(10-17-2017 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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:  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....)

Since when did a comparison get turned into a whataboutism? A whataboutism implies you're trying to distract from a salient point by trying to point out the hypocrisy of your opponent.

I was not trying to point out a hypocrisy or defend the left's response to the binder o' women, I was trying to provide an example of a similar situation where an opposing political group pounced on a singular phrase that was poorly chosen or worded, and tried to do that for political gain. I understand your quibble with the comparison, but it is not a whataboutism.

You also are misrepresenting the response to Obama. He was not attacked about his line by people saying he was advocating for a collectivist approach. He was attacked specifically for suggesting people did not build or earn their business through their own hard work, that the government was the only reason people were successful, etc., and that specifically was not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting something closer to what you mention, that through a collective society, everyone has benefited from the work of someone else and that we should continue investing in that idea. But that was not what many criticized him for, he was attacked by people saying that Just look at this Fox article, which says: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects..." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/...alone.html

Also, you didn't actually respond to the thrust of my comment , and instead latched on to what you felt was a mediocre comparison, and I'm not sure why. It seems like we both agree that the reaction to the binders o' women was bad and that the response was wholly inappropriate because it was not an example of Romney being sexist - it was just a poorly constructed sentence he used to try and explain how he was actively trying to seek out qualified women candidates to fill roles in his company. I hope that those on the left stop crying wolf, like they did then.