Trump and Megyn Kelly

Post Reply New Topic

I have known quite a few misogynists in my time.

We never get it right in America it seems. We went through periods where people did and said anything no matter how offensive and harmful it was. Then we reacted to that by tone policing. A backlash against tone policing bullying is well in order but that should not mean going back to anything goes and if you do not like it leave America you loser. I do blame the SJW's in part for the Trump phenomenon, they have blurred concepts like racism so much that a lot of people finially feeling they do not have be politically correct can not seem to understand when they are bieng actually offensive and any number of "ists" while some know full well what they are doing and use bieng offended by political correctness as cover.

The radical SJWs don't have the power or support to force people to be "politically correct" in their sense. While I don't agree with everything proposed by SJWs, people who complain that they are being "oppressed" by SJWs make me laugh. Being told your words/ideas are offensive in a harsh or angry tone is not the same as throwing you in jail for expressing yourself. The SJW movement is a cultural phenomenon, not a legal phenomenon. Complaining about the "tyranny" of political correctness is insulting to people in other places of the world who have to deal with real tyranny.

I'm not sure why you think that your perception of other people's moral standing is at all relevant, but you're still not describing what you mean by misogyny at a time when - as I pointed out - it can simply be used to describe someone who disagrees with an opinion. Why are you so infatuated with this label?



Why not? Explain your reasoning.



Are you being general or specific here?



and misogyny



Unless you're being wilfully offensive, it's rather irrelevant wouldn't you say?



Which is why free speech is so important. Now what's your actual point, because I'm yet to see an argument beyond "Trump and his supporters are misogynists because I say so"?

The bimbo's back in town. I hope not for long.

They oppress views by making companies fearful of lawsuits. They have ruined individual reputations by internet public shaming and harassment, publicizing personal information. Maybe it is few instances bieng blown out of proportion but perception is reality, if people think really bad things will happen to them it chills free speech. No it is not as bad as someplaces but the idea is to not be blasé about it so it does not get that bad.

Misogny is hatred of women pretty simple.

The SJW's are blurring the meaning of racist, misogynist and a bunch of other "ist"'s


My error was in not puitting a comma after "goes". Those two attitudes often seem to go togeather. I put the last sentence in specfically because Trump is fond of using the word "loser" to describe people.

anything goes language often leads to anything goes actions

It is not irrelevant if a person is unwittingly one of the "ist"'s or is offensive. The person will still cause the same harm as a the person is who willingly that way but there is a better chanch the person who is that way unwillingly can change.

A lot of people of people here tried to say what they are hearing out of the Trump phenomenon reminds them of the type of attitudes and language used by political movements that ended up hurting or killing a lot of people. Obvoiusly I have the same fears about the Trump phenomenon. Most of the posts have been about potential harm to immigrants, hispanics in general and understandably in this forum the disabled. The misogny issue has been raised a lot less so that is why I broght it up.

Except it's never that simple. Actual hatred of women stems from negative experiences with women, it's not some logical conclusion that someone arrives at after deep introspection. Such people are typically vulnerable and suffer from psychological problems.



They are, and you're contributing by talking about "pure evil misogyny" in your OP. For context, answer the following question:

Would you describe a girl as "evil" had she been sexually abused by a woman she trusted, developed an almost instinctive hatred for all women as a result - especially those who were nurturing or offered comfort or security? An extreme example, sure, but one which is exactly the experience of the only person I've ever known who could be described using the words "hates women".

What I'm still waiting for is an explanation of why appealing to voters who happen to be misogynists is demonstrative of wrongdoing by Trump. Sure, someone who hates women will possibly get off on watching Megyn Kelly get roasted, but I'm not seeing how that reflects on the man doing the roasting - especially given the context.



Such attitudes are usually hyperbolic - after all, it's not as if they carry the weight of law behind them. Calling your opponents unpatriotic is hardly an original strategy.



You're skirting the edges of a double fallacy here. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that the kind of person who will perform literally any action would also, by extension, be in favour of unfettered speech?



Why do they need to change? Why are you of the opinion that the feelings of an over-sensitive ninny trump the importance of free expression?



And it's the same nonsensical fear-mongering that has been used to undermine political opponents since time immemorial. I could, for example, point out the similarities of the arguments you're making to those pushed by Communists in Soviet Russia, where the term "politically correct" was coined. To do so would not constitute an argument in and of itself, however.



Because what the world really needs is another SJW, right?

I disagree with this premise ... hatred of women can stem from other things. Sometimes it's scapegoating and not based on actual events, but rather on a perception (in this case a false one - that women are guilty of wrongdoing and deserve to be hated.) Just sayin'.

Also, I still believe Kelly and Trump had an affair gone wrong.

Perception is experience and scapegoating is not equal to hatred.

No ... perception is perception. For the person having the perception it is an experience. But this experience is not part of the common fabric of reality.

I suppose it would be more equal to vilification, but with a twist of self-righteousness thrown in.

Definitions Are simple, but I agree causation is often not.

A person that are an ist have a better potential of acting on it and causing or enable harm to others then the person who is not prejudiced.

Calling people unpatroitic is hardly new niether is seeking a group who are bad off, who have been screwed, telling them some group or type of people are at fault for thier problems., mocking and belitting visable people from the group blamed, telling people now is the time to stand up to the group blamed, when it gets violent, say they did it on thier own, not that I condone it but the other side does it also. All sorts of dictatorships, cleansing campaigns have started off in a similar fashion time and time and time and time again. Trumps tactics and the reaction to them and why it is potentially very dangourous are obvoius to anyone with a basic knowlage of history and politics. That so many think this is something new is probably a combination of emotion and how bad American schools are about teaching history.

As far as knowing people who hate women you have been way more fortunate then me.

GENAU!


They are nothing but social climbers using their radical ideology to push others down to build themselves up. What would feminists do without *the patriarchy*? Their coalition would disintegrate.

Nay and nay again! Experience is how we define those things which we perceive. Experience is necessarily subjective.



In such a case, yep. Though the motive for scapegoating is usually self-presevervation or self-promotion rather than vilification of the scapegoat.



Do you mean physical harm? If so, I would again suggest that whatever prejudices violent people hold are immaterial. What is important is their predisposition to violence. If you're including harm to feelings, I remain unmoved.



What about when said group is a near-royal political establishment that genuinely is responsible for screwing over the general populace? What if said group was (e.g.) those who ran the banks which required 10+ trillion in bailouts yet continued to pay themselves excessive bonuses?



As have a multitude of democratic campaigns. Obama's, for instance. You're presenting a false equivalence here. Do you genuinely believe that Trump's aim is to perform a military coup?



Trump's entire strategy is to allow a circle of people to fling excrement at him, dodge to one side and watch as it flies straight into the faces of everyone else. It's dangerous only to those who continue to take part.

Yes .... So again I say that one can perceive a threat or "hatred," when one doesn't actually exist. This is a form of misogyny.

I think the vilification is a necessary component of scapegoating. There must be a belief that it is somehow right to make the sacrifice.

Acting on prejudice could mean denying employment. As for feelings that is peoples right to speak without care for others feelings. Sometimes it is necesary and right to speak and not worry about hurting feelings. But things are situational. Trump does it deliberately almost everyday in personal terms against nearly everybody. I guess he figures why not stop at appealing to one set of bigots? Interesting he is not so personal with the "banksters". He implied the Saudis and the Bush family was in cahoots about 9/11. He did not say directly say it or personally insult members of the Saudi Royal Family, and the people who actually caused the seemingly permanent depression.

Insulting a group of people for political gain based on their employment is one thing, insulting them for who they are they are such as their physical characteristics is a different. Nearly all political movements that end up as authoritarian start blaming a group(s) of people based on who they are. Movements that end up in democracies the main focus usually is the oppressive government, the monarchy, the communist party that type of type of thing.

There is no 100 percent rule on what movements will end up doing what. Trump might very well make America great again proving me a paranoid aspie who has totally misread the people involved. I very much hope this is true. History says it is likely otherwise but who really knows.

Well no. You might harbour a hatred based on a misperception, but believing hate exists based on flawed perception is just a misunderstanding of intent. Unless you mean to say that the former might manifest as misogyny, but we'd have to journey down a rabbit hole even more insane than that which Alice ventured into.



It absolutely is a necessary component, but it's usually an effect rather than a cause. As I mentioned, the intent is typically self-preservation/promotion. In such scenarios, the attributes of the scapegoat, other than being a viable target, are immaterial.



Not sure why this is relevant here. Care to explain?



Sure. Sometimes you have a vested interest in individuals which inspires you to consider their feelings. So what?



Another unfounded accusation of intent. Can you support your assertion?



What are you referring to here? If you have specific points to make, please make them directly. Most of what you're posting is insinuation and empty rhetoric.



But not all outcomes are equally likely. Again I ask, do you believe that Trump will attempt a military coup of the US?



History says nothing about Donald Trump's ability to lead a nation.

This may come across as patronising, but it seems to me that you've jumped onto the anti-Trump bandwagon being touted in various circles without actually stopping to assess the man for yourself. I've yet to actually see you make a cogent point, relying instead on the same tired rhetoric that certain media outlets are ineffectually churning out. I'm going to implore you, one final time, to explain what actual point you have beyond "Trump's intentions are evil because reasons".