The Loyal Opposition

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by a similarly good read

Personally I’m not interested in a female president for the sake of "diversity." Putting a woman in the white house in 2020 won’t mean that gender equality has arrived. We’ve had 45 presidents. It’s going to take 45 women serving as president before we even have a chance to reach parity.

Do you get it now?

Yes. Politics Makes You Stupid; author of piece is a keen example; Trump wins 2020.

[henry quirk]

Bruce,

Nope.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes. Politics Makes You Stupid; author of piece is a keen example; Trump wins 2020.

Spoken like a true privileged individual. I didn't think of it first, I just stole it first in this thread:

Equality Feels Like Oppression When You're Used to Privilege

I'd prefer to believe you *got* the point of the article and are just cherry picking your quotes to reinforce your confirmation bias. Otherwise I'd have to conclude that your narrow quote is a reflection of you not getting the thrust of the article, that tolerance and diversity for their own sake, for a mathematical balance of opposing points of view are not that important.

The context of the quote you excerpted was that there's a very, very, very long history of IMbalance in many areas of our society and when puckishly asked about when we'd be "even" or "enough" the follow up was your quoted. Do you think a woman and a man have equal ability to judge, to lead, to protect and defend the Constitution? If so, then how is it that we've had 45 male presidents in a row? Can't be luck, really, or coincidence. It's sexism and to say anything otherwise is just wrong. The author's larger point is that our society has a very long history of inequality to "metabolize".

The quality of an idea should be a measure of its value. Discuss it, debate it, challenge it, test it. Measure it. And by many measures, the inequality in our society is yuge. I pointed out that the two articles were similar because they both pointed out that being tolerant and open minded doesn't mean I can feel the breeze blowing through my ears. From the article: "Not all ideas are equal". They're not. And a lot of the ideas I hear coming from the conservative right are crap. I'm not obliged to give them equal credence, since the facts don't support that position.

xoB's article suggested that a progressive might want to stop tilting at windmills trying to persuade their political opponents with facts, and the article I linked to suggests that tolerance is not giving all ideas equal time and that we in America have a long way to go, still, before the truths held to be self evident, the equality of all men, endowed by our Creator in our Declaration of Independence are realistically, measurable, available to all.

[Undertoad]

Spoken like a true privileged individual.

Oh you figure you can counter any argument by talking about the arguers sex and race.

And you also think you're in the "smart" group.

Well pick one, cos you can't have it both ways!

Do you think a woman and a man have equal ability to judge, to lead, to protect and defend the Constitution? If so, then how is it that we've had 45 male presidents in a row? Can't be luck, really, or coincidence. It's sexism and to say anything otherwise is just wrong.

That's true! (Gosh when did you discover it? What a find! OMG did you read history books or something??? Oh you didn't??? Well, that makes it more amazing!!!)

And the piece's answer, and your answer, to that is to have an equal amount of reverse sexism.

Feminism used to be about equality. Now it's about inequality, ensuring women are superior for 240 years. You know, for "justice". We can only assume that the real problems of feminism and racism are entirely gone now that we are concentrating on righting the events of all of history. Society has changed -- and is continuing to change -- but that's not enough. Let's visit the sins of our forefathers because maybe we don't feel bad enough about it. And if you don't agree? You must be sexist and racist. We don't call it that, we call it "privileged". And even if you grow up in a poor, integrated neighborhood and wind up working at a ghetto pawn shop, that's your tag!

And we get to win every argument about it just by NAMECALLING! We think that's a smart way to go about this. Well,

FUCK YOU,

~ and ~

TRUMP 2020. Guaranteed. Because of people like you.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Society has changed -- and is continuing to change -- but that's not enough.

It only changes because people say it's not enough.

[henry quirk]

"Hillwilliams and poor folk who's sweat dug the coal and picked the cotton"

And the chiiiildren, you forgot to dredge up the chiiiildren.

[Flint]

I don't believe that anyone is literally mentally incapable of distinguishing direct vote-count manipulation, i.e. voting machine hacking (which NO ONE is suggesting happened) from other forms of Russian election influencing (which EVERYONE* agrees happened).

It disingenuous, and embarrassing.



*United States Intelligence Community

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

Release Date:
October 7, 2016
...
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
...

[henry quirk]

Meh, I'd rather Mule have opened the door, but this...

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."

...works

Russia didn't hack the election. The election was above board, honest, and true. All parties -- as far as the election itself -- played the game by the rules in place.

Trump won, fair, square, and all the finaglin' (cryin' and protests) won't change that.

No, what Russia did is what all adversaries do. This is not surprising, unexpected, or anything other than business as usual.

And what Russia do? Stole information, stole FACTs, facts damning of, and embarrassing to, the DNC, Clinton, Clinton proxies, and democrats in general.

Now, to my way of thinkin': knowing facts -- regardless of the source -- is always a good thing. And I wonder: if the American press had actually done its job and exposed these facts (instead of Russia snd wikileaks) would folks be claimin' the press 'hacked the election'?

My point here: Russua's theft of FACT is one thing, the democrat powers-that-be bein' rat bastids (which is what the facts show) is another.


And speakin' of rat bastids: republicans in congress done pissed on us (me, anyway) again.

They took how many show votes (with no damn problem) to repeal the ACA (knowin' each and every time there was a veto waitin' at the other end) but now 'we just can't get a thing done! *handwring, handwring*.

Fuckin' repeal that piece of shit...cut it out like a tumor THEN sit down and do the hard work of figuring IF it shoukd be replaced.

If the answer is 'yes': start from scratch, do it right...make sure the whole thing fits on ten pieces of paper as a whole, and mebbe one in summary.


Now, back to Mule's claim of a hacked election...

Two descriptors fit: Liar, or, Nutjob.

Or mebbe a little of both.

[classicman]

(my nice little catastrophic insurance, the one declared sub-standard by the ACA)

What? Thats just about what every Bronze plan is - as dictated to us through the ACA.

[henry quirk]

I'm 54, don't quailfy for hardship status, don't qualify for subsidies.

Too old and not poor enough.

Yeah, the ACA is a friggin' blight for me.

Leave me be...fuckin' de-regulate, un-monitor, disentangle me.

[classicman]

The quality of my insurance has become virtually worthless unless I contract a major disease, virus etc or am in some major accident. Meanwhile my costs have tripled.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh you figure you can counter any argument by talking about the arguers sex and race.

And you also think you're in the "smart" group.

Well pick one, cos you can't have it both ways!



That's true! (Gosh when did you discover it? What a find! OMG did you read history books or something??? Oh you didn't??? Well, that makes it more amazing!!!)

And the piece's answer, and your answer, to that is to have an equal amount of reverse sexism.

Feminism used to be about equality. Now it's about inequality, ensuring women are superior for 240 years. You know, for "justice". We can only assume that the real problems of feminism and racism are entirely gone now that we are concentrating on righting the events of all of history. Society has changed -- and is continuing to change -- but that's not enough. Let's visit the sins of our forefathers because maybe we don't feel bad enough about it. And if you don't agree? You must be sexist and racist. We don't call it that, we call it "privileged". And even if you grow up in a poor, integrated neighborhood and wind up working at a ghetto pawn shop, that's your tag!

And we get to win every argument about it just by NAMECALLING! We think that's a smart way to go about this. Well,

FUCK YOU,

~ and ~

TRUMP 2020. Guaranteed. Because of people like you.

Hey Undertoad.

There's a lot going on here, a lot going on in the country and in my head. I want to try to sort out some of it. It's not all super clear, I'm gonna try and I hope you follow along.

First of all, I consider you a friend. I value what you've provided for me and my friends and family here. Thank you for that. I also thank you for engaging and arguing with me on the topic. Your thoughts and ideas are interesting and I find them important to help me understand what the fucking fuck is going on around here *waves at the country and the society, hell, the whole world*.

Let me start by answering one of your questions. Yes, I am smart. I'm smart enough to see our fucked up history. And I'm empathetic and sympathetic enough to feel the pain of the inequality and unfairness of what has happened and what is still happening. I am not a member of all of the groups that I feel this way about; for example, I'm not a woman, of course. But I know women who've been treated unfairly, women I care about and women I don't know but I still get the injustice. I still feel the compulsion to fight against it. There are plenty of other groups that fit this same pattern. A common aspect is injustice, unfairness, prejudice, and power.

I want to address a couple more of your questions and the words you've put in my mouth.

No, I do not

...figure you can counter any argument by talking about the arguers sex and race.

Nor have I done so. That's stupid, it *is* namecalling and it's ineffective at best.

My response was to you for incorrectly summarizing the thrust of the article as a political piece having to do with ... y'know what. It is a political piece. And there's a lot there about stupidity. About the stupidity of hyperfocusing on (relatively) small, unimportant but flashy topics, topics important to those with power and privilege and paying scant attention to topics that affect huge sections of our population (women, non-white people, poor people)--but notice they are groups with less, maybe no power or privilege. That is stupid.

Please note, not you, Undertoad, are stupid. Not Trump voters are stupid. Our collective preference to focus on dumb shit and shrug off important, widespread, but unattractive strongly negative shit, is stupid.

The examples of this ABOUND around us. They're not all in politics. Look at the news this week. USA Women's Hockey, World Championship is happening soon. And the story around that event is that the Women's team earns $1000/month, for six months, every four years. And we have the champion fucking team. The women fly economy and the men's team flies business class. I don't have a cite, but I'm confident the financial numbers are valid. What the fuck is up with that? How is this right? Why is that? Why should we accept that?

How about another example from the political news. Did you see that picture tweeted by Mike Pence about sitting with the Freedom Caucus? A group of forty or so mostly older, mostly whiter, *all* men, discussing key components affecting women's health. Why are there no women in the room? Why are no women being included in the decision making process touted and celebrated? Another good question, why don't these guys fucking notice?

These are just a couple specific, contemporaneous examples. I know you, all of you can find a thousand more. As the article I linked to states, I'm fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression.

"The piece's answer, my answer is to have an equal amount of reverse sexism."

Your words, not mine. Not the author's. And they're wrong, that's not the answer. While we're at it, there's no such thing as reverse sexism or reverse racism. We've covered this elsewhere. Judging the worth of a person based largely or solely on their gender or race is still sexism or racism. It's *all* backwards thinking. And stupid.

So. Namecalling. Fine, knock yourself out. Be outraged, be petulant. You may be free from bias. You may be living your life based exclusively on the content of your character and the merit of your skills. It's possible that you're that rarest creature, the 100% completely self bootstrapped individual. If so, then why arent you using those talents to help the others around you less fortunate? Why aren't you using those talents and that experience to share with the majority of other people who remain unmoved either through ignorance or ennui?

There's work to be done. I'm in a position of privilege, power, and perception. I have the means, motive, and opportunity to change things. I can't unsee them, and now I can't leave them unchanged.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

... I'm in a position of privilege, power, and perception. I have the means, motive, and opportunity to change things. ...

Not particularly interesting since you had all that before the last presidential election; but, it'll be entertaining to watch you try.

Keep us apprised of your progress. We always enjoy hearing from the loyal opposition.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by BigV

Let me start by answering one of your questions. Yes, I am smart. I'm smart enough to see our fucked up history. And I'm empathetic and sympathetic enough to feel the pain of the inequality and unfairness of what has happened and what is still happening. I am not a member of all of the groups that I feel this way about; for example, I'm not a woman, of course. But I know women who've been treated unfairly, women I care about and women I don't know but I still get the injustice. I still feel the compulsion to fight against it. There are plenty of other groups that fit this same pattern. A common aspect is injustice, unfairness, prejudice, and power.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

I'm not just talking to you Biggie, I'm talking to all my lefty friends everywhere when I say, we get it, you fucking care. Please, don't say any more. We know.

You know who really cares? Even makes you look bad, in the caring department? Tom Cruise.

Originally Posted by Tom Cruise

"Being a Scientologist, you look at someone and know absolutely that you can help them. ...being a Scientologist, when you drive past an accident, it's not like anyone else when you drive past. You know you have to do something about it because you know you're the only one that can really help.

"But that's what drives me. I know that we have an opportunity to really effectively change people's lives and I am dedicated to that. I am absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that."

Tom really cares very hard, and people say he is uniquely and energetically empathetic.

And that is why he should be setting public policy.

[Undertoad]

The examples of this ABOUND around us. They're not all in politics. Look at the news this week. USA Women's Hockey, World Championship is happening soon. And the story around that event is that the Women's team earns $1000/month, for six months, every four years. And we have the champion fucking team. The women fly economy and the men's team flies business class. I don't have a cite, but I'm confident the financial numbers are valid. What the fuck is up with that? How is this right? Why is that? Why should we accept that?

Okay, first of all -- y'only needed to ask "why" once there, at the end, not four times --

The answer is, nobody gives a flying puck about Women's Hockey. I'm sorry that, as your unpolitical example, you chose sports, where a lot of the point is seeing the very best in human performance, and women are ruled right out of that in most sports.

To put it another way, there is no "Men's Hockey". It's just Hockey, and these days if a women is the best at her position, she would surely make the team. I'm real sorry that there is more interest in "sports" than there is in "women's sports" although for now there is still less interest in seeing the top human potential as limited by gender. Perhaps someday there will be. I don't think it is a necessary factor in creating an less sexist culture.

You know what there is no money for? "Old People's Hockey". You get to a certain age, you're just ruled out! Nobody even questions this! Nobody even notices!

How about another example from the political news. Did you see that picture tweeted by Mike Pence about sitting with the Freedom Caucus? A group of forty or so mostly older, mostly whiter, *all* men, discussing key components affecting women's health. Why are there no women in the room? Why are no women being included in the decision making process touted and celebrated? Another good question, why don't these guys fucking notice?

? I'm sure they noticed. Be hard not to notice. I've been at Freedom events (20 years ago) and noticed. Why would you say they didn't notice?

But why-why-why? I would imagine cos there were no elected women interested in the Freedom Caucus.

Also, there are few women interested in construction. Women are something like 4% of carpenters.

Women, it turns out, are more interested in college. Millions more women than men in college, ratio is about 55-45 last I checked. One question asked is, so what? Is there a "problem" with men? Do they have to be specially considered in order to get them to be interested in college? Is this a societal problem? OH NO what's gonna happen?? Oh shit, nobody even really notices! Does nobody care?!