Support NeoGAF

[Tarkus]

I don't doubt the veracity of the alleged double standard. We're still a far cry from gender equality, especially in politics. Good on Hillary for making inroads in her space.




I hate to say that you wasted a post, but you're preaching to the choir. I never argued otherwise.

Obama's 'charisma' has no effect on me. So for me, PERSONALLY, I don't find him to be charismatic. However, I recognize that, objectively, he has an appeal/charm to other people, so in that sense, he's charismatic.

It's like arguing about the attractiveness of a person. I don't find Brad Pitt to be attractive (Colin Farrell on the other hand...) but I can recognize that many people find him to be attractive.

As stated before, personal perception vs public perception. It's really that simple.

Brad Pitt is very handsome. Not Tom Brady-tier, but damn handsome no less.

 

[brainchild]

Brad Pitt is very handsome. Not Tom Brady-tier, but damn handsome no less.

Personally, I don't really find 'model type' guys with strong facial features attractive. They don't seem real to me for some reason, lol.

Maybe if I met Brad in person, and he didn't look like he just came from a photo shoot, it would be different, but I doubt it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I believe there's been an array of studies done on women, leadership, social norms and traits. This being one of the more prominent.
From an old HBR article, discussing similar:

In the language of psychologists, the clash is between two sets of associations: communal and agentic. Women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for the compassionate treatment of others. They include being especially affectionate, helpful, friendly, kind, and sympathetic, as well as interpersonally sensitive, gentle, and soft-spoken. In contrast, men are associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion and control. They include being especially aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, and forceful, as well as self-reliant and individualistic. The agentic traits are also associated in most people’s minds with effective leadership—perhaps because a long history of male domination of leadership roles has made it difficult to separate the leader associations from the male associations.

As a result, women leaders find themselves in a double bind. If they are highly communal, they may be criticized for not being agentic enough. But if they are highly agentic, they may be criticized for lacking communion. Either way, they may leave the impression that they don’t have “the right stuff” for powerful jobs.

Given this double bind, it is hardly surprising that people are more resistant to women’s influence than to men’s. For example, in meetings at a global retail company, people responded more favorably to men’s overt attempts at influence than to women’s. In the words of one of this company’s female executives, “People often had to speak up to defend their turf, but when women did so, they were vilified. They were labeled ‘control freaks’; men acting the same way were called ‘passionate.’”

Essentially, these inherent social expectations probably colour perceptions of "charismatic" and "authentic." See: the hullabaloo about Hillary crying during her last campaign.

 

[User1608]

The takes are HOT HOT HOT!

Murdoch makes me wish bad things sometimes.

 

[Makai]

Just a reminder: https://vine.co/v/erQH0K9JthD

 

[Fenderputty]

It will get better if you stop being so flippant with your responses....

Edit: When I'm scrolling past bunch of back and forth passive-aggressive posts trying to look for a post from PD to lighten the day, it's time to press the reset button

I just skip his posts now.

 

[Tarkus]

I believe there's been an array of studies done on women, leadership, social norms and traits. This being one of the more prominent.
From an old HBR article, discussing similar:


Essentially, these inherent social expectations probably colour perceptions of "charismatic" and "authentic." See: the hullabaloo about Hillary crying during her last campaign.

"Cheques" and now "colour." Your card, I need to see it.

 

[brainchild]

I believe there's been an array of studies done on women, leadership, social norms and traits. This being one of the more prominent.
From an old HBR article, discussing similar:


Essentially, these inherent social expectations probably colour perceptions of "charismatic" and "authentic." See: the hullabaloo about Hillary crying during her last campaign.

This is all very interesting, but if we had put Bernie and Hillary in a time machine and had them swap lives, I'd be a Hillary supporter. Personally speaking, her gender is virtually irrelevant. It's a shame that something as abstract as gender can have such a profound effect on society.

 

[And_Gignac]

I am ready to stan tbh. She is an opportunist but, meh, as long as she becomes a champion of anti-corporativism/super free trade, I dont mind ha.

 

[HylianTom]

I still think that if she's the nominee, her gender will end-up being a huge asset. Right now, it might not seem Iike much since it's mainly us junkies paying close attention, but once the election becomes unavoidable in news/pop culture/entertainment, female voters are going to be (for lack of a better word) "activated." The call of "history being made" will be particularly strong for older female voters, who usually lean GOP.

The GOP paid a price when they dogwhistled Obama (who is still depicted as the "wrong kind of black guy" - see Murdoch's Tweets tonight): African American turnout went up and margins were maximized.

If the GOP pushes too hard on the "wrong kind of female" thing - and at this point, I think their base can't help but encourage such behaviour - they're playing with a different kind of fire.

 

[Retromelon]

I am ready to stan tbh. She is an opportunist but, meh, as long as she becomes a champion of anti-corporativism/super free trade, I dont mind ha.

No
Not you too melkr
Its all over now

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I still think that if she's the nominee, her gender will end-up being a huge asset. Right now, it might not seem Iike much since it's mainly us junkies paying close attention, but once the election becomes unavoidable in news/pop culture/entertainment, female voters are going to be (for lack of a better word) "activated." The call of "history being made" will be particularly strong for older female voters, who usually lean GOP.

The GOP paid a price when they dogwhistled Obama (who is still depicted as the "wrong kind of black guy" - see Murdoch's Tweets tonight): African American turnout went up and margins were maximized.

If the GOP pushes too hard on the "wrong kind of female" thing - and at this point, I think their base can't help but encourage such behaviour - they're playing with a different kind of fire.

What about their war on women?

 

[brainchild]

No
Not you too melkr
Its all over now

Don't fall for it, retromelon.

 

[Retromelon]

I live to support the marginalized, neil. People like me never feel the warm sunlight of victory on our backs. We are the cogs that spin in the shadows to bring about revolution.
The hilldawgs can march along without me

 

[HylianTom]

What about their war on women?

Unlike the elections that we hold for other offices - say, governor or senator or state rep - voters tend to personalize their presidential choice, often to the point where it goes beyond issues. They look at the President and get a visceral reaction - positive, negative, etc - that isn't as powerful as is seen in other elected offices. The President is an avatar for many folks; people look at him and assign their hopes to his path (rightly or wrongly).

 

[brainchild]

I live to support the marginalized, neil. People like me never feel the warm sunlight of victory on our backs. We are the cogs that spin in the shadows to bring about revolution.
The hilldawgs can march along without me

Fight the good fight, brother.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I hate to say that you wasted a post, but you're preaching to the choir. I never argued otherwise.

Obama's 'charisma' has no effect on me. So for me, PERSONALLY, I don't find him to be charismatic. However, I recognize that, objectively, he has an appeal/charm to other people, so in that sense, he's charismatic.

It's like arguing about the attractiveness of a person. I don't find Brad Pitt to be attractive (Colin Farrell on the other hand...) but I can recognize that many people find him to be attractive.

As stated before, personal perception vs public perception. It's really that simple.

Yes, technically, you never said he wasn't charismatic, but come on, your posts are pretty clearly trying to do just that. You couldn't even write charisma without putting it in quotes in your posts, same with prose/casual talk mode. There's a reason everyone is reacting to what you're written in a particular way and it's not because we're stupidly ignoring a meaningful distinction. I would similarly raise an eyebrow if someone mentioned Brad Pitt's 'attractiveness' and mused about why so many people think he's attractive. A normal person would simply say I don't find Brad Pitt attractive. Someone who feels the need to qualify and put things in quotes like that is not making a simple observation.

Plus, the personal vs. public distinction you're making is immaterial unless you're arguing that the existence of the trait itself is ephemeral and unknowable as a fact. We add up many subjective things to come to an objective determination. Our individual perception is not equal to the weight of society's. Brad Pitt is attractive and Obama is charismatic, period, full stop, no dumb qualifications like 'in the sense of being objectively true' needed, the variance on an individual level goes without saying.

 

[User 406]

Transparent attempt to be likeable to the younguns who weren't alive to know about whitewater

You know, while we're speaking in very broad non-pointed ways about how PoliGAF posting can be improved, it's one thing to edit in a followup to a post that comes directly after your post, but quite another to do it for a post that comes half a dozen posts or more later. Recently I've had several occasions where I scrolled back up in the thread a bit looking for a post I thought I had missed, only to find out the post that was being quoted came a good bit further down the page from the quote.

And Retromelon, I'm not in the least bit singling you out as the only motherfucker doing this shit god why, it's just a very general non-confrontational observation that it's totally you doing it and jesus stop it already, wouldn't want you to think you were being singled out for that annoying thing only you are doing and it's just you, cut it out


To keep this post on topic, here's Hillary running towards

Melkr_ who is running away from

this gif, which I guess is Stevie Nicks or something trying to get the phone before it stops ringing I dunno?

 

[brainchild]

Yes, technically, you never said he wasn't charismatic, but come on, your posts are pretty clearly trying to do just that. You couldn't even write charisma without putting it in quotes in your posts, same with prose. There's a reason everyone is reacting to what you're written in a particular way and it's not because we're stupidly ignoring a meaningful distinction. I would similarly raise an eyebrow if someone mentioned Brad Pitt's 'attractiveness' and mused about why so many people think he's attractive. A normal person would simply say I don't find Brad Pitt attractive. Someone who feels the need to qualify and put things in quotes like that is not making a simple observation.

Plus, the personal vs. public distinction you're making is immaterial unless you're arguing that the existence of the trait is ephemeral and unknowable as a fact. We add up many subjective things to come to an objective determination. Our individual perception is not equal to the weight of society's. Brad Pitt is attractive and Obama is charismatic, period, full stop, no dumb qualifications like 'in the sense of being objectively true' needed.

I can make as many qualifiers as I damn well please. Don't like it? TOUGH TITTIES.

I'm done arguing about this.

 

[Retromelon]

You know, blah blah blah

I have a very noble and legit reason for doing that breh

It's because rather than make a new post every time i see something i want to respond to, I'll just edit a post I made previously rather than monopolize the page. I don't know why anyone would find fault with that, and some other posters here could do with some of that restraint. Finally i just want to take the time to say that you worded your critique on me very kindly, Sea Manky, and I must interpret this as a worry about confrontation or worrying about hurting my feelings. I want to encourage nyone that posts here to say any shit to me they want; nothing will hurt me and I appreciate the honesty. Thank you

 

[Fenderputty]

Brad Pitt is "gorgeous"

Anyone wanna talk policy?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/07/news/economy/debt-ceiling-payment-crunch/

Some have also asserted that the Treasury can simply prioritize payments to bondholders and avoid default.

 

[Cheebo]

Brainchild thinking Obama isn't charismatic and not thinking Pitt is "attractive" helps explains his support for Sanders and believing having a chance at the very least. It is opposite land over there!

 

[brainchild]

I have a very noble and legit reason for doing that breh

It's because rather than make a new post every time i see something i want to respond to, I'll just edit a post I made previously rather than monopolize the page. I don't know why anyone would find fault with that, and some other posters here could do with some of that restraint. Finally i just want to take the time to say that you worded your critique on me very kindly, Sea Manky, and I must interpret this as a worry about confrontation or worrying about hurting my feelings. I want to encourage nyone that posts here to say any shit to me they want; nothing will hurt me and I appreciate the honesty. Thank you

I would ask everyone to do the same for me. Keep that shit real, bruh!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Wait, why do we like Saudi Arabia and Russia so much?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://amp.twimg.com/v/f964597f-4c18-44b5-a9c6-4baf44523bea
Ben carson at his most sinister. That bond villain laugh o.o

There's one with chris hitchens and some guy named tyrrel that goes on for 40 minutes and i watched the whole thing. Good shit.

I have that onnmy watch list. There is supposedly one with bibi talking about terrorism in the 80s hahaha. And the Jerry fallwell saying he doesn't hate gay teachers just doesnt want them recruiting...

Show was good. He's a horrible racist/elitist in his politics but he'd always do a good interview and have good guests. It's sad Colbert is as good as we get with something like that. And actual inquisitive interview with someone whose actually read more than twitter.

I kinda wish we had these cross partisian friendships aired in a constructive manner. I mean I had a bunch of friends like that and we'd talk the good shit.

 

[Wilsongt]

Wait, why do we like Saudi Arabia and Russia so much?

Saudi Arabia for oil, Russia for vodka?

 

[Cheebo]

Republicans like Germany a bit more than Democrats seems odd. Republicans typically seem rather untrusting of Europe as a whole.

 

[Wilsongt]

Republicans like Germany a bit more than Democrats seems odd. Republicans typically seem rather untrusting of Europe as a whole.

Reagan did good in Germany, so that's why?

 

[Fenderputty]

Wait, why do we like Saudi Arabia and Russia so much?

Because the media doesn't imply they threaten the fabric of American life like they do Iran.



If nobody wants to talk current policy, maybe about a candidates view of upcoming policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/ben-carson-debt-ceiling-marketplace/

"I'm gonna try one more time, sir," asked Ryssdal. "This is debt that's already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?"


"What I'm saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt," Carson replied. "I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops."

 

[Retromelon]

I have that onnmy watch list. There is supposedly one with bibi talking about terrorism in the 80s hahaha. And the Jerry fallwell saying he doesn't hate gay teachers just doesnt want them recruiting...

Show was good. He's a horrible racist/elitist in his politics but he'd always do a good interview and have good guests. It's sad Colbert is as good as we get with something like that. And actual inquisitive interview with someone whose actually read more than twitter.

I kinda wish we had these cross partisian friendships aired in a constructive manner. I mean I had a bunch of friends like that and we'd talk the good shit.

Cmon dog don't talk to me about having racist avatars
Wheres that corey (coriolanus) post

Spoiler

btw i would have edited this into my prior post but manky don't like it so i guess i have to make more posts now, sorry

 

[brainchild]

Brad Pitt is "gorgeous"

Anyone wanna talk policy?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/07/news/economy/debt-ceiling-payment-crunch/

Prioritize payments to the bondholders, eh? Our government is so fucking moronic, yet I still find it difficult to believe that we're dealing with this kind of corruption in 2015.

Because the media doesn't imply they threaten the fabric of American life like they do Iran.



If nobody wants to talk current policy, maybe about a candidates view of upcoming policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/ben-carson-debt-ceiling-marketplace/

He basically said a whole lotta nuthin'. Water is wet.

 

[User 406]

I have a very noble and legit reason for doing that breh

It's because rather than make a new post every time i see something i want to respond to, I'll just edit a post I made previously rather than monopolize the page. I don't know why anyone would find fault with that, and some other posters here could do with some of that restraint. Finally i just want to take the time to say that you worded your critique on me very kindly, Sea Manky, and I must interpret this as a worry about confrontation or worrying about hurting my feelings. I want to encourage nyone that posts here to say any shit to me they want; nothing will hurt me and I appreciate the honesty. Thank you

You're not monopolizing anything, certainly nowhere near benji's traditional double and triple post Tourettes, just by responding back and forth in a conversation. And forward-quoting badly breaks the flow, I seriously have gone back pages looking for the post I thought I missed from some of your quotes. It's a discussion forum, it's okay to respond back and forth. Furthermore, your posts are fun to read, so don't keep them confined like one of Chris Christie's tiny gestational pig crates, let them spread freely over the page like Bernie's noble wisps of unflavored cotton candy.

Most importantly, having more posts of yours in the natural sequence on a page increases the chances we'll have a string of repeated Retromelon-Coriolanus replies, which is the very best avatar tango in PoliGAF.

 

[Coriolanus]

Anyone wanna talk policy?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/07/news/economy/debt-ceiling-payment-crunch/

Didn't we already have that exact discussion back in 2013 or whenever was the last time a default was floated around?

 

[HylianTom]

Cheney to endorse McCarthy for Speakership! Ha!

 

[brainchild]

You're not monopolizing anything, certainly nowhere near benji's traditional double and triple post Tourettes, just by responding back and forth in a conversation. And forward-quoting badly breaks the flow, I seriously have gone back pages looking for the post I thought I missed from some of your quotes. It's a discussion forum, it's okay to respond back and forth. Furthermore, your posts are fun to read, so don't keep them confined like one of Chris Christie's tiny gestational pig crates, let them spread freely over the page like Bernie's noble wisps of unflavored cotton candy.

Most importantly, having more posts of yours in the natural sequence on a page increases the chances we'll have a string of repeated Retromelon-Coriolanus replies, which is the very best avatar tango in PoliGAF.

No need. Neil tangos well with everybody

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Cheney to endorse McCarthy for Speakership! Ha!

Fuck no, Chaffetz has this in the bag now

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I can make as many qualifiers as I damn well please. Don't like it? TOUGH TITTIES.

I'm done arguing about this.

You can say whatever you want however you want and people will respond accordingly. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Cmon dog don't talk to me about having racist avatars
Wheres that corey (coriolanus) post

Spoiler

btw i would have edited this into my prior post but manky don't like it so i guess i have to make more posts now, sorry

That's more for the poligaf vets and my hatred for NR

 

[pigeon]

I can make as many qualifiers as I damn well please. Don't like it? TOUGH TITTIES.

I'm done arguing about this.

Characterizing a post like this as argument is really generous.

I don't understand why you feel like it's productive to fill the thread with posts debating the semantic details of your other posts. Probably just work on writing better posts so you're not constantly misunderstood.

Alternatively, if you want a Brainchild-GAF OT, you should just make your own thread.

 

[Fenderputty]

Prioritize payments to the bondholders, eh? Our government is so fucking moronic, yet I still find it difficult to believe that we're dealing with this kind of corruption in 2015.



He basically said a whole lotta nuthin'. Water is wet.

I honestly don't think he knows what it is.

Didn't we already have that exact discussion back in 2013 or whenever was the last time a default was floated around?

We did, but there's greater political implications this time around due to the election and so far nobody has suggested a trillion dollar coin, yet. Just that we should oay off our loan payment and fuck SS and other domestic payments.

 

[brainchild]

You can say whatever you want however you want and people will respond accordingly. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

This was uncalled for. Unless you have some kind of proof of some ulterior motive behind my statements, you can kindly fuck off with the unsubstantiated allegations.

These 'hidden agenda' arguments are some of the weakest arguments a person can make without proof. I've had enough of this. Seriously.

Characterizing a post like this as argument is really generous.

I don't understand why you feel like it's productive to fill the thread with posts debating the semantic details of your other posts. Probably just work on writing better posts so you're not constantly misunderstood.

Alternatively, if you want a Brainchild-GAF OT, you should just make your own thread.

You know what, this bullshit is so tired. Congratulations, I've lost all interest in posting in this thread.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Don't scare the new guest away.

 

[Retromelon]

You know what, this bullshit is so tired. Congratulations, I've lost all interest in posting in this thread.

Don't pull a lana del rey gif on us

I'm just sayin, I've been banned for telling somone to fuck off before.

You probably didn't say kindly tho
Manky this post is down the page so don't go on a safari to find it

I actually said

"Kindly go fuck yourself"

Hahah

 

[CharlieDigital]

I still think that if she's the nominee, her gender will end-up being a huge asset. Right now, it might not seem Iike much since it's mainly us junkies paying close attention, but once the election becomes unavoidable in news/pop culture/entertainment, female voters are going to be (for lack of a better word) "activated." The call of "history being made" will be particularly strong for older female voters, who usually lean GOP.

The GOP paid a price when they dogwhistled Obama (who is still depicted as the "wrong kind of black guy" - see Murdoch's Tweets tonight): African American turnout went up and margins were maximized.

If the GOP pushes too hard on the "wrong kind of female" thing - and at this point, I think their base can't help but encourage such behaviour - they're playing with a different kind of fire.

What about their war on women?

Despite the big deal often made about Hispanics being an up-and-coming voting block, women are still the key:

Women are the single largest block of voters by population and participation and it broke for Obama by 11 points. With Hilary, it may be an absolute slaughter.

Republicans have ZERO chance if they can't close the gap with female voters since they make up more than half of all voters in 2012. It will be an absolute thrashing if Hilary widens that gap.

The Republican strategy is basically relying on:

1) Old, white, male voters
2) Dis-enfranchising voters
3) Gerrymandering

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I want to encourage nyone that posts here to say any shit to me they want; nothing will hurt me and I appreciate the honesty. Thank you

I would ask everyone to do the same for me. Keep that shit real, bruh!

This was uncalled for. Unless you have some kind of proof of some ulterior motive behind my statements, you can kindly fuck off with the unsubstantiated allegations.

These 'hidden agenda' arguments are some of the weakest arguments a person can make without proof. I've had enough of this. Seriously.

You know what, this bullshit is so tired. Congratulations, I've lost all interest in posting in this thread.

Mmmk.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm just sayin, I've been banned for telling somone to fuck off before.

 

[And_Gignac]

You know what, this bullshit is so tired. Congratulations, I've lost all interest in posting in this thread.

Run, run for yer life brainchild. I wish I could lanadelclintonrunning.gif as well, but it´s too late for me.

No
Not you too melkr
Its all over now

I still prefer King Bernie, though.

 

[Makai]

Don't scare the new guest away.

Pre-edit was appropriate.

 

[dramatis]

This is all very interesting, but if we had put Bernie and Hillary in a time machine and had them swap lives, I'd be a Hillary supporter. Personally speaking, her gender is virtually irrelevant. It's a shame that something as abstract as gender can have such a profound effect on society.

It's easy to say gender has no effect. There are guys who would probably think they're not sexist that are sexist in certain ways they don't realize. The effect of it is not too dissimilar from racism.

Moreover, they couldn't have had the 'same lives' even if swapped. Because Hillary Clinton is a woman.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

My Chinese (who recently came to the U.S.) girlfriend asking about American politics: "I'm confused, is Biden going to run?"

I can't escape this speculation