-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 26, 2020, 06:58:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 [81]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 224465 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2000 on: November 22, 2016, 09:28:56 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.

Emily, the main issue I was bringing up was pointing out the inaccuracy of your "Hillary is polarizing is because she is a woman" blanket statement, by my opinion that such a statement needs an "often " or "to many people" to be accurate or appropriate. I certainly wasn't at all wanting to represent your assertions differently from your intent. If I have done so, please let me know how I have.

Curious if you have any thoughts on my previous post (I know it was long-winded and sorry if it reads like a phone book). In particular... is the black young lady protestor who brought the "Bring them to heel" poster to a Hillary rally - and probably felt rudely dismissed by Hillary's response  - not an exception to your gender-based blanket statement (which, by its wording, is implied to be a true statement across the board)?  

I should add that I generally agree with your statement that "misogyny is a stronger force, generally, than most people seem to acknowledge". My main gripe is with the implication of absolutes.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 09:42:11 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2001 on: November 23, 2016, 04:02:33 AM »

I don't think those are examples of someone being 'polarizing'.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #2002 on: November 23, 2016, 05:39:17 AM »


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.

I think I have been misunderstanding you, then. While I wasn't really participating in the discussion, I did understand your point to be that sexism/misogyny was the primary factor in the loss. Sorry about that.

As for the articles, don't feel obligated to comment on or respond to them. I wasn't standing up for them, just sharing them because they were relevant to the discussion. Though
Logged

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

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

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2003 on: November 23, 2016, 07:55:38 AM »

I don't think those are examples of someone being 'polarizing'.

I looked up the definition of polarization: "a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions."

So if the black young lady protestor was deeply sickened by the superpredators rhetoric as well as how she was responded to by Hillary, and those were significant driving factors in her decision to sharply dislike Hillary (not to mention a group of the girl's friends/family sharing that sentiment of deep dislike)..:how does that not fall under the actual definition of polarizing?

There would be an opposing faction of folks who dislike Hillary for the reasons I have noted, while those people are part of a greater population, some of whom perhaps weren't as personally affected by the superpredators issue, and were willing to overlook it.

What are your thoughts on that girl and/or her family if they wound up hating Hillary? Would you say that's because of Hillary's gender?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2004 on: November 23, 2016, 12:32:06 PM »

So by this definition of polarizing, which is not the commonly understood use of the term, anyone that is strongly disliked by anyone else (that is to say, almost everyone)  is polarizing. I will grant that if 'polarizing' is to be defined as having some one but not every one dislike you, then yes, not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, which I specified many pages ago.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2005 on: November 23, 2016, 01:08:16 PM »

So by this definition of polarizing, which is not the commonly understood use of the term, anyone that is strongly disliked by anyone else (that is to say, almost everyone)  is polarizing. I will grant that if 'polarizing' is to be defined as having some one but not every one dislike you, then yes, not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, which I specified many pages ago.

I wasn't trying to warp the meaning of the word you used; I'm not sure what you believe the commonly understood use of the term to be, or how you believe I am misunderstanding it. The bottom line is that there's much truth to your initial statement, but the blanket nature of it - regardless of whether we are going to split hairs on the definition of "polarizing" - creates a fundamentally problematic inaccuracy that undermines the fact that misogyny was and is a huge issue. I don't know why that remains a source of contention between us in this discussion, because I (and many people I know, men and women alike) who are - in actuality - allies with you regarding having a desire to have misogyny go the way of the dodo, are going to be put off by the inaccuracy.

As you just stated (though this was anything but clear in your initial statement), not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, despite gender being a big factor that made the playing field unequal in numerous ways. But I don't see how the contradiction between that true statement, and your earlier "polarizing" comment doesn't present a problem, particularly when statements like that are thrown around in an online space. Ultimately, I think you and I essentially agree on the topic in general, though I'm not sure if you see things that way. But whether you think it's fair or not, there's going to be an *understandable* adverse reaction from a not insignificant amount of people seeing that statement, and i really just don't think we can try to pretend that's not the case.

I want pricks like Trump and his ilk out of any kind of political office in this country. I would love to see a female president. I voted for Hillary in '08. Part of what it will take for good things like that to start happening is that it's essential that more people - despite having good intentions - not make wide-sweeping generalizations.

Do you honestly not see how they can be harmful?

That black young lady protestor that I keep bringing up (who you'd probably admit most likely deeply dislikes Hillary for reasons unrelated to gender) - do you think her or her supporters are going to be *even further* put off by seeing that "polarizing" statement? (Not trying to single you out - I know many others online post things like that, echoing your sentiment). Respectfully speaking, I believe it creates more harm than good.  If I sound like a broken record about this, I apologize, but please know it's because I am just disgusted and deeply frightened as I'm sure you are with the direction this country is heading right now, and I related don't think any liberal-minded person can afford to disregard the point I'm trying to make. We invite Trumpism when we do away with nuance.  Do you think this is an irrational fear?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 02:15:13 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2006 on: November 23, 2016, 02:32:39 PM »

So by this definition of polarizing, which is not the commonly understood use of the term, anyone that is strongly disliked by anyone else (that is to say, almost everyone)  is polarizing. I will grant that if 'polarizing' is to be defined as having some one but not every one dislike you, then yes, not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, which I specified many pages ago.

I wasn't trying to warp the meaning of the word you used; I'm not sure what you believe the commonly understood use of the term to be, or how you believe I am misunderstanding it. The bottom line is that there's much truth to your initial statement, but the blanket nature of it - regardless of whether we are going to split hairs on the definition of "polarizing" - creates a fundamentally problematic inaccuracy that undermines the fact that misogyny was and is a huge issue. I don't know why that remains a source of contention between us in this discussion, because I (and many people I know, men and women alike) who are - in actuality - allies with you regarding having a desire to have misogyny go the way of the dodo, are going to be put off by the inaccuracy.

As you just stated (though this was anything but clear in your initial statement), not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, despite gender being a big factor that made the playing field unequal in numerous ways. But I don't see how the contradiction between that true statement, and your earlier "polarizing" comment doesn't present a problem, particularly when statements like that are thrown around in an online space. Ultimately, I think you and I essentially agree on the topic in general, though I'm not sure if you see things that way. But whether you think it's fair or not, there's going to be an *understandable* adverse reaction from a not insignificant amount of people seeing that statement, and i really just don't think we can try to pretend that's not the case.

I want pricks like Trump and his ilk out of any kind of political office in this country. I would love to see a female president. I voted for Hillary in '08. Part of what it will take for good things like that to start happening is that it's essential that more people - despite having good intentions - not make wide-sweeping generalizations.

Do you honestly not see how they can be harmful?

That black young lady protestor that I keep bringing up (who you'd probably admit most likely deeply dislikes Hillary for reasons unrelated to gender) - do you think her or her supporters are going to be *even further* put off by seeing that "polarizing" statement? (Not trying to single you out - I know many others online post things like that, echoing your sentiment). Respectfully speaking, I believe it creates more harm than good.  If I sound like a broken record about this, I apologize, but please know it's because I am just disgusted and deeply frightened as I'm sure you are with the direction this country is heading right now, and I related don't think any liberal-minded person can afford to disregard the point I'm trying to make. We invite Trumpism when we do away with nuance.
My initial statement was not the statement about polarization, which I stand by.  The common meaning of 'polarizing' is what you quoted, which doesn't mean 'a few people really really don't like you.' The meaning implies the mass of people concerned - what mass depends on who you are;  in the case of a presidential candidate, it would mean the electorate at minimum, the global population at maximum - are divided into two bulk groups at extreme opposition because of the 'polarizing' person's actions or words. Our electorate is generally very polarized. Trump could easily be argued to have polarized people more. Clinton - I maintain that any argument that she, herself, is polarizing, will contain a whopping dollop of misogyny. I don't believe it can be argued sans misogyny. It's not splitting hairs. I was responding to that specific word, so the meaning of that specific word matters when discussing the accuracy of the statement.
Regarding my "initial statement" - again, this wasn't it. But it was many pages ago, before (I'm pretty sure but I'm not going to reread 8 pages right now to validate) the exchange with you began, that I was very clear and specific that there are people (I used CSM as an example) who
are opposed to Clinton for rational, consistent; non-misogynist reasons. If you chose to disregard that, or didn't read it, that's not on me.
Regarding the tactic of not calling out misogyny because it upsets misogynists, you don't have my buy in.
Regarding people who might have an emotional reaction to my statement because it bugs them that someone they don't like isn't universally hated - it's a common feeling, but not one I'm willing to play along with.
Regarding people offended by my statement because of vocabulary issues or inattentive reading - sorry about that.

Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10933


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2007 on: November 23, 2016, 02:56:18 PM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/df0efdc9-bd94-3986-acfd-d1c1b40c2791/ss_jill-stein-is-raising-money.html
Logged

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

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


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

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

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2008 on: November 23, 2016, 02:57:22 PM »

So by this definition of polarizing, which is not the commonly understood use of the term, anyone that is strongly disliked by anyone else (that is to say, almost everyone)  is polarizing. I will grant that if 'polarizing' is to be defined as having some one but not every one dislike you, then yes, not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, which I specified many pages ago.

I wasn't trying to warp the meaning of the word you used; I'm not sure what you believe the commonly understood use of the term to be, or how you believe I am misunderstanding it. The bottom line is that there's much truth to your initial statement, but the blanket nature of it - regardless of whether we are going to split hairs on the definition of "polarizing" - creates a fundamentally problematic inaccuracy that undermines the fact that misogyny was and is a huge issue. I don't know why that remains a source of contention between us in this discussion, because I (and many people I know, men and women alike) who are - in actuality - allies with you regarding having a desire to have misogyny go the way of the dodo, are going to be put off by the inaccuracy.

As you just stated (though this was anything but clear in your initial statement), not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, despite gender being a big factor that made the playing field unequal in numerous ways. But I don't see how the contradiction between that true statement, and your earlier "polarizing" comment doesn't present a problem, particularly when statements like that are thrown around in an online space. Ultimately, I think you and I essentially agree on the topic in general, though I'm not sure if you see things that way. But whether you think it's fair or not, there's going to be an *understandable* adverse reaction from a not insignificant amount of people seeing that statement, and i really just don't think we can try to pretend that's not the case.

I want pricks like Trump and his ilk out of any kind of political office in this country. I would love to see a female president. I voted for Hillary in '08. Part of what it will take for good things like that to start happening is that it's essential that more people - despite having good intentions - not make wide-sweeping generalizations.

Do you honestly not see how they can be harmful?

That black young lady protestor that I keep bringing up (who you'd probably admit most likely deeply dislikes Hillary for reasons unrelated to gender) - do you think her or her supporters are going to be *even further* put off by seeing that "polarizing" statement? (Not trying to single you out - I know many others online post things like that, echoing your sentiment). Respectfully speaking, I believe it creates more harm than good.  If I sound like a broken record about this, I apologize, but please know it's because I am just disgusted and deeply frightened as I'm sure you are with the direction this country is heading right now, and I related don't think any liberal-minded person can afford to disregard the point I'm trying to make. We invite Trumpism when we do away with nuance.
My initial statement was not the statement about polarization, which I stand by.  The common meaning of 'polarizing' is what you quoted, which doesn't mean 'a few people really really don't like you.' The meaning implies the mass of people concerned - what mass depends on who you are;  in the case of a presidential candidate, it would mean the electorate at minimum, the global population at maximum - are divided into two bulk groups at extreme opposition because of the 'polarizing' person's actions or words. Our electorate is generally very polarized. Trump could easily be argued to have polarized people more. Clinton - I maintain that any argument that she, herself, is polarizing, will contain a whopping dollop of misogyny. I don't believe it can be argued sans misogyny. It's not splitting hairs. I was responding to that specific word, so the meaning of that specific word matters when discussing the accuracy of the statement.
Regarding my "initial statement" - again, this wasn't it. But it was many pages ago, before (I'm pretty sure but I'm not going to reread 8 pages right now to validate) the exchange with you began, that I was very clear and specific that there are people (I used CSM as an example) who
are opposed to Clinton for rational, consistent; non-misogynist reasons. If you chose to disregard that, or didn't read it, that's not on me.
Regarding the tactic of not calling out misogyny because it upsets misogynists, you don't have my buy in.
Regarding people who might have an emotional reaction to my statement because it bugs them that someone they don't like isn't universally hated - it's a common feeling, but not one I'm willing to play along with.
Regarding people offended by my statement because of vocabulary issues or inattentive reading - sorry about that.



So no ownership of how blanket statements can be inadvertently harmful to a cause. Can vocabulary issues sometimes ever come from the phrasing of the accusers too?  I think it's very unfortunate, and an oversimplification of a much more complex, nuanced issue to say "Regarding the tactic of not calling out misogyny because it upsets misogynists, you don't have my buy in".  What about that black girl and her supporters who don't care about gender when formulating their opinions? Chopped liver? Just "a few people" who are to be dismissed and discounted in terms of being part of the electorate?   Good luck in getting them to understand that point of view.    

It just becomes very dismissive to people like her, and while I really doubt you are trying to intentionally dismiss her (likely) gender-irrelevant feelings on the subject, I feel quite certain that's nevertheless exactly what winds up happening.  It's not a matter of misunderstanding vocabulary. It's a matter of painting with a wide brush that leaves people like that out in the cold.  You can't just not care about that. People like that and their "emotional reactions" to blanket statements do matter.  People like that are understandably going to feel lumped into what you are categorizing as having misogynistic views with the "polarizing" statement.  Over and over again, on the interwebs, I have seen people who have feelings like that girl get shut down and accused of misogyny.  That's not right. Nothing can make that right or fair.

Blanket statements breed extremism. There's no way around that.  You may be perfectly ok with using them, until the moment they are used against you and your views unfairly, and then I'm sure you will similarly be calling foul.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 03:19:14 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2009 on: November 23, 2016, 02:58:07 PM »


 That is rad, Billy.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10933


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2010 on: November 23, 2016, 03:10:28 PM »

All the hate us Stein supports got from many on the Clinton side, yet Jill is supporting a recount (which would give Clinton the presidency). Right is right. Actually, a better statement would be, correct is correct. Wink
Logged

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

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


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

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

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2011 on: November 23, 2016, 03:19:34 PM »

So by this definition of polarizing, which is not the commonly understood use of the term, anyone that is strongly disliked by anyone else (that is to say, almost everyone)  is polarizing. I will grant that if 'polarizing' is to be defined as having some one but not every one dislike you, then yes, not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, which I specified many pages ago.

I wasn't trying to warp the meaning of the word you used; I'm not sure what you believe the commonly understood use of the term to be, or how you believe I am misunderstanding it. The bottom line is that there's much truth to your initial statement, but the blanket nature of it - regardless of whether we are going to split hairs on the definition of "polarizing" - creates a fundamentally problematic inaccuracy that undermines the fact that misogyny was and is a huge issue. I don't know why that remains a source of contention between us in this discussion, because I (and many people I know, men and women alike) who are - in actuality - allies with you regarding having a desire to have misogyny go the way of the dodo, are going to be put off by the inaccuracy.

As you just stated (though this was anything but clear in your initial statement), not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, despite gender being a big factor that made the playing field unequal in numerous ways. But I don't see how the contradiction between that true statement, and your earlier "polarizing" comment doesn't present a problem, particularly when statements like that are thrown around in an online space. Ultimately, I think you and I essentially agree on the topic in general, though I'm not sure if you see things that way. But whether you think it's fair or not, there's going to be an *understandable* adverse reaction from a not insignificant amount of people seeing that statement, and i really just don't think we can try to pretend that's not the case.

I want pricks like Trump and his ilk out of any kind of political office in this country. I would love to see a female president. I voted for Hillary in '08. Part of what it will take for good things like that to start happening is that it's essential that more people - despite having good intentions - not make wide-sweeping generalizations.

Do you honestly not see how they can be harmful?

That black young lady protestor that I keep bringing up (who you'd probably admit most likely deeply dislikes Hillary for reasons unrelated to gender) - do you think her or her supporters are going to be *even further* put off by seeing that "polarizing" statement? (Not trying to single you out - I know many others online post things like that, echoing your sentiment). Respectfully speaking, I believe it creates more harm than good.  If I sound like a broken record about this, I apologize, but please know it's because I am just disgusted and deeply frightened as I'm sure you are with the direction this country is heading right now, and I related don't think any liberal-minded person can afford to disregard the point I'm trying to make. We invite Trumpism when we do away with nuance.
My initial statement was not the statement about polarization, which I stand by.  The common meaning of 'polarizing' is what you quoted, which doesn't mean 'a few people really really don't like you.' The meaning implies the mass of people concerned - what mass depends on who you are;  in the case of a presidential candidate, it would mean the electorate at minimum, the global population at maximum - are divided into two bulk groups at extreme opposition because of the 'polarizing' person's actions or words. Our electorate is generally very polarized. Trump could easily be argued to have polarized people more. Clinton - I maintain that any argument that she, herself, is polarizing, will contain a whopping dollop of misogyny. I don't believe it can be argued sans misogyny. It's not splitting hairs. I was responding to that specific word, so the meaning of that specific word matters when discussing the accuracy of the statement.
Regarding my "initial statement" - again, this wasn't it. But it was many pages ago, before (I'm pretty sure but I'm not going to reread 8 pages right now to validate) the exchange with you began, that I was very clear and specific that there are people (I used CSM as an example) who
are opposed to Clinton for rational, consistent; non-misogynist reasons. If you chose to disregard that, or didn't read it, that's not on me.
Regarding the tactic of not calling out misogyny because it upsets misogynists, you don't have my buy in.
Regarding people who might have an emotional reaction to my statement because it bugs them that someone they don't like isn't universally hated - it's a common feeling, but not one I'm willing to play along with.
Regarding people offended by my statement because of vocabulary issues or inattentive reading - sorry about that.



So no ownership of how blanket statements can be inadvertently harmful to a cause. Can vocabulary issues sometimes ever come from the phrasing of the accusers too?  I think it's very unfortunate, and an oversimplification of a much more complex, nuanced issue to say "Regarding the tactic of not calling out misogyny because it upsets misogynists, you don't have my buy in".  What about that black girl and her supporters who don't care about gender when formulating their opinions? Chopped liver? Just "a few people" who are to be dismissed and discounted in terms of being part of the electorate?   Good luck in getting them to understand that point of view.  

Blanket statements breed extremism. There's no way around that.
Oh my gosh. For one thing, please stop calling her a girl. For another, this is ridiculous. You're saying that I shouldn't say, on an Internet forum, something I believe to be true about the election because there's a person out there who might misinterpret it? Or might be upset that I don't agree with her?
I''m not going to stifle myself because there's a hypothetical (which she is, we don't know her thoughts) person who doesn't understand that her personal dislike for Clinton does not require me to dislike her and doesn't require me to pretend reality isn't what it is.
If a blanket statement is wrong, that's a legitimate complaint. If it's right (and some are; your blanket statements about blanket statements are false), it's the problem of the complainer. If I were friends with that individual, I might avoid the topic, depending on my understanding of our interpersonal dynamic, but as a general thing, I''m not going to avoid saying an important truth, discussing why we just elected the most dangerously ignorant and temperamentally least fit president ever, because it bugs people. I don't think that coddling the irrational and the bigoted is the answer to our problems.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2012 on: November 23, 2016, 03:38:24 PM »

So by this definition of polarizing, which is not the commonly understood use of the term, anyone that is strongly disliked by anyone else (that is to say, almost everyone)  is polarizing. I will grant that if 'polarizing' is to be defined as having some one but not every one dislike you, then yes, not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, which I specified many pages ago.

I wasn't trying to warp the meaning of the word you used; I'm not sure what you believe the commonly understood use of the term to be, or how you believe I am misunderstanding it. The bottom line is that there's much truth to your initial statement, but the blanket nature of it - regardless of whether we are going to split hairs on the definition of "polarizing" - creates a fundamentally problematic inaccuracy that undermines the fact that misogyny was and is a huge issue. I don't know why that remains a source of contention between us in this discussion, because I (and many people I know, men and women alike) who are - in actuality - allies with you regarding having a desire to have misogyny go the way of the dodo, are going to be put off by the inaccuracy.

As you just stated (though this was anything but clear in your initial statement), not everyone who dislikes Clinton does so because of her sex, despite gender being a big factor that made the playing field unequal in numerous ways. But I don't see how the contradiction between that true statement, and your earlier "polarizing" comment doesn't present a problem, particularly when statements like that are thrown around in an online space. Ultimately, I think you and I essentially agree on the topic in general, though I'm not sure if you see things that way. But whether you think it's fair or not, there's going to be an *understandable* adverse reaction from a not insignificant amount of people seeing that statement, and i really just don't think we can try to pretend that's not the case.

I want pricks like Trump and his ilk out of any kind of political office in this country. I would love to see a female president. I voted for Hillary in '08. Part of what it will take for good things like that to start happening is that it's essential that more people - despite having good intentions - not make wide-sweeping generalizations.

Do you honestly not see how they can be harmful?

That black young lady protestor that I keep bringing up (who you'd probably admit most likely deeply dislikes Hillary for reasons unrelated to gender) - do you think her or her supporters are going to be *even further* put off by seeing that "polarizing" statement? (Not trying to single you out - I know many others online post things like that, echoing your sentiment). Respectfully speaking, I believe it creates more harm than good.  If I sound like a broken record about this, I apologize, but please know it's because I am just disgusted and deeply frightened as I'm sure you are with the direction this country is heading right now, and I related don't think any liberal-minded person can afford to disregard the point I'm trying to make. We invite Trumpism when we do away with nuance.
My initial statement was not the statement about polarization, which I stand by.  The common meaning of 'polarizing' is what you quoted, which doesn't mean 'a few people really really don't like you.' The meaning implies the mass of people concerned - what mass depends on who you are;  in the case of a presidential candidate, it would mean the electorate at minimum, the global population at maximum - are divided into two bulk groups at extreme opposition because of the 'polarizing' person's actions or words. Our electorate is generally very polarized. Trump could easily be argued to have polarized people more. Clinton - I maintain that any argument that she, herself, is polarizing, will contain a whopping dollop of misogyny. I don't believe it can be argued sans misogyny. It's not splitting hairs. I was responding to that specific word, so the meaning of that specific word matters when discussing the accuracy of the statement.
Regarding my "initial statement" - again, this wasn't it. But it was many pages ago, before (I'm pretty sure but I'm not going to reread 8 pages right now to validate) the exchange with you began, that I was very clear and specific that there are people (I used CSM as an example) who
are opposed to Clinton for rational, consistent; non-misogynist reasons. If you chose to disregard that, or didn't read it, that's not on me.
Regarding the tactic of not calling out misogyny because it upsets misogynists, you don't have my buy in.
Regarding people who might have an emotional reaction to my statement because it bugs them that someone they don't like isn't universally hated - it's a common feeling, but not one I'm willing to play along with.
Regarding people offended by my statement because of vocabulary issues or inattentive reading - sorry about that.



So no ownership of how blanket statements can be inadvertently harmful to a cause. Can vocabulary issues sometimes ever come from the phrasing of the accusers too?  I think it's very unfortunate, and an oversimplification of a much more complex, nuanced issue to say "Regarding the tactic of not calling out misogyny because it upsets misogynists, you don't have my buy in".  What about that black girl and her supporters who don't care about gender when formulating their opinions? Chopped liver? Just "a few people" who are to be dismissed and discounted in terms of being part of the electorate?   Good luck in getting them to understand that point of view.  

Blanket statements breed extremism. There's no way around that.
Oh my gosh. For one thing, please stop calling her a girl. For another, this is ridiculous. You're saying that I shouldn't say, on an Internet forum, something I believe to be true about the election because there's a person out there who might misinterpret it? Or might be upset that I don't agree with her?
I''m not going to stifle myself because there's a hypothetical (which she is, we don't know her thoughts) person who doesn't understand that her personal dislike for Clinton does not require me to dislike her and doesn't require me to pretend reality isn't what it is.
If a blanket statement is wrong, that's a legitimate complaint. If it's right (and some are; your blanket statements about blanket statements are false), it's the problem of the complainer. If I were friends with that individual, I might avoid the topic, depending on my understanding of our interpersonal dynamic, but as a general thing, I''m not going to avoid saying an important truth, discussing why we just elected the most dangerously ignorant and temperamentally least fit president ever, because it bugs people. I don't think that coddling the irrational and the bigoted is the answer to our problems.


First of all, I'm sorry I called her a girl.  Let's not start down some sort of a path of trying to paint me in some sort of light. That's part of my cultural conditioning  where I stupidly did it quickly without thinking (no disrespect meant - I have probably listened to California Girls too many times), but as you probably noticed, I have avoided that terminology, and repeatedly consistently  referred to her as a "young lady" in my past posts.  I think she's a teenager as I recall. Anyway, whatever the most respectful term to use, I am all for using that every single time.

Secondly, the thing that needs to be recognized is that this young lady (and her probable feelings on Hillary) is not just one person. There are many people with similar views for similar reasons. So if there's any stifling that should be done, it's for the benefit of that group of people. Not for just one person.  You (and people in general) have to take ownership of the way you phrase things. I have shown the "polarizing" quote to a number of highly-literate Democrats, and all of them reacted the same way as I did. Including my mother, who voted for - and phone-banked for - Hillary.  The choice of words you make can make all the difference. Just look at how upset you got when I inadvertently used the term "girl" one time out of a dozen (i'm not mad you got upset, it was stupid of me to say, but I'm just pointing out that people can use words which imply something completely different than their intent).

Thirdly, I completely agree that we shouldn't be coddling the bigoted and irrational people. There are many of them, and of course I recognize that as a fear.  Of course I understand the idea that we don't want to cut any of them any slack.  But so should we have a concern and responsibility as to not incite *other* people to feel wrongly accused. You can't just ignore that as a problem,  it's an inconvenient truth.  It's a balancing act. Neither you nor I have a perfect solution to this. But we should all be aware.  I would think that the last thing you would want to do is to cause any people to not at the very least vote against Trump, and that stuff *does* happen when people (who in actuality should not be accused) feel wrongly accused ad nauseam, Over and over again. It's a cumulative effect.

Nuance is vital.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 03:57:06 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2013 on: November 23, 2016, 03:55:40 PM »

The woman in question does not provide a counter-example to my point. Despite your assumption, she might be rational enough not to think she does. You are arguing now that no one should say anything because someone else might not understand  it and be offended. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You are basically advocating not ever speaking.
It is inconvenient that sometimes people don't understand what you're saying because they have vocabulary problems, emotional baggage, or didn't listen. It is not reasonable to say, "therefore we must be silent. "
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2014 on: November 23, 2016, 03:59:34 PM »

The woman in question does not provide a counter-example to my point. Despite your assumption, she might be rational enough not to think she does. You are arguing now that no one should say anything because someone else might not understand  it and be offended. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You are basically advocating not ever speaking.
It is inconvenient that sometimes people don't understand what you're saying because they have vocabulary problems, emotional baggage, or didn't listen. It is not reasonable to say, "therefore we must be silent. "

I never asked you to stay silent. I've repeatedly reiterated in this thread that I am not trying to "muzzle" people who want to call out actual misogyny. The only thing I have advocated for was for rewording the "polarizing" statement to allow for more nuance, as it its implication is quite likely to be interpreted by many people as tantamount to "everyone who dislikes Hillary is  being a misogynist for having an anti-Hillary viewpoint".  That interpretation of your statement is not a stretch.

And I respectfully request you stop insulting/dismissing the many people who would interpret your quote in the manner I mentioned above as having "vocabulary problems". Because now you are literally insulting my mother.   Who is not only extraordinarily literate and well-read, but is the nicest person you'll ever meet, and is a 1960s a flower child peacenik feminist!

All people… including myself who foolishly used the term "girl"… need to own their statements, and be aware of how they are going to be widely interpreted. This doubling-down is going to help no cause.

Side note: Whether or not the young lady in question has negative views on Hillary in the exact manner in which I hypothesized is really besides the point, because I'm sure there are many other similar folks who do, and that's the point.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 05:19:32 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
The Cincinnati Kid
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 800



View Profile
« Reply #2015 on: November 23, 2016, 04:59:34 PM »

This discussion is really going nowhere. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2016 on: November 23, 2016, 05:21:31 PM »

The woman in question does not provide a counter-example to my point. Despite your assumption, she might be rational enough not to think she does. You are arguing now that no one should say anything because someone else might not understand  it and be offended. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You are basically advocating not ever speaking.
It is inconvenient that sometimes people don't understand what you're saying because they have vocabulary problems, emotional baggage, or didn't listen. It is not reasonable to say, "therefore we must be silent. "

I never asked you to stay silent. I've repeatedly reiterated in this thread that I am not trying to "muzzle" people who want to call out actual misogyny. The only thing I have advocated for was for rewording the "polarizing" statement to allow for more nuance, as it its implication is quite likely to be interpreted by many people as tantamount to "everyone who dislikes Hillary is  being a misogynist for having an anti-Hillary viewpoint".  That interpretation of your statement is not a stretch.

And I respectfully request you stop insulting/dismissing the many people who would interpret your quote in the manner I mentioned above as having "vocabulary problems". Because now you are literally insulting my mother.   Who is not only extraordinarily literate and well-read, but is the nicest person you'll ever meet, and is a 1960s a flower child peacenik feminist!

All people… including myself who foolishly used the term "girl"… need to own their statements, and be aware of how they are going to be widely interpreted. This doubling-down is going to help no cause.

Side note: Whether or not the young lady in question has negative views on Hillary in the exact manner in which I hypothesized is really besides the point, because I'm sure there are many other similar folks who do, and that's the point.
But you have not established that those similar folks think that the word 'polarizing' means 'someone doesn't like you.' I'm sorry if your mom's insulted by my saying "vocabulary problems." I will amend it to: don't know what I word I used means.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 05:23:58 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2017 on: November 23, 2016, 05:40:12 PM »

CD, CK is right. This is going nowhere. I don't have a problem with you. I think my statement is valid; you either don't or you don't think it's good politics to say it anyway. We disagree. No amount of you telling me there might be someone insulted by it or me telling you I think it's true and I'm not really concerned if a hypothetical person is insulted by it is going to change the other's mind. Let's call it a draw, OK?
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4986



View Profile
« Reply #2018 on: November 23, 2016, 05:52:58 PM »

CD, CK is right. This is going nowhere. I don't have a problem with you. I think my statement is valid; you either don't or you don't think it's good politics to say it anyway. We disagree. No amount of you telling me there might be someone insulted by it or me telling you I think it's true and I'm not really concerned if a hypothetical person is insulted by it is going to change the other's mind. Let's call it a draw, OK?

Emily, I'm happy to opt out of the debate at this point after this post. I think you are cool and don't mean for anything to be insulting or negative. The last bit I want to add is that I don't think you are truly considering the points I'm trying to make; just because you think numerous people may somehow be ignorant of the "real" definition/intention of the term you chose to use, the fact is that the term runs the risk of giving off a needlessly all-encompassing vibe to a great many people.

I make efforts to avoid words that *could* be interpreted in a different way than my intention, and I do not see how that's a bad thing. And at the end of the day, this isn't about you or me being right or wrong for the sake of being right or wrong. This is about what could cost us future elections to hate mongers like Trump. Let's share that common goal. I hope you can consider that my fear about some language (from the mouths of us liberals!) being needlessly divisive isn't an irrational fear.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 05:56:04 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2019 on: November 23, 2016, 06:02:19 PM »

Sorry - I can't. I have to say - 1. I didn't choose the term. I was responding to someone else using the term. 2. I don't particularly think numerous people may somehow be ignorant of the meaning of it and I've never suggested I think that. If you want to have the last word, that's cool, but not by misrepresenting what I said.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 06:03:21 PM by Emily » Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #2020 on: November 23, 2016, 06:28:37 PM »

This discussion is really going nowhere. 


  Circles.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #2021 on: November 23, 2016, 09:05:10 PM »

Much of what I've been trying to say, said better:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/the_people_who_hate_hillary_clinton_the_most.html

And a study of subconscious gender bias affecting candidate choice:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/03/24/gender-is-costing-hillary-clinton-big-among-men/
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 09:20:25 PM by Emily » Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10933


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2022 on: November 24, 2016, 11:39:44 AM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-green-party-raises-enough-funds-wisconsin-recount-142830952.html

This is one of the many reasons why I voted for Jill. Now let's see what happens in Wisconsin
Logged

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

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


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

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 [81]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.47 seconds with 21 queries.