- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 76,911
- Reaction score
- 17,507
Same
Social WR Lounge v270 Hesitation Kills
- Thread starter Sara
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,748
- Reaction score
- 11,723
I can think of countless examples for me.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 41,245
- Reaction score
- 57,609
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,602
- Reaction score
- 4,064
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
It would have to be someone she knows. It just seems to come down to whether you're already inclined to distrust her, I guess.
Huh? I suspect some kind of psychological issue here. But, no, I'm talking about how presenting suspicion of certain biases as super serious character attacks makes it harder to discuss and identify those biases (and how people cannot be consistent with their standards of evidence because the ultra-high one demanded for people one wishes to shield can't really be met consistently).
To illustrate the point, think of another kind of bias. Say someone reacted to be accused of being too pessimistic like that. "I will not stand for this. Where is your proof?!" What effect would that have on reducing irrational pessimism?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 64,901
- Reaction score
- 21,327
It’s not leveraging, she’s joking about selling her body.
I was more surprised about you "leveraging" them for the info
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,748
- Reaction score
- 11,723
Feigned indignation is just a funny term to use when it felt like Bernie supporters acted as if Warren daring challenge Bernie's perfect character was tantamount to an assassination.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 41,245
- Reaction score
- 57,609
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 76,911
- Reaction score
- 17,507
Well, that's a budget thing then.
I still feel like the stories you get in TV are better.
The Wire
Breaking Bad
Better Call Saul
Band of Brothers (true story but never would have worked as a movie)
Hell, even Japanese anime can be and is deeper and more complex than some American movies. One Piece is a goofy fucking shounen that is 23 minute episodes and has weekly chapter releases for the Manga and it fucking tackles shit like racism, classism, slavery, as well as corruption of world powers. Black Lagoon the main character is on a crew with a woman that grew up on the streets, sexual assault victim that had to kill from the age of like 9 in order to survive and is a corporate manager thrust into a world of piracy and where human life is thought of as a commodity.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 19,389
- Reaction score
- 13,238
Yeah Namond was a dummy and a wimp. Would never survive the game. He got to benefit from it though thanks to his dad's ill gotten wealth then when shit was starting to get real for him he got pulled out and put on a good path to life. Felt the writers did this on purpose just as a way to show how some people just get lucky.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,748
- Reaction score
- 11,723
I'm not joking lol. I've exchanged pictures of my feet here for things.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 64,901
- Reaction score
- 21,327
You know I love colorful language.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,337
He is in good spirits he says. Like a cartoon character about to step into a garden rake.LMAO....
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,748
- Reaction score
- 11,723
I completely disagree because the most interesting cinema has a fraction of the budget that television does.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,875
Meagan Day did a good piece on the Sanders/Warren bit from 2020:
[...]
Across the media, pundits can be heard saying Bernie Sanders’s campaign is “tainted by a whiff of sexism” and that a Sanders victory would mean “another misogynist as president.” These broad characterizations will be repeated ad nauseam until nobody even remembers where they came from. They will be “obviously true” because they’re things everybody knows, and everybody will know them because they’re obviously true.
If ugly, baseless accusations like these aren’t confronted with unequivocal pushback from the very outset, they have a tendency to snowball. This is exactly how the absurd and blatantly false claim that Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of an “antisemite army” in the Labour Party became a kind of common sense in the United Kingdom.
The last few years have shown us it’s a favorite tactic of the Center to stop left candidates and movements in their tracks. So, for posterity’s sake, it’s important to set the record straight on what exactly happened here.
On the evening of Saturday, January 11, Politico published a story with the inflammatory headline “Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate of the elite.”
But the actual details of the story turned out to be entirely banal. Sanders’s campaign was using a volunteer script in early states promoting his own electability. One portion of the script contained pointers for how to persuade voters leaning toward other candidates. The section on Elizabeth Warren read, in its entirety:
I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional] In fact, she’s my second choice! But here’s my concern about her. The people who support her are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what. She’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party. We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we’re going to defeat Trump.
…
Elizabeth Warren and her campaign reacted swiftly and strongly. On January 12, as the story was gaining traction online, Warren told reporters on camera at a campaign event that she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.” She added, “We all saw the impact of the factionalism in 2016, and we can’t have a repeat of that.”
It was an oddly disproportionate response. Compared to the heated primaries of the past, or even to the kinds of attacks Warren has leveled at other opponents, the Sanders script was hardly “trashing.” And it certainly didn’t warrant echoing tired, wrong centrist talking points designed to blame Bernie Sanders for Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.
Later that night, her campaign cranked up the heat, sending a fundraising email to supporters titled “What Bernie’s campaign says about you.” Signed by Warren’s campaign manager, Roger Lau, it read, “Bernie Sanders’ campaign is instructing volunteers to dismiss our broad-based, inclusive campaign.” Lau added, “When talking about our movement, his campaign has it backwards. I hope he reconsiders what he’s encouraging.”
…
If the dispute had stopped there, we could’ve just chalked the entire incident up to an overreaction. But it didn’t.
Less than thirty-six hours after the original Politico article, CNN published a report titled “Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win, sources say.”
In it, four anonymous sources — two of whom had spoken to Elizabeth Warren directly, two of whom were “familiar with the meeting” — told CNN that Warren said, after a private meeting with Sanders more than a year ago as the two considered presidential runs, that Sanders had told her a woman couldn’t win the presidency.
…
Other sources who spoke to the Washington Post characterized the conversation differently — in a way that was much closer to Sanders’s version of events. The way they understood it, Warren raised the topic of whether a woman could beat Trump, and Sanders “did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.”
Even a Warren staffer privately speaking to a group of key campaign supporters worded their account of the conversation in a way that “hewed closer to Sanders’s description than Warren’s.”
Yet in her official statement, Warren made no room for such nuance. She addressed the substance of their conversation only by saying, “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.” This could be interpreted both as a claim by Warren that Sanders told her flatly that a woman couldn’t beat Trump in 2020 and that Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win the presidency at all.
...
We have no solid evidence for this, and Warren has denied it. But in a Politico story specifically about the gender controversy, Marc Caputo wrote that a top Warren aide “accused the Sanders campaign of hypocritically dishing out campaign attacks and then whining when she hits back.” Using the phrase “hits back” clearly characterizes the story as part of a Warren campaign strategy targeting Sanders.
The second possibility is that people close to Warren, whether inside her campaign or not, decided to leak the story without Warren’s prior knowledge once they perceived that the truce was off. Presumably these would be people with a vested interest in seeing Sanders taken down. If this is the case, Warren nevertheless leaned into the story as hard as possible once it had leaked — letting the story go to print without comment, echoing its most damning implications in her statement, and then milking it during the debate the following evening.
...
Affirming the premise of the question, Warren responded, “I disagreed.” She then said that the “question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.”
With these words, the terrain shifted. Now we weren’t talking about whether Sanders had raised concerns about Trump’s sexist attacks, or even whether he thought a woman could withstand those attacks in 2020. Warren instead pitched the conversation around the question of, in her words, “whether or not a woman can be president,” giving the distinct impression that Sanders fell on the opposite side of the debate, despite his long history of statements to the contrary — including remarks made on stage that evening.
...
This was no accident: it was the impression Warren cultivated herself onstage. And once those terms were set, the disgusted reactions to Sanders’s supposed misogyny began to roll in.
On The View, which nearly 3 million people watch every day, Meghan McCain said that the debate proved Warren can “go up against a bullying man candidate that’s been bullying her for her gender.” In the Los Angeles Times, Virginia Heffernan provided a bizarre interpretation of the exchange between the candidates after the debate, writing that Sanders, who is notoriously irritable and suffers from cardiac issues, was riled by whatever Warren said, and by her refusal to be touched. He shook a finger at her. Then again. He seemed intent on freeing her right hand to grab it.
We all know this stock male move: Come on, baby, give me a hug; we’re still friends.
On CNN right after the debate, political analyst Jess McIntosh said that, “What Bernie forgot was that this isn’t a ‘he said, she said’ story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.” To his credit, Anderson Cooper corrected McIntosh, clarifying that in fact only two people were present for the exchange, so technically it was indeed a “he said, she said,” her word against his.
But McIntosh wasn’t a random onlooker. She was a communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, a spokeswoman for a onetime political rival to Sanders. And so it happened — after a period of quiet, when it seemed Sanders’s popularity among women and endorsements from young, left-wing female politicians had neutralized the line of attack — that many people with long-standing political objections to Sanders began casually and carelessly accusing him of sexism again.
...
This isn’t our first rodeo. We’ve seen tendentious and cynical allegations of personal misogyny leveled at Sanders before, notably during his previous presidential run against Hillary Clinton. When Sanders told Clinton that the gun control debate will not be resolved by people shouting at those they disagree with, she suggested that Sanders has a problem with women speaking out. When he wagged his finger as he asserted that single-payer is the only way to realize health care as a universal right, his finger-wagging was condemned as sexist.
Over time, people stopped being able to recall these specific incidents, if they ever caught wind of them at all. “Bernie’s sexist” was just a feeling many people had, and they didn’t know where it came from. This is how baseless rumors harden into consensus. It’s how we ended up with MSNBC analysts saying that “Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl. I can’t even identify for you what exactly it is. But I see him as sort of a not pro-woman candidate.”
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-sexism-controversy-woman-president
[...]
Across the media, pundits can be heard saying Bernie Sanders’s campaign is “tainted by a whiff of sexism” and that a Sanders victory would mean “another misogynist as president.” These broad characterizations will be repeated ad nauseam until nobody even remembers where they came from. They will be “obviously true” because they’re things everybody knows, and everybody will know them because they’re obviously true.
If ugly, baseless accusations like these aren’t confronted with unequivocal pushback from the very outset, they have a tendency to snowball. This is exactly how the absurd and blatantly false claim that Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of an “antisemite army” in the Labour Party became a kind of common sense in the United Kingdom.
The last few years have shown us it’s a favorite tactic of the Center to stop left candidates and movements in their tracks. So, for posterity’s sake, it’s important to set the record straight on what exactly happened here.
On the evening of Saturday, January 11, Politico published a story with the inflammatory headline “Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate of the elite.”
But the actual details of the story turned out to be entirely banal. Sanders’s campaign was using a volunteer script in early states promoting his own electability. One portion of the script contained pointers for how to persuade voters leaning toward other candidates. The section on Elizabeth Warren read, in its entirety:
I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional] In fact, she’s my second choice! But here’s my concern about her. The people who support her are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what. She’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party. We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we’re going to defeat Trump.
…
Elizabeth Warren and her campaign reacted swiftly and strongly. On January 12, as the story was gaining traction online, Warren told reporters on camera at a campaign event that she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.” She added, “We all saw the impact of the factionalism in 2016, and we can’t have a repeat of that.”
It was an oddly disproportionate response. Compared to the heated primaries of the past, or even to the kinds of attacks Warren has leveled at other opponents, the Sanders script was hardly “trashing.” And it certainly didn’t warrant echoing tired, wrong centrist talking points designed to blame Bernie Sanders for Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.
Later that night, her campaign cranked up the heat, sending a fundraising email to supporters titled “What Bernie’s campaign says about you.” Signed by Warren’s campaign manager, Roger Lau, it read, “Bernie Sanders’ campaign is instructing volunteers to dismiss our broad-based, inclusive campaign.” Lau added, “When talking about our movement, his campaign has it backwards. I hope he reconsiders what he’s encouraging.”
…
If the dispute had stopped there, we could’ve just chalked the entire incident up to an overreaction. But it didn’t.
Less than thirty-six hours after the original Politico article, CNN published a report titled “Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can’t win, sources say.”
In it, four anonymous sources — two of whom had spoken to Elizabeth Warren directly, two of whom were “familiar with the meeting” — told CNN that Warren said, after a private meeting with Sanders more than a year ago as the two considered presidential runs, that Sanders had told her a woman couldn’t win the presidency.
…
Other sources who spoke to the Washington Post characterized the conversation differently — in a way that was much closer to Sanders’s version of events. The way they understood it, Warren raised the topic of whether a woman could beat Trump, and Sanders “did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.”
Even a Warren staffer privately speaking to a group of key campaign supporters worded their account of the conversation in a way that “hewed closer to Sanders’s description than Warren’s.”
Yet in her official statement, Warren made no room for such nuance. She addressed the substance of their conversation only by saying, “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.” This could be interpreted both as a claim by Warren that Sanders told her flatly that a woman couldn’t beat Trump in 2020 and that Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win the presidency at all.
...
We have no solid evidence for this, and Warren has denied it. But in a Politico story specifically about the gender controversy, Marc Caputo wrote that a top Warren aide “accused the Sanders campaign of hypocritically dishing out campaign attacks and then whining when she hits back.” Using the phrase “hits back” clearly characterizes the story as part of a Warren campaign strategy targeting Sanders.
The second possibility is that people close to Warren, whether inside her campaign or not, decided to leak the story without Warren’s prior knowledge once they perceived that the truce was off. Presumably these would be people with a vested interest in seeing Sanders taken down. If this is the case, Warren nevertheless leaned into the story as hard as possible once it had leaked — letting the story go to print without comment, echoing its most damning implications in her statement, and then milking it during the debate the following evening.
...
Affirming the premise of the question, Warren responded, “I disagreed.” She then said that the “question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.”
With these words, the terrain shifted. Now we weren’t talking about whether Sanders had raised concerns about Trump’s sexist attacks, or even whether he thought a woman could withstand those attacks in 2020. Warren instead pitched the conversation around the question of, in her words, “whether or not a woman can be president,” giving the distinct impression that Sanders fell on the opposite side of the debate, despite his long history of statements to the contrary — including remarks made on stage that evening.
...
This was no accident: it was the impression Warren cultivated herself onstage. And once those terms were set, the disgusted reactions to Sanders’s supposed misogyny began to roll in.
On The View, which nearly 3 million people watch every day, Meghan McCain said that the debate proved Warren can “go up against a bullying man candidate that’s been bullying her for her gender.” In the Los Angeles Times, Virginia Heffernan provided a bizarre interpretation of the exchange between the candidates after the debate, writing that Sanders, who is notoriously irritable and suffers from cardiac issues, was riled by whatever Warren said, and by her refusal to be touched. He shook a finger at her. Then again. He seemed intent on freeing her right hand to grab it.
We all know this stock male move: Come on, baby, give me a hug; we’re still friends.
On CNN right after the debate, political analyst Jess McIntosh said that, “What Bernie forgot was that this isn’t a ‘he said, she said’ story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.” To his credit, Anderson Cooper corrected McIntosh, clarifying that in fact only two people were present for the exchange, so technically it was indeed a “he said, she said,” her word against his.
But McIntosh wasn’t a random onlooker. She was a communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, a spokeswoman for a onetime political rival to Sanders. And so it happened — after a period of quiet, when it seemed Sanders’s popularity among women and endorsements from young, left-wing female politicians had neutralized the line of attack — that many people with long-standing political objections to Sanders began casually and carelessly accusing him of sexism again.
...
This isn’t our first rodeo. We’ve seen tendentious and cynical allegations of personal misogyny leveled at Sanders before, notably during his previous presidential run against Hillary Clinton. When Sanders told Clinton that the gun control debate will not be resolved by people shouting at those they disagree with, she suggested that Sanders has a problem with women speaking out. When he wagged his finger as he asserted that single-payer is the only way to realize health care as a universal right, his finger-wagging was condemned as sexist.
Over time, people stopped being able to recall these specific incidents, if they ever caught wind of them at all. “Bernie’s sexist” was just a feeling many people had, and they didn’t know where it came from. This is how baseless rumors harden into consensus. It’s how we ended up with MSNBC analysts saying that “Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl. I can’t even identify for you what exactly it is. But I see him as sort of a not pro-woman candidate.”
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-sexism-controversy-woman-president
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,602
- Reaction score
- 4,064
Wpem at it's finest right @irish_thug
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,748
- Reaction score
- 11,723
@dildos they are mocking our currency.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,748
- Reaction score
- 11,723
I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional] In fact, she’s my second choice! But here’s my concern about her. The people who support her are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what. She’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party. We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we’re going to defeat Trump.
womp womp
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 19,389
- Reaction score
- 13,238
White Progressive Ethno Masochist = self hating white people with progressive politics
- Status
