Positioning yourself like this is a pretty incredible degree of vile, conrats!
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Hillary Clinton visits the Howard Stern show for her first interview
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
Positioning yourself like this is a pretty incredible degree of vile, conrats!
You're right, I didn't mean actually "pretending", I think almost everyone on this site actually believes in most of the things they say. What I mean is, they are choosing to be incredibly toxic in how they present it, because they know if someone calls them out on how much of an asshole they are being for seemingly no reason, they can just use the topic of discussion as a shield to deflect against their needless hostility, toxic nature, ridiculous assertions and so forth.
I've said this before, but people have turned being progressive into a pissing contest to score brownie points with each other.
Any kind of punishment for that comment sends a message that criticising Hillary Clinton is frowned upon and can be misconstrued as sexism. If that word was used to describe any other TERF with open contempt for the poor, it would be a non-issue. But for some fucking reason, certain posters on this board seem to think that people are only pretending to have problems with certain problematic democrats because they're secret sexists or trump supporters or whatever. As if no time has passed between 2016 and now.
In this interview, Hillary opened it up by defending someone who can be described as a war criminal, before going on to mock social healthcare/education and misgender. Yet the bigger problem for many appears to be tone-policing dissent on Era (again, I refer to what I objectively claim is dissent, the nails on a chalkboard comment was in bad taste).
You can't just bring all the "all women face" point as a blanket defence of Hillary Clinton receiving flak for this interview. It pushes people into a corner where they feel reluctant to express their anger at Hillary as if just about everything they say will be met with "Did you know all women face... and how do you feel about that when addressing Hillary?".
It's not the average decent American's fault America is soo far behind the rest of the world at electing a female leader, but at the same time not every female candidate/prospect is equal simply because of their gender identity. Nicola Sturgeon is not the same as Theresa May because both happen to be female. Theresa May was a fucking terrible leader of the UK, Nicola Sturgeon is a decent, empathetic and hard-working leader of Scotland.
Theresa May is a monster who caused untold pain/death via her foreign policy (Windrush) let alone her parties inhumane treatment of social security and people within the UK. Before we get to her receiving a lot of flak for how she treated the Grenfell disaster in the UK. And the list goes on. Lots of what May does/says, is probably centrism in America. That IS America's fault you guys can't seem to understand many in your Democrat party are nowhere near left-wing by standards outside of your country.
Maybe you should quote that person in your reply then, otherwise it looks like a general comment.
I'm talking about a ban that happened today in a thread about the office but I honestly don't know where the line is on mentioning such specifics, they would probably be even more of a possible thread derail. I do really wish more " warnings" were issued on comments, with posters given a chance to clarify their possible problematic comments. I have negative interest in bringing up that whole other firestorm as it was handled properly with a mea culpa.
Yep.
I asked two of them about it and yet not once have the actually responded to those points and instead got attacked and indirectly accused of pretending to care about progressive issues.
But I'm the one bringing up unrelated points apparently, even though its about actual things Clinton siad in the interview and none of the people praising it seem to want to acknowledge her shitty comments
Yet that comment wasn't made as a reaction to anything she said in the interview. It was a drive-by post with no context. It was, we can only assume, just a reaction to seeing her name.
And of course women can be criticised. That wasn't the point of my post at all. I was simply pointing out that calling a woman names without any further explanation can be very easily seen as sexist, even if it isn't intended that way, simply because of how prevalent that sort of sexism is.
Assume, drive-by, can be very easily seen as, etc. How do you know what was in someone else's head when they posted?
And even if someone did react in such a way, is there any chance they are doing so based off of historic events with said person they are unhappy with? It's one post in a whole topic, I don't know why people can't just ignore a poster sometimes rather than demanding action get taken over a scenario they assume intent. If ghoul isn't a sexist comment in America when dissenting politicians, then it shouldn't be assumed as sexist without clear intent. No?
As I said, that seems to be the more important "game" for some people in America right now, rather than being angry your country is in a mess and some of your leaders are a joke to even call themselves left-wing in the richest and one of the most powerful countries on the earth.
If this interview doesn't help the left-wing during an election cycle, then I don't know why anyone would expect people to be universally happy. It wasn't just an interview about Hillary, as a person, or her life story, she gave opinions on policy/other people.
Anyway, probably for the best it's just left alone now. Some food for thought though as to why some of your fellow Americans are at their wits end with the status quo (centrism/faux left-wing politics). That is really the main takeaway here, not arguing over decision making on an internet hobby/enthusiast forum.
Last edited:
Based on the last forum update they're going in the opposite direction.
That comment was a reaction to the news posted in the OP, obviously. Besides, Hillary is a well known politician and many know of what she has done both good and bad.
I wouldn't classify it as a drive-by post and the mods obviously didn't, either.
And this is quite bullshit. It's basically the same thing loquaciousjenny was doing, trying to say that the post was sexist but in an extremely roundabout way. Just because Hillary has been the victim of sexist attacks doesn't mean that all attacks against her is sexist. This is just trying to curtail all attacks against her. As we can clearly see, SurrenderDorothy's post is not sexist and sphagnum has posted examples of other users saying ghoul before in regards to politicians.
Timeline rundown
Hillary Clinton mocks the idea that poor purple should get healthcare, blames everyone but herself for 2016 loss, is a TERF
User calls her a ghoul, gets banned
You assume that the user knows nothing about what Hillary said and did in this interview and that they were being sexist
In reality the opposite is true. Republicans love nothing more than Hillary stays in the public eye.
We've gone ahead and removed SurrenderDorothy's ban. We'd like to apologize for the confusion surrounding the ban.
Although "ghoul" has been used against politicians before, the context changes when it's used specifically against a woman (especially an older woman.) The reason for this is because could be considered an attack on her looks. However, after further deliberation and given the ambiguity of how the term has been used, we've opted to lift the ban. We ask that people be more aware of how their rhetoric comes across in the future.
In regards to this thread, however, the conversation has been derailed due to the discussion of the ban. Therefore, we're going to go ahead and lock this thread now.
Although "ghoul" has been used against politicians before, the context changes when it's used specifically against a woman (especially an older woman.) The reason for this is because could be considered an attack on her looks. However, after further deliberation and given the ambiguity of how the term has been used, we've opted to lift the ban. We ask that people be more aware of how their rhetoric comes across in the future.
In regards to this thread, however, the conversation has been derailed due to the discussion of the ban. Therefore, we're going to go ahead and lock this thread now.
- Status