View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
Author |
Message |
Guest
|
- #31
- Posted: 07/13/2013 11:47
- Post subject:
|
ptaylor1989 wrote: | it's the only reason i made a stink. soo off topic and retarded |
Honestly, you need to learn to speak to people better, and to stop covering your own back so vehemently when you were just as involved in a discussion about wealth in politics as everybody else. If it was "soo off topic and retarded" then why did you not just refuse to enter into the debate? As it is, you did enter into a debate about whether the electorate or the system is to blame for a lack of diversity within mainstream politics, and then dismissed anybody who disagreed with you as "unrealistic" (wrong), "idealistic" (possibly, but I don't see the problem with being idealistic), "(defending) classist, mildly racist statements" (what the actual fuck dude, in what way is pointing out that a person of one class would find it hard to relate to a person of another "classist"? and I think you're using the term "racist" way too easily and attempting to guilt-trip those who disagree with you by using a term you know can do that), and eventually "retarded". Way to go.
As for getting back on topic, I'm all for it. I saw a sentence I disagreed with, or at least took issue with, and responded to that. I agree this thread should be used for its intended purpose - a discussion about gender within politics - but if I see bullshit I'm going to call it.
Also, there's no need to get nasty. This is a reasoned political debate, there's no Naples here just throwing cartoons and the same regurgitated lines and insults at people. People are giving their side of the argument in a manner I find interesting to read and join in with. Let's not resort to being fucking douchebags.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
HigherThanTheSun
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK
|
- #32
- Posted: 07/13/2013 16:23
- Post subject:
|
Pointing out wealth inequality isn't classist and pointing out that top jobs are dominated by white men isn't racist or sexist, I'm seriously confused by that. I don't see why the idea that the people who rule a country should reflect the demographics of the people they rule, should be controversial. Just like I don't see why the people who do other top jobs in society shouldn't also be reflective of the class/gender/racial/sexual/whatever makeup of the wider population. For me it's much more to do with equal opportunity in society than it is with how well politicians from different backgrounds represent their constituents (though I think this is important to think about too).
Also, why should an interesting discussion die because it's slightly off topic? Since when have BEA threads ever stayed on topic? _________________ Shut up mate you're boring!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
ptaylor1989
Age: 34
|
- #33
- Posted: 07/14/2013 16:52
- Post subject:
|
in all fairness lethal, you are one of the last people on BEA that has any credibility when engaging anyone on the topic of how people should talk to each other. You know it and have admitted it each time you realize you've gone too far. Also, I can't believe you are trying to school me on the use or overuse of the word racist. But, I respect the fact that you are calling bullshit. Actually the facts stop there. We hardly ever use any actual data to support our claims so I'm sorry if I take peoples opinions out of context. Honestly, I entered the convo for the same reason you enter topics that frustrate you ("I saw a sentence I disagreed with, or at least took issue with, and responded to that. I agree this thread should be used for its intended purpose - a discussion about gender within politics - but if I see bullshit I'm going to call it."). I completely agree
I would never support the claim, "pointing out wealth inequality is wrong". It's shocking you think I'd ever say that. And of course I agree, "that the people who rule a country should reflect the demographics of the people they rule". That's a politicians job. Sounds like I'm at fault for incorrectly paraphrasing someone in this thread too. I'm man enough to say i'm sorry if that's the case.
Personally, I don't think a skin-color diversity necessarily equates to a diverse marketplace of ideas. This is for another thread but I believe specialized politicians only focused on their hotbutton issues just leads to greater political gridlock. Disagree with me if you want, but I don't see why we should go back and forth on topics in which we agree on most points: social inequality sucks, governmental utopia empirically doesn't exist but is ideal etc etc. Those aren't the points i took issue with.
I'm just saying for the 15,000th time: if you can't see how it's strange to say, "With issues like abortion and gay marriage how can we leave it up to only rich heterosexual white men to make decisions? I think the problem stems from the US government being founded by rich white men", we will never agree. If it's not racist or classist, then it's a (enter a slew of adjectives here), generalization. That's not backtracking, that's the most simple way I can put it. PM me if you wanna strangle me but let's not strangle this thread _________________ http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
HigherThanTheSun
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK
|
- #34
- Posted: 07/14/2013 20:48
- Post subject:
|
Nah I never thought that you'd find pointing out wealth inequality to be wrong and I didn't mean to give that impression.
Stand by the idea that voters are best represented by politicians who most closely match their demographics though. Originally only made the point re class and wealth but I think it applies to some extent to other groups in society too, like women/racial and sexual minorities/religious groups/young people/disabled people etcetc whatever groups in society which are under represented in politics.
Never said that these people couldn't be represented by people who don't fit the exact same characteristics as them, just that they're probably best represented by people who are similar. I actually think that there should be as much diversity in politics as possible (at least as much as there is diversity in wider society anyway). I don't see why the voices of more female politicians on the issue of abortion, to use your example, would be a bad thing, and I don't see why it's crazy to think that women might have a greater insight and more to offer the debate than most men, they certainly have more at stake.
As for politicians only focusing on their 'hotbutton' issues I'm with you completely, politicians need to remember that they're representing a diverse group of people with even more diverse political interests; to crusade only for one particular issue is to let down the people who voted for them. _________________ Shut up mate you're boring!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
ptaylor1989
Age: 34
|
- #35
- Posted: 07/14/2013 23:07
- Post subject:
|
HigherThanTheSun wrote: | Stand by the idea that voters are best represented by politicians who most closely match their demographics though. |
i agree with much of what you said in ideals but this is a concept i'll have to think about. _________________ http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums
Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible
|
- #36
- Posted: 09/26/2013 04:09
- Post subject:
|
BEA discussion point:
WHAT DEFINES GENDER? _________________ A dick that's bigger than the sun.
Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
SquishypuffDave
Gender: Male
Age: 33
|
- #37
- Posted: 09/26/2013 04:42
- Post subject:
|
I mentioned this in another thread a while back, and it was a point of contention among some users: I think that defining gender as anything other than one's sex just serves to reinforce gender stereotypes. I don't really buy into the idea that I'm multiple types of "male" at the same time. I'm just a person with a male body.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums
Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible
|
- #38
- Posted: 09/26/2013 04:55
- Post subject:
|
SquishypuffDave wrote: | I mentioned this in another thread a while back, and it was a point of contention among some users: I think that defining gender as anything other than one's sex just serves to reinforce gender stereotypes. I don't really buy into the idea that I'm multiple types of "male" at the same time. I'm just a person with a male body. |
THIS, ONE HUNDRED TIMES.
I find these Tumbloggers who constantly rant and rave about gender identity to be hilariously unintentionally sexist. They make so many ridiculous comments about people who "act their gender" and people who "don't act their gender" - my little brother likes to paint his nails and play football. Painting his nails doesn't make him female. Playing football doesn't make him male. His dick makes him male, and that's all that male means. Male shouldn't have a fucking thing to do with how you behave, what you like, etc. It's ridiculous. _________________ A dick that's bigger than the sun.
Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
drakonium
coucou
Location: More than one
|
- #39
- Posted: 09/26/2013 04:57
- Post subject:
|
SquishypuffDave wrote: | I'm just a person with a male body. |
Exactly
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Guest
|
- #40
- Posted: 09/26/2013 05:07
- Post subject:
|
I agree with what Squish and Jack said. I'm not sure if I can add much... well, I suppose gender stereotypes often come from things ingrained in culture as opposed to being biological.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|