For many Trump voters, that bigotry is misogyny. They were not going to vote for a woman to be president. To be a Trump voters means that you have to be okay with bigotry. To be okay with bigotry is to be a bigot.
From my early childhood, this is where I first heard the phrase. But in my teen years in the 60s and going forward, the “best friend” was always Black.
I canvased for Harris for a couple of weeks. And i talked to a LOT of voters. And most of them were at least somewhat inclined to vote for Harris, because that was the point. But data is always imperfect, and i spoke with a bunch of Trump supporters, too. And yes, a lot were motivated by racism, or sexism, or some other bigotry. But i absolutely spoke with people who were unhappy about inflation and the general state of the economy, and planned to vote for Trump because, “i was doing better under Trump”. Were those people ignorant? Yeah, but i also spoke with a guy who was outraged that Harris had raised his (county) property taxes. A certain fraction of voters are ignorant of various things.
Plus, the fundamental problem is that we can’t read minds, we can only judge actions. If somebody takes actions that support bigotry, that is functionally identical to being a “real bigot”.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to the victims if their tormentors and killers “weren’t really bigoted” towards them.
That’s the basic idea behind Critical Race Theory; evaluate the results on minorities regardless of intent. If policies disadvantage minorities, they are discrimination, regardless of who put them in place and their reasons for doing so.
Makes sense; the effects are what matter. Plus if the intent is discrimination then stopping it is good for that reason alone, and if it isn’t then it’s malfunctioning.
I mean if a machine chops your hand off, you want it to not do that. Whether it’s supposed to chop your hand off is beside the point.
Pretty sure that plot summaries for most old movies don’t really need references; the movie itself serves as the reference.
@Atamasama is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong.
That seems right. And if people quibble over the details that gets worked out through discussion. Anything that a viewer would learn just by watching the movie doesn’t need a reference.
Thanks. Wasn’t sure about the “original research” rules.
There are exceptions, of course; anything that has yet to be released or is otherwise unavailable for watching, for example.
If you were to draw conclusions or make assumptions based on what’s in the film, that would be original research. Anything that’s explicitly on the screen should be uncontroversial.
While this page is just an essay, and anyone can write an essay on the site (I even have one), any essay that survives scrutiny should be acceptable to the community. (As I learned from firsthand experience as at one point I needed to heavily revise my essay.) But here is a guide for writing the plot of a fictional work:
And the relevant part:
Citations may or may not appear in a plot summary. The work of fiction itself is the primary source, and doesn’t usually need to be cited for simple plot details.
Yeah, though “unavailable” gets tricky. It’s an issue sometimes when things go out of print.
An unreleased film would need a citation I’m sure. Usually an article for an unreleased film will have a pretty sparse plot if it has one at all, since plot details have the potential to change right up until release. You can’t even trust trailers as they often show scenes that get cut later.
DT straight up lies about me:
No, I do not, and have absolutely never said that anything/anyone I disapprove of should be boycotted/doxxed.
She really, really wants things to be simple when they are really, really not.
Your position was made abundantly clear. Her reframing of said position is 100% bullshit.
ETA: She seems to be taking the (apparently successful, these days) tactic of “repeat bullshit until it hopefully becomes true”.
In part by scrupulously neglecting to document or cite her bullshit claims. The bullshit earlier in this thread about
was especially eyeroll.
No, support for trans rights is not “taking away” cisgender women’s rights, nor is it preventing cisgender women or anybody else from meeting or from advocating for women’s rights.
DemonTree may know of a couple of fringe-behavior examples that could potentially be twisted into such an interpretation, but she’s not about to reveal their inadequacy by actually linking to them when instead she can just hyperbolically bullshit them into sweeping accusations about “people on your side”.
I’ve never looked at the thread in question, but that sounds similar to the arguments you’d hear from the “All Lives Matter” people.
When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
I find it hilarious how she has to dance around openly talking about transgender issues too much when you know it’s actually all she wants to talk about and all this freeze peach guff is actually about that. But she’s soooo comically leery of ending up like monstro and you_with_the_face. It’s very amusing.
The issue she really, really, really, tries to not show her hand on is Muslim immigrants.
That too, yes, you’re right.