Don't want to admit some tabloid crap has deep social meaning? You're talking about a celebrity's hair for the love of god.
As for the second example, I do dimly remember you bringing up the point but back-tracking from this post doesnt bring it up. If I remember correctly I didn't acknowledge it because I wasn't familiar enough with what you were talking about and you didn't really provide a link or anything meanwhile with your celebrity gossip I felt I had enough content to comment on.
As for your examples, by Tim Hunts own words he wasn't "taken out of context", he says it was a joke. NASA shirt guy? Wearing a shirt like that during a business interview is massively unprofessional in any context. Who gave him the shirt is irrelevant. As for Trump, you completely miss the point of why people were bothered. It's not that he insulted a woman in a neutral way. He didn't call any women a shit head or anything. It's that he sought to undermine them based on things like them supposedly being on their period rather then address what they were saying. If that's not sexist then nothing is.
I've only once in my life felt I was shafted because of my gender (oh no, poor me!) and I've never been asked to check my privilege or even had it implied.
As for affirmative action in favor of women, I don't really see this. I've seen if for ethnic groups, sure, but women? Not really,
And please tell me, how have they been "damaging society for decades now".
When has the "whole" ever agreed to anything? Human history has been nothing but competing interests. Society is either lined up by authoritarianism or adopts a system of compromise which is what a Republic is. Furthermore, pursuing a goal is how you accomplish something. Just because you're pursuing it doesn't mean you're "grabbing everything you can for yourself".
Also, I like how you've taken the "high road" now after pursuing nonsense semantics as a means of undermining my point. I only started insulting you when you got annoying and started getting overly literal with my language rather than address anything I was saying. I even reworded the sentence you has an issue with and you kept talking semantics rather than the topic at hand.
My story was once removed, albeit clumsily described. I was describing my friends experience with another person. I'm sure you feel very clever with your lengthy nonsense though. I'm sure you even felt terribly clever with the rest too. "What's a "far left"? Is that three rights?" ROTFLOL!!!!!!!
Oh man, if you're this good on the internet I bet you're just amazing in real life.
Gun sales were up because of Right wing propaganda that the Left was going to "take our guns". Please note that not a single piece of legislation proposed by the Democratic party mainstream during the Obama years sought to disarm law abiding Americans. Meanwhile Right wing talking heads have been screaming that Liberals were trying to ban all guns for the last 8 years.
Shit, Bernie Sanders, the most Liberal of serious US contenders for the US presidency since forever, had a very clear stance against radical gun control.
As for economic growth, we've already have a number of years of very significant economic growth as measured by either job growth, stock market growth, or most recently, wage growth. It pisses me off that Trump is likely to try to take credit for an economy that was growing quite nicely prior to his coming to office.
Chelsea? Well since Clinton won the presidency and is putting her daughter in charge of....
Wait a second, what you're saying is literal fiction. What's real life is Trump's kids are going to be running his company and that is NOT a blind trust.
"More shale production - vast reduction in CO2. We are doing our part, how about your nation?"
What about Trumps promises on bringing back coal?
"Two regulations have to be removed for every new one created - while you strangle as regulations pile up."
What a dumb policy. As if "regulations" are inherently bad. The idiot Right seems to have this bizarre thing with "regulations" like the idiot Left has a thing against "chemicals". Just because it's a "regulation" doesnt make it bad and just because it's a "chemical" doesnt make it bad.
"Ethics reform - five year ban on administration officials becoming lobbyists, can never lobby for foreign nations. I wonder how cozy corporations are to YOUR government..."
Incredibly noble goal. Likelihood of actually pursuing given cabinet nominees and republican political backing which has never shown an interest in this? Around zero.
"Investigation of visa program abuses (read: companies bringing in lots of foreign programmers and then severely underpaying them as they hold the green card over them). Energy grid to be hardened against attacks. As your countries power grid fails over the coming decade you can think back on this as you are sitting in the cold with a flashlight..."
Pretty sure most candidates were advocating for these things.
"The funny thing is many of these items (like TPP being cancelled, or visa abuse) were once darlings of the Slashdot liberals. But now that Trump supports them... well I guess they decided fascism is better than Trump? Oh well."
The funny thing is Bernie was once the darling of the slashdot liberals and he was definitely not in favor of the TPP. The TPP was favored by moderates on both sides though. In this case you're just making something up to serve an anti liberal point.
So you're saying that people shouldn't advocate for their own interests in a Republic? Is that really what you're saying? If so that's the stupidest thing I've heard in quite a long time.
Of course compromise is part of republican governance but how does anything happening if people don't pursue interests? "Sure, I believe in lower taxes but pursuing personal interests is wrong so I'll just sit here" "Sure, I believe in higher taxes but that's pursuing personal interests so I'll just sit here". What do you think government is? Sitting around waiting until everyone in the room comes up with the same idea?
Yeah, us white males are in a living in hell right now because of feminist, arent we?
Wait, I'm certainly not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that there's some great culture war drama queen nonsense happening on the internet every day that basically amounts to people pointing to the worst of any movement and choosing to get outraged by it by claiming it's the norm. I'm sure this outrage make these people feel terribly important and that's great but don't expect me to care.
Two categories of people who don't matter at all in the world but matter terribly in certain online contexts: Radical feminists and those who want to claim all feminism is evil and oppressive to men because of the actions of a few idiots.
Heh, I started to reply before I realized who I was replying to in that next post, then said "aw, fuck it" and kept going. What can I say? I'm a glutton for punishment
As for content, I wasn't stating that I hadn't heard about the event you describe as a means of refuting it. By "not real news" I mean it's stupid twitter crap of no real societal importance. It doesnt matter in any context. It's not real news. I don't refute it happened
As stated before there's always a category of person looking to be outraged by something. Take your self for instance. You're at the same dumb outrage party that the people who complained about her are. Just because they do so in the name of feminism doesnt make it mainstream. Likewise I don't take you seriously either. That's why I don't go to websites that report on such garbage. It's for drama queens who want drama and something to be upset about. Who even reads about what celebrities say in their personal lives?
Again, I feel like you're getting too much news from alt right sources (and tabloids apperently too). I have zero awareness of those events because they're just not real news.
I'm sure some idiot feminists, who are just as eager to find a culture war under every stone as you seem to be, jumped on her over the cooking comment but there are idiots who take their ideology too far in any given group. Is the Tea Party rascist because a few idiots show up at their rallys with rascist Obama banners? Does that make the Tea party ideology rascist? No, it makes those individuals rascist.
I dont think I'm going to disuade you from your victim hood here so I'm done. Hopefully you'll find some way to survive the living hell feminists are making for you
It would positive for the group i was discussing which I feel most people would have gotten given that English, like most human language, is contextual sometimes. If you want to nit pick and be overly literally that's fine, I'll play your silly game but you've done nothing to refute my points.
I think the real problem is that people are increasingly looking for news sources that reinforce what they want to hear rather than what is actually going on so that everyone can pretend to be a victim. Listen to the alt-right groups long enough and you'd think white males were being forced to drink out of different water fountains then everyone else while we are still clearly doing very well for ourselves. Likewise the far Left whines about any perceived injustice in society they can find (or think they've found). A close friend of mine's co-workers wife just recently scolded him for saying they should "go straight" at an intersection because it was offensive to gays.
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you? That was pretty much the answer but here goes number 2.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal. Maybe not. I'm not peddling easy answers so there is no easy answer to your question because that's just not how the world works. The real world requires compromise to work properly most of the time. Debate over what compromises need to be made is right and proper but demonizing a term like "feminism" because you want to eliminate the language of the opposition is Orwellian in the worst way.
Of course they can change over time but I don't think it's a good idea to let people redefine terms just because they disagree with the core tenements. What is happening with the term "feminist" is much the same that has been happening with the terms "socialist" or "liberal". There has been an intentional movement among American conservatives to re-brand any terms that conflict with their ideology in a negative context so that rather than try to compete with these ideas in an ideological context they just remove the means for people to accurately express them thus limiting the ability of the opposing ideologies to discuss their ideas.
Very few people in this country are against equal rights for women as a concept but throw the term "feminism" around nowadays and people try to make it sound like it's bad. Likewise, no one on the Left in this country attempts to demonize the term conservative the way "socialism" has been made to be almost a bad word in the context of politics.
What amounts to equality can be messy as real life is shades of grey rather than black and white. Just because messiness is involved in regards to what needs to be "fixed" and what doesnt, doesnt mean the overall goal is not noble or not worth pursuing.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't want to admit some tabloid crap has deep social meaning? You're talking about a celebrity's hair for the love of god.
As for the second example, I do dimly remember you bringing up the point but back-tracking from this post doesnt bring it up. If I remember correctly I didn't acknowledge it because I wasn't familiar enough with what you were talking about and you didn't really provide a link or anything meanwhile with your celebrity gossip I felt I had enough content to comment on.
As for your examples, by Tim Hunts own words he wasn't "taken out of context", he says it was a joke. NASA shirt guy? Wearing a shirt like that during a business interview is massively unprofessional in any context. Who gave him the shirt is irrelevant. As for Trump, you completely miss the point of why people were bothered. It's not that he insulted a woman in a neutral way. He didn't call any women a shit head or anything. It's that he sought to undermine them based on things like them supposedly being on their period rather then address what they were saying. If that's not sexist then nothing is.
I've only once in my life felt I was shafted because of my gender (oh no, poor me!) and I've never been asked to check my privilege or even had it implied.
As for affirmative action in favor of women, I don't really see this. I've seen if for ethnic groups, sure, but women? Not really,
And please tell me, how have they been "damaging society for decades now".
When has the "whole" ever agreed to anything? Human history has been nothing but competing interests. Society is either lined up by authoritarianism or adopts a system of compromise which is what a Republic is. Furthermore, pursuing a goal is how you accomplish something. Just because you're pursuing it doesn't mean you're "grabbing everything you can for yourself".
Also, I like how you've taken the "high road" now after pursuing nonsense semantics as a means of undermining my point. I only started insulting you when you got annoying and started getting overly literal with my language rather than address anything I was saying. I even reworded the sentence you has an issue with and you kept talking semantics rather than the topic at hand.
My story was once removed, albeit clumsily described. I was describing my friends experience with another person. I'm sure you feel very clever with your lengthy nonsense though. I'm sure you even felt terribly clever with the rest too. "What's a "far left"? Is that three rights?" ROTFLOL!!!!!!!
Oh man, if you're this good on the internet I bet you're just amazing in real life.
Not at all. I've since met the women and she's quite the interesting character.
Gun sales were up because of Right wing propaganda that the Left was going to "take our guns". Please note that not a single piece of legislation proposed by the Democratic party mainstream during the Obama years sought to disarm law abiding Americans. Meanwhile Right wing talking heads have been screaming that Liberals were trying to ban all guns for the last 8 years.
Shit, Bernie Sanders, the most Liberal of serious US contenders for the US presidency since forever, had a very clear stance against radical gun control.
As for economic growth, we've already have a number of years of very significant economic growth as measured by either job growth, stock market growth, or most recently, wage growth. It pisses me off that Trump is likely to try to take credit for an economy that was growing quite nicely prior to his coming to office.
Chelsea? Well since Clinton won the presidency and is putting her daughter in charge of....
Wait a second, what you're saying is literal fiction. What's real life is Trump's kids are going to be running his company and that is NOT a blind trust.
"More shale production - vast reduction in CO2. We are doing our part, how about your nation?"
What about Trumps promises on bringing back coal?
"Two regulations have to be removed for every new one created - while you strangle as regulations pile up."
What a dumb policy. As if "regulations" are inherently bad. The idiot Right seems to have this bizarre thing with "regulations" like the idiot Left has a thing against "chemicals". Just because it's a "regulation" doesnt make it bad and just because it's a "chemical" doesnt make it bad.
"Ethics reform - five year ban on administration officials becoming lobbyists, can never lobby for foreign nations. I wonder how cozy corporations are to YOUR government..."
Incredibly noble goal. Likelihood of actually pursuing given cabinet nominees and republican political backing which has never shown an interest in this? Around zero.
"Investigation of visa program abuses (read: companies bringing in lots of foreign programmers and then severely underpaying them as they hold the green card over them). Energy grid to be hardened against attacks. As your countries power grid fails over the coming decade you can think back on this as you are sitting in the cold with a flashlight..."
Pretty sure most candidates were advocating for these things.
"The funny thing is many of these items (like TPP being cancelled, or visa abuse) were once darlings of the Slashdot liberals. But now that Trump supports them... well I guess they decided fascism is better than Trump? Oh well."
The funny thing is Bernie was once the darling of the slashdot liberals and he was definitely not in favor of the TPP. The TPP was favored by moderates on both sides though. In this case you're just making something up to serve an anti liberal point.
aaaand if you actually read what I said you'd know I didn't say it was a good idea.
So you're saying that people shouldn't advocate for their own interests in a Republic? Is that really what you're saying? If so that's the stupidest thing I've heard in quite a long time.
Of course compromise is part of republican governance but how does anything happening if people don't pursue interests? "Sure, I believe in lower taxes but pursuing personal interests is wrong so I'll just sit here" "Sure, I believe in higher taxes but that's pursuing personal interests so I'll just sit here". What do you think government is? Sitting around waiting until everyone in the room comes up with the same idea?
Hey look at you, you contributed to the conversation (well not really but you don't know that)
*pat on the head* You're special.
Yeah, us white males are in a living in hell right now because of feminist, arent we?
Wait, I'm certainly not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that there's some great culture war drama queen nonsense happening on the internet every day that basically amounts to people pointing to the worst of any movement and choosing to get outraged by it by claiming it's the norm. I'm sure this outrage make these people feel terribly important and that's great but don't expect me to care.
Two categories of people who don't matter at all in the world but matter terribly in certain online contexts: Radical feminists and those who want to claim all feminism is evil and oppressive to men because of the actions of a few idiots.
So "Women's interests" can't be equality? Sure seems like that would be in their interests.
Heh, I started to reply before I realized who I was replying to in that next post, then said "aw, fuck it" and kept going. What can I say? I'm a glutton for punishment
As for content, I wasn't stating that I hadn't heard about the event you describe as a means of refuting it. By "not real news" I mean it's stupid twitter crap of no real societal importance. It doesnt matter in any context. It's not real news. I don't refute it happened
As stated before there's always a category of person looking to be outraged by something. Take your self for instance. You're at the same dumb outrage party that the people who complained about her are. Just because they do so in the name of feminism doesnt make it mainstream. Likewise I don't take you seriously either. That's why I don't go to websites that report on such garbage. It's for drama queens who want drama and something to be upset about. Who even reads about what celebrities say in their personal lives?
Again, I feel like you're getting too much news from alt right sources (and tabloids apperently too). I have zero awareness of those events because they're just not real news.
I'm sure some idiot feminists, who are just as eager to find a culture war under every stone as you seem to be, jumped on her over the cooking comment but there are idiots who take their ideology too far in any given group. Is the Tea Party rascist because a few idiots show up at their rallys with rascist Obama banners? Does that make the Tea party ideology rascist? No, it makes those individuals rascist.
I dont think I'm going to disuade you from your victim hood here so I'm done. Hopefully you'll find some way to survive the living hell feminists are making for you
It would positive for the group i was discussing which I feel most people would have gotten given that English, like most human language, is contextual sometimes. If you want to nit pick and be overly literally that's fine, I'll play your silly game but you've done nothing to refute my points.
You're picking quotes to make it sound like I'm pushing an agenda i go out of the way to say I'm not then getting outraged about it.
You've got a real victim's mentality going here. Maybe stop reading alt-right news sources that tell you, you are and live in the real world.
I couldn't disagree more
I think the real problem is that people are increasingly looking for news sources that reinforce what they want to hear rather than what is actually going on so that everyone can pretend to be a victim. Listen to the alt-right groups long enough and you'd think white males were being forced to drink out of different water fountains then everyone else while we are still clearly doing very well for ourselves. Likewise the far Left whines about any perceived injustice in society they can find (or think they've found). A close friend of mine's co-workers wife just recently scolded him for saying they should "go straight" at an intersection because it was offensive to gays.
*roll my eyes*
Fine captain language, how about "Should a group that feels disadvantaged not advocate for change towards their goal of equity?"
Means the exact same thing in common parlance but satisfies your linguistic issues.
Wow, that's not my experience at all. I feel like you get too much of your news from news sources that want you to feel like a victim.
Wow, you completely glossed over my "the world is shades of grey not black and white" comment didn't you? That was pretty much the answer but here goes number 2.
Do we want more role models in a given category of person in order to inspire more participation by that category? Maybe we need to fudge the numbers a bit then in the name of a good goal. Maybe not. I'm not peddling easy answers so there is no easy answer to your question because that's just not how the world works. The real world requires compromise to work properly most of the time. Debate over what compromises need to be made is right and proper but demonizing a term like "feminism" because you want to eliminate the language of the opposition is Orwellian in the worst way.
Of course they can change over time but I don't think it's a good idea to let people redefine terms just because they disagree with the core tenements. What is happening with the term "feminist" is much the same that has been happening with the terms "socialist" or "liberal". There has been an intentional movement among American conservatives to re-brand any terms that conflict with their ideology in a negative context so that rather than try to compete with these ideas in an ideological context they just remove the means for people to accurately express them thus limiting the ability of the opposing ideologies to discuss their ideas.
Very few people in this country are against equal rights for women as a concept but throw the term "feminism" around nowadays and people try to make it sound like it's bad. Likewise, no one on the Left in this country attempts to demonize the term conservative the way "socialism" has been made to be almost a bad word in the context of politics.
I disagree. I think the second part is strictly just pointing to the advocacy movement seeking the first. That's why it's the secondary definition.
Should a group that feels disadvantaged not advocate for positive change? That notion seems completely contrary to what a Republic should be about.
What amounts to equality can be messy as real life is shades of grey rather than black and white. Just because messiness is involved in regards to what needs to be "fixed" and what doesnt, doesnt mean the overall goal is not noble or not worth pursuing.