• [Video] Ocasio-Cortez is the Left-Wing Trump
    90 replies, posted
You know I just think its funny how often conservatives accuse liberals of putting their feelings over facts when it seems like 90% of the conservatives I see online do exactly that.
Projecting is the right's specialty.
I agree with this, I find it a bit disheartening that people are downright saying that 'mansplaining' was the right word to use. It implies that only men can be arrogant and condescending, and it implies misogyny when it might just be arrogance alone. Just use 'patronize', it's almost literally the same meaning anyway except it can also be applied to arrogant, condescending women.
I grew up in nice suburbs with goodish schools and got further education free. Does this mean I can't be a socialist? After all I live in a society.
Why is he supposed to be criticizing her policy? He's just saying that using a word to describe non-misogynistic behavior as such is wrong. This whole conversation is based on whether or not criticism against her, whether or not it's a legit criticism, is always misogynistic just because the person stating it is a man. If the tweet she replied to was a woman who said the same exact words, would it still by misogynistic? Just because you disagree with somebody's views doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.
Mansplain is usually a word I would recoil from. However, here you have literally the definition of it. Men who don't know her life, telling her what her life was, amounts to, and is. She has every right to call it what it is.
Yeah, but if they're being arrogantly condescending toward her just because they're arrogant, then gender is irrelevant and a word pointing out their sex shouldn't be used. The word mansplaining implies that they're being condescending because they're men and she's a woman, and/or that arrogant condescension is typical of males. It adds an accusation of misogyny to what should just be an accusation of arrogance.
I find it hard to see their actions as innocently arrogant when put in context of their treatment of minorities, women, or other "special interests". If they were "just arrogant" then surely the behaviour they exhibit in other arenas of their professional life would lack this aspect of disregarding these groups. However, in real life they do not. I cannot accept they're "Just arrogant" and that no aspect of this is about women, because if we look at how they treat those they don't need to treat well, we can see they will happily resort to such "mysoginistic" actions.
It may be the case that they are misogynists, I haven't actually seen how they specifically attacked her. It sounded to me like they were attacking her more as a socialist than as a woman, but I don't know. In any case, I still feel that the word 'mansplaining' implies that condescension toward women is typical of men, and it can be used to paint any condescension toward women by a man as mysogynistic by default. I'd agree if the word was always used exclusively in cases where a man really is being condescending because of misogyny, but in practice I think it's very likely to be misused because you'll never be able to prove or disprove that someone hates women. Whether or not it's okay to use the word in clear situations like this might be, I'm less sure of, but I still don't feel the word should be popularized.
I'm far less worried about that word, then I am about the reasoning why it feels accurate in our current period of history. No, we can't prove how people feel inside, but I don't think it matters. I don't give a fuck if you have a heart of gold, but all your actions in the world are negative and cause harm to others. Intent is great, sure, but I ultimately don't care. Truly, I don't. I care about results, actions, and events. I don't care about emotions a lot, I don't care about intent a lot. Neither are as important as realizing the actual impact or actions and events. For many of the republicans who the word "mansplaining" would apply, I'm far more worried about their actions, than their intent. Maybe they're good people deep down, but if their actions harm others in the world, I don't fucking care. And currently, many of the political figures who have attacked AOC have done serious harm to their districts, their consituences, and in many areas that matter, their actions are easily classified as being condescending, and come with an abuse of authority. Mansplaining probably shouldn't be used, but I'm far less concerned about that, then I am about the reasons why she feels attacked. Because she's being slammed by dishonest, unscrupulous fucks who will take any chance they can get to sow distrust and lies. Evidence for this is their very political careers.
I think we agree then, basically. I don't think it's that big of a deal either. And also, I don't doubt that the people who slander AOC are misogynists and/or other various types of shit people. I'm not saying she wasn't justified, or that it's anywhere near bad enough to reject her completely and whine about her in multiple threads online. I'm only afraid that using the word could drive some away, that it can be used as ammo due to it having a shitty history, and that popularizing the word will lead to improper use of the word in regular arguments, causing division between genders.
Why would you usually recoil from the word "mansplaining", and then go on to defend it so heavily? Really, you recoil from someone using the word mansplaining? For what possible reason, maybe because it's an awful attempt to project sexism into an argument? Men who don't know her life, telling her what her life was, amounts to, and is. She has every right to call it what it is. A journalist investigated her upbringing. They presented the facts, and then began questioning how much of this evidence actually contributes to her ability to relate to her target audience. It's a fair question. Probably an uncomfortable one if the story their pushing is actually true - good thing I'm honestly not that concerned in it! She didn't lie about anything, and I do apologize for believing that. Their questions are still valid, however. Quite literally, it isn't. Stating facts, evidence, and then inquiring about it is not an explanation. And if people were saying what her life amounts to, is this supposed to be any less or more valid if it's coming from a man directed towards a woman, as opposed to a woman-to-woman confrontation? Your post from 1 day ago in response to me "strawmanning" an argument in which you are defending their questions as being misogynistic. How is that not mysoginistic? They're re-writing her history so they can discredit her, when they have no evidence or reasoning to do this? Speaking of dishonesty - I don't know if you've actually seen that twitter thread, because the posts are people bringing up actual evidence and asking her to elaborate on it, rather than "re-writing her history" and "telling her what her life was". I mean, maybe "telling her what her life was" may be a correct statement, but if it's factual, what is the issue? I never did this, but thanks for strawmanning. I never said this, but thanks for strawmanning. Am I getting the hang of this "strawmanning" thing yet? ...because they've presented evidence that suggests a different narrative and are awaiting to hear a response from Alexandria other than to stop "mansplaining" things to her? (What a great way for her to tell people she doesn't owe them a response, right?) ... Do you mind sharing what your definition of "misogyny" is? Like, a literal definition? I'm providing a clear explanation of the language behind these words and directly asking how is there a sentiment of prejudice based on gender behind the post (other than someone asking a question being born male), and your repeated response is "How is that NOT misogyny"? How IS it misogyny??? I mean, really? Again, is mansplaining is a word you usually recoil at the sight of, what the hell are you trying to defend here? I never said anything that could possibly allude to this, but thanks for strawmanning. (Seriously dude, I'm not a fucking republican, where are you getting this idea from??) I think you should take a lesson from the last twenty times you've used this term and realize that you're not helping yourself out. Let this one sink in: Wow, you're... completely oblivious of doing the exact thing you're accusing me of. It's just like that time in debate class when the teacher left the room and let high schoolers argue unchecked for 30 minutes straight. I wish I was joking. Can I say that maybe you're the one getting incredibly upset and resorting to declaring all my points invalid without any reasoning, or is that just another shitty strawman by yours truly? Because you haven't provided a single citation or piece of evidence suggesting this despite repeating it numerous times. And if you're nice enough to actually do that, could you explain how this is different from any other political news outlet being funded by groups that agree with their political views? All the insults towards this station you've listed are native to any other political outlet. As if the exact same media bias and tactics for stirring the pot aren't present on any other left-leaning news station? Incredible. So this really is about me criticizing your favourite politician. I'm not here criticizing her idea for 70% tax rates, I'm here criticizing her personal character because I am deeply concerned about a politician who acts in this manner. As others have mentioned here, and to which you have actually agreed to - I think this type of rhetoric is a red flag, and I'm not willing to give her a free pass for repeatedly spouting it. 10/10 attitude for someone to bring into a political discussion! You don't think feelings matter? You don't care about people's intentions, nor emotions? Why on earth would you think it's feasible to disconnect these from difficult political issues? My God, you almost sound like a certain Jewish right-wing political commentator that I know of! Actually regarding her political views - she has suggested a wild approach to a very complex and long-running problem in this country. You should expect a lot of people asking the difficult questions. This is called criticism. You're not helping one bit by projecting all your anger, political identity BS, assumptions, and "strawmen arguments" onto it. Honestly dude, read the paragraph I last quoted one more time and tell me - Do you really think people on the opposing side of your political view do not share the exact same view? Do you really think republicans or right-wing people are not just as concerned about taking the appropriate action as much as anyone else? Do you really think that the lowbrow smear tactics you despise so much are exclusive to one group? Take a glance at the stance you're defending before claiming that the opposing group is somehow more prevalent in this garbage. I hate this shit as much as you do - why do you think I'm so against her using words like mansplaining in a serious attempt to discredit others?
Because it's usually mis-used. If it's used correctly, why be bothered by it? Do you even know her upbringing? A journalist was stating she was as much an outsider to the Bronx as it was possible to be. I've already disputed this with evidence you've dismissed lol. It sure doesn't help. It's like you don't believe there's a power disparity between men and women. There is. How is it factual? It's almost like you're failing to get the point here. People can manufacture false stories as much as they can dig up real ones. She's from the New York area, she spent lots of time in the Bronx and went to school there for longer than a small period of time. Again, how is it factual if you're ignorant of what those facts are? Your implications were clear, but sure. That's the smear the right is going with, which you've played into in everything but a direct statement? Again, why should she dignify people who are starting the discussion off on a dishonest foot with a response? Misogyny is a systemic abuse of women. There is a system at place creating scandals around her because she is a woman. No, you haven't. You've just angrily stated over and over and over again "This isn't misogyny" and "Mansplaining is a sexist term, do you know how dangerous it is to claim someone is sexist?". There is nuance to the situation. You think a word is bad in one context, it's bad in all contexts. I don't. There's some nuance to the situation you proclaim is not nuanced with responses like this. Haha- Oh wait you're serious? I never said you were a republican. What is supposed to sink in? That you constantly shoved words and arguments and intentions in my mouth? Yes, that has sunk in. Have you even started to become aware of that? The fact you think I'm upset, combined with how much vitrol you've crammed in this post is pretty bad "projecting". Groups like NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, etc all have boards of investors, and a massive amount of eyes on them at all times. They are staffed by reporters and journalists(ideally) who have months to vet and corroborate stories. Ben Shapiro is little more than a pundit. An opinion piece. A political operative specifically paid to alter the course of dialogue and discussion. He doesn't have any claim to being a news source, because he isn't one. He's a pundit, a political commentator. it's like comparing a reporter to a news anchor and saying "BUT THEY"RE THE SAME". No, they're not. AOC is not my favourite politician by any stretch. Nice strawman, assumption, or whatever other term you're going to use to say what you're doing is okay. if this is a red flag to you, what do you think about people who are flatly trying to change her history to agree with their bullshit? There's plenty of claims about her past that don't fall in line with her actual past. No outrage from you there? Ah, I see. You'll give tons of things a pass, but not her standing up for herself in this exact manner. Sure pal. Well as you're doing a pretty good job demonstrating here, being highly emotional in regards to a simple political debate isn't conducive to anything other than snide "GOTCHAS". If people intend a good thing, but end up doing a bad thing, sure I appreciate their intentions but I don't think it's as relevant or as important as the actual results. Compare me to Shapiro all you want, I don't hate the guy, I just think he's a dishonest shill. Actually, dude, what she's suggested is a very, very "Tame" proposal straight out of the american high times of the 1950's. I do expect difficult questions, the problem is you're not asking difficult questions. You just keep posing "GOTCHA'S" and very easy questions that aren't about policy, but about personality. I think republicans, like in the issue of Climate Change, are able to say "This isn't an issue because I don't think it's a problem for ME" about income inequality. Do you dispute this? Then why have republicans who are criticizing her policy have so much responsibility for why income disparity has grown so large since Reagan?
Oh so is she putting legal immigrants or native born citizens into concentration camps then?
Christ dude, could you like not be a shitter?
So you are too dishonest or too unaware. Good to know
mansplaining is a word I avoid using because the usual reaction to it is so harsh, it's impossible to convey the meaning behind it. That said, the meaning behind it is very valid, and especially applicable in this case.
Replying again anyway even though you're banned; now that you've actually added substance to that low effort garbage fire of a post. How's about instead of going at each others throats about dumb shit you guys actually provide fuckin evidence to substantiate your claims. And no, Ben Shapiro doesn't count because he's a very biased pillock.
look at how this LIAR dodges questions when directly confronted about her words!! *gets directly confronted about his words* oh i'm so so sorry i said that maybe i guess it's a stretch nevermind you serious? "if obama has nothing to hide about his birth certificate, why does he not answer questions about it?" ALL of your further posts dodge the question about why you're questioning her upbringing in the first place which you were directly confronted about what a joke
Yes, I've apologized and taken back what I said about her lying about her upbringing. That's completely fair, and I'm sorry for spouting those articles that exist just to unfairly discredit the person. Everything I've said in regards to her responses stands, however. The fact that people are defending her insane claims of misogyny is ridiculous.
you're overreacting over the word, yes its usage has been idiotic all around. it becomes a buzzword when it's applied to men explaining anything at all, but you do know what it's supposed to mean, right? a man explaining something to a woman that she already knows - like her own upbringing. by definition, her use of it is correct. it doesn't call them misogynist, though it does imply sexism. and the fact that there's no "womansplaining" can be called sexism of its own, for sure. i have no doubt ocasio cortez used the word because it's trendy in liberal circles. i also have no doubt that, in a society where sexism is ingrained, often subconscious, and does not always express itself in obvious, "let me tell you about how much i hate women" terms, it's understandable that women who have experienced a repeating pattern of subtle prejudice would like to call that shit out. mansplaining is a simple and accessible way to address a complicated problem - but a terrible way to explain it. it's also terrible for other reasons i already explained, hence why i never use the word. i fail to see how it destroys her response, though.
considering in this case it is literally the GOP being sexist and thinking she's dumb because she doesn't have a penis, yeah I think it's valid to use here.
I feel like in a thread with less polarized context you wouldn't have people saying mansplaining is fine because "but thats what it means". There is only one meaning defined; we have no ambiguity. People often debate about whether or not ambiguously gender or racially charged terms should or shouldn't be used, typically these debates involve thorough examination of any potential historical contexts, any potential modern contexts, the popular usage, and compare them to often numerous definitions and their connotations. Usually, these debates happen when the base definition of a word has no sexist/racist/etc meaning but it's argued that bad historical or modern usage has poisoned the word, this leads to back and fourth about what context overrides what, whether the basic linguistic utility should override any connotations, and many other complex, often unquantifiable concerns. None of that is required here; Because the term is completely unambiguous, that debate doesn't exist. It's a word used specifically to criticize a male stereotype of "explaining things to women in a condescending way", with an implication it's because of sexism. Is the idea that nesting a complaint about sexism in a sexist word makes the word not sexist? That's not how it works, hypocracy should be more obvious. How about we at least try to find a politician who isn't an polarized idiot to run for 2020, thanks.
i can genuinely never tell who you're talking to. you always address "people" without quoting anyone directly, while undeniably targeting specific arguments that have been presented in the thread. is this post referencing my own, above? it sure looks like it but i can't know. at best it makes the conversation frustrating, at worst, it comes off as passive aggressive
No we don't need another sexist term to balance the scales, keep "womansplaining" out of existence forever, thanks. We have a word for talking down to someone in a condescending way, the word is patronizing. If you think one person in particular is being patronizing because of sexism, say "patronizing sexist", we don't need new terms to blame men or women as a whole for condescension and create pointless conflict.
yeah but that's what's confusing, i read your post and get ready to defend my argument, then see that, while it looks a whooole lot like my position, there's bits and pieces clearly argued by 12 others who aren't me. it's not like i'm not guilty of arguing against a generalized "people" too, there's cases and cases, i use my judgement to know where it's applicable, but i'm sure you've felt like i was arguing against a misrepresentation of your arguments at times, too, and it's not a feeling that compels you to respond as for womansplaining, no, i wasn't seriously arguing that we should take on that term, lol, just pointing out that mansplaining exists in a context where an opposite term does not.
I probably should have went back to the first page of the thread and quoted something there. My main point is that mansplaining is an inherently sexist term by it's unambiguous definition and im contrasting it to the other multi page debates facepunch has had about whether or not a term is sexist, racist, etc. For other terms, their definitions are often not inherent problems. Extra context is needed to establish any issues, so people argue about whether or not the definition overrides historical context and vice versa. I don't think you in particular responded to a post where polar made this argument, he kind of went off on other tangents. It's actually very unusual that the definition already passes the test without context. I feel like it's just so normal for to the argument to go straight to "definition vs context" that people have missed looking at the definition bit in this case. One counter argument i tried to pre-empt in my post is "well, we have context, and the context makes it not sexist because it's fighting sexism" which was addressed by "Is the idea that nesting a complaint about sexism in a sexist word makes the word not sexist? That's not how it works,", the most basic idea behind that is just that being sexist towards men in retaliation for misogyny to "punch up" or whatever would be silly. okay, that's a mattk50 post explained i guess. I don't try to be confusing on purpose.
to be honest, cortez is so popular on FP, i expected more people (who i would normally not see with a nuanced outlook on feminist thought) being analytical of "mansplaining" as a term. mostly the thread seems to be a back and forth, where polarbear focuses on how AOC's use of it should make her unelectable, and humanabyss says in more words than necessary why it is not as big of a deal as the right-wing smear campaign that prompted it. i agree. the term mansplaining is sexist, like i said. it tries to condense "patronizing, in a way deemed sexist, by explaining something after assuming, either consciously or subconsciously, that the other party, by virtue of being a woman, requires this explanation from a man" into "man explaining" which is waaaaaaaay broader, and makes regular dudes feel vilified. simple explanations for complicated problems sell by the dozen, but feminists (and full disclosure, i do consider myself one) don't realize mansplaining resonates, mostly, with other feminists, while driving away people who could be more empathetic to the cause. is that fair criticism? i think it is, but to think it should kill AOC's career is just overblown nonsense. your comment about finding a 2020 politician sounds more akin to "there are probably people out there, in this nation of 300 million, who could do a better job without using the term", which is fine. but the level to which polarbear takes his criticism of her is riding on more outrage than common sense. the thread is downplaying the importance of AOC using "mansplaining" in the face of the option he presents, which is to discard her entirely, but most people here seem to agree it's a bad term, as usual. the catcalling bit though, i agree, is just cynical politicking on AOC's part, something which she's very skilled at, but FP doesn't always like to admit. shapiro is too, and his offer was no less dishonest, the 10k prize was just patronizing. cortez makes a clever comeback that her supporters love, shapiro gets to rake in praise from his, for being "the reasonable one", and nothing gets solved. would a better response have come from an unbiased, ingenious, silver-tongued devil, who is skilled enough to maneuver around the language of politics, without compromising ideals? yes, but i'm not running any time soon
You rip context from a word you make it completely meaningless, context is the only thing that gives the sounds we make with our mouths and the pictures we read any meaning. If my neighbors are assholes and constantly let their dog shit in my lawn and dig up my garden and I say "these neighbors are horrible" it's obvious from context that it's about their shitty behavior, them being my neighbors as opposed to someone who lives far away and just drops off their dog at my house on a weekly basis to fuck up my rose bush is completely incidental. mansplaining is about the popular model of what being a man is, in the same sense that to be a young person growing up during the great depression meant living in widespread poverty is a model of childhood that comes out of context. you don't see people qualifying that because it's implicit, the absence of people explaining this every single time is not evidence that people genuinely believe behavior and attitudes are set in stone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.