Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
ah yeah. the economist and their infatuation with the family unit.

This is what we call commonsense pragmatism, apparently.

Naturally still down with the whole let's tell browns and blacks what's good for them but in this really insidious we're on the same side.

Truly awful article.
:(

Which one is the truly awful one or is it both?
Obviously the fgm one is saying 'lets maybe stop telling brown and black people what's good for them', innit, lets try to have a conversation instead.
But derail. My economist reading will done in private from now on I promise.
 
CvimafgWcAAhhDy.jpg
 
Which one is the truly awful one or is it both?
Obviously the fgm one is saying 'lets maybe stop telling brown and black people what's good for them', innit, lets try to have a conversation instead.
But derail. My economist reading will done in private from now on I promise.

The article that OU posted.

and lol at conversation.
 
Also, it's not actually true.
What's not true?
I'm not whinging or being passive aggressive - I just didn't want to divert the thread further into a discussion of FGM and the Economist. But have defended the article against the rather stupid attack that its 'telling black and brown people what to do" , seeing as its really not, its saying the opposite .
 
Almost every time someone argues with you, you say something about keeping your opinion to yourself in future. You won’t (which is fine, arguing is what we do here), so stop saying it.
 
Ok. So better to just keep insisting on a complete ban on fgm, we should just shout louder cos they haven't heard us yet. Cos that's not telling black & brown people what to do. Right.

And this is liberal hypocrisy par excellence. it's ok to speak about relativism when the power holders in such a community remain the same.
 
Except its not entirely is it? a lot of people trying to campaign againat fgm actually went through the process themselves.
Yep. The idea that the economist article was an example of telling brown people what to do is just wrong though. If you're convinced that a 14% reduction over 30 yeArs means the current approach is the best possible way of reducing harm then fine no alternative approaches to reducing harm should be discussed.
 
Yep. The idea that the economist article was an example of telling brown people what to do is just wrong though. If you're convinced that a 14% reduction over 30 yeArs means the current approach is the best possible way of reducing harm then fine.
i think it's better than just changing the definition of FGM instead
 
Yep. The idea that the economist article was an example of telling brown people what to do is just wrong though. If you're convinced that a 14% reduction over 30 yeArs means the current approach is the best possible way of reducing harm then fine.

Where did i say it was the best way? i just dislike the economists free market ideology, of course they would want to find a way to legimitse this, the cynical part of me says there are a few ppl who like to find a way of monetising this stuff as well and integrate it into capital, and thus make it respectable and thus far more difficult to eradicate than if it was just a village tradition like bear baiting or something.
 
I don't know what that means.

A) don't you think bame and muslim communities are aware of this? Where does the economist fit into this apart from sneering?
B) what makes you think altering definitions or trying to soften an approach will change what is going on or give more legitimacy to those in power who are able to enforce such practices?

it was just an offhand remark but seen as you seem to be so offended...
 
there's no other solid explanation for the disproportionate hatred that she's on the receiving end of, and the tone of it, given that - as a politician - she's not really anything out of the ordinary.

The media reports on right-wing Americans talking in apocalyptic terms - about how this is the final election where it will still be possible to 'save America'.

Part of that is dogwhistle talk, meaning that they've just had eight years of a black president: now they're facing four years of a female Democratic president. For these people, this represents an unprecedented challenge to their vision of America. In their vision, in the 'Great America' Trump talks about, blacks and women know their place. And to these people, that place surely is not the White House.
 
xcept for her gender, Hillary Clinton is a highly conventional presidential candidate. She’s been in public life for decades. Her rhetoric is carefully calibrated. She tailors her views to reflect the mainstream within her party.

The reaction to her candidacy, however, has been unconventional. The percentage of Americans who hold a “strongly unfavorable” view of her substantially exceeds the percentage for any other Democratic nominee since 1980, when pollsters began asking the question. Antipathy to her among white men is even more unprecedented. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, 52 percent of white men hold a “very unfavorable” view of Clinton. That’s a whopping 20 points higher than the percentage who viewed Barack Obama very unfavorably in 2012, 32 points higher than the percentage who viewed Obama very unfavorably in 2008, and 28 points higher than the percentage who viewed John Kerry very unfavorably in 2004.

At the Republican National Convention, this fervent hostility was hard to miss. Inside the hall, delegates repeatedly broke into chants of “Lock her up.” Outside the hall, vendors sold campaign paraphernalia. As I walked around, I recorded the merchandise on display. Here’s a sampling:

Black pin reading Don’t be a pussy. vote for Trump in 2016. Black-and-red pin reading trump 2016: finally someone with balls. White T-shirt reading trump that bitch. White T‑shirt reading hillary sucks but not like monica. Red pin reading life’s a bitch: don’t vote for one. White pin depicting a boy urinating on the word Hillary. Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a biker and Clinton falling off the motorcycle’s back alongside the words if you can read this, the bitch fell off. Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a boxer having just knocked Clinton to the floor of the ring, where she lies faceup in a clingy tank top. White pin advertising kfc hillary special. 2 fat thighs. 2 small breasts … left wing.

Standard commentary about Clinton’s candidacy—which focuses on her email server, the Benghazi attack, her oratorical deficiencies, her struggles with “authenticity”—doesn’t explain the intensity of this opposition. But the academic literature about how men respond to women who assume traditionally male roles does. And it is highly disturbing.

Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obama’s election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.

Fear of a Female President
 
ah yeah. the economist and their infatuation with the family unit.

This is what we call commonsense pragmatism, apparently.

Naturally still down with the whole let's tell browns and blacks what's good for them but in this really insidious we're on the same side.

Truly awful article.
:(
Not only that, it appears to assume that anyone brown or black is ipso facto equivalent to, say, a junkie.

I'm really fucking angry now.
 
It ends not because Donald Trump is a buffoonish ignoramus who neither knows nor cares how the government works or what policies consist of, not because of his naked animus toward Latinos or Muslims or African-Americans, not because he has no more impulse control than your average toddler, and not because he is running what is probably the most incompetent presidential campaign in history (even if all those things would have ultimately led to his loss anyway).

No, Donald Trump’s campaign ends when a parade of women allege that he not only sees all women as sexual objects, but also believes that his status — or if you prefer, his privilege — allows him to violate their bodies whenever it pleases him, to grope them and kiss them and walk in on them when they’re dressing, whether they want him to or not.

This is how, 240 years after America’s founding, we finally get our first woman president: with the fall of the most boorish, misogynistic bully our political system could produce.

And make no mistake, there will be a backlash.

There’s a certain kind of poetic justice at work, even if we acknowledge that the growing stack of allegations of assault and harassment are less directly relevant to Trump’s potential performance as president than some of this other many character flaws, like his impulsiveness, his need to attack anyone who criticizes him, or his insane belief that he’s smarter than everybody and knows more than everybody.

But Trump is running against Hillary Clinton, the target of more sexist vitriol than any single person in contemporary history.

Trump’s misogyny foreshadows the ugly backlash that will hit Clinton if she wins
 
Paywalled. But I think I can guess. :(

You're probably right.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not just commentators from the Economist who have remarked on the misogyny and anti-feminist backlash that Clinton has had to endure, apart from any consideration of her fitness to be president based on her character or prior actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom