|
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 April 24 2017 23:35 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 23:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 23:06 Gahlo wrote:On April 24 2017 22:35 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 22:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 24 2017 21:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:41 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
If women thought that being a woman is an important quality for their representative to have, they would've voted predominantly for other women. Do they do that?
[quote]
Are you Romanian?
I'm fighting fire with fire. You think women are underrepresented in government because women want it that way? That's really where you're going with this? No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant. edit: I certainly do not think there's some nefarious conspiracy of men, called "the Patriarchy", that is trying to oppress women and is making sure that men have the final say in every matter. That's a tinfoil conspiracy theory. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a multisecular social and ideological construct. Women have been held in minority for pretty much the whole of history, and denied pretty much every right until the enlightenment and then feminist struggle started to change the situation. Thanks to those, society is infinitly more equal and fair than it was even a century ago, but thousand of years of patriarchy leave traces for a long time. So, no, no conspiracy, just some deep rooted behaviour, habits and prejudices that will take a long time to go if they ever do. There's a riddle that plays along with these gender stereotypes and behaviors... A man and his son are driving down a winding road, They get into a car accident and the father dies, the son is rushed to a hospital, and the surgeon says "I cant operate on you, you're my son." Who is the surgeon + Show Spoiler +The mother. The obvious intention of this riddle is to make you assume that the surgeon is a man, because surgeons are mostly male All the riddle does is show that most people think there are more male surgeons than female surgeons.Also, the surgeon could be the boy's second father and you're a homophobe for not considering that. + Show Spoiler + AKA a stereotype... Edit: my original answer was that the mom cheated and this was his real dad....  In 2014 an AAMC study showed that among full-time surgeons, females only made up 22%. It isn't a stereotype if it's true. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotypeMedical Definition of stereotype : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : an often oversimplified or biased mental picture held to characterize the typical individual of a group Doesn't have to be false to be a stereotype Except the gender composition of surgeons isn't fixed and can be changed based upon every time somebody gets a job or leaves one.
That doesn't change the fact that the definition of stereotype does not require the the statement to be false. Only a gross oversimplification of a demographic.
|
On April 24 2017 23:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 23:35 Gahlo wrote:On April 24 2017 23:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 23:06 Gahlo wrote:On April 24 2017 22:35 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 22:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 24 2017 21:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You think women are underrepresented in government because women want it that way? That's really where you're going with this? No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant. edit: I certainly do not think there's some nefarious conspiracy of men, called "the Patriarchy", that is trying to oppress women and is making sure that men have the final say in every matter. That's a tinfoil conspiracy theory. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a multisecular social and ideological construct. Women have been held in minority for pretty much the whole of history, and denied pretty much every right until the enlightenment and then feminist struggle started to change the situation. Thanks to those, society is infinitly more equal and fair than it was even a century ago, but thousand of years of patriarchy leave traces for a long time. So, no, no conspiracy, just some deep rooted behaviour, habits and prejudices that will take a long time to go if they ever do. There's a riddle that plays along with these gender stereotypes and behaviors... A man and his son are driving down a winding road, They get into a car accident and the father dies, the son is rushed to a hospital, and the surgeon says "I cant operate on you, you're my son." Who is the surgeon + Show Spoiler +The mother. The obvious intention of this riddle is to make you assume that the surgeon is a man, because surgeons are mostly male All the riddle does is show that most people think there are more male surgeons than female surgeons.Also, the surgeon could be the boy's second father and you're a homophobe for not considering that. + Show Spoiler + AKA a stereotype... Edit: my original answer was that the mom cheated and this was his real dad.... In 2014 an AAMC study showed that among full-time surgeons, females only made up 22%. It isn't a stereotype if it's true. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotypeMedical Definition of stereotype : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : an often oversimplified or biased mental picture held to characterize the typical individual of a group Doesn't have to be false to be a stereotype Except the gender composition of surgeons isn't fixed and can be changed based upon every time somebody gets a job or leaves one. That doesn't change the fact that the definition of stereotype does not require the the statement to be false. Only a gross oversimplification of a demographic.
How is it an oversimplification? Perceived gender is pretty binary.
|
On April 24 2017 23:49 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 23:48 Plansix wrote:On April 24 2017 23:35 Gahlo wrote:On April 24 2017 23:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 23:06 Gahlo wrote:On April 24 2017 22:35 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 22:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 24 2017 21:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant.
edit: I certainly do not think there's some nefarious conspiracy of men, called "the Patriarchy", that is trying to oppress women and is making sure that men have the final say in every matter. That's a tinfoil conspiracy theory. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a multisecular social and ideological construct. Women have been held in minority for pretty much the whole of history, and denied pretty much every right until the enlightenment and then feminist struggle started to change the situation. Thanks to those, society is infinitly more equal and fair than it was even a century ago, but thousand of years of patriarchy leave traces for a long time. So, no, no conspiracy, just some deep rooted behaviour, habits and prejudices that will take a long time to go if they ever do. There's a riddle that plays along with these gender stereotypes and behaviors... A man and his son are driving down a winding road, They get into a car accident and the father dies, the son is rushed to a hospital, and the surgeon says "I cant operate on you, you're my son." Who is the surgeon + Show Spoiler +The mother. The obvious intention of this riddle is to make you assume that the surgeon is a man, because surgeons are mostly male All the riddle does is show that most people think there are more male surgeons than female surgeons.Also, the surgeon could be the boy's second father and you're a homophobe for not considering that. + Show Spoiler + AKA a stereotype... Edit: my original answer was that the mom cheated and this was his real dad.... In 2014 an AAMC study showed that among full-time surgeons, females only made up 22%. It isn't a stereotype if it's true. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotypeMedical Definition of stereotype : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : an often oversimplified or biased mental picture held to characterize the typical individual of a group Doesn't have to be false to be a stereotype Except the gender composition of surgeons isn't fixed and can be changed based upon every time somebody gets a job or leaves one. That doesn't change the fact that the definition of stereotype does not require the the statement to be false. Only a gross oversimplification of a demographic. How is it an oversimplification? Perceived gender is pretty binary.
Because it takes an entire profession nationwide is reduces it to a percentage? That is by nature a simplification of a complex group.
I’m not saying you are wrong. It is a stereotype that closely mirrors reality. Just like doctors having terrible handwriting.
|
@Danglars, If you search google for fetus+parasite you'll find it is fairly common terminology.
|
I mean, I always thought a big chunk of how abortions are less protected later under Roe v. Wade was because there are procedures to remove the infant and keep it alive; kind of like in KwarK's metaphor where you can't simply murder the people drawing life from you if unhooking them is no longer fatal.
But then again many on the right, including the President, believe there are nine-month abortions happening where the baby is being ripped out and killed so I'm not sure how to deal with those conceptions (no pun intended).
|
We need to reign in abortion in general because it's being used to suppress the black population.
Pregnant black women come under immense social pressure to abort their pregnancy. Enough of them resist the propaganda and carry the pregnancy all the way through that this policy isn't fully genocidal. But about 30% of black embryos don't survive until birth, with a vast majority of the non-survivors having been aborted.
Hispanic women don't face the same pressure; suppressing the domestic Hispanic population doesn't do much if more of them can just walk across the border. As a result, Hispanic women have less than half the abortion rate despite having similar economic disadvantages.
(based on United States CDC data)
|
United States43964 Posts
On April 25 2017 00:19 Buckyman wrote:
We need to reign in abortion in general because it's being used to suppress the black population.
Pregnant black women come under immense social pressure to abort their pregnancy. Enough of them resist the propaganda and carry the pregnancy all the way through that this policy isn't fully genocidal. But about 30% of black embryos don't survive until birth, with a vast majority of the non-survivors having been aborted.
Hispanic women don't face the same pressure; suppressing the domestic Hispanic population doesn't do much if more of them can just walk across the border. As a result, Hispanic women have less than half the abortion rate despite having similar economic disadvantages.
(based on United States CDC data)
No, we don't. Planned parenthood isn't a racist death camp to keep the blacks from taking over through a policy of deliberate genocide. If we wanted African American women to feel more able to bring kids into this world then we should probably stop locking up so many of the fathers.
|
I do not think Planned Parenthood is responsible for targeting black women; they just perform the abortion procedures.
|
Poverty does lead to reduced access to health care and an ability to raise a child. I would rather see a comparison of races based on economic status, since it would provide some sort of useful information. The number of pregnancies that make it to term is only useful when compared to other data points.
|
|
|
On April 24 2017 21:55 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. Yup, much like us all using the Gregorian calendar is purely coincidental. If women thought that being a woman is an important quality for their representative to have, they would've voted predominantly for other women. Do they do that? On April 24 2017 20:40 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. On April 24 2017 20:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
All sorts of things wrong with this, but I'll bite. Not "my fantasy", political decisions in the US regarding what we are going to do with any living being are always and have always been finally authorized by men, that's just a matter of fact. You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man. edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws? As for women being able to determine what they put/keep in their bodies being equivalent to luring someone onto your property to murder them, that's comically absurd. As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will. lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them. But some men just can't let go. Yeah, and some women just can't help their urge to kill babies, right? lol, are you a real person? Are you Romanian? I'm fighting fire with fire. You think women are underrepresented in government because women want it that way? That's really where you're going with this? No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant. edit: I certainly do not think there's some nefarious conspiracy of men, called "the Patriarchy", that is trying to oppress women and is making sure that men have the final say in every matter. That's a tinfoil conspiracy theory. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a multisecular social and ideological construct. Women have been held in minority for pretty much the whole of history, and denied pretty much every right until the enlightenment and then feminist struggle started to change the situation. Thanks to those, society is infinitly more equal and fair than it was even a century ago, but thousand of years of patriarchy leave traces for a long time. So, no, no conspiracy, just some deep rooted behaviour, habits and prejudices that will take a long time to go if they ever do. There's a riddle that plays along with these gender stereotypes and behaviors... A man and his son are driving down a winding road, They get into a car accident and the father dies, the son is rushed to a hospital, and the surgeon says "I cant operate on you, you're my son." Who is the surgeon + Show Spoiler +The mother. The obvious intention of this riddle is to make you assume that the surgeon is a man, because surgeons are mostly male
That's not how it works.
I can't operate on you you're my son. So the person who died obviously can't, because they're dead, which leads to the father somehow saying it, which doesn't make any sense. It gives you a piece of information which tries to lead you to that answer. If the riddle was instead only "I can't operate on you, you're my son", most people would say the surgeon is the parent.
|
On April 25 2017 01:58 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 21:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process.
https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. Yup, much like us all using the Gregorian calendar is purely coincidental. If women thought that being a woman is an important quality for their representative to have, they would've voted predominantly for other women. Do they do that? On April 24 2017 20:40 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:28 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process.
https://twitter.com/RepMcGovern/status/844991898850877443/photo/1Women clearly have equal influence. That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. On April 24 2017 20:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
You mean the fact that for a law to be passed it has to be signed by your president, who happens to be a man? If so, then that is a ridiculous thing to say. There is no law prohibiting women from becoming a president. The president's gender is irrelevant here - both women and men have equal rights when it comes to electing the president. Likewise, they both have equal rights in terms of participating in the legislative process.
You are also completely ignoring the fact that the opponents of abortion are not just men. Thus, to say that anyone is insisting that men should have the final say is a straw man.
edit: Also, using the leftist logic, what stops men from temporarily identifying as women when voting on the abortion laws?
[quote]
As far as I know, the USA is quite liberal when it comes to killing people for trespassing (perhaps it differs from state to state). This is a valid analogy. In both cases one is given the right to kill another human for what amounts to trespassing. What is comically absurd is saying that women should have the right to kill babies simply because they got inside them, against their will. lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them. But some men just can't let go. Yeah, and some women just can't help their urge to kill babies, right? lol, are you a real person? Are you Romanian? I'm fighting fire with fire. You think women are underrepresented in government because women want it that way? That's really where you're going with this? No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant. edit: I certainly do not think there's some nefarious conspiracy of men, called "the Patriarchy", that is trying to oppress women and is making sure that men have the final say in every matter. That's a tinfoil conspiracy theory. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a multisecular social and ideological construct. Women have been held in minority for pretty much the whole of history, and denied pretty much every right until the enlightenment and then feminist struggle started to change the situation. Thanks to those, society is infinitly more equal and fair than it was even a century ago, but thousand of years of patriarchy leave traces for a long time. So, no, no conspiracy, just some deep rooted behaviour, habits and prejudices that will take a long time to go if they ever do. There's a riddle that plays along with these gender stereotypes and behaviors... A man and his son are driving down a winding road, They get into a car accident and the father dies, the son is rushed to a hospital, and the surgeon says "I cant operate on you, you're my son." Who is the surgeon + Show Spoiler +The mother. The obvious intention of this riddle is to make you assume that the surgeon is a man, because surgeons are mostly male That's not how it works. I can't operate on you you're my son. So the person who died obviously can't, because they're dead, which leads to the father somehow saying it, which doesn't make any sense. It gives you a piece of information which tries to lead you to that answer. If the riddle was instead only "I can't operate on you, you're my son", most people would say the surgeon is the parent.
He said the riddle plays into/with gender stereotypes. He did not say it was a perfect simulation that was 100% accurate and would elicit the same response from all humans.
|
On April 24 2017 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 14:47 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism. Thank you. Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)? Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party? I don't have many thoughts on it. Not very exciting, I know, but I'm not very familiar with this type of polling and what it's actually a measure of. It seems like both the DNC and the RNC usually have lower approval ratings than specific Republicans or Democrats, which sorta makes sense given that you don't need to sell people on voting for the RNC, you need to sell them on voting for specific Republicans. 28 still seems pretty low, and it's hard to say what people are even basing that on right now. Democrats are doing a Unity Tour snd stuff, but I doubt that messaging even has enough penetration for people to be deciding based on that stuff. I guess a lot of it is probably just residual sentiment from the election? I'm happy to listen to what Bernie thinks Americans want/care about. I won't just take his word as gospel, but I certainly value his opinion. This is better than usual but still pretty bad. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE Democrats period. Okay, once you accept that the American public generally dislikes Democrats more (or close to) Trump, this should be an obvious sign that what Democrats are saying/doing is TERRIBLY unpopular. What's not unpopular though are the things they support that overlap with what Bernie supports. The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet?
This thread moves too fast.
This all feels a bit condescending, but I'll try to take you at face value. I like Bernie, and agree the Democrats should move their platform and messaging in a populist direction. "Be more like Bernie" feels a tad low resolution for a political strategy though, and I'd be able to have stronger opinions on a per-issue basis. Like, greater emphasis on an economic policy that improves conditions for ghe working class seems clearly like a good idea. I'm not certain if mirroring Bernie 1 to 1 is the best way to do that. It might be, but I'd figure they oughta do focus groups and figure out what tack plays the best. Bernie's rhetoric can get a tad "soak the rich" sometimes, which can be unnecessarily divisive. You might be able to argue for the exact same policies but go for "pay their fair share" type messaging, and pick up more votes.
I'd respond in somewhat more detail but I gotta go back to work.
|
On April 25 2017 02:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 01:58 Dark_Chill wrote:On April 24 2017 21:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 24 2017 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2017 20:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. Yup, much like us all using the Gregorian calendar is purely coincidental. If women thought that being a woman is an important quality for their representative to have, they would've voted predominantly for other women. Do they do that? On April 24 2017 20:40 Grumbels wrote:On April 24 2017 20:31 maybenexttime wrote:That is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with their underlying rights. On April 24 2017 20:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lol okay. "happens to be a man" is funny, and it's not just the president. I'm not saying women might not come to the conclusion that they want to increase abortion restrictions, I'm just suggesting men could let women make this determination, since they have final control over the rest of them.
But some men just can't let go. Yeah, and some women just can't help their urge to kill babies, right? lol, are you a real person? Are you Romanian? I'm fighting fire with fire. You think women are underrepresented in government because women want it that way? That's really where you're going with this? No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant. edit: I certainly do not think there's some nefarious conspiracy of men, called "the Patriarchy", that is trying to oppress women and is making sure that men have the final say in every matter. That's a tinfoil conspiracy theory. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a multisecular social and ideological construct. Women have been held in minority for pretty much the whole of history, and denied pretty much every right until the enlightenment and then feminist struggle started to change the situation. Thanks to those, society is infinitly more equal and fair than it was even a century ago, but thousand of years of patriarchy leave traces for a long time. So, no, no conspiracy, just some deep rooted behaviour, habits and prejudices that will take a long time to go if they ever do. There's a riddle that plays along with these gender stereotypes and behaviors... A man and his son are driving down a winding road, They get into a car accident and the father dies, the son is rushed to a hospital, and the surgeon says "I cant operate on you, you're my son." Who is the surgeon + Show Spoiler +The mother. The obvious intention of this riddle is to make you assume that the surgeon is a man, because surgeons are mostly male That's not how it works. I can't operate on you you're my son. So the person who died obviously can't, because they're dead, which leads to the father somehow saying it, which doesn't make any sense. It gives you a piece of information which tries to lead you to that answer. If the riddle was instead only "I can't operate on you, you're my son", most people would say the surgeon is the parent. He said the riddle plays into/with gender stereotypes. He did not say it was a perfect simulation that was 100% accurate and would elicit the same response from all humans.
^This
Guys, I wasn't trying to call anyone sexist, racist or any other ist that exisists under the sun for coming up with the wrong answer, it is a riddle, it uses trigger words like father and surgeon along with preconceived notions of what people are in what profession to try to lead you to a dead end (like the original french version that was mentioned before - even more leading). Stop trying to defend something that doesn't need defending. jeez...
|
On April 25 2017 02:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:47 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism. Thank you. Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)? Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party? I don't have many thoughts on it. Not very exciting, I know, but I'm not very familiar with this type of polling and what it's actually a measure of. It seems like both the DNC and the RNC usually have lower approval ratings than specific Republicans or Democrats, which sorta makes sense given that you don't need to sell people on voting for the RNC, you need to sell them on voting for specific Republicans. 28 still seems pretty low, and it's hard to say what people are even basing that on right now. Democrats are doing a Unity Tour snd stuff, but I doubt that messaging even has enough penetration for people to be deciding based on that stuff. I guess a lot of it is probably just residual sentiment from the election? I'm happy to listen to what Bernie thinks Americans want/care about. I won't just take his word as gospel, but I certainly value his opinion. This is better than usual but still pretty bad. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE Democrats period. Okay, once you accept that the American public generally dislikes Democrats more (or close to) Trump, this should be an obvious sign that what Democrats are saying/doing is TERRIBLY unpopular. What's not unpopular though are the things they support that overlap with what Bernie supports. The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? This thread moves too fast. This all feels a bit condescending, but I'll try to take you at face value. I like Bernie, and agree the Democrats should move their platform and messaging in a populist direction. "Be more like Bernie" feels a tad low resolution for a political strategy though, and I'd be able to have stronger opinions on a per-issue basis. Like, greater emphasis on an economic policy that improves conditions for ghe working class seems clearly like a good idea. I'm not certain if mirroring Bernie 1 to 1 is the best way to do that. It might be, but I'd figure they oughta do focus groups and figure out what tack plays the best. Bernie's rhetoric can get a tad "soak the rich" sometimes, which can be unnecessarily divisive. You might be able to argue for the exact same policies but go for "pay their fair share" type messaging, and pick up more votes. I'd respond in somewhat more detail but I gotta go back to work.
If you get a chance you can see I gave some specific examples to Tendocs (Healthcare, and campaign finance reform). So I wouldn't be someone who considers "Be more like Bernie" the full picture, but just a basic sentiment that many in the Democratic party still aren't ready to concede.
If all the Democrats here have "gotten there" then I would consider that a significant shift and victory. Still have a while until all of the pundits and spinmasters get there though I imagine.
EDIT: All polling indicates the way Bernie is approaching issues is more popular than anyone else's strategy.
|
|
|
United States43964 Posts
On April 25 2017 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 02:08 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:47 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism. Thank you. Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)? Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party? I don't have many thoughts on it. Not very exciting, I know, but I'm not very familiar with this type of polling and what it's actually a measure of. It seems like both the DNC and the RNC usually have lower approval ratings than specific Republicans or Democrats, which sorta makes sense given that you don't need to sell people on voting for the RNC, you need to sell them on voting for specific Republicans. 28 still seems pretty low, and it's hard to say what people are even basing that on right now. Democrats are doing a Unity Tour snd stuff, but I doubt that messaging even has enough penetration for people to be deciding based on that stuff. I guess a lot of it is probably just residual sentiment from the election? I'm happy to listen to what Bernie thinks Americans want/care about. I won't just take his word as gospel, but I certainly value his opinion. This is better than usual but still pretty bad. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE Democrats period. Okay, once you accept that the American public generally dislikes Democrats more (or close to) Trump, this should be an obvious sign that what Democrats are saying/doing is TERRIBLY unpopular. What's not unpopular though are the things they support that overlap with what Bernie supports. The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? This thread moves too fast. This all feels a bit condescending, but I'll try to take you at face value. I like Bernie, and agree the Democrats should move their platform and messaging in a populist direction. "Be more like Bernie" feels a tad low resolution for a political strategy though, and I'd be able to have stronger opinions on a per-issue basis. Like, greater emphasis on an economic policy that improves conditions for ghe working class seems clearly like a good idea. I'm not certain if mirroring Bernie 1 to 1 is the best way to do that. It might be, but I'd figure they oughta do focus groups and figure out what tack plays the best. Bernie's rhetoric can get a tad "soak the rich" sometimes, which can be unnecessarily divisive. You might be able to argue for the exact same policies but go for "pay their fair share" type messaging, and pick up more votes. I'd respond in somewhat more detail but I gotta go back to work. If you get a chance you can see I gave some specific examples to Tendocs (Healthcare, and campaign finance reform). So I wouldn't be someone who considers "Be more like Bernie" the full picture, but just a basic sentiment that many in the Democratic party still aren't ready to concede. If all the Democrats here have "gotten there" then I would consider that a significant shift and victory. Still have a while until all of the pundits and spinmasters get there though I imagine. EDIT: All polling indicates the way Bernie is approaching issues is more popular than anyone else's strategy.
Much like Trump, Bernie talks about solved problems rather than solutions to problems. Maybe Democrats need to learn to dumb it down for the Facebook age.
|
On April 25 2017 03:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2017 02:08 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:47 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism. Thank you. Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)? Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party? I don't have many thoughts on it. Not very exciting, I know, but I'm not very familiar with this type of polling and what it's actually a measure of. It seems like both the DNC and the RNC usually have lower approval ratings than specific Republicans or Democrats, which sorta makes sense given that you don't need to sell people on voting for the RNC, you need to sell them on voting for specific Republicans. 28 still seems pretty low, and it's hard to say what people are even basing that on right now. Democrats are doing a Unity Tour snd stuff, but I doubt that messaging even has enough penetration for people to be deciding based on that stuff. I guess a lot of it is probably just residual sentiment from the election? I'm happy to listen to what Bernie thinks Americans want/care about. I won't just take his word as gospel, but I certainly value his opinion. This is better than usual but still pretty bad. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE Democrats period. Okay, once you accept that the American public generally dislikes Democrats more (or close to) Trump, this should be an obvious sign that what Democrats are saying/doing is TERRIBLY unpopular. What's not unpopular though are the things they support that overlap with what Bernie supports. The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? This thread moves too fast. This all feels a bit condescending, but I'll try to take you at face value. I like Bernie, and agree the Democrats should move their platform and messaging in a populist direction. "Be more like Bernie" feels a tad low resolution for a political strategy though, and I'd be able to have stronger opinions on a per-issue basis. Like, greater emphasis on an economic policy that improves conditions for ghe working class seems clearly like a good idea. I'm not certain if mirroring Bernie 1 to 1 is the best way to do that. It might be, but I'd figure they oughta do focus groups and figure out what tack plays the best. Bernie's rhetoric can get a tad "soak the rich" sometimes, which can be unnecessarily divisive. You might be able to argue for the exact same policies but go for "pay their fair share" type messaging, and pick up more votes. I'd respond in somewhat more detail but I gotta go back to work. If you get a chance you can see I gave some specific examples to Tendocs (Healthcare, and campaign finance reform). So I wouldn't be someone who considers "Be more like Bernie" the full picture, but just a basic sentiment that many in the Democratic party still aren't ready to concede. If all the Democrats here have "gotten there" then I would consider that a significant shift and victory. Still have a while until all of the pundits and spinmasters get there though I imagine. EDIT: All polling indicates the way Bernie is approaching issues is more popular than anyone else's strategy. Much like Trump, Bernie talks about solved problems rather than solutions to problems. Maybe Democrats need to learn to dumb it down for the Facebook age.
Sure, if that's how you want to read it. Bottom line is that their current messaging and approach is atrocious and Bernie's is measurably better. That Democrats are more mad about Bernie not giving over his email list than they are that Democrats won't bend on things like campaign finance is what I mean when I say they need to "get there" You there yet Kwark?
|
On April 25 2017 03:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2017 02:08 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:47 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism. Thank you. Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)? Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party? I don't have many thoughts on it. Not very exciting, I know, but I'm not very familiar with this type of polling and what it's actually a measure of. It seems like both the DNC and the RNC usually have lower approval ratings than specific Republicans or Democrats, which sorta makes sense given that you don't need to sell people on voting for the RNC, you need to sell them on voting for specific Republicans. 28 still seems pretty low, and it's hard to say what people are even basing that on right now. Democrats are doing a Unity Tour snd stuff, but I doubt that messaging even has enough penetration for people to be deciding based on that stuff. I guess a lot of it is probably just residual sentiment from the election? I'm happy to listen to what Bernie thinks Americans want/care about. I won't just take his word as gospel, but I certainly value his opinion. This is better than usual but still pretty bad. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE Democrats period. Okay, once you accept that the American public generally dislikes Democrats more (or close to) Trump, this should be an obvious sign that what Democrats are saying/doing is TERRIBLY unpopular. What's not unpopular though are the things they support that overlap with what Bernie supports. The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet? This thread moves too fast. This all feels a bit condescending, but I'll try to take you at face value. I like Bernie, and agree the Democrats should move their platform and messaging in a populist direction. "Be more like Bernie" feels a tad low resolution for a political strategy though, and I'd be able to have stronger opinions on a per-issue basis. Like, greater emphasis on an economic policy that improves conditions for ghe working class seems clearly like a good idea. I'm not certain if mirroring Bernie 1 to 1 is the best way to do that. It might be, but I'd figure they oughta do focus groups and figure out what tack plays the best. Bernie's rhetoric can get a tad "soak the rich" sometimes, which can be unnecessarily divisive. You might be able to argue for the exact same policies but go for "pay their fair share" type messaging, and pick up more votes. I'd respond in somewhat more detail but I gotta go back to work. If you get a chance you can see I gave some specific examples to Tendocs (Healthcare, and campaign finance reform). So I wouldn't be someone who considers "Be more like Bernie" the full picture, but just a basic sentiment that many in the Democratic party still aren't ready to concede. If all the Democrats here have "gotten there" then I would consider that a significant shift and victory. Still have a while until all of the pundits and spinmasters get there though I imagine. EDIT: All polling indicates the way Bernie is approaching issues is more popular than anyone else's strategy. Much like Trump, Bernie talks about solved problems rather than solutions to problems. Maybe Democrats need to learn to dumb it down for the Facebook age.
I'm not so sure "dumbing it down" is an entirely full way of looking at it. What wins elections nowadays is hopes, dreams, direction, and vision. Trump beat Clinton's ass by doing that significantly better. Bernie also does it significantly better.
So while it is easy to call it "dumbing it down", I think it is also a fundamentally different method of messaging. And I mean, the entire democrat message for the past 6 months has been "Man, fuck that Trump guy". Its not like democrats have really even been trying to play the vision game. They talk about issues some, but in such a different way from Trump and Bernie. People need romance.
|
There is a middle ground between promising people the moon and “telling people like it is”. Obama found that middle ground and did instill with a feeling that our best days are before us. But we are seeing the problem with promising people the moon unfold in government right now. I would love to see tones down, more fiscally realistic versions of Bernie’s that could make it through congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
