|
Re: Churchill, Americans by and large like him because they just remember him positively from WW2. That's basically it, most Americans and American liberals don't know poo poo about him aside from that. It was a decent enough answer with that in mind
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:See, I have no problem accepting that "wait your turn" is going to sound a little more loaded towards a woman than a man, even if I totally think Bernie didn't mean anything sexist by it. But they are objectively wrong, is the thing. It was not Hillary's turn to speak, and debates are a fight for time as much as anything else. I'm all for taking this poo poo into account in most situations, but when the actual facts and context of the matter don't support the reaction in the least then no poo poo folks are going to have a hard time taking it seriously and little gut reactions shouldn't trump the actual reality of the situation - Hillary was trying to steamroll him, and Sanders put a stop to it in the same way he would have done to basically anyone. Also, frankly, a lot of folks remember the 2008 primaries, and a lot of what rubbed people the wrong way with HRC back then has reappeared this year. Hillary's pretty much allowed to smear the poo poo out of her opponent, and if they respond with anything other than the most demure reaction possible, the "sexist" label starts getting doled out. It's grating and largely disingenuous, with legitimate feelings being latched onto and co-opted to push a political narrative. Hell, this same poo poo happened with the last debate as well, with Sanders responding to yet another smear with an annoyed voice tone and folks were gnashing their loving teeth over it and telling him to watch his tone. It was ridiculous. I'd honestly be curious as to what a lot of Bernie's female supporters thought of it, without the lens of "he's attacking my candidate! and thus attacking me!" Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:No, they are wrong subject to your opinion. You can be objectively wrong but still react to a situation in an understandable manner. Do the objective facts around the situation support the reaction? Nope. Are there plenty of valid personal reasons, many related to history, that would still make those reactions understandable? Yup. It's a nuanced situation, one colored heavily by conflicting home team biases seeking to push or stop a narrative. Bass Bottles posted:Let's not pretend Hillary isn't constantly smeared for benign "mannerism" stuff, especially with regard to her gender. Claiming that she has the REAL privilege is some "all lives matter" BS. It's real lame that Hillary basically isn't allowed to show emotion, yeah. But getting mad when Bernie shows it is dumb. But what I'm referring to is also not really a matter of privilege - it's one of campaign tactics. And this has been a pretty consistent one for HRC's two presidential campaigns to the point that it's pretty transparent. I...don't recall saying anything about filler? - nvm, misread Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:You keep talking about these objective facts like they're in a peer-reviewed scientific journal somewhere, but my sense is that this whole thing is subjective. You cannot objectively show that Bernie was not motivated by sexism in the recesses of his brain. All men are sexist, whether we want to be or not. The best we can do is try to be self-aware enough to respond to this kind of criticism when we hear it. Learn from it and move on, as someone else said. This is exceptionally silly and a ridiculous loving bar to set. The fact of the matter is that no part of the actual context of the situation - again: Clinton smearing Sanders during her allotted time, him rebuking it during his time and then stopping her from taking over and dictating the remainder of that time as she attempted to do - points to sexism. There is 0 reason whatsoever to believe that Bernie would not have responded in the exact same way to, say, O'Malley using the same tactics, or that a woman trying to steamroll him is the straw that broke the camel's back, but that seems to be the implication at work. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Actually let me state this because I think I've done an exceptionally poor job communicating my view: The subjective analysis is not unimportant. Not in the least - it is very important, as you more or less noted. My general issue was this tendency to want to push the actual context of the situation - which is also important - to the wayside to give overall precedence to the subjective, which in turn leads to a lopsided narrative about a moment that can't do anything but look bad when full context has been devalued or expunged from the story altogether. It artificially restricts the potential reactions a person can have to it when they hear about it. Pretty much the best course of action for folks in the Bernie camp is to acknowledge the validity of why folks might feel the way they do about what happened while still pointing to the context in which it occurred as to why they personally don't agree.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I think it's because he brings up Wall Street EVERY 5 SECONDS. No matter how irrelevant it is, or what question he's asked, he'll take a hard turn halfway through and yell "WALL STREET" really loud!!! His "one" is about an issue that basically pervades and dominates every facet of the country in one way or another, though. It's what makes the criticism so empty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Someone will defend this, and it's going to be as beautiful as it is wretch-inducing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Odds on "They knew what they were getting into, it's part of the business" being a thing that is said?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Any respect I might have had for Bee pretty much got killed yesterday when I found out she and her husband fought to keep minorities out of her kids' school. She cares about the issues of affluent women and that's about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Steve Vader posted:You have a source for that? http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/2016/06/17/the_upper_west_side_is_new_york_s_latest_school_integration_battleground.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Jones was basically savvy enough to know that every reason for opposition was rooted in racism, classism, or both, and that they were better off just keeping their mouths shut when not in a more private atmosphere. He just wasn't savvy enough to know that anyone with sense would realize this after reading that advice
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 01:22
|
|