You may believe that, but that doesn’t mean that you always come across direct and straightforward.
I see iiandyiiii as always writing directly and straightforwardly as well.
If you believe that that the world is black and white, and that you can pigeonhole all answers into a binary proposition, then I think I may have found your problem.
Oh?
Maybe you two are disagreeing on the “reasonable” meaning of “largely”? As far as the rest of the thread:
Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village” was published in '96, right smack dab in the middle of Clinton’s time as First Lady. So I guess you do care about her policy positions as First Lady.
(And the answer to the OP, as has already been pointed out, is that there has been a multi-decade smear campaign against Clinton, such that people know that she is corrupt without really knowing why, and such that typical or mundane activity is viewed as proof of her derangement)
Thank you. This is the type of thing I was wondering about when I posted the OP. Whether it’s mostly true or not seems not to be the issue. But even if it is, the hate directed toward her for so long and with such fanaticism, for behaviours that aren’t particularly rare among powerful people, seems exceptional. The consensus here (with some exceptions) is that it’s mostly because she’s an ‘unlikeable’ woman who also committed the sin of being a possible, and then actual, Democratic presidential candidate.
You seem to have misunderstood. The act of taking policy positions I don’t care about. I care about what those specific policy positions are. This is in response to the idea expressed in this thread guessing that people felt the First Lady shouldn’t participate in a leadership role. If the person advances agreeable ideas, it doesn’t matter from where they come.
I use that word in an effort to try and determine our “starting points” – i.e. “this seems reasonable to me – if it’s also reasonable to you, then we can move from this starting point. If not, then let’s determine your starting point so we can try and drill down to the point of fundamental disagreement.”
IIRC this has worked many times, both with you and other posters, to determine the fundamental point of disagreement. It’s meant as a way to try and further the debate, not to end it.
In this particular example, I’m trying to focus on the Rush Limbaugh-style vitriol against HC. Based on the language he uses, it comes across to me as extremely misogynistic. And in my understanding, Limbaugh (and others like him) are very influential with the conservative “rank and file”. These are general statements – it’s almost impossible to get hard data on phenomena like misogyny relating to views on a public figure. Of course it is possible to see listener numbers for Limbaugh and others like him, and I think those numbers support my statements (but I don’t have links handy). Do you disagree with these general statements? If so, which part? We can have further discussion on the points you disagree with, or the points you think need more focus or clarification.
This is an interesting point that’s been present in many similar sort of discussions – how do we calibrate the perfect level of sensitivity for forms of bigotry like misogyny and racism? It will never be perfect, but is it worse to occasionally miss/ignore instances (and accusations) of bigotry, or occasionally overstate instances and accusations of bigotry? IMO, because bigotry is so incredibly common and powerful in our society, the latter is preferable in the present moment – fighting bigotry is so important that it’s better to catch every instance (which we’re still not doing, IMO) than be sure to avoid the occasional overstatement.
Talking past each other is a very common problem on the Dope. I’ve probably been guilty of it at times. And I’m not a perfect communicator, and sometimes my message is misunderstood.
Your response so far has been mostly serious, and I appreciate that. As for trigger warnings, they can indeed sometimes be “fucking bullshit”, but I know some trauma victims who are greatly appreciate when they avoid triggering content – and since they cost nothing to exercise, I don’t think they ought to be thrown out entirely when it comes to certain triggers (i.e. the kinds of things that victims of trauma can find re-traumatizing).
Things are very rarely so simple, IMO. Perhaps I sometimes don’t go into enough detail on the complexity of how I see an issue. In such instances, please let me know, if you’re interested in further discussion. I am happy to try and provide further explanation of how I feel about something.
Thank you for the substantive criticism! Criticism of this kind is very important to improving one’s self, and I really do want to be a better poster. Hopefully we can move forward in a spirit of friendship (golly gee! ;)) and have more productive and satisfying discussions going forward.
The title of the thread is “Hate…” not “Dislike…”. But I could have explained myself better, and made it clear that I was speaking of the sort of vitriol found online and from right-wing infotainers like Limbaugh, which I believe is widespread and explains a large amount of the “hate” directed at Hillary (but not necessarily the “dislike”).
Thank you for probing questions and substantive criticism.
I never said anything about reasoned discussion. I talked about one specific poster’s use of the word “reasonable” to describe their own position. Hope that clarifies.
At a certain point, something simply is.
Asking why people hate Hillary Clinton is like asking why people hate spiders; they just do. It doesn’t matter if the spiders are harmless, or eat several hundred million tons of harmful insect pests a year, or are beneficial to the ecosystem, or whatever; etc.
You haven’t yet responded to the post in which I try to clarify how and why I use “reasonable”.
Thank you for the kind words!
Here is Bookers list:*Keep guns out of the wrong hands with gun licensing:
…
Here’s how it would work: Individuals could seek a gun license at a designated local office, widely available in urban and rural areas, similar to applying for or renewing a passport. They would submit fingerprints, provide basic background information, and demonstrate completion of a certified gun safety course.
Bring real regulation and oversight to gun manufacturers:…
End legal immunity that prevents victims of gun violence from seeking justice:While civil liability can be applied to sellers and manufacturers of nearly every product, as a result of a 2005 law the gun industry is immune from nearly all lawsuits. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) allows the gun industry to ignore public safety implications of the misuse of their products, such as gun trafficking.
Cory will fight to end gun industry immunity by repealing PLCAA and allow victims of gun violence to have their day in court when a gun dealer or manufacturer has acted negligently.
Require handgun microstamping:…
Close the “Boyfriend Loophole”:…
Ensure a background check on every gun sale by closing the loophole on guns show and online sales and the so-called “Charleston Loophole”:…
Ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks:Provide dedicated funding for research on gun violence as a public health issue:…
Modernize and strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF):…
Support extreme risk prevention order laws:…
Limit gun buyers to one handgun per month:…
Require firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms:…
Ramp up funding for community-based violence intervention programs:…
Increase trauma support for survivors and communities impacted by gun violence:
Call on the IRS to conduct an investigation into the NRA’s tax status:…
Finally, beginning on Day One in office, Cory will take executive action to build on ongoing efforts and take concrete steps forward — closing dangerous loopholes in gun sales, cracking down on unscrupulous dealers and gun manufacturers, and investing in communities impacted by gun violence."*
THAT I consider “vehement”. Compared to the rest of the Dem candidates, Hillary was “moderate”. Mind you i disagree with her ideas, but still…
No, I explained clearly, Hillary is hated due to a concentrated propaganda campaign by the GOP and the Kremlin.
True, she is a Democrat, and a Woman, and someone with strong beliefs. All of those would cause many on the GOP side to dislike her, no doubt. Fair enough.
The main reason Clinton lost was the FBI letter. Then the fake news campaign by the Kremlin, then her bad choice of where to campaign, and finally her policies.
So, I dont think her policies were critical.
The FBI letter wouldn’t have hurt her if it had not confirmed what we knew already - that she was arrogantly paranoid, and with the attitude that rules and subpoenas and campaigning were for lesser mortals - she was engaged in Important Business. And nobody really liked her, certainly not enough to overlook it, as they did with Bill’s whoring around.
Probably the most disastrous campaign promise that could have been chosen - “It’s Her Turn”. We don’t have quotas for the Presidency. Just because we elected a black guy doesn’t mean that next we are obligated to elect a woman, and next a gay person, and then a transgender, and then who knows what.
She lost to Donald Fucking Trump. Doesn’t that tell you anything?
Regards,
Shodan
That cutting off your nose to spite your face is more widespread than we thought, and that Republicans believe the ends justify the means.
Well, it didn’t produce proof of culpable wrongdoing. (Freakishly improbably commodity trading results and the mysterious disappearance and re-appearance of law firm records certainly can be considered evidence.)
But this discussion is about sources of anti-Hillary sentiment. The lack of proof does not equate to a lack of negative opinions.
So as others have said, the toll of 25 years of Republican lies and propaganda succeeded in building a false narrative about her in the public’s mind.
The consensus is that here on this solidly left leaning message board posters believe that criticism of Clinton is more than wrong, it requires some level of evil intent to be explained.
Not likening a major political figure is not only an issue with the right as one may have believed if they only read from this site. The left hated Nixon, and then Reagan, then Bush, and Bush again with similar vitriol.
This is just one of many “have you stopped beating your wife yet” threads that allow for the affirmation that the right is in the wrong. That’s your consensus.
Right - because no vitriol is ever directed at Trump.