So here's the thing.
I have been really bothered lately by some diaries and comments posted on this website. This diary is an attempt to reconcile my discomfort against the backdrop of what is happening in these diaries and comments that is so upsetting me.
So.
I took a lot of time last night to think about what's going down, and here's the thing: we cannot have a progressive website without progressive ideals. Even though c99p does not adhere to any political ideology, and the FAQ does not use the word "progressive" or "liberal" (but, rather, "far-left" and "left-leaning"), the word progressive is assumed from that.
You simply cannot be far-left or left-leaning without also considering yourself progressive, yes?
From the FAQ:
Like the Occupy movement from which the name of this site derives (many of the early members of the site were active members and supporters of Occupy) we are open to people with all kinds of different ideas about how to make the world a better place. The folks already here represent a broad range of left-leaning to far-left orientations.
We are disinclined to create a lot of rules, not because we thrive on chaos, but because we'd like to foster the sort of community that values and respects the site and each other, such that respectful discussions happen between people with diverse views in an organic manner.We have only one universal, all-weather, one size fits all, batteries not required rule, "don't be an ass." (DBAA)
It's a little blunt, but it seems the sort of thing that just about everyone understands intuitively.
The coin of the realm here is kindness to others and articulate discussion of your point of view in a way that respects other people's ideas. Discussions that are characterized by the coherent exposition of evidence, facts, logic and reason, which honor the bonds of friendship that hold us together, are what this community thrives on.
Right.
So if we are a mostly progressive lot, and the goal here is to stimulate discussion that remains respectful, then I think it should go without saying that you probably shouldn't call Hillary Clinton a "bitch" in any diary or thread. And you probably shouldn't make fun of the way Hillary dresses. And you probably shouldn't go on and on and on about how Hillary is such a disgusting person for having a supposed incontinence issue.
I know that identity politics is an iffy thing around here, but I would submit that you cannot be progressive and racist, sexist, and/or homophobic at the same time. Those things are incompatible with each other. You cannot be simultaneously a progressive and also want to halt progress for a specific group of people. It doesn't work like that. Progressivism has many aspects, but chief among them are economic and social populism.
This really kind of kills me, everytime I feel like I have to focus on this, because I hate hate hate! having to defend Hillary Clinton. Because I hate Hillary Clinton for a variety of extremely valid reasons, none of which have to do with her genitalia or her dress or her health.
Please help me to reconcile this. I don't understand how other people simply do not get this.
My heart is heavy. This makes me very sad, for real.
Comments
I'll Give Hellery My Respect The Day She Earns It
I believe Hell will freeze over on that same day. If you want to give the Genocide Queen the same respect you give to Mother Teresa, then that's your choice. It's gets tiring listening to people telling me I can't say this or that because it offends your sensibilities. I usually agree with you Shiz, but don't tell me your standards is the line I cannot cross. Sorry if the word "bitch" is so upsetting to you. It's doesn't bother me in the least when applied to someone as morally depraved as Hellery.
My advice, if an essay offends you just click the Close button.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I do not respect the Genocide Queen,
and I'm pretty sure I've made that quite clear.
It's being impressed upon me that I am certainly in the minority here, and I know that my voice doesn't have much weight. That's all it is, just my voice. I'm not a moderator or a site owner, but the only thing I can do is speak up when I feel that something is unjust.
And that's how I feel.
I miss Colorado.
I fully respect your right to afford Hellery
whatever courtesies you think are right and just. And I expect others to respect my right to disrespect her as I chose.
So I think we are in agreement. Carry on.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I don't care what you expect
I don't care what you expect from others. I have no respect for writers that can not come up with a better put down than calling someone a Bitch.
I'm not asking you to respect ME
I'm asking you to respect my rights, just as I respect yours'.
And the Drama Queens and Pearl Clutchers need to just click the exit button and call their therapists if necessary.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Whoa. Speaking as a moderator -
I can understand it if your preferred method of discourse is to fling ad hominem attacks at people, and that is somewhat supported under the rubric of free and open discussion, BUT not when your targets are members of this site. Did you fail to read the material quoted from the FAQ about civility? Calling other members/posters Drama Queens and Pearl Clutchers is simply over the line, and saying they need to either exit or call their psychiatrists if off the page. That shit simply isn't allowable and you should tone it down. Calling Hillary a bitch, while without any cognitive content or useful purpose is permitted, but a different standard, that of civility, applies to other members and posters.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Very well. Hitting the Close button now.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Well, this is fun.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
^^ This. ^^
Any fifth grader can call somebody names. Anybody as mature as a fifth grader is proud of it.
Sticks and stones
Don't forget to impress most of this year's GOP candidates along with the fifth graders. At least most of the students will grow out of it.
You sound like the hyperbole Queen, or King
as the case may be. Who said Hillary is getting he same respect at Mother Theresa?
You also sound like the Trump supporters who say get out of the country if you can't genuflect to the flag and national anthem.
Calling Hillary a bitch puts a commenter and this site right down their with the far right commenters and websites, which we frequently and correctly denigrate for their nasty language, racism, advocacy of violence and general crudity.
I disagree to an extent.
There's a difference between calling Hillary a bitch as a way to demean her gender and diminish her stature and calling her a bitch to acknowledge some of her personality traits such as condescension, testiness and vengefulness. In my view, neither is civil, but they are definitely not the same thing.
Let's face it, in the personality sense, she is a bitch. Her "basket of [irredeemable] deplorables" comment, the way she yelled at the young BLM member, the tactics she uses to go after women claiming Bill sexually assaulted them, I don't think reasonable people would disagree those traits are bitchy.
On the other hand, I believe those who call her a bitch because she's a successful woman or because she's smart or because she has the audacity to run for president should be called out and chastised.
However, citing ambiguous site rules or penning frothy essays proclaiming that use of the word bitch foretells the end of civilization as we know it is an overreaction. And that overreaction is rightfully getting pushback and generating angry responses.
It's just a word. Let's get over it.
Spoken like a man, I must add.
The word has a long and ugly history for women, especially older women. I think we can adequately characterize Hillary Clinton's many failings and deficiencies without using such a loaded word with such a problematic history.
Perhaps you should read my comment.
I wrote " In my view, neither is civil". In other words, don't use such a loaded word with such a problematic history.
Here is the thing that annoys me
Yesterday I spent hours wading through government documents (Clinton emails) trying to clarify the core process of Clinton governance. .. my window was about 200 Madeline Albright related emails. I was not looking for a "smoking gun", I was looking for how the cogs fit together.
I would have thought this would be of some interest, but it has been almost completely ignored. Most of the 5 comments are my own on my own essay
OK, maybe I am a lousy writer but after I posted this along comes another #HackingHillary post. While I agree that a Presidential candidates health is something we need to have clarified with transparency, but I feel like 38 comments against my 2 are reflecting where the interest on the forum has gone. Why should I bother digging through boring government documents if the thing most cared about is an ambulance in a motorcade. Now seeing a candidate stuffed into an ambulance at a rally would be of great interest but all this speculation has become a distraction.
I don't care much what anyone calls Hillary Clinton. I commonly call her a "war-monger", a "corporate toad", an "evil fascist" and, "I would rather see a dog as President than a Clinton." Like George Carlin, I don't care at all what kind of immoral cuss words people use. What I do care about is that there is an overwhelming amount of time and effort going into what amounts to a speculative distraction.
Edited to include my comment in block quotes after today's collapse and what I think is the end of her campaign:
From the Light House.
You are not wrong about this.
Unfortunately, I am sick of reading about Hillary Clinton pretty much altogether, so I tend to focus on other things.
I am sorry that your diaries, that you put your heart and soul into, are not getting more love, Alex. From what I have seen, they are well-written and informative.
I think you were just put on the Front Page, though, so that's good.
I miss Colorado.
Alex, I saw the great detail
Alex, I saw the great detail of your essay and was saving it for when my mind was fresh! I appreciated all your work, but for me at the time my mind was elsewhere.
Sometimes I find something very upsetting on the news, and then I go on C99 for more perspective on THAT issue. We are pretty much in agreement that there is media blackout on certain topics, and we don't get the full story except here among other bloggers.
Just an example, I read the story of Wiki leaks having e-mails that show Jane Sanders was physically threatened by the Clinton campaign so that Bernie would drop out before the convention. Well, even if a fourth of that was true, it was incredibly upsetting to me and even interfered with my sleep. And I need to get more information on that story before I can move on to another.
So yes, I am looking forward to your essay!
If it helps you any...
Sometimes things are not very visible. I read your story. I up-voted it. And, in fact, it became the core of an argument I sent to my extended family. The "Hillary's Caboose" thing? I didn't even know that existed until I read this story here.
I personally would prefer that we all discuss go-forward strategies but I also like to know about corruption which, right now, is inevitably going to involve Hillary. So thank you for that and don't give up hope.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Did a lot of people give it a thumbs-up and just not comment?
Because some of the more technical and verbose posts around here elicit nothing but that from me. But if they're being ignored altogether, there might be more at play than some popularity quotient. Perhaps it's too dry and technical, and so thorough that there's not a lot to be said?
I think it's kind of sad, too, but I wouldn't want anyone to think I was using that as a barometer for the general site. All I can do is put my writing out there--it's up to the reader to do what they will.
Your piece (were there two?) was quite good
...honestly, I didn't feel smart enough to comment. It kinda flattened me.
Part of it is that I hate that one has to do so much research to see what she's up to (and project what her goals are for the future). Makes me quite depressed. When I'm blue, I generally don't comment. What she's up to weighs so very much. Anticipatory Clinton Fatigue redux makes me want to nap.
* * *
I have not figured out what catches attention here - sometimes it's timing. This is from watching response to my own pieces - I think essays which have ONE main point and some quotes and descriptions tend to have people engage with them more deeply. We are fully in an age of TLDR (being an old girl at this point, I only learned what that means in the past month or so... for anyone equally out of it: Too Long - Didn't Read). The real dirt in what she's done needs to be dug up and excised. You committed an act of real journalism. I hope you send it along so it can have a wider readership.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
I hadn't even thought of that but yeah...
I upvoted but didn't comment largely because the piece seemed self-contained and complete and any comment I added would be superfluous.
That happens to me a lot with gjohnsit's pieces too.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
The sad fact is that it is unlikely that Hillary will ever be
indicted for anything she did as SOS, and hence people skip over articles concerning things like the e-mails and related issues. People are still desperately hoping that something will disqualify her, however, and hence some hope to find something that will rescue us from her candidacy via remote medical diagnoses. That won't stop.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Duplicate
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I very much agree with you on this.
The problem is, that I'm guilty of it myself. Even if I'm mainly in those diaries saying, OK, yeah, health problems for a future President are an issue, but not always the health problems you're writing about (like incontinence) and not done like that. After all, it's likely that our paralyzed President with polio probably occasionally had incontinence issues. But the fact is, that if I'm in a diary arguing about whether or not the diary is good, then I'm not doing other, more helpful, stuff.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'm getting of the age
where I long for the days In Continent just meant vacationing in Europe.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
LMAO!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Nah, Alex.
You're a good writer. I pretty much read all your essays here. Because of constraints of my device I'm mostly resigned to type-by snarkings. I don't wanna denigrate your essays with such sophomoric peckings. There just isn't a lot of controversy in your writing, so not much more needs added.
You'll notice many of the essays with many comments are folk getting together to chew the fat or they're snipe/backbiting marathons. Keep doing as you're doing.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Your writing is the very opposite of lousy.
ETA: I could have said that much better: I think your posts are great.
You posted at a time when I didn't see either of those, but if
it makes you feel any better, I have quit reading Al Ed. I find the Hillary health pieces unconvincing, and even now to my mind the author's credibility has taken a substantial hit. But you could have used a better title.
I think "revelations from the Clinton emails" is more interesting than "government documents". And what Hillaryland are we talking about? Waging war, pay for play, etc., maybe a title reflecting your examination more specifically might have attracted more readership. As it stands, I think "I appreciate all the hard work that went into that; but ew, government documents".
Writing titles is an art in itself. And one apparently I haven't yet mastered either, as my posts are also usually low readership. This is also probably part of why we miss TOP - there are so many people there, you're almost bound to have more readers. But hopefully this site will keep growing and we'll all gradually feel that we have more impact.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
When I completely agree, I may not comment, just upvote it.
I do enjoy your essays, and try not to miss them. But I may not feel that I have anything to add to a really good essay.
If a essay offends me...
I don't finish reading it. If you look for offending material you can find it - here and elsewhere. For example - I read shiz is filled with hate for Hillary. Now that's not exactly what you said, but if I want to find offensive material I can. Sometime you have to read for intent rather than exact words.
I think you also have to be careful defining what people should be. I might argue progressives are tolerant of others views and believe they are entitled to their own opinions.
It is your right to be offended, and it is their right to speak their mind. There is no obligation to agree with every essay nor comment. Don't sweat it...read or ignore what you want. Including this comment.
All the best. Keep a good thought!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Well, but see ... OK.
I don't mean this as a threat, and I don't have any kind of power so just take this with a grain of salt: I can't remain on a website where this is A Thing.
That's what I mean by reconciling this. If I can't reconcile this in my head, then I can't stay. I wish it were not that way, but there it is.
I miss Colorado.
OK--so
"being on a website where this is a thing" means "being on a website in which every person who uses these words is not called out and---
I'm not quite sure how to end that sentence, whether the appropriate thing you're looking for would be 3 strikes and you're out? Like two warnings, and then a banning?
Or a couple warnings, and then the diary in question getting pulled?
Either way, you're identifying "the website" with the actions of a some people on the website--I think no more than 5 or 6 out of 2000+. I guess because those 5 or 6 people are allowed to use those words here?
What would make this OK for you? What would make it a good website?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I suppose I don't want it allowed.
I also don't want it allowed for people to call Barack Obama a "nigger". Or Barney Frank a "fag". I don't want those things allowed.
I don't want people to be able to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch". I don't want a diary that does call Hillary Clinton a "bitch" to be Front Paged.
I don't want it allowed that people can write Hillary poopy pants diaries. I don't want it allowed that you can make fun of Hillary's "ample backside" or her fucking cankles.
Like, really? Seriously? What grade are we in here, people?!
And why do I have to say all of these things out loud?!
I miss Colorado.
Sexism and racism exists, even among progressives,
of course. I guess growing up a white liberal in the South pretty much prepared me for that.
That's why you have to say these things out loud--well, say them, or just avoid the people who use sexist/racist terms.
Thing is, though, the term "bitch" was an unfortunate place to start, because it means "a cruel, mean woman" and Hillary is extraordinarily cruel.
Honestly, to me "bitch" is sexist when it's used on a woman for being assertive, for disagreeing with someone (esp a man), for seeking her own success rather than merely enabling the success of others, for getting angry.
When the word "bitch" is used on a woman who's legitimately being cruel and vicious, I don't really have a problem with it.
I recognize that that is far too subjective a measure to use as a website-wide standard, or any standard outside my own head, but that's why calling her a bitch doesn't bother me.
The stuff about her being fat or old or leaking or whatever is disrespectful, and also often disgusting, and upon reflection, it does seem sexist to me.
But what's the answer? Ban anyone who uses the words? Or remove any diary that includes them?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Excellent comment, CSSS!
And truly *excellent* distinctions between sexist uses of 'bitch' and uses to describe someone cruel and vicious! (Although I agree that that isn't solid enough to build a standard on.)
Thanks--I just wish it were more useful.
It's in my head, but it's not any good for any standard except for me!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thanks--I just wish it were more useful.
It's in my head, but it's not any good for any standard except for me!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
As an older woman, I agree.
There needs to be a word for a "cruel, mean woman," and that word is bitch, an equivalent for the term "bastard" applied to a man. It shouldn't be used lightly, but Hillary has really done a lot of terrible things..
I don't like the way it's used to apply to women in general, in some hip-hop, for example, though. There's a difference.
When I hear someone utter "cruel, mean woman"
the first word I thought of, literally, was Cruella.
And re a "cruel, mean man" I think of Mr. Potter and then Scrooge. Bastard for cruel man? To me the word bastard merely means a child out of wedlock, and is a gender-neutral term. And I find those who actually use this word the equivalent of those who use the N-word, and F-word: arrogant, heartless and cruel to a degree that simply shocks me.
~OaWN
And, just so you know,
I am honest-to-God, full-on crying right now. My tears are dripping down my cheeks and onto the keyboard, so this is not something I take lightly.
I miss Colorado.
I am there whith you, Shiz.
When I hear that word, it does not have the same effect on me as it does to you, but over time my esteem for the human race has tumbled so low, and perhaps that has something to do with it.
In situations such as these, I tend to turn to etiquette. I don't know that the utterance of that word should be outlawed, per se, however the community should respond in a way to communicates an icy tone in one's voice and make it clear that such ad homonym attacks are not welcome in these parts.
IMHO, it is not appropriate for the community to treat such remarks as "no big deal", especially when members of the community have raised their objections.
Calling a woman a bitch is nothing but a slur. It is hate speech. Is hate speech no big deal? I think not.
~OaWN
This is a job for the moderators
I'm not a fan of the Fristing essays or of some of the rougher names Hillary is called. But I choose to ignore them, because it's not my place to set rules for others. Nor is it my place to tell others not to, for that matter. But that's why JtC and the moderators have a hard job to do. Until they make the call, I'm keeping my judgments to myself.
Please help support caucus99percent!
OK.
This comment upset me probably a lot more than it should have. That's because I take what you have to say to heart, Dallasdoc.
I miss Colorado.
It's just my opinion
You're free to have your own, of course. But you don't need me to tell you that....
Please help support caucus99percent!
I generally hate being a net nanny BUT
I do remember the bad experience I had at Firedoglake which I've written about before. The incredibly great comments and essays by the regulars were not enough to overcome the stench and angst when there was an invasion of new commenters making increasingly beyond the pale comments about PO that focused on his race, his appearance, etc. and not his policies. I begged for some moderation and someone to enforce what I thought should be pretty simple standards for a liberal blog, but for whatever reason, the moderators chose to ignore the really offensive comments. At some point I simply didn't want to be a part of the community because the bad was starting to outweigh the good and I left.
And what is offensive? Kind of like the porn standard - you know it when you see it. Mea culpa, I admit that I did participate in a thread about Hillary's wardrobe. Remember that they (HRC's campaign) want her opponents to act like sexists - it makes their job of stigmatizing them/us more easily.
I think being beyond the pale is a predictable method in which to kill off a liberal blog - push the limits of discomfort for some bloggers with offensive comments. You'll never know, either because people will simply drift away.
So far, while I've cringed on a couple of occasions, it's been pretty easy for me to avoid the essays I know aren't for me and I haven't found the comments to be overun. I'll speak up when I have to. I can see where a flag could be useful to draw a moderator's attention for personal attacks or some comment like we're discussing.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Thank you, Phoebe Loosinhouse. oem.
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
The problem with open discussion...
... is that it's open discussion. There's always a tension between freedom of speech and community values, even in a community where free speech is a central value. Lines get drawn, or communities tear themselves apart.
I'm a newbie around here, and don't presume to speak for the community or the mods. But at some point the moderators are going to have to clarify some of these questions, or trouble will ensue.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Has ensued.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
after all this
I really don't think there's anything they can do, short of "restoring backup" again.
Shiz,
You made a comment in my essay about how I'd never use the n word to refer to Obama, or use a homosexual slur about say Barney frank, but I have no problem referring to Hillary as a bitch.
That's right. Because "n*gger" and "fag" don't refer to an individual's actions.
But in my book, "bitch" does. Number 1, it has several meanings, not all of them bad (as in "you say bitch as if it's a bad thing").
"Dick" and "prick" refer to assholish, immature men & their action. Markos is our poster boy for them.
I can't completely articulate what "bitch" means to me when I use it wrt Hillary. It certainly includes a visceral reaction to her lying, cheating, hateful actions. I suppose if I were younger and from a different part of the country I might use m*ther f*cker instead. But I'm not, so I don't.
The similar term for men, to me, is SOB. If Bill were out there more I'd probably use for him.
As for obama's "clinging to guns" statement in 2008, I wasn't blogging then so sorry I didn't retroactively call him out for its use. It's certainly in the same class of statements as Hillary's. But Hillary has a track record of this. There isn't much space between "basket of deplorables" and "super predators". It's about damn time the media call her out. Too bad they didn't call her and her camp out on all the ways she slandered bernies supporters, but back then they were busy justifying her words. I just hope that Hillary's bad, no good, awful week/fortnight continues for the next 2 months. Couldn't happen to a better person.
So, horrible women are dogs, and....
horrible men get their horribleness via their dog mothers.
I'm not much on policing vocabulary and talk like a sailor myself. But as a woman, I'm really sick of being referred to as a dog (in heat - and all the connotations that go along with mens' fears of women and their cunts and what is happening with them, and the belief that all sin originates from women, etc....) when I'm not liked by others, especially men.
I like gender neutral cuss words like "fucker", "ass hole", etc....
Why? Because there are reasons that no one refers to a horrible male as being a "son of a dick" for very good reasons relating to the fact that calling a man a "dick" does not carry the whole of the history of misogyny along with it in the same way that "bitch" does. Including the belief that sin originates with women, or bitches, not with men or dicks, and is why there are no horrible men who are "sons of dicks", but only "sons of bitches". Think Eve, that original bitch, and how her actions infected all of Man Kind who are all sons of the original bitch and her bitch daughters.
I'm not policing your words, but do think folks should reflect upon the words they use in the course of reflecting upon themselves more generally in the spirit of of gaining self insight and knowledge and all that comes along with it.
In short, I'm not surprised you use SOB for men and bitches for women - there's a reason for that - and might be one you think upon for a few minutes.
Wow, had never thought of it like that
And I'm a female. At first I was in agreement with Shiz only on the completely idiotic fixation with incontinence, and being pissed off (ugh, puns) at having to defend Her Heinous. Now, I understand a little better about the offensiveness of the bitch reference.
Thank you!
I'm still on the fence about her clothes. I feel like her stylist should be replaced. PO and Michelle always look sharp and professional. Her Heinous has looked that way in the past. Not anymore. And I don't mean that she should wear dresses either.
Sorta off topic: I'm in a tug of war with myself about health issues. Yes, we want a prez who will not die of health issues during their term. But. . . we get justifiably defensive if someone is discriminated against for health issues or disabilities.
But It's OK for the Gander?
No one seems to bring up sexism when people make fun of Trump's appearance (e.g., skin color, hair, plot belly, hand size, etc.). When people referred to Bush-lite as "chimp" it was just fine but to compare BHO in a similar fashion ...
In any case, any time someone uses personal and inconsequential insults against a public figure, it weakens their argument and in many cases the slurs are used in lieu of a rational argument. In the blogosphere it really pays to consider the source.
Was this an accidental response to me or meant for Katie?
I thought the hand reference was incredibly immature when Rubio made it. As for his looks, I tend to be unable to not stare at how he either has goggle white around his eyes, or wears a concealer too many shades lighter than his skin tone. Does that make me sexist? I don't think so. Shallow, probably.
Dying is one issue, but ability to perform is another.
FDR was in a wheelchair and Katie, bar the door. It was only after his amazing first 100 days in office that political analysts began evaluating the first 100 days in office of Presidents--and none yet has matched FDR.
Performing the job of POTUS required genius, reflexes, stamina, etc., but not ability to walk. Therefore, assuming that FDR could not be President because he could not walk would have been discriminating against someone because of a physical challenge. On the other hand,other health issues, rumored to have been brain tumors, should probably have kept him from running the fourth time. Physically, he was not up to very much at that time and we were still in the midst of World War II. His fourth term, brief as it was, was a risk, at best.
Saying that someone who cannot think on his or her feet, does not have the stamina to perform at peak level through a crisis, etc. should not be President is a fact, IMO. Also, it's been proven that a "White House" does not relinquish power when a President is incapacitated, as when Reagan was shot. Instead, staffers and/or the spouse of the President takes over. The problem is, no one vetted or voted for the spouse or the staffers.
At a minimum, we deserve full disclosure. For example, Paul Tsongas never made full disclosure about his health. Had he been elected, he would have died of cancer as his first term was ending. What about the year or two before that, while he was in the end stages? Would his condition have been disclosed and dealt with openly, or would the White House have done its best to conceal it? Would voting against him because of doubts about his health been discrimination, or valid, at least in hindsight.
If politicians and those around them were more transparent, it might not be such an issue, but they aren't.
The above is not intended to apply to Hillary. It is only a general statement, the only exception being that three specific people are used as examples.
Hey now!
The name of "Pricknick was given to me by some who worked with me in the military. I was know as a "fixer", meaning I was sent into positions that required a little assholeness in order to restructure a broken system. Hell, I was even reprimanded for letting subordinates refer to me by that name instead of the regular sargeant this or that. But it was only allowed by those who followed the required changes needed which most did. It became a sign of respect for some of the shitty things I had to do.
I got berated at TOS for the name and came to be very proud of it.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I assumed the name came
From a lack of care shaving your pubes.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
A rolling stone
gathers no moss.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
The only group of people...
whose progress most of us want to halt are the Clintons.
Conflating criticism of Hillary with criticism of women in general is not just lazy logic, it's downright offensive in and of itself.
So please stop the passive aggressive name calling. Unless you just enjoy stirring a pot that has already been stirred way too long.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
That's what I got out of it,
but I've asked for clarity on the same sentence. It makes no sense here.
Nobody's "stopping the progress of women" with some fucking name-calling. So what are we talking about?
There isn't gonna be any progress of anybody
if we don't find some way to stop the runaway climate change and runaway political corruption that has fueled it.
There isn't gonna be any progress of anybody except the very wealthy and a handful of upper-middle-class folks to be their butlers and housekeepers and personal aides, if we don't find some way to stop the runaway capitalism and runaway political corruption that has fueled it.
There isn't gonna be any progress of anybody except the very wealthy and a handful of upper-middle-class Americans and Western Europeans if we don't find some way to stop the endless war and the runaway capitalism and runaway political corruption that has fueled it.
Here's the thing: I think we're all dead if we don't deal with at least 2 of the 4 things I listed above. There won't be any progress for anybody. No more fight against racism, no more fight against sexism, no more victories or advancement for people who have been unjustly oppressed by those systems.
That doesn't mean I think we should be all gung-ho for the racists and sexists among us, nor that I think we shouldn't say "Hey, that upsets me. I think that's wrong." But just as the folks who feel as Shiz do tend to think people like me aren't taking their concerns seriously enough, I feel like my concerns here are maybe not being taken quite seriously enough either.
8 billion dead by the end of the century, maybe.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Alright. Duly noted.
I miss Colorado.
And
that means what? You're noting something that makes no sense, and using it to insinuate that people who dared to call Hillary Clinton a bitch aren't progressive. That's bullshit, Shiz.
Hillary Clinton is not a group of people.
I'll have to work on the word "inauthentic" that is now bouncing around my brain in earnest. I'm crying, too.
Shizs' feelings might have something
to do with what I wrote in response to someone else above.
Where I suspect I differ from Shiz is that I find the word "bitch" to be annoying, and among those who might know better, just plain stupid, I don't feel as hurt as Shiz does.
I do find it annoying. And I find at least some of the responses to Shiz to be shallow at best. Not your response, and I feel no need to go find the examples of the sort of shallowness I'm talking about.
Annoyed is one thing
crying at your keyboard over it is another thing entirely. If she's gotten shallow responses here (and I haven't read them all) that one comment might be why.
Now, I'm not sure if that's what she meant--she was crying over the usage, or she was crying because she couldn't stick around because someone called a public figure a bitch. I can tell you that she's not responding to requests for clarity on a particular statement in this piece. I can also tell you that in my recollection, the Shiz I remember from DK had a far thicker skin.
And I'll leave it at that.
As far as thick skinned:
For me, it's only come with age and the thicker skin that comes with that, for me to speak up more regarding things like men using the words "bitch", "cunt" and "sons of bitches", and expressing my objection to the use of these words.
When I was younger, it bothered me less because I felt there was no choice but to swallow it up whole without a peep of objection.
Now I feel more upset by these words, but also more capable of speaking out and dealing with the potential fall out. Including the stupid responses Shiz has gotten to the effect of: Shut up, I use the word "bitch" regularly and it doesn't have any similar standing as the word "nigger". If you feel otherwise, tough. Suck it up.
Anyway, of course the word bitch has a whole world of connotation that comes along with each instance of its' use, which is precisely WHY folks use the word, even if they refuse to reflect upon why they choose the word "bitch" over other words.
You don't get to judge Shiz's feelings & degree of emotion.
It is how she feels. She expressed herself and made a legitimate request of the group to help her reconcile her feelings with the reality in which she is existing at c99. Getting on her ass about it is hardly helpful.
I'm with Katie. I just find the gratuitous use of bitch and Hillary poop pants juvenile. Like a 14-year-old hiding nudie pictures under their bed. At some point, ignoring the feedback from your fellow travelers strays from right and wrong and starts to verge on just being a dick.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Stop right here
Nobody--NOBODY--is talking about "poopy pants" here. I called that out along with everyone else, because as far as I'm concerned, that's well-poisoning the discussion about the woman's health.
You'll notice we haven't seen it since?
So no, let's not lump things together here for the sake of argument. That is NOT part of it. We're talking about being upset about the use of the word "Bitch" to describe a woman candidate for President.
Legitimate is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody gets to decide that here, either.
Yes, they are two different things,
and legitimate is in the eye of the beholder. But........... there is a bigger picture and that is c99.
If we are having intelligent discourse about the use of the word bitch as opposed to freely slinging it around without regard for our fellow travelers, it makes it two different things - right? Clean is also in the eye of the beholder. Because we can leave behind what is perceived to be a mess doesn't mean we should. This is why no one like's communal bathrooms. We do not want to turn c99 into a communal bathroom. We know some people do find it offensive. It doesn't mean we shouldn't spit in the sink, but it means we should clean it or have a damn good reason not to.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thanks, dk.
I really appreciate what you said.
I miss Colorado.
As I've said elsewhere, there's a history to this word.
Perhaps Shiz has experienced some of that so it has special resonance for her. I have no idea.
Frequent use of crude slang lowers the general tone of the website and definitely discredits the commenter who can't comment without it. This isn't the military, a frat house or a locker room. It's a public discussion site primarily, but not exclusively, for political subjects.
I've said what I have to say on the subject. If I find the tone of the site unpleasant, I will drop out. As I did for a good chunk of the past 2 months.
I don't think Shiz is conflating criticism of
Clinton with criticism of women as a class.
I think she/he is pointing out that the words used (like bitch) and issues (like incontinence, which affects more women than men, in part because men don't have carry babies in their bodies which affect the nerve leading from the bladder to the brain) that are gender specific denegrations in our culture.
I really don't think thinking about this is rocket science. And it seems to me that for those who disagree with Shiz need to concede the simple fact that there is no equivalent word, with all its' many connotations, to "bitch" in regard to men.
There's a reason that we call bad men "sons of bitches" rather than "sons of dicks" or "sons of ass holes" or "sons of sissies", etc...
And the focus on incontinence is similar to the focus of menstruation and the general "ick" our culture promotes when it comes to womens' cunts and what is or is not happening to them, etc....
Incontinence is common and often does not indicate anything beyond the end result of carrying a baby to term.
But, you know -- female bodies and "ick".
Thanks you, katie, for today's class in Advanced Feminist
Theory. There is no indication that Shiz is thinking about any of what you said. Try to stay on topic.
[Edit:] I apologize for being snarky in approaching you. I was following the verbal and emotional content of the comments quite closely and your comment felt like a mean-spirited intrusion intended to distract and deflect the discussion. Perhaps I should have waited a few moments for my irritation to ease.
I see below that, well after my comment and your reply, Shiz posted an inarticulate cheer for you, which you chose to read as her complete agreement that you had articulated her thoughts and feelings. I think that cheer was her expressing glee that you took a shot at someone who bested her in a recent discussion. Now you've taken two shots. I hope you are enjoying yourself.
Sexism and feminist theory are not discussed here, nor on any of the generally 'progressive' sites online. This may be an opening for you, katie. This is obviously an issue you feel strongly about, and you appear to be highly motivated to instruct others about its basics. Why don't you write an essay here about it? Or better yet, a series, perhaps weekly? With particular instructions on how 'progressives' should behave in regard to these issues? You may have found your calling.
Thanks for your class on Advanced Ignorant
Comments.
My reading of Shiz is pretty much what I've expressed.
Your reading is apparently different.
Rather than making ignorant ad hom responses, you might try stating what your take actually is. I know it's more difficult, but reasoned debates often are more difficult than ad hom responses which display a certain level of ignorance in regard to both your interlocutors and the subject at hand. For instance, this quote from above - reading comprehension is hard:
"So if we are a mostly progressive lot, and the goal here is to stimulate discussion that remains respectful, then I think it should go without saying that you probably shouldn't call Hillary Clinton a "bitch" in any diary or thread. And you probably shouldn't make fun of the way Hillary dresses. And you probably shouldn't go on and on and on about how Hillary is such a disgusting person for having a supposed incontinence issue."
I read Shiz' diary as about her feelings
about certain conditions here, not about feminist theory, or even about what is or is not 'progressive'. This will be my only reply to you, because I see your input here as a distraction from the topic.
Since Shiz responded to my comment,
with "thank you Katie, this, this, this", we no longer have to speculate whether I touched on Shiz intent in writing her/his diary.
So: 1) Pretty sure I'm "on topic" and 2) you are very rude.
lol.
Yes and yes.
I miss Colorado.
Sarcastic condescension
Just what we don't need in a discussion, or supposed discussion, of these sensitive issues.
Damn, Crone. You double downed
Aren't we all sisters? I'm not understanding all the hostility from so many people I admire. (Both sides.)
Check out the diary I just put up.
Totally agree with you about how people on both sides should remember we're allies.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
CSSS: My position/opinion on Shiz' diary
is much further down in the thread, with a much earlier timestamp.
Are you speaking to me, De?
Reading another article, I saw your comment title and wondered if you were speaking to me, because the title did not contain my name. My name is CroneWit, my initials are CW. 'Crone' is a freestanding noun meaning 'old woman', and as such it describes many here.
If you are speaking to me in this comment, my reply is, 'I was double-downed upon and chose to respond.'
Please note what I specifically chose NOT to do:
1. I did not add another comment replying to katie, because I feel her content in this thread is disruptive and argumentative.
2. I did not respond to Shiz' inarticulate cheer of katie (although I itched to ask her to clarify that comment) or otherwise create an opening to bring up and link to the recent incident where Shiz attacked me (out of the blue and intruding off-topic into a very different kind of thread) because I had spoken up about the 'Men's Rights' advocate who was trying to to establish himself and his misogynist ideology here at c99. (JtC in consensus with all the Mods established c99's position, (paraphrased) 'that such ideology and languages is unwelcome at c99 because uncivil.')
Although Shiz cheered katie, at of this time I have not yet seen her re-phrase any of her original complaint in similar language, or even use any of katie's comments as a jumping-off point for clarifying her thoughts, feelings, or positions -- and we all know that Shiz is capable of writing such commentary if she chooses. katie used Shiz' cheer to deliver another direct insult to me. I believe that Shiz was cheering katie's insults; it is as yet unclear if Shiz agrees fully with katie's comments as a representation of her article today.
As for my 'sisterly' cred -- well, I think I've earned mine over the past 60 years, but you may differ with me on that. If you want to see my response to what Shiz wrote today, you'll find it much farther down in this thread, in my first comment today.
CW, just to clarify--
my response/agreement with Deja was not, repeat, NOT intended as taking a side in the fight btw you and Katie. I just wish we could remember that we're allies here, not adversaries.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I understood that, CSSS. But thanks for sayin'.
I try to not insult others. I responded to an insult by you
with an insult. You are no victim in this instance.
Frankly, I have no idea what your beef is actually about, other than you seem to think that I'm "off topic" and have nothing to contribute whatsoever and so should shut up, and that I responded to your rudeness with rudeness.
In what way you feel I'm off topic has never been explained. Which is cool. Yet you seem to want Shiz to clarify her positions while you seem to believe you don't have to and can simply sling ad hom attacks around.
Whatever, it's the internet, folks often act in ways that they wouldn't in real life, and I really doubt you'd have been so rude to me in real life because I'm a fairly nice person and rarely provoke this type of rudeness in real life. Even by those who have a superiority complex.
CroneWit will not get a response from me.
I have gone 'round once before with this person and it was an endless loop of ridiculousness that (literally) does not stop.
So he/she is on my permaignore list. That might be the right course of action for you, too.
I miss Colorado.
Wow. Just saw you added some stuff.
Pretty sure you're reading way more into my comments - for sure.
So maybe you're reading way more into Shizs' comments as well, but don't know for sure. What I do know is that I did not read her diary the same way you did.
Again, you are the one who began "the shots". I shouldn't have responded in kind, especially since you seem a score keeper type person, and one who can't keep score well because you seem able to dish it out but not take it very well.
So, you "bested" Shiz?
You responded to me initially in a condescending way.
Do you see a pattern in the way you regard people, perhaps?
Thank you, Katie!
This. This this this.
I miss Colorado.
Are you sure?
So you've never watched Breaking Bad?
Pages