Bloomberg and what he brings to the mix$

[_EAllusion]

So if I were to say that someone should tear off Elizabeth Warren's arm and shove it up her vagina, that would be "salty"? You think that is the level of discourse that we should pursue?

Should we, as a culture, be horrified with our President talking about 'grab 'em by the pussy', but elated when a commentator talks about tearing off arms?

You know what was bad about the President saying grab 'em by the pussy? It wasn't that he used the word pussy. It was that he was describing how he likes to assault women and get away with it due to his stature. It wasn't the impertinent language. It was that he was bragging about being a serial predator. You know what talking about Elizabeth Warren metaphorically ripping off Bloomberg's arms and punching him in the dick with them is? Not that. One is a confession. The other is a comically over the top description of getting the better of someone in an exchange.

The reason that it gets dicier to reverse the gender roles in comments like this is you have to be careful that the source isn't engaging in misogyny with an attempted irony mask. It's the exact same reason why the n-word is the n-word for some people and not others or why making fun of white people asking to speak to your manager is probably fine. Context matters. And even with that said, if this author instead wrote about ripping off Klobuchar's leg and cunt punting her with it, it'd be fine.

What you've done here is confuse metaphor with reality. No one is saying that Elizabeth Warren should actually tear off Micheal Bloomberg's arms and punch him in the dick with them, impressive as that would be.Yet you ignore that and make the comparison to someone saying that someone should tear off Warren's arm and shove it up her pussy. That's a threat of violence. It kinda sucks that you can't tell the difference.

[_EAllusion]

When someone gets destroyed (oh no, violent metaphor alert) in an exchange with someone else, it's cliché' online to joke about reporting a murder. Murder = being shown wrong in an embarrassing way. The tweet mentioned is just a variation on this kind of of exchange. When this happens, it's not a suggestion that someone ought to murder them. Good God.

[_Chap]

Let's talk about the use of metaphorically violent and/or obscene language, as distinguished from actual direct spoken or written threats of violence.

We have been told that violent and obscene language is a cultural characteristic of 'us proles'. To that I observe:

(a) The 'prole' man who was my own father did not use such language, although he was not a soft man by any means; one reason for that, common to many working men of his age and background, was that he had internalised the strong disapproval of such language by women he respected, such as his mother and his wife.

(b) Which leads on to a related point: if violent and obscene language is a cultural characteristic of 'proles' to any extent (assuming such a term as 'prole' to be a meaningful descriptor, which is doubtful), it is not a cultural characteristic of the whole class , but of only some men of that class. And - more importantly - of very few women of that class.

To some working class men, violent and obscene language is an important marker of a particular kind of masculinity, one in which a tolerance of implied violence is a valued identity feature. And, guess what? That particular ingredient in some kinds of masculine identity is one which many women have good reason to dislike and even fear. Which is why many women are likely to think it a bad idea for that kind of language to be widely used in the political discourse of a society in which they are supposed to be equal citizens.

[_EAllusion]

To some working class men, violent and obscene language is an important marker of a particular kind of masculinity, one in which a tolerance of implied violence is a valued identity feature. And, guess what? That particular ingredient in some kinds of masculine identity is one which many women have good reason to dislike and even fear. Which is why many women are likely to think it a bad idea for that kind of language to be widely used in the political discourse of a society in which they are supposed to be equal citizens.

You're talking about a tweet written by a woman using a mode of speaking popular among the well-educated professional class. The author is a feminist journalist.

[Guest]

Huh. I wonder why the use of 'prole' got under Chap's chaps? I was clearly referring to myself and the other morlocks who cuss. Whatever the case may be, I'm heartened to see that a man of humble origins wasn't part of the lumpenproletariat.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Speaking of the proletariat, the Bloomberg Utah campaign HQ was vandalized. Anyone catch the Bernie Bros who did it?

- Doc

[_Markk]

https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-ro ... att-2012-7

[_MeDotOrg]

When I say Eliabeth Warern kicked Bloomberg's teeth in and you react with, "Zomg! Political violence is unacceptable EAllusion. Don't encourage this. Shut your trash mouth." it doesn't actually matter how hard you Internet. What matters is you have a goofy understanding of words that is making you a moral scold where it is not helpful.

When did I say shut your trash mouth? Or is lying about what I said part of the new reality you like? When I quoted you I quoted exactly what you said, not something I made up. I don't put words in your mouth. Don't put them in mine. When you put quotes around something that I didn't say and say I said it, how do you expect me to respect your honesty?

What? Obviously this is a comic description of the reasoning your are employing applied to an analogous example. Also, I don't appreciate you referring to me as "putting words in your mouth." I did not violate your bodily integrity to shove words in your mouth, and I don't appreciate such violence being attributed to me.

Yes, it is comic, but it is also inaccurate.

And when, in the history of the English language, has the expression 'putting words in my mouth' EVER been used to suggest bodily violence?

If Elizabeth Warren wants to verbally go after Bloomberg for his NDA's with women, I say that's great. If someone wants to say she kicked ass, I have no problem. What I object to is NOT congratulating her. It is talking about tearing off someone arms and beating their genitals.

I'm not saying that such responses are not uncommon on the internet. But just because something is common does not mean it is appropriate.

And again, please do not put quotes around words attributed to me that I did not say.

[_Themis]

https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-sons-craig-romney-tagg-romney-ben-josh-matt-2012-7

So you got nothing that Trump has done that you like that no other president was likely to do. How about what you don't like. Do you think EA's response to me is accurate?

[_Markk]

I have written about things I don't like about Trump. I don't like his non presidential personality. I can't defend it, while I understand it sometimes, I think.

I don't like his tweeting at all, the very most the time, maybe better put... his child like tweets.

I don't like the wall, but I also understand that it will help...but un-necessary if we would get behind the problem and secure the border as a country, but all we do is bicker, so in that context I support it. (this deserves a lot more discussion).

He is a narcissist, no doubt...at times I think he is really insecure, and at other times just the opposite. But what he is doing is certainly unorthodox, and he draining the swamp, even if he might go down the drain also. LOL...we might even have a communist light president in November because of this, which in my opinion would not be good, and if that happens add that to the list of things I don't like about Trump.

And no, beyond the fact that executive decisions can be undone, I think EA's response is nothing more that a panicked partisan TDS rant. EA has been unable to answer any questions in any objective way for a long time now. For two reasons, one that Trump is doing some good things, and two, the current set of candidates don't offer much hope to defeat him. Did you watch the last debate?

But there is a long way to go, and anything can happen...we will just have to wait and see.