You understand that tomndeb is (are?) (not sure if it’s one or two people) both feminist and - I assume - a Hillary supporter.
Anyway if you like Chris Rock - I do - you might like this video.
The proper response to moderator guidance is not doubling down and escalating. Bees another warning.
In case there was any doubt the mods were a hive mind…
:eek: that stings
Men, on the other hand, have no interest in being appealing to women. It’s an evolutionary thing: the less appealing to women you are, the more… uh… never mind.
Now that’s what I call a stinging rebuke.
The same could be said of men. I think that’s kind of normal, actually, to play a bit to the other gender. Look at the men who gave women the vote.
Do you think that’s strange?
Men did not give women the vote because they wanted to make themselves likable or appealing to women. It was either on principle or to get them to shut up about it. Women did a hell of a lot of work to get the vote, both in convincing and in being the squeaky wheel.
There was notably Harry Burn, who changed his vote on suffrage after reading a note from his mother urging him to vote in favor.
*My dearest Harry.
It is with great pleasure I write this letter to you and request that you vote in the affirmative for the ratification of the 19th amendment.
Do you remember those baby pictures, the ones of you in the bath tub playing with yourself?
I was thinking about mailing them to the newspaper. I might not if women get to vote.
Love Mom.*
It’s not that men aren’t interested in appealing to women, as your rather heavy-handed sarcasm was attempting to point out. It’s just that a lot of our social behavior patterns, including our tactics for ingratiating ourselves with people we want to impress, are shaped by historical expectations of gender roles in which men had much more autonomy, power and influence than women did.
So trying to appeal to the opposite sex by being deferential and submissive and not openly disputing their authority or superiority is conventionally seen as much more a “feminine” tactic than a “masculine” one.
Huh? As far as I can tell, you’ve got that exactly backwards. Many feminists don’t have qualms about supporting Sanders over Clinton precisely because Sanders also has reasonable feminist credentials and isn’t trying to exploit traditional sexist attitudes to undermine Clinton.
If Clinton gets the nomination, though, and the antifeminist hate mobs predicably start piling on her, then we’ll see feminists cut their losses and close ranks in support of her. Because although Clinton is certainly not every feminist’s favorite feminist, she’s a hell of a lot better than those people.
:eek:
*When a kid is in school, one teacher controls 20-30 kids. That is an efficient system, and the teacher probably doesn’t mind the work. When two kids come home to one parent (often) you have a 2-1 disadvantage for the parent. *
So 1 adult vs 30 kids is efficient, and 1 adult vs 2 kids is outnumbered?
And *marriage *is the reason we don’t have universal healthcare? Really?
Hillary came into the contest with a 500+ delegate lead. Other potential challengers - Elizabeth Warren, for example - bowed out. Sanders was a nobody, who wasn’t even a Democrat until recently. That she’s losing votes to him on such a large scale shouldn’t be happening - but it is.
Why?
Well, there’s this:
Hillary lived in the Governor’s Mansion for 10 years, the White House for 8 years. She was a senator, and part of Obama’s administration. But she’s an outsider because… she’s a woman.
And then there’s the hundreds of thousands ($12 million, according to one source) in speaker’s fees she collected. When asked about it, she said… “I didn’t know I was running for president.” It’s almost hard to think of a worse response.
And there’s another little tell. If you watch Hillary, she says “I” “I” “I”.
Watch other candidates: you’ll notice they say “We”.
Hillary sounds like, and looks like, someone who was put together by a committee. That’s not an accident.
For people who feel things are rigged against them, that the system is rigged in favor of the elites… Hillary is not their candidate. She’s someone who’s been part of that club for most of her life, played by its rules, and been rewarded handsomely.
From the New Yorker:
You wonder why I’m worried about Hillary losing the general?
Having a Republican in the White House next year will be an unmitigated disaster. And it may well be one that was sponsored by, and engineered by, the Democratic establishment. Why? Because they wanted to make things “easy” for Hillary.
Labeling people who vote against Hillary as part of a “hate mob” may be emotionally satisfying, but it’s not as good as winning.
Hey, the Kims win the North Korea presidency with 100% each time. Even Saddam only had like 99%.
This reminds me of Sotomayor’s comment during her nomination about a “wise Latina” woman. There are some people who think such politicking is a zero sum game, that to prop up one race, gender, or minority group means bringing another down. I think what Sotomayor and Clinton said is similar, that different people bring a different perspective, and such diversity of opinion is ok and even preferable since it will be representative of more Americans. You can be the smartest white man in the room, but without certain experiences like being pulled over by a cop or passed over for a promotion, you’re going to come to one conclusion where a non-white female might come to different one. Its not to denigrate anyone to say that white males don’t necessarily understand something a black man or woman might know more readily
Seriously, anyone doubting Scott Adams’s intellectual limitations needs to read those two paragraphs. No matter your opinions, what he’s writing is amazingly stupid, and it’s not even satire.
I loved the bit he wrote a number of yuears ago about how perception can be wrong. As an example, he wrote - I have to emphasize that he was completely serious about this - that maybe gravity is not really a thing, that what was REALLY happening was that everything in the universe is doubling in size constantly. That explains why things fall, you see. Jump away from the EArth and it grows to meet you. According to Adams, the two phenomena would be indistinguishable.
Well, you know… uhhh… except for the fact that gravity isn’t proportional to SIZE. It’s proportional to mass.
He seriously did not get that.
I understand.
Just because one gender is better at something doesn’t mean the other is worse.
No, you don’t understand, obviously.
The point is that a different perspective is of value. A persopn with a different perspective does not have a BETTER perspective than you. They have a different one, which adds to the sum value of knowledge in a given group. There is no superiority of one perspective over another. There is superiority in having multiple perspectives.
If you were putting together a company that fabricated steel pressure vessels, you would surely want many “perspectives” on how to do work, would you not? You’d need salespeople, accountants, welders, a purchaser or two, an HR person, and so on and so forth. If you tried to run the company with fifty welders you wouldn’t have anyone who knew how to do the books right, and if you tried to run the place with fifty accountants you wouldn’t have anyone who could weld to ASME standards, and either of those plans means you might not have anyone who could sell water to a burning man. Multiple perspectives is an additive thing.
This should not be taken as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, whom I dislike.
I remember that, I have the book he wrote it in. From what I recall, it wasn’t posited as a serious theory, more of a thought exercise. If we supposed that everything in the universe doubles in size periodically, and every law of physics undergoes the appropriate change, how would we ever know? It was a comment on how we perceive reality, I think, rather than a serious hypothesis on how the universe works
I never said “better”, I said “different”. Now can you get it through your head to re-read it and reply to what I really wrote instead of what you think I wrote? Of course not, because you would have no serious reply to that. Your strawman falls apart and you will either not reply or confuse it some more, at which point I’d have to decide to correct you again knowing it wouldn’t work, or just like a master playing with his dog, just let the dog have the damn frisbee :rolleyes:
I remember reading that. The number of ways that does not work is just enormous. Without gravity, you’d need constant acceleration of the expansion to give the perception of a gravity-like force. Thus the expansion soon reaches light speed.
And some objects have a greater gravity than others. So the earth would be expanding much faster than the moon. Soon the moon would be so much smaller that it’d be invisible.
And…orbital mechanics! Satelites! Argh!
Yeah. It was meant as a thought experiment about the limits of human knowledge.
This is the quote you commented on:
You shifted the topic to Sotomayor. Which is fine. But if you’re free to shift the topic, I’m free to shift it back again.
Hillary is saying women are better at things. No doubt they are. (Though not the things she thinks.) In any case, 1.) saying women are better at things means men are worse at them; and 2.) insulting such a large minority of voters is piss-poor politics. Someone running for student council would know better.