Oprah for President

Interesting story in the news this morning. A renowned street artist from Los Angeles is slamming the Grammy Awards by pasting up revealing pics of Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga. Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga Targeted by L.A. Street Artist Ahead of GrammysThis is because he feels that the lyrics in many hip-hop songs are misogynistic. I would have to agree with him, and while I don't agree with his methods I think there is something to be said for raising awareness about this issue and ultimately uniting in a sort of protest. I don't listen to hip-hop though, so I don't know the first things about arguing around it.

Many women of color are drawn to this sort of music when they are at an impressionable age primarily/presumably because they want to fit in with their peers/think it's cool. When they hear something that sort of betrays women it's all but too late. The damage has been done.

I have a sociology class that I'm currently in and when confronted about one example of conflict many attempted to make references to culture and empowerment or rights to do what one wants with their body (in this case we were talking about a scantily clad Beyonce making a statement about women in one of her songs). Surprisingly enough the unpopular view was that Beyonce was actually hurting the fight for women's rights or that by flaunting her body she was actually hurting not helping feminism. The idea of how can she promote women's issues and at the same time dress the way she does etc. was brought up. The person bringing it up was white and she has other controversial views that she has expressed in the class. Many students rejected her thinking, but in the long and short I feel like she was partially right! The teacher even told her as much, saying that many feminists would agree.

Long story short I think music has plenty to learn about feminism before it can hands down be accepted as part of a Me Too movement. I'm glad someone is saying so.

 

This is why it's in the "realm" of sexuality rather than being out and out harassment. I think it's uncertain territory. We should be prepared for rejection if only on the grounds that it feels to her as though she's being asked to submit!

 

I'm new to this controversy, probably because I don't ride public transportation (except airplanes, where spreading is impossible). Is the problem that it takes up too much space or that it is taken as sexually suggestive. If the former, I think it could be handled by a policy against taking up more than one seat, regardless of how it's done. If I were sitting in a seat with nobody else next to me, I think the natural inclination would be to spread out, unless somebody gets on and is looking for a seat next to me. If the latter,
I think it's a matter of judgment and taste--too difficult to regulate, unless maybe we develop unisex burkas.

 

6

Again with the silly point scoring - the thing is that I’ve written a lot here about equality while you have championed Social Darwinist social ideas and neo-liberal economic ones both of which are very much about the promotion of inequality.

Try reading ‘The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better’ by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

 

6

I don’t despise you, I don’t hate you - look you’re clearly an intelligent person but it seems to me that have lost your way. I think if you began questioning more, read more widely and began to try and understand more and hate less you could really mature as a person.

OK so have you read the books I suggested for you?

 

6

Yes but you seem unable to defend your ideas from criticism and a lot of it seems based in personal emotion and prejudice rather than rational and clear headed thought.

Oh I think ‘riled’ is a bit strong I do think it’s a bit silly for people to hold onto views that even they can’t defend from valid criticisms, not offended more saddened or amused (depending on how silly the viewpoint).

I’m going on the wording for example you describe women that advocate for women’s rights as suffering from mental illness and of been mean, spiteful, vindictive, liars and only motivated by a hatred of men

That would seem to indicate a certain hatred of such women and you have in the past spoken in favour of insulting and abusing women that you as see as overweight (fat shaming). An even in this thread you posted a photo of a feminist with the tag – ‘I'd never fuck a feminist. Bestiality is illegal where I'm from’

All this seems to indicate a certain hatred of women

Even when you deny it as you did before it comes across as a bit off saying ‘I love women’

Well maybe you do, or rather you do those women that conform to your view of what a woman should be (otherwise they are mean, spiteful beasts). And I’d also point out that you can have a certain ‘love’ for women without having respect for them, especially if you are someone that seems to rate women in terms of them being ‘fuckable’ or little more than beasts.

 

Hell No

 

Difference is that I don't support equality forced upon us at gunpoint unlike you. That's a violation of the non-aggression principle. Just like laws that favor discrimination which include segregation laws, diversity quotas, affirmative action, and more.

What lefties often seem to forget is that the equality they pretend to advocate for includes EVERYONE. Not just the people and groups they selectively have bleeding hearts for

I submitted an order for the Spirit Level. Should get here later this week methinks.

If you think I'm wrong, then how come there's so much evidence of feminists being mean, spiteful, vindictive liars motivated by the hatred of men?

Feminists treat men badly. It's bad for feminism.
Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did | Jessica Valenti
Feminism Is a Hate Group

Fat shaming works.
Telling someone with a bad lifestyle choice that they're beautiful and healthy at any size will put them in an early grave.
Smoker shaming reduced the number of smokers in the last few decades significantly. Think of all the lives smoker shaming has saved.

Explain how.

Anti-femisim =/= anti-woman. You know, for someone who accuses me of black and white thinking, you do it an awful lot.

As I stated earlier, fewer and fewer people are identifying as feminist anymore. Probably because of the divisive toxicity they've brought upon themselves.


It was a snide comment intended to provoke. I don't think everyone who still identifies as a feminists is a hideous beast. It's just a generalization based on observation.

Besides, science shows that people with conservative opinions are physically sexier than those of the left.

https://jezebel.com/5950013/hot-or-not-why-conservative-women-are-prettier-than-liberal-ladies
SCIENCE: Conservatives Are Hotter Than Liberals
New Study Finds Conservatives Are Hotter Than Lefties - DANGEROUS
The GOP has a feminine face, UCLA study finds

It's no wonder SJWs have tried to ban sexy halloween costumes, and banned Beach Body ads.

Are you beach body ready? Controversial weight loss ad sparks varied reactions

 

Wow, you really have been brainwashed in the Randian ideology. So are you saying that the sacred "non-aggression principle" (i.e., laissez faire) expounded by the fictional character John Galt in Rand's Atlas Shrugged should govern our society? You say you don't believe in segregation laws, but they're an historical fact. It was "aggression" that put blacks in an inferior position in the first place, and kept them there until the federal government and courts got them out. Like it or not, those segregation laws resulted in a condition of gross inequality and injustice which isn't going to correct itself. I'm for the utilitarian principle, the greatest happiness for the greater number; and the Christian principle: "love thy neighbor as thyself", both of which mean intervention to correct past injustices. If John Galt can't handle that, he can go to hell.

Again, you you show your propensity to overgeneralize. Some feminists might fit your stereotype. I've run into a couple myself. Most don't.

Evidence? And even if it did, at what psychological cost? I doubt that many psychologists would agree that shaming produces positive results.
http://our-emotional-health.com/articles/shame.pdf
Fat shaming can have much worse impact on mental and physical health than racism or sexism | Daily Mail Online
The Psychological Effects of Shaming Children
Shaming can lead to suicide. I know, "suicide is painless, it brings on many changes". Besides, shaming is best done by people who are themselves flawless. I hate to break it to you, buddy, but the deformed thinking you display in some of your posts like this one is uglier and more harmful than body fat.

Your smoker analogy is faulty. Smoking harms others besides the smoker. Body fat is at worst unaesthetic. You seem to be advocating paternalism--protecting people from their own choices. What kind of libertarian are you? Sounds like Big Nannie to me!

Why do you make snide comments intended to provoke. That's what trolls do.

Yeah, right. Like the Prez and Mnuchin and Bannon and that creep Steve Miller. Ayn Rand wouldn't win any beauty contests. I'm surprised you put up with her. "Science", of course, says nothing of the kind. Pseudo science does. What you're given us is an out of context rendering of an article by Peterson and Palmer on the connection between attractiveness and political beliefs, which appeared in Politics and the Life Sciences, vol 36 (Fall, 2017). https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...sical_attractiveness_on_political_beliefs.pdf
Like all correlational analysis, the results are open to interpretation. The independent variable, physical attractiveness, is a social construct. So the people who are "hotter" are those who conform to cultural stereotypes of physical attractiveness. Often people who are preoccupied with such matters are shallow, so it's not surprising they vote conservative. Contrary to your description and those of the rags you cite, the investigators concluded that being perceived as "pretty" or "hot" correlates with being conservative, that's all. To measure attractiveness, the investigators used two measures: the American National Elections Studies panel study and the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. The former "are the
product of a single interviewer’s evaluations and could also be biased by the predilections of that individual,rather than representing a more global evaluation of their appearance." The latter determined physical attractiveness by evaluations of high school photos by a panel of six males and six females who were participants in the Madison Senoior Scholars Program. supplemented by data on height and weight. In other words, we're dealing with the popular people. No measures were provided of their mental or emotional characteristics. It's what's on the surface that counts.

 

6

Again with the silly point scoring - the thing is that I’ve written a lot here about equality while you have championed Social Darwinist social ideas and neo-liberal economic ones both of which are very much about the promotion of inequality.

Sorry but this seems more like an angry rant than a thought through argument and doesn’t address what was said.

OK we have been through the idea of a society based on the ‘non-aggression principle’ and even you say it is a utopian fantasy so can we try and keep things in the bounds of reality?

As to things like the segregation laws we have already touched on that – you seemed to argue that such laws only existed because they had been imposed by ‘government’ that they had no support your basic argument seems to be that discrimination has never existed. As we discussed that view just doesn’t stand up to even the mildest scrutiny.

AGAIN with you’re ALL lefties

Anyway the vast majority of lefties believe in a more equal world for everyone but the thing is that in the real world (rather than in your utopian fantasy) the world is unequal and even within that inequality it isn’t evenly distributed.

Go anywhere in the world and you will find certain groups that face harder circumstances seeking equality than others.

Can you understand that?

Meaning that some may need more help than others in achieving success, that doesn’t mean the goal is not to achieve equality, it’s just an acceptance of the reality.

BUT to come back to what I was pointing out - the difficulty is that many on the right hold ideological positions that are fundamentally opposed to equality preferring instead to push (as you do) Social Darwinist social ideas and neo-liberal economic ones both of which are very much about the promotion of inequality.

 

6

We have been through ‘fat-shaming’ before with you and it became clear then that you were much more interested in appearance than health (just as you promote the farcical idea that that people with conservative opinions are physically sexier)

You seem to want women to conform to a certain physical shape and therefore believed it was appropriate to attack any women that didn’t conform to that body shape, then when bought up on this you seemed to try and claim that your motivation was the women’s health.

But as I pointed out I’m a runner and people of many sizes come to meets and I’ve meet many people that do a lot of sports that do not fit into what you seem to see as what women ‘should’ look like.

I don’t know is there ‘smoker shaming’ if anything it seems to me that smoking is seen as ‘cool’ as in the ‘bad boy’ image in a lot of media.

The great steps forward in lessening the numbers smoking was (and is) mainly down to publically funded education, regulation and law in the teeth of commercial opposition and many on the libertarian right.

 

6

Yet more childish point scoring rather than honest debate.

Sorry but again I’d wish you would think more before you post – I’m saying that you seem to be using a perverted view of ALL feminists to attack women that believe in women’s rights, especially those women that don’t conform to your view of what a woman should be like.

In this sense the next comments are very telling

In you observation (in you view), generally (mostly) women that call themselves ‘feminists’ are hideous beasts (unattractive)

This is very similar to the 19th century view that the character of a person could be deduced from their appearance it’s a very simplistic and un-scientific viewpoint but here it seems to be again – those that 6 equates as ‘good’ are attractive and those that be thinks of as bad like lefties and feminists are on the whole unattractive.

LOL come on 6 can you try and drag your thinking at least into the 20th century, if the 21st is too great a challenge.

 

You should see what some of them think of lesbians.

I'm no expert, but I'm marrying a doctor (I love saying that!) so I know a few medical tidbits secondhand, and one of them is...weight is not a barometer of health. An overweight person who works out is much healthier than a naturally skinny couch potato. Fat shaming isn't about health. Maybe a few misguided but well-intended people think it is, but for most people--and I know you know this--it's about vanity. It's, oh I don't like the way you look, therefore you should look differently.

Also, let's talk individual freedom. You're a conservative; you don't like big government policing our daily lives. So why is it acceptable to have society police the day-to-day lives of fat people? If people want to eat, smoke or drink themselves into an early grave, that's their prerogative. It's a free society. And--I cannot stress this enough--freedom has consequences. You either want a police state that keeps you safe, or you want freedom--which includes the freedom to do things detrimental to your health. Can't have it both ways.

Finally, did you read any of these articles? They're not flattering. In a nutshell, they're saying conservatives are shallow. You just gave @Balbus a pile of ammunition

 

Oh did he really post links discussing how conservative women are prettier

Wow lol

 

You gotta love him, though.

 

Yeah, he does still seem cool to me despite the fact that I disagree with 95% of what he says lol

 

Just more proof that womenz always go for the douchebag

 

Yeah, that guy is a damn FOOOOL