I get it. Well not really. I don’t. I can’t imagine that pro-life and traditional values are so fucking high that white women would on average pick the pussygrabber over another woman. Blows my mind.
never forget that such women view the grabee as inviting it somehow. she wanted it or else she wouldn’t have invited it so hard
That’s why they’re so concerned about make up and clothing, otherwise a temptress devil whore. Not sure how that reconciles with men being uncontested leaders over women, if that’s the expected level of impulse control.
Something something Stockholm something
Sure, I know the concept, I just didn’t consider that it was overwhelmingly popular.
It is a lot easier to imagine Trump as the party of white men, who have some selfish desire to rebuild the patriarchy or whatever.
Sure. Maybe getting molested will convince you that it’s actually fine and dandy.
i have felt women are less likely to vote for another woman, even to a greater degree than men.
someone want to find the numbers?
If other women who are groped are raped deserved it because (their clothes were asking for it, they’re part of a marginalized group, etc.), then you as a woman are safe because you’re not trans and you don’t dress like one of those sluts. It’s extremely rare that good, white Christian women are assaulted. That kind of stuff happens in Democrat-run cities and the like.
It’s uncomfortable to think about all the other churches in town that were busted for molesting children, or that your Presidential candidate is a rapist. It’s more comfortable to remember it only happens to sluts and other people who deserved it.
You are making it into an ‘other’ thing, but it’s not uncommon enough to be that. Most white women voted for Trump.
And most have been at least groped at some point in their life, and have some friends or family who have been raped or abused.
I think its worthwhile and healthy to consider why people voting for Trump do so. Especially if you force yourself to not make the lazy conclusion that they’re simply ignorant and/or racist. Bill Maher makes this point. You can hate Trump but half the country is voting for him, so you can’t just get rid of all those people.
I think the Democratic party advocates/embodies things many people hate so much they’ll vote for Trump in spite of all the obvious negatives.
2 Likes
But from a very, very early age we’re repeatedly told that this is the women’s/girl’s/our faults when we say anything or complain about it. Many of us end up believing it. Many of us who don’t or no longer do still have the first unsolicited thought that pops into our head when we hear about incidents be victim blaming in nature.
I have to make a conscious effort EVERY TIME to not do this and it gets harder the farther away (in years) I get from being a regular victim.
3 Likes
Let’s look at this from a yard sign perspective. A Democratic yard sign states: “In this house we believe: Black Lives Matter, Women’s Rights Are Human Rights, No Human is Illegal, Science is Real, Love is Love, Kindness is Everything.”
I will use the term bigot as an umbrella for all the hates that do not treat all humans as equals (racism, misogyny, etc.)
Opposition to:
Black Lives Matter - bigot or ignorant.
Women’s Rights Are Human Rights - bigot or ignorant (A religion may teach the bigotry but it is still bigotry)
No Human Is Illegal - bigot or ignorant (being for a closed border or strict border control is not ignorant, voting for R’s because you believe the D’s want open borders is ignorant.)
Science is Real - ignorant. (This includes the prevalence of lies and fictions labeled as “alternate facts” by the R’s)
Love is Love - bigot
Kindness is Everything - Here’s a point that’s up for debate. Sadly, the R’s I know and see in the media (their media) believe they are the kind ones and the D’s are the hateful ones.
Othering language is powerful. The Rs generate a strong emotional response of fear and/or anger of us vs them (e.g. tax-paying citizens vs “illegals”, good Christians vs whoring abortionists, etc) regardless of what’s true. Classic first step of dehumanizing, because then treating those deplorables like they’re subhuman is okay.
1 Like
Fox news and right wing media has spent decades making all those things something their viewers can acceptably hate. Because liberal/democrat.
It is absolutely human nature to be uncomfortable with things you don’t understand. Republicans know this, and leverage it for power. For example, I would guess the first thought for many of them if you mention BLM to be something like riots in the streets and cities being burned to the ground. How we got there is a complicated series of events, but its really easy to show some video of a car burning and blame that on democrats.
I think you can form constructive arguments against things like protecting abortions at the federal level, or DEI initiatives, and have reasonable debates on those things. It’s a lot easier to say democrats kill babies that are half born and to question if black pilots on airplanes are qualified.
Just look at Trump. He might represent republican views very well, but does it in the most hateful way possible. It takes about 20% of the population to say that’s an electable feature, and another 25% to at worst shrug if off. And literally no one else in the GOP can even suggest their side is broken without becoming a RINO.
Policy and governance are now secondary. Democrats have their own blinders on thinking Biden is electable for a second term, but even the slightest mention of MAGA republicans by him or anyone else is instantly churned into elitism, which it is. Its the hypocrisy that is difficult to ignore.
1 Like
Well I guess we just accept the echo chamber.
I find this to be a meaningless statement unless a lot of context is assumed. Like, I doubt anyone is suggesting we be like the movie Snowpiercer where some people’s very existence is illegal. But what if a person from country A does activity B in country C without the requisite visa? (Yes, I get the point about manipulating perceptions through the use of terminology via “illegal” versus “undocumented”.)
A tautology that is obviously true on its face. Again, you need to assume a lot of context to form a meaningful political statement.
2 Likes
I suppose the context is an assertion that all love is morally equal and should thus receive the same acceptance and entitlements. But then we have to define “love”. Is sex love? Is polygamy love? Is love of ________ love? No, you just have to know that this slogan is comparing committed opposite-sex relationships with committed same-sex relationships.
“Illegal immigrant” is different than “illegal.” (Undocumented terminology aside.) It’s a descriptive term for the means of which one became an immigrant vs a different category. This is similar to the nuance pointed out here between “trans woman” vs “transwoman” (descriptor vs noun). Or “autistic” vs “a person with autism” (people on both sides with that one).
1 Like
Yeah, the first construct makes sense to me, the second does not. Sorry, I missed the parts of the thread where those other terminology differences were discussed.
By here, I meant GoA. “Trans woman” is describing a woman, like Irish woman or blond woman. “Transwoman” is a different noun than “woman” with the language implying that a transwoman is not a woman. I’d not previously considered the difference that space makes until it was pointed out to me here on GoA.
Anyway, in trying to be a better human, I pay more attention to divisive language.
1 Like