|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 3, 2019 19:23:10 GMT -5
Feet don't have a race. Just sayin'... Regardless, I'd note that the most outspoken Donald Trump critics--who also happen to be male--seem to be quite adept at googling up nekid pictures of the First Lady (I don't want to know what they're doing with those pictures in their moms' basements), while others openly gawk at her. The below, from Nighttimer, is incorrect: Fact of the matter is that this is true in general, for an awful lot of people (not all of them men, either). But men in politics get judged on how they look, too. Certainly not to the extent that women do, however. But I remember a fair amount of swooning over Obama's looks, especially when the shirtless pic of him was getting tossed around on social media. Now that there is some straight-up smelly bullshit. Men in politics get judged on how they look, too? WTF are you smoking? NOBODY but the sickest of sick-ass fucks is trolling the Internet for a shirtless pic of a 72-year-old Donald Trump. Who wants to see that flabby gut? Who wants to see those saggy man-boobs? Your comparison is absolute hot garbage burning in a dumpster, robeiae. Of course you wouldn't find it a difficult distinction. But it's still a stupid distinction. There is nothing patently misogynistic about defending a Latin woman from the attacks of White men who call her dumb, ignorant, stupid, uninformed and worse. The misogyny is all yours, but it's really not your fault. You can't help how you were socialized. You have no clue how people of color have to navigate their way through places which have been enclaves of White males. You're simply ignorant of how treacherous it is to move through a system that was never designed for you. When you're the only White guy in an All-Black place, maybe then you can holla at me. Until then? You don't know squat about it. It's not that as though you're going to stop pushing in this naive, dishonest idea that every politician is subject to the same degree of scrutiny since they're all politicians. That's never been a standard you've ever held conservatives to. You rag on her in a way you have never ragged on certifiable G.O.P. fucktards like Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Marsha Blackburn, James Imhofe, Cindy Hyde Smith, Ted Cruz, and White Supremacist Shithead Steve King. I recalll how you refused to even entertain an honest debate over the verified bigotry of Ron DeSantis. But when it comes to peeling the skin off of AOC as if she were an apple? Oh, you're all in for that. There's so much wrong with that statement. Yet to even attempt to explain how its wrong would be a colossial waste of my time, so I'll pass on commenting any further. The difference of course is Melania Trump knowingly and willingly posed for soft-core pornography that Trump ally Rupert Murdoch published in his wank rag, the New York Piss Post, whereas Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has not (except for the vivid imaginations of right-wing perverts) and there's nothing "unfair" about pointing how Trump's trophy wife willingly exploited herself. Your false equivalency is bullshit. Your comparison is bullshit. You are trying to hold Ocasio-Cortez to a standard that will not and can not apply to her. And this is why you flair and fail, robeiae. You're The Colline Gate's version of Tucker Carlson. A poseur, a fake, a phony and just as transparently inauthentic.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 3, 2019 20:21:14 GMT -5
Now that there is some straight-up smelly bullshit. Men in politics get judged on how they look, too? WTF are you smoking? NOBODY but the sickest of sick-ass fucks is trolling the Internet for a shirtless pic of a 72-year-old Donald Trump. Who wants to see that flabby gut? Who wants to see those saggy man-boobs? Your comparison is absolute hot garbage burning in a dumpster, robeiae. I can't help but wonder sometimes if you actually read what you write, because you're all over the place, wound up and spouting fire in an attempt to disagree with me, even as you make my points for me. Remember the Trump statues? Regardless, you tell me Trump isn't judged on how he looks, then you immediately proceed to judge him on how he looks. Sure there is, because you--by your own admission--are defending a woman simply because she is a woman. And give me a break on the race-baiting. You're the one who insists on seeing Ocasio-Cortez as a "Latin" woman. You assume some sort of affinity there, simple because you are black, an affinity that causes you to a feel a need to defend her "honor," I guess. And you want to pretend that your race affords you not only special insights in this regard, but also special privileges. I didn't say that, though. Occasio-Cortez is in the news right now; she says things that put her in the news and--to be fair--she attracts a lot more attention because of her youth and her looks. That's the reality of things. The fact that someone--anyone--has or has not commented about some other person or event is a non-issue. Sure. You can argue that position, but imo it's weak and betrays--yet again--your very obvious misogyny. Cory Booker is dating Rosario Dawson. I'm curious to see if you'll engage in the same sort of slut-shaming with her that you have with Melania, once the primaries get going. Then leave. Seriously. You imagine that you somehow bring balance or the like, but anything you do bring is constantly undermined by your inability to avoid tossing empty-headed insults.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 3, 2019 20:43:30 GMT -5
The below, from Nighttimer, is incorrect: Fact of the matter is that this is true in general, for an awful lot of people (not all of them men, either). But men in politics get judged on how they look, too. Certainly not to the extent that women do, however. But I remember a fair amount of swooning over Obama's looks, especially when the shirtless pic of him was getting tossed around on social media. Dude. There's.... subtext or something, that you're not grokking. It is true that women in politics are judged *first* on how they look. It's a primary factor. Men are not judged *first* on looks. Their looks are *a* factor. What happens is that women who are conventionally unattractive or conventionally "unfeminine" must overcome this first hurdle via other attributes. Men who happen to not be attractive don't get an extra bump from it, but it's not hurdle to overcome. It's not the first thing people consider. NT is exactly right in that statement, imo. Age adds another layer, helping men and hurting women. And then, as we see in O-C's case, if a woman is too young or too pretty, there's a knee-jerk tendency to think she must be naive, silly, vapid - not a *thinking* person - and oh, by the way, here's a meme of her in a sexual pose. So, I think when you essentially equivocate with a "not to the extent" disclaimer, you're not getting it. ETA: well my timing is shit. Did not mean to jump in with a post right when it's coming to blows. Christ yall.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 3, 2019 22:46:24 GMT -5
Now that there is some straight-up smelly bullshit. Men in politics get judged on how they look, too? WTF are you smoking? NOBODY but the sickest of sick-ass fucks is trolling the Internet for a shirtless pic of a 72-year-old Donald Trump. Who wants to see that flabby gut? Who wants to see those saggy man-boobs? Your comparison is absolute hot garbage burning in a dumpster, robeiae. I can't help but wonder sometimes if you actually read what you write, because you're all over the place, wound up and spouting fire in an attempt to disagree with me, even as you make my points for me. Remember the Trump statues? Regardless, you tell me Trump isn't judged on how he looks, then you immediately proceed to judge him on how he looks. Fuck the Trump statues. What's that got to do with anything? Trump is an ugly, fat fuck. He was once fairly good-looking, but since then the roof has fallen in and age and gravity hath taken its toll. Nobody is objectifying an old bigot based upon his looks. It's the 29-year-old Latina we're talking about. As hard as it may be for you, TRY to stick to the subject instead of these insipid diversions into statues nobody but you remembers or cares about. Trust that I don't have to "attempt" to disagree with you. You make it ridiculously easy to disagree with you. I couldn't make your points for you because the "point" that there is even the slightest equivalency between how women and men in politics are judged based upon their looks is too ludicrous to be taken seriously. Tsk. There's that poor reading comprehension of yours kicking in again. Here. I'll type it slow for you: There is nothing patently misogynistic about defending a Latin woman from the attacks of White men who call her dumb, ignorant, stupid, uninformed and worse. Go back a few pages. By my own admission I've said and I will repeat it since it didn't sink in the first time: I will ALWAYS defend a woman of color who is being besieged by White men in such a blatantly, unfair, unjust and unequal manner. Or to put it another way, if there were a conscious and proud Latin woman or man who was a member of The Colline Gate, maybe she or he would fill that role. However, since after nearly three years, I'm STILL the only person of color on this board, that role kinda falls to me by default. Fortunately, I'm good at that sort of thing. I see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a Latin woman because that's how she sees Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I assume nothing. There IS an affinity between Latinos, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Native Americans, Black Americans and any other group who has been dicked around and fucked over and oppressed by White supremacists and systematic racism and state-sanctioned genocide. This is simply a historical fact. Don't get mad me at me because I know history and you prefer to delude yourself it doesn't matter. Being Black does afford me special insights because I have to navigate and survive and find a way to thrive in a White world with White laws and a White system of systemic racism, oppression and supremacy. Now you wouldn't know anything about that because you don't think race matters. In reality, race doesn't matter to you. Which is why you always get defensive and angry when the conversation turns to race. This is not a subject where you're well-positioned to teach and you're incapable of learning. Which I'm good with. I'm not really interested in teaching you. I can understand your discomfort. It's not a subject you have any agency or authority in. "Special privileges?" What are those? And what "privilege" do you possess that you can grant or withhold from me? You don't have to. Your prior history does. No, it's not because of AOC's youth or her looks. That's a very superficial analysis on your part and it belies how impressive her accomplishments are and how significant it is It goes much deeper than that. She is quite literally inspiring an entirely different sort of political activists than Washington has seen in many a moon. This is why you and other conservatives expend so much energy attempting to belittle and trivialize her as nothing more than a shallow know-nothing who is reasonably attractive. In reality, what AOC has done and has the potential to do is actually fascinating in how much she can shake this rotten system to its rancid core. It's not "slut-shaming" Melania to point out the fact she's the first First Lady who is only a click away from appearing in her birthday suit. This is a fact. Don't get in your feelings because over it. Facts don't care about your feelings. Oh, if I only had a dollar every time you have done exactly what you just said I do. I'd surely have a lot of dollars. Alas... Maybe on a free weekend when I'm really bored, I'll go through and count up all the "empty-headed insults" or the times you bounced me off the board for no reason besides you could. I don't have to imagine anything, robeiae. I bring balance to the party because if I don't who will? Amadan has gone on an extended hiatus and every so often he'd call you out. Cassandra and Christine drop in every so often to do the same and maybe Mark aaaaaannnnd that's pretty much it. The only thing I see I undermine is your insistence you are the definitive authority on all things.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 4, 2019 8:28:14 GMT -5
Dude. There's.... subtext or something, that you're not grokking. It is true that women in politics are judged *first* on how they look. It's a primary factor. Men are not judged *first* on looks. Their looks are *a* factor. No, I'm grokking it, and I agree--in general--with the second statement: it's primary without a doubt, when it comes to women. And that's what I actually said: men in politics get judged too, though certainly not to the extent that women do. Nonetheless, it remains true of everyone, everywhere to one extent or another: people "judge" others on how they look. Some people do this more than others, no doubt, but it's tough to quantify from one individual to another. And I don't disagree here, either. I think I am getting it; my point was that "she's only getting criticized because she's young and pretty" is not a valid counter-argument to every criticism or negative comment about Occasio-Cortez. She's a politician who very much has a national platform right now. There's no getting around it (and yeah, part of the reason she has that platform is because she's young and pretty; it's a factor for some portion of both her critics and her supporters). So the stuff she says is going to draw attention and lead to people opining on the same.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 4, 2019 8:40:45 GMT -5
It's not "slut-shaming" Melania to point out the fact she's the first First Lady who is only a click away from appearing in her birthday suit. This is a fact. Don't get in your feelings because over it. Facts don't care about your feelings. You point this out as a means of criticizing her. Again, the same thing can be said about Booker's current girlfriend: she's "a click away from appearing in her birthday suit." Do you think that should disqualify Booker as a Presidential candidate? Seriously. Because the sense I get--from your fixation on Melania's nude pics--is that you think it's unseemly that Melania is First Lady, simply because she has posed in the nude. To me, that's a very antiquated notion, as well as being quite paternalistic.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 4, 2019 11:54:17 GMT -5
It's not "slut-shaming" Melania to point out the fact she's the first First Lady who is only a click away from appearing in her birthday suit. This is a fact. Don't get in your feelings because over it. Facts don't care about your feelings. You point this out as a means of criticizing her. Again, the same thing can be said about Booker's current girlfriend: she's "a click away from appearing in her birthday suit." Do you think that should disqualify Booker as a Presidential candidate? Seriously. Because the sense I get--from your fixation on Melania's nude pics--is that you think it's unseemly that Melania is First Lady, simply because she has posed in the nude. To me, that's a very antiquated notion, as well as being quite paternalistic. You're missing the point. Allow me to simplify it.
Melania Trump has appeared nude in pictures. She is the First Lady.
Rosario Dawson has appeared nude in film. She is not the First Lady.
I do not care if Melania has appeared nude. She's a grown woman and she's made grown woman decisions. I am no more "fixated" on her nude pics than I am lusting after AOC, as you snidely insinuated earlier and to say I am is incorrect.
I am stating a FACT. Now whether or not you find that fact to be antiquated or paternalistic does not alter that fact and if by repeating that fact you find yourself discomforted and aggrieved, that is a problem, but that problem is not mine. There was an Instagram post that got some traction a few weeks ago. Fashion designer Tom Ford reportedly said in response to a question about dressing Melania, "I have no interest in dressing a glorified escort who steals speeches and has bad taste in men." That's a pretty sick burn and it galloped across the web like a runaway horse.
Only thing was it wasn't true. Ford never said that about Melania. That was not a FACT. It was UNTRUE. But it comes with the job. First Ladies get lied on all the time. What makes Melania Trump unique is the fact she is the first First Lady who has a past that includes posing nude.
Buy the ticket. Take the ride. I can't make it any plainer than that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 5, 2019 8:39:33 GMT -5
WHY are you noting that fact? That's what you're not really answering.
What does the fact that Melania Trump has done nude pics have to do with anything, at this point in time? It's not like you're Moses, coming down from the mountain to tell people something they didn't know, after. Melania's nude pics were never a bombshell revelation (and I'd argue that's as it should be), anyone with half a clue knew about them, even before Trump was the nominee.
Regardless, you haven't just noted the fact that these pics of Melania Trump are out there, you've used their existence to criticize her, multiple times. And hey, if you think the fact that she's done these pics--particularly the "girl on girl" ones, which seem to be ones that really wind you up--means she's some sort of awful human being, fine. At least own it, though.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 5, 2019 15:47:17 GMT -5
WHY are you noting that fact? That's what you're not really answering. WHY? Why NOT? Because it is a fact. Because it happened.
Perhaps because it is one of the more interesting things about a rather dull and uninteresting woman. Ever stop to consider that while you look for deeper meanings, hidden agendas, and ulterior motives?
Let's get back to the topic of this thread because it's not Melania Trump. What does where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lived as a kid have to do with anything? Why does a silly video she made in college have to do with anything? Why does where she live, how much she pays her staff, what she eats and drink or whether or not she smiles while Trump is boring the shit out the nation during a State of the Union address have to do with anything?
Not a goddamn thing as far as I'm concerned, but it hasn't slowed AOC's critics not one bit.
I own everything I say. I own everything I write. Always have. Always will. Now I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but if not, I'll say it again: Melania is an awful human being. You happy?
I could criticize Melania Trump for being as much if a racist as her hubby when she co-signed his Birther bullshit or I could criticize for ripping off Michelle Obama time and again, and maybe I will, but those are things you don't care about. But bring up her softcore porno past? Now THAT you do care a lot about. So here's your question backatcha. WHY? Is it that even mentioning this slightly tacky fact somehow stains and tarnishes Melania's carefully cultivated veneer of class and respectability?
Are you lusting after Mrs. Trump? Do you feel some need to be her shining knight riding to her rescue?
How did you put it? How gallant.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 5, 2019 17:43:22 GMT -5
It is absolutely ridiculous that Melania Trump has been mentioned, let alone become the subject, of this thread.
Come on, guys. Be Best.
I loathe that fucking slogan. What a twit.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 5, 2019 20:04:23 GMT -5
It is absolutely ridiculous that Melania Trump has been mentioned, let alone become the subject, of this thread. Come on, guys. Be Best. I loathe that fucking slogan. What a twit. I know, right? The only one from a First Lady that is worse is, "When they go low, we go high." Yeah, and you see how that worked out, Mrs. Obama.
As far as it being absolutely ridiculous that Melania Trump has been mentioned, you should have been here a few days ago, Christine when someone made the absolutely ridiculous snipe that I am defending Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, therefore I must be madly in love and lust with her and fiendin' to jump her bones, ipso facto: anything you say is based upon a misguided racial bond and can be safely discounted as absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 21:34:16 GMT -5
Pfft. It's Optimus who has the hots for AOC. (Even I crushed on her a little when I saw her dancing video and the clip of the giant dog knocking her down and licking her face. That shit was super cute.)
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 5, 2019 22:19:44 GMT -5
At least we're not talking about her husband going au nature. This country is messed up already.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 6, 2019 21:02:18 GMT -5
]I know, right? The only one from a First Lady that is worse is, "When they go low, we go high." Yeah, and you see how that worked out, Mrs. Obama. It was, and remains, a worthy sentiment. Also it's grammatically correct. Yeah, I read that snipe, and some others, and a slew of them from you as well. Re: that video clip, meh. It takes at least two dicks for a dick measuring contest.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 6, 2019 22:37:26 GMT -5
|
|