EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5967
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13750 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:10 Mohdoo wrote: Him + Megyn Kelly are doing a good job at allowing Fox News to transition into a somewhat redeemable state. Fox News being more Kasich and less Trump would be great. The only one I really believe is truly, sincerely anti-Trump is Erik Erikson. Megyn Kelly is too much of a mercenary (though I think her outrage about sexist remarks/ treatment is real, though she's calculating enough to parlay it into leverage for herself) and Beck is making an educated bet w/r/t Trump losing. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:01 Probe1 wrote: It's important to say something. Letting someone devalue a person because of their gender is offensively sexist and speaking up against inequality against anyone is important. But that doesn't necessarily mean one dude who writes for a magazine I'd never read myself will rule my life. As civil rights activists have taught, I will walk a high road here and appreciate that all people should be judged not by what they are but by the merit of their ideas. I don't care if a man or a woman uses that word. They both equally offend me. And I will ignore them in equal measure even if I have to occasionally say out loud, "Wow that is really fucking sexist bud". While I'm no particular fan of words like "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining," in the ideal usage they refer to circumstances in which a member of the relatively privileged majority is trying to explain to an underprivileged minority something about what it is like to be an underprivileged minority in the US, for instance. The criticism being that the offender is blatantly ignoring that the other person has a great deal more knowledge and experience on the issue. So it's not as simple as "mansplaining = men aren't allowed to talk about social issues b/c they're sexist or something." Like, if a undergrad physics major was arguing a fine point of physics theory with his professor and was accused of "undergradsplaining," the accuser would not be claiming that undergrads aren't allowed to talk about physics. The idea would be that when you're talking to someone that knows a lot more about a thing than you, you should shut the fuck up and listen instead of trying to explain to them why you're right and they're wrong because you in your infinite wisdom have already considered every side of this issue and discovered the One True Answer. If someone accuses you of "mansplaining" and you go off on them about how sexist they are, you're only going to reinforce their perception of you as someone who's relatively ignorant on gender issues, but way too confident in his opinions and unwilling to consider others' POV. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:07 p4NDemik wrote: The optimist in me is touched that Glenn Beck has appeared to come back from the fringes of the political pundit world to being a pretty prominent voice of apparent reason against the Trump campaign. The cynic in me thinks that the only reason he's doing it is because he knows #1: the odds are Trump is probably going to lose, and #2: If Trump loses, his presidential campaign will likely be looked at as the swan song for the high-octane alt-right Republican thought that has hijacked the party. Best to jump off that ship early and be seen as a more reasonable, conservative voice. When tears, screaming, and sobbing were selling commercial airtime during his broadcasts six years ago he was all over it. Appears to me he's positioning himself to try to be a voice that guides Republican viewers who think "what the heck do we do now?" after their party's candidate loses tomorrow. You can't look at anything that Glenn is doing right now without consideration of the current epic failure of his business interests. His pandering to Zuckerberg earlier this year was absolutely disgraceful. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:01 Probe1 wrote: It's important to say something. Letting someone devalue a person because of their gender is offensively sexist and speaking up against inequality against anyone is important. But that doesn't necessarily mean one dude who writes for a magazine I'd never read myself will rule my life. As civil rights activists have taught, I will walk a high road here and appreciate that all people should be judged not by what they are but by the merit of their ideas. I don't care if a man or a woman uses that word. They both equally offend me. And I will ignore them in equal measure even if I have to occasionally say out loud, "Wow that is really fucking sexist bud". I think you fill find that civil rights leaders in all eras were pretty conflicted on when someone should take the high road and when to call someone out. Taking the high road is find if someone is willing to belittle, attack and assault you. But if they are just talking past you, ignoring you or are completely unwilling to discuss anything in good faith, can be fruitless and a waste. The non-violent tactics of MLK were designed not only to provide passive resistance, but also to shame white northern to give a shit what was going on in the south. People forget that MLK also said that riots were the language of the voiceless. As I’ve explained in this thread, constantly forcing people to teach racism 101 is a tactic to stall any in-depth discussion. The same applies to feminism 101. | ||
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:25 KwarK wrote: My understanding of mansplaining is when a man decides the need to assume the role of an expert to explain something he doesn't really understand to a woman, who he presumes wouldn't understand without him. That the point is that a lifetime of being told that his opinion matters and that the world desperately wants to know what he thinks has led him to a point where he can no longer restrain his urge to put on suede elbow patches and lecture people. Obviously a woman could do this too but women are more likely to learn that nobody cares what they think earlier because society hasn't collectively decided to treat their opinions as unconditionally worthy. when you set up a perspective in your head that you are a victim, and that someone explaining something to you is solely because you are a woman and he is a man, it is just counter productive. That's whats destructive about this line of thinking, not that inequalities don't exist, but once you start perceiving things from a position of victimhood, it infects every other aspect of your life until you eventually become a sjw. That's why they are so disliked, not so much because people deny inequalities, but because no one likes that pity party. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:01 Probe1 wrote: It's important to say something. Letting someone devalue a person because of their gender is offensively sexist and speaking up against inequality against anyone is important. But that doesn't necessarily mean one dude who writes for a magazine I'd never read myself will rule my life. As civil rights activists have taught, I will walk a high road here and appreciate that all people should be judged not by what they are but by the merit of their ideas. I don't care if a man or a woman uses that word. They both equally offend me. And I will ignore them in equal measure even if I have to occasionally say out loud, "Wow that is really fucking sexist bud". I'm with you here. We could use a new civil rights movement in all honesty, but that's the larger topic and not just words like mansplaining/mansplanation. You can already hear the voices qualifying the term, speaking not of wholesale rejection of the term in favor of equal treatment based on sex, but discovering the believed nuance. Which is to say, your case of what's clearly not just sexist but offensively sexist is open to debate among your gaming peers. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:31 biology]major wrote: when you set up a perspective in your head that you are a victim, and that someone explaining something to you is solely because you are a woman and he is a man, it is just counter productive. That's whats destructive about this line of thinking, not that inequalities don't exist, but once you start perceiving things from a position of victimhood, it infects every other aspect of your life until you eventually become a sjw. That's why they are so disliked, not so much because people deny inequalities, but because no one likes that pity party. I think you're misunderstanding it. It's an insult. Telling someone that they're mansplaining is telling them that they're an idiot who has gone their entire life in a sheltered bubble of approval through an accident of birth and has managed to get this far without realizing that they're no smarter than anyone around them and their opinions are no more worthy. It's a gender based pejorative, nothing to do with victimhood and only tangentially related to shit like feminist theory. It's got more in common with dismissing popular female gaming streamers as boobgamers or whatever than victimhood imo. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:16 ChristianS wrote: While I'm no particular fan of words like "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining," in the ideal usage they refer to circumstances in which a member of the relatively privileged majority is trying to explain to an underprivileged minority something about what it is like to be an underprivileged minority in the US, for instance. The criticism being that the offender is blatantly ignoring that the other person has a great deal more knowledge and experience on the issue. So it's not as simple as "mansplaining = men aren't allowed to talk about social issues b/c they're sexist or something." Like, if a undergrad physics major was arguing a fine point of physics theory with his professor and was accused of "undergradsplaining," the accuser would not be claiming that undergrads aren't allowed to talk about physics. The idea would be that when you're talking to someone that knows a lot more about a thing than you, you should shut the fuck up and listen instead of trying to explain to them why you're right and they're wrong because you in your infinite wisdom have already considered every side of this issue and discovered the One True Answer. If someone accuses you of "mansplaining" and you go off on them about how sexist they are, you're only going to reinforce their perception of you as someone who's relatively ignorant on gender issues, but way too confident in his opinions and unwilling to consider others' POV. I like people trying to rationalize stupid meme with ignorant arguments. You're doing a Plansix, making us believe that only gender theorist and women can talk about gender issues. I'm educated enough to know that saying all "men" or all "white" have "priviledge" in today's world is stupid as hell - do you even know half the people considered poor in the US are white ? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And it always starts with "Well Actually..." Whitedog: I didn't say you couldn't talk about them. I said don't expect anyone to give a fuck. Seriously, your expert opinion on the experience of black people or women in modern life is about as valuable as mine opinion on economic theory. Novice at best, completely uninformed at worst. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:58 WhiteDog wrote: I'm educated enough to know that saying all "men" or all "white" have "priviledge" in today's world is stupid as hell - do you even know half the people considered poor in the US are white ? WhiteDog, if you insist upon telling us all that you're so educated that you know all about privilege you could at least learn to spell the word. Normally I'm fine with people spelling words how they please but normally they don't get it wrong while midrant about how educated they are and how well they understand the word in question. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21368 Posts
On November 08 2016 07:10 LegalLord wrote: The Trump Republicans aren't going anywhere. People may want to dump Trump but he turned out to be widely popular with a large enough part of the base to win the nomination. This is the bit I will remember the most after the election I think. Trump is not the scary part, yes he is imo a terrible human being but he is only 1 person. The fact that some 40% of the US population is ok with his statements is what scares me. Trump has shown that you can publicly say the most disturbing and insane things and a large part of the population is perfectly fine with it and I think its going to drag down the level of political discourse in the US for many elections to come. Trump has shown America you can be a racist/misogynist/bigot and compulsive liar and be proud of it. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 08 2016 08:02 KwarK wrote: WhiteDog, if you insist upon telling us all that you're so educated that you know all about privilege you could at least learn to spell the word. Normally I'm fine with people spelling words how they please but normally they don't get it wrong while midrant about how educated they are and how well they understand the word in question. You've gotten quite low to actually care about the way I spell words. I always have trouble with words that exist in french with different spelling, sorry. Now you can try to argue something rather than doing the teacher. Whitedog: I didn't say you couldn't talk about them. I said don't expect anyone to give a fuck. Seriously, your expert opinion on the experience of black people or women in modern life is about as valuable as mine opinion on economic theory. Novice at best, completely uninformed at worst. It's just a stupid assertion. What basis do you have for that ? Just saying, we were talking about "whitesplaining" not "blacksplaining". We are not talking about the discrimination that black sufffer, which exist, but about the possible unity of the category "white" which I disagree with. | ||
|
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
KwarK
United States41992 Posts
On November 08 2016 08:04 WhiteDog wrote: You've gotten quite low to actually care about the way I spell words. I always have trouble with words that exist in french with different spelling, sorry. Now you can try to argue something rather than doing the teacher. Feel free to enter the words privilege into the tl search function with my username, I've explained the concept a dozen times before. If you didn't understand it any of the last few times I explained it you won't understand it if I explain it again. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 08 2016 08:08 KwarK wrote: Feel free to enter the words privilege into the tl search function with my username, I've explained the concept a dozen times before. If you didn't understand it any of the last few times I explained it you won't understand it if I explain it again. Get back to earth, I don't listen too carefully to most the thing you write since the few stupid comment you made about russia. User was warned for this post | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 08 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote: This is the bit I will remember the most after the election I think. Trump is not the scary part, yes he is imo a terrible human being but he is only 1 person. The fact that some 40% of the US population is ok with his statements is what scares me. Trump has shown that you can publicly say the most disturbing and insane things and a large part of the population is perfectly fine with it and I think its going to drag down the level of political discourse in the US for many elections to come. Trump has shown America you can be a racist/misogynist/bigot and compulsive liar and be proud of it. Idk if you saw that american come back vid, but Trump really isn't a horrible human being. Lot of his workers have similar stories, and someone who is so wealthy taking time to treat lowly workers with respect shows character. He's brash, not well spoken and is very impulsive, but there's far worse people out there. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
We are now at Privilege 101. Where we will make an effort to explain a basic concept to someone who refuses to believe it exists because they either don’t are or are confidently ignorant on the subject. The person fully understands the concept, but doesn't want to discuss it in good faith. So they call everyone who is talking about it ignorant in an effort to keep discussion from going anyplace. Edit: Damn whitedog, did someone pour sour milk in your French Cheerios this morning? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 08 2016 08:12 Plansix wrote: Remember back a while ago when I talked about having to go through racism 101 or Feminism 101 over and over again as a way to kill informed discussion. We are now at Privilege 101. Where we will make an effort to explain a basic concept to someone who refuses to believe it exists because they either don’t are or are confidently ignorant on the subject. The person fully understands the concept, but doesn't want to discuss it in good faith. So they call everyone who is talking about it ignorant in an effort to keep discussion from going anyplace. You are trying to flee. Can you objectify the concept ? Give me data ? What actually prove me that "white" has "privilege" in today's world ? What data ? Living condition ? Education level ? Access to basic ressources ? That is a concept 101, real social science : not gibberish and nonsense, but actual work. The group "white" does not exist in the US, it is fractured, geographically, economically. Go tell a "poor white trash" (a term that exist in Max Weber's work a hundred year ago) that he has "privilege". What actually exist is a sense of solidarity between poor white and rich white, sadly, to the point where a poor white will prefer voting with rich white rather than with poor black. | ||
| ||
