On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote: For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th:
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest?
You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right?
Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts.
dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion
I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive.
Terrorism doesn't always have some link to religion. It's just this generation is severely plagued with religious terrorism that we miss out or forget the other bits of terrorism.
Oh sure, I'd never use the word always, terrorism can take on a multitude of forms. There exists a relationship in many cases nonetheless.
On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote: So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something.
The word is "placating". Romney's answer to the women's issue in this debate was textbook placating with no substance. He said nothing about Lily Ledbetter, nothing about Roe v. Wade, nothing about workplace discrimination. His answer was actually sort of subtly misogynist, because what he said was basically if the economy grows like he says it will, under his presidency, then even women will get jobs.
There was a slight insinuation in his answer that women need a more robust economy than men in order to achieve equal employment, like that's just a natural thing. It wasn't his greatest moment.
Oh, I know that, I was referring to something else (which frogrubdown answered for me). >_>
On October 18 2012 09:28 frogrubdown wrote:
On October 18 2012 09:14 Souma wrote:
On October 18 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote: So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something.
Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves.
Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends.
And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations.
I think that's pulling at straws though. I mean I'm Asian, and if someone accused me of being racist I'd tell them I have black friends, white friends, whathaveyou. Likewise if someone called me sexist, I'd tell them they're an idiot and that a lot of my friends are female. It feels like a completely normal response.
Yes, but it's also not a very convincing response, at least to many liberals or progressives.
Conservatives and progressives see racism and sexism very differently. Conservatives tend to only care about explicit racist or sexist beliefs. So they'll gladly look down on the kkk, neo-nazis, or the actions of the distant past as racist or sexist, but they're not willing to see racism or sexism as a particularly common thing in contemporary American society. Because, at the very least, to the extent that people have explicitly racist or sexist beliefs today they are often good at hiding them. [That said, there are still some socially acceptable things to say explicitly that many on the left find racist or sexist.]
Progressive, on the other hand, consider actions based on implicit biases or that create or are based in structural inequalities as racist. To them, you don't get to have a clean conscience just because you look inside yourself and don't find yourself saying that black people are inhuman. You have to actively try to be aware of and reduce the impact of your implicit biases and your privilege to not be a racist or sexist.
Having a bunch of friends from a stigmatized groups is fairly good evidence of not being racist in the conservative sense. But it's not remotely good evidence of not being evidence in the progressive sense, as numerous studies on implicit biases demonstrate.
Yeah, I understand that it's not good evidence; however, I can't see how that response itself elicits any hint of sexism. Know what I mean? In other words, I feel there's a bit of an over-reaction to the line "some of my best friends are women."
I think the idea is that someone giving that response is implying that they think that having the friends is good evidence that they are not racist or sexist. So people conclude from their thinking that that they must not take implicit biases or structural inequality seriously, since if they did they'd recognize that the friendship thing isn't good evidence.
In short, it's not anything about the content of what's being said. It's what saying it is taken to imply about your attitudes.
I see, I understand, but still... If someone asked me if I was sexist, I think I'd call them an idiot and say that a lot of my friends are female. If they then take that as an implication of some inherent sexism, I'd find it incredibly stupid and unfair. *shrug*
Well, they'd take it as an implication that you only care about certain forms of sexism, not that you have more sexism than everyone else. Practically everyone has a ton of implicit biases (including those from groups the biases are against), and practically all males benefit from some male privileges. So it's not really a matter of how sexist they'd think you are; it's a matter of how much they'd think you care about sexism.
Do you see something wrong with that? Because I do. I believe I care quite a fair amount about sexism, racism, and all other sorts of prejudices, both implicit and otherwise. I think this is a case of people reading way too far into something. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of sexist/racist Republicans, but the line "some of my best friends are women" is neither sufficient evidence to prove that someone is truly not sexist nor sufficient evidence to the contrary.
On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote: For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th:
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest?
You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right?
Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts.
dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion
I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive.
Terrorism doesn't always have some link to religion. It's just this generation is severely plagued with religious terrorism that we miss out or forget the other bits of terrorism.
no, but the terrorism that is relevant to our generation IS religious in nature. I remember the OKC bombing, lockerbie, the DC sniper, and various domestic shooting sprees.
On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote: For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th:
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest?
You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right?
Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts.
dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion
I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive.
Terrorism doesn't always have some link to religion. It's just this generation is severely plagued with religious terrorism that we miss out or forget the other bits of terrorism.
no, but the terrorism that is relevant to our generation IS religious in nature. I remember the OKC bombing, lockerbie, the DC sniper, and various domestic shooting sprees.
That pales in comparison to religious terrorism.
It's not 'religious in nature.' It has a relationship with religion but it's not fundamentally caused by religion. Religion is the tool that organizes the masses. Even without religion, as long as there is some kind of ideology or belief that can pull people together, they would merely use that. If the Middle East were not Islamists but rather democracies buzzing with freedoms, they'd fight to protect those freedoms.
Two things bugging me about last night: does the president have anything to do with the staffing of military personnel in embassies? I can understand Obama taking the blame, but do people really think he is micromanaging all these little details? And the other would be Romney's talk about limiting gun violence by encouraging longer lasting marriage. To me this seemed like an endorsement for abortion because having a child out of wedlock, then getting hastily married, and eventually leading in divorce is a huge problem. No baby, no problem! At least that was immediately where my thoughts went when I heard him say that. I don't think any candidate can realistically endorse abstinence as a legitimate platform.
If you don't want to look sexist then the best response is confusion about how your statements were taken in that way. You need to either clarify your statement and explain that it isn't sexist, or you need to admit fault and back down. I can't think of any other response that works.
Bringing up random points like your friends being women is just silly. It doesn't address the reason why people are attacking you. So it makes you look like you're dodging and therefore actually sexist.
And guys, there has been nonreligious-based terrorism...
there's a difference between that argument being sufficient to disprove sexism (it is not) to it indicating sexism by itself (not necessarily) to the holding of the former belief being a sign of sexism (depends on how angry)
On October 18 2012 11:07 oneofthem wrote: there's a difference between that argument being sufficient to disprove sexism (it is not) to it indicating sexism by itself (not necessarily) to the holding of the former belief being a sign of sexism (depends on how angry)
Ah, so the trick is to show how angry I am. I can do that!
this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Hear hear.
By the way, I think I found our Democratic candidate for 2016.
On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote: So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something.
The word is "placating". Romney's answer to the women's issue in this debate was textbook placating with no substance. He said nothing about Lily Ledbetter, nothing about Roe v. Wade, nothing about workplace discrimination. His answer was actually sort of subtly misogynist, because what he said was basically if the economy grows like he says it will, under his presidency, then even women will get jobs.
There was a slight insinuation in his answer that women need a more robust economy than men in order to achieve equal employment, like that's just a natural thing. It wasn't his greatest moment.
Romney dodged the question because he understands that the "equal pay for equal work" issue is a myth, and unlike Obama, his constituents don't include feminist groups that perpetuate that myth. Instead, the point he was trying to get through is that we need more qualified women to apply to high-ranking positions, which is correect. Romney fails overall when it comes to women's rights (his position on abortion being number one), but this wasn't an example.
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist,
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
It's a clever ad hominem used as a shaming tactic. Classify your opponent as sexist and you can ignore anything they say, including attempts to prove otherwise.
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies.
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies.
LOL. So the single life is going that well, huh?
Seriously though, if you want tips on how to get women to like you, take a look at Obama. Sticking up for Hilary the way Obama did wasn't just smooth, it probably made a bunch of lesbians second-guess themselves.
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies.
LOL. So the single life is going that well, huh?
Seriously though, if you want tips on how to get women to like you, take a look at Obama. Sticking up for Hilary the way Obama did wasn't just smooth, it probably made a bunch of lesbians second-guess themselves.
It's more likely he's gotten into your pants the way you've been going on about it. :p
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies.
LOL. So the single life is going that well, huh?
Seriously though, if you want tips on how to get women to like you, take a look at Obama. Sticking up for Hilary the way Obama did wasn't just smooth, it probably made a bunch of lesbians second-guess themselves.
It's more likely he's gotten into your pants the way you've been going on about it. :p
you know what they say about the relationship between the US and Canada.
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies.
LOL. So the single life is going that well, huh?
Seriously though, if you want tips on how to get women to like you, take a look at Obama. Sticking up for Hilary the way Obama did wasn't just smooth, it probably made a bunch of lesbians second-guess themselves.
It's more likely he's gotten into your pants the way you've been going on about it. :p
swooooooooooonnnn! I'm not gay, but if I had to pick a president to marry ...
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies.
LOL. So the single life is going that well, huh?
Seriously though, if you want tips on how to get women to like you, take a look at Obama. Sticking up for Hilary the way Obama did wasn't just smooth, it probably made a bunch of lesbians second-guess themselves.
Believe it or not, I'm married. In fact, fate decided that it would be funny to give me a daughter as my first born (and so far, only) child. Go figure.
Besides, y'all should know enough about women to know that they like the guys with misogynistic tendencies -- or in more common parlance, the "bad boys." In other words, they like men who act like men, which are naturally boorish creatures. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox before I launch into a rant about how politically correct society has been neutering generations of men.
On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote: this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems
Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies.
yeah, I mean that's partly my point. there's battle of the sexes, and there's sexism, and they sometimes overlap but are not coterminous. Both sexes display characteristic forms of stupidity and there's nothing sexist tout court about discussing this (and life would suck if you couldn't).
(In my case, it's a theoretical dispute - I'm more of a camille paglia feminist than a judith butler feminist... pretty hostile to relativism, constructivism, poststructuralism etc and so forth so most feminists dislike me for all kinds of reasons. At any rate it's usually not even worth talking about because the atmosphere is so vitriolic and Stalinist basically.)
EPT
