Whoopi Goldberg is a sexist and a racist

Post Reply New Topic

I do read threads thoroughly. What sort of misunderstanding? I'm sure I've made some mistakes--but who hasn't?

Ive had occasions where people have not completely read what I wrote, thus causing misunderstandings.

That doesn't mean I will ignore the person. I'll just point out the mistake....like people are supposed to do.

If I make a mistake, I own up to it. And I will seek to rectify it.

i sense that people have something against me for some reason.

So here we are LOL.

All I did within a thread was question whether, say, BLM was a racist organization, or whether or not "institutional" racism exists. I stated my opinion, and I got raked because of it. Fine....that goes with the territory. My opinion still stands, as yours does. Such is the world.

Then we got into spats dealing with how one conducts a debate. Please do remember: i never stated that THE RESULTS OF RESEARCH IS NOT A CREDIBLE WAY TO PROVE A "TRUTH." All I said was that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESULTS OF PEER-REVIEWED, DOUBLE-BLIND, ETC RESEARCH. That's it.

Then we got a little personal--on both sides. I was called out for it, deservedly.

Then I was informed that I don't like substantial subject matter, and that all I'm interested in is "lighthearted" stuff. Not true. Sometimes, though, weighty opinions can be expressed in few words, rather than in long dissertations. I'm all for the long dissertations--so why can't we all be for the "few words as well"--which might not be "corroborated" via social science research studies. Life experiences counts as least as much as the results of research studies, though admittedly it is less "objective" than research studies.

In the future, I will try to do better in all aspects. If you want to ignore me, fine....that techique's been around since the Dawn of Man. I would like to be friends with you. But if you don't want that, then that's okay, too.

That's all I can do, really, strive to improve the way I come across. If it doesn't yield results, then it doesn't yield results.

Such is life.

Have a lovely day, Folks.

Get real. When a thread on PPR gets into the double digit numbers of pages no one "reads the the whole thread" except for the few hot headed dedicated axe grinders who kept the thread going that long in the first place.

Second:Krafty always means well. Doesnt have a hostile cell in his body. Any long time WP member can vouch for that. Folks do sometimes wrongly think that he is bullying them or something.Have seen that. But thats always a misunderstanding.

However: I do get why folks get irritated when he posts things that are obvious - and does so without making it obvious WHY he is stating the obvious.

Like once he stated "it is my opinion that the Holy Bible was created by the ancient Hebrews in order to glorify their god".

No different than saying "it is my opinion that the Holy Bible is the Holy Bible".

He repeats the dictionary definition of X as if it were his "opinion" about X.

I am not ignoring you kraftie; I have just said all I want to say on this subject.

I will add that I find it ironic that such a kerfuffle breaks out on a thread about The View.

Yes and no. Being proudly so is antithetical; being so in some factors is part of being raised in this country, marinated in (for example) tv shows that portray black people as sidekicks or thugs and women as rescue-objects, starting with Saturday morning cartoons.
Being racist or sexist is not a black-and-white thing; even people who have worked their whole lives against racism or sexism occasionally find little habits of thinking or parts of their behavior that have racist or sexist origins or effects. To take a relatively benign example that I recently learned about, a lot of white people are apparently really transfixed with black womens' hair: there are certain styles that are considered 'radical' (not just the afro) and other styles (usually ones that mimic white people's hair) that are considered 'professional' or 'normal.' So, for example, I've always thought that the little teeny braids were pretty, but apparently that's a 'radical' hairstyle to some people - who don't recognize that the 'normal' hairstyles take lots of harsh chemicals and absurd daily maintenance to keep up (&/or tremendous $$$).
(something that just came across my Twitter feed: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 080916.php)

It's not that you're racist if you think that some hairstyles are 'normal,' it's that that is what the culture apparently conveys & you won't know how harmful they are to black women until someone informs you.

Did I say that?
What I do think is that a lot of peoples' criticisms of Hillary are things that they would not say if she were a man: complaining that she's 'political,' that she's 'cold,' etc.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-c ... nts/24196/

Off the top of my head? 5-15%.
But it is representative of an actual problem in the progressive movement. A sort of 'if I've never experienced it, it could not possibly exist or be true' factor in some ...shall we say, insulated/privileged populations.

I don't think that anyone wants to 'prevent a woman from being elected,' I just think that there are some who have such ridiculously high standards for women candidates that they would never vote for one who was actually electable.

*snicker*
Remember when the Rs said that about Obama being black?

Ironically, I could only agree with the thread title if we were using the definitions of racist and sexist espoused by the social justice people, but since I use the real definitions...

I don't think that this is really racism though. There is a significant difference between having subconscious biases, which everyone has regardless of their upbringing, and being a person who accepts and embraces racial biases on the basis that a given racial group, in their view, is inferior. Subconscious biases have been shown to have much more to do with ingroup-outgroup bias than they do with racism.

I was raised in this country, and I cannot recall watching a single cartoon or show that portrayed black people or women this way. I'd like to see some examples if you have them. But I did watch the Power Puff Girls with my sisters, which was a popular show about three kindergarten girls with super powers, who used those powers to beat the s**t out of evil men and monsters. Seems like a pretty empowering cartoon for girls. I also remember watching Everybody Hates Chris as an older kid, which is about Chris Rock, and features a ton of black main and supporting characters. It also takes place in the 80s, so racism is a common theme in the show.

By the way, there is nothing inherently wrong with portraying a woman as a damsel in distress or a black person as a thug, because some women and blacks fit that description. To make those types of characters not allowed would be to censor reality. Unless this is literally every show or most shows that do this (which it clearly is not), or there are obvious racist and sexist messages in a given show, I can't see why that is necessarily a bad thing. Creators should be allowed to have creative freedom, and should not be censored unless they have an explicitly hateful or violent message.

To further make my point: I played Super Mario as a kid, which features Peach as a damsel in distress. This did not cause me to think that all women are frail princesses who need saving, nor did it convince me to go around stomping on turtles or wearing raccoon skins. Playing Pokemon does not give me the desire to get involved in dog fighting. GTA does not make me want to steal cars, shoot hookers or rob convenient stores. Etc. etc. etc.


Like I said, everyone has biases, and it has more to do with culture and ingroup-outgroup biases than it does with actual racism. Real racism is being biased against a race of people because you think they are inferior in some way. I'm not saying I think it's fair, I just don't think that is racism. It's similar to piercings and tattoos being seen as unprofessional.


I don't see how it's harmful. An inconvenience, yes, and probably a stupid rule. There is no objective reason why black hairstyles are unprofessional, other than that they are just not the norm. But here is a similar example: in many jobs, men are not allowed to have facial hair. Even though it is totally natural, it is viewed as unprofessional, unhygienic etc. However, this is clearly not sexism towards men, even though it is a bias that is almost exclusively applied to men just by nature of what it is. It is definitely an inconvenience; it can also be irritating to the skin for some men (like me), and I personally consider it a stupid rule. But my solution has been just to deal with it until I find a better job. I certainly never viewed it as sexist.


By bringing it up in the context of this discussion, you are implying it. If not, why bring it up? You are implying that it is an at least somewhat significant factor in the anti-Hillary sentiment among Bernie supporters, completely disregarding that not only is this just an assumption, but there are tons of women in the Bernie movement who still have a very strong negative opinion about Hillary for reasons completely unrelated to her gender. How do you explain that?


First of all, those are definitely not the main criticisms directed at Hillary. Whether she is cold or not is inconsequential compared to all her other flaws. I'm pretty sure that most of the people who don't like her are more concerned about the fact that she is a liar and a criminal.

However, I don't think it is inaccurate to say she is cold, nor do I think that people say that just because she is a woman (which is your assumption, not a fact). Nobody says such things about Michelle Obama, because Michelle is more expressive and seems more genuine than Hillary (at least in my opinion, but I think many would agree). I think it is the way Hillary talks; the inflections of her voice sound kind of robotic, almost like one of those text-to-speech programs. Maybe it is partially influenced by the fact that she's a woman, but she really isn't very charismatic in the way she speaks.


This is genuinely hilarious. Thank you for making me laugh.

A candidate's "Politifact scorecard" is not the be all end all test of a candidate's honesty. But the funnier thing is that if you actually read the details of those scores, as in the specific lies they told, instead of just accepting this silly article at face-value, you would see how much worse Hillary is. Certain lies are probably more consequential than others, would you agree?

Bernie had no "Pants on Fire" lies (as in, really bad ones) according to Politifact, and all of his false statements were basically harmless. I don't endorse lying, but it's not like his campaign is riding on those lies. Most of it was just misleading statistics or random facts that sound good, like "American's work longer hours than any other people in the world," when it's that Americans actually work longer than most others, not all. Not a big deal in my opinion.

Hillary, on the other hand, had 5 "Pants on Fire" lies. Let's see what they are.

1. Hillary says, regarding the presence of classified information in her email, FBI Director James "Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people." Nope. Completely false. Also seems kind of important, given that this is classified information she was dealing with, and she is running for president, which would give her access to ALL the classified information. But you know, minor details. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -comey-ca/

2. "I am the only candidate who ran in either primary who said, ‘I will not raise taxes on the middle class.’" You know, except for 15 candidates in the Republican primary, but whatever. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat ... maries-ni/

3. "I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against." Once again, a totally blatant lie. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... reet-atta/

4. "I remember landing under sniper fire." Even though the video shows her casually greeting people, shaking hands etc. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... o-snipers/

5. Obama "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan." Nice. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... u-clinton/

Support her all you want, but she is not honest by any stretch of the imagination.


So, clearly a minority. I doubt it's even as high as 5%, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, Whoopi dismissing Bernie protesters for supporting a white guy as if that is the reason they support him is totally ridiculous.


I'm not saying it could not possibly exist, but I am saying that it doesn't make a lot of sense that this would be the case, and more importantly I have seen no evidence of it. I also see no reason to believe it's there just because you say so.


I don't think having a little integrity and not having the FBI investigating you for violating the Espionage Act is a ridiculously high standard for a candidate. I think you just have a really low standard for women.


Obama did get 93% of the black vote. That's pretty high. Also, blacks turned out for elections at higher rates than whites for the first time in 2012, which means he got even more. So yeah, the black vote actually was a contributing factor. Do some research.

Your condescending dismissal of what I said does not make me wrong. You cannot deny that at least a portion of Hillary supporters are supporting her just because she is a woman, or largely because of it. Not only that, here you are, thinking that the only possible reason people don't like Hillary is because she is a woman. You are living proof of what I'm talking about.

By the SJW definition of racism, Whoopi cannot be racist or sexist because she is a black woman. Even if I were to pull back my accusation of racism and agree that she isn't really a racist, you cannot honestly think that what she said was fair. How many times to I have to reiterate this? She literally said she can't care if Bernie is treated unfairly, because he's a white guy. That is it. It doesn't matter if it's understandable to some people why she said it, the statement is still unjustified.

She just sounds exasperated to me, putting the matter in a context that explains her exasperation.

I quite like Whoopi (though admitedly that's largely based on frequent viewing of Jumping Jack Flash in my youth, I haven't seen her in much of late), but her remarks on Polanski and 'rape rape' were beyond stupid.

I take your point, but I would rather change the definition of 'racism' to be a spectrum, not all-or-nothing. By the all-or-nothing definition, no: that is not racism.

From my memories of cartoons that actually included females or black people (many of them didn't): Loony toons had virtually no female characters, and those that existed were there only as targets for the male characters to fight over; one occasionally recurring counter-example was the mother hen whose son was constantly blowing up Foghorn Leghorn. Any minorities that appeared were ridiculous caricatures.
Ghostbusters had the annoying secretary who was in love with Egon and had no other personality; occasional women were either rescue objects or castrating feminists. They did at least have one African American with a real personality.
The Smurfs had one female, who was literally created by the evil sorcerer in order to seduce the Smurfs into his clutches. Even after she turned good, she had no personality other than to be pretty.
GI Joe had one woman that I recall - Scarlet? who was ok if not very interesting.
Tom & Jerry had a black housekeeper who swatted Tom with a broom.
Gargoyles had one evil woman and one good woman.
Ninja Turtles had one woman, the 'sexy' reporter.
Thundercats had a couple of females with actual personalities and one black-representative character, good for them!
Darkwing Duck had a daughter, a love-interest, and a villianess.
Duck Tails had ...The nanny? and a little girl.
Tail spin had the annoying boss and a little girl.

Even on 'good' shows, male characters outnumber female characters by 2:1.


After my time, but I'll take your word for it.

Sure, but that's so often ***all*** you see. For example, in the crime shows you see one woman after another surprised at home, holding her hands up and shrieking, 'Please don't hurt me!' I want just one of them to have a gun, or a dog, or some martial arts training, to at least fight back even if she still has to end up shot for the plot of the show.

No, really, it is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... years.html
http://www.indiewire.com/2015/02/sorry- ... rst-65220/
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/women ... 201429016/
https://www.nyfa.edu/film-school-blog/g ... y-in-film/
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013 ... itewashed/


1)Myths teach us, as children, what to look out for or what is good and moral. Basically half the population had no cartoon role models when I was I child. Kudos to Power-Puff girl superheroes.
2)Shows are more interesting and complex when characters of both genders are fully developed.
3)Shows with more than white dudes make more money.
http://www.thewrap.com/movies-with-dive ... udy-finds/

Who's talking censorship? Advocating for more women & minorities is very different from saying 'No more shows with only white guys, or else!'

Ok. And how do you think the girls your age felt about the entire goal of the game being to rescue a girl? Probably a big 'Meh,' right?

Except in this case it's the chemical poison treatment that is 'professional.'

Can't make an air-tight seal with a facemask for airborne precautions with a beard, but nowadays we have whole-head respirators


I thought feminism was BS the first time I took a feminism 101 class at about 19. In the years since, I've had shock after shock realizing that holy s**t, what they said in that class about ...x was right.
It's also entirely possible, as evidenced by your more-recent example of a girl-heroes cartoon, that things have gotten better since I was the age of most of the serious Bernie-supporters. I would hope so, anyway.
But there is some sexism there. This is mainly about HRC vs. Trump, but there is a bit about Bernie in there in one part or the other: http://www.salon.com/2016/08/09/trying- ... cant-deal/

A 'liar' with the highest honesty ratings on Factcheck and a 'criminal' who has never been convicted despite multiple tries and millions of dollars spent investigating her.

Michelle pivoted into the traditional role of the First Lady more easily than Hillary did.

I will grant you that. Obama she is not.

sure. I don't think that changes the fact that she's no worse, and mostly better, than the other candidates in truth-telling.

My problem is not that Hillary used a private server for privacy, but that it was goddamn stupid on a security level to do so. One of my main concerns about her (but which none of the other candidates do much better on) is that she seems to have no fundamental understanding of internet security on a private or international level. FFS, the Dems have been hacked *multiple times* now!

So easily disprovable that I wonder if she misspoke.

Ok, yeah, that's a bad one ;P

She probably genuinely does remember that, and that news reporter who got fired recently probably really did remember being shot down. Our memories are re-written, and often conflated or combined with other memories or stories, every time we recall them - even memories of dramatic events.

Being 'honest' is not the same as being 'more honest' or 'not less dishonest.' She's a politician, and has been for pretty much her entire adult life.

Heh. That doesn't exactly contradict my point... there's actual data to support me in the various links I've provided.

I disagree. Personal unlikablity aside, HRC is supremely qualified to be president. Bernie less so.

And HRC is on track to get 100% of it.

As if I hadn't just said '5-15%.' If it's not about you, then it's not about you. Don't be so sensitive.

Here's another few essays on the topic (teh first is written by a man, no less!):http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/the_secret_to_bernie_sanders_success_he_s_not_a_woman.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thrity-um ... 47092.html

No, not because he's white, but because the history of unfairness here makes certain complaints look insignificant in comparison. What she said was both a fair point and a true one.

It's not the "all-or-nothing definition", it is the accurate definition. I'm not saying biases are in all cases acceptable, but there's a difference between having cultural bias, subconscious bias etc. and being a racist.

Unfortunately in our society, we've been taught that, in the case of racial bias, there should be no distinction based on intent. So someone who perhaps misspoke is put in the same category with someone who openly says that black people are inferior. This diminishes the meaning of the word completely. (I realize the irony considering my title; I was kind of pissed off at the time I wrote it, though I was mostly trying to grab people's attention. Clearly it backfired on me, but I guess that was deserved.)

What matters is intent. Someone with biases but who does not intend to have such biases can be taught, but not if they are labeled a racist. That is such a strong word; it is used to describe a hateful person. If someone is biased, or a culture is biased, why not just call it biased? The "racist" label should be reserved for people who openly support racial discrimination, believe some races are inferior or superior etc.


All of these examples seem totally harmless to me. Most of these shows I have not watched extensively if at all, but I can say about Ninja Turtles that April, the reporter, was a main character, and she certainly wasn't portrayed as just eye candy. She was a strong-willed, intelligent character that often played a significant role in a given episode. And what is wrong with her being sexy?


I agree to an extent, but more because it gets old seeing the same kinds of characters over and over, not because it somehow teaches people to believe that fiction represents reality. If that was true, we should only want to have completely realistic and inclusive shows and cartoons. That would be extremely boring and ridiculous. It's like those Christian parents who don't let their children read or watch Harry Potter because it somehow teaches witchcraft.


Once again, this just shows a cultural bias. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you go to India, you would expect to see a lot of Indian actors getting cast for roles that may have been originally white, black etc. As far as women being sexualized, it's not like they do it against their will. I think it gets old and even annoying in some cases, but it is a marketing tactic. I don't think it's literally because our culture thinks that's all women are good for.

As far as women not getting as many speaking roles, I'm not really sure why that would be, but I have a feeling there are many factors. Some of them may be unfair, and maybe it's something that needs some attention. But I don't think that, because movies tend to have more male speaking roles, this will make people automatically believe things like, "Women shouldn't speak", or "Women are less intelligent." Maybe that's not your point, but there are certainly a lot of feminists out there who would take such a stance based on this information.


Am I crazy for thinking that it should be the parents' responsibility to teach their children right from wrong? If the goal is to teach children better morals and principles than you had growing up, then these sorts of criticisms should be directed at parents, not cartoonists. Most shows, movies, cartoons, video games etc. are going to be mind-numbing crap no matter what you do. If a parent is concerned about this, they have no obligation to let their children have full access to those things without supervision.

If I have children, I personally will not just sit them in front of the TV and let them learn their life lessons from things like Spongebob Squarepants. I will take an active role in teaching them what is good and how to detect BS, because no level of political activism will ever make the entertainment industry a proper moral teacher.


I agree.


Makes sense to me.


I guess I personally don't see a lack of women and minorities. And at least in the case of minorities, you would expect them to represent a minority in shows that air in countries where they are a minority. Plus, don't black people have a network all to themselves?


I think they probably enjoyed the game as much as I did. I've met many who have, and zero who openly stated they didn't like it because the goal is to save a princess. I didn't get any personal satisfaction from the fact that Mario is a man. I didn't feel super masculine because I rescued a helpless princess. I just thought it was a fun game.

And here's this: The main playable character from Metroid (released a year after Mario) is Samus, a female. She's in a suit for the whole game, so you don't know at first, but that makes it all the more awesome at the end when the suit comes off at the end and you realize you were playing as a girl the entire time. I'm sure girls and boys alike thought that was a cool twist. And to this day Metroid games are still very popular.


Like I said, I don't think it's fair. I'm just saying it's not racist.


But a lot of places require it only to meet a standard of appearance (based at least partially on the assumption that it's more hygienic, which has been proven false), and it can be harmful to the skin. Not only that, when I worked at McDonald's, I had blonde (so barely even visible) stubble from a few days not shaving. The manager forced me to take a disposable razor into the bathroom and shave, with no shaving cream as a punishment I assume you would agree with me that this is stupid, and they did it to all the men who worked there. Not a single one thought it was sexist though, they just thought it was ridiculous. That is the point I'm making here. Unless you actually think that this too is an example of sexism, your logic is not consistent. I still agree with you that black hairstyles being "unprofessional" is dumb, but it doesn't mean the people who think that are racist. They're just dumb.


I'm not sure what part about Bernie you're referring to.


But you can easily just cherry pick more examples of her telling the truth about whatever than there are lies and make it look better, even if the truth is: "I'm a woman". You see my point? That's why I think the specific lies and truths used to create those ratings are extremely important.

I don't care about "honesty ratings", I care about what kind of a person the candidate is and what principles they stand by. And from what I've seen of Hillary, she will lie even when telling the truth makes more sense ("landing under sniper fire"), and has no principles other than what the popular opinion at the time is (she used to be opposed to gay marriage, until the percentage of people supporting it passed 50% in polls; then, she mysteriously changed her mind without saying why, and she even denies that she was ever against it).


Like I mentioned above, you can easily just cherry pick more examples of her telling the truth at one point or another and add them to the list to make her look more honest. These scores are not even accurate measures of how often a candidate tells the truth, let alone how consequential those truths or lies are.


Exactly, it was very stupid. Hillary is many things, but she is not stupid. So to me, what that says is that she knowingly decided to compromise national security in order to have her emails on a private server that she controls. That is extremely suspicious behavior, and I don't want someone who does things like that to be president.

You seem to think that she just did it out of ignorance of the risk. Do you realize the trouble she went through to accomplish this? It's not like she just sent a few sensitive emails with her unsecured personal email by mistake, she set up and used a private server. That requires you to know things about internet and network security. It takes a fair bit of work to set up.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... er/387841/


Unless she just knew that a majority of people do not bother to fact check her.


If she does genuinely remember that, I think her mental stability is in question. Who remembers being shot at when in fact they were not being shot at? That would be a pretty strong and particular detail about any memory.


...wha? I think you're just saying politicians have to be political and whatnot, so obviously not everything they say is going to be totally accurate. Well, even by that standard, I think she falls in the squarely in the "way less honest" category of politicians.


Evidence that Bernie supporters are sexist? Did I miss something?


Maybe given her experience, yes. But as far as her moral character goes, she is utterly lacking. I find that to be equally important to qualifications in this case.


There's no way she gets 100%. I assume you are exaggerating. Either way, not sure what your point is. I just said the black vote was a contributing factor, and that's excluding all the white liberals excited to vote for a black guy. The media did play it up quite a bit, though to Obama's credit he did not. The same can't be said about Hillary.


So... Slate thinks Bernie Sanders was successful because he's a man ("not a woman" as they put it), even though he actually lost (ergo was unsuccessful)? Yeah, that makes no sense.

From the Huffpost article: "Because if Hillary Clinton was “unqualified” to be president, what woman ever would be? Not in our lifetime, for sure. Click." Really? She is literally saying there's no woman better than Hillary, no other woman could win. That's pretty degrading to women if you ask me; it seems to discourage other women from ever running if Hillary doesn't get elected, because "If she couldn't get elected, how could any woman?" Ridiculous.

As far as the rest of the article, she is literally just upset that Bernie supporters are calling Hillary names like "Shrillary". Nothing sexist about that. They don't like Hillary, they can call her names if they want. This happened to every political candidate ever. Unless you've got something with Bernie supporters saying that they don't like Hillary because she is a woman, she's unqualified because she's a woman, or something along those lines, it is just pure conjecture to say it is motivated by a bias against women, and therefore is an unfair criticism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-bras ... 75348.html

That's how memory works - it's really easy to fabricate one. Lots of people have gone to prison because otherwise-stable adults have been convinced that they were abused as children and have testified to that effect in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_t ... _technique

Yep, our memories are fluid. The act of remembering something effectively alters the memory, which calls into question all testimony ever given under oath. Your memory is malleable enough that it is entirely feasible to (e.g.) utterly convince yourself that you personally witnessed a plane smashing into the side of a building, even if it can be demonstrated that you were hundreds of miles away from the building on that particular day.

She said they were being shot at, they were told to duck their heads and run to their cars, there was no greeting ceremony, "now that is what happened". All a fabrication. She later admitted she "misspoke" when asked about it; she claims she was just sleep deprived. I've never heard of sleep deprivation creating a totally false memory, containing details that directly contradict what really happened, but that simply vanishes after a good night's sleep. It's quite convenient that she had this temporary false memory right at a time where she could embellish her character with it. At any rate, an experiment that convinced a minority of people to believe a vague false memory from their early childhood is not comparable to this.

By your logic, nobody should have gotten mad at Donald Trump and called him a liar when he said he saw thousands of Muslims cheering in the streets on 9/11. They should just give him the benefit of the doubt, and just ignore this false story, because "that's how memory works", right? The funniest part about that is that Trump's claim is actually more accurate than Hillary's. There were some Muslims in America who were seen celebrating the events of 9/11, though it wasn't thousands. The left has tried to cover this up of course.