Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I think my largest problem with modern Feminist studies is that they willfully and totally ignore issues that men suffer from and areas where they benefit.
Men are 19 times more likely to die on the job.
Men under 30 make less than their female counterparts
Men make up 90% of homeless people (and receive proportionately less help)
It has been shown that boys are systematically discriminated against throughout their education (more that girls)
Men only make up 40% of college graduates
Men have higher insurance rates
Men are more likely to go to jail
Men are more likely to be the victim of single-sided domestic violence.
d-usa wrote: Over 60 million people voted for a man who runs a pageant where women are judged based on looks, who has bragged about being able to walk into their dressing room and look at them naked, and complained about them getting fat afterward. A man who attacked his political opponents based on their looks and who attacked reporters who were tough on him by talking about their bleeding vaginas. A man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women simply based on his position as a rich powerful man, and getting away with it. A man who denied sexually assaulting someone by claiming that he would never assault someone that ugly.
That man is our president now. You have to be stupid to claim that there is no such thing as systematic sexism in our country.
Trump didn't become President because of that. He became president in spite of that. Very few people actually like Trump, they just hated Hillary MORE.
Honestly I think that just makes it worse.
Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to weigh the pros and cons of candidates? I mean, really, should we just look past Clinton's huge pile of steaming crap simply because she is a woman?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 00:09:07
cuda1179 wrote: ... I voted Trump, only because Hillary has a larger pile of historic vileness...
Christ, you'd be able to see a pile like that from space! There must be a special filter or something, because I'm sure I'd have noticed something as enormous, and vile as that, even from the UK.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
cuda1179 wrote: I think my largest problem with modern Feminist studies is that they willfully and totally ignore issues that men suffer from and areas where they benefit.
I literally just linked to a page explaining the term Toxic Masculinity less than a dozen posts ago and the entire concept is about the ways men are negatively impacted by patriarchy. Since the 80s an entire sub-field (Intersectionality) has been dedicated to studying the interconnection of oppression and suppression in society. How gender, race, ethnicity, and religion are all interconnected and fluid with one another in forming the complex systems that harm us and help us in daily life. Feminists have conducted studies examining how women reinforce negative gender norms that harm men, and the way that criminal systems more harshly punish male offenders than female offenders.
I think your largest problem with modern feminist studies is that you don't understand them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 00:13:48
d-usa wrote: Over 60 million people voted for a man who runs a pageant where women are judged based on looks, who has bragged about being able to walk into their dressing room and look at them naked, and complained about them getting fat afterward. A man who attacked his political opponents based on their looks and who attacked reporters who were tough on him by talking about their bleeding vaginas. A man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women simply based on his position as a rich powerful man, and getting away with it. A man who denied sexually assaulting someone by claiming that he would never assault someone that ugly.
That man is our president now. You have to be stupid to claim that there is no such thing as systematic sexism in our country.
Trump didn't become President because of that. He became president in spite of that. Very few people actually like Trump, they just hated Hillary MORE. I voted Trump, only because Hillary has a larger pile of historic vileness. I didn't particularly like Sanders, but would have voted for him over Trump.
You are an example of the patriarchy, congratulations.
cuda1179 wrote: Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to weigh the pros and cons of candidates?
If people really disliked Hillary that much as a person there were 2 dozen other choices who weren't as plainly terrible as Trump to choose from as an alternative, but they still picked the bigot over all the not-quite-bigoted options. Yet voters still picked and backed the guy who did all this;
Over 60 million people voted for a man who runs a pageant where women are judged based on looks, who has bragged about being able to walk into their dressing room and look at them naked, and complained about them getting fat afterward. A man who attacked his political opponents based on their looks and who attacked reporters who were tough on him by talking about their bleeding vaginas. A man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women simply based on his position as a rich powerful man, and getting away with it. A man who denied sexually assaulting someone by claiming that he would never assault someone that ugly.
So yeah. Your retort actually makes Trump voters seem even worse than the initial accusation, because now on top of apparently being okay with a bigot in the White House it sounds like they picked him over all others just to spite a woman which is pretty damn twisted.
cuda1179 wrote: I think my largest problem with modern Feminist studies is that they willfully and totally ignore issues that men suffer from and areas where they benefit.
I literally just linked to a page explaining the term Toxic Masculinity less than a dozen posts ago and the entire concept is about the ways men are negatively impacted by patriarchy. Since the 80s an entire sub-field (Intersectionality) has been dedicated to studying the interconnection of oppression and suppression in society. How gender, race, ethnicity, and religion are all interconnected and fluid with one another in forming the complex systems that harm us and help us in daily life. Feminists have conducted studies examining how women reinforce negative gender norms that harm men, and the way that criminal systems more harshly punish male offenders than female offenders.
I think your largest problem with modern feminist studies is that you don't understand them.
Was gonna post something with the same meaning but a lot cruder.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
cuda1179 wrote: I think my largest problem with modern Feminist studies is that they willfully and totally ignore issues that men suffer from and areas where they benefit.
I literally just linked to a page explaining the term Toxic Masculinity less than a dozen posts ago.
Congratulations on being an outlier. Okay, perhaps that is a bit harsh. However, many of the major feminist mouthpieces out there (Anita Sarkeesian and Laci Green in particular) have intentionally mocked male issues, belittled them, and specifically said it's not the fault of women. I'm also skeptical of anyone that got more time to talk at the U.N. about how someone said she sucked on the internet than the guy that was trying to prevent starvation and genocide in his country.
d-usa wrote: Over 60 million people voted for a man who runs a pageant where women are judged based on looks, who has bragged about being able to walk into their dressing room and look at them naked, and complained about them getting fat afterward. A man who attacked his political opponents based on their looks and who attacked reporters who were tough on him by talking about their bleeding vaginas. A man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women simply based on his position as a rich powerful man, and getting away with it. A man who denied sexually assaulting someone by claiming that he would never assault someone that ugly.
That man is our president now. You have to be stupid to claim that there is no such thing as systematic sexism in our country.
Trump didn't become President because of that. He became president in spite of that. Very few people actually like Trump, they just hated Hillary MORE. I voted Trump, only because Hillary has a larger pile of historic vileness. I didn't particularly like Sanders, but would have voted for him over Trump.
You are an example of the patriarchy, congratulations.
So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what? Even if I entirely disagreed with her political stance? Isn't that pretty much the definition of sexist?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 00:24:22
A lot of the issues you mentioned are actually the fault of men. Men dying more and working in more dangerous jobs? "It's men's work, real men don't need safety, don't be such a pussy."
If you paint feminism with a large brush because of loudmouth women who don't understand feminism, then it's only fair that we assume you are a sexist racist nazi because the person you voted for has a racist sexist nazi whispering into his ear.
Well one I'm not a feminist (Feminism isn't the only option for people who believe in gender equality, and I have lots of issues with feminist theory). I'm just not going to pretend feminism is something it isn't, and I get tired of people with plainly bad understandings of something going on rants about how terrible it is.
However, many of the major feminist mouthpieces out there (Anita Sarkeesian and Laci Green in particular) have intentionally mocked male issues, belittled them, and specifically said it's not the fault of women.
Anita Sarkeesian and Laci Green are not "major feminist mouthpieces." They're famous feminists (or rather the proper term might be better put as infamous), but holy gak man. Neither of these people are exactly what I'd call powerful intellectuals in the realm of Carolyn Merchant or Kimberle Crenshaw. People who actually shape and define Feminism as an academic and intellectual endeavor. At beast Sarkeesian and Green are the Angry Joe's of Feminism, and by that I mean they're loud, funny to watch, but will probably rot your brain because they're not good for much else. Gauging feminism based on two minor internet celebrities who fall under its banner is a really piss poor way to go about understanding something.
cuda1179 wrote: I think my largest problem with modern Feminist studies is that they willfully and totally ignore issues that men suffer from and areas where they benefit.
I literally just linked to a page explaining the term Toxic Masculinity less than a dozen posts ago.
Congratulations on being an outlier. Okay, perhaps that is a bit harsh. However, many of the major feminist mouthpieces out there (Anita Sarkeesian and Laci Green in particular) have intentionally mocked male issues, belittled them, and specifically said it's not the fault of women. I'm also skeptical of anyone that got more time to talk at the U.N. about how someone said she sucked on the internet than the guy that was trying to prevent starvation and genocide in his country.
So you're judging an entire academic field on the actions of a few people. I shouldn't have to explain to you how the few don't have to be representative of the whole.
Edit: Once again Lordofhats put the point across better than I could.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 00:29:33
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
cuda1179 wrote: Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to weigh the pros and cons of candidates?
If people really disliked Hillary that much as a person there were 2 dozen other choices who weren't as plainly terrible as Trump to choose from as an alternative, but they still picked the bigot over all the not-quite-bigoted options. Yet voters still picked and backed the guy who did all this;
So yeah. Your retort actually makes Trump voters seem even worse than the initial accusation, because now on top of apparently being okay with a bigot in the White House it sounds like they picked him over all others just to spite a woman which is pretty damn twisted.
They voted Trump not to "spite a woman" but to back the lesser of two evils. If anyone says they thought a 3rd party candidate had a snowball's chance of winning I'd show you a liar. Perhaps they thought making crude statements about women was bad, just not as bad as talking up Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, voting for a war with Iraq, getting into a war with Libya, supplying arms that made their way to terrorists, or getting an exemption for a country known to commit war crimes so we could sell them military arms.
cuda1179 wrote: They voted Trump not to "spite a woman" but to back the lesser of two evils.
Oh right I forgot. The Democrats picked Trump to be the Republican nominee. The Republicans had absolutely no say in who would represent them in the race at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 00:32:50
cuda1179 wrote: I think my largest problem with modern Feminist studies is that they willfully and totally ignore issues that men suffer from and areas where they benefit.
I literally just linked to a page explaining the term Toxic Masculinity less than a dozen posts ago.
Congratulations on being an outlier. Okay, perhaps that is a bit harsh. However, many of the major feminist mouthpieces out there (Anita Sarkeesian and Laci Green in particular) have intentionally mocked male issues, belittled them, and specifically said it's not the fault of women. I'm also skeptical of anyone that got more time to talk at the U.N. about how someone said she sucked on the internet than the guy that was trying to prevent starvation and genocide in his country.
So you're judging an entire academic field on the actions of a few people. I shouldn't have to explain to you how the few don't have to be representative of the whole.
Edit: Once again Lordofhats put the point across better than I could.
I'm not talking down the whole field. There are many feminists that I agree with and admire. Christina Hoff Sommers for example has fought the good fight, done A LOT for equality, and is a general joy to talk to in person (I have and she is quite nice). It's just this growing group of 3rd wave feminism that is slowly going from the vocal minority to the REALLY vocal majority. Even Sommers thinks they're fools.
So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what? Even if I entirely disagreed with her political stance? Isn't that pretty much the definition of sexist?
Your own words are what damned you there, and it's too late to cover up your part in the issue that the country is facing when it comes to systematic sexism and the fact that you are part of the problem.
You can vote for Trump over Hillary and not be a sexist, it's your reply that paints you as a sexist.
You didn't argue that you chose a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate. You didn't argue that you chose an anti-immigration candidate over a pro-immigration candidate. You didn't argue that you chose a budget hawk over a spending hawk. You didn't argue that you chose the person with the best foreign policy credentials.
You said you voted for the guy who brags about sexual assault, but not the ugly ones, and calls women he disagrees with ugly and fat because "she is more vile".
So many reasons you could have voted for him, but you chose "she is more vile" as your reply when I pointed out all of his anti-women based behaviors. That's what makes you a shining example of the patriarchy.
cuda1179 wrote: They voted Trump not to "spite a woman" but to back the lesser of two evils.
Oh right I forgot. The Democrats picked Trump to be the Republican nominee. The Republicans had absolutely no say in who would represent them in the race at all.
Actually, in some respects Clinton DID pick Trump. Or don't you remember that there was collusion with the media to provide him with a better platform? Also.....dang, look at the other potentials. A wacko doctor with no adrenal gland, a vaccination skeptic, and a corrupt Jersey politician.
cuda1179 wrote: Christina Hoff Sommers for example has fought the good fight, done A LOT for equality,
Chrstina Hoff Sommers is a feminist in name only, and has done literally nothing for equality. She's little more than the token "feminist" of conservatism, and is better described as an anti-feminist in terms of what she actually thinks and argues for.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 00:39:48
So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what? Even if I entirely disagreed with her political stance? Isn't that pretty much the definition of sexist?
Your own words are what damned you there, and it's too late to cover up your part in the issue that the country is facing when it comes to systematic sexism and the fact that you are part of the problem.
You can vote for Trump over Hillary and not be a sexist, it's your reply that paints you as a sexist.
You didn't argue that you chose a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate. You didn't argue that you chose an anti-immigration candidate over a pro-immigration candidate. You didn't argue that you chose a budget hawk over a spending hawk. You didn't argue that you chose the person with the best foreign policy credentials.
You said you voted for the guy who brags about sexual assault, but not the ugly ones, and calls women he disagrees with ugly and fat because "she is more vile".
So many reasons you could have voted for him, but you chose "she is more vile" as your reply when I pointed out all of his anti-women based behaviors. That's what makes you a shining example of the patriarchy.
If you are going to make accusations you might want to actually quote me correctly. I said she "has a larger pile of historic vileness". If you weren't intent on twisting meanings it would be easy to see that I was referring to her past actions, which I listed out in a following post.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Identity politics are a hard thing to really grasp for a majority of americans. It quite frankly doesnt really register with them. I know in my family, I spent hours trying to explain to them why someone can be a women, but born with a penis. It came back too "But they have a penis"
Its really something for a majority of people, they just cant understand because they have no real experiance with it. Anf Focusing on it so much, is relly detriment to the party IMO, Especially with the "You have to accept it" dogma many have to go through.
IOW, "this is complicated, just throw them under the bus". Maybe that's a good plan if all you care about is getting power, but it's hardly something we should approve of.
A more realistic version of this tweet is already happening. Watch some Democrats from the 80s on C-SPAN and they all sound more like Sanders than Clinton. The Democrats (the party) already have been and are still moving more and more towards the right (while occasionally still chirping about some culturally left principles to appease their voter base) and there's a growing vacuum to the left of them in US politics.
Look at the rust belt and all the poor white people this entails. Actually improving that situation is hard and improving the situation for poor people doesn't depend on the poor person's skin colour (that would be a way for Democrats to find "new" voters). The Republicans seem to not be interested in doing that but would rather pit poor white people against poor people of other ethnicities and blame immigrants/muslims/black people for the situation of poor white people (actual identity politics in action!) instead of the system that destroyed unions and funnelled even more wealth and power towards company owners and shareholders. And the Democrats are too cowardly to actually propose more left-ish solutions (actual single payer healthcare, better unemployment insurance, re-education programs for people in dying industries) and paint the Republicans as being against working class people. No, they just trot along after the Republicans who slide further to the right with their policies because being part of the government is more important for them (even if they lose power) than actually advocating for better policies.
jasper76 wrote:This is not the dream MLK had, this is something very different. I'm with him, we should judge individuals on the content of their character, rather than incidentals that people don't even have any control over (race, gender, and sexual orientation as the best examples). And yes, gasp, this philosophy should even be extended to the dreaded Christian white.
I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years
I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great
stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate
who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace
which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods
of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of
time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of
good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more
bewildering than outright rejection.
In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But
can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the
evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical
delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His
unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see,
as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic
constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in
Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are
in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ
take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion
that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either
destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the
people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but
for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It
comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time
itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.
Your point is really nice in theory but in practice it's just not what's happening, no matter how illegal some discrimination is or how reasonable one wants to evaluate other people. Unconscious biases can't be eliminated by laws and you need advocacy to improve that situation and white/male/christian people often feel attacked because these biases usually favour them in the USA (they feel it's something for them to lose instead of others to gain and loss aversion can't be just eliminated so easily, even knowing about it doesn't make one immune). All other things being equal, being white/male/christian is overall relatively better for you even in a really bad situation: They found that an African-American male with an associates degree has around the same chance of getting a job as a white male with just a high school diploma. “At every level of education, race impacts a person’s chance of getting a job”, from here, and from here: African-Americans college students are about as likely to get hired as whites who have dropped out of high school.
jasper76 wrote:As far as I understand it, women are allowed to take any job that a man is. We even have anti-discrimination laws that protect women from discrimination in the workforce and in hiring.
And like above there are unconscious biases in action. For example: Men who are aggressive in the workplace tend to be seen in a positive light and as go-getter while women as seen negatively and as bitchy. This affects their career prospects. Things might be legally equal but implicit and unconscious biases still create an environment that favours men over women in a lot of cases.
d-usa wrote: The first reply, the one from the gut, always tells us more about a person that follow up clarifications.
Yeah, and you still intentionally misquoted me, and that tells us a lot about you. Or do you disagree that Clinton has a "large pile of historic vileness"?
d-usa wrote: The first reply, the one from the gut, always tells us more about a person that follow up clarifications.
Yeah, and you still intentionally misquoted me, and that tells us a lot about you. Or do you disagree that Clinton has a "large pile of historic vileness"?
You would rather have a person bragging about sexual assault as your president than a vile person.
Embrace what you admitted, trying to walk that back only makes you look even worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 01:00:59
cuda1179 wrote: Or do you disagree that Clinton has a "large pile of historic vileness"?
I disagree that she has any such thing compared to the other candidate. Clinton, despite hyperbolic republican claims to the contrary, is a rather typical politician. She isn't winning any awards for honesty and goodness, but our government is full of people like her. The idea that Clinton is some special brand of awful that justifies a vote for Trump is, quite honestly, insane.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
d-usa wrote: The first reply, the one from the gut, always tells us more about a person that follow up clarifications.
Yeah, and you still intentionally misquoted me, and that tells us a lot about you. Or do you disagree that Clinton has a "large pile of historic vileness"?
You would rather have a person bragging about sexual assault as your president than a vile person.
Embrace what you admitted, trying to walk that back only makes you look even worse.
I do believe "vile" has been used many times to describe trump, even on this very forum......so you're a little off there. You're also missing the "Historic" part, once again. I was describing her actions and decisions.
cuda1179 wrote: Or do you disagree that Clinton has a "large pile of historic vileness"?
I disagree that she has any such thing compared to the other candidate. Clinton, despite hyperbolic republican claims to the contrary, is a rather typical politician. She isn't winning any awards for honesty and goodness, but our government is full of people like her. The idea that Clinton is some special brand of awful that justifies a vote for Trump is, quite honestly, insane.
I'd actually argue Clinton has a bizarre brand of political honesty. Not so much in how she herself operates. She's no more transparent than most, but she showed a willingness in 2015 and 2016 to "straight talk" about certain realities. Like when she plainly stated the reality of the mining industry as no longer a reliable employer. It might not be pleasant but it was true, and she said it with no double speak or hidden language intended to appeal to some demographic target. People hailed Trump as a straight talker instead of "just another politician" but Clinton spoke more honestly about policy realities than most politicians and managed to do it without devolving into Trump's brand of crazy.
cuda1179 wrote: Or do you disagree that Clinton has a "large pile of historic vileness"?
I disagree that she has any such thing compared to the other candidate. Clinton, despite hyperbolic republican claims to the contrary, is a rather typical politician. She isn't winning any awards for honesty and goodness, but our government is full of people like her. The idea that Clinton is some special brand of awful that justifies a vote for Trump is, quite honestly, insane.
You are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to think you're incorrect. There are many issues I preferred Clinton on, and many I preferred Trump on. (By preferred I meant despised less). Voting for Trump made me shake my head in disbelief. I didn't like it, it was just less bad than backing Hillary to me.
cuda1179 wrote: Or do you disagree that Clinton has a "large pile of historic vileness"?
I disagree that she has any such thing compared to the other candidate. Clinton, despite hyperbolic republican claims to the contrary, is a rather typical politician. She isn't winning any awards for honesty and goodness, but our government is full of people like her. The idea that Clinton is some special brand of awful that justifies a vote for Trump is, quite honestly, insane.
I'd actually argue Clinton has a bizarre brand of political honesty. Not so much in how she herself operates. She's no more transparent than most, but she showed a willingness in 2015 and 2016 to "straight talk" about certain realities. Like when she plainly stated the reality of the mining industry as no longer a reliable employer. It might not be pleasant but it was true, and she said it with no double speak or hidden language intended to appeal to some demographic target. People hailed Trump as a straight talker instead of "just another politician" but Clinton spoke more honestly about policy realities than most politicians and managed to do it without devolving into Trump's brand of crazy.
I will give Clinton props on that certain issue. However, let's face it, no one was immune from bull gak lies in this election. I think one of my favorites was everyone (including Clinton) claiming to "be a political outsider". I'm sorry, but anyone that's rubbed elbows with the political elite for more than a decade is not an outsider.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The choice of insult, "vile" is also very telling. You don't often hear about men being vile.
.
Just a quick google search returns more hits on Trump being "vile" than Clinton. People that have called Trump "vile" include Rossie O'Donnel, The Hill, Mit Romney, Huffington post, Saturday Night Live, The Slate, etc.
So I guess you can take that specific accusation and stuff it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 01:22:18
d-usa wrote: The choice of insult, "vile" is also very telling. You don't often hear about men being vile.
What? I think that's just some confirmation bias right there. I wouldn't try and guess on a global scale which members of which gender gets called vile more than the other, but men get called things like "vile pigs" all the time. Maybe it was growing up with sisters, but I reckon I've heard "vile" used in regards to males more than females
Google apparently agrees with me, google "vile man", "vile men" or "vile male" and it'll come back with more results than "vile woman", "vile women" and "vile female". "Vile woman" is largely Stewie Griffin Family Guy memes
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 01:23:09
My literal first thought when it came down to Hillary vs. Trump was a sigh and an "Awww....damnit!"
I really hope he doesn't manage to use twitter to goad a country into a war.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hillary Clinton is now irrelevant. She is, as far as I know, no longer active in politics at this time.
Donald Trump on the other hand. Is.
And no matter how someone wants to rationalise it, no matter what someone says to themselves to let them sleep at night. If they voted for Donald Trump, they take a share of the responsibility for that vote.
In some ways, I'm actually slightly envious of some elements of the American system. You have a greater degree of control, all we do in the UK is pick a person and hope that the person they pick isn't a lunatic.
The American system? You could pick people you wanted all the way down. And then choose. And then choose. Someone else to be President. You fowks can do that, and Whembly, for all his faults, actually did.
But the people who voted Trump. The people who went in there and made that conscious decision and choice. You own that. Every tantrum where the leader of the free world screams "FAKE NEWS" at the top of his voice. That's theirs. Ever attack on the judiciary. That's theirs. Every broken family as a result of the ban. They own that too.
The interesting thing is. What won't be theirs? The money the Trump family makes from the 'unique opportunity' that Trump gets for being president.