|
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 October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory".
“Feign ignorance and then act like a kicked puppy to avoid being held responsible for the shit you just said.”
- The internet has weaponized our desire to believe everyone is argued in good faith.
|
On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory".
This all started with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy. My point was either trump is sexist against both men AND women, or he is just an asshole and not sexist at all. If the former is true, then I have yet to see anyone call out his reductions of men to their energy, or height, or their net worth. Instead we have a bunch of posters rushing to label sexism at critiquing a beauty pageant's looks. There is no consistency, and I was pointing that out.
|
On October 01 2016 04:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". This all started with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy. My point was either trump is sexist against both men AND women, or he is just an asshole and not sexist at all. If the former is true, then I have yet to see anyone call out his reductions of men to their energy, or height, or their net worth. Instead we have a bunch of posters rushing to label sexism at critiquing a beauty pageant's looks. There is no consistency, and I was pointing that out.
No, he is just sexist toward women. He is an asshole towards men, but he doesn’t see them as sexual objects to be judged solely on their appearance.
|
On October 01 2016 04:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". This all started with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy. My point was either trump is sexist against both men AND women, or he is just an asshole and not sexist at all. If the former is true, then I have yet to see anyone call out his reductions of men to their energy, or height, or their net worth. Instead we have a bunch of posters rushing to label sexism at critiquing a beauty pageant's looks. There is no consistency, and I was pointing that out.
I find it highly ironic that you consider that “our” definitions somehow mean that “everything is sexist,” while basically yours implies that nothing ever is.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 01 2016 04:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:09 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". This all started with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy. My point was either trump is sexist against both men AND women, or he is just an asshole and not sexist at all. If the former is true, then I have yet to see anyone call out his reductions of men to their energy, or height, or their net worth. Instead we have a bunch of posters rushing to label sexism at critiquing a beauty pageant's looks. There is no consistency, and I was pointing that out. No, he is just sexist toward women. He is an asshole towards men, but he doesn’t see them as sexual objects to be judged solely on their appearance.
Bio's point was that insulting the virility (for example) of a man is a gendered insult intended to attack his worth based upon sexist preconceptions of what makes a man worthwhile in society in the same way that attacking the appearance of a woman is. If I understood him correctly that is.
|
On October 01 2016 04:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". This all started with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy. My point was either trump is sexist against both men AND women, or he is just an asshole and not sexist at all. If the former is true, then I have yet to see anyone call out his reductions of men to their energy, or height, or their net worth. Instead we have a bunch of posters rushing to label sexism at critiquing a beauty pageant's looks. There is no consistency, and I was pointing that out.
Right wingers sure have the memory of a goldfish, but Trump has a long and storied history of sexism. Just in this campaign season alone he has made absolutely disgusting remarks about Megyn Kelly (bimbo, bleeding wherever), Carly Fiorina's appearance, Hillary Clinton's bathroom breaks and inability to "satisfy her husband and nation", and his frequent brags about his conquests. He's a filthy pig whose mind is always in the gutter.
And the Telegraph has an article just for you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/
So no, this all did not start with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy.
|
On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory".
Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp.
Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom.
|
On October 01 2016 04:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:12 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:09 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". This all started with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy. My point was either trump is sexist against both men AND women, or he is just an asshole and not sexist at all. If the former is true, then I have yet to see anyone call out his reductions of men to their energy, or height, or their net worth. Instead we have a bunch of posters rushing to label sexism at critiquing a beauty pageant's looks. There is no consistency, and I was pointing that out. No, he is just sexist toward women. He is an asshole towards men, but he doesn’t see them as sexual objects to be judged solely on their appearance. Bio's point was that insulting the virility (for example) of a man is a gendered insult intended to attack his worth based upon sexist preconceptions of what makes a man worthwhile in society in the same way that attacking the appearance of a woman is. If I understood him correctly that is.
Gendered insults are minor of sexism, or a sign that someone has sexist bias. This rush to defend the statement of miss piggy, while ignoring the long history of Trump’s treatment of women as objects shows a basic misunderstanding of what makes a man sexist towards women. No singular statement is going to prove that, it’s a body of evidence.
And as stated above, doing this to sexism pretty much assures that anyone can be excused from being sexist by saying they are an asshole to everyone, so its cool.
|
On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom.
There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn.
|
On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn.
Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly.
|
Dang, never got enough people to do my mock debate; oh well, if anyone had any questions for me as a mock presidential candidate, go ahead.
I haven't looked at this new trump issue closely; I'm still at the point of being undecided whether he's sexist or just a complete asshole.
|
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books
You understand that it was a week ago that GGTemplar was swearing over and over that he had never heard of monkey being used as a slur against black people and that he had no idea that blacks were ever viewed as subhuman, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't insist simultaneously that there is no context, that even if there is context then you had no way of knowing that context and also that you understand the nuances of the context so well you're exempted from any implications of it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I always thought of Trump as a general all-around asshole, without any preference for what -ism he could be categorized into.
|
On October 01 2016 04:18 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:09 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". This all started with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy. My point was either trump is sexist against both men AND women, or he is just an asshole and not sexist at all. If the former is true, then I have yet to see anyone call out his reductions of men to their energy, or height, or their net worth. Instead we have a bunch of posters rushing to label sexism at critiquing a beauty pageant's looks. There is no consistency, and I was pointing that out. Right wingers sure have the memory of a goldfish, but Trump has a long and storied history of sexism. Just in this campaign season alone he has made absolutely disgusting remarks about Megyn Kelly (bimbo, bleeding wherever), Carly Fiorina's appearance, Hillary Clinton's bathroom breaks and inability to "satisfy her husband and nation", and his frequent brags about his conquests. He's a filthy pig whose mind is always in the gutter. And the Telegraph has an article just for you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/So no, this all did not start with trump calling a beauty pageant contestant miss piggy.
Just look at how he treated Jeb for your reference on how he reduced men to their energy (he literally called out jeb on his lack of energy), he also called out marco rubio (little marco)
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 01 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:
I always thought of Trump as a general all-around asshole, without any preference for what -ism he could be categorized into.
What about when he explicitly refuses to lease his properties to black people?
|
On October 01 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn. Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly.
Thanks so much. My degree in history didn’t cover this and its important I have my facts straight.
In the past women were treated like property or objects. Trump continues this in the modern era, which is why he is sexist.
|
On October 01 2016 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 03:15 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2016 03:11 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2016 03:07 Dan HH wrote:On October 01 2016 02:50 TheYango wrote:
This is the same thing as the situation with the Khans where it would actually be a complete nonissue if Trump just let it go and didn't say anything, but because he decided to act like a total buffoon instead, people are actually starting to care.
Whether his initial set of actions was offensive in any way doesn't really matter, even though that's what everyone's actually going to argue about. What matters is that the man is literally losing sleep over even a minor sleight against his character. Completely agreed, it's pointless to argue whether 'miss piggy' was offensive or not, that's an old and minor story that wouldn't have made a dent in his campaign if he could have just ignored that woman's comments. But he couldn't help himself. And this brings me back to the 'international reputation' that some of his supporters brought up. How would President Trump react to being insulted by someone like Duterte as was Obama, would he take the high road or stoop to that level and go on an insecure twitter tirade? Yeah he needed to just let it go, pretty sure Michigan had him up a point after the debate Also Stealth posted net favorables several pages back, the tweet left one person out, Bernie would be on the top of the list with +18 His tweets came about at 3 am, what is he doing at that time tweeting anyways? He barely gets any sleep with his rally schedule as it is. He probably woke up from a dream about hrc and rage tweeted randomly lmao Because, like a child, he needs to wait for his babysitter to fall asleep so he can grab his phone and tweet out all the mean stuff his advisors don't want him to. I'm a no one and even I think about the implications of sending a tweet at 3 AM. Are people still of the opinion Trump would win if the house chose the president? I can't remember if they actually have to choose between the two people who split the votes or not.
|
On October 01 2016 04:37 LegalLord wrote:
I always thought of Trump as a general all-around asshole, without any preference for what -ism he could be categorized into.
Humans are amazing creatures and can be sexist, racist and an all around asshole all at the same time. We are capable of amazing feats, including that one.
|
On October 01 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn. Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly. Thanks so much. My degree in history didn’t cover this and its important I have my facts straight. In the past women were treated like property or objects. Trump continues this in the modern era, which is why he is sexist.
To further your point, chastity, loyalty, and hard work (and bloodline) were all valued because women were treated as objects and chore machines. Beauty made it more likely for someone else to take your chore machine away.
Thus, you fucked the beautiful women at brothels so you felt good and kept a chore machine at home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
