Pokebball Posted October 2 Posted October 2 47 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: Why were the women raising their voices at him? That doesn’t sound very professional. edit - it didn’t take you long to go from him yelling at them to them raising their voices at him. Really nice work on your part. why did they break the rules and fact check him?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 2 Posted October 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, Starr-Bills said: 1. absolutism is not an actual argument. Obviously, I don’t speak for any women let alone all women.🙄 2. I had seen her post and didn’t feel like going back and pulling it for a quote but when you chimed in, I made the effort. 🫡 3. Maybe you don’t quite understand what the word means. 👩🎓 misogyny mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni noun dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. 4. So by your logic, my calling out the fact that JD Vance was yelling over two women, which was called out by a woman, who were running the debate is somehow me being misogynistic against women makes total sense. 🧐 Takes one to know one. (do a little googling. He met JD a few times the stories are interesting.) My logic was outlined in my first note to you, that implying that professional moderators require/need some sort of safeguard from raised voices because they are women is lame. Of course, when I typed that, I was under the impression those were your thoughts, not the reimagined comments of a person who posted thoughts on the internet. I still don't understand why you didn't just post her commentary, why you suggested we hear from "the ladies" v the one lady, or what massive effort was necessary to link one person's comments on a subject. Regardless, thank you for putting in the gargantuan effort to link your source, that lady is pretty clear on what she thinks. On the definition of misogyny, I'm pretty comfortable with the characterization. From your description, I'd suggest an ingrained prejudice fits the bill. In conversational English, though, this AI generated definition pretty much nails it: Misogyny A way of thinking that subordinates women and limits their power and freedom. It can be applied to individuals, societies, or cultures. Misogyny can manifest in many ways, including: Treating women differently from men in social and professional settings With respect to your thoughts on Vance and his interaction with the moderators, I'd simply suggest that your calling out of Vance reflects the same fixed mindset you've displayed here several times--the implication that because the moderators are female, there is something special or particularly unreasonable or egregious afoot. The fact that another person feels similarly doesn't change that. Edited October 2 by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 3 Posted October 3 On 9/30/2024 at 9:54 PM, L Ron Burgundy said: I wholeheartedly disagree. Walz is going to walk all over Vance. JD has been smoked at debates before. He called the guy he's running with Hitler. He's an easy target. I wouldnt be scared debating him. He stands for nothing real. He's an absurd liar, easily, easily proven. His online adds have been spectacular fails - lied about the price of eggs when the real price was in the background. I suspect Vance is extremely book smart. But public speaking, advertising for what you stand-for? Surprisingly awful. Even if Walz doesn't perform extraordinarily well I'd put my money on Walz winning big here. He can say more edgy things Kamala can't get away with. Time to own up on yesterday’s discussion about Walz and the edgy things he might say that that Harris could not. You called it, L. Walz said some really, really edgy things, things that Harris can’t get away with, and if we’re being candid, probably would not even think to try. Game. Set. Match. Well done sir. 🍻 1
SCBills Posted October 3 Posted October 3 Vance has edits like this all over social media today. Any chance Walz had of pulling men towards Harris ended last night. People were never reppin Vance like this before the debate. Unequivocal bump in energy for him. 1 1 1 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 3 Posted October 3 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Time to own up on yesterday’s discussion about Walz and the edgy things he might say that that Harris could not. You called it, L. Walz said some really, really edgy things, things that Harris can’t get away with, and if we’re being candid, probably would not even think to try. Game. Set. Match. Well done sir. 🍻 I already ate my crow I was wrong. Do I think that's what he should have done? Yes, though with JD being so cordial it may not have worked. Better to eat crow now than November. 1
JaCrispy Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, Starr-Bills said: they asked him to stop several times, hence they cut his mic (and Walz in fairness). bonus time: you are then going to say “he’s not yelling, he just trying to be “accurate” but they asked him several times, he should have complied, and not for you to judge how they felt about his actions. double bonus time: you get him to explain the thing that the felon couldn’t the day before. Apps are hard. triple bounds time: do you need someone to help you search, or is this some performative move to ‘get the lib’ to look it up for me. universal reaction seems to be bros love him (is it the eyeliner) and ladies know his type. Respect is earned, not given…It’s also a two way street… If the moderators are going to disrespect Vance by disobeying the agreed upon rules, Vance has every justification for calling them out for it, and not complying with their requests to stop talking, just so they can have the last word, by fact checking him…👍 Its quite simple, actually…You respect me and I’ll respect you… Edited October 3 by JaCrispy 4 1 1
SCBills Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, Starr-Bills said: they asked him to stop several times, hence they cut his mic (and Walz in fairness). bonus time: you are then going to say “he’s not yelling, he just trying to be “accurate” but they asked him several times, he should have complied, and not for you to judge how they felt about his actions. double bonus time: you get him to explain the thing that the felon couldn’t the day before. Apps are hard. triple bounds time: do you need someone to help you search, or is this some performative move to ‘get the lib’ to look it up for me. universal reaction seems to be bros love him (is it the eyeliner) and ladies know his type. “ladies know his type”… It’s going to be hilarious, in a very ironic way, when this country falls apart at the seams because single women voted for abortion and against the dude who reminds them of a situationship that hurt them. Good times. Hopefully enough married women show up to the polls and (some) single women aren’t as cartoonishly myopic as so many Dem strategists hope. Edited October 3 by SCBills 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 3 Posted October 3 1 minute ago, L Ron Burgundy said: I already ate my crow I was wrong. Do I think that's what he should have done? Yes, though with JD being so cordial it may not have worked. Better to eat crow now than November. I may have missed that up thread. You’ve got me all wrong, it is I who came here to eat crow! Well, actually I ate a delicious pasta dinner my wife made with a glass of iced tea, but a mea culpa is a mea culpa. Walz was edgy, Walz brought the crazy in a Minneapolis potato sack, and you said it was coming. Yes, sure, maybe you overreacted in responding to my question, coming in hot and taking no names. And sure maybe the whole Walz was gonna straight up munch on Vance during the debate and make Vance look like a chubby chump was overstated and kind of funny in retrospect, but those are different issues. You’re L Ronstadamus as far as I’m concerned.
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 3 Posted October 3 7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I may have missed that up thread. You’ve got me all wrong, it is I who came here to eat crow! Well, actually I ate a delicious pasta dinner my wife made with a glass of iced tea, but a mea culpa is a mea culpa. Walz was edgy, Walz brought the crazy in a Minneapolis potato sack, and you said it was coming. Yes, sure, maybe you overreacted in responding to my question, coming in hot and taking no names. And sure maybe the whole Walz was gonna straight up munch on Vance during the debate and make Vance look like a chubby chump was overstated and kind of funny in retrospect, but those are different issues. You’re L Ronstadamus as far as I’m concerned. He should not have let Vance mostly slide on J6 and harped on the Hitler comment. Content wise he did well. But he stuttered and blubbered. Unfortunately that matters more than content nowadays.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 3 Posted October 3 1 minute ago, L Ron Burgundy said: He should not have let Vance mostly slide on J6 and harped on the Hitler comment. Content wise he did well. But he stuttered and blubbered. Unfortunately that matters more than content nowadays. I don’t know the guy, but from what I can tell, his preparation was very sloppy, he seemed ill-suited to rise to the occasion, and when his pals and true believers in the causes offer up that he “blubbered”, it’s fair to question whether his content was truly what he believed/stands for or if he’s just making stuff up on the fly.
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) 19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don’t know the guy, but from what I can tell, his preparation was very sloppy, he seemed ill-suited to rise to the occasion, and when his pals and true believers in the causes offer up that he “blubbered”, it’s fair to question whether his content was truly what he believed/stands for or if he’s just making stuff up on the fly. The guy across from him compared his running mate to Hitler. Also said a LOT of other things about Trump, all accurate. That's fake. The only way last night would have an impact on the election is if something truly outrageous/spectacular happened. It didn't. So last night will have no impact. A lot of pundits I'm confident in claim dems are by far the favorite right now. I'm definitely not that confident. Edited October 3 by L Ron Burgundy
Starr-Bills Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, SCBills said: “ladies know his type”… It’s going to be hilarious, in a very ironic way, when this country falls apart at the seams because single women voted for abortion and against the dude who reminds them of a situationship that hurt them. Good times. Hopefully enough married women show up to the polls and (some) single women aren’t as cartoonishly myopic as so many Dem strategists hope. The “married” women who are conditioned to put up with infantile men? You are not making the point you think you are. Edited October 3 by Starr-Bills
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) 2 hours ago, Starr-Bills said: The “married” women who are conditioned to put up with infantile men? You are not making the point you think you are. You have come out as a steadfast defender of women over the last 24 hours whether they be professional journalist getting “yelled at” or a youngish butch woman that has been meme-orized forever because she was denied a Hillary Clinton presidency. Very admirable on your part. As a stalwart me-roper, do you have any thoughts on our future first gentleman? You know, the guy that impregnated the nanny and also once cuffed his B around out in the street? Maybe you are too horrified to speak out on it. I don’t blame you. Edited October 3 by Biden is Mentally Fit Horrible voice transcription error corrected
Recommended Posts