(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

I dont think anyone here has advocated any of Trump's actions or comments on the matter, or even come close to supporting them.

Just pointing out the comments from one side of the right being the party of misogynists (to some) is in fact much of the "Glass houses, stones"-type comment made above.

Seems the 'party of misogynists' moniker can run quite the wide gamut these days given Trump, Weiner, and Weinstein.

Just food for thought.

Any and all of these make the clown-show about the comment made about "binders of women" seem fundamentally laughable in retrospect.

And in all liklihood, the over-use of those accusations for people who just happened to be less precise with their language, is what caused that.

Given the widespread (pretty much unfettered) use of the SMRH (shorthand for sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, as I am really tired of the effort to spell all of them out in the future) 'planks', do you *really* think it is a simple case of "less precis[ion]" by those speakers?

If so, the left sure seems to have a serious need for actual English instruction to remedy that lack of "precis[ion]". Pretty much across the entire population thereof.

Lad, just call it what it is. It *is* intentional. It *is* used to create an emotional response for the base constituencies. Please don't short sell it as "wow, what poor unintentional choice of words and actions".

Republicans and the right have their intentional, emotive, get an automatic knee-jerk reaction subjects and statements, without any doubt.

But, we are all fairly non-stupid people here. I don't think the lack of "precis[ion]" really has anything to do with this, nor the Republican/rightist phrases that are used in a correspondingly shallow fashion.

I will agree with the "overuse" portion of your statement; not necessarily the soft-landing "less precise" portion though.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

The problem with your "whatabout" regarding the "You didnt build that" is that the term was intended as a point to promote a goal, the goal (his re-election) being an ostensibly collectivist-centric one.

While used in isolation and out of context, the ultimate goal of that quote was pretty much in line with the out-of context and therefore exaggerated by omission use of of that portion. The ultimate goal of that quote was to feed the idea that 'successful businesses and businessmen' need to pony up more for the collective; I don't think there is anything more collectivist than the call for that. When you read the entire passage that contains that snippet, that is precisely what is being implicitly advocated through the entire passage.

I seriously do not believe that Romney's was being a 'misogynist-whisperer' or speaking through his 'inner-M' voice when making his comments. On the other hand, it is very plausible to believe that Obama would definitely channel an 'inner community organizer' voice (wait, I forgot, that was the good proportion of his professional career; and the *entirety* of his career prior to elective office....)