• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ApharmdX

Banned
Prodigal Son said:
People might see a sexist undertone in a lot of places. That doesn't mean that what was said was necessarily sexist. The 'qualifications' comment and "excuse me I'm talking" are striking me right now as highly, highly questionable things for someone to consider sexists in any way given the context in which they were said. I respectfully disagree, Adam.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is when you look at the larger pattern. Is Sanders a misogynist? I don't think so, but there's been what, a dozen times when he or his campaign have made questionable statements. They've got to be more sensitive to tone.

pigeon said:
I don't really understand why you think anybody should give a shit about whether you personally are okay with the word "whore." This is not a social club, we're talking about the actual effects vocabulary choices have on reifying the patriarchy.

The word "whore" is as closely tied up with a patriarchal, power-focused understanding of sexuality as any other word in the entire English language. You can't use it as a derogatory without implicitly buying into that structure and using it as a weapon, which necessarily empowers it and makes you part of it.

If you think that it's okay to call women (or any people) whores if you just feel strongly enough about the choices they've made then you think that the patriarchy is awesome and sexism is great inasmuch as they give you powerful weapons to use to attack your opponents. That doesn't make you sexist, necessarily, but it makes you a product of your upbringing.
Click to expand...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on this. I don't agree that the word itself is problematic in every context. In this one, yes.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
blackaroni said:
Do we really need another debate? They have all been the same so far. Are Republicans done with them for the primaries?
Click to expand...
A debate this late feels pointless to me, because New York is said and done. Bernie can't get any more new voters to register, nor can he convince independents to vote for him.

So he's left appealing to the very small pool of undecided Democrats, or trying to sway Hillary supporters to his side, and I just don't see how a debate will do that, especially since Hillary will likely be pretty aggressive tonight given the last few weeks of Bernie's campaign collapsing. There's blood in the water.
 
T

Thequietone

Member
blackaroni said:
Do we really need another debate? They have all been the same so far. Are Republicans done with them for the primaries?
Click to expand...

Sanders whined for another one, then when he got it he complained it interfered with one of his rallies and had to reschedule then said I hope this debate is worth it. Like you asked for this debate then complain that they gave you one.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Cesare Borgia said:
The message has already been sent and received. Sanders doesn't have to call anyone a whore, just as Trump doesn't have to cosign the KKK: the supporters already believe he has validated the message.

I still don't think Sanders has done anything truly damaging, nor do I feel his fervent supporters matter, but boy this is getting embarrassing at a time when I'd prefer that word to only apply to what's going on with republican primary politics.

From what I've heard there's some pressure on Obama to endorse after the California primary.
Click to expand...

Obama was going to endorse anyway after June 7th. She's at the magic number on that day. Bernie will concede a few days after. Reddit, Facebook, dailykos, GAF etc will meltdown into a flame salt war etc etc etc.
 
P

Prodigal Son

Member
ApharmdX said:
I think the problem is when you look at the larger pattern. Is Sanders a misogynist? I don't think so, but there's been what, a dozen times when he or his campaign have made questionable statements. They've got to be more sensitive to tone.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's necessary at all. I believe he needs to address his supporters more often and ask them to cool the fuck down but I don't think he's been particularly problematic at all. There are individuals arguing that Sander's characteristic, old-man finger wave is sexism. In my view, that's an absurd assertion that undermines real sexism and makes the left look like knee-jerky reactionaries.

Sanders has a finger waving problem (period?). Guy looked like he was digging Jake Tapper's nose the other day during an interview. The idea, for example, that his same characteristics expressed on a debate stage with Clinton is sexism is very questionable.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Prodigal Son said:
I don't believe that's necessary at all. I believe he needs to address his supporters more often and ask them to cool the fuck down but I don't think he's been particularly problematic at all. There are individuals arguing that Sander's characteristic, old-man finger wave is sexism. In my view, that's an absurd assertion that undermines real sexism and makes the left look like knee-jerky reactionaries.

Sanders has a finger waving problem (period?). Guy looked like he was digging Jake Tapper's nose the other day during an interview. The idea, for example, that his same characteristics expressed on a debate stage with Clinton is sexism is very questionable.
Click to expand...

I personally think the finger wagging is adorable and completely harmless. However...

By the same token, you can't complain about ageism in page X and use it as a shield in page X+1, my friend.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Obama was going to endorse anyway after June 7th. She's at the magic number on that day. Bernie will concede a few days after. Reddit, Facebook, dailykos, GAF etc will meltdown into a flame salt war etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Honestly at this point I'm not convinced he will concede then. And I used to think the complete opposite: that all this was political show and he'd end it when he loses. But at this point...
 
M

Maledict

Member
blackaroni said:
Do we really need another debate? They have all been the same so far. Are Republicans done with them for the primaries?
Click to expand...

The only thing tonight's debate would change is if Hillary had a melt down moment. In 2008 she utterly dominated the debates right up until the end where she fluffed a question on taxi licenses for illegal immigrants, and that just went haywire. That's Bernies only hope really - and it's less likely to happen this time because there aren't 8 other people on stage ready to pile into her.

It's a no-win situation for Hillary I feel - she just needs to get through it unscathed. I don't see Sanders suffering no matter what he says because as we've seen his fanbase is willing to defend anything he or his delegates say.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
FloydtheFathead said:
You are correct on the second.. If we survive the trip to Norman.. The only game that should be an issue is that and Michigan.

And you can try..

And is she one of those fans that thinks Rudy is a hero?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Big Ten is a pretty legit conference now.

Nah - hilariously, she's not that big of a football fan, she just knows that I am and humors me. :D

ApharmdX said:
I think the problem is when you look at the larger pattern. Is Sanders a misogynist? I don't think so, but there's been what, a dozen times when he or his campaign have made questionable statements. They've got to be more sensitive to tone.
Click to expand...

Under this reasoning, you could easily call Clinton racist for her and her campaign's comments back in 2008. I don't think this is a particularly valid or intellectually honest point. Twitter is not real life; and people's surrogates (even their husbands, in Clinton's case) do not get to define them.
 
P

Prodigal Son

Member
hawk2025 said:
I personally think the finger wagging is adorable and completely harmless. However...

By the same token, you can't complain about ageism in page X and use it as a shield in page X+1, my friend.
Click to expand...

I noticed that immediately upon rereading my post and hoped no one would notice. Dammit.

EDIT: Fuck it. Doubling down on my bull shit. It's an old-man thing, yall. Maybe not inherent to old age, but its a mannerism that was likely molded from his 'time.' It looks weird in 2016 and we all know it.
 
Z

Ziltoidia 9

Member
GutsOfThor said:
Are there more debates after tonight? Please say no...
Click to expand...

I beleive there was one of those "place holder" type things in may, same thing that there was one in April for a New York debate.

But if Sanders loses NY and all of the NE states a week after, I doubt he will be able to get clinton to do another debate next month.
 
A

Avon Barksdale

Member
Macho Madness said:
Cf8kvFVWsAAyhAW.jpg:large
Click to expand...

So many things about this pic.
 
A

APF

Member
Prodigal Son said:
There are individuals arguing that Sander's characteristic, old-man finger wave is sexism. In my view, that's an absurd assertion that undermines real sexism and makes the left look like knee-jerky reactionaries.
Click to expand...
Look I don't want to start a thing but this is basically concern trolling and not a good-faith line of argumentation.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Obama was going to endorse anyway after June 7th. She's at the magic number on that day. Bernie will concede a few days after. Reddit, Facebook, dailykos, GAF etc will meltdown into a flame salt war etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I could almost see him conceding some time next week. If Hillary shatters expectations in New York and it's like 20% blow out, there's no chance, and no real reason for him to stick around. Nobody will pay attention to him and nobody will even bother in California.

He's been quiet about primaries after New York, other than some token "we will win!!" stuff.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Cesare Borgia said:
Honestly at this point I'm not convinced he will concede then. And I used to think the complete opposite: that all this was political show and he'd end it when he loses. But at this point...
Click to expand...
If he doesn't concede and goes into the convention hoping to fight it out and win, does he even get a good prime time speaking slot?
 
C

Crocodile

Member
Cybit said:
Under this reasoning, you could easily call Clinton racist for her and her campaign's comments back in 2008. I don't think this is a particularly valid or intellectually honest point. Twitter is not real life; and people's surrogates (even their husbands, in Clinton's case) do not get to define them.
Click to expand...

The person you quoted didn't call Sander a misogynist. I don't think any reasonable person is calling him one. All they're saying is that his word choice and tone, or those of official surrogates, have often been "unfortunate" and could legit turn some people off. That is to say ignorance or being uncareful as opposed to malice. I'm not sure why you are so quick to go "but what about Clinton?!?!" as if people didn't/don't criticize her or her official surrogates when they derp it up or as if somehow their derpiness makes it ok when Sanders derps it up. "But what about _______!" is more a diversion than an actual counterargument.
 
P

Prodigal Son

Member
Crocodile said:
The person you quoted didn't call Sander a misogynist. I don't think any reasonable person is calling him one. All they're saying is that his word choice and tone, or those of official surrogates, have often been "unfortunate" and could legit turn some people off. That is to say ignorance or being uncareful as opposed to malice. I'm not sure why you are so quick to go "but what about Clinton?!?!" as if people didn't/don't criticize her or her official surrogates when they derp it up or as if somehow their derpiness makes it ok when Sanders derps it up. "But what about _______!" is more a diversion than an actual counterargument.
Click to expand...

Good post.


johnsmith said:
Somebody on Twitter accused Hillary of promising homeless people McDonald's in exchange for voting for her or something like that.
Click to expand...

ew. Why McDonald's of all places?
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Ugh this whore stuff is unnecessary distraction. It gives ammo to republicans and media talking heads to say look guys democratic race is nastier than repub!!1 Ted Cruz can legitimately bring his righteous indignation down while the general public eats the bubu both sides ice cream.

Completely unnecessary. And of course s4p idiots ride it. Total morons.
 
A

ApharmdX

Banned
Cybit said:
Under this reasoning, you could easily call Clinton racist for her and her campaign's comments back in 2008. I don't think this is a particularly valid or intellectually honest point. Twitter is not real life; and people's surrogates (even their husbands, in Clinton's case) do not get to define them.
Click to expand...

And people did, and do. I'm talking about comments from Sanders himself or his campaign, not just supporters on social media. The candidate is responsible for those! You just can't be that tone-deaf in a Democratic race in 2016.

Prodigal Son said:
I don't believe that's necessary at all. I believe he needs to address his supporters more often and ask them to cool the fuck down but I don't think he's been particularly problematic at all. There are individuals arguing that Sander's characteristic, old-man finger wave is sexism. In my view, that's an absurd assertion that undermines real sexism and makes the left look like knee-jerky reactionaries.

Sanders has a finger waving problem (period?). Guy looked like he was digging Jake Tapper's nose the other day during an interview. The idea, for example, that his same characteristics expressed on a debate stage with Clinton is sexism is very questionable.
Click to expand...

Context is key. Certain things shouldn't be directed towards certain groups of individuals. When you are waving your finger at your female opponent, it's verging on patriarchal and condescending.
 
P

Prodigal Son

Member
ApharmdX said:
And people did, and do. I'm talking about comments from Sanders himself or his campaign, not just supporters on social media. The candidate is responsible for those!



Context is key. Certain things shouldn't be directed towards certain groups of individuals. When you are waving your finger at your female opponent, it's verging on patriarchal and condescending.
Click to expand...

Context is key. Context tells me and most other people that, during passionate delivery, he waves his finger at everyone. To not wave his finger exclusively at Clinton would be treating her differently on the basis of her sex. We all know what that is.

Solution? Stop waving yo god damn finger generally speaking, Bernie.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
To be honest, I could almost see him conceding some time next week. If Hillary shatters expectations in New York and it's like 20% blow out, there's no chance, and no real reason for him to stick around. Nobody will pay attention to him and nobody will even bother in California.

He's been quiet about primaries after New York, other than some token "we will win!!" stuff.
Click to expand...

I really doubt he concedes until after the primaries are done. Whether he concedes then or actually tries to take it to the convention probably depends on whether he listens to Weaver or Devine. Hopefully he listens to Devine.
 
S

superdeluxe

Member
When you have bernie progressive supporters quoting/linking Breitbart stories about Clinton on your FB TL, you know you have entered into the twilight zone.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Effect said:
I don't understand Sanders supporters when it comes to the #Democraticwhores hashtag. By them trying to defend Sanders all they're doing is continuing to shine a spotlight on it by using it. It just takes one google search to see that it was something negative that said on the Sanders side of things. You'd think they'd want to not bring further attention to it.
Click to expand...

Looked at that hashtag just now... wtf. Gamergate-like arguments going on in there.

Cesare Borgia said:
"Corporate whore" is probably not a term you want to die on a hill over, regardless of the validity.
Click to expand...

Clever.

Prodigal Son said:
Context is key. Context tells me and most other people that, during passionate delivery, he waves his finger at everyone.
Click to expand...

I feel squicky now.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Prodigal Son said:
Context is key. Context tells me and most other people that he waves his finger at everyone. To not wave his finger exclusively at Clinton would be treating her differently on the basis of her sex. We all know what that is.
Click to expand...

And context doesn't eliminate subtext. Just because he does it to everyone that doesn't make it OK.
 
O

Ophelion

Member
pigeon said:
I don't really understand why you think anybody should give a shit about whether you personally are okay with the word "whore." This is not a social club, we're talking about the actual effects vocabulary choices have on reifying the patriarchy.

The word "whore" is as closely tied up with a patriarchal, power-focused understanding of sexuality as any other word in the entire English language. You can't use it as a derogatory without implicitly buying into that structure and using it as a weapon, which necessarily empowers it and makes you part of it.

If you think that it's okay to call women (or any people) whores if you just feel strongly enough about the choices they've made then you think that the patriarchy is awesome and sexism is great inasmuch as they give you powerful weapons to use to attack your opponents. That doesn't make you sexist, necessarily, but it makes you a product of your upbringing.
Click to expand...

Pigeon so on the money here. We elected the right person PoliGAF president.

Prodigal Son said:
ew. Why McDonald's of all places?
Click to expand...

Because she's bribing poors. Poor people eat at McDonald's. It is known.
 
P

Prodigal Son

Member
B-Dubs said:
And context doesn't eliminate subtext. Just because he does it to everyone that doesn't make it OK.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he should simply stop waving his fingers then?

The very argument that finger-waving has sexist subtext is already quite the stretch.

Do you mean when he'd like to get a word in while she's speaking over her time or during his delivery itself?
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Crocodile said:
The person you quoted didn't call Sander a misogynist. I don't think any reasonable person is calling him one. All they're saying is that his word choice and tone, or those of official surrogates, have often been "unfortunate" and could legit turn some people off. That is to say ignorance or being uncareful as opposed to malice. I'm not sure why you are so quick to go "but what about Clinton?!?!" as if people didn't/don't criticize her or her official surrogates when they derp it up or as if somehow their derpiness makes it ok when Sanders derps it up. "But what about _______!" is more a diversion than an actual counterargument.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I guess I didn't like it back in '08 when people were accusing Hillary Clinton of being racist towards Obama when Bill or one of her surrogates said something kind of dumb or with ignorance instead of malice. Or even in 2016, acting like the crime bill that her husband passed 20 some years ago was done out of some kind of prejudice? Seriously?

I'll form my beliefs about Sanders and Clinton based on what they say and do - not their supporters (who are sort of crazy). I've seen enough craziness from surrogates that I tend to tune them out as well. :p

Aside: The Trump pivot begins

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/b...eets-with-donald-trump.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Fox News has defended Ms. Kelly, at one point accusing Mr. Trump of harboring an “extreme, sick obsession” with her. But the network will face a different environment in the general election, when many viewers may expect the channel’s personalities to show allegiance to the Republican nominee.

Mr. Trump is looking ahead, too. After establishing a bullying, showmanlike approach to campaigning, Mr. Trump is in the midst of overhauling his team’s message and approach as he prepares for a potential general election before a more moderate and diverse electorate.

Mr. Trump recently hired a seasoned political hand, Paul J. Manafort, whose portfolio has grown beyond his original assignment as a delegate wrangler at this summer’s Republican national convention. Now, Mr. Manafort is taking a bigger role in Mr. Trump’s messaging and news media strategy.

This week, Mr. Trump has sought to soften his image — or, in his words, “I will be so presidential you won’t believe it.” The shift, Mr. Trump said Tuesday night, has been urged by his family members, who were sitting next to him as he made the remarks during a live town hall-style event on CNN.

With his wife, Melania, at his side, Mr. Trump radiated a paternal beam as his four grown children attested to his skills as a father and mentor. For home viewers, the message was underscored, intentionally or not, by a prominent Twitter hashtag placed by CNN at the bottom of the screen: #TrumpFamily.
Click to expand...

Also, I think Trump reads Scott Adams' blog.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/142241536401/derailing-the-trump-train

But all of these things are minor compared to what Trump needs to get out of the hole. To get all the way out, he needs one thing. And he already set the table for that one thing to happen.

Trump needs Megyn Kelly to interview him.
Click to expand...
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Box of Kittens said:
I really doubt he concedes until after the primaries are done. Whether he concedes then or actually tries to take it to the convention probably depends on whether he listens to Weaver or Devine. Hopefully he listens to Devine.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't he drop out if he's mathematically eliminated? Nobody is even going to pay attention to him.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Prodigal Son said:
Context is key. Context tells me and most other people that, during passionate delivery, he waves his finger at everyone. To not wave his finger exclusively at Clinton would be treating her differently on the basis of her sex. We all know what that is.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty tired of people shouting "context!" every time Bernie's campaign bungles gender-related stuff. If you put them all together, haven't there been one too many slip ups to consider that maybe, just maybe, Bernie and his supporters could be unconsciously sexist, and worse yet not making a concerted effort to reflect on this problem?

Couldn't Song have said "corporate sellout" instead of "corporate whore"? Could Bernie not say Hillary is unqualified, and maybe not doubled down on that? Couldn't Killer Mike have said "women" instead of "vagina"?

The 'context' of so many slip ups tell me that there's an element of sexism at play here, whether consciously or unconsciously. The lack of self-reflection in that regard makes me question if the Bernie campaign is at all serious about gender equality, because obviously they don't really seem to be careful and cautious about women's opinions at all.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Kristoffer said:
FUCK the purity test! The crime bill was good. Screw you, Michelle Alexander.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/crime-bill-legacy/478089/?utm_source=SFFB
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I get there is a desire to attack Clinton on this to try to get some of the AA vote away from Hillary; but if anyone legitimately thinks that the crime bill was some kind of racial pandering to white people, they're delusional at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Bill Clinton isn't responsible for how local authorities ended up using that bill - most of the mass incarceration was done on a state level, not a federal level.

balladofwindfishes said:
Why wouldn't he drop out if he's mathematically eliminated? Nobody is even going to pay attention to him.
Click to expand...

I think there's a decent chance he drops out after NY if Clinton wins by 10+ points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom