• on a comment on Shoe Thrower Guy Open Thread over 5 years ago

    He's not MY jackass.  Maybe he's yours.

  • on a comment on Shoe Thrower Guy Open Thread over 5 years ago

    Great point.  That's one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals are willing (sometimes too willing, admittedly) to call our own country out when it has done something terribly wrong, such as the Iraq War, our treatment of Native Americans, slavery, Japanese internment, unilateral uncritical support for Israel.  

    Conservatives believe we should support our country no matter what, even when it is wrong.  And they believe that pointing out mistakes means not supporting our country.  To them, protest is a four-letter word.

  • Nice.  Respond to a post calling you out on demeaning people with disabilities by using sexist language.  I think we're done here.

  • To be honest, comparing them to Nancy actually demeans people with authentic developmental issues.

  • Come on.  You should know better than to use the term "retarded" as a pejorative.  Just say "ignorant."  It's got all the oomph with none of the offensiveness.

  • I think these are all good points.  And I pretty much agree with them.  I was disappointed that Samantha Powers was brought back so quickly and at a seemingly important post.  I thought that sent a bad message as well.  So I won't be up in arms if Favreau is fired.  But I think that if he wasn't the one who posted the picture (I don't know if he did), and since he reacted quickly to get them taken down, we can only criticize him on the actual gesture he's making.  I don't happen to think that gesture is enough to cost him his job.  But too many people are criticizing him for posting the pictures and putting forth an unprofessional image when we don't even know if he is the one who posted them (I think).  IF he did post them himself, that to me is actually a much more egregious error than the gesture itself.  That shows not only unprofessionalism but also an utter lack of awareness.

  • "If this is not a hateful act, what is it?"

    You answer your own question with this:  

    "Obviously they were mocking Clinton"

    Yes, it was foolish and inappropriate.  Maybe even mean-spirited.  But I don't see it as a hateful act.

    "Never did he/she actually attempt to engage in the issue."

    Fair enough.  Call them on their evasion without resorting to condemnation.

  • "But he was a teacher.  She was a student."

    Yes.  And that is illegal.  And everyone knows it is illegal.  People who choose to break that law should be prepared for consequences.

    What Favreau did is certainly inappropriate.  But I won't go so far as to say it is patently immoral.  He should have known better, but since the transgression is minor, the punishment should be minor.  That's all I am arguing.  

    Fair or not, when we are overly sensitive about minor or barely sexist acts like this, it makes people indifferent and apathetic to serious and more obvious cases of sexism.  It doesn't mean we should ignore this.  And there should definitely be some kind of punishment.  But this is nowhere near as bad as real, serious sexism that Hillary has faced from others.  It pales in comparison to the nutcracker, Tucker Carlson's comment, and some of the other things that were said and done.  Let's realize that there are varying levels of sexism.

  • Sorry, but misogyny means there is hatred or contempt for women.  There is no way you can extrapolate this as a hateful act, sorry.  And as for contempt, the only way to really believe that is if you think this was meant primarily to discredit Senator Clinton's talent, experience, or skills.  If so, fine, but we differ there.

    "Your moralizing is offputting. This guy should not be speechwriter and that's that."

    Also, this is your second unintentionally ironic quote of the day.

  • I can't imagine he thought this would ever be an issue.  He probably doesn't even remember taking it.  I doubt he sits around and reminisces about it: "Man...remember that time we got a picture taken of me groping that Clinton cutout at that party?  That was so great."  What, is he Chris Farley on the Chris Farley Show?

  • I think we need to point out that the term "youth" absolutely applies to an older age than it used to.  Because people are living with their parents after college (out of choice!), pursuing more advanced degrees, and forced to spend more time in jobs that provide "experience" but no money, there is a very different expectation of that age group.  A 27-year old 20 years ago would be 5+ years into their career track; not so today.  Doesn't excuse what he did, at all, but he is absolutely still a youth, by today's standards.

  • "The dirty little secret about the civil rights movement in the United States is that one reason why racism fell out of favor was the threat of riots. Such as the 1992 Los Angeles riot."

    I'll be open-minded and remain merely skeptical, but you need to provide a lot of evidence to prove the point above.

    "Women can't riot because they don't have the physical strength"

    Well that's just BS.  You are arguing that all women, 100% of them, are too physically weak to do anything about sexism.  Right.  Do you see the irony here?  

  • on a comment on Rewriting History - MyDD Style over 5 years ago

    We have a winner:  Unintentionally Ironic Post of the Day.

  • on a comment on Bush pardons will be classified over 5 years ago

    Well, Bush does like pretzels.

  • Haha, fair enough.  I guess tolerance is a double-edged sword, though (speaking of which, I am NOT tolerant of people who say "a two-edged sword").  Many European countries have problems with this right now.  If we are to be tolerant of other religions, how far does that go?  Are we tolerant of a Muslim man who wants to force his wife to wear a Burkha?  Should we be tolerant of religions that sacrifice live animals?  It's a tough question sometimes.


Advertise Blogads