do to men.
Edit: let me amend that last sentence which is kind of true by definition.
What I should have written is: she has been judged differently than men, by people on left, right, and center, due to sex and misogyny. Even by people who don't think they've judged her differently, at minimum because what they've read about her or heard said about he is different than what they would have read or heard about a man in the same circumstances.

BTW, Captain. I've read the articles you linked a while le ago and have some commentary, but it's the kind of thing that I want to write while simultaneously having the articles in front of me. I'm normally on this site while on the train ,on my phone, or while walking the dogs, on my phone. Neither of which lends itself well to that sort of commentary. I should find a chance this weekend.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 05:01:03 AM by Emily » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.923 seconds with 21 queries.