I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Perfect: http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...7/xxxxxxx.html

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I took it to be he feels she speaks down to him. I dislike plenty of politicians for that, mostly male.

I was watching OJ Made in America over the weekend. Great documentary. And what struck me most (aside from OJ's desire to transcend race--at least when it came to his interactions with white people) was the portion of the documentary dealing with the reactions to the verdict.

It never ceases to amaze me how white people (generally, of course) have this amazing ability to zero in on the absolute most narrow sliver of an issue to protect themselves from dealing with their own racism. The documentary did a beautiful job of providing context to what it was like in LA leading up to the trial, providing the many examples of police just destroying black people's lives with impunity with the clear support of police brass at the highest levels and the justice system. Again and again and again.

But every single white person whose reaction to the verdict is captured in the documentary (and almost every single white person I've ever discussed the trial with) refuses to look at that verdict in that context. Analysis begins and ends with the DNA evidence and how unlikely it is that so many cops could have manufactured or manipulated so much evidence. And then it's: "OJ got off because he was rich and black and the jury was black." Nothing else is relevant. All other instances of complete and total injustice traveling in the opposite direction might as well not even exist.

This is the same shit. (And I'm using your post as a jumping off point.) People hate Elizabeth Warren because she talks down to them. She absolutely explains (often) complicated issues in a way that can be easily digested by many people. She explains the policy she is fighting before providing her opinions. Smart people who don't need to sit through those mini lessons chafe. Stupid people (i.e., 90% of the population) who are completely uninformed, think she's talking down to them. And once they think that it doesn't matter that she is on their side on almost every issue. And a large part of what pisses so many people off is that she is a woman who is talking down to them.

Adder is thoughtful enough to take a look at his opinion in context. I do not understand why when someone recognizes (or maybe just suspects) that their opinion may come from a place of sexism or misogyny they are perceived to be weak. You say shit like this:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Plus, Adder's history makes it clear he is uncomfortable with many of his feelings and willing to listen to others tell him why/how he actually feels. I won't get into this here.

without a hint of shame. What the fuck? Think about saying this to someone who was thoughtful enough about a negative opinion they had about a black person to admit that opinion may be partly influenced by racism and wonder if that person might want to knock you the fuck out.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I voted for Hillary, even though it made me sic that I did. And if she had won I would have been happy about 2 things 1 a woman was president, and 2 Trump was not. But the fact that I found her a horrible choice does not make me sexist. I've barely heard Warren speak, but Adder can dislike her and not be sexist.

Just stop it. I'm sick of this game. If you dislike Obama, there may be many reasons why. One of them might be the fact that you live in a society in which you have been told in all sorts of ways that black people are inferior and white people should be President. If you can't stand Warren, sure a lot of it may be based on her liberal ideas. But surely some of it is the fact that you live in a society that constantly tells you that women shouldn't be in positions of power. Being reminded of that isn't being told how to fucking feel.

In all other things people have the ability to weigh different influences when they are analyzing something. When it comes to racism or sexism, the mere mention of it shuts off that ability. Of course you're sexist. Of course I'm sexist. Hopefully it's just a small part of who we are. Recognizing the fact that these implicit biases exist in us and trying to actively fight them is not weakness. It's strength.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, but it's not an ungendered thing.

"Ungendered." I'm struggling to consider a more frivolous, decadent-but-somehow-boring adjective.

Its comparison to "asexual" -- that there exists context in which this comparison is not unexpected, and such a term probably appears in several newspapers this very minute -- is incredibly sad. Not because it's actually sad, which it of course is not. Because it's incredibly tedious.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Do not insult Velma.

Everybody loves Velma. She's everyone's Aunt Who Never Got Married. Think about it... go back to the 70s. You had an Aunt, or maybe an older cousin, who looked just like Velma. She has an apartment in Towson now, collects Chinese bird paintings, travels a bit, and sends you $100 on the holidays. It's weird, because you're 47, but hey -- money's money.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I didn't say I was sexist. I said my dislike of her persona was grounded in mysogny, because it's a reaction to a specifically feminine stereotype.

Three hail marys and a our father. Also, you left your testicles in the pew, son. The cleaning staff will throw them out if you forget them.

Which means I should try to get over that reaction and focus on what she's saying and not the presentation with which she says it.

No. Not there. Fifth pew from the back. But yes... do that, my son. Her criticisms of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are excellent. Her prescriptions for bankruptcy reforms to aid debtors generally are well considered, and should be applauded by both sides of the aisle.

Dude, I'm from Minnesota.

You could be from Buckingham Palace, but if you leave them there, the cleaning staff will throw them out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I was watching OJ Made in America over the weekend. Great documentary. And what struck me most (aside from OJ's desire to transcend race--at least when it came to his interactions with white people) was the portion of the documentary dealing with the reactions to the verdict.

It never ceases to amaze me how white people (generally, of course) have this amazing ability to zero in on the absolute most narrow sliver of an issue to protect themselves from dealing with their own racism. The documentary did a beautiful job of providing context to what it was like in LA leading up to the trial, providing the many examples of police just destroying black people's lives with impunity with the clear support of police brass at the highest levels and the justice system. Again and again and again.

But every single white person whose reaction to the verdict is captured in the documentary (and almost every single white person I've ever discussed the trial with) refuses to look at that verdict in that context. Analysis begins and ends with the DNA evidence and how unlikely it is that so many cops could have manufactured or manipulated so much evidence. And then it's: "OJ got off because he was rich and black and the jury was black." Nothing else is relevant. All other instances of complete and total injustice traveling in the opposite direction might as well not even exist.

It was great, and it did a very good job of explaining this context. I have to admit at the time I was very much one of the white people you speak of. It wasn't that I couldn't recognize the police misbehavior*, it was that I didn't see how that should apply to Nicole Simpson and Ron whatever being killed.

The documentary did a very good job of showing this white person a very different view.**

* At the time a friend who was a State Police, said "when Fuhrman said 'I have never said the word n----' every cop I know called bullshit."

** At a storytelling show I met a back man who was an LA Police Lieutenant during the King trial. He told stories that were insane. He had white cops pull a gun on him when he was in uniform. The guy running those start of shift meetings you see on TV would tell racist jokes to start the meeting. etc.

This is the same shit. (And I'm using your post as a jumping off point.) People hate Elizabeth Warren because she talks down to them. She absolutely explains (often) complicated issues in a way that can be easily digested by many people. She explains the policy she is fighting before providing her opinions. Smart people who don't need to sit through those mini lessons chafe. Stupid people (i.e., 90% of the population) who are completely uninformed, think she's talking down to them. And once they think that it doesn't matter that she is on their side on almost every issue. And a large part of what pisses so many people off is that she is a woman who is talking down to them.

Adder is thoughtful enough to take a look at his opinion in context. I do not understand why when someone recognizes (or maybe just suspects) that their opinion may come from a place of sexism or misogyny they are perceived to be weak. You say shit like this:

without a hint of shame. What the fuck? Think about saying this to someone who was thoughtful enough about a negative opinion they had about a black person to admit that opinion may be partly influenced by racism and wonder if that person might want to knock you the fuck out.

Just stop it. I'm sick of this game. If you dislike Obama, there may be many reasons why. One of them might be the fact that you live in a society in which you have been told in all sorts of ways that black people are inferior and white people should be President. If you can't stand Warren, sure a lot of it may be based on her liberal ideas. But surely some of it is the fact that you live in a society that constantly tells you that women shouldn't be in positions of power. Being reminded of that isn't being told how to fucking feel.

In all other things people have the ability to weigh different influences when they are analyzing something. When it comes to racism or sexism, the mere mention of it shuts off that ability. Of course you're sexist. Of course I'm sexist. Hopefully it's just a small part of who we are. Recognizing the fact that these implicit biases exist in us and trying to actively fight them is not weakness. It's strength.

TM

Maybe as to me***, but Adder? I just don't see it. Plus he strongly supported a woman, didn't he?

***Not as to Warren who I really have not heard much, but generally.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I was watching OJ Made in America over the weekend. Great documentary. And what struck me most (aside from OJ's desire to transcend race--at least when it came to his interactions with white people) was the portion of the documentary dealing with the reactions to the verdict.

It never ceases to amaze me how white people (generally, of course) have this amazing ability to zero in on the absolute most narrow sliver of an issue to protect themselves from dealing with their own racism. The documentary did a beautiful job of providing context to what it was like in LA leading up to the trial, providing the many examples of police just destroying black people's lives with impunity with the clear support of police brass at the highest levels and the justice system. Again and again and again.

But every single white person whose reaction to the verdict is captured in the documentary (and almost every single white person I've ever discussed the trial with) refuses to look at that verdict in that context. Analysis begins and ends with the DNA evidence and how unlikely it is that so many cops could have manufactured or manipulated so much evidence. And then it's: "OJ got off because he was rich and black and the jury was black." Nothing else is relevant. All other instances of complete and total injustice traveling in the opposite direction might as well not even exist.

This is the same shit. (And I'm using your post as a jumping off point.) People hate Elizabeth Warren because she talks down to them. She absolutely explains (often) complicated issues in a way that can be easily digested by many people. She explains the policy she is fighting before providing her opinions. Smart people who don't need to sit through those mini lessons chafe. Stupid people (i.e., 90% of the population) who are completely uninformed, think she's talking down to them. And once they think that it doesn't matter that she is on their side on almost every issue. And a large part of what pisses so many people off is that she is a woman who is talking down to them.

Adder is thoughtful enough to take a look at his opinion in context. I do not understand why when someone recognizes (or maybe just suspects) that their opinion may come from a place of sexism or misogyny they are perceived to be weak. You say shit like this:

without a hint of shame. What the fuck? Think about saying this to someone who was thoughtful enough about a negative opinion they had about a black person to admit that opinion may be partly influenced by racism and wonder if that person might want to knock you the fuck out.

Just stop it. I'm sick of this game. If you dislike Obama, there may be many reasons why. One of them might be the fact that you live in a society in which you have been told in all sorts of ways that black people are inferior and white people should be President. If you can't stand Warren, sure a lot of it may be based on her liberal ideas. But surely some of it is the fact that you live in a society that constantly tells you that women shouldn't be in positions of power. Being reminded of that isn't being told how to fucking feel.

In all other things people have the ability to weigh different influences when they are analyzing something. When it comes to racism or sexism, the mere mention of it shuts off that ability. Of course you're sexist. Of course I'm sexist. Hopefully it's just a small part of who we are. Recognizing the fact that these implicit biases exist in us and trying to actively fight them is not weakness. It's strength.

TM

People who are unwilling to admit that much of the dislike of Hillary/Elizabeth Warren/[Insert Name of Other Female Politician] as a person has root in misogyny are probably not worth the effort that it took to type that response. If a person is unable to acknowledge that reactions to women who are in power or who would like to be in power include a sexism component (from both women and men) and whose response is "yeah, but I dislike some of that stuff in guys too" aren't having an honest conversation about the longstanding different treatment of women in our society (and most other societies that predate ours).

Fuck, we couldn't even VOTE in this country a hundred years ago. My mother's generation was the first generation (outside of war efforts) that it was commonly acceptable for (white) women to work outside the home (although of course there was backlash to that). Less than 5% of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are women. But no, Hank and Sebby couldn't possibly have any different way of looking at women in powerful positions than the way they look at men. They are so completely evolved that they don't even see gender.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

People who are unwilling to admit that much of the dislike of Hillary/Elizabeth Warren/[Insert Name of Other Female Politician] as a person has root in misogyny are probably not worth the effort that it took to type that response. If a person is unable to acknowledge that reactions to women who are in power or who would like to be in power include a sexism component (from both women and men) and whose response is "yeah, but I dislike some of that stuff in guys too" aren't having an honest conversation about the longstanding different treatment of women in our society (and most other societies that predate ours).

Fuck, we couldn't even VOTE in this country a hundred years ago. My mother's generation was the first generation (outside of war efforts) that it was commonly acceptable for (white) women to work outside the home (although of course there was backlash to that). Less than 5% of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are women. But no, Hank and Sebby couldn't possibly have any different way of looking at women in powerful positions than the way they look at men. They are so completely evolved that they don't even see gender.

I have voted for President 10 times. 7 of those votes were against a candidate, not for the person who got my vote. The three times I voted for someone were all second term (Reagan/W/Obama). I dislike almost all politicians.

With Hil is her gender part of why I wasn't happy to vote for her? I suppose, but there were lots of other reasons, and if I was able to burn out all traces of sexism from my brain I am pretty sure I would still have not been happy with the choice I had to make.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

People who are unwilling to admit that much of the dislike of Hillary/Elizabeth Warren/[Insert Name of Other Female Politician] as a person has root in misogyny are probably not worth the effort that it took to type that response. If a person is unable to acknowledge that reactions to women who are in power or who would like to be in power include a sexism component (from both women and men) and whose response is "yeah, but I dislike some of that stuff in guys too" aren't having an honest conversation about the longstanding different treatment of women in our society (and most other societies that predate ours).

Fuck, we couldn't even VOTE in this country a hundred years ago. My mother's generation was the first generation (outside of war efforts) that it was commonly acceptable for (white) women to work outside the home (although of course there was backlash to that). Less than 5% of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are women. But no, Hank and Sebby couldn't possibly have any different way of looking at women in powerful positions than the way they look at men. They are so completely evolved that they don't even see gender.

Of course dislike of those two powerful women is rooted significantly in sexism. Neither Hank nor I has seriously disputed that.

But, I honestly don't see gender in re: powerful women. I actually preferred working for women and disliked men. Men are all fucking ego. So often you have to stroke a Napolean, or some nerd with a chip on his shoulder, or deal with some douche or borderline sociopath. I've had much better luck with women in charge. They're not as threatened by you, they tend to be better organized, they don't try to fuck you over as much by taking credit for what subordinates do... And this is huge: Their default emotion isn't anger. With guys, the minutes they're in a tough spot, the anger appears. You have to talk the dumb fuck from screwing up a whole deal, or getting you all sued, because he's in a grudge match with the other side. Being a male, he can't multitask very well, so he's focused on "winning" a conflict with someone and doesn't notice all the future risks he's creating in the process. Women have broader vision. They see the whole chessboard a lot better. Unfortunately, this translates as weakness, while men often running with their dicks out in a room full of papercutters is somehow "leadership."

I dig working for chicks. I even liked it when they treated me in a sexist fashion by calling me cute. Missed my fucking calling... I'd be a fine pool boy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I was watching OJ Made in America over the weekend. Great documentary.

I thought the first few parts that focused on the environment in LA were eye-opening for someone who is old enough to remember the OJ parts but really didn't understand the context at the time. As you say, great doc.

[It] is not weakness. It's strength.

This is the mantra for our age, when we have a president, and an ardent group of supporters, who think that strength is posing toughness and doing violence to the vulnerable.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Ungendered." I'm struggling to consider a more frivolous, decadent-but-somehow-boring adjective.

It's nice that you're above the meaning of actual words.

What is it you think the "marm" part of the word means if it's not explicitly feminine?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

But no, Hank and Sebby couldn't possibly have any different way of looking at women in powerful positions than the way they look at men. They are so completely evolved that they don't even see gender.

You can tell on account how they each immediately questioned my masculinity for even daring to consider that I may have some gender biases.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But, I honestly don't see gender in re: powerful women. I actually preferred working for women and disliked men. Men are all fucking ego. So often you have to stroke a Napolean, or some nerd with a chip on his shoulder, or deal with some douche or borderline sociopath. I've had much better luck with women in charge. They're not as threatened by you, they tend to be better organized, they don't try to fuck you over as much by taking credit for what subordinates do... And this is huge: Their default emotion isn't anger. With guys, the minutes they're in a tough spot, the anger appears. You have to talk the dumb fuck from screwing up a whole deal, or getting you all sued, because he's in a grudge match with the other side. Being a male, he can't multitask very well, so he's focused on "winning" a conflict with someone and doesn't notice all the future risks he's creating in the process. Women have broader vision. They see the whole chessboard a lot better. Unfortunately, this translates as weakness, while men often running with their dicks out in a room full of papercutters is somehow "leadership."

Wow. I wonder if you notice that you just described the choices in our last election to a "T" and yet...

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

With Hil is her gender part of why I wasn't happy to vote for her? I suppose, but there were lots of other reasons, and if I was able to burn out all traces of sexism from my brain I am pretty sure I would still have not been happy with the choice I had to make.

What you just said is what Adder said in a different way. Do you think I just told you how you need to feel?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I thought the first few parts that focused on the environment in LA were eye-opening for someone who is old enough to remember the OJ parts but really didn't understand the context at the time. As you say, great doc.

I was visiting a friend in LA when the Rodney King video came out. I don't think I've ever been so sad and terrified all at the same time. To watch 12-15 cops just stand by and watch those fucking assholes beat that man half to death (and then all stick together afterwards) was just absolutely sickening. You cannot then turn around, have the witness who conveniently found the glove tying OJ to the murder at his house be the most disgusting, racist, violent motherfucker without thinking he planted that shit (and for any cop who knew anything about it to remain completely silent). Although I am convinced beyond even a whiff of doubt that OJ murdered Brown and Goldman, I still think Fuhrman planted the glove after he climbed the fence by himself to ensure an easy case.

What I didn't remember was the video of that Korean woman murdering that little girl in cold blood by shooting her in the back of the head as the girl calmly walked away and then having the judge ignore the prosecutor's recommendation of 30 years and give her 5 months probation. I had to turn the documentary off for a little while.

TM