Aren’t you a lawyer? Would you refer to a judge presiding over a case youre arguing as a “hot chick”? If not, why not?
Again, I am not playing into this nonsense about sensitivity. Even if “hot chick” was an insult (which it is absolutely not) can I not insult a non-poster?? I understand that the moderation was mild (a note and not a warning) but in what fucking universe is “hot chick” a violation of a rule? Which rule? The don’t be a jerk rule? Many women would take that as a compliment.
Maybe at the top of each thread the latest version of the liberal publications should be linked so that we can all abide by the new speech rules.
I simply ask for at least the fourth time: would “attractive woman” have gotten a mod note?
Aw, fucking hell. This shit again. How else should I describe the person? Should I refrain from mention of race, gender, sexuality or anything? Should I just describe the person’s height or clothing? WTF is wrong with using a descriptive term about a person? Is gender insulting? Is sexual attractiveness insulting? It’s like if two people are standing together, one black one white, and when distinguishing them, we have to talk about height and shirt color. It’s fucking bullshit for no reason, and sensitive people are to blame.
I have never met a woman (or a man) who would be upset by being described as attractive. You all feel better about being so advanced and so cultured. Great. That doesn’t mean we all have to bask in the same liberal light that you do.
Of course not. Since when do I or anyone else have to refer to other strangers, even strangers on television, in the same manner we would a judge in his court? That’s silly.
According to you, it is not an insult. You have in fact, never met a woman - or man!- who would “be upset”- so go on, call Her Honor a “hot chick.” She’d like it. Otherwise saying “of course not” - like it is *obvious *that it would not be respectful - is just silly.
Or wait - do you actually see that reducing an accomplished woman to whether or not she is a “hot chick” might be kind of demeaning and disrespectful?
I’m surprised, and disappointed, at how studiously they’ve avoided answering this straight-forward question.
I think there’s some debate as to whether she actually is “an accomplished woman” or not:
Ironically, it’s entirely possible that the thing she’s most well-known for is being on The Hill’s ‘50 Most Beautiful’ list, or at least was prior to today.
It is your words. They are wrong. Stop.
I am quite sure that your own accomplishments put hers to shame. .
How about comments about Pence’s sexual orientation? That is pretty common around here. And jabs at some of those men’s physical appearance is pretty common, too. Sessions, Ryan and McConnell in particular. Jump into the current thread about Kavenaugh in elections, where the “hot chick” comment was made, and you’ll find a couple references to “turtle”. Posts 6 and 113 to be precise.
It’s still okay to insinuate that the President harbors incesteous desires towards his daughter, though, right?
That’s calling *him *creepy. That’s not me being creepy about him.
Because he said he would totally date her if she weren’t his spawn? Yep, TOTALLY the same thing as reducing a woman with a law degree from Harvard to whether or not she is hot or not. Absolutely the same.
Pay attention Bricker, liberals are objecting to a Republican being reducing to whether or not she is pretty.
Can there possibly be a serious discussion of why “attractive woman” might be better terminology than “hot chick” in 2018? Can there be a serious discussion of why women who have made this such an issue that many of walked away from the board might find this term “creepy and pervy”? Can there possibly be a serious discussion of why insulting the president might be more allowable than insulting a woman who is so anonymous that nobody here has yet mentioned her name? Can there possibly be a serious discussion of why white men should get woke, even - especially! - if they don’t like the term? Can I tell unwoke white men where to stick it because they’re making me, a white man, look bad by association?*
Hint. The answers are no, no, no, no, and unfortunately in this forum no.
*Yes, I feel that I’m getting judged because of the color of my skin. Yes, I appreciate the irony. Yes, it feels lousy. Yes, I wish it would stop. Yes, I’m going to do my part to try to make it “a different fucking world” in which such beliefs about white men are no longer justified.
Oh, that’s what’s going on? I thought the mods were objecting to a violation of the rules and we were having a discussion about that.
If you had just told him (or us?) “where to stick it”, at least in the appropriate forum or manner, there wouldn’t have been an ATMB thread about it. This thread exists because a mod note was attached to the liberals’ objections.
There is a stark contrast between a public figure like Trump or Pelosi and a random person that happened to be visible on TV at a public hearing.
Gee, that *is *how it started. The conversation that ensued contains some liberals objecting to an apparently not at all accomplished woman (remember- your accomplishments put hers to shame- RIGHT? She is known for just being hot) being reduced to whether or not she is a hot chick, But yeah, let’s bring Trump and his yearning for Ivanka into it, per Bricker.
Funny old thing, conversations, People insist on saying why they personally might object, and then other people bring other random shit into it, and then people object to THAT - funny, aint it.
My follow-up question: Is this a rule just for women, or does it apply to all commentary on the physical appearance of all non-public-figures? Everyone but Trump? Everyone who we’d recognize by their last name alone? Where’s the cut-off?
Yeah, I’m just sick that I didn’t call you and your bud UV out in a thread I never posted in and didn’t see until this thread started.
Now you tell me why you plural assumed “stay focused” was a liberal’s objection to your objectification rather than an admonition to, say, stay on subject. Feelings of guilt? Deliberate baiting? Knee-jerking? Something must have triggered you.
Isn’t #1 more like “aspirational” values, rather than rules?