EAllusion wrote:In fairness, Tom Steyer is out there not being Bloomberg. Some of his viability is because he's campaigning as a firebrand against Trump when other Democrats are not and Democrats want, above all else, someone to take on Trump.
Warren is really the only other candidate campaigning directly against Trump's corruption, but she is hurt by being perceived as a weaker general election candidate.
Point taken, I'm still unsure how much of his support stems from the anti-Trump postering and how much comes from the obscene amount of money he is throwing at the issue. My personal experience tends to have me leaning towards the latter but that is nothing but anecdotal.
EAllusion wrote:Kinda sucks to watch Elizabeth Warren straight murder people and realize that what Bernie Bros imagine happens to Sanders actually happened to her.
Ain't that the truth.
Res Ipsa wrote:What he brought tonight was a wallet to a knife fight.
Do you wonder, if someone made a joke about cutting off Elizabeth Warren's arm and shove it up her vagina, do you think people would be laughing? Would that be funny? Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?
For both Warren and Bloomberg (and I am a bigger fan of Warren than Bloomberg) the answer has to be 'no'. Misogyny and Misandry should both be avoided. And if the image of tearing off a woman's arm is disgusting, why is it less disgusting to tear off a man's arm? Because he deserves it? I find a kind of Muslim Cleric Fanaticism in that sentiment.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
MeDotOrg wrote:Do you wonder, if someone made a joke about cutting off Elizabeth Warren's arm and shove it up her vagina, do you think people would be laughing? Would that be funny? Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?
For both Warren and Bloomberg (and I am a bigger fan of Warren than Bloomberg) the answer has to be 'no'. Misogyny and Misandry should both be avoided. And if the image of tearing off a woman's arm is disgusting, why is it less disgusting to tear off a man's arm? Because he deserves it? I find a kind of Muslim Cleric Fanaticism in that sentiment.
I have to say that I agree strongly with that.
I can understand why a few women commentators (and it is only a few) are trying out the use of grossly violent language of the kind previously confined to a minority of men. After all, they may ask themselves - what good have women done to themselves by their relatively low levels of aggression compared to men? Women still suffer a huge amount of violence from men compared to what happens the other way round: as with children, the most dangerous people for the average woman are her closest male family members. If a woman suffers a violent death, the police generally assume that the prime suspect will be the male closest to her, and that often turns out to be right.
But starting to use this kind of abuse in political and social contexts seems to me to be a mistaken tactic. It's one thing to tell young women that (for instance) they should not hold back from demanding a pay rise while their equally or less competent young male colleagues feel no such inhibitions: that's a step towards equality, and it is a battle they can win. It's another to try to beat the nasty minority of male knuckle draggers at their preferred game of violent speech and (all too often) violent acts.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
MeDotOrg wrote: Do you wonder, if someone made a joke about cutting off Elizabeth Warren's arm and shove it up her vagina, do you think people would be laughing? Would that be funny? Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?
For both Warren and Bloomberg (and I am a bigger fan of Warren than Bloomberg) the answer has to be 'no'. Misogyny and Misandry should both be avoided. And if the image of tearing off a woman's arm is disgusting, why is it less disgusting to tear off a man's arm? Because he deserves it? I find a kind of Muslim Cleric Fanaticism in that sentiment.
The hell? This post makes you seem like you are 75 years old and just discovered the Internet.
MeDotOrg wrote:Do you wonder, if someone made a joke about cutting off Elizabeth Warren's arm and shove it up her vagina, do you think people would be laughing? Would that be funny? Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?
For both Warren and Bloomberg (and I am a bigger fan of Warren than Bloomberg) the answer has to be 'no'. Misogyny and Misandry should both be avoided. And if the image of tearing off a woman's arm is disgusting, why is it less disgusting to tear off a man's arm? Because he deserves it? I find a kind of Muslim Cleric Fanaticism in that sentiment.
I have to say that I agree strongly with that.
I can understand why a few women commentators (and it is only a few) are trying out the use of grossly violent language of the kind previously confined to a minority of men. After all, they may ask themselves - what good have women done to themselves by their relatively low levels of aggression compared to men? Women still suffer a huge amount of violence from men compared to what happens the other way round: as with children, the most dangerous people for the average woman are her closest male family members. If a woman suffers a violent death, the police generally assume that the prime suspect will be the male closest to her, and that often turns out to be right.
But starting to use this kind of abuse in political and social contexts seems to me to be a mistaken tactic. It's one thing to tell young women that (for instance) they should not hold back from demanding a pay rise while their equally or less competent young male colleagues feel no such inhibitions: that's a step towards equality, and it is a battle they can win. It's another to try to beat the nasty minority of male knuckle draggers at their preferred game of violent speech and (all too often) violent acts.
Descriptions of comical violence to describe someone getting owned - taken to the woodshed if you will - have been a common part of internet dialogue for years and in particular are part of Twitter's argot. Maybe you should search Twitter for the words "Warren" and "murder" and see what pops up now.
Prior to reading this, I was going to note that Elizabeth Warren slitting Bloomberg's throat and drinking the blood on live TV is going to make it pretty hard for him to win a brokered convention situation now. And that appeared to be his main strategy.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EAllusion wrote:Descriptions of comical violence to describe someone getting owned - taken to the woodshed if you will - have been a common part of internet dialogue for years and in particular are part of Twitter's argot.
Er, yes. Funnily enough, I noticed that.
And, whaddya know, I think the resultant normalisation of grossly violent language needs to be questioned.
I'm not sure how 'comical' it is to have such descriptions of violence directed against you by anonymous political opponents online. Where I come from, this has happened often enough for a significant number of women in public and political life to feel they had to cancel their Twitter accounts. And it is abundantly clear to them from the nature of the violence described in the tweets that the overwhelming majority of such messages come from men.
So do I think it is a good idea for women commentators to join in? Nope, and I have explained why I think they will gain little thereby.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I suspect you guys might be overreacting to an admittedly visceral metaphor. I don't think the point was the violence as much as one debater doing well against another. I certainly didn't react to it that way; in fact, I didn't even think of it as an issue until MeDotOrg brought it up. I suppose my own male sensibilities have been dulled over the years (or were never awoken in the first place).
I don't know... this is the sort of thing that I think makes the loons on the right think everyone else is too sensitive.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
EAllusion wrote:Descriptions of comical violence to describe someone getting owned - taken to the woodshed if you will - have been a common part of internet dialogue for years and in particular are part of Twitter's argot.
Er, yes. Funnily enough, I noticed that.
And, whaddya know, I think the resultant normalisation of grossly violent language needs to be questioned.
I'm not sure how 'comical' it is to have such descriptions of violence directed against you by anonymous political opponents online. Where I come from, this has happened often enough for a significant number of women in public and political life to feel they had to cancel their Twitter accounts. And it is abundantly clear to them from the nature of the violence described in the tweets that the overwhelming majority of such messages come from men.
So do I think it is a good idea for women commentators to join in? Nope, and I have explained why I think they will gain little thereby.
Descriptions of violence as a metaphor for getting the better of someone are quite natural in language. I thought I was making this point with subtlety, but to be more explicit, this is embedded throughout the English language both in idiom and the meaning of words. There is a natural analogy between physically and mentally beating someone. Exaggerating this for comical effect seems harmless.
If you think this is a cause of violence, you have a lot of work ahead of you to show it. You also probably need to get a lot busier as a language scold. What you seem to be doing instead, though, is conflating this ordinary comical hyperbole with ironic, but not ironic threats of violence.
