Well, I do.
I have previously opined, confidently, that Donald Trump supporters, every single one of them, are stupid. This I have pointed out, is the only possible explanation for supporting an obvious narcissist who utters no substantive or serious policy ideas, believes rationalizations are legitimate arguments, is vulgar and insulting without shame or hesitation, and has the essential character of a pimp.
I was wrong.
They aren’t stupid.
They are very stupid.
Ethics Alarms 
Did you read Kevin Williamson’s article at NationalReview.com?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016
Reading that… and to be honest, I’d consider voting for Trump. If the choice is between a jackass on one side, and a tyrant on the other…
Jackass is too kind to Trump. And if the anti-totalitarian vote goes to the candidate who praised Putin, we’re in the Twilight Zone for sure.
Jackass is certainly applicable to Trump, who never saw a juvenile insult he didn’t like. However, the syllabus of Democratic political sins listed in that article is pretty serious. I can’t see giving a party that’s already done those things unlimited power.
I don’t disagree with that assessment. I still wouldn’t put Dylann Roof, Kim Kardashian, Bill O’Reilly, Gallagher, or Tom Brady in the White House as a desperate alternative. Or Donald Trump.
Interesting set of individuals, all of them wacky to one extent or another. Not sure I’d compare Trump to a murderer, a vacuous starlet, or a guy whose shtick is smashing watermelons, except maybe as someone who does outrageous things. That said, I am having a hard way of seeing how this country is well-served by putting a blowhard, a budding tyrant who may have issues with senility, or, for that matter, another blowhard (Cruz) or a socialist nut (Sanders) in the White House. Yet here we are.
Four legitimate governors and the only Democrat with any sense of statesmanship (Webb) are already gone from the race. In the next two or three weeks I think three or four more governors, any of whom could have been president effectively, are going to exit the race, including Martin O’Malley, who has to know he is wasting his time. A few other candidates are going to hang on for a while, but in the end it’s just a question of how soon the GOP field boils down to Cruz, Trump, Rubio, and possibly Christie (if his numbers don’t flatline in the spring) and when Bernie Sanders decides to end the charade of having any potential of getting the nomination and ends any further need for Democratic debates, which I’m sure the Hildebeest will be grateful for.
If Trump’s numbers are still the highest going into the convention, the GOP really has no choice but to nominate him, because any attempt at a brokered convention will cause him to call “unfair” and launch a third-party bid, fracturing the anti-Democrat vote and sending the election the other way. This is an election like no other, and frankly the most unqualified set of top candidates I have seen in my life.
They’ll dare him to bolt. Trump can’t let his brand be sullied by losing, or getting Hillary elected. He won’t run, and the GOP does not have to nominate him. And won’t.
I think they may already have done that privately. A huge ego is a weird thing, and you are concluding that his huge ego won’t allow him to run when he knows those two things are inevitable. However, a huge ego can also cause someone to become irrational, particularly if he is “in the loss zone” and do otherwise crazy things. At the most basic is he rational? We’ll see.
Trump’s worst fear: becoming a “Looooooserrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…”
Trumps words and actions prove that he doesn’t give a damn about “his brand being sullied” unless of course the brand in question is being a narcissistic steamroller, I think he want’s to maintain that indefinitely.
As for using the word “losing” in the context of your comment, you might be making an assumption. To know what losing means to Trump, you must first know the actual goal. Anyway we look at it, regardless of whether Trumps wins or looses the nomination and the Presidency, in the mind of Trump, he wins.
The question is what does Trump win if he looses?
I can’t see Trump entering into this Presidential race without a win-win as the outcome for the narcissist Trump. You can bet that there is something in it for Trump regardless of winning or loosing the nomination and the Presidency. We know what Trump gets if he wins the Presidency – more power to feed his narcissist personality disorder, so what’s in it for Trump if he does not get the nomination??? What’s on the flip side of that Presidential win to feed Trumps narcissist personality disorder; there’s the trillion dollar question?
He may win nothing. Nothing stops him from claiming that whatever the result, it’s exactly what he really wanted. Well something would stop him if he were honest but, you know.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/12/21/over-30-of-republicans-apparently-have-no-problem-with-americas-representative-to-the-world-and-the-role-model-for-their-children-using-words-like-schlonged-in-public/comment-page-1/#comment-371423
https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/12/21/over-30-of-republicans-apparently-have-no-problem-with-americas-representative-to-the-world-and-the-role-model-for-their-children-using-words-like-schlonged-in-public/comment-page-1/#comment-371433
Why insult people because you don’t like the way they “express” themselves? Mr. Trump is providing a very important forum for the American voters “disgusted” with the status quo and “do nothing” politicians with posteriors the shape of their chairs.There is nothing wrong with a little “radicalism” to shake things up—–change attitudes and voice people’s hidden anger which can be quite cathartic.
As for Mr. Putin, who remains popular in Russia and unpopular in the USA and parts of Europe, Mr. Trump is using his “endorsement” as a marketing ploy—–to what ever advantage he can as a businessman (candidate) should. Granted, Putin’s endorsement could be construed “as the kiss of death” by some, but others see him as a righteous man of strength attempting to make “Russia Great Again” as Mr. Trump wants to make “America Great Again.” It seems they share a similar goal.
Thank you for your service and sacrifice, sir.
On this, however, you are full of beans, and should know it.
The manner in which people refer to others, address each other and express themselves demonstrates their respect for others and their acceptance of the basic responsibilities of civilization, like civility, decorum, and dignity. For leaders or aspiring leaders, this is not only necessary but crucial.
Your statement, moreover, is vague and misleading…deceitful, in fact. “Why insult people because you don’t like the way they “express” themselves?” I am not here to insult anyone, but to diagnose the reasons for unethical behavior. To people like Trump, “I’m popular” is enough to prove superior virtue and ability. It is important to point out that he’s popular with morons. This is why “Everybody does it” is not a valid justification of conduct.
Nor is the issue that I “don’t like” uncivil, boorish words and conduct. The issue is that such conduct is damaging and wrong, and that from a leader, it undermines both civic discourse and intelligent decision making. If someone lies, I don’t like that “way they express themselves”—do you?—but the reason I call attention to it is because lying is wrong and harmful. And people who don’t realize lying is wrong and harmful? They are ignorant and or corrupt. That’s a diagnosis, not an insult.
This…
“Mr. Trump is providing a very important forum for the American voters “disgusted” with the status quo and “do nothing” politicians with posteriors the shape of their chairs.There is nothing wrong with a little “radicalism” to shake things up—–change attitudes and voice people’s hidden anger which can be quite cathartic.”
…is about the only justification for Trump I hear from his supporters. Seriously? That makes sense to you? To express objections to the status quo, you embrace a guy who inherited his wealth, has no demonstrated intellect or achievements in public policy, lives in the seedy worlds of construction, casino gambling and reality TV, insults veterans, women, handicapped people, whole religions and nations, endorses the imprisoning of innocent American citizens based on nationality, models boastful and narcissist conduct—wow, what a brilliant solution!!! And next, by all means make this jackass Presidentto really show how disgusted you are! Or, I guess, you could vote for a Howler monkey, John Hinckley or Kanye West.
Or just cut to the chase and throw your fecal matter at the Capitol.
Preventing the Unites States from choosing a qualified new President in a critical, even existential situation economically, internationally and socially isn’t ” a little radicalism”—it’s wildly juvenile and irresponsible, as well as dangerous.
You have an obligation, as a veteran who is the object of respect, to quell mindless mobs, not incite or make excuses for them.
Shape up. Sir.
David,
Thank you for your service.
I started to type a reply and then realized that Jack said everything I wanted to say and more. Ditto absolutely every word of Jacks comment.
Well he’s certainly not very big on the political correctness is he? The media certainly don’t know how to handle him.
Being a vulgar, uncivil slob has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with proper respect for the process, the office, and the audience. Don’t distort political correctness to excuse gratuitous boorishness.
Sure they do – they put him right up front and center, telling everyone that he’s who the Republicans want, so all you Democrats better get out the vote, or else you’ll have to put up with the epitome of Conservative thought that is Trump. I’m waiting for him to break into “If I only had a brain.”
I am hardly stupid (MENSA) and have old Eastern establishment Victorian manners. I say give them HELL Donald! Get the mamby pamby nutless all in a twitter!
Yes, you’re an idiot. The Mensa boast clinches it. I’m truly sorry. On the bright side, you’ll never be lonely.
A retort is Not a “boast” WW2 was fought by MEN,that didnt get All upset over chicken shit. Nowadays we have males, not MEN. Thank You and Goodbye, I really regard your response as UNETHICAL.
Wow that was fast!
As I have said, signature significance of an idiot. Let’s see: using membership in a would-be narcissists club for the insecure as a marker for intelligence when it is in fact a symptom of the opposite; citing irrelevancies (what WWII has to do with Trump or being vulgar, I don’t know), and equating manhood with blowing hard. Trump could have served in the military under fire: he played his rich kid chip. And decorum and civility are not chicken shit; they are civilization.
You are banned as too dumb to converse on this blog. Go play anagrams in your Mensa sandbox.
GJW,
That’s the kind of wack-a-doodle idiocy that I see at madison.com.
I want to cry. What is wrong with people? Hillary is going to win and it will be Trump’s fault. I’m not quite sure why anyone would vote for either of them. I just can’t believe we are probably going to have to choose between a senile liar or a potty mouthed frat boy. 2016 is going to be a long year.
He could use some of Washington’s rules:
16. Do not puff up the cheeks, loll not out the tongue with the hands or beard, thrust out the lips or bite them, or keep the lips too open or too close.
21. Reproach none for the infirmities of nature, nor delight to put them that have in mind of thereof.
47. Mock not nor jest at any thing of importance. Break no jests that are sharp, biting, and if you deliver any thing witty and pleasant, abstain from laughing thereat yourself.
59. Never express anything unbecoming, nor act against the rules moral before your inferiors.
63. A man ought not to value himself of his achievements or rare qualities of wit; much less of his riches, virtue or kindred.
65. Speak not injurious words neither in jest nor earnest; scoff at none although they give occasion.
67. Detract not from others, neither be excessive in commanding.
71. Gaze not on the marks or blemishes of others and ask not how they came. What you may speak in secret to your friend, deliver not before others.
82. Undertake not what you cannot perform but be careful to keep your promise.
83. When you deliver a matter do it without passion and with discretion, however mean the person be you do it to.
110. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
No, 30% of Republicans do not have no problem with role models using words like schlonged in public. Lazy use of statistics.
You know as well as I do that the polls this early on do not accurately reflect things. Just because Trump is currently polling at 30% does not necessarily mean that 30% or Republics support him. And of those that do support him, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them do not approve of role models using such words in public.
That’s a misleading and unfair title, and you should change it.
If this is a sample of the kind of thing you have to read regularly before pressiing the “trash” button, Jack, I am afraid for your sanity. If there is a statistically significant number of these morons hanging around the country, then I’m afraid for mine.
Damn! NO UNSUBSCRIBE button to this nutless weenie blog!
Never mind. I just banned you, so you can just ignore it.
Well played Jack!
Sad. I was hoping to pick up some pearls of wisdom from the REAL MAN on how REAL MEN are supposed to act.
Guess, now I’ll just have to rely on REAL MAN Donald Trump to show me the way. Dang.
I can send you his e-mail address if you want to be buds….
No you can’t — that would be a breach of trust.
Uh, yes, I know that. Since I know and you know that Chris was being sarcastic and doesn’t want to be ‘buds,” it is equally obvious that my response was as facetious as the comment that provoked it. Or should be. Unless you are also being facetious.
This link might explain it better: https://45.media.tumblr.com/c46080343c4679b8a1e954d07152eec9/tumblr_nl9b18wVEy1rvgwoao1_400.gif
(if only it were possible to embed photos and gifs within a post….)
“Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.”
― David Foster Wallace, This Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life
tags: atheism, god, idols, worship 662 likes Like
No particular love for the Donald, but if the alternative is Hitlery, it’s time to #playtheTrumpcard .
When someone chooses the perceived less of two evils when they have to choose one, they cannot be accused of supporting that one.
For the record, the decision to vote for Hillary over Trump, while frightening and disgusting and disheartening, I consider a no-brainer. It’s the only responsible choice.
Then move to, oh I don’t know, anywhere.
I also consider it a no-brainer, but I’ll vote for a blustery pig over a full-on tyrant. Frankly I’d rather take a third option, though.
I wonder if that’s the kind of logic that people think they’ve used to come to the position of supporting Trump… I mean…. He’s an asshole… But he’s a centrist asshole. He hasn’t kicked any of the golden cows the democrats cared about five years ago. Abortion? Waffly at best. Gay marriage? Haven’t heard a peep. Income inequality? His position is almost Democrat. Guns? I actually don’t know where he stands. For a lot of single issue voters, Donald might actually be the best of a lot of bad candidates.
But if you need to move somewhere, I’m stocking my bunker up with Kraft Dinner and hot chocolate.
Single issue voters are also, if not stupid, irresponsible citizens.
Jack, if that is true, what does it do to the concept of “signature significance”?
You’ll have to elaborate on that a bit for me to respond.
Exactly right. Hillary is a no-brainer. Who would you rather have meet with foreign dignitaries? Given that Hillary has already done that — the choice is clear.
Did anyone watch the most recent R debate? It was frightening when Trump demonstrated that he knew next to nothing about nuclear weapons. Poor Rubio threw him a bone on that one — I would have obliterated him.
So the foreign leaders can just be lied to instead of bludgeoned. No thanks. BTW, it was also signature significance when Her Thighness couldn’t make it back from doing the canyon trickle on time.
“BTW, it was also signature significance when Her Thighness couldn’t make it back from doing the canyon trickle on time.”
I’m curious: why do you use these types of sexist insults against Hilary Clinton? Do you think it helps or hurts the Democrats’ narrative that opposition to Clinton is based on sexism?
I refuse to bow and scrape to her simply because she is Hillary, much less because she is a woman. If she can’t take the heat she should get out of the kitchen.
What you call “bowing and scraping,” others might call common decency. You also might want to consider that your sexist insults say more about you than they do about her.
She lies, she deceives, she out-and-out refuses to answer legitimate questions, she got people killed. She is not entitled to any kind of decency.
“She lies, she deceives, she out-and-out refuses to answer legitimate questions, she got people killed. She is not entitled to any kind of decency.”
And yet, in the comment in question, you instead chose to criticize her for a) her thighs and b) her vagina, neither of which have anything to do with your more valid complaints, and both of which make you look like someone who hates her for being a woman you don’t want to bang rather than any relevant criteria.
It doesn’t matter if you think she’s deserving of being treated with respect; comments like yours degrade all women, and they also degrade the speaker.
“sexist insults”
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Two Humpty Dumpty references in one week!!!
Humble Talent, if you really don’t see why referring to a woman as “Her Thighness” and referring to her “canyon trickle” is sexist, then I put forth you are the one having trouble with the meanings of words, not me.
Just for the record, Her Thighness is partially a poke at her size (admittedly cheap), partly a poke at arrogance befitting royalty who alone are called “Highness.” Canyon trickle is the female of “pickle trickle” which is simply urinating. What I was really driving at is that I believe HRC to be stunningly arrogant and that the fact she couldn’t get herself back on stage in time to be illustrative of that arrogance.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty-Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty-Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
The question is: what is the question?
[Answer: If you can’t agree on the question, there is no answer.]
I’m certainly no Ms. Clinton supporter at this point, but using sexist insults dilutes any point you want to make. She has plenty of of valid weak points, but the sexist attack invalidates credibility, just like Trump’s attack on the reporter. A certain level of manners is necessary for politics and business, and I’m dismayed that Mr. Trump is taking reality TV as the new standard for manners, Manners are not bowing and scraping, you can be very insulting without being crude,
exactly
Now I would love for either you, Mary or Chris to explain to me how “Her Thighness” was a sexist insult, as opposed to just petty and juvenile. I understand why you think it was… but having thighs isn’t actually gendered. Or is it? Do we call them something else on men? If we saw an overweight guy and called him fat, I don’t know… someone like Chris Christie, just as an out there example… Would we say that insult is sexist? Or is it just an insult? Or is every insult against a woman sexist? I mean…. Does anyone REALLY think that the criticism Hillary gets is because of her gender? I think we’ve had eight years of “Obama gets it because he’s black” and that’s more than enough bullshit, butthurt identity politics for this generation, thank you very much.
“A certain level of manners is necessary for politics and business, and I’m dismayed that Mr. Trump is taking reality TV as the new standard for manners, Manners are not bowing and scraping, you can be very insulting without being crude.”
That was the part of her comment that resonated with me. As for thighs — big thighs is a derogatory comment directed at women, just like beer bellies is something that is thrown at men. Both have no place in political discussions.
What Beth said.
I’m not sold. And you moved the goalposts. I don’t disagree with the quoted passage, but that quotation in no way represents an explanation as to how “Her Thighness” is a “sexist” slur. The closest you came is by saying ‘big thighs is a derogatory comment directed at women, just like beer bellies is something that is thrown at men’. For the record, I’ll give you that, but I don’t think it means what you want it to.
Oxford defines sexism as “Relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.” Why a dictionary chose to qualify their definition in regards to prevalence is beyond me, but regardless, I doubt you could find a more friendly definition.
What doesn’t that definition say? It doesn’t say that anything that has gender-based connotations is sexist. What does it say? It requires prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination. I’m going to ask again: Does anyone really think that the reason people have a problem with Hillary Clinton is because of her gender?
Hint: No… The people criticizing Clinton generally don’t have the same criticisms for say… Carly. Even by a generous metric, it’s much more reasonable to assume partyism than sexism, and in order to get there you have to have forgotten about the lies, corruption and sociopathy. If you’re able to come to that answer… We should ask a follow up: Why was “sexism” the term we fell back on? Beth didn’t actually use it, but it was being handed out like ticker tape at a Susan B Anthony rally just a few posts ago.
And I think the answer to that is because it’s easy. You don’t have to think about what you’re saying, who you’re defending, when you say that. If you can just sit back and say “That criticism is sexist!” and walk away like you just said something profound. It’s like calling people who don’t want Muslims in America racists…. Muslims aren’t a race. Homophobe!? Cisheteropatriarch! White! Man! Christian! Truther! Birther! These responses are knee jerk autonomic reflexes used by people to stupid, lazy or disengaged to actually have the conversation that really deserves to be had.
In fact, Trump is at least partially your fault. Those reflexes lost their meaning. There’s no shame associated with them anymore. I’ve been called a straight, shitlord, neckbeard, white, male bigot so many times and in so many ways for daring to disagree with the progressive agenda that I’m numb to it. I know I’m not actually a bigot, I know I’m not racist, I know I’m not sexist, heck I’m not straight and I don’t have a beard… It’s now officially a useless device. So when Trump gets up on his box and says something horrible… The Muslim Ban is probably the single best example of it…. You have nothing left. You blew your load on microagressions (TYSRL) and you don’t have an answer. Jack says he’s waiting for that “have you no sense of decency, sir?” moment. It isn’t coming. There’s no one able to use it effectively, first off, and second: he doesn’t. And I don’t think there’s anyone left who doesn’t know it.
Because commenting on any body part as a slam is not relevant to their politics. Period. Have you said ‘his thighness’ about Bill or any male politician? Would you? Hips and thigh comments are used to comment on women as irrelevant ‘so there!’ comments. Yeah, she deserves a lot of heat for her own actions and policies, and that I applaud.
Humble Talent, have you EVER seen a male politician referred to as “His Thighness,” or be criticized for their thighs at all?
I highly doubt it, and I feel like you’re being willfully obtuse.
P.S. As for “shitlord,” who are all these progressives using this word? I’ve literally only heard it from conservatives “imitating” SJWs. There’s also the fact that your entire comment basically amounts to “They started it,” or the Everybody Does It rationalization.
P.P.S. Yes, “neckbeards” is also sexist, and probably classist as well. Usually accompanied by fat-shaming.
“Because commenting on any body part as a slam is not relevant to their politics. Period.”
Irrelevant. You completely missed the point. I’m not saying it was appropriate, I’m saying that it doesn’t reach the bar of being “sexist”.
“Have you said ‘his thighness’ about Bill or any male politician? Would you?”
No, because that isn’t appropriate. I think I see the point you’re trying to make… but you don’t make it, and I’m going to explain why in just a few lines.
“Hips and thigh comments are used to comment on women as irrelevant ‘so there!’ comments.”
And there we have it. That’s a VERY low bar. Go back to the definition…. Prejudice, Stereotyping, or Discrimination. These words have meaning, and none of them fall under your usage.
Prejudice is “prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts.” Being prejudiced against Hillary would have required people to have judged her before she was a rape enabling, dishonest, corrupt sociopath. People very well may have done that…. But relevant facts being what they are, for comments made at this time, I don’t think it’s fair to say criticism of Hillary is prejudiced, even when done in an immature manner.
Stereotyping is “A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.” In order for it to be relevant, the criticism towards Hillary would have to be something like: “Hillary is corrupt because she is a woman.”
And Discrimination is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.” which is basically a more active form of prejudice.
If you know someone, and actions they’ve taken have led you to have a negative opinion of them, and then you assert those opinions, even in a way that has sexual connotations, it isn’t actually sexist. It’s wrong. It’s juvenile. It might even reach up to the level of sexual harassment…. But it isn’t sexist. But people think it is… And then we get into a conversation: Does the word mean what it’s supposed to mean, or has the meaning changed to mean what we think it means? And if it’s changed to mean what we think it means… Is it still useful as to describe what it used to mean? Sexism, as it used to be known, was toxic woman hating… Sexism as it’s known today, ranges down to inappropriate comments. We’ve lumped someone saying “Fucking women, get in the kitchen and make me a god damned sandwich, because that’s all you’re good for.” with calling someone “Her Thighness”.
“In order for it to be relevant, the criticism towards Hillary would have to be something like: “Hillary is corrupt because she is a woman.”
“We’ve lumped someone saying “Fucking women, get in the kitchen and make me a god damned sandwich, because that’s all you’re good for.” with calling someone “Her Thighness”
You do realize that almost no one in the world talks like this, right?
You’re defining the word “sexism” in such a way that almost no policy or statement could be called “sexist” unless it can be conclusively proven that the speaker absolutely loathes women. By this standard, almost nothing that women actually experience as sexism counts as sexism, making your definition rather useless.
Your argument is equivalent to arguing that a statement can’t be racist unless the speaker goes around in white hoods constantly spouting the “n” word. Most bigotry is much, much subtler than that. It’s usually more subtle than calling a woman “Her Thighness,” actually, which is pretty brazenly sexist.
“You do realize that almost no one in the world talks like this, right?”
I know EXACTLY that. We live in a time of unprecedented tolerance, and I think we should remember and appreciate that.
“You’re defining the word “sexism” in such a way that almost no policy or statement could be called “sexist” unless it can be conclusively proven that the speaker absolutely loathes women.”
That’s kind of my point. Sexism as it was understood 50 years ago does not exist today, and we are manufacturing a crisis to make the term relevant. Meanwhile… People that are not prejudiced, or discriminatory are being slapped with a traditionally awful label, and we’ve lost a social tool that used to function as a deterrent.
“By this standard, almost nothing that women actually experience as sexism counts as sexism, making your definition rather useless.”
No no… Useful. The point of labels isn’t to try to apply them to everything, the point is to describe things. If we found a person that label really applies to, it’s a tool, if we don’t our lives are pretty damn good.
“Your argument is equivalent to arguing that a statement can’t be racist unless the speaker goes around in white hoods constantly spouting the “n” word. Most bigotry is much, much subtler than that.”
You use these words, but I do not think they mean what you think they do. That’s not actually my position… My position is that the words have definitions, and those definitions do not match your usage, and if there isn’t anything that actually matches that definition, we’re actually in pretty good place. But two people can play that game: Your position seems to be that racism and sexism is rampant, that anything said to a woman that is offensive is also sexist, and that humanity hasn’t made any progress as a species in 1000 years.
“It’s usually more subtle than calling a woman “Her Thighness,” actually, which is pretty brazenly sexist.”
Not really. That’s inappropriate, and a pretty shitty thing to do, but it’s not prejudiced, stereotypical, or discriminatory, which are the three tests for sexism. You are proving my point beautifully… You actually think these things are examples of sexism because that’s the paradigm you’ve experienced.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument I’m wrong, and that prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes aren’t actually the tests for sexism… Define sexism. What do you think sexism is>
HT: “Let’s just say for the sake of argument I’m wrong, and that prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes aren’t actually the tests for sexism…”
Those are actually all pretty good tests. And “Her Thighness” matches each and every one of them.
1) It’s prejudiced because it judges a woman on criteria that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
2) It’s discrimination because it judges a woman on criteria that a man would never be judged on.
3) It’s stereotypical because it judges a woman on criteria that is stereotypically associated with acceptable womanhood.
This is all really obvious, and I’m not sure why it needs to be explained to you.
Now you’re just being obtuse.
“1) It’s prejudiced because it judges a woman on criteria that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.”
That’s actually not what prejudice is. Parse it. Pre-judice. Pre judgement. It requires you to have an idea on what a demographic will be like based on a prior preconception of that group.
Actually… That’s a point we haven’t touched on yet. And it might be where we break down. Sexism is never individual. You can’t be sexist against one woman.. Because at the point you narrow it down to the person in front of you discreetly, you aren’t judging her based on her gender, you’re judging her based on her. If you were judging her based on her gender, it wouldn’t be about her. You can still be wrong, you can still be an asshole, or juvenile… But by definition, you aren’t being sexist.
Take Hillary for example. She’s a great example. Maybe the best. She said in an interview with MSNBC “Clearly, I’m not asking people to vote for me simply because I’m a woman. I’m asking people to vote for me on the merits. And I think one of the merits is: I am a woman.” ( http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/23/hillary-clinton-dont-vote-for-me-because-im-a-woman-vote-for-me-because-im-a-woman/ ) At the point a presidential candidate says something like that, their gender is on the table. And that has nothing to do with women in general and everything to do with Hillary Clinton.
“2) It’s discrimination because it judges a woman on criteria that a man would never be judged on.”
First off, prejudice is a judgement, discrimination is the action taken as a result of that judgment. Second: Men and women are different. Beth made this point earlier using thighs and beer bellies as examples. What’s really happened here is that Hillary was being called heavy. Gendering that insult has sexual connotations, but fails the test for discrimination, because you have to prove that Steve was mocking her weight because she’s a woman. I don’t believe that. I think he was mocking her weight because she’s Hillary and he doesn’t like her. Third, and just to reinforce the difference between individuals and the group: “Doesn’t like her” not “doesn’t like women.”
“3) It’s stereotypical because it judges a woman on criteria that is stereotypically associated with acceptable womanhood.”
This is actually close to a legitimate point. You’ve colored it with the lens of social justice… Stereotypes have nothing to do with “acceptable” anything. Usually stereotypes are negative connotations associated with groups, which are explicitly understood to be unacceptable. regardless, it’s still a weak argument, because again, we’re talking about an individual as opposed to a demographic. stereotypes are almost never true of a group as a whole, but you’ll often find that stereotypes spring from things that might be true individually. For example: Saying “Black people like watermelon.” or “What do you mean you don’t like watermelon, you’re black!” is stereotypical. Saying, “Fred likes watermelon.” isn’t stereotypical, even if Fred is black, if he actually happens to like watermelon. Hillary has thighs. It might not be polite to say so, it has absolutely nothing to do with being a politician, or her policies, and so Steve’s an asshole to bring it up, but they’re there.
“This is all really obvious, and I’m not sure why it needs to be explained to you.”
It’s because you’re using a different dictionary than I am. I mean… I think you’re just making this up as you go. I could be wrong, I suppose. What resource do you get your definitions from?
“a sexist insult, as opposed to just petty and juvenile”.
What makes you think they’re opposed?? The words being referred to are in no way related to the subjects Clinton should be insulted for, they’re sexist insults because they relate to her ONLY derogatorily AS a body. Which can be taken as being insulting to people with that kind of body: all females.
“Muscle-bound” was thrown at a California governor, referring to his brain as well as being famous for a physique that is not much admired today. And yes, Christie gets smacked because slamming “fat” is still part of this country’s bullying and look-ist culture: it’s okay to make fun of people for their appearance … if you are petty and juvenile. So is making a fetish contest out of giving silly names to Trump’s hair color. He thrives on the attention, you fools. “Baldy” being male-pattern, could be called sexist as well. The only place I encountered a body insult referring to men were by women in another country who made a gesture when insulted or disgusted by a man (though not within his sight and usually when telling another woman afterwards) by putting the thumb and forefinger of her left hand — the left as used to clean the body being particularly insulting — together about an eighth of an inch apart.
Sexism, as far as bodies go, doesn’t go far when applied to men. To demean an American man all you have to do is to refer to him as a woman. Or as playing the role of a woman, which is the insulting, petty and juvenile myth about being a gay man.
Equally insulting are sexist compliments. See Jack Marshall on The Chivalry Curse, the President, and the Dazzling Smile
Great referral. I like that guy: what ever became of him?
(Just in case it ends up in the wrong place, this reply is to Pennagian. The reply chain has grown so long, that the reply button for for individual posts has stopped showing up for me).
“To demean an American man all you have to do is to refer to him as a woman. Or as playing the role of a woman, which is the insulting, petty and juvenile myth about being a gay man.”
Looking like a boy (referring to being flat chested). Manish. Man hands. Unladylike. Tomboy.
The fact that you omitted the flip-side to your “referring to a gender by the opposite gender is an insult” implies that the knife only cut one way, which is incorrect. Have you considered that, for some, it isn’t insulting to be referred to the opposite gender because the opposite gender is lesser, but that they’re being referred to something that they’re obviously not?
“What makes you think they’re opposed?? The words being referred to are in no way related to the subjects Clinton should be insulted for, they’re sexist insults because they relate to her ONLY derogatorily AS a body. Which can be taken as being insulting to people with that kind of body: all females.”
You could argue that by refusing to see the person, and instead seeing the person’s body, you are objectifying the person, which again, is wrong… But what you can’t do is say that women have big thighs, and because women have big thighs mentioning big thighs is sexist… Because at that point you’ve stereotyped women’s bodies, and actually passed the test that makes your statement sexist. Just like you couldn’t call Rand Paul “baldy” or Bernie Sanders “Tubbers” because Rand has hair and Bernie isn’t heavy, calling Fiorina “Her Thighness” doesn’t work because Fiorina doesn’t carry weight like Clinton.
This is something I run into often when criticizing feminists, because they operate in a socialist group impact paradigm, criticism of individual feminists often gets conflated into criticizing women as a demographic, and labelled misogyny. And I think that there’s two equally likely possibilities: One: Because that’s the soup they swim in, they really do think that way, they really believe that criticizing an individual is criticizing the group. In which case: The long term indoctrination has worked. Or two: They don’t believe that, but they either lack the comprehension or engagement to adequately explain the theories, and so they use this as a dismissive, ad-libbed silencing tactic.
““Muscle-bound” was thrown at a California governor, referring to his brain as well as being famous for a physique that is not much admired today. And yes, Christie gets smacked because slamming “fat” is still part of this country’s bullying and look-ist culture: it’s okay to make fun of people for their appearance … if you are petty and juvenile.”
It’s like you’re on the cusp of understanding… but just need to clear that last hurdle. This is it exactly. “it’s okay to make fun of people for their appearance”. You’re making fun of their appearance… Not their gender. No one will ever call Christie “muscle bound” or call Arnold “The Elephant in the Room”,
I’m trying to think of examples of actual sexism for you… the latest one was probably the Megyn Kelly menstrual jab that Trump took, asshole that he is. The stereotype being that women can’t be assertive without also being on the rag. But before that there was Obama. When he was asked why he thought women tended to vote for him, his answer was because “women are smarter.”
Humble — give it up. You’re wrong on this one.
“Humble — give it up. You’re wrong on this one”
Speaking of poisoning the well: Beth has spoken everyone. And we all know what an unbiased, logical commentator she is, so of course that ends the debate right there. Thank you ever so much for that stunning insight, I think I might have to write a thesis on it.
Seriously though… If you want to have a discussion on why I might be wrong, I’m here. If you want to play pigeon chess, get bent.
Good god, HT–you’ve written over a thousand words about how criticizing a woman’s thighs isn’t sexist, and I’m the one being obtuse? This is ridiculous.
“Actually… That’s a point we haven’t touched on yet. And it might be where we break down. Sexism is never individual. You can’t be sexist against one woman.. Because at the point you narrow it down to the person in front of you discreetly, you aren’t judging her based on her gender, you’re judging her based on her. If you were judging her based on her gender, it wouldn’t be about her. You can still be wrong, you can still be an asshole, or juvenile… But by definition, you aren’t being sexist.”
Criticizing a woman’s thighs is never “just about one woman.”
It’s about criticizing a woman for not being sufficiently fuckable, which is to say, holding that women are there for you to want to fuck, and that’s it.
See, I don’t really care whether it’s sexist or not, though you’ve defined the best reason to think so. It would be interesting to ponder The View, whose comics made fun of Carly Fiorina’s face, mocking Hillary’s legs. If a woman mocks Hillary’s legs (my wife has mocked Hillary’s legs) is it still sexist? Is mocking Cristie’s weight sexist? Cruz’s nose? Trump’s hair? Aren’t all appearance related insults sort of based on sexual attractiveness? Does that means sexist?
As I began, I don’t care—I don’t have to get to sexism. It’s wrong. It’s ad hominem, and mean, using appearance to undermine respect and credibility. Nobody should care if Hillary has tentacles, if she’s a competent leader, and if she was the woman she is and looked like Charlize Theron, I wouldn’t support her any more than I do.
Jack’s nailed it… Maybe I got too hung up on what is or is not included in the label… I was never arguing that it was acceptable behavior. My point was that in order to be useful as a deterrent, it isn’t helpful to add trivialities to the label. Whatever you choose to lump into the definition, I think I’ve argued myself out of caring, just be aware that it becomes less effective a term the more you add to it.
“Nobody should care if Hillary has tentacles, if she’s a competent leader,”
Although it might explain things if she WERE the spawn of Cthulu…
Also: Clinton is not “heavy” by any reasonable standard. You would not call a man of her age and weight “heavy.” To judge her on her weight, on a completely different standard than you would judge a man, is prima facie sexist.
I’m actually probably more likely to judge a man by his weight. I’m gay. I have a sexual preference that means that I absolutely judge male and female characteristics by different standards. I’m pretty sure you do too. And basically the entire planet. In fact, I could cite sociological studies that say that upon meeting a new person, it takes slightly less than 10 seconds for the average person to judge that person based on a range of things from sexual attraction to potential competition. By that definition, we’re all prejudiced… And while it might be more crass to actually say something or act on those prejudices, I’m also pretty sure it’s necessary for the survival of the species. (Except in my case, I’m special) See, that’s the problem when you make up rules as you go along without thinking them through to their logical conclusion: You’ve just made everyone sexist. And now that we’re all sexist, and sexism is truly normal…. Just how useful is the term? How much shame should I feel?
“You’ve just made everyone sexist.”
Yes, everyone is sexist, and everyone is racist. Have you never seen this?
“And now that we’re all sexist, and sexism is truly normal…. Just how useful is the term? How much shame should I feel?”
It’s not about you feeling shame. It’s really not about you at all.
I bet you would have. So many competent, intelligent, informed people would have and could have, but nobody on the stage. What are they afraid of?
As much as I’d hate to agree, I’d have to say that yeah….Hillary would be the better choice. As much as I despise her (and I do…with a white hot flame), she is at least somewhat responsible, somewhat mature, and somewhat “presidential”. Trump is almost-literally the textbook definition of calling someone a “joke”. He’s a living, breathing, caricature.
You think Obama has been divisive? You think Clinton would be divisive? The left, who still don’t take him seriously enough to hate him, quickly will. And most of Trump’s party actively despise him, and that will only grow.
On second though, maybe a Trump presidency is just the thing we need to start some political healing.
Sigh…”divisive”, not decisive.
Fixed it. I thought that was what you meant.
Thanks!
More on Trump’s “schlonged” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/22/donald-trumps-schlonged-a-linguistic-investigation/
My unregistered brother has no opinion or knowledge on Trump’s politics or presidential intentions. He just likes that Trump is sticking it to professional politicians and wafflers who don’t mean what they say. But being rude or entertaining doesn’t make a leader for anything more crucial to the world than a Survivor group. We don’t need a leader to lead us further down into irrelevance and laughing stock. That’s the job of comedians not presidents.
Why can’t you explain this basic truth to your brother?
I have, many times. He just doesn’t care about it, believing they’re all asses. The argument has been going on for almost 30 years, and short of making register at gunpoint, I don’t think it will change now,
I’m going to vent a little bit, it might be a little random so bare with me…
Usually I think using the word “stupid” is about as inappropriate and unethical as it can be and I encourage others to use the word ignorant which usually is accurate to describe the condition of the people or individual being discussed; however, in this particular case I think Trump supporters have sunk below ignorance and they are Trump sheeple and you’ve hit the nail on the head; stupid is accurate! Trump supporters pawns and are being USED and their too damned stupid to realize it, they are blindly following Trumpology just like Liberals blindly follow their ideology. Trump is a snake oil salesman pandering to gullible people and those gullible people are drinking down his ideology like it’s going out of style, just like Liberals do! A friend of mine has used this phrase to describe Liberals, they have “industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders”, I believe the same is true for Trump supporters.
Remember this John Stuart Mill quote, “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” well folks, Trump’s campaign tactics are in the process of proving that smear in the court of public opinion, with the exception that Trumpology is NOT Conservative ideology it is a caricature of Conservative ideology.
Trump’s continuous trivializing of others opinions, both with his words and mannerisms, reminds me of what “intellectual” Liberals do all the time; it shows a complete lack of respect for others, it’s unethical. What’s clear to me is that Trump is fully engaged in using the worst of the worst Liberal tactics in his campaign and he’s put them on a continuous IV stream of steroids.
I don’t know of any other way to explain this; Trump IS a caricature of what the Liberals think Conservative ideology is all about not what true Conservative ideology is all about. Trump is playing the only part in a well written and well directed Broadway stage show and the world is the audience. When the foot lights go down, what we all should know is that it’s been a modern-day Shakespeare farce stripped of all humor, but it appears that the lights may not go down on his campaign before Trumps goal is reached
I think Trumps Republican caricature campaign is pushing more support towards Hillary than Hillary could possibly drum up herself – she’s uninspiring, she’s boring! With Trumps Republican caricature portrayal of Conservatives, it sometimes looks like Trump is campaigning against the Republicans which will allow the Democrats to win by default; is that the true goal? If Trumps goal is to destroy the Republican Party by painting all Republicans as stupid idiots, then I think he’s likely on the path of success.
Trump has every symptom of a narcissistic personality disorder as defined by Mayo Clinic and Trump’s true end game is unclear to me. I’m concerned that Trump might actually accomplish his goal, the problem is, I’m not really sure what the hell the true goal is.
Trump is “condemned by every syllable he utters”; yes “though this be madness, there is method in’t”, it’s illogical rhetoric entrenched in unwavering intellectual dishonesty guided by an appallingly unethical ideology attempting to steamroll over anything in his path. Those are the exact words I’ve used to describe Liberal tactics and now I’m using it to describe Trump. Trump has done, and is continuing to do, irreparable harm to all things Conservative and the Republican Party. My hope for a positive Conservative outcome to the 2016 Presidential election is rapidly disappearing.
Prediction: If Trump gets the Republican nomination the GOP and Conservatives will loose the Presidency in 2016 and likely not be able to regain the Presidency for many, many years to come.
Winning by default is what Liberals have been doing for some time now, they haven’t been able to effectively sell their ideology so they must destroy the ideology, or the messenger of the ideology, of the opposition. Everything in my gut is telling me that Trump is an ideological Liberal plant out to destroy the ideology of Conservatives and in-turn the Republican Party so Liberal ideology can win by default. Yes that might sound kind of extreme, but it’s what I’m observing.
I’ve effectively painted a bulls-eye on my forehead with much of that; go ahead and take your best shot.
Sorry that turned out so long, I guess I had more to vent that I realized; Trump really gets my goat.
I’d actually appreciate some open discussion on points I made.
Coming.
“Trump’s campaign tactics are in the process of proving that smear in the court of public opinion, with the exception that Trumpology is NOT Conservative ideology it is a caricature of Conservative ideology.”
The most speaking thing for your theory is that he’s avoiding some conservative lynchpins like guns and marriage.
ResurrectedToday, I, too, have wondered whether Trump might be a DNC plant designed to destroy the Republican party. However, I haven’t been able to convince myself that Trump and the DNC are both that brilliant and evil. Compared to the disturbing nature of this entire election fiasco, this concern may be trivial: I am disturbed by your use of the quote attributed to Mill. Searching for the source of the quotation, I did not find any credible evidence that Mill ever uttered the words. Do you know the source of the quotation? Even if he did utter the words, his comment would be referring to nineteenth century English conservatives rather than twenty-first century American conservatives (which espouse philosophies much closer to Mill’s classical liberalism). I am quite certain you don’t agree with the quotation, but simply repeating it tends to give it legitimacy. (I’ve been told there are some liberals that will believe anything if they hear it said a few times.)
I don’t give a damn how disturbing it is to you. Maybe I should have generically attributed the quote to all Liberals, but that would have been unethical. Whatever Otto. You’ve missed the point as to why I used the quote; but I’ll entertain this part of your deflection – right or wrong here’s a couple of links…
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnstuart201721.html
So tell me why so many Liberals and Progressives think it’s fine to spew that quote today. Maybe you should try to use that argument on today’s Liberals and Progressives that use the quote – good luck with that.
Hogwash!
This whole who said it mumbo-jumbo discussion is nothing but a petty deflection. How about focusing on something that makes a difference, like WHY I thought the quote was useful in a discussion about Trump; or is that too much to ask?
Point taken. 🙂
ResurrectedToday, you may have taken offense too readily. My feelings about use of the quotation have more to do with my admiration of Mill than anything you have written. In any case, thank you for providing the sources. The Wikiquote page provided enough information for me to track down the original source (though it took some digging). Mill actually said, “…I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative.” This was during debate in the British House of Commons on May 31, 1866. The previous speaker (John Pakington) had referred to a footnote in Mill’s “Considerations on Representative Government” in which Mill wrote, “The Conservatives, as being by the law of their existence the stupidest party…” Clearly, Mill was referring to an English political party rather than a general philosophy.
Of course, all of this is (seemingly) academic. To answer your other concerns, I have no idea why so many liberals and “progressives” think it’s fine to spew the quote today. I suspect they are not as intelligent as they believe themselves to be. I prefer truth in the matter, and wish they did as well. I don’t think I’ve underestimated (grossly or otherwise) liberals’ willingness to justify any means to impose their ideology. I simply believe they are well-meaning but misguided, rather than evil. As you suggest, they need some reality based substance – they need education about what today’s American conservatives actually believe. Sadly, as you’ve observed, they are not getting it from the current GOP frontrunner.
I think you are grossly underestimating their willingness to justify any means to impose their ideology.
In my humble opinion; It’s as if there is a huge staff of social psychologists advising the Trump campaign on how to achieve his goal (whatever that might be) and absolutely no one developing serious political positions on relevant issues, it’s all propaganda emotion based campaigning with no reality based substance and that’s exactly what that Liberals have been doing for years.
Of course, I banned GJW, who combined the charming qualities of a troll,a fool, and an idiot. Or he may actually BE Donald Trump. Would anyone be shocked if he were?
I hereby add a Rule that any commenter who says, Trump like, “I’m smart: I belong to Mensa” heads straight to the Ban Bin.
I guessed, by the tenor of this jerk’s first two comments, that getting rid of him would be bedbug tough, and sure enough, he slipped in a bunch of posts while I rested my weary body after a 4 hour Christmas tree lighting ordeal. I apologize that my banning process takes a while, and people who won’t leave when told to can pollute the site for a while.
These are Trump supporters, my friends. You don’t want to hang around people like this.
And what about those of us who are not full-on Trump supporters (I actually wanted Walker, but he was one of the first to drop out), but will take him over the Hildebeast?
You could try growing out of the third grade mentality of making fun of people’s names and call her Hillary or Secretary Clinton. That would be a start.
You do know what the failure mode of clever is right?
And you could move out of the soft-tyranny mode that starts with telling people what they can and can’t say. I don’t respect her, and if I want to take a leaf from Mark Levin, the right’s master of deserved mockery, I will.
Oh, then I’ll just sit back and cackle with glee every time a moderate passes by and sees you acting like a child.
valkygrrl,
You are wrong, it’s not childish, it’s petty. Both sides of the political coin launch this sort of petty stuff all the time, it’s meant to be funny, it’s not.
Let it go, valkygrrl, it’s not worth arguing about, there are more important things to discuss; for instance, why is Trump campaigning in the manner he is?
By parroting the most rabid people, people most politicians wouldn’t go near without a security detail, he gets their support. He must not care about next quarter so long as he can show numbers for this one.
*shrug* Short term gain and not caring about long term loss is hardly out of character for him. He has how many failed business ventures?
Don’t waste your time, RT. Valkygrrl seems to be obsessed with going after me. That kind of crap worked in high school, it means nothing here.
I’m not the only one pointing out that you’re being an asshole so have you considered that you might just be an asshole and I’m only reacting to that?
You are the only one who goes around this site collecting quotes from me. That’s not reacting. That’s expending time and effort to break balls. You have done that to no one else. This is no different than in high school when some people made it a point to hang on every. single. thing. certain people said so they could repeat it in a smarmy voice or catch them in a mistake just to break balls. You are a true Beulah Ballbreaker.
Is there a certain amount of jerkassery going on here? You bet. It’s par for the course, I’m tired of taking the high road after eight years of the same kind of insults directed against GWB and cheered on as funny and clever by the left, followed by eight years of arrogance and go-sit-in-the-back-of-the-car under Obama. Let’s also not forget some of the same twat, cunt, etc. insults directed against Sarah Palin, and excused or even thought of as funny and clever or “if the shoe fits” because she was a conservative. It should come as no surprise that the same approach, the same tactics, and the same mentality picked up on by the side that’s been the target have become the Frankenstein that is Donald Trump and the angry mob that is pushing him to the top of the polls.
Would I rather be having substantive discussions about this campaign and whether this or that candidate’s ideas are good or bad for the country? Yes, I am fully capable of substantive discussion, as you should be aware since you follow my posts so closely. Unfortunately, this campaign is rapidly becoming about non-issues and who can smear who the most. Because the top-polling candidates have led anything but exemplary lives and careers, there is a LOT of mud to throw and a lot of potential for it to stick. It’s also putting a premium on incivility rather than civility, although I partly attribute the rise in incivility to social media enabling anyone to say anything about any subject and have it circumnavigate the world in a few seconds. Why think things through when you can just post and get a bunch of likes quickly? Why try to have a real discussion when an insult will get you just as far for a lot less effort? It should come as no surprise that some of the same tactics are coming back on the heads of those who started them. If I’m guilty of that, then so be it. Frankly I don’t care if you think I am just an asshole, because the feeling is mutual. If this were a real life conversation it would have ended long ago. I could add some bluster about how I’d like to smack you, but it would be just that, bluster, since in real life I am wise enough to know that the consequences wouldn’t be worth it, not that I don’t think you deserve it, but because I would do more damage to myself than to you by crossing that line.
Yes it was quite a task to collect two quotes in this very thread that contradict a statement you made in this thread. That is quite obsessive of me using my mousewheel and all. I’m sure if I looked back two days you’d call me a stalker.
By the way you’re arguing tit for tat AGAIN.
I have to interject here that Levin’s mocking nicknames like “The New York Slimes” and “The Washington Compost” are one reason I can’t listen to him any more. They are way beneath someone of his erudition, uncivil, poisoning the well and ad hominem, and not especially clever or funny. it’s just name-calling, and he should cut it out.
If I had a nickel for every time I had to hear or read “Darth Cheney” or “The Shrub” and now “Faux Noise” and lamer insults like “Rush Limbturd,” I’d be a very rich man indeed. It should come as no surprise that eight years of that kind of name-calling eventually spawned someone who could do it better. I’ve found in twenty years of practicing law that trying to “take the high road” gets you nowhere with the bullies and jerks. However, start talking to them in their own language, or using their own tactics against them, and suddenly they get all bent out of shape.
Steve-O-in-NJ,
Your comment sounds a bit hypocritical, kinda like “two wrongs make a right”. Give it up Steve-O-in-NJ.
Just because we the people have the right to do and say whatever we want, does not make what we do and say right.
Any Questions
https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalizations-and-misconceptions/
2
2A
7
26
44
Tit for Tat, that’s all. You think Levin’s are better?
Actually I do, maybe because I was so tired after eight years of liberal insults they sounded fresh.
Actually, I thought Hildebeast was clever.
But please don’t let that encourage you — it was just one out of a hundred.
Telling someone to grow up and stop using playground insults is “soft tyranny?”
Wah, you’re so oppressed.
Haha, no, because if you tell me to say this and not that, at least for now, I can still tell you to kiss my ass.
So then it’s not tyranny at all, just disagreement.
Do you always call it tyranny when people disagree with you?
No, I don’t. I call it attempted tyranny when people try to tell me what to do. Unless you are wearing a black robe or signing my paycheck, you don’t get to tell me to do ANYTHING.
Except that what someone “told you to do” was to grow up and stop using playground insults. That’s not tyranny, that’s criticism.
At the risk of sounding like a tyrant to you: Grow up, and get some perspective.
At the risk of sounding like a tyrant to you, shove it.
I’d say you are tragically mistaken about how destructive he would be.to the office, the nation, the party, the society, everything. I would give him no more than a 50-50 shot of not being impeached.
There’s certainly merit to that. Unfortunately I see Hillary Rotten Clinton as a much more “clear and present danger” to all those things due to her already lousy and tyrannical record. I think you may be mistaken about him being impeached, at least for the first two years. It is very unlikely he would be dealing with a hostile Congress that would have the numbers to convict. The mid-terms might or might not give them the numbers to do it, but that’s very unlikely also, and if they don’t have the numbers, like Nancy in 2006 and Boehner last year, they aren’t going to do it. The only way that’s going to happen is if Trump loses the support of his own party, and if that happens, we’ve got bigger problems.
Proposed: Number 11(b) Fredo’s plea.
I’m smart and I want respect!
My wife just informed me that “mensa” in Spanish means “stupid”. http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/165355/what-does-mensa-mean-stupid-i-cant-find-it-in-the-dictionary
Proving my point. You would think smart people might check something like that out, wouldn’t you?
I am a Republican but not a Trump supporter. If it came down to Hillary and Trump I would be torn (although if it came down to Hillary and Jeb, I’m voting Hillary every day and twice on Sunday (assuming Chicago politics)).
There are stupid Cruz supporters. Stupid Bush supporters. Stupid Hillary supporters. And stupid Trump supporters, perhaps disproportionately so. But, even though I do not find them availing, there are legitimate, non-stupid reasons for voting for Trump.
He’s not a career politician and we’ve had non-career politicians who have made good presidents. The media hates him and historically you can’t go wrong with voting for a president that the media hates. He’s got some sort of message (make America great again, immigration) even if it’s not backed up by cogent reasoning. He says what a lot of people think but are too scared to say.
Again, I know there is 100 reasons not to vote for him, and I certainly won’t be voting for him in the primaries and I pray I won’t have to make that decision in the general, but it’s a little too simple to say that the millions of people who support him are all “stupid.”
Worst case voting booth scenario for me would be Trump vs Sanders; I have absolutely no idea what I’d do if those were my choices, I’d likely not vote at all and pray for a small targeted asteroid to put me out of my misery.
The key word is support. Like: Wow, this guy would be GREAT!!! Morons, every one. You, in contrast, just listed desperate rationalizations. The George Costanza argument: do whatever the media says not to, is lame as it gets. “He says what a lot of people think but are too scared to say”–how has that ever been a valid qualification for the Presidency, as opposed to “talk show host”?
“He’s not a career politician and we’ve had non-career politicians who have made good presidents.”
Who are you referring to? The Generals? Trump’s no general. Who since 1912? I’d say Taft wasn’t a career politician, and he was hardly a great POTUS.
Desperate isn’t stupid, and it’s not genuine support either.
Who indeed. Reagan was no career politician, and GHWB was a career bureaucrat, not politician, though I know he does not occupy a high place in your pantheon. Yes, the “wowers” who are still posting the stupid hashtag “feel the bern” which is partly what caused me to coin #playtheTrumpcard are idiots, but they are voting idiots, and a lot of them are true believers. How do you shake a true believer?
Reagan qualified as a politician after being Governor of California and a union leader before that, and Bush I was a lifetime politician (just because he lost didn’t mean he wasn’t running) from a political dynasty.
Except that every single reason you gave for voting for him is stupid. Your first relies on the baseless, immature idea that the presidency is the only job in the world in which having no qualifications is a qualification; your second ignores that the media hates him for good reasons, namely that he’s a boorish asshole; your third is self-refuting, as you all but admit he has nothing but tough talk with nothing to back it up; your fourth is nothing admirable, since the things he says that some people only think are terrible, which is the reason people don’t say them.
If these are supposed to be the “legitimate, non-stupid reasons” for voting for Trump, then there simply are none.
I see what you did here. Any reason for voting for him would be stupid because you say that it is stupid.
First, I never said that Trump having no qualifications for President was itself a qualification. Nowhere did I say that. To so assert, you would have to conclude that to be qualified for President, you must be a career politician. So that is simply a mischaracterization.
Second, does the media hate him for “good reasons?” Yes, he is a boorish asshole but I’m not sure that’s why the media hates him. The media hated GW, and God knows he had his faults, but he was not a “boorish asshole.” So the jury’s out on that one.
Third, he does have a stand, although he doesn’t support it at this point with anymore than platitudes. But at least he purports to stand for something which is more than can be said for some others.
Fourth, there are two categories of things he says. One, as you describe, are terrible things that he says that reflects the worst in people. The second is things such as building a wall, that timid people cower saying in front of progressives, but to which Trump gives a voice.
“I see what you did here. Any reason for voting for him would be stupid because you say that it is stupid.”
No, they’re stupid because they’re objectively stupid.
Jack, you raise a good point. I was conflating support with tolerate, and I should not have done so.
I was referring to the General, the haberdasher, and the actor. “Desperate rationalizations” versus “reasons to support” I suggest are just semantics. What’s a desperate rationalization to you or me may be a legitimate ground for support for another. Or maybe I just have a higher (lower?) threshold for stupidity.
I’m curious as to why a huge swath of this discussion thread has been focused on tangential deflections and not focused on why Trump campaigns the way he does?
Trump will openly tell you that he is a “big deal” and this openly narcissistic candidate has got a huge following and just might become the next President of the United States, doesn’t that bother you folks?
I’d guess it’s my fault, as I used an admittedly minor (but telling) transgression to launch the threads.
I disagree.
The motivations behind why Trump campaigns the way he does is much more than minor transgressions, these things are a direct reflection of Trump’s true character. Trump has revealed that he will justify any means to achieve his goal, whatever that goal might be, and that is an open window to a morally bankrupt soul.
The lack of overall focus on Trump’s character in this thread is a little confusing.
It’s because you can only support a Trump (or Hillary) if you decide that character doesn’t matter
Character means a great deal to me.
Well, yes. I know that because you aren’t making excuses for Hillary or Trump.
This article is typical of the people whom Donald Trump is relying on to win the election.
http://dankennedy.net/2006/12/28/lawmakers-should-defy-constitution/
I fail to see a difference betwqeen this author, Kim Davis, and Donald Trump.
Michael, if 3% of Trump’s supporters could read and understand that article, I’d be shocked. Moreover, the argument that lawmakers have an obligation to violate a “wrongful law” is itself unethical. They have an obligation to resign. This article supports Obama’s conduct. The author, Trump, and Davis are all, for different reasons, wrong as wrong can be.
Scott Allen Miller posted an excellent rebuttal.
If we avoid both a Trump presidency and a Hillary presidency, it will be because of people like Scott Allen Miller, who effectively said in a collective voice, “The line must be drawn here! this far! No farther!”
Saved to the end (no “reply” room where needed):
I will forever (well, at least for the next 15 or 20 blogs) be grateful to Beth for her gift of brevity and exactitude. Just three little words — “give it up”– said it all, thus saving me from another day’s effort. I will also borrow it in future, when necessary, with credit.
How does Jack do it! It can’t be a pact with the Devil; there’s no earthly reward for being an ethicist.
In my lexicon, the word “sexism” does not necessarily refer to sexual acts or sex characteristics; the word “sex” is inclusive of or equivalent to the clinical word “gender.” Sexism can be used — as I did somewhere up above — to differentiate male and female, as in demographics. I forget sometimes how freighted words like “sexist” have become just by placing an “ist” at the end, but I do try to use precise examples. I’ll try one more: talking about body parts is not insulting/sexist per se (just as there was no “racism” involved in Zimmerman mentioning Martin’s race, a legitimate reply to the 9-1-1 operator’s question) –, using body parts to insult the person is.
I would say “genderist” — all clinical words are PC these days, so it would be acceptable, even admirable if I were arguing with someone off on the Left — but arbitrarily choosing one definition or, more damaging, one connotation, of a common word to be replaced by another one that comes ready-prejudiced is redundant, confusing and pretentious.
I read an interesting article analyzing the Republican field. It started with a description of primate hierarchy. The Alpha Male is usually the biggest, slimiest, most dung-throwing beast among them. The rest of the pack will either rally or capitulate around him. Beta males will modulate their voices to imitate him to show deference.
The group did a survey of previous elections, and found that the candidates who modulated their voices more lost the election. One example they gave in past the past was Gore vs Bush. Bush spoke more confidently in debates, etc, and put Gore on the defensive. They also confirmed that the Republican field are all weanies (though they didn’t phrase quite like that).
The current field are all afraid of alienating Trump’s basest of bases. Yet this is precisely the wrong strategy. They like Trump due to deep animal survival instincts. They are disgusted by the deference given him by other candidates.
Let us just for a moment imagine that George W. Bush, the most gentlemanly statesman of my lifetime, whom I’ve never heard speak an unkind word or unfulfilled threat, could constitutionally run for a third term. Bush, a man who stared down al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Vladimir Putin, could destroy Trump on a debate floor, by saying “Sir, you do not represent the compassionate conservative values of my Republican Party, nor the values of the America that I want to build” in his charming Texas drawl.
Trump’s supporters would go wild. They’d be agree at first, but only because they just witnessed the Alpha Male unseated, deeply distressing to the deep part of our brains we share with lizards and lower primates.
Trump is vulnerable, and he knows this. He wouldn’t have dared set foot on the same stage as George Bush; nor would he against Bill Clinton, at least in his current cro-magnom form. He may or may not be too stupid and cocky to realize that Hillary, who can tell her tale with a straight face for 7 hours before a hostile Republican panel, would trounce him ten ways before Tuesday…
But Trump is so vulnerable that any Republican Candidate with a modicum of credibility could have destroyed him. That several sitting or former Republican Governors and Senators could not or would not do this is deeply distressing. These weenies may have already lost the race.
*They’d be angry at first