I have to agree.
I will also admit, in a mea culpa to the more conservative members of the board, that ElvisL1ves may actually have not changed at all, but rather that I may perceive it as a change because, prior to this primary season, I was usually in at least nominal agreement with his views and therefore either did not notice or noticed and did not care that he was so intellectually dishonest in his debating and arguments.
If that is so, my apologies to pretty much the entire right(-ish) wing contingent of this community. If I had noticed him before, I had as much obligation to call him out on his debate technique when I agree with his basic premise as I do when I disagree with it. Mea maxima culpa.
Well, he’s always been dismissive of viewpoints he disagrees with. Now with so many more people here to oppose, he’s become more unpleasant about it.
So yeah, there has been a change.
Naw, Elvis hasn’t changed. He exhibits the same behavior here as he did in my gun-rights thread discussions with him, insisting that Miller, say, says things that, well… it doesn’t, then refusing to actually discuss the matter when called on it.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Let me ask this: Is there any outfit a woman can wear to an office or to address a crowd of her own supporters that does not send a statement that you, personally, do not interpret as, “I’m not a woman first”?
Oh sure. There is a long history of journalists calling Black candidates “that sunglasses-wearing dude”, but never referring to white candidates as “that sunglasses-wearing dude.” (Of course, you example presumes that the candidates are “dudes” and not females.) :rolleyes: But that’s the way it always is.
No, you example just doesn’t have the history and the cliches and the video tapes stacked high to back it up. *That’s why we are still talking about what Hillary wears and not what McCain wears or what Obama wears.) Oh, look! She’s a girl!!!) Get over it!
Tell me all about nuances of meaning and how it’s changed in thirty years:
Liberal’s “nuances” in this post
Maybe it was too subtle for you.
let me introduce myself -I’m the founding member of the ‘liberal but not a fucking lunatic’ society. We are meeting more often these days, but always serve up a nice assortment of wine, cheese and assorted canapes. I’ll put you on the invite list if you like.
If you can ever come up with an actual argument, with actual facts behind it, instead of your incessant “simple gainsaying of everything the other person has to say”, I’ll be happy to get into it with you. Some good faith on your part is required first, though.
Mr. Moto, it’s not being dismissive of “other” viewpoints, it’s being dismissive of *unsupported * viewpoints. That is absolutely necessary. I do understand why you’d be annoyed at having your own exposed so often, though, but the solution to that problem is under your control.
jayjay, I was referring to Red’s behavior, not his viewpoints. Not that that distinction has a chance of getting through to someone capable of attributing both racism and Nazism to Clinton supporters, then going off in a huff when asked about it. Hmmmm?
Look, an argument isn’t just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Then try it sometime, putz.
No, it isn’t.
Absolutely, if I’m following your double-negatives. A man, for example, could wear an open shirt exposing chest-hair, on which was emblazoned some tacky comment about his Johnson, and it would send a statement that “I, personally” (thanks for pretending this is some idiosyncratic observation on my part–subtle way to try to win the argument!) would interpret as “I’m a man first.” A woman could wear a revealing club dress to communicate that she is a woman first.
We must be talking at cross purposes. I’m not clear where you’re coming from. It seems to me that I’m pointing out the blatantly obvious: that most people choose clothes in order to make a statement about who they are, that politicians certainly do this, and that female politicians, by virtue of the sexism inherent in the field, tend to choose clothes that send a message suggesting that they should be viewed primarily as a politician, not primarily as a woman, when working in the field of politics. What part of this idea isn’t blatantly obvious?
Zoe, you’re a self-satisfied creep who reads to confirm her own biases and not to understand new ideas, and your rolling eyes are pathetic and obnoxious. You’re not worth my time, so please fuck off.
Daniel
I choose clothes based on how well they fit, how well they do their job (work, exercise, etc.) and how well constructed they are. It would never occur to me to buy clothes in order to make a statement about who I am.
I suppose if I did, I would wear harlequin and sackcloth on alternate days.
Folks like you are why I said “most people.” Even so, if you work in any but the most informal environments, you probably choose work clothes based on a message they send that you’re a professional at your job.
Daniel
I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
I guess the part that wasn’t blatantly obvious is why you interpret dressing appropriately as “making a statement” by “making a point of wearing” appropriate dress.
Interesting, after this back-and-forth, it turns out that the point you were making was a point that didn’t need to be made at all, which is that professionals dress appropriately to be taken seriously. I have no idea how this turned into an argument, since you and I obviously are in complete agreement.
No, it’s the BBQ Pit. Grow a pair, or don’t post.
Well, I guess I would add that a professional skirt doesn’t make the statement that one should be regarded as a professional first. Sure, a woman wearing a business suit with a skirt ought to be treated as a professional first–but it’s also a garment type worn exclusively by women, and I don’t think society in general interprets it as making quite as much of a statement to that effect.
The reason we had an argument, I think, is because I don’t see “pantsuit” when used as shorthand for a particular woman’s desire to be treated as a professional to be necessarily a derogatory term. Zoe was being an ass about that to Philosophr, I called her on it, and you called me on my calling her on it. As I said, I think my point is obvious, and only needed to be made because of a certain poster’s obtuse self-righteousness.
Daniel
WHOOOSHHHH! Outta the park!
Double whoosh, actually.
Dear Phil:
I was a Hillary supporter. I’m now an Obama supporter.
I’ve never been a fan of Hillary haters (to understate the issue), and I’m not fond of Obamaniacs, who seem to demand that we accept their despicable view of our candidate and worship their candidate as a messiah, rather than support him as our political standard bearer. Both are human beings, quite intelligent and imperfect.
Many Obama supporters imagined racial slights by Hillary where none existed. Many Hillary supporters imagined sexist slights where none existed. I’ve followed politics for four decades, and the H and the O treated each other with incredible civility, not even under the circumstances. (Recall Bush and McCain in 2000. That was nasty, and Bush permanently made McCain his bitch.)
The corporate controllers of the US are not going to allow the election of Obama without a smear campaign of unprecedented proportions. If you want Obama to win, message board posting is a waste of time. Local Dem organizations have less money in their bank account than you do. They need precinct walkers and phone callers. We do not need people who are going to continue to alienate the base by writing all over the place that the candidate many supported is unpleasant in the shitty way you wrote about her in the OP. Politics is about making friends who can help you. I still like Hillary and so do all her supporters. Calling her names is making enemies, not friends. I will work and vote for Obama not matter how graceless and petty some of his supporters are in victory, but many will not.
There was never any question that I would support Obama if he became the nominee. But I loath his nasty and divisive supporters, and I’ll have nothing to do with them.
Good sports congratulate the winners, and I congratulate Obama and his team. Good sports also tell the losers it was well played and we look forward to the next game. I am so sorry this was neglected in your upbringing. And to head off your reply, that you felt there was dirty pool, good sports stifle that unless they are going to appeal to the league or file criminal charges.
Simply put, some Obama supporters are demonstrating poor sportsmanship and their personal unfitness for work in his administration. Obama himself knows much better.
(and for the record, I don’t want Hillary as VP, I want her in the Senate as majority leader pushing for Universal Health Coverage)