DescentBB

No Vision, the question has not been answered. no one has made any attempt to answer it. Slick dodged it, you claim it's been done when it hasn't and Ferno thinks there is a conspiracy at work.

It's real simple and I understand why you guys are having trouble with it.

If comments on appearance are inherantly sexist then certainly commenting on intelligence is also sexist by those same broad standards. Convenient.

Will Robinson wrote:No Vision, the question has not been answered. no one has made any attempt to answer it. Slick dodged it, you claim it's been done when it hasn't and Ferno thinks there is a conspiracy at work.

It's real simple and I understand why you guys are having trouble with it.

If comments on appearance are inherantly sexist then certainly commenting on intelligence is also sexist by those same broad standards. Convenient.

Incredible.

Will Robinson wrote:If comments on appearance are inherantly sexist then certainly commenting on intelligence is also sexist by those same broad standards. Convenient.

Obviously you can make a comment on a woman's appearance without assaulting her femininity, but if you were to do so, you shouldn't for example go about it by using gender slurs.

Whoa careful Jeff250, Will is going to point out that Hag isn't a gender slur, then point to the definition, and how it can mean a number of things, all the while ignoring cultural history and current intent — which will then create a circular argument with Will thinking he is in an impervious philosophical position.

Beautifully delusional.

No, I'm going to point out he has already established vague criteria that makes hag sexist and accepting that same criteria would make comments about intellect inherantly sexist.

The definition of sexist, which he conceded was a good one, he also broadened to incorporate his perception of pop cultures inclusion of 'anything insensitive toward the female appearance' because 'sexists-say-those-things'.
Well, sexists also say 'girls are stupid' so why won't comments on an individual females thought process be construed as sexist using the same nebulous definition?

You know it will be. Just look at the list of things that were suddenly defined as 'racist code words' in the defense of Obama. TC used to cite them here all the time. Someone would attack a policy choice of his and immediately the debate was derailed by calling the attack a racist attack...Nevermind there was specific policy in the indictment and no mention of race...it was all about discrediting the dissenters point by making him an outcast racist.

Same ★■◆● different day. Now it will be the specter of a sexist bogeyman they dodge the debate with.

vision wrote:Whoa careful Jeff250, Will is going to point out that Hag isn't a gender slur, then point to the definition, and how it can mean a number of things, all the while ignoring cultural history and current intent — which will then create a circular argument with Will thinking he is in an impervious philosophical position.

Beautifully delusional.

That's why I got off that ride. It was literally making my head spin.

Called it.

Will Robinson wrote:The definition of sexist, which he conceded was a good one

No. Although I said that your definition of sexism (not sexist) might be a good definition for the word, I immediately went on to show that it wasn't useful for deciding whether someone's remark was sexist.

Will Robinson wrote:he also broadened to incorporate his perception of pop cultures inclusion of 'anything insensitive toward the female appearance' because 'sexists-say-those-things'.

Those aren't real quotes of mine. I never said that nor would I ever give such a weak justification for anything.

Will Robinson wrote:Same ★■◆● different day. Now it will be the specter of a sexist bogeyman they dodge the debate with.

You may at some point have to defend yourself against spurious accusations of sexism for making legitimate criticisms of Hillary's policies, but to fight against others for criticizing Woodchip's remarks is an overreactionary auto-immune disease.

Watch out jeff, he's going to misinterpret that as a personal attack, and will likely throw one out of his own.

Funny how I been calling Hillary "Hillary Clinton" for at least 2 years now and it is not until slick posts a Hillary is Wonderful thread that my label comes under attack. Where were all you protectors of femininity 2 years ago? Oh Snap! Thats right no one cared about Hillary back then. Now that she is the auto choice for all the brain dead liberals out there my label now becomes relevant. So like good Alinskyites you attack the messenger to deflect from the fact Hillary is totally incompetent to hold office.

If comparing Hillarys appearance to a hag is attacking a woman 'for being a woman' and thus is automatically sexist then attacking her intelligence, an attribute that actually is the focus of sexists, will have to also be automatically catagorized as sexist.

If not please explain how inferior intellect has somehow taken s back seat to appearance for sexists everywhere? Lol

sexism definition. The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity.

Sexist slur regarding appearance is always to objectify the woman...'she got the job because she is pretty'...
Comments calling a woman ugly are considered rude etc

the point is that men don't get criticized seriously for appearance. That you would take your critique to such a shallow depth reflects YOUR intellect, nothing about hers.

woodchip wrote:Where were all you protectors of femininity 2 years ago? Oh Snap! Thats right no one cared about Hillary back then.

I've mostly been ignoring your clown-like idiocy, but I made a valid point and you served as a good example of the sexism HC has to deal with. And what is this "no one cared 2 years ago" crap? The same people care then and now, and I think that is pretty much just slick, who seems to be the only one this forum who will vote for her. But if you want to feel like this is sudden political persecution, you can, but that's not what is happening. You're just a proud MRA.

Will Robinson wrote:Sexist slur regarding appearance is always to objectify the woman...'she got the job because she is pretty'... Comments calling a woman ugly are considered rude etc

Holy crap, you have a lot to learn, buddy.

Will Robinson wrote:If comparing Hillarys appearance to a hag is attacking a woman 'for being a woman' and thus is automatically sexist then attacking her intelligence, an attribute that actually is the focus of sexists, will have to also be automatically catagorized as sexist.

You can criticize a woman's policies or intelligence (or even appearance) without taking a jab at her for being a woman, but if you keep finding yourself using words like bimbo, ★■◆●, hag, or shrew, then you're not really doing that, now are you?

cue the incensed denials in 3,2,1.........

I won’t deny anything, if calling her a ★■◆● makes me a sexist then so be it, but what does what she said make her other than a ★■◆●.

If a man had said the same thing I would call him a prick...so that would be sexist as well…I guess.

The only defense I “might” offer is that ★■◆● is the feminine version of ★■◆● and prick is the male version of ★■◆●, and I never really tried to attack her because she is a woman, only because of the ★■◆● remark she made.

So would you prefer ★■◆● instead?

I’m pretty sure you guys can find someway to deflect any term used.

Will Robinson wrote:

sexism definition. The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity.

Sexist slur regarding appearance is always to objectify the woman...'she got the job because she is pretty'...
Comments calling a woman ugly are considered rude etc

noooooo, that's misogyny.

If hag is considered some kind of inferior version of a human or female in your mind then to you it is sexist.
To me, having grown up with the only hag reference being the sea hag in Popeye's cartoons or fairy tales, hag represents an ugly old woman with evil intent.

So if I call Hillary an ugly old woman with evil intent am I sexist?
I understand I am insensitive and weaken any legitimate complaint by taking a shot at her beauty but have I crossed the line and made a sexist slur with "ugly old woman with evil intent"?

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

sexism definition. The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity.

Sexist slur regarding appearance is always to objectify the woman...'she got the job because she is pretty'...
Comments calling a woman ugly are considered rude etc

noooooo, that's misogyny.

No, it is sexist to imply a woman won a job based on good looks instead of merit. You need to inform yourself before you try to teach.

you see, one can criticize an idiot for being an idiot without the need for sexist, misogynist, xenophobic or racist comments.

Will Robinson wrote:No, it is sexist to imply a woman won a job based on good looks instead of merit. You need to inform yourself before you try to teach.

LOL. conflate, conflate, conflate.

you've lost, will.

A jackass is a “MALE” donkey.

Sexist pig!

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:No, it is sexist to imply a woman won a job based on good looks instead of merit. You need to inform yourself before you try to teach.

LOL. conflate, conflate, conflate.

you've lost, will.

Get a dictionary Ferno, look up the two words, and then man up with an apology. Or continue to be wrong. Your call.

Here is a little test for you:

*A sexist can be a person who has no hatred for females. He can love females and believe they are inferior in some ways. Textbook old-school sexism.

*A misogynist has hatred for females. His hatred may be expressed via sexism...or not. Maybe he will just kill them or insult them or shun them or all the above plus many other non sexist acts. Like some who find them intimidating and superior so they resent them.

So which of the two does a man have to promote to suggest a woman only got her job because of her looks?
Can either of them make that statement without practicing sexism?

And here is the bonus question for everyone:
What if the statement is true? Is there sexism? (read: misogyny if you are Ferno-still-in-denial... )

Will Robinson wrote:Get a dictionary Ferno, look up the two words, and then man up with an apology. Or continue to be wrong. Your call.

BWAAHAHAHAHA. OMG, this is one of the most amazing denial threads I've ever seen. WOW.

Funny thing though…I haven’t seen anyone deny that she is a hag or a ★■◆●.

Must be ok that she is…just don’t point it out.

Will Robinson wrote:
Get a dictionary Ferno, look up the two words, and then man up with an apology. Or continue to be wrong. Your call.

Here is a little test for you:

*A sexist can be a person who has no hatred for females. He can love females and believe they are inferior in some ways. Textbook old-school sexism.

*A misogynist has hatred for females. His hatred may be expressed via sexism...or not. Maybe he will just kill them or insult them or shun them or all the above plus many other non sexist acts. Like some who find them intimidating and superior so they resent them.

So which of the two does a man have to promote to suggest a woman only got her job because of her looks?
Can either of them make that statement without practicing sexism?

And here is the bonus question for everyone:
What if the statement is true? Is there sexism? (read: misogyny if you are Ferno-still-in-denial... )

Starting to get into the personal attacks, I see. Go ahead, give me the biggest shot you have.

I gotta give you points for coming up with the most creative denial so far. But with your "premise" habit, you also developed a nice little conflation habit, aswell.

Until you can seperate the two, you have zero ground and zero credibility right now.

woodchip wrote:Funny how I been calling Hillary "Hillary Clinton" for at least 2 years now and it is not until slick posts a Hillary is Wonderful thread that my label comes under attack. Where were all you protectors of femininity 2 years ago? Oh Snap! Thats right no one cared about Hillary back then. Now that she is the auto choice for all the brain dead liberals out there my label now becomes relevant. So like good Alinskyites you attack the messenger to deflect from the fact Hillary is totally incompetent to hold office.

I've directly called you out on this at least once in the past, but I'm sure you utterly ignored it like the upstanding individual you are.

Spidey wrote:Funny thing though…I haven’t seen anyone deny that she is a hag or a ★■◆●.

I will. I would never describe her a hag or anything close to it. She is a hard-working, intelligent, accomplished woman, who coincidentally looks great for her age. I've never seen her act like a ★■◆●, though I admit I don't know her personally.

Doesn't count if you have to be shamed into it...

So Ferno you think you suffered a personal attack from me because I pointed out your mistake?

Will Robinson wrote:So Ferno you think you suffered a personal attack from me because I pointed out your mistake?

Ferno-still-in-denial

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Funny how I been calling Hillary "Hillary Clinton" for at least 2 years now and it is not until slick posts a Hillary is Wonderful thread that my label comes under attack. Where were all you protectors of femininity 2 years ago? Oh Snap! Thats right no one cared about Hillary back then. Now that she is the auto choice for all the brain dead liberals out there my label now becomes relevant. So like good Alinskyites you attack the messenger to deflect from the fact Hillary is totally incompetent to hold office.

I've directly called you out on this at least once in the past, but I'm sure you utterly ignored it like the upstanding individual you are.

I won't doubt you. If you did you were one of the very few.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So Ferno you think you suffered a personal attack from me because I pointed out your mistake?

Ferno-still-in-denial

Yes, that was a reference to your mistake. You think that was a "personal attack"?

So, in your mind the substance of your comments and your refusal to address a challenge to them are off limits?

Will Robinson wrote:Yes, that was a reference to your mistake. You think that was a "personal attack"?

So, in your mind the substance of your comments and your refusal to address a challenge to them are off limits?

whatever you say...

If that was a personal attack then this must have turned into a boarding school for girls while I wasn't looking.

In answer to Will's question, no--sexism or misogyny imply that some wrong has been done them the cause for which has been blamed on a conveniently ascribed shortcoming of their sex. If the statement is true, then it's nothing but the (occasionally garnished) truth. I really don't see how insults that target a person's gender (e.i. "he's being a dick") are sexist, unless they are somehow conveniently inventing an undeserved attribute. I do believe it's better to be more specific when laying someone's faults or behavior on the table, so that the charge cannot be shrugged off as unmerited aggression.

You want to take this one Jeff? Foil?

Whoa, I'm like, a prophet, or something.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I really don't see how insults that target a person's gender (e.i. "he's being a dick") are sexist, unless they are somehow conveniently inventing an undeserved attribute.

The way that "dick" is typically used is a way that isn't sexist. For example, when a guy calls another guy a dick, then he typically doesn't do so to take a jab at him for being a man--just to insult his behavior. But if the leader of a feminist group contemptibly calls a guy a dick, then that should raise suspicion.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If the statement is true, then it's nothing but the (occasionally garnished) truth.

When is it "true" that someone is a hag? When is it "true" that someone is a faggot? When is it "true" that someone is a n***er?

Jeff, if I say a woman got her job, not on merit but because of her attractive appearance, am I making a sexist slur?
Or is that not sexist and instead misogyny as Ferno believes?

If I say a woman got her job, not on merit but because of her attractive appearance, and that statement is true, is the statement sexist?

I see no issue with that.