|
icantfindaname posted:If the average is no handicap for sex that means for every Hillary who loses because she's a woman, there's somebody who wins because they're a woman. Ahhhh I suddenly understand why some people thought racism was dead when Obama got elected. They're wrong, of course, but he did win at the ballot box and therefore...
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:19 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:02 |
|
icantfindaname posted:It proves that the average woman candidate's campaign isn't hurt by sexism. I guess you could argue that public image of Hillary is uniquely sexist, but I don't really buy that. And I'm not sure what any of the stuff about her winning more votes or the EC has anything to do with anything Your own quote points out how there is likely sexism in politics that isn't been well documented by scientific research (which is a duh).
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:20 |
|
Boon posted:Ahhhh I suddenly understand why some people thought racism was dead when Obama got elected. Well that's certainly a way to completely ignore what he's saying as opposed to you just making up a new strawman because your last one was impossible to attack
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:21 |
|
Was this posted? https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/18/how-donald-trump-will-retrofit-midtown-manhattan-as-a-presidential-getaway/ Pretty good story about the President-Elect and soon to be President plus all the different stuff that is going to need retrofitting his residence. Kind of neat from a like "Wow that is a lot of people and poo poo that gets done"
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:21 |
|
Now make one with the racism in the protectionist communist working class.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:21 |
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well that's certainly a way to completely ignore what he's saying as opposed to you just making up a new strawman because your last one was impossible to attack Well, you've convinced me that sexism no longer exists in American politics. I cannot wait to tell all my friends who think the exact opposite that they need not worry.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:22 |
|
icantfindaname posted:It proves that the average woman candidate's campaign isn't hurt by sexism. I guess you could argue that public image of Hillary is uniquely sexist, but I don't really buy that. And I'm not sure what any of the stuff about her winning more votes or the EC has anything to do with anything The average woman candidate isn't running for presiden. I'm wary of generalizing Sarah Palin's experience getting elected governor of Alaska to Hillary's campaign and concluding sexism had nothing to do with any of it.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:22 |
|
Boon posted:Well, you've convinced me that sexism no longer exists in American politics. I think I may have figured out your problem. You read posts in hyperbole somehow. The words just magically transform themselves as they go from the screen to your eyes. I mean, certainly you can't really think someone said that? Quick, retreat to google to find more lovely articles that don't agree with you (or read them first this time, my personal recommendation)
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:22 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Your own quote points out how there is likely sexism in politics that isn't been well documented by scientific research (which is a duh). The second half of that article is a giant cop out saying there's no measurable evidence for it, but it's still sexist that people dislike Hillary. If there's no evidence, IMO, it's entirely fair to dismiss the idea JeffersonClay posted:The average woman candidate isn't running for presiden. I'm wary of generalizing Sarah Palin's experience getting elected governor of Alaska to Hillary's campaign and concluding sexism had nothing to do with any of it. Do you accept that if sexism were a major influence in electoral politics, it would be empirically measurable?
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:24 |
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I think I may have figured out your problem. You read posts in hyperbole somehow. The words just magically transform themselves as they go from the screen to your eyes. I mean, certainly you can't really think someone said that? As opposed to the one article someone posted that "disproved" the idea (which the very title and further reading which I posted directly argues against) that people arguing sexism didn't affect Hillary in any way when it came to voting? Icantfindaname will argue, of course, but the very section he cites states that the sample is too small and a bunch of other reasons. How can anyone even say when no one in the US has ever voted for a female president before The reality is we're probably talking past each other since I've already stated that I agree with your ultimate conclusion that neither sexism nor racism are the reason but I strongly disagree with you that it is a reason Boon fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Nov 22, 2016 |
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:25 |
|
icantfindaname posted:Statistically speaking, it's not actually a thing in major elections My claim isn't that people didn't vote for Clinton because she's a woman; my claim is that sexism allowed people (men and women) to dismiss the hosed up, demonstrated, sexist beliefs of Trump when they went and voted for him.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:26 |
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I sure am glad people love to pointlessly conjecture about something that doesn't even have a data set that can be used to extract a meaningful conclusion from. If there are insufficient data to prove your point or the opposite of your point, the next step is to usually Do A Study instead of saying Maybe I'm Right. I will concede that it's possible for people to make conscious, self-interested and strictly rational decisions that are informed by sexism. The suggestion men of color who made a sexist choice were irrational was my attempt to shield them from that kind of indictment but I shouldn't have.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:26 |
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I sure am glad people love to pointlessly conjecture about something that doesn't even have a data set that can be used to extract a meaningful conclusion from. If there are insufficient data to prove your point or the opposite of your point, the next step is to usually Do A Study instead of saying Maybe I'm Right. Hill folk who are so against "sexism" they embrace racism. Never thought I'd see the day.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:26 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I will concede that it's possible for people to make conscious, self-interested and strictly rational decisions that are informed by sexism. The suggestion men of color who made a sexist choice were irrational was my attempt to shield them from that kind of indictment but I shouldn't have. And so, progress was made.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:27 |
|
icantfindaname posted:If the average is no handicap for sex that means for every Hillary who loses because she's a woman, there's somebody who wins because they're a woman. You keep say this and cite the 538 article, but the scientific article linked by 538 is actually far more nuanced: quote:A significant body of research has pointed to evidence that political gender stereotypes exist in the minds of voters, but we have had less evidence that these stereotypes matter amid the competing influences in an actual election environment. The analysis presented here confirms that stereotypes are related to abstract attitudes about women in political life but cautions us before we assume that these relationships exist in the same way in the real world. Indeed, the analysis of vote choice in House elections in 2010 sup- ports the hypothesis that gender stereotypes are not major forces but instead are, like many things, context-bound and episodic, appearing as significant in some races but not others. In addition, when stereotypes do have an impact, they are still not likely to override the importance of traditional political vari- ables such as party. This would suggest that women candidates have less to fear from voter-gender stereotypes than more. http://www.marioguerrero.info/425/readings/Dolan2014.pdf So yes, maybe I wouldn't use this research on US House races to extrapolate to the presidency with such confidence.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:27 |
|
Admiral Ray posted:My claim isn't that people didn't vote for Clinton because she's a woman; my claim is that sexism allowed people (men and women) to dismiss the hosed up, demonstrated, sexist beliefs of Trump when they went and voted for him. Okay, that's actually a reasonable claim. It's not the same claim as people don't like Hillary because sexism, though
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:27 |
|
Boon posted:As opposed to the one article someone posted that "disproved" the idea (which the very title and further reading which I posted directly argues against) that people arguing sexism didn't affect Hillary in any way when it came to voting? I haven't really seen a compelling argument for what someone who didn't vote for Hillary because of "sexism" even looks like. Beyond that, what does it even matter if she would have won with a penis? What does that do? Give you the green card to just blame Trump on "sexists" and ignore the economic poo poo we can actually do something about?
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:27 |
|
icantfindaname posted:The second half of that article is a giant cop out saying there's no measurable evidence for it, but it's still sexist that people dislike Hillary. If there's no evidence, IMO, it's entirely fair to dismiss the idea You're completely wrong that there is no measurable evidence at all of sexism in American elections. quote:Indeed, scholars have produced an impressive body of research that con- firms that voters look at women candidates and women officeholders from a gendered perspective, ascribing certain stereotyped issue position competen- cies and personality characteristics to them. Women candidates and office- holders are generally viewed as more compassionate and honest than men, warmer and more expressive, and better able to deal with constituents such as citizens groups than men. Men are viewed as more competent, decisive, stronger leaders, and possessing a greater ability to handle a crisis (Alexander & Andersen, 1993; Burrell, 2008; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993b; Kahn, 1996; King & Matland, 2003; Lawless, 2004; Leeper, 1991; Paul & Smith, 2008; Sapiro, 1981/1982). Trait stereotypes are relevant because several studies have found that people evaluate the stereotyped masculine traits (experience, leadership) as more important in politics than the feminine traits (honesty, compassion), particularly as the level of elected office being considered rises from the local to the national level (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993a; Lawless, 2004; Rosenwasser & Dean, 1989).
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:30 |
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I haven't really seen a compelling argument for what someone who didn't vote for Hillary because of "sexism" even looks like. I don't even think you're reading my very short posts fully, so... maybe I should start with how we agree and then go into how we disagree.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:30 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:You keep say this and cite the 538 article, but the scientific article linked by 538 is actually far more nuanced: Saying the normal rules don't apply to Hillary in particular and this race in particular puts you back at square one, saying that Hillary attracts a special, unique kind of sexism not comparable to any other. Which is inherently impossible to prove. I think people didn't like Hillary because her public image at least was deeply unlikable. Maybe sexism prevented her from having the charisma of a successful candidate, but a dude who acted the same way as her would be similarly disliked. See other noted smug, boring technocrats Al Gore and John Kerry
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:31 |
|
icantfindaname posted:The second half of that article is a giant cop out saying there's no measurable evidence for it, but it's still sexist that people dislike Hillary. If there's no evidence, IMO, it's entirely fair to dismiss the idea quote:Do you accept that if sexism were a major influence in electoral politics, it would be empirically measurable? Yes. I am also confident the current state of empirical evidence does not rule out the suggestion that sexism may have influenced the last presidential election.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:32 |
|
Boon posted:I don't even think you're reading my very short posts fully, so... maybe I should start with how we agree and then go into how we disagree. Dude it's really easy, don't post things like this: quote:That said, someone, maybe even you, basically implied upthread that black men couldn't be sexist Without being really loving sure of what you're saying, because that wasn't what was implied
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:33 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I will concede that it's possible for people to make conscious, self-interested and strictly rational decisions that are informed by sexism. The suggestion men of color who made a sexist choice were irrational was my attempt to shield them from that kind of indictment but I shouldn't have. The fact that you were willing to weaken your own argument just to protect black men is the most noble goddamn thing I've ever heard. It's a shame that soldiers get medals but not brave people like you
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:34 |
|
icantfindaname posted:Saying the normal rules don't apply to Hillary in particular and this race in particular puts you back at square one, saying that Hillary attracts a special, unique kind of sexism not comparable to any other. Which is inherently impossible to prove. I think people didn't like Hillary because her public image at least was deeply unlikable. Maybe sexism prevented her from having the charisma of a successful candidate, but a dude who acted the same way as her would be similarly disliked. See other noted smug, boring technocrats Al Gore and John Kerry First bolded: The rules are different - it's the presidency and there is zero evidence for something like this - no one is objecting that they are right beyond a shadow of a doubt, they're objecting that your position is equally unknown, which you've presented as somehow known Second bolded: Bodies of research on sexism discuss exactly this. Boon fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Nov 22, 2016 |
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:34 |
|
icantfindaname posted:Saying the normal rules don't apply to Hillary in particular and this race in particular puts you back at square one, saying that Hillary attracts a special, unique kind of sexism not comparable to any other. Which is inherently impossible to prove. I think people didn't like Hillary because her public image at least was deeply unlikable. Maybe sexism prevented her from having the charisma of a successful candidate, but a dude who acted the same way as her would be similarly disliked. See other noted smug, boring technocrats Al Gore and John Kerry No I'm saying, as the article you cited cited, women face variable influences of sexism in their election. Clinton can have faced more sexism than House candidates in 2010 without it being some "special snowflake" defense.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:34 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're completely wrong that there is no measurable evidence at all of sexism in American elections. I don't think Hillary's problem was that she was seen as too squishy and compassionate
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:34 |
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:And so, progress was made. Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist. Or did you miss the point of that exchange?
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:35 |
|
icantfindaname posted:
Maybe the science isn't so cut and dry as you're pretending it is! Remember, this isn your own evidence you're taking pot shots at.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:35 |
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The fact that you were willing to weaken your own argument just to protect black men is the most noble goddamn thing I've ever heard. It's a shame that soldiers get medals but not brave people like you It doesn't weaken my argument, it strengthens it. The big words may have confused you.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:35 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist. My god the straw men, they just keep coming Like is it so hard to just respond to the posts as written?
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:35 |
|
You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:36 |
|
Trump killing TPP puts him ahead of the Abuela
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:36 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist. Oh my good loving lord Jesus save me from the people in this thread. I should have just toxxed for loser abuela, gotten banned, and still have kept my sanity. Instead I'm arguing with a racist about how much those sexist black men should have voted for Hillary for their own drat interests God loving help me
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:37 |
|
Business Gorillas posted:You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues No poo poo.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:37 |
|
shrike82 posted:Trump killing TPP puts him ahead of the Abuela Jeff Sessions disagrees but what ever.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:37 |
|
shrike82 posted:Trump killing TPP puts him ahead of the Abuela TPP is actually good and it's a shame that it's not happening.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:38 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist. I was going to leave it alone since you made it halfway, but now I'm not. The problem is that you think that PoC votes may or may not be driven by a rational/irrational sexism. You still can't cope with the fact that maybe a PoC didn't vote Hillary or maybe a PoC even voted Trump completely independently of some argument of sexism. Here's an example: If some Christian White Person can go vote for Trump in spite of his racism and say "Well that's just political talk", why can't some Christian Black Person do the same? Quit stereotyping. Please.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:38 |
|
Business Gorillas posted:You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues Have you considered that confirmation bias is a thing?
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:38 |
|
Business Gorillas posted:You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues That's sexist. You're sexist.
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:38 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:02 |
|
I mean yeah some people voted against Hillary's ladyparts but people are flirting with saying SHE LOST BECAUSE OF THE BIGOTS which isn't true For that matter I don't understand how doing the equivalent of pointing and screaming SEXIST is supposed to be helpful (it's because "raising awareness is a bullshit concept made to try and shame people and make liberals feel like they're fighting the good fight without doing anything)
|
# ? Nov 22, 2016 06:39 |