"I'm not sexist!" "Yes you are." "I'm not sexist!" "YES YOU ARE!" "I'M NOT F'ING SEXIST!!!" "YES YOU F'ING ARE!!!" Productive discussion, eh?
(Insert title here) Since the only way to not insult you is to lie about the content of your posts, we'll simply go with, "Whatever you say, Counte." And yet you so resent the implication that you are somehow included in the effects of being part of this society. Oh, right. Whatever you say, Counte. Why limit it to just this thread? Of course, there's no point in arguing it with you, since when presented with evidence in the form of your own words you still insist on lying. We can conclude that you either aren't paying attention, or that the people who disagree with me without being dishonest are mere figments of imagination. Repeatedly. You're more interested, for instance, in disclaiming yourself as being impervious to cultural influences than actually making any other point. As I've said repeatedly, Counte, not everything is about you. I actually think it would be easier if you just chilled out, put your ego out for the night, and gave issues some rational consideration. Well, since you can't provide a basis for your assessment, there's really not much to deal with, is there? I made the point that I don't see Dowd going off about misogyny as you suggested, and you changed the subject. If you think that the disparate points you argued are connected, you should put at least the slightest effort into connecting them. Otherwise, we're left with the notion that, since it's supposed to be so obvious, we apparently should simply think just like you. I find the characterization repugnant because it pretends a number of disagreeable things: • Hillary Rodham Clinton has a law degree; apparently, only her marriage to Bill qualifies her to be a Doctor of Jurisprudence. • Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently could never have been a partner in a powerful law firm, except that she was married to Bill Clinton. • Hillary Rodham Clinton could never win public office, except that she is married to Bill Clinton. • Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to view her marriage in the exact same terms as everyone else in the country, and is not allowed to be any different. Well, guess what? She's smarter than you. She's a damn sharp lawyer, too. She could probably do better as a public servant without Bill. And there are plenty of people out there who stay with their husbands despite infidelity. Is she power hungry? It would seem so, but then we come back to the idea of why that matters any more about her than any other candidate? The fact that you are incapable of separating Hillary from her husband simply reminds us of those cultural influences that we so often and strenuously attempt to deny. I know so many people who think they can do it alone. They isolate their heads and stay in their saftey zones. But what can you tell them? And what can you say that won't make them defensive? Hang on to your ego! Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight. They come on like their peaceful, but inside they're so uptight. They trip through the day and waste all their thoughts at night. Now how can I say it? 'Cause how can I come on when I know I'm guilty? Hang on to your ego! Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight. (The Beach Boys) The story says that Brian changed the lyrics to "I Know There's an Answer" because Dennis advised him that nobody would like the song as it was; the "ego" lyrics were too upsetting. So instead of a song that offers sympathy to one's neighbors, it became a fearful, egocentric introspection in order that people at large could be more comfortable with the ideas it expresses. On the one hand, I find the story ironic. To the other, I find it tragic. Yet, there is still a third, and that is to point out that the song is fundamentally accurate, and increasingly prophetic. Either version does well enough, but the more common version—"I Know There's an Answer"—is more easily interpreted as an excuse for inaction. After all, it is apparently wrong to propose a solution, since the call for a solution implies that there is a problem, and it is unkind and unfair to point out that there is a problem, since that problem generally and necessarily starts with people. See, we're in the middle of a rough transition. After centuries of telling people how to live, a majority opinion that has long centered around Christian myths finds itself rebuked; they haven't the right to tell people how to live simply because they think it pleases their God. Thus, people resent the idea of being told how to live, even if that advice is neither forcible nor irrationally-invested. The practical result of this, of course, is that people feel oppressed by the demand of equality. It would be silly, except that it's quite sad. After all, if they can't tell people how to live because "God says so", other people shouldn't be allowed to point out more rational and applicable ideas.
No, I resent the implication that I am somehow included in the basest elements of this society, namely sexists. I have no problem with society as a whole, but I think even you would admit being lumped in with the least educated among us, the least forward thinking is insulting, even more so when I have obviously professed no such ties. That you ignore this and continue to ignore this baffles me. I can only assume you're more comfortable insulting me than debating/communicating with me. Fine. Have it your way... Tiassa, since we're on such a high plain of communication I have no problem saying this: Go fuck yourself. I really am quite fed up with you labeling people and intentionally insulting them, then throwing your hands up an acting surprised when people defend themselves against your childish accusations. And what makes it all even more ridiculous is that while you are acting in such a low manner, you pontificate as if on high. What a joke this is. What a charade. Only, it's not terribly funny... Please, show me one lie in this thread, and then explain how you know it is a lie. This is the second time I've asked you to so. If you continue to avoid my demand, I hope you realize that people will see your meaningless attack for what it is. I think if your practiced some reading comprehension, you'd realize I have said I am not impervious to cultural influences quite plainly in a previous post. One wonders: Do you post before you think? And as I have previously suggested: I think it would be wonderful if you went and fucked yourself. Now who is lying? I specifically said that the comments I was referring to were made long ago by Dowd. What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anything about her DOJ, nor did I question it. I said the woman had achievements. My argument was entirely about her political achievements, which have nothing to do with this... What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anything about her law career, nor did I question it. I said the woman had achievements. My argument was entirely about her political achievements, which have nothing to do with this... And that's the rub. Being a lawyer in a high-powered law firm is not a ticket to a senate seat. But being an outgoing First Lady who has access to her husband's political connections is. Why you deny this is amusing. Or perhaps you think attorneys from Arkansas move to NY and stage a successful bid for senate all the time? That's true, but I don't have to respect them either, do I? And how many of them lie for their husbands, while professing to be feminists? I would love to separate her from her husband. The reason I can't is that she is relying on his media organizations (Media Matters, etc.), has hired most of his political operatives and has used him to campaign for her on the "two-fer" platform, which even you have acknowledged. So please tell me, if she is so obviously associating herself with him, why I should do any different? The rest of your post is the usual detritus... Oh, and by the way, Pet Sounds is a great album...
Just for you, Counte Ah, elitism. Well, there you go then. Apparently there is nothing about you that defies your conscious calculation. Frankly, the implication is untenable. Yes, that's a good argument. Speaking of words like "childish" and "charade", So let's consider this part now: Gladly: We'll pause at that point because post #9 is where I got sick of you pretending that everything is about you. Up to this point, however, you're denying an inherent sexism that is culturally pervasive. The strongest indictment against your character is the one you imagine in order to throw a hissy-fit. Yet, just to make the point: • That Hillary Clinton is supposed to be brilliant and capable of winning the office herself is the point. Who cares if she's a woman? (see #4) • Pretending that Hillary needed family assistance and claims to legacy in order to get into and finish school is ridiculous (see #6). As are the implications that she could not have accomplished anything without Bill's money. (After all, you seem to forget how upset the Republicans were that she made a load of money in a real estate deal.) You repeat and elaborate on this point in #8. Additionally—and it's not worth adding it to the long quote section above, what the hell does Maureen Dowd's feminism (#6) have to do with anything? I mean, surely you cannot be suggesting that feminism is immune to the very cultural influences it seeks to address, adjust, and correct. (Indeed, I've already made the point that "Maureen Dowd can be guilty of sexism, too"; see #12.) In the end, your determination to present yourself as immune from sexist cultural influences is part of your dishonesty. Furthermore, and this is one of the truly disappointing things about your conduct, you are actively seeking a reason to get into a fight. While you're willing to complain about what I don't respond to (#14, 19), and demand information of me (#23), you're also perfectly willing to overlook sympathetic statements I've made— • I know. But we're supposed to treat her equally in this. We don't, though, insofar as we frame so much in the context of her womanhood. (#5) • Dude, I know. I know we're trying. And yes, that includes you. But we are not perfect, and we are never quite what we think we're being. (#15) —in order to continue to throw this self-righteous fit. Ironically—or maybe not—the latter of those points occurs during a reiteration of the former, and at a point when, coincidentally—or maybe not—I happened to be making a point about your complaint about unanswered issues, since you had already overlooked the former in order to throw your hissy-fit. So there's another "counte" of dishonesty. We should add to that point, of course, that you're demanding an indictment where I did not give one. Like I said, "That such prejudices exist is not an indictment of any individual" (#7). And then there's the bit about "Feminists like Dowd who are uncomfortable with Hillary because she has achieved her current status largely by ignoring her husband's obvious misogyny" (see #14). I addressed this point, noting that "I just don't see Dowd going off about misogyny so specifically as you suggest" (#15). Instead of either explaining or retracting the point, you tried to duck it and reiterate your assertion that being married to Bill is Hillary's only merit: Dowd has characterized the Clinton campaign as a "coattails" effort. I provided the quote that said this. In the past, during the Clinton years, I can recall her writing numerous columns about Bill's behavior. To put it simply, she's not a big fan — for obvious reasons. But we can leave Dowd out of this if you like. I'm still curious what you make of the observation that Hillary has achieved her current status because of who she married and because she ignored the behavior of who she married. (#16) Which, as I've already noted, is an argument based on a faulty justification. Lastly, there is, of course, that most direct lie: "I'm not aggrieved at all" (#16). You're so upset about the idea that you are subject to cultural prejudices and not reserved among some theoretical elite that you've spent seven of your eight posts in this topic trying to make the point that you're better than the rest of society. To review that point: Those two clauses from the opening paragraph of your post (#23) show how much you've missed the point: • Even educated people are subject to these prejudices. • That you recognize them as detrimental perspectives is, at its base, progressive. • To reiterate, yet again: "Dude, I know. I know we're trying. And yes, that includes you. But we are not perfect, and we are never quite what we think we're being." • If this notion still confuses you, then please refer again to the quote from Emir Ali Khan: "The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilisations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities .... The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large." There is a difference, Counte, between accepting something in order to deal with it in its proper proportion, and pretending that it doesn't exist. You've assigned a tremendously inflated magnitude to the sexism in question, ignoring what ought to be rather simple cues (e.g. the word "we") that I include myself among the guilty, in order to throw this absolutely ridiculous temper tantrum best summed up by your own words from #23 above: "Go fuck yourself."
Tiassa, While I have no doubt that there are many people that wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a woman, just like there are many morons who won't vote for Obama because of his "Middle Name", I don't think you can arbitrarily attach this label to everyone and anyone. For me personally, I could care less about her gender. IMO, she is part of the problem.... just another one of the good old boys who will continue to take this nation to its death.
Then, according to Tiassa, you are either an elitist or someone who has chosen to ignore and deny that you are part of a society with certain mores. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think, Rob. Tiassa knows all...
OK. I'll continue to play your little game for a while longer... I make no claim of elitism, I simply say that if I am part of a sexist culture I am above such sexism. You deny this with absolute no evidence, other than your own rage and your ridiculous claim that people are prisoners to whatever culture they inhabit and cannot ever overcome phobias and biases. That's a sad commentary, if you really think that, but it's not one I am bound to subscribe to and accept. It wasn't offered as an argument. It was the raw expression of a personal sentiment. To expound: I think you are a churlish shit, bent on destroying people who disagree with you and on never appearing to be wrong or mistaken about anything. I'm tired of all of it, and you really do need to go fuck yourself. Consistently attacking people and goading them into the sort of juvenile tit-for-tat this thread has become is your modus operandi and it's fast becoming a thing of boredom and disgust. Can you really not argue with someone without calling them names like homophobe, racist and sexist, all of which you've used in the past few weeks to label me and other members who you butt heads with? Such tantrums might be cathartic for you, as one can easily imagine you logging onto the site and thrashing about in this way to ameliorate or dismiss some other shortcoming in you life, but this is all being done at our expense and on our dime, so to speak. And I don't know about anyone else, but I am sick of it, and largely sick of you. Again, you should look to yourself if you wonder why discussions become unhinged so... Onwards and upwards, nothing you posted has exposed a lie. Nothing. I think you really need to look the word up and acquaint yourself with its meaning before you continue slander members so. What I see is a difference of opinion, which is natural, and ostensibly, is the reason we all come to this site. However, once you've been ruffled, I don't think you're interesting in anything beyond blind defense of your own stupidity and your typical intellectual thuggery. See the following: Really, Tiassa? Is that why I wrote: "Only a fool denies the sort of prejudices you speak of." I acknowledged your prejudices. More than once actually. Can you read? Can you fucking comprehend what I said? All I have claimed is that I am not subjugated to such views, a distinction you have consistently failed to acknowledge. Fine. That's your right. No one denies an ass their essence... I never claimed this and have no idea what nether region of your cavity you pulled this from. This thread has always been about Hillary's political experiences. Her success at school and lawyering do not enter into this for me, and I never besmirched either. Not immune to, but able to overcome... I didn't duck it. I explained more what Dowd meant: "Dowd has characterized the Clinton campaign as a "coattails" effort. I provided the quote that said this. In the past, during the Clinton years, I can recall her writing numerous columns about Bill's behavior. To put it simply, she's not a big fan — for obvious reasons." For Christ sakes, I said leave Dowd out of it. I gave you a personal observation and asked you to comment on it. That's all. It isn't complicated. It's what people do on this site all the time. Your response is to say it has no basis so you won't deal with it? OK. Fine. Then bugger off to another conversation if you don't want to deal with a subjective observation based on actual events... Right, because you are capable of assessing my mood, via the internet. OK. Sure. I suppose it's possible you have suck mystical powers... Frankly, I wasn't aggrieved. I was defending myself against an unjust claim, nothing more. But now? Yeah, now I am aggrieved. Actually, pissed off would be a better term, despite its crudeness. I'm sick and tired of you being an intellectual thug. Have been for months. This whole conversation could resume an acceptable tone if you were big enough to retract your characterization of me, which has coyly been lodged in a subtle guilt by association route. But you won't do that. You can't do that. You can't admit you're wrong. You can't ever say you are sorry. Hence, I told you to go fuck yourself, a pronouncement that still stands, because I will not be bullied by your sophomoric methods. You keep pushing people Tiassa and they will push back. So go fuck yourself. Please... No, I haven't missed it. I just don't agree with it. You seem to labor under the illusion that if your write something up, support it and it makes logical sense, a person has to agree with your conclusion. They don't, Tiassa. No matter how pretty your argument is, people don't have to agree with it. If you can figure that out, and learn to accept it, you might not get so put out when others disagree with you and start flailing about and calling them liars and so on... There is, and I think I've been clear about this point: I'm not a sexist, and do not view HC in sexist terms, regardless of what cultural rope you would tie around my neck. Go and practice your cheap Marxism and your distasteful victim-ology elsewhere.
So it comes down to this Huh, what? O-tay, Counte. Whatever the hell you say. In fact, I think it's rather sad the how you say, "I make no claim of ...," or, "I never claimed ...." Like the quote at the outset: you make no claim of elitism. It's pretty clear in the implication you invent and insist on in order to resent. No matter how much barbs about your career annoy you, your career is relevant here: You're supposed to be a journalist, Counte, yet your selective literacy would be amazing if we actually took you seriously as a journalist. You never claimed elitism? You're right. You never said, "I am an elitist". Rather, what you said is that you resent being included among the basest elements of society, and that even I would find being included among the least educated is insulting. Yet, if you were actually paying attention—which is, I admit, far too much to ask of you—you would be able to understand that it's not just the uneducated who suffer from cultural influences like racism and sexism. It's just more convenient for you to ignore those aspects in order to pretend offense. Seriously, do you realize how wrong you would be about life, the Universe, and everything if we relied entirely on the explicit? Oh, right: there's no need for you to be consistent. Look at the conclusions you draw: I'm apparently hell-bent on "destroying" people who disagree with me? When did I ever say that? I don't recall that I have. Rather, you think I've behaved and written in a manner that suggests that outcome. Yet you made no claim of elitism, did you? You never claimed a bunch of stuff about Hillary, did you? It's not implicit in the comparison that you made, is it? It's not implicit in your statement that asserting that "Hillary is where she is ONLY because of who she married is no different in my eyes than saying Bush is where he is only because he won the genetic lottery." As you have it, it's not even an assertion, it's a fact to be pointed out. Well, guess what? Reliance on an elitist family and a favorite-son legacy are part of that comparison. But since you didn't explicitly include those points, what, exactly, did you mean? These are all examples of your dishonesty, Counte. Like this, for instance: Yes, when you changed the subject. Once again, I suppose it's easy to understand what you meant. If, that is, we all think just like you. But since that's impossible, it would serve you well to actually support your point. Grow up, Counte. If you're so smart, show it for once. If you're so honest, act like it, for a change. Seriously, if you want to play tit for tat, you should have been more respectful months ago. Then you should write your arguments as such. After all, it's easier if you don't have to backtrack and say things like, "For Christ sakes, I said leave Dowd out of it." Oh, and when you note, "I gave you a personal observation and asked you to comment on it", well, you might want to recall that very point was part of our discussion earlier: Again, it's a matter of whether or not we can trust your assessment of the situation, and, frankly, no, we can't. It is not so much—as you put it—to say it has no basis so I won't deal with it. Rather, it's a matter of how much time any of us should devote to accommodating baseless, dishonest arguments. As the point about your assessment of the Dowd article was at the root of my comment about whether or not we can trust your assessment, I thank you for coming full circle and making my point by reminding, "For Christ sakes, I said leave Dowd out of it." I suppose I should at least ask you the following, which might help clear up some of our dispute: Does each new post you write supersede the last, so that we should simply ignore what you've written in the past and pretend that all you've said on any given subject is contained in whatever post is immediately at hand?[/i] I ask because you seem to have a serious problem with the examination of any one of your posts in comparison to other posts you've written. And maybe that's the problem. If you expect each new post to render all prior relevant posts invalid, just let me know.
You're right, I don't. I don't think it's elitist to be able to judge someone free of largely antiquated social norms, but apparently you do. What I've said, or rather suggested, is that the people who are sexists and racists tend to be the least educated and least useful souls among us. They are the dregs, for lack of a better term. Not being a part of that crowd does not make one elitist. It makes one normal. It's relevant only because you are aware of it and think it a likely tool to continue to try to bludgeon me with. As I've said in the past, this shows you for exactly the sort of intellectual thug you truly are. And for the record, I don't care how you take me: Go fuck yourself. Oh, I'm paying attention to your largely useless bile. And yes, I understand that everyone in society suffers from cultural influences like racism and sexism. The important difference is that the majority of people overcome these influences and largely ignore them. Or if not the majority, that at least a significant chunk of people. I've claimed to be one of those people. Your response is to dub that "elitism," another moniker to further describe your initial moniker: My how you enjoy labeling things. Yes, I do. And I have ample evidence to support such a conclusion. Whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with you, this is the result: Bile, rancor, personal mud-slinging, accusations of dishonesty, accusations of racism, sexism and so on and so forth. It's not pretty, but it's the template that is well-established, and it's been utilized to attack numerous members, old and new. Or did you fail to notice an entire thread was begun and developed to discuss your repulsive swagger on this site? Seriously, you're one of the most miserable cunts on this site. Everything is fine so long as people agree with you, or better yet, are making offers at your self-perceived alter of brilliance, but woe to anyone who disagrees or questions or stands up to you. That can't be tolerated. The perpetrator must be dealt with quickly and decisively with all the wretchedness your considerable intellect can muster. This is intellectual thuggery, though the funny thing is you're really not the force the think you are. In fact, you're something of a joke... No, I didn't. And you've acknowledged as much... I haven't claimed half the material you've described to me. Claims about her law school and history in the private sector and so on, I don't what orifice you've pulled that out of, but you have... Well, I think it is a fact. But after you objected to it, I labeled it as an observation. Even then, you wouldn't address the issue, as you had more important matters to deal with, namely you needed to continue your assault on me person... You mean like our first-ever encounter? When you attacked my professionalism, called me a liar and hurled all manner of abuse at me simply because I didn't agree with your appreciation of the origins of the Cold War? Remember that? I don't want to play tit for tat. That's the point, Tiassa. But you know of no other way, so if this is how it's going to be, then again: Go fuck yourself.
Another of your unreliable assessments. There is quite a difference between judging oneself "free of largely antiquated social norms" and what you wrote: By that standard, Counte, you're including folks with PhD's as part of the least educated among us. Question: Do you disagree with Emir Ali Khan's general observation?
Why don't you just go away? If I didn't know better, I would say you are a sock puppet of some former poster who used to follow me around the board and mock/attack all my posts. Buzz off. Your attacks are boring. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What hate? These are facts, jack. Get with the program. What are you, from another planet?? Do you know anything about any of the candidates that is not from the media? Well, I do... And if you knew ANYTHING about menopause, you would know a menopausal woman should NOT be in the White House--especially with such major decisions to make during wartime. Grow up. Read up. Menopausal women can be very dangerous. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I've met her/been around her long enough to know I don't want her anywhere near the WH. 8 years was enough. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don't forget the feminists who will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/republican_women_too_smart_to.html What a sexist society we live in.
Indeed. What makes the statistical assertion even worse is that it originates within the Clinton campaign, who would otherwise pretend to have us look past her gender. Don't get me wrong, there are reasons I can accept why they would want to know such figures, but I can't promise they're the actual reasons they wanted to know such figures. And I'm not sure it's something someone in Penn's position should be talking about. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure it's something someone in Penn's position shouldn't be talking about. Well, just let this be a lesson about the difference between reality and whatever it is you think.
Those aren't feminists. Those are idiots/morons. I have never heard of any Republican woman who would vote for Hillary. If they even THINK about doing it, they are NOT true Republicans. They are frauds. A true Republican would NEVER vote for Hillary. Or any other democrat. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you do know what you said implied that to be a true republican you cannot look at who is the best person running but must vote along party lines.
Tiassa: Indeed. The fact that people exist who will vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman throws your assertion that her gender is a 'political handicap' into doubt. The fact that a significant proportion of Republican women will vote for Democrat Hillary solely because she is a woman is the final nail in the coffin of your male political privilege hypothesis. Apparently American society isn't as inherently 'misoygnist' as you would have us believe, given that many people exist who will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. In fact, combined with the oft repeated mantra that "If women ruled the world, there would be no wars", and Homo sapien's tendency to support the perceived underdog, I could argue that Hillary's gender is an advantage. I've spoon fed you a bit of reality, Chuckles. Let's see if you're capable of swallowing it.
