|
N00ba the Hutt posted:I'm kind of curious to read that column. Google didn't find it - any chance you can figure out the author? It's by Christine M. Flowers. Here's a link with a different headline: Swallowing my pride, standing up for life and voting for Trump It's really something else.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:You are absolutely correct - I went too far then. Which was the point of my post as well- they aren't "unambiguously matriarchal," (the actual phrasing in the wiki quote) but women have a great deal of power. What you seem to be defending is the idea that if it isn't a inverse image of patriarchy it doesn't count as women having power, and the underlying narrative absolutely is that women being anything other than subordinate to men is an invention of a handful of societies in the previous several centuries, entirely attributable to modern-day feminism. e: also, a quick look at the sources in your quote from Wikipedia reveals most of them are 20-40 years out of date, and seems to rest a lot on two books from the 1970s. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
I don't know about you guys, but I'm  pretty hard about the polls. Not because Trump might win (it will take a miracle for that to happen at this point) but because Hillary's double digit lead might make democrat voters complacent. The democrats have a chance to actually win the house. If Hillary does well at the debates, if Trump continues being Trump, then the House might legit be in play, and even if it's just 2 years, with the senate and the house on their side, and with no Blue Dogs, the sky's the limit to what the democrats can accomplish.But if people look at the polls and keep hearing from the media that Hillary is leading by 12% or whatever they might not be as motivated to go vote, because people don't seem to give that much of a poo poo about the house. I know I should expect the worst, but try as I might to manage my expectations and be realistic, Trumps bungling has given me a bitter taste of that terrible illusion, Hope. And I hate myself for daring to dream 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
McCloud posted:I don't know about you guys, but I'm
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
I wonder if that also partially explains the emphasis and obsession with Unskewed Polls / Silent Majority stuff. No listen we're really on the winning side, honest!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:I wonder if that also partially explains the emphasis and obsession with Unskewed Polls / Silent Majority stuff. No listen we're really on the winning side, honest! Possibly? It's also a tacit admission of Trump being racist, really. "Oh, these people are saying they won't vote for Trump because they're afraid to!" "Why?" "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..." They're also sort of bitchy over Romney losing when the polls said he would, and why they're doing the same thing again, I have no clue (Karl Rove actually somehow learned his lesson).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
McCloud posted:I don't know about you guys, but I'm With this mindset, you have an outside possibility of being pleasantly surprised, and you won't take years off of your expected lifespan from the stress of worrying about the House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
There seems to be some 1-2 point level tightening going on in the polls so we might have the luxury of plain old arzying instead of having to come up with new ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Which was the point of my post as well- they aren't "unambiguously matriarchal," (the actual phrasing in the wiki quote) but women have a great deal of power. Matriarchy by definition is the inverse image of patriarchy. Women may well have a great deal of power within certain spheres of life in a patriarchal society, but they don't occupy the positions of overarching political authority, like clan chief or village elder or shaman. The myth of matriarchal prehistory was originally created in the 19th century by early anthropologists who actually viewed patriarchy as an evolution of society from a more primitive form. Ironically this myth was brought back to life by second wave feminism in the 1970s in a misguided attempt to justify sexual equality by appealing to its naturality. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory by Cynthia Ellers (2000) is a feminist criticism of the myth. quote:The enemies of feminism have long posed issues of patriarchy and sexism in pseudoscientific and historical terms. It is not in feminist interests to join them at this game, especially when it is so (relatively) easy to undermine the ground rules. We know enough about biological sex differences to know that they are neither so striking nor so uniform that we either need to or ought to make our policy decisions in reference to them. And we know that cultures worldwide have demonstrated tremendous variability in constructing and regulating gender, indicating that we have significant freedom in making our own choices about what gender will mean for us. Certainly recent history, both technological and social, proves that innovation is possible: we are not forever condemned to find our future in our past. Discovering—or more to the point, inventing—prehistoric ages in which women and men lived in harmony and equality is a burden that feminists need not, and should not bear. Clinging to shopworn notions of gender and promoting a demonstrably fictional past can only hurt us over the long run as we work to create a future that helps all women, children, and men flourish. As for the age of the sources, my position has been consensus for a long time. Academic works don't come with an expiry date. AMorePerfctGoonion fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Antti posted:There seems to be some 1-2 point level tightening going on in the polls so we might have the luxury of plain old arzying instead of having to come up with new ways. 1-2 points would be more of an issue if there weren't already about 10 between the two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Ballz posted:It's by Christine M. Flowers. Here's a link with a different headline: Swallowing my pride, standing up for life and voting for Trump Oh look, I was right because any article with that headline is 100% predictable. vyelkin posted:Do you really have to read it? You already know what it says: "blah blah blah abortion is basically the Holocaust, millions of babies die every year, sure Trump may be a fascist but if Killary KKKlinton gets elected she'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will interpret the Constitution as meaning mandatory abortions for everyone. On the other hand Trump may be a fascist but he's a fascist who would outlaw abortion so really he's the better choice"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Sure. Trump has displayed a stunning lack of knowledge and basic intellectual curiosity but there hasn't been an equivalent criticism of his obvious mental deficits. The fact that the stereotype of ditzy broad exists at all with no male equivalent (dumb Himbo e.g. Zoolander is the closest I can think of) says something about the construction of gender by society. I don't know where you've been the last year, I can't go 20 minutes without reading about how dumb he is, not going into Dubya or others. By the way: Jock, meathead, empty suit etc etc etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Antti posted:There seems to be some 1-2 point level tightening going on in the polls so we might have the luxury of plain old arzying instead of having to come up with new ways.  Oh no, Hillary might only win by a Obama-McCain level margin instead of a Reagan-Mondale level margin.I'm also basically convinced at this point that Trump is going to underperform his polling numbers significantly due to lack of a ground game and depressed turnout because: FactsAreUseless posted:Bad polls make people stay home because they don't see the point in taking the time to vote for a side they know will lose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1-2 points would be more of an issue if there weren't already about 10 between the two. I will never understand the people that are watching the non-stop Trumpster fire and think "hmm maybe I should reconsider this Clinton vote." I mean I know it's more complicated than that and includes people that weren't going to vote, people looking for excuses to vote Trump since they secretly agree with him, etc but I don't get anyone that honestly hasn't decided by now if they are pro or con fascist bigot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Matriarchy by definition is the inverse image of patriarchy. Women may well have a great deal of power within certain spheres of life in a patriarchal society, but they don't occupy the positions of overarching political authority, like clan chief or village elder or shaman. There's actually a lot of discussion of how precisely to define matriarchy on the Wikipedia page you cited; your definition isn't exactly universally accepted, and even a dictionary definition includes meanings outside your usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#Definitions.2C_connotations.2C_and_etymology quote:The word matriarchy, for a society politically led by females, especially mothers, who also control property, is often interpreted to mean the genderal opposite of patriarchy, but it is not an opposite (linguistically, it is not a parallel term).[7][8][9] According to Peoples and Bailey, the view of anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday is that matriarchies are not a mirror form of patriarchies but rather that a matriarchy "emphasizes maternal meanings where 'maternal symbols are linked to social practices influencing the lives of both sexes and where women play a central role in these practices'".[10] Academic works don't come with an expiry date per se, but you can't assert a consensus or even get a solid grasp of academic thought on a subject without a survey which covers recent research on the topic. The word "gender" didn't even have it's current academic meaning when several of the works in question were written, for example. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I don't know where you've been the last year, I can't go 20 minutes without reading about how dumb he is, not going into Dubya or others. Really? Apart from the story that he speaks at a fourth grade level some months ago, the mainstream media seems focused on how outrageous his rhetoric is and not his mental incompetence. Jock and meathead don't really apply to older men, and empty suit isn't a stereotype about intelligence but about a lack of conviction. If, for example, Clinton displayed the same ignorance about basic policy issues and world politics (e.g. Crimea) I'm sure she'd be stereotyped as dumb chick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Radish posted:I will never understand the people that are watching the non-stop Trumpster fire and think "hmm maybe I should reconsider this Clinton vote." I mean I know it's more complicated than that and includes people that weren't going to vote, people looking for excuses to vote Trump since they secretly agree with him, etc but I don't get anyone that honestly hasn't decided by now if they are pro or con fascist bigot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:In general, strong polls get people out to vote because they want to be part of the landslide. Bad polls make people stay home because they don't see the point in taking the time to vote for a side they know will lose. In addition to this, people just straight Don't Look At Polls, y'all. 90% of "people" aren't even halfway as engaged with politics as the posters in the USPOL Thread on Somethingawful dot com.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Radish posted:I will never understand the people that are watching the non-stop Trumpster fire and think "hmm maybe I should reconsider this Clinton vote." I mean I know it's more complicated than that and includes people that weren't going to vote, people looking for excuses to vote Trump since they secretly agree with him, etc but I don't get anyone that honestly hasn't decided by now if they are pro or con fascist bigot. 2% is literally margin of error, you're freaking out over statistical randomness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:As for the age of the sources, my position has been consensus for a long time. Academic works don't come with an expiry date. I agree with most of what you've said but again I'd be a little more cautious here. The entry of gender as an analytical concept into archaeology has only been around for 40 years or thereabouts and there was a sizeable chunk of research that had to be rewritten as a result. Academic works may not have an expiration date printed on them but they sure as hell tend to be outdated after a while. Research into the role of women especially in prehistoric societies is still a work in progress and we're learning a lot more stuff all the time. Think of how long it was consensus that men were responsible for tool invention and production, or that female-shape cave paintings were done by men as an early form of Playboy magazine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Has there been a lot of analysis regarding how Trump's campaign is not buying TV ads and seems content with just using his regular news press instead? Because this is unheard of in the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:2% is literally margin of error, you're freaking out over statistical randomness. Just because I think on the fence Trump supporters are ridiculous doesn't mean I'm freaking out. But yeah statistical randomness probably has more to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Radish posted:I will never understand the people that are watching the non-stop Trumpster fire and think "hmm maybe I should reconsider this Clinton vote." I mean I know it's more complicated than that and includes people that weren't going to vote, people looking for excuses to vote Trump since they secretly agree with him, etc but I don't get anyone that honestly hasn't decided by now if they are pro or con fascist bigot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Radish posted:I will never understand the people that are watching the non-stop Trumpster fire and think "hmm maybe I should reconsider this Clinton vote." I mean I know it's more complicated than that and includes people that weren't going to vote, people looking for excuses to vote Trump since they secretly agree with him, etc but I don't get anyone that honestly hasn't decided by now if they are pro or con fascist bigot. I think a lot of it is folks who would've been Trump supporters but weren't able to commit earlier just going ahead and committing. computer parts posted:2% is literally margin of error, you're freaking out over statistical randomness. Not when it's appearing in multiple polls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Has there been a lot of analysis regarding how Trump's campaign is not buying TV ads and seems content with just using his regular news press instead? Because this is unheard of in the modern era. Funny you mention that, a second Trump ad has hit the https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/770221547219017728 It's literally just "Hillary's America will be bad! Trump's America will be good! VOTE TRUMP!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's not people who are deciding whether they are pro fascist bigot or not, it's people on the fence about their faith in basic facts reporting by the media and, ultimately, their belief in the really real and a physical universe borne of cause and effect. A lot of new Trump voters might just be coming around to the idea that literally nothing matters, and we live in a post-reality world. And, if you don't have to worry about facts and consequences, and if a guy like Trump makes you feel awesome - if only in the shallowest possible way - why wouldn't you vote for him if you had nothing better to do that day? Amen. This scares me more than the popularity of Trump's racist rhetoric, the number of American citizens who have just checked out of reality-based community and refuse to believe polls, the mainstream media or anything real that disagrees with their views or makes them question their assumptions. If you can visit an echo chamber on an alt-right social media website with thousands of people that feel exactly the same way you do, and who will tell you that everything you believe is right, why bother asking yourself any hard questions and why not just believe what makes you feel good about yourself? This is the dark side of the fragmentation of the media.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Funny you mention that, a second Trump ad has hit the It's funny when Trump supporters complain about Hillary ads just slamming Trump and being all negative. Here in Virginia a few weeks ago she started running ads describing what she was going to do economically, not even mentioning her opponent, and it might as well been a Sanders spot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Anthony Weiner's caught in another sexting scandal. No explicit nudity (again) and he didn't meet the woman (again). At the end of the day all he's really doing with these women is flirting but it's enough to look really bad especially after doing it before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Not when it's appearing in multiple polls. So most likely it's undecided voters finally making a decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Anthony Weiner's caught in another sexting scandal. No explicit nudity (again) and he didn't meet the woman (again). At the end of the day all he's really doing with these women is flirting but it's enough to look really bad especially after doing it before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
The real question is: how low will the bar be set on a Trump debate "win"? Will he have to clear a standard set in picometers, or will the media be using Planck units?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Funny you mention that, a second Trump ad has hit the More of the same... BUT WORSE!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
uhhhhhhhhhhh *sets worry mast to half arzy* https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-says-foreign-hackers-penetrated-000000175.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw quote:The bulletin does not identify the states in question, but sources familiar with the document say it refers to the targeting by suspected foreign hackers of voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In the Illinois case, officials were forced to shut down the state’s voter registration system for ten days in late July, after the hackers managed to download personal data on up to 200,000 state voters, Ken Menzel, the general counsel of the Illinois Board of Elections, said in an interview. The Arizona attack was more limited, involving malicious software that was introduced into its voter registration system but no successful exfiltration of data, a state official said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:The real question is: how low will the bar be set on a Trump debate "win"? If he literally fails to poo poo himself on stage, the headline will read something along the lines of "Trump stands strong against aggressive Clinton".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:In addition to this, people just straight Don't Look At Polls, y'all. 90% of "people" aren't even halfway as engaged with politics as the posters in the USPOL Thread on Somethingawful dot com. Says who?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Dexo posted:uhhhhhhhhhhh While extremely lovely, I'm not sure why this would be worth arzying about, I don't think it makes people more likely to vote for one party over the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:And for those unaware, he is married to Huma Abedin, who is a major figure in the Hillary campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:While extremely lovely, I'm not sure why this would be worth arzying about, I don't think it makes people more likely to vote for one party over the other. No I think he's meaning people tampering with the polls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:While extremely lovely, I'm not sure why this would be worth arzying about, I don't think it makes people more likely to vote for one party over the other. Yeah this isn't about people actually voting for Trump or anything. I just really really don't like to hear poo poo about how comically easy our election systems are to hack. Though the good news is that most states have a paper backup to check.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 14:59
|
|