Clinton: 'Misogyny played a role' in 2016 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52121988]I have never considered a word to be gendered. I call men and women a bitch, cunt, or dick. It's only an issue because it's been manufactured into an issue, just like "swears are naughty. " They're only bad because someone decided it's bad but in reality it's just another word. And even still, outside of the US you have [i]men[/i] calling their [i]male[/i] friends a cunt in a friendly manner which only reinforces my point.[/QUOTE] believe it or not it's not your place to define whether a word is offensive or not i'm from the uk and use 'cunt' occasionally in conversation with female friends and so do they, when it's contextually appropriate. somehow calling a candidate in a presidential election a 'bitch' or a 'cunt' doesn't seem particularly appropriate contextually, nor does it help your case by trying to defend your right to call a woman you've never met a 'cunt'. don't pick this hill to die on. it's like trying to attack a presidential candidate based on a conspiracy theory wherein a committee repeatedly found no evidence of wrongdoin- oh wait

[QUOTE=Generic Monk;52125106]believe it or not it's not your place to define whether a word is offensive or not i'm from the uk and use 'cunt' occasionally in conversation with female friends and so do they, when it's contextually appropriate. somehow calling a candidate in a presidential election a 'bitch' or a 'cunt' doesn't seem particularly appropriate contextually, nor does it help your case by trying to defend your right to call a woman you've never met a 'cunt'. don't pick this hill to die on. it's like trying to attack a presidential candidate based on a conspiracy theory wherein a committee repeatedly found no evidence of wrongdoin- oh wait[/QUOTE] I mean, I've seen plenty of Brits call David Cameron a cunt. Seemed pretty appropriate to me.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52123425]Sure, and there are people who voted for her just because she was a woman.[/QUOTE] realistically those people were already voting straight ticket dem anyway. it's not as if her being a woman got more people to the polls or something. then again you could say the people who believed passionately enough that a woman isn't mentally equipped to run the country would all be voting straight ticket rep so bleh it could be a wash. anyone got any hard data on this? tbf read a lot of contemporary vox pop interviews from the 2008 election where the final straw for people switching from mccain to obama was his vp pick being a woman. though that's a special case and anecdotal obv [editline]19th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52125136]I mean, I've seen plenty of Brits call David Cameron a cunt. Seemed pretty appropriate to me.[/QUOTE] more of a wanker tbf i guess my point is that using misogynist slurs against a female candidate when discussing an actual serious issue makes you look like a moron who's argument is worth less than nothing. like if you called obama a 'monkey' in the middle of a screed attacking him i'd think considerably less of you and the points you're putting forth

Once upon a time in the land of shaolin played a role in the presidential election

[QUOTE=Generic Monk;52125138]i guess my point is that using misogynist slurs against a female candidate when discussing an actual serious issue makes you look like a moron who's argument is worth less than nothing. like if you called obama a 'monkey' in the middle of a screed attacking him i'd think considerably less of you and the points you're putting forth[/QUOTE] Not sure how it's a misogynistic slur if you're using it in the same way you would when insulting a male though. It's like calling someone a dick or a tit. Never saw the French equivalent as being misogynistic, at least.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52125181]Not sure how it's a misogynistic slur if you're using it in the same way you would when insulting a male though. It's like calling someone a dick or a tit. Never saw the French equivalent as being misogynistic, at least.[/QUOTE] one doesn't have hundreds of years of institutional misogyny backing it up. same principle as calling a black dude a 'nigger', although less egregious

[QUOTE=Generic Monk;52125232]one doesn't have hundreds of years of institutional misogyny backing it up. same principle as calling a black dude a 'nigger', although less egregious[/QUOTE] Did "cunt" used to be a slur specifically aimed at females like "nigger" was aimed at blacks? I assumed it always was similarly used on both genders. Or is it because it refers to female genitalia? Would calling someone a "tit" or a "twat" be misogynistic?

Gendered is not equivalent to mysoginistic.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52126270]Gendered is not equivalent to mysoginistic.[/QUOTE] No but they are in the same ballpark at least.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52124845]To be fair she wasn't just a woman, she was a woman with 30 years of experience in the political field.[/QUOTE] yeah 30 years of being a fucking insane power hungry weirdo. completely unfit to govern.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52127829]yeah 30 years of being a fucking insane power hungry weirdo. completely unfit to govern.[/QUOTE] Ehh I think she would have been better than clownface von fuckstick that is currently in office.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52127869]Ehh I think she would have been better than clownface von fuckstick that is currently in office.[/QUOTE] entirely a matter of personal opinion, but the lesser of two evils is still evil

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52127823]No but they are in the same ballpark at least.[/QUOTE] Not really. To be misogynistic is to be prejudiced specifically against women. Using gendered terms doesn't mean that at all. It just means you're using a term that has some historical context that includes gender. Calling someone a "cunt" doesn't have anything to do with whether I'm prejudiced against women just like calling someone a "dick" doesn't have anything to do with whether I'm prejudiced against men.

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52127829]yeah 30 years of being a fucking insane power hungry weirdo. completely unfit to govern.[/QUOTE] Ehh I think she would have been better than clownface von fuckstick that is currently in office. edit: right you say this [QUOTE=Mitchd247;52127919]entirely a matter of personal opinion, but the lesser of two evils is still evil[/QUOTE] but you just said this [QUOTE=Mitchd247;52127829]yeah 30 years of being a fucking insane power hungry weirdo. completely unfit to govern.[/QUOTE] You have weird opinions dude

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52127945]Ehh I think she would have been better than clownface von fuckstick that is currently in office. edit: right you say this but you just said this You have weird opinions dude[/QUOTE] i have weird opinions because i think that the philosophy of picking whos the least shit is incredibly silly? alrighty then

[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52128014]i have weird opinions because i think that the philosophy of picking whos the least shit is incredibly silly? alrighty then[/QUOTE] Nah I just think it's weird to take issue with hillary being a fucking insane power hungry weirdo when Trump is also a fucking insane power hungry weirdo. It's almost like you're judging two people by entirely different standards.

she needs grabbing by the pussy.. [editline]20th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52127945] You have weird opinions dude[/QUOTE] is every opinion that opposes yours weird? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Dumb Snipe" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52128626]Nah I just think it's weird to take issue with hillary being a fucking insane power hungry weirdo when Trump is also a fucking insane power hungry weirdo. It's almost like you're judging two people by entirely different standards.[/QUOTE] They [I]were[/I] judged by different standards. Hillary was held to much, much higher standards than Trump, and always was. She had decades of political experience, Trump had none (to his benefit). She had concrete policy plans, Trump had catchphrases that he immediately backtracked on. Trump was congratulated for [I]reading a teleprompter speech[/I] - do you think Hillary would've been getting applause for being able to read a fucking teleprompter? Because Trump did. Just look at how harshly people looked at Hillary after she dumped TPP during that debate. She's a flip-flopper, right? Or look at how many people ripped into her for being "anti-gay" in the past. Flip-flopper! Trump? Oh, you know, pro-choice to pro-life. Clinton supporter to Clinton detractor. Democrat to Republican. "Embrace globalization and international markets" in 2008, anti-free-trade in 2016. Pro-AWB in 2000, anti-gun-regulation in 2016. Trump flopped so much harder and so much more frequently than Clinton ever did, but all of Clinton's flops were magnified and stressed so much harder. They were held to [I]very[/I] different standards. Is that due to misogyny alone? No, but it played a part. Other parts were that Clinton was under fire from both her left and right, meaning shifts to the left were "pandering" while Trump's shifts to the right were taken at face value.

Trump had a lot of charisma. You can make fun of him all you want, but you can't deny he's got an appeal. Hillary was like the Nan who thinks she's cool but not the Nan that could pull it off. Her reach out attempts were uncomfortable.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52129711]she needs grabbing by the pussy.. [/QUOTE] what the fuck

I think [URL="https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html"]this article[/URL] is extremely relevant to the discussion. A gender-reversed recreation of the debates didn't reveal sexual biases, rather it demonstrated the lack of charisma of Clinton and strong charisma of Trump when their behaviors were dissociated from their actual identities. I wouldn't say that misogyny [I]didn't[/I] play a role in the election, because I'm sure there are some redpillers who would never vote for a woman, but I would bet money that their miniscule presence didn't make a slightest iota of a difference in the outcome of the election. It wasn't misogyny that cost Clinton the presidency, it was her sheer unlikability, both to liberals and non-liberals alike.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52129711]she needs grabbing by the pussy.. [editline]20th April 2017[/editline] is every opinion that opposes yours weird? [/QUOTE] Hahahaha omg Surely even you can't miss how stupid you make yourself look by following a post [i] this bad[/i] and [i] this obnoxious[/i] up with one of the usual attempts to paint your side as the victims?

If Le Pen loses the french election, misogyny will have played a role. Clearly we need more misogyny in France

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;52147339]I wonder who had a better chance of winning an election [B] A corrupt, war-mongering, sneaky, two-faced pathological liar or A rich, arrogant, ignorant, classless, but honest, prick[/B] [editline]24th April 2017[/editline] Gender had like 7% to do with it, she was just insufferable and her followers terrified the white/male/Christian vote away, far far away.[/QUOTE] Which one is supposed to be Clinton?

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;52147339]I wonder who had a better chance of winning an election A corrupt, war-mongering, sneaky, two-faced pathological liar or A rich, arrogant, ignorant, classless, but honest, prick[/QUOTE] That's funny, you think Trump is honest. Good one.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;52147339]I wonder who had a better chance of winning an election A corrupt, war-mongering, sneaky, two-faced pathological liar or A rich, arrogant, ignorant, classless, but honest, prick [editline]24th April 2017[/editline] Gender had like 7% to do with it, she was just insufferable and her followers terrified the white/male/Christian vote away, far far away.[/QUOTE] lemme fix your stupid misconceptions here for a sec A corrupt, war-mongering, sneaky, two-faced liar or A corrupt, war-mongering, rich, arrogant, ignorant, classless prick who is also a pathological liar I'm not sure what dimension the ass you pulled the "honest" part out of is from, but fuck me you can't be a worse judge of character if you think DONALD TRUMP is HONEST.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;52147677]Well I mean let's be "honest", he's a lot more "here's what I think and what I'll do" than Clinton lol[/QUOTE] That's not necessarily a good thing, you know. It's not a foreign concept that people have filters for the sake of being decent human beings to one another. But in the[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRdPqqDmXk"] infinite words of Lewis Black[/URL]: "Trump is a New Yorker. He's like any New Yorker, he's a schmuck. [...] We all basically say what the hell we're thinking, then any one of us should have run instead of that putz."

Trump was a conman before after and during the election.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;52147793]You could just read what I said :v: he's gonna speak his mind, not just lie through his teeth to the extent Clinton would have [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/[/URL] I know it's politifacts and I know a lot of these are stupidly nitpickey but plenty of them are major things to be lying about, I'd say dangerous even. I mean just pick out the more serious lies, if you doubt politifacts it's really easy to do the fact checking on each quote they provide, it's not hard to see the guy lies just like any other politician.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;52151624]Again, talking about election-time / pre-election, not the total score :V going into the election he seemed more honest compared to her. Clearly that's been proven false since then[/QUOTE] There was no point before nor during the election that, from a purely objective point of view, you could reasonably see Trump as more trustworthy than Clinton.