It’s Election Time

Uh, that's a great rant and all, but I never actually said, "all Trump supporters are racist." However, all Trump supporters [I]are[/I] enabling racism, whether that's intentional or not.

Man I'm just pissed off because of the amount of time's I've seen friends and other people who's general ideas I agree with just... railing on people who voted for or supported Trump and putting them into neat little categories as an excuse to write them off. My point is that, while they might be enabling it, they might not know they're enabling it, and that's a very important distinction to make when dealing with anyone who did support Trump.

There's also the fact that with the people who are willingly enabling it and are aware of it, some of them you might be able to change the minds of.

I'm just very rudely asking you to please put that into consideration before you sit there and lump anyone in as being "part of the problem". It's like the Marx approach vs the King Jr approach. There's a reason King's the one that's constantly looked back upon and why his approach is the one that made a difference in the end, even if it cost him his life.

Wait, you're saying Marx isn't appreciated by history?

Okay I'm just baiting you now. Look, I'm tired and honestly I could wax lyrical about Trump and how he came to be where he is for hours. We'd probably agree more than we disagree, but I'm tired as hell and I'm probably not doing either of us justice.

To summarise what I think: Trump bad. Trump supporters not all bad, but all causing bad either directly or indirectly.

Immigrant is not a race, nor are the Mexicans.

Being attracted to women does not make you a sexist. Being a douche about it does not make you a sexist either. And Trump is a giant douche. Yet he never said anything about women being inferior to men, nor about taking their rights just because they're women.

Fucking [I]hell[/I], Varrok. Can you actually see what your typing from so far up Trump's arsehole??

You're*

You are an insufferable damp cloth.

Of all the sides of this blogpost-turned-flame war, I think these are the real winners. They're probably sitting back, munching on popcorn as they watch our petty, plebeian squabbles.

Anywhere there's discourse there are spectators not far away

“Immigrant” is shorthand for “someone who came from a foreign country”, AKA a “foreigner”. Foreigners are a very common target for discrimination based on their different ethnic background – AKA, racism.

Mexicans are people from Mexico, and are typically of Mestizo or Amerindian ethnicity. And just as with other foreigners, they are a target for discrimination based on their different ethnic background.


“Being a douche about it” is a nice way of saying he acts in an aggressive and misogynist way towards women.


He frequently objectifies women, boasts of forcing himself on women he finds attractive, insults them based purely on appearance, and promotes his views that women should act as traditional housewives and that “putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing”. All of this was documented in the link in my previous post.

Not forgetting the numerous sexual assault claims that have and are currently being made against him, dating back to the 1980s.

Oh, and actually he did actually explicitly say he plans to repeal Roe vs Wade, the law which guarantees women the right to have an abortion. So he is taking away their rights.


I sometimes wonder why the people who slam any kind of disagreement over a contentious issue as “triggering” are so intellectually dishonest. All it is is an attempt to shut down and ignore their opponent’s opinions by labelling them as “offended” rather than discuss the issues they raise openly.

If you think people are “triggered” because they’re disagreeing with each other, I’m sorry to say you’re wrong.

I'm so sorry that words do not travel on the Internet the same way that tone does.

I'm saying they won because they view this debacle as entertainment; rather than argue on a side, they watch it like a circus. Therefore, no matter what happens, they get their fill of watching people furiously scramble for points and counterpoints in a heated Internet argument that will be forgotten in a matter of days. And, since they aren't the ones being torn apart in the Internet coliseum, they don't lose anything.

Therefore, they make their profit in the form of entertainment. Slog Bait summed it up quite nicely.

Have any of you watched the full video from 2005? It seems like some of you haven't. In the video, he said nothing sexist. He was just talking about women, is that so bad? We all say and do things behind closed doors that we wouldn't do in public. You cannot say that you have not bad mouthed someone or said something inappropriate when society was not there to judge you

Now what kind of a messed up definition of racism is that?
Racism is based on race. It's a belief that one race is superior to other. Don't rewrite the definitions just so you can call non-racist people racist.

Newsflash: People judge the looks of others.

Saying some girl is a "nice piece of ass", as infantile as it is, is not belittling. It's admitting one's attractiveness.

Varrok if you wanna deal with women you're gonna have to learn that we don't like to be objectified. Mostly we know we're attractive, we don't need the affirmation of men to boost our egos. ✊

Besides, the only men that seem to catcall or offer their unasked for opinions on women's bodies look as if they share their genetics with a cane toad.

You can't generalize like that. I know plenty of infantily women who take infantile text like that I quoted as a compliment.

Plus I never said that's a good thing to say, nor that I act like this. I just said it's not sexism.

Because it isn't.

I wouldn't necessarily label someone a sexist based on one thing they said like that, even if it was about pussy grabbing or whatever. Sometimes people say dumb shit, or speak out of line trying to impress someone. It isn't a good thing to say but that one thing in my mind doesn't make him a sexist.

I do think Trump is sexist though.

Can't agree more.

Yet somehow there's no solid proof for that.

That's probably because you dismissed all the solid proof presented to you. Manco wrote entire paragraphs that you just ignored, and honestly people dismissing all the comments Trump made about women (not to mention wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, as Manco also mentioned) as not being sexism only shows how deeply ingrained sexism is in our society in the first place.

I didn't ignore them, silly. I debunked them, they were fundamentally incorrect.

If you think you debunked his arguments, you're the only one.

Fun fact: racism is very difficult to define because the concept of race is very poorly defined and has mostly been abandoned in scientific discussions. Thus, the definition of racism is unclear, and can be used quite broadly. I think when xenophobia is directed towards foreigners, particularly foreigners who come from non-white and non-European countries (as Trump has done when demonizing Mexicans and Muslims), it is acceptable to define that as racism.


It’s called objectification, which is a rather derogatory thing to do.


I do get when you mean here, and I would agree that most people have said something in poor taste without it making them sexist/racist/etc.

But, there’s a couple of issues with applying this to Trump. Firstly, Trump is a very wealthy and powerful man, he has little to no need to impress anyone – so trying to impress people with these comments is rather unnecessary. Second, the comments he made were specifically boasting about him forcing himself on to women, which I think goes beyond what can reasonably be described a joke in poor taste. Third, this is not an isolated incident in Trump’s case, as he has made many derogatory comments in both private and public, and even on the record in interviews; plus he has had many allegations of rape, sexual and physical assault made against him over the years (including his ex-wife).


I directed you to this link more than once, and you’ve still yet to even acknowledge it let alone “debunk” it.

But hey, that’s your schtick and you’ve done it before in previous discussions we’ve had, so I’m not surprised.


EDIT:
Sorry, I forgot to reply. I guess I did pick your tone up wrong before – I agree, they’ll get their entertainment either way. I don’t really mind though – those of us taking part aren’t really losing anything except the time we put in.

Look, Varrok. Trump has said on numerous occasions that he thinks a woman's appearance is a determining factor in how successful she is. Objectification or no, he holds men and women to different standards in a professional setting based solely on their gender, and regardless of who it flatters or insults, that is sexism.

I also can't tell if his sudden plea to defund Planned Parenthood was just a part of his attempt to rally all the republicans he lost support from during his campaigning for the nomination or if he really wants to do that now because initially he said he wanted to keep the services open and available since he'd rather have it available to those in need rather than letting his citizens die in the streets.

This is generally how I feel about it, and I always think it's time well spent when I do engage in discussions like these since I walk away with other people's perspectives on a matter. It's nice.

I'd like to point out that--to the best of my knowledge--y'all are men, and as such you can't understand Trump's sexism in the same way that women can. When you say, "Trump's words don't account to sexism," it is proof of your privilege, because you will never have to actually deal with that sort of hateful gender speech.

Sure, if someone cracks a sexist joke, it doesn't make them inherently sexist, but it does normalise sexism and affirm the existing patriarchal gender distinction that--on a whole--puts women on a lower rung than men. [I]It makes you [U]part[/U] of the problem.[/I]

Trump is overtly a misogynist. He is hateful, churlish, offensive and has had numerous claims of rape and sexual harassment levied against him. The fact that some of you don't care makes you part of the problem. The fact that you defend him and say, 'he just said some dumb things', makes you part of the problem.

These issues are pretty black and white, in my opinion; you either tear down established discrimination or you reinforce it.

You're making this more confusing that it needs to be. There are "white" (caucasian) people, there are "black people". There are asian people. There are others, and mixes. Those are races. Mexican is a nationality.

Also, there's a term called "ethnocentrism". What about that one?

Is "hunk" a derogatory term? It's basically the same and it's quite hard for me to find any men in my local area that would say they feel belittled by being called that by females.

I don't think it goes beyond that. I think that might be a joke in a very poor taste. Don't underestimate poor taste jokes.

I did read/watch the whole thing you linked before posting. I apologize if you found my laconic answer a sign of lack of acknowledgement.

Watching the "bus talk" I do not hear a sexist man saying anything about women in general, but rather a powerdrunk, sexually frustrated man with the need to impress others with how successful he is with the ladies. That is most pitiful behavior, but it is not sexism, as much as some of you might want to believe that.

Nor is being vulgar. Nor is insulting/praising others' looks. And all the so called "hard proofs" are basically that. Nothing more. Not every mean-spirited person is a sexist.

The first matter is admitting one's good looks is more often than not... admitting one's good looks, nothing more. If your intent is to say that women don't like compliments... that's a generalization, and you shouldn't take this as "ultimate truth" about all women.

Your experience differs greatly from mine. Do you hang around only with other radical feminists? I'm asking because I know plenty from each social circle, and I can tell you this varies. A lot.

You can't put an equal sign between this and belief that women are inferior to men, though.

Also, insults usually don't help in any meaningful conversation.

It is a big factor, for both sexes. The main difference is that a person might thing it's *good*, or the other might think it's *bad*, or just states the observation.

Now that sounds a bit like sexism to me. Or at least like guilt by association, which I'm not falling for. Definitely sounds like repeated propaganda.

This sounds like it, too. Also, apparently 9/11 jokes made terrorist attacks seem like a perfectly fine thing in the modern society. And holocaust jokes made it happen again.

You don't seem to understand comedy. The point of it is how absurd it is.

I am not a part of the problem. "A part of the problem" is meaningless, it doesn't mean anything. You might use this as an appeal to one's emotions, but rational discussions aren't about emotions, but facts.

But that's the thing, you acknowledge it's something that effects everyone, and don't put it entirely on women. In every instance where Trump mentioned appearance equating to success, he did not a single time that I know of ever says a man's appearance is a determining factor in his success. Instead, he places it on how attractive the man's girlfriend or wife at the time is if he brings up appearance at all.

What I'm saying is entirely from observation. And, what I'm saying is, regardless of who it benefits or hinders, regardless of who it insults or flatters, he holds men and women to different standards in a professional setting. That's sexism. Is it hyper aggressive in your face accusatory sexism like what Sybil dished out? No. But, it's still sexism.

What I mean is, he might have noticed the phenomenon, but did he *hire* women just because of how they look and nothing else? Or at least say that it's good to do so?

Literally nothing anyone said in this thread is radical feminism. I see mainstream feminism, and I see people defending sexism. Nothing else, viewpoint-wise.

This part was directed to Sybil Ant, as she proclaimed herself as a radical feminist in her welcome thread.

Quoting blogs/blogcomments is painful. I hope now the quote sources are clearer.

That I don't know about, but coupling his "observation" with the derogatory terms he threw at women he didn't find conventionally attractive in positions of power, or that whole Miss America ordeal, I have a feeling he might dabble in what he preaches. I'll get back to you if I see something that backs up my theory.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the hunch, but I do not consider hunches valid grounds for accusations.