|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 2, 2017 19:27:51 GMT -5
I also would much prefer a Michelle Obama or Laura Bush as First Lady. But come on. You've just chided me for being all stuffy and prissy because I care about the librarian being rude, dismissing me as being all about "respectability politics". Well, what on earth is getting all freaked out about Melania's nude shots other than "respectability politics"? You pull out your smelling salts for that, but sneer at me because I give a shit about rude behavior? I also am a bit weirded out by the fact that one can google nude shots of our First Lady, but I honestly don't care all that much about it. If nude shots of Michelle from her salad days in college, I'd also be weirded out but it wouldn't make me think less of her. Sure, it's a new thing to have such photos available of first ladies, but I don't sneer at and condemn nude models generally, so I can't quite see why I should dismiss Melania as a worthless human being because of it. Posing nude beats being rude, in my book. If that works for you, more power to you. It has no effect on how I view The First Trophy Wife though. My opposition to Trump arises from his actions, policies, and behavior that I feel are harmful to our country. Much of that actually stems from his rude, disrespectful behavior. To the extent Melania defends such things, I have a problem with her. But her being naked twenty years ago? Meh. Her merely standing by her husband and not divorcing him even though he is a jackass? Well, I didn't condemn Huma for standing by hers. If Trump actually does some things I like, I'm not going to condemn him for those things, though I will continue to decry at the top of my lungs the many, many things I don't like. Melania doing nice First Lady things? I'm not going to piss on her for them. I'll save my fire for the shitty stuff that needs burning. I just do not see how I can condemn Trump and his supporters when they are rude, stubborn, jackasses just gleefully sticking it to liberals for the pure sake of sticking it to liberals -- and yet cheer liberals for doing the same to Trump or conservatives. I don't see how I can sneer at Melania for having posed nude without sneering at all of the other people who pose nude. I don't see how I can shrug and say I don't actually much care about Bill Clinton getting a consensual blow job in the Oval Office, and yet wring my hands at Melania's long-ago nude shots. I don't see how I condemn conservatives and Republicans for blind party loyalty in supporting Trump's behavior no matter what he does, and yet cheer liberals for bad behavior. And I don't see how I cheer on this librarian for condemning Seuss as racist and cliche while she wears a Cat in the Hat costume and without also chastising President Obama for promoting such racist books. Intellectual honesty matters. Holding people to comparable standards matters. Otherwise, it all comes down to "we can all be total fucking assholes as long as it is in the service of our beliefs." You do realize people are free to protest the way THEY want and not the way YOU want, right? Yeah, I can see that you can't get behind how some on the Left choose to protest the evil excesses of the Trump Misadministration, but hey, they never asked for your input in the first place. They didn't ask for mine either and you know what? I'm cool with that because while I'm entitled to my opinion it's not my place to tell another man how to stand up against Trump's bullshit. It's not YOUR place either, Cassandra. Go down your grocery list of grievances and gripes and grudges about what the Left is and isn't doing to your liking. Have a party and vent your spleen as much as you like. The fact remains while you're talking about resisting Trump, others are out there actually doing it. Maybe they're doing some of it wrong and maybe they're coming on a bit too strong, but I'd rather cast my lot with those getting off their ass and giving a damn than with those sitting on theirs and damning those that aren't. "First Lady" (or "First Spouse," or "First Gentleman") isn't actually an office in the US government. So the fact that such a person has nude photos or the like out there is, well, inconsequential, especially given that fact that the person in question here was a professional model. After all, there are semi-nude photos of Obama and and other high-profile politicians out there (people who actually held office). Is it just the boobies that are oh-so-scary here? Boobies are fine. I just prefer First Ladies who don't put theirs out there for horny guys to fap to.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 2, 2017 19:54:26 GMT -5
Starting from scratch here...
It's my understanding that the FLOTUS donated ten books.
That would be the FLOTUS, who's married to a billionaire who is also currently the President of the United States and who nominated Betsy FUCKING Davos as Secretary of Education.
A donation of Cat in the Hat isn't mitigating that damage. At. All.
So while I wouldn't personally respond as this particular librarian did (I tend to be all about the politeness and respectability politics and all that shit my mother taught me), I'm not condemning her, either.
I'll also interject that the racist issues with the author of the books, while certainly not relevant in a vacuum of "great reads for kids," has become much more relevant in the world of Trump's "very fine" Nazis and his condemnation of black football players taking a knee to peacefully protest racism.
Yes, yes, I know. It's more nuanced than that. But I don't fault the librarian for not being able to calmly accept ten books from the wife of a fucking racist.
My opinion is akin to nighttimer's: Fuck Melania and her fucking ten fucking books. Seriously.
PSA
Read to your kids. Teach them to read. Dr. Seuss is good and fun. They'll love it. I love it. We all love it. Cat in the Hat FTW.
/PSA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 20:40:14 GMT -5
Sigh. I hadn't planned to argue any more tonight so consider this a confession.
I have chosen to follow the example of our former presidents and engage in positive actions that help mitigate the harm done by Trump's policies -- e.g., undergoing hours of training so that I can do pro bono legal work helping undocumented immigrants hurt by Trump's policies. Of course, I've also done a fair bit of calling and writing letters urging Congress critters to vote against policies and engaging in peaceful protests.
That isn't nearly as helpful as mailing Dr. Seuss books I just celebrated myself with a Cat in the Hat party back to the First Lady with a note explaining why they are racist and cliche, I know, but we each do what we can.
-- Griping, grudging, just-sits-around-on-her -ass-talking CassandraW
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Oct 2, 2017 20:55:26 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the FLOTUS donated ten books. That would be the FLOTUS, who's married to a billionaire who is also currently the President of the United States and who nominated Betsy FUCKING Davos as Secretary of Education. She donated a package of books to one school in each of 50 states - so more like 500 books. I'm the last person to defend anyone with the surname Trump, but still... I had no idea there were any racist connotations connected to Dr. Seuss or his books, though, so I'll stay out of the argument at large. Except to say I know Cass has trained to provide legal service to undocumented immigrants, and I call my congresscritters regularly (even though I live in Iowa so my congresscritters are particularly useless). Just because a person's form of protest isn't as visible doesn't mean that all they do is sit behind their keyboard and bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 2, 2017 21:13:11 GMT -5
Just so I'm clear on this, slut-shaming a woman is misogynistic and horrible...unless the woman you're slut-shaming is connected to Trump in some way, in which case it's perfectly fine to slut-shame them because, I mean, she totally deserves it "because Trump," amirite?
And democrats wonder why the keep losing.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 2, 2017 21:26:19 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the FLOTUS donated ten books. That would be the FLOTUS, who's married to a billionaire who is also currently the President of the United States and who nominated Betsy FUCKING Davos as Secretary of Education. She donated a package of books to one school in each of 50 states - so more like 500 books. I'm the last person to defend anyone with the surname Trump, but still... I had no idea there were any racist connotations connected to Dr. Seuss or his books, though, so I'll stay out of the argument at large. Except to say I know Cass has trained to provide legal service to undocumented immigrants, and I call my congresscritters regularly (even though I live in Iowa so my congresscritters are particularly useless). Just because a person's form of protest isn't as visible doesn't mean that all they do is sit behind their keyboard and bitch. I have no idea why my post warrants a follow-up defense of Cass's efforts. Kudos to Cass for those efforts, sincerely. As far as 10 books vs. 500 books, my point in regard to Melania stands. Donating 500, or 5,000, or 50,000 books doesn't mitigate the damage that Trump, the GOP, et al are doing to education. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Oct 2, 2017 22:31:23 GMT -5
She donated a package of books to one school in each of 50 states - so more like 500 books. I'm the last person to defend anyone with the surname Trump, but still... I had no idea there were any racist connotations connected to Dr. Seuss or his books, though, so I'll stay out of the argument at large. Except to say I know Cass has trained to provide legal service to undocumented immigrants, and I call my congresscritters regularly (even though I live in Iowa so my congresscritters are particularly useless). Just because a person's form of protest isn't as visible doesn't mean that all they do is sit behind their keyboard and bitch. I have no idea why my post warrants a follow-up defense of Cass's efforts. Kudos to Cass for those efforts, sincerely. As far as 10 books vs. 500 books, my point in regard to Melania stands. Donating 500, or 5,000, or 50,000 books doesn't mitigate the damage that Trump, the GOP, et al are doing to education. JMO. I was responding to you, and then jumped to a response to nighttimer. And no, donating books doesn't mitigate anything - but it's not really her job to mitigate anything. She's not an elected official, and if you think she has the slightest bit of influence on any policy, I'm 100% certain you're wrong. But donating books to a school in every state is just the sort of (usually) feel-good gesture a First Lady generally makes. Her choice of which schools to gift the books to was ass-backwards, IMO, but the gesture itself is really not out of the norm.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 3, 2017 7:01:58 GMT -5
I have no idea why my post warrants a follow-up defense of Cass's efforts. Kudos to Cass for those efforts, sincerely. As far as 10 books vs. 500 books, my point in regard to Melania stands. Donating 500, or 5,000, or 50,000 books doesn't mitigate the damage that Trump, the GOP, et al are doing to education. JMO. Okay, I get your point - the impact of the FLOTUS donating some books is less than the impact of signaling resistance by refusing her gift. I think you're wrong, but contrary to NT's point (and while I still disagree with a lot of it, it was well articulated, so honestly, thank you for that) I never objected to being "impolite" to the First Lady. I just think it's useless and counterproductive to extend your protest to "We won't even let her donate children's books to a library without making an issue of it." To the extent that you (general you) might succeed in hurting Melania's feelings (and I'll bet unlike the POTUS, Melania actually does have feelings to hurt), it won't change anything except force the First Lady to be less public and less likely to take on causes. It certainly won't change Trump's policies. So it strikes me as a feel-good bit of spite - you can't hurt Donald but maybe you can inflict some sting on his wife. NT's notion of "normalization" is an interesting one. I guess if you really do believe that the Trump presidency is an existential crisis, unlike anything that's happened before in US history, then extraordinary forms of protest (i.e. literally rejecting anything and everything from the administration) is a form of resistance. But I think a lot of the Left taking this position imagine themselves to be Resistance fighters opposing the Vichy regime, and I remain unconvinced that Trump is the end of the Republic. We've had some pretty terrible eras and some pretty terrible Presidents - admittedly, in periods when politics in general were pretty terrible for everyone but wealthy white men. Taking a hard-line "no negotiation, no grace, nothing but rage" attitude towards the opposition does not, I think, lead a way out of this mess. I'm considerably less sanguine than Cassandra about the value of bipartisanship or civility (she's a lawyer, lawyers pretty much have to be civil and follow highly constrained rules of etiquette even when trying to express in the courtroom how very much you think the opposing party is a useless piece of shit), but if there is no dialog at all, then really, there's nothing ahead but war.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 3, 2017 7:20:14 GMT -5
That was my personal tipping point. Republicans don't just play hardball. They stick spikes in the ball, coat the spikes with poison and kick the ball right into the balls of the Democrats. The Democrats just wince, say "ouch" and tell them not to play so rough. Because that's not in The Rules. I think we're really arguing about different things. I don't really disagree with you about obstructionism in Washington. I was focusing, much more narrowly, on the value of Soriero's protest against Melania's library donation. And on the honesty of her position, which is why the hypocrisy grates on me, whereas it seems inconsequential to you. To you, the value is in the message. To me, truth is the highest virtue. If you are intellectually dishonest in a good cause, you're still being intellectually dishonest and your cause is undermined. I don't think there is a connection between librarians rejecting gestures from the FLOTUS and a legacy of blocking Supreme Court nominees. I mean, sure, you can draw abstract connections between them, but the one will not affect the other. You don't really think anyone here has a problem with "candor" do you? That seems unlikely. As for Geisel's racist past - again, are we applying that level of scrutiny to everyone whose books are in the library? Or just books donated by the Trumps? Lynch references Katie Ishizuka's post on Blavity. Ishizuka's grandparents were interned during WWII. So it's understandable she has an issue with Geisel's wartime cartoons. But that doesn't make her arguments correct. Nel's book was more obliquely mentioned - looking at it, it seems like a typical university press book. Maybe it's well researched, maybe not, but given the standards of publication in the social sciences today, I think it's hardly a compelling argument because a professor wrote a book alleging that the Cat in the Hat is a minstrel character. This is a message board. No one thinks we need each other or we're changing the world. But if you're not here to talk and you're not here to advocate your position, why are you here? To nettle people? To rattle cages? You expect people who disagree with you to keep on their side of the street, but you'll jump on them if you think they're tragically wrong or racist? I don't care who you like or don't like. I just care whether someone is interesting and intelligent and honest. As to the tone, that's on you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 15:01:43 GMT -5
Starting from scratch here... It's my understanding that the FLOTUS donated ten books. That would be the FLOTUS, who's married to a billionaire who is also currently the President of the United States and who nominated Betsy FUCKING Davos as Secretary of Education. A donation of Cat in the Hat isn't mitigating that damage. At. All. So while I wouldn't personally respond as this particular librarian did (I tend to be all about the politeness and respectability politics and all that shit my mother taught me), I'm not condemning her, either. I'll also interject that the racist issues with the author of the books, while certainly not relevant in a vacuum of "great reads for kids," has become much more relevant in the world of Trump's "very fine" Nazis and his condemnation of black football players taking a knee to peacefully protest racism. Yes, yes, I know. It's more nuanced than that. But I don't fault the librarian for not being able to calmly accept ten books from the wife of a fucking racist. My opinion is akin to nighttimer's: Fuck Melania and her fucking ten fucking books. Seriously. PSA Read to your kids. Teach them to read. Dr. Seuss is good and fun. They'll love it. I love it. We all love it. Cat in the Hat FTW. /PSA I loved The Cat In the Hat and I never saw anything about it that seemed even vaguely racist, but eye of the beholder and all that. You raise a point I hadn't considered, Christine. Melania is the wife of a billionaire (or maybe less depending on his never-to-be-seen tax returns) and she donates TEN lousy books to a library? Hell, she could STOCK a library. How chintzy. Just so I'm clear on this, slut-shaming a woman is misogynistic and horrible...unless the woman you're slut-shaming is connected to Trump in some way, in which case it's perfectly fine to slut-shame them because, I mean, she totally deserves it "because Trump," amirite? And democrats wonder why the keep losing. Probably because pseudo "liberals" who sound like conservatives expend so much time bitching about what Democrats are doing instead of doing anything themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 15:14:08 GMT -5
you know what, nighttimer? cards on the goddamn table.
You keep sneering at me (among others) as a sit-on-your-ass whining do-nothing. But I've named things I've done, and in fact could name specific people I've actually HELPED in a measurable way by it.
can you?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 3, 2017 15:41:13 GMT -5
Just so I'm clear on this, slut-shaming a woman is misogynistic and horrible...unless the woman you're slut-shaming is connected to Trump in some way, in which case it's perfectly fine to slut-shame them because, I mean, she totally deserves it "because Trump," amirite? And democrats wonder why the keep losing. Probably because pseudo "liberals" who sound like conservatives expend so much time bitching about what Democrats are doing instead of doing anything themselves. Yes, because people on the far left attacking everyone (including those in their own party) who doesn't 100% agree with them on every virtue-signalling issue they can think of that week and Tweet-whining on the internet about being part of a "resistance" (as if they're part of some Star Wars movie or V for Vendetta) has really been effective at winning over "hearts and minds" to the Democratic Party, hasn't it? This is a type of tactic I've seen repeatedly used by many on the far left. "I know what'll win people over to our side! We'll just call them a bunch of names, over and over again, without ever addressing their actual argument or criticisms! That'll definitely convince those people that they're wrong and we're right! Viva la resistance!" This kind of warped "you're either with us or against us" mindset is a large reason why the Democratic Party is in its worst shape since before the Great Depression. And it seems to only be getting worse. But, when the winds change and rational liberals start calling out the hypocrisy and negativity of the extremists in their midst, I suppose it's a comforting defense mechanism to wrap oneself in the warm blanket of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I've seen it done in many places on the internet and news media. I've even seen that tactic here: I'm a "pseudo-liberal" because I call out extremism in my own party and try to make intelligent, fair, rational arguments and weigh evidence before making up my mind. I'm somehow "not a psychologist" and "not in the field" (even though I'm a voting member of 4 divisions of the APA) because I criticized other psychologists (clinical and non-clinical) for violating the professional ethics we all agree to when we become members of the APA. Why? "Because Trump." Personally, I feel that voting is a lot more effective than petulantly Tweeting, posting, and shouting down public speakers. Except that one involves getting off one's ass and the other mostly involves sitting on it and many on the left apparently can't be bothered to do the former possibly because they've wasted all of their energy doing the latter. If the left doesn't cut out the cancer of the Regressives, it will ruin itself as a party and a movement for decades to come (if it hasn't already). I guess only time will tell if rational, intelligent arguments and true compassion for others will eventually win out of angry tweets, hollow hashtags, and name-calling, ranting internet posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 16:25:57 GMT -5
you know what, nighttimer? cards on the goddamn table. You keep sneering at me as a sit-on-your-ass whining do-nothing. But I've named things I've done, and in fact could name specific people I've actually HELPED in a measurable way by it. can you? I'll add this: Based on your previous statements in this thread, I suspect your answer will be that it's none of my damn business what you do or don't do and not my place to judge and you don't care whether I think it's worthwhile. And you know what? That's true. I don't know. You may be Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King Jr. wrapped up in one in your personal life, for all I know, saving lives every damn day. But by the same token, you have no idea what anyone else here does or doesn't do, do you? None. And yet here you go making assumptions that none of us do anything but talk -- an assumption that in my case is not only untrue, but contradicted by my statements all over this board. So I'll add this AS A MOD: do not call people "do nothings" and accuse them of sitting on their ass and griping about those who act on their convictions unless you can demonstrate it is so. Because you don't know it's so and therefore it's an unsupported insult. Which makes it -- you guessed it: a personal attack. Moreover, you know what? It's irrelevant to whether what this librarian did was good or bad. It proves nothing about it one way or the other. Amadan can sit in the house 24/7/365 in his boxer shorts, and it still proves nothing about this librarian. It's just a slam on another member, period. Even so, hell, if you could actually support it, I'd let you rip and people could defend themselves if they wanted. That's just how I roll. But here, you can't. I'm not saying "be nice" or "kowtow to my opinion." If you want to say we're wrong as two left shoes about this librarian and show us inconsistencies and fallacies in what we've said and criticize us based on that, fine. Go for it all damn day with my blessing. Do it with a sledgehammer, if you like. But stop the unsupported accusations of do-nothingism. Needless to say, that also goes for the rest of you, by the way. A snide, "I wonder, Ms. Critical, whether you live up to all your fine rhetoric" can fly. Attacking someone's argument is not only fine, but encouraged. But accusing someone of something personal when you've got nothing to prove it-- yeah, no. Not cool.
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Oct 3, 2017 19:02:46 GMT -5
It's not YOUR place either, Cassandra. Go down your grocery list of grievances and gripes and grudges about what the Left is and isn't doing to your liking. Have a party and vent your spleen as much as you like. The fact remains while you're talking about resisting Trump, others are out there actually doing it. To build on Cass's comments, the above doesn't have a place on this board at all. I don't care what YOU are doing about anything, nighttimer. Or what anyone else is doing. And I have no way of knowing what any of you are doing, outside of what you post on this board. SO--and this applies to everyone--there's not going to be any "well, what the hell are YOU doing about it (whatever the "it" happens to be), buddy?" style posts directed at members. Because this board is for talking, discussing, and arguing. Pointing out ways to "do something" or resources for the same is fine. But berating other members for their perceived failures to "do something" is not. Clear? Also, this thread is littered with your misogyny, nighttimer. Most of it is directed at Melania, it is true, and that's okay, in the context of presenting a point of view (though the fact that you slam Trump for the same sort of attitude with your "President Pussygrabber" jibes makes you open to accusations of the same sort of hypocrisy as the librarian in this thread). But such stuff being leveled at other members (Cass, in this case) is not okay. Rule of thumb: for the purposes of replying to other members in political arguments on this board, everyone is the same, a disembodied voice with no sex, no age, no race, no religion etc. What matters is the argument/point, not the demographics of the person who made it (unless of course the person is specifically referencing such personal traits as a basis for their argument/point).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 3, 2017 20:15:33 GMT -5
you know what, nighttimer? cards on the goddamn table. You keep sneering at me as a sit-on-your-ass whining do-nothing. But I've named things I've done, and in fact could name specific people I've actually HELPED in a measurable way by it. can you? I'll add this: Based on your previous statements in this thread, I suspect your answer will be that it's none of my damn business what you do or don't do and not my place to judge and you don't care whether I think it's worthwhile. And you know what? That's true. I don't know. You may be Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King Jr. wrapped up in one in your personal life, for all I know, saving lives every damn day. But by the same token, you have no idea what anyone else here does or doesn't do, do you? None. And yet here you go making assumptions that none of us do anything but talk -- an assumption that in my case is not only untrue, but contradicted by my statements all over this board. So I'll add this AS A MOD: do not call people "do nothings" and accuse them of sitting on their ass and griping about those who act on their convictions unless you can demonstrate it is so. Because you don't know it's so and therefore it's an unsupported insult. Which makes it -- you guessed it: a personal attack. Moreover, you know what? It's irrelevant to whether what this librarian did was good or bad. It proves nothing about it one way or the other. Amadan can sit in the house 24/7/365 in his boxer shorts, and it still proves nothing about this librarian. It's just a slam on another member, period. Even so, hell, if you could actually support it, I'd let you rip and people could defend themselves if they wanted. That's just how I roll. But here, you can't. I'm not saying "be nice" or "kowtow to my opinion." If you want to say we're wrong as two left shoes about this librarian and show us inconsistencies and fallacies in what we've said and criticize us based on that, fine. Go for it all damn day with my blessing. Do it with a sledgehammer, if you like. But stop the unsupported accusations of do-nothingism. Needless to say, that also goes for the rest of you, by the way. A snide, "I wonder, Ms. Critical, whether you live up to all your fine rhetoric" can fly. Attacking someone's argument is not only fine, but encouraged. But accusing someone of something personal when you've got nothing to prove it-- yeah, no. Not cool. It's not YOUR place either, Cassandra. Go down your grocery list of grievances and gripes and grudges about what the Left is and isn't doing to your liking. Have a party and vent your spleen as much as you like. The fact remains while you're talking about resisting Trump, others are out there actually doing it. To build on Cass's comments, the above doesn't have a place on this board at all. I don't care what YOU are doing about anything, nighttimer. Or what anyone else is doing. And I have no way of knowing what any of you are doing, outside of what you post on this board. SO--and this applies to everyone--there's not going to be any "well, what the hell are YOU doing about it (whatever the "it" happens to be), buddy?" style posts directed at members. Because this board is for talking, discussing, and arguing. Pointing out ways to "do something" or resources for the same is fine. But berating other members for their perceived failures to "do something" is not. Clear? Also, this thread is littered with your misogyny, nighttimer. Most of it is directed at Melania, it is true, and that's okay, in the context of presenting a point of view (though the fact that you slam Trump for the same sort of attitude with your "President Pussygrabber" jibes makes you open to accusations of the same sort of hypocrisy as the librarian in this thread). But such stuff being leveled at other members (Cass, in this case) is not okay. Rule of thumb: for the purposes of replying to other members in political arguments on this board, everyone is the same, a disembodied voice with no sex, no age, no race, no religion etc. What matters is the argument/point, not the demographics of the person who made it (unless of course the person is specifically referencing such personal traits as a basis for their argument/point). These posts seem designed in order to receive a response if only to acknowledge it, and I do have a response, but it is not necessary to share it publicly.
|
|