Jaicee said:
...Does anyone seriously question whether I am the most serious women's advocate here? Seriously? How often does anyone else here even talk about women's issues without specifically my prompting? Does anyone here seriously believe that I hold the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is female against her? That that's my unspoken true reason for disliking her campaign? I do feel that, all in all, the fact that people so much more often have complaints on offer about the women in this campaign than about the men is something notable, especially considering that only a small minority of the Democratic candidates who have declared to run over the course of the campaign season (6 out of a total of I believe 29) have been women and also considering that virtually this whole forum is male aside from me. I'm certainly not faulting you for supporting a female candidate! I hope you don't take it that way because that would be just silly. For most of this campaign, I have supported the feminist women running (e.g. Warren, Gillibrand, and what's more even Harris and Williamson were on my radar of real consideration for a while, as some may recall) in part because I really want to see a woman be elected president, though I've more recently reached the conclusion that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for me overall. But not every woman is a feminist. Not every woman does or would use a position of power to help other women. Moreover, a feminist isn't always right just for being one. It is also not just automatically misogyny to criticize an individual woman running for public office, even harshly. Unlike many others on this forum, I think you'll find that I'm pretty even-handed when it comes to both compliments toward and criticisms of the men and women in this race respectively. I have laid out my opinion of Tulsi Gabbard at length before and don't feel the need to do so again right now. Also, elsewhere in your post you called for people like me to be banned from this forum, and apparently three other people agreed with you on that. If people really feel that way, then hey, I can leave. I feel like I've offered this thread a lot more than just the occasional snide remark about what yes I really feel are the questionable loyalties of one candidate and that certain other of our contributors (cough, Uran, cough!) contribute little other than similarly aggressive attacks on specific candidates to this thread while by contrast no one (let alone you, our resident libertarian anti-censorship guy) calls for them to be banned, but okay. I will leave. |
I don't think you should be banned, I probably overreacted, but even that post was directed at 2 or 3 people here (like the other 2 I quoted there). The ones who simply swoop in and drop the "Russian or Republican traitor" slander bs while offering nothing to back it up and little more elsewhere - stuff that's simply meant to provoke while providing nothing else of substance. You've definitely offered plenty of insight, some of it great. I just thought it was something to consider (at least good for a warning perhaps), especially since someone got banned for dropping a statistic (which actually DOES seem to have some merit), and again, I did not mean you.
I dunno.. I guess I just need to realize this is a DEMOCRAT political thread and the Russian conspiracy theory thing is just an integral thing that's part and parcel to the modern day ideals/platform of the party, regardless of how asinine I think it is. So naturally, this topic is going to have a ton of "so-and-so is totally a Russian, maaaan!" for devout followers OF that party.. That same way a Republican thread might get a lot of "so-and-so is clearly a dirty commie/terrorist/satanist maaaan!" I just, coming from a liberal/libertarian largely OUTSIDE the realm of the Democrats find these notions absolutely absurd with zero basis but that's just me I guess.. I do feel if you're going to throw those smears and wild accusations (along with the so-and-so is a secret Republican), at least back them up with some insight as to WHY you have this suspicion. Which you've at least made an attempt to do somewhat. I still think it's completely asinine but at least you went beyond just the drive-by smears.
Regarding the other point - I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in defaulting to "other female candidates being criticized more seemingly because they're female" yet apparently this accusation doesn't apply to Tulsi.
Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 06 December 2019
"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden
