|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 23 2016 03:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says. regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate
Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time.
|
United States41987 Posts
On August 23 2016 03:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:08 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2016 03:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 23 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2016 02:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:TIL if you criticize a false cry of racism or sexism in this thread, the liberal masses will pick apart your posts and attack you on grounds of criticizing that any racism or sexism still exists. Despite the fact that the two are very different statements, and me making one in no way shape or form necessitates the other Social justice for all I need to go I'm grumpy right now and not in the mood for this shit tldr -yes sexism and racism still exist. No, criticizing Clinton's stamina because she is old and has been photographed several times requiring assistance climbing stairs is not an instance of sexism.On August 23 2016 01:17 PassiveAce wrote:
The first female candidate for presidents strength and stamina is being questioned?
Color me shocked Original post I criticized that you aren't allowed to criticize. Continue defending it Did you not attempt to suggest that really it was Hillary that was sexist because she was talking about sexism and you thought that she was attempting to exploit her gender for votes which is the ultimate sexism which you then used to dismiss Trump's garden variety sexism? Because that's the bit I compared to blaming blacks talking about racism for racism. No not at all Please clarify what you meant by this for me. On August 23 2016 02:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
If you want to talk about sexism then Clinton's perpetual play of the gender card is just as sexist than any of the stupid remarks Trump has made about public breastfeeding, Rosie, etc That they're both stupid things to say or worry about, both rooted in sexism Clinton's play of the gender card 'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' is blatantly sexist. Is it very harmful? No, but it's sexist. It's asking for you to vote for someone because of their gender. Trump's disapproval of public breastfeeding as disgusting is blatantly sexist. Is it very harmful? No, but it's sexist. It's a disrespectful remark targeted specifically at women who are doing nothing wrong as being 'disgusting/gross' I consider them both equally ridiculous and sexist in nature, even if they are rather harmless I mean it's very straightforward what I said. You willingly warped what I said into something else
Because there is a long, long history of people from marginalized groups, and just to be clear, politically women have been marginalized, being told that embracing their differences from the traditional is racist/sexist and that they need to conform to the standard model set by the oppressing group. That may not have been what you meant but it sounds awfully familiar. We already rode this ride 8 years ago when every time Obama presented himself as a candidate for black Americans the conservative white voters screamed that he was being racist by embracing his heritage instead of just being a normal, by which they meant white because white is the normal skin colour for a president, candidate.
I don't pretend to stand by everything Hillary says but her representing herself as a female candidate able to represent women in the Oval Office is only sexist if you delude yourself into thinking that not doing that is anything other than conforming to the established male role.
I hear the echoes of this fabulous meme.
http://m.imgur.com/7NVJLm8
Edit
Or to put it another way, if Clinton dropped all the language that makes her appear "sexist" to you she wouldn't now be running a gender neutral campaign, she'd be running a male campaign. Demanding that a candidate from a marginalized group not appeal to that group is a demand that they fit in, shut up and not rock the boat for the preexisting establishment. When the white establishment sees itself as just "the establishment" then embracing the black community becomes a subversive "anti white" act of racism. Similarly when male president is synonymous with president embracing women becomes a subversive act of sexism.
That might not be where it's coming from with you, I don't know what you feel deep down in your soul. But that's the context of this claim that Hillary is being sexist and you should consider examining your beliefs and asking yourself what a non sexist Hillary would look like and whether that is simply conformity with the preexisting male establishment.
|
I hope an upcoming poll actually asks people whether they think Trump or Clinton is older. I'm pretty sure you would get a good 30-40% of Trump supporters thinking she's older than he is.
It's amazing what not actually working very hard your entire life will do to you compared to someone who held a couple stressful public offices.
|
On August 23 2016 02:47 Danglars wrote:
Can she appear to be in good health to voters in the presidential debates? All the spin in the world will be no use to her if not.
Trump's tax records? Let's see an impartial panel of doctors examine Hillary and produce current health records. Trump's campaign might even call for it.
Does she appear to be in bad health to you in debates? Or regularly on a day to day basis when you see footage of her?
And as you know, it's standard to release tax records and Hillary has done so.
|
On August 23 2016 03:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 23 2016 03:08 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2016 03:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 23 2016 02:58 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2016 02:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:TIL if you criticize a false cry of racism or sexism in this thread, the liberal masses will pick apart your posts and attack you on grounds of criticizing that any racism or sexism still exists. Despite the fact that the two are very different statements, and me making one in no way shape or form necessitates the other Social justice for all I need to go I'm grumpy right now and not in the mood for this shit tldr -yes sexism and racism still exist. No, criticizing Clinton's stamina because she is old and has been photographed several times requiring assistance climbing stairs is not an instance of sexism.On August 23 2016 01:17 PassiveAce wrote:
The first female candidate for presidents strength and stamina is being questioned?
Color me shocked Original post I criticized that you aren't allowed to criticize. Continue defending it Did you not attempt to suggest that really it was Hillary that was sexist because she was talking about sexism and you thought that she was attempting to exploit her gender for votes which is the ultimate sexism which you then used to dismiss Trump's garden variety sexism? Because that's the bit I compared to blaming blacks talking about racism for racism. No not at all Please clarify what you meant by this for me. On August 23 2016 02:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
If you want to talk about sexism then Clinton's perpetual play of the gender card is just as sexist than any of the stupid remarks Trump has made about public breastfeeding, Rosie, etc That they're both stupid things to say or worry about, both rooted in sexism Clinton's play of the gender card 'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' is blatantly sexist. Is it very harmful? No, but it's sexist. It's asking for you to vote for someone because of their gender. Trump's disapproval of public breastfeeding as disgusting is blatantly sexist. Is it very harmful? No, but it's sexist. It's a disrespectful remark targeted specifically at women who are doing nothing wrong as being 'disgusting/gross' I consider them both equally ridiculous and sexist in nature, even if they are rather harmless I mean it's very straightforward what I said. You willingly warped what I said into something else Because there is a long, long history of people from marginalized groups, and just to be clear, politically women have been marginalized, being told that embracing their differences from the traditional is racist/sexist and that they need to conform to the standard model set by the oppressing group. That may not have been what you meant but it sounds awfully familiar. We already rode this ride 8 years ago when every time Obama presented himself as a candidate for black Americans the conservative white voters screamed that he was being racist by embracing his heritage instead of just being a normal, by which they meant white because white is the normal skin colour for a president, candidate. I don't pretend to stand by everything Hillary says but her representing herself as a female candidate able to represent women in the Oval Office is only sexist if you delude yourself into thinking that not doing that is anything other than conforming to the established male role. I hear the echoes of this fabulous meme. http://m.imgur.com/7NVJLm8Edit Or to put it another way, if Clinton dropped all the language that makes her appear "sexist" to you she wouldn't now be running a gender neutral campaign, she'd be running a male campaign. Demanding that a candidate from a marginalized group not appeal to that group is a demand that they fit in, shut up and not rock the boat for the preexisting establishment. When the white establishment sees itself as just "the establishment" then embracing the black community becomes a subversive "anti white" act of racism. Similarly when male president is synonymous with president embracing women becomes a subversive act of sexism. That might not be where it's coming from with you, I don't know what you feel deep down in your soul. But that's the context of this claim that Hillary is being sexist and you should consider examining your beliefs and asking yourself what a non sexist Hillary would look like and whether that is simply conformity with the preexisting male establishment.
You make a very good point here
|
On August 23 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 23 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says. regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time.
in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkZCSJ8WgAAI8jc.jpg
+ Show Spoiler +
im not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself?
but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
|
On August 23 2016 04:04 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2016 03:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 23 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says. regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time. in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender? + Show Spoiler +https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkZCSJ8WgAAI8jc.jpg ![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/qKys2/fff44686a5.png) ![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/qKywY/4235777f04.png) im not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself? but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
uhmmm I dont even see that as playing up "her" gender. as much as playing up the fact that gender equality is important and that she is someone well positioned to fight for it.
|
If you're going to consider sexism as part of your decision it becomes clear that Trump issues sexist statements with malicious intent. Just this morning he called a female a "mess", which we could pretend is neutral but then we're faced with the fact that he doesn't use that kind of language with males. Hillary using the "gender card" is only sexist if you construct an abstract argument.
|
do you mind snipping images via spoiler or removal of the [img] tags to avoid large quotes like that? in fact ill spoiler my post myself
"as much as playing up the fact that gender equality is important and that she is someone well positioned to fight for it."
your interpretation is valid but not something she needed to play up imo, given the context of this election
|
On August 23 2016 04:04 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2016 03:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 23 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says. regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time. in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkZCSJ8WgAAI8jc.jpgim not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself? but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
Wouldn’t you find is bizarre if she didn’t bring it up? If she didn’t reference the decades upon decades of struggle by women to obtain equally rights and be seen an equals, wouldn’t that be fucking weird? Every presidential candidate references the forefathers and founders like they have a direct line to them. Or talk about the accomplishments of WW2 or the race to the moon like they had a personal hand it in.
|
On August 23 2016 04:11 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
do you mind snipping images via spoiler or removal of the [img] tags to avoid large quotes like that? in fact ill spoiler my post myself
"as much as playing up the fact that gender equality is important and that she is someone well positioned to fight for it."
your interpretation is valid but not something she needed to play up imo, given the context of this election
Sure she does, its an election. Your supposed to leverage everything you can.
|
yea youre right i find all of politicking fucking weird and gross i guess my perspectives not very important
also
do you mind snipping images via spoiler or removal of the [img] tags to avoid large quotes like that? in fact ill spoiler my post myself
this kind of stuff reminds me that people actually apparently need to be reminded that hillary is the better vote if you care about womens rights
|
On August 23 2016 04:04 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2016 03:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 23 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:'You should vote for me and not him because I'm a female and he's a male' Clinton does not say this. You may see it as her saying that, but it is not what she says. regardless of the technical accuracy of that claim specifically, it'd be quite disingenuous to claim that she doesn't play up her status as the first viable female candidate Personally, I would rather discussion specific statements by Clinton over the hyperbolic summaries of those statements. It is easier to discuss the points when we are not arguing over how someone recalls those statements at the time. in what world are these elements of her campaign NOT playing up her gender? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkZCSJ8WgAAI8jc.jpg+ Show Spoiler +im not even against celebrating her victory as a symbolic one for women's rights, but why is she the one doing it herself? but yea kwark makes decent points about why this is all right and ok idk its still not something that completely sits well with me
There's truth to what Kwark says.
The problem is that in an ideal world, we already have equal rights for everyone and the default position should in fact be gender/race neutral. The argument from Kwark is that it's not, and the 'identity politics' criticized by many are necessary to protected marginalized groups.
I don't know if Kwark thinks that this sort of thing will always be necessary. Is it possible to have a neutral status quo? Or by default, is the status quo always beneficial to one group at the expense of marginalizing all others.
I'd say it's problematic because just because you belong to a 'marginalized group', like women, doesn't mean you're actually one of the people suffering from the marginalization. I think you can be a woman who hasn't really suffered at all from marginalization in this country due to the fact that you are a woman. In fact, I think it's even possible that in some cases the scales have reversed. But then in a lot situations, the problem of marginalization is very real and still exists. But the nature of the problem, or how to solve it, isn't very well understood by most people leading to a huge variety of issues.
I think it's a very complex issue with a lot of gears in play and a lot of things at stake.
On August 23 2016 04:10 Doodsmack wrote:
If you're going to consider sexism as part of your decision it becomes clear that Trump issues sexist statements with malicious intent. Just this morning he called a female a "mess", which we could pretend is neutral but then we're faced with the fact that he doesn't use that kind of language with males. Hillary using the "gender card" is only sexist if you construct an abstract argument.
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
|
United States41987 Posts
I don't especially like it either. I had a pretty sweet thing going on when I just got to assume that politicians would look and sound like me. I don't especially like it when I see characters in the media who I can't relate to or who have different experiences to me instead of a constant stream of material tailor made for me. But at the same time I recognize that I was wrong to ever expect the world to be built around keeping me from feeling threatened by "the other".
I get it and I don't like it anymore than anyone else but the erosion of the privileged male political establishment does not equate to sexism and won't unless things go just as far in the opposite direction. We're calibrated to an unrealistic standard basically.
We see the same shit every time someone cynical in the media tries to get attention for their project by saying "what if Santa was black?!?" and people freak the fuck out because naturally Santa, a fictional character, must look the way they picture him. I still think Santa should be portrayed as white and I'll still roll my eyes at that hypothetical project but at the same time I recognize that I don't have any right to have my interpretation be the only legitimate one.
|
Voting for someone because they are a woman is just as stupid as not voting for someone because they are a woman. The Obama fiasco should be proof enough that all career politicians are the same and look out for the interest of whoever financed their campaign before whatever minority group they come from. Race relations have gone back decades instead of going forwards, and as long as people only care about feeling good about themselves instead of actually solving problems Clinton will be the last nail in the coffin.
edit: Vote for someone based on how well they could do the job, not because of what they've got between their legs.
|
On August 23 2016 04:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is just stupid. He's called so many people that regardless of gender
I can't say I've seen examples. On the other hand we could trot out a lot of examples of him using this type of language with females.
|
On August 23 2016 04:25 KwarK wrote:
I don't especially like it either. I had a pretty sweet thing going on when I just got to assume that politicians would look and sound like me. I don't especially like it when I see characters in the media who I can't relate to or who have different experiences to me instead of a constant stream of material tailor made for me. But at the same time I recognize that I was wrong to ever expect the world to be built around keeping me from feeling threatened by "the other".
i dont feel threatened, (especially since im an asian-american who's never felt that politicians have really reflected my own values in american politics ever, asian politicians included) just annoyed that apparently hillary hammering home the point that hillary is the more womens-rights candidate, which to me should be totally obvious to anyone paying a modicum of attention to anything, actually does make a difference in the election
something something too idealistic
|
On August 23 2016 04:14 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:yea youre right i find all of politicking fucking weird and gross i guess my perspectives not very important also Show nested quote +do you mind snipping images via spoiler or removal of the [img] tags to avoid large quotes like that? in fact ill spoiler my post myself this kind of stuff reminds me that people actually apparently need to be reminded that hillary is the better vote if you care about womens rights
But how is bringing that up “playing the gender card”? Women and men struggled for decades to obtain rights for women. The right to vote, to service, to be judges, doctors, attorneys. A woman being nominated for president is an important movement for those people and they want to celebrate.
Of course there is political gain to be had from the celebration, but I am not in favor of stopping most of the discussion about the first female candidate because it will be seen as “playing the woman card.”
And think of the added bonus of Bill Clinton having to pick out presidential china to be displayed in the White House.
|
On August 23 2016 04:25 KwarK wrote:
We see the same shit every time someone cynical in the media tries to get attention for their project by saying "what if Santa was black?!?" and people freak the fuck out because naturally Santa, a fictional character, must look the way they picture him.
I think the irony with things like this is that it has little to do with race, and everything to do with American baby boomers calling everything they grew up with "tradition", and tricking all their kids into thinking that's how things have always been.
|
On August 23 2016 04:25 KwarK wrote:
I had a pretty sweet thing going on when I just got to assume that politicians would look and sound like me. I don't especially like it when I see characters in the media who I can't relate to or who have different experiences to me instead of a constant stream of material tailor made for me. But at the same time I recognize that I was wrong to ever expect the world to be built around keeping me from feeling threatened by "the other".
I get it and I don't like it anymore than anyone else but the erosion of the privileged male political establishment does not equate to sexism and won't unless things go just as far in the opposite direction. We're calibrated to an unrealistic standard basically.
We see the same shit every time someone cynical in the media tries to get attention for their project by saying "what if Santa was black?!?" and people freak the fuck out because naturally Santa, a fictional character, must look the way they picture him.
I don't think that encapsulates the entirety of the problem. The problem is the fact that there appears to be no gender/race-neutral way to go about it currently. Most people ought to love that option.
Most people I think would want to push for that ideal, yet many reject it as 'if you aren't fighting for my marginalized group, you're against us'.
Which has led to the radical polarization on the issue we see today.
To one group, it fights for neutrality.
To the other group, this is seen as not fighting for neutrality but fighting for the status quo which is white-male dominated by default.
To another group, it fights for marginalized groups.
To the other group, this is seen as fighting against neutrality, but for a type of affirmative-action racism whereby a minority if received privileges and benefits based purely on their minority status, despite the fact that the laws of the land are supposed to already protect their minority status.
It's all very muffled and confused with neither side really talking to or understanding each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
