NSFW objectification

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

I will not believe that all mention of race is automatically racist

It has certainly become that way, esp in politics. We should stop calling it a "race card" and call it an "Obama card".

[piercehawkeye45]

Troll.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Troll.

Why in the world would you say that?

[piercehawkeye45]

Maybe I misinterpreted but when you state "we should call it an "Obama card" instead of a "race card", it makes it seem that Obama always plays the race card, something I have never seen. Other people sometimes talk about race with Obama but when the hell has he really used it? I have no idea where that came from so it I assumed you were just trying to get a reaction out of people, hence trolling.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Maybe I misinterpreted but when you state "we should call it an "Obama card" instead of a "race card", it makes it seem that Obama always plays the race card, something I have never seen. Other people sometimes talk about race with Obama but when the hell has he really used it? I have no idea where that came from so it I assumed you were just trying to get a reaction out of people, hence trolling.

Actually I can't think of a time that he ever played a race card, other than his associations with some of the radical political players during the run up to the election. I think he has done a really good job of down playing race issues. We will see, the next election is just around the corner. I was stating what I believe to be an honest observation that now if anyone is critical of him in any manner his supporters, usually other people of color, will throw it down as the source of the root cause of why people disagree with him and that is total bullshit.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree it's bullshit but I guess we will see if that happens.

[classicman]

Happens everyday on FB, political sites and blogs.

[TheMercenary]

Oh and in Congress!

PH45, that didn't take long did it?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ckson_lee.html



And here:

Tonight the focus is a more pernicious play of the race card by Justin Eliot at Salon.com, Rick Perry’s Confederate Past.

Headlines matter, and Salon.com made sure to use a headline suggesting that Perry has a “confederate past” whereas the actual article makes no such showing. There was only one allegation in the article that Perry actually belonged to a confederate organization, and that example was at the beginning of the article and apparently the justification for the headline:

A 1998 voting guide published by a leading neo-Confederate group and obtained by Salon not only endorses Perry for lieutenant governor but also describes him as “a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.” Perry’s office did not respond to a request for comment about the governor’s possible membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

It’s not clear how long Salon.com gave Perry’s office to respond before the article ran, but there was an update at the end of the article dated the day after the article ran, in which Perry’s office denied the allegations:

UPDATE 7/14/11: Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier issues this denial: “[T]he governor never joined that group nor has he ever paid any dues to it.”

At most, the article gives a handful of examples of guilt by distant association with people who endorsed him at some point in his career or included him in their publications, without any indication that Perry participated in their activities or endorsed their views. None of the examples cited in the article come within a thousand miles of Barack Obama’s 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright.

Not surprisingly, Think Progress amplified Salon.com’s meme, Secessionist Group Endorsed Rick Perry in 1998, Citing Apparent Membership in Pro-Confederate Group.

This is the same type of guilt by distant association used against Rush Limbaugh, when it turned out Rush was a high school classmate of Pastor Terry Jones.

The race angle is key to Salon.com’s attack, because they are trying to smear Perry as racist without having to call him racist and without anything other than innuendo.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ed-rick-perry/

[BigV]

that's a stretch mercy.

She's got some serious sensitivities, that's clear. But I read your first link... there's nothing there. and you seem to be contradicting yourself, actually, your articles make contradicting arguments. in one context, they complain that racism is being inferred and then in the next context they say that the attack is invalid because it is merely innuendo. So... I'm left to conclude that innuendo is only inappropriate when it is unfavorable. That's pretty weak.

If you think it's a charge of racism, call it out. But the innuendo angle is weak.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Merc

I was stating what I believe to be an honest observation that now if anyone is critical of him in any manner his supporters, usually other people of color, will throw it down as the source of the root cause of why people disagree with him.

Originally Posted by Sheila Jackson Lee, Obama supporter of color, discussing the root cause of why people disagree with him

I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president, only this president, only this one has received the kind attacks and disagreements and inability to work. Only this one," Jackson Lee said on the House floor this afternoon.

"Read between the lines."

"What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"

Originally Posted by BigV

There's nothing there.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

I was watching Bones the other day and during one ep the following was said:

"...I objectify myself every time I put on lipstick."

Question posed:

Is all sexualization objectification?

OR

Can one exist as a sexual being and not objectify?

Does there exist other forms of objectifcation that desexualize a person.
If true are they equally wrong?

The military tries to desexualize -- and to objectify the serving individual into the impersonal soldier. The disciplined hair, the uniform, these are just the outermost manifestations. This is not a D&S exercise, it is a psychological coping mechanism for performing one's difficult tasks while in that environment of humans being most dangerous.

What personalizes sexualization is friendship -- and its extreme form, love. We start from an objectifying viewpoint -- the excitement of perceiving a potential mate. "I wanna get some of that." If we're nice people, we move on from there. If we for some reason are not fixing to move on from there -- we cruise folks. Come on -- nobody here has not done that.

The wrong or the right dwells in the doing, not the instinctual interest.