I don't think she speaks for the majority of women, she just has an old fashioned view of who should be president. There have been plenty of examples of strong female world leaders, and it is a shame that she boils leadership quailifications down to biblical references and hormones.
A female CEO in Texas has come under fire this week.
With the hormones we have, there is no way [a woman] should be able to start a war, Yes I run my own business and I love it and I am great at it BUT that is not the same as being the President, that should be left to a man, a good, strong, honorable man.
Whoa Nelly! What a horrible person she must be. Somebody heat up the tar while I pluck some feathers!
I believe it was the NY Times that ran n article about billary being post-menopausal and that it makes her a better choice. Tsk Tsk, such insults........
I don't think she speaks for the majority of women, she just has an old fashioned view of who should be president. There have been plenty of examples of strong female world leaders, and it is a shame that she boils leadership quailifications down to biblical references and hormones.
But does anyone/everyone have the right to express those ideas? Let's ask ourselves this question, from a free-speech perspective. How insulated from the slings and arrows of the PC police do you have to be to get away with posting what she did? If she were a civil servant, would she be formally disciplined? A written warning or worse?
She has the right to express her ideas, but people have a right not to accept them. The idea that this is a freedom of speech issue is spurious as well. The secret police didn't arrest her, she wasn't detained, she did not lose her citizenship, or face any action from the state. Is her argument any more valid than a racist attack on the president. If she were jailed, deported, or censored by the state I would have a huge issue with that, but she wasn't. Who is she to decide that women shouldn't be president, the constitution dosent bar women from holding office, why should she?
She has the right to express her ideas, but people have a right not to accept them. The idea that this is a freedom of speech issue is spurious as well. The secret police didn't arrest her, she wasn't detained, she did not lose her citizenship, or face any action from the state. Is her argument any more valid than a racist attack on the president. If she were jailed, deported, or censored by the state I would have a huge issue with that, but she wasn't. Who is she to decide that women shouldn't be president, the constitution dosent bar women from holding office, why should she?
Spurious? Me? (Hold on while I look up spurious) Well, you didn't actually quote my post so I must assume you meant someone else because all I asked is that we consider a scenario in which she is not a private citizen, but one in which she is a civil servant.
You said you'd "have a huge issue" if she were "censored by the state". Would you have a huge issue with a reprimand of a civil servant who posted the same thing? Do civil servants have less freedom to offend than private citizens? I would say that civil servants have the least freedom to say anything that offends. Employees of private companies have more freedom to go against the PC tide but not that much more. And then we have self employed private citizens who are free to say almost anything except yell fire in a crowded movie theater. But, even private citizens like this female CEO who says a woman should not be president should not go public with those thoughts, otherwise she can expect backlash on her yelp business review pages from people about what a horrible person they think she is.
Also, you asked, "Is her argument any more valid than a racist attack on the president." I don't know if understand that question. Are you saying that what she said was AS BAD as a racist rant against our president? Or were you just trying to help me with that word "spurious"? You mean equating sexism and racism is spurious, Right?
No, it is spurious to claim that it is a first amendment issue. She wasn't censored. She faced backlash for making unsupported claims. We do have freedom of speech, but you are judged by what you say and what you do. As far as facing more censorship as a public servant, you should. They are charged with protecting the rights of all citizens, not just a subsect of the population. The idea that more people would standup to fight the tide of social/racial/gender equality if the PC police were not there to stop them is kind of absurd. There is a diffrence between being censored by the state, and losing your job over racist/sexist comments.
I am not mad either
No, it is spurious to claim that it is a first amendment issue. She wasn't censored. She faced backlash for making unsupported claims. We do have freedom of speech, but you are judged by what you say and what you do. As far as facing more censorship as a public servant, you should. They are charged with protecting the rights of all citizens, not just a subsect of the population. The idea that more people would standup to fight the tide of social/racial/gender equality if the PC police were not there to stop them is kind of absurd. There is a diffrence between being censored by the state, and losing your job over racist/sexist comments.
I am not mad either
I was not claiming her case was a first amendment issue. I asked a hypothetical question about the consequences of offending people. (Which I related to free speech). And I didn't intend to imply that - "more people would standup to fight the tide of social/racial/gender equality if the PC police were not there to stop them ....." You made that sound like fighting against equality. Opposition to equality is BAD. I choose my words as carefully as I can. Maybe I'm not that great at picking the right words every time. So, If you want me to clarify anything, just ask
Sticks and stones will break my bones
But words will never hurt me.
No one teaches their children that any more. Now its all "Oh! Horrors! One thin skinned crybaby somewhere might possibly construe themselves to have been unintentionally offended in theory! Quick ... heat the tar, I'll pluck feathers!"
I submit for your consideration the truth that there can be no freedom of speech without offense. That's why freedom comes in.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
A female CEO in Texas has come under fire this week.
With the hormones we have, there is no way [a woman] should be able to start a war, Yes I run my own business and I love it and I am great at it BUT that is not the same as being the President, that should be left to a man, a good, strong, honorable man.
Whoa Nelly! What a horrible person she must be. Somebody heat up the tar while I pluck some feathers!
She thinks that hormone difference is the cause of this? Kinda sexist isn't it, saying woman have less control of their emotions than men. I've had plenty of male and female bosses and found no difference when it comes to their sex. Found differences in how professional they were, and her being a CEO maybe she should be more professional. Being professional you have to keep your feelings in check, control your hormones/emotions and your mouth. It may come down to maturity and intelligence in either sex. I've seen plenty of men throw a hissy-fit.
Speaking of women, here's one who lies and then tells us her mistake was not lying well enough to not get caught. I love women. I hate liars.
From - National Review
Comedian Sarah Silverman admitted that a story she told about wage discrimination (in which she even went so far as to call out a specific employer by name) was a lie and then said people who might consider her lie a reason to question the movement she was supporting were maniacs.
In an April 6 wage-discrimination-activism video for Levo League, Silverman accused New York Comedy Club owner Al Martin of having paid her less than a male comic for doing the same work: I was out with my friend Todd Barry and we were doing sets around town together, and I was pretty well-known already, and we both did back-to-back 15-minute sets at this club, the New York Comedy Club, and he paid me 10 bucks . . . and we were outside talking and Todd somehow brought up that he, you know, mentioned that he got 60 bucks, she said. So I went back inside and I asked the owner Al Martin and I said, Al, why did you pay me $10 and you paid Todd Barry $60? And he, it was so perfect, Silverman continued, laughing. He goes, Oh, did you want a $60 spot? It was symbolic, I didnt need $60, but, you know it was pretty s****y.
Wow! Pretty s****y indeed! Just one problem: That didnt actually happen. As Martin explained to PJ Media on Tuesday, Barrys set was a booked job, while Silvermans was just a last-minute guest spot (read: expected to be unpaid regardless of gender) that he let her have as a favor and the $10 was cab fare he gave her just to be extra nice. In other words: He definitely didnt pay her less for the same job, because the set she did that night wasnt even a job at all.
In a statement to Salon, Silverman admitted that she had made the whole thing up and apologized to Martin: My regret is that I mentioned Al by name it should have been a nameless, faceless anecdote and he has always been lovely to me, she said. This is also HARDLY an example of the wage gap and can only do that very true reality a terrible disservice if I were trying to make it one, she said. When I was interviewed by Levo, they asked me Do you remember a time you were paid less for the same job and this story, being just that, popped into my head.
Notice that the only thing she explicitly said she regrets is not trying harder to not get caught. In fact, she didnt even acknowledge that she did a disservice to the movement by telling a false story only that it would be a disservice if [she] were trying to make the story an example of the wage gap when it wasnt one.
(For the record, specifically citing something as an example of the wage gap seems like a pretty clear instance of trying to make it an example of the wage gap.)
Silverman ended her statement by saying that people who might see an advocate having lied about a movement as a reason to question that movements message something Id consider a normal response were maniacs. To the maniacs who want to use this as a chit against womens issues, I ask that you please dont, she said. Because that would be super s****y.
I guess calling people maniacs for criticizing a cause could be one way to show you support it, but I can think of some better ones like, you know, not going out and doing something that undermines it.
Katherine Timpf is a reporter at National Review Online.
Wait, a stand-up comic got caught telling a story that wasn't completely true? Slow news day?
Btw, I'm not mad either
Hell. A stand up comedian even got elected senator.
... and he isn't even funny.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Somebody on this forum is supposedly offended so much by a specific word/name that JD used that they decided to narc on him. Any of you snitches want to fess up? Are you REALLY offended or did you just want to punish him on a technicality? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. I know if you comb through my post you will find some offensive words. Am I next?
No idea what you are referring to here. I was looking forward to hearing someone tell me that the actions in Missouri over a black, female mayor being elected wasn't race related. Lol, maybe another time.
Somebody on this forum is supposedly offended so much by a specific word/name that JD used that they decided to narc on him. Any of you snitches want to fess up? Are you REALLY offended or did you just want to punish him on a technicality? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. I know if you comb through my post you will find some offensive words. Am I next?
I think just being JD is punishment enough for one lifetime, but I would never snitch on the man or attempt to suppress his privilege (sorry, it's not a right on a privately owned forum) to spew in this or any other topic. Nor would I ever narc on anyone else here whose views I disagreed with.* What's the fun of having debates if you have no sparring partners?
And, lord, I've been on the most benign of "hobby sites" where the most horrifying forms of hatred are routinely expressed (and accepted) in the "off-topic" areas. Nothing here comes even close to some of the scary s**t I've seen on those places. Thank goodness!
*Well, that's not 100% true. If someone seriously advocated genocide or violent suppression of civil rights of a particular group in America solely based based on their race, religion, creed, beliefs or sexual orientation I might be tempted to drop a dime. But I'd certainly fire a public warning shot first.
1.I miss JD, he's singlehandedly made me Jones for Vegas gold (seriously I'm smokin one of those suckers)
2.If everyone agreed on everything the world would officially suck
3.I don't know what he/others said and I'm way too lazy to search, good karma to all b/sotls
Yeah, I may not agree with all of his ideals, but he seems like a nice enough guy. Anyone who would go through an ordeal like he has to save those kids can't be that bad. Besides I like the debates we have had. Miss him posting stuff actually.
1.I miss JD, he's singlehandedly made me Jones for Vegas gold (seriously I'm smokin one of those suckers)
2.If everyone agreed on everything the world would officially suck
3.I don't know what he/others said and I'm way too lazy to search, good karma to all b/sotls
JD got banned? Hope its just temporary. I like his posts in other areas. Never really pay to much attention to the political forum. But I breeze thru on occasion.
1.I miss JD, he's singlehandedly made me Jones for Vegas gold (seriously I'm smokin one of those suckers)
2.If everyone agreed on everything the world would officially suck
3.I don't know what he/others said and I'm way too lazy to search, good karma to all b/sotls
I regret posting about this. I didn't bother to ask JD if he would mind if I posted about this. I was just kinda ticked off when I first heard about it. I'm thinking it was not my place to open up this can o worms. But, I did. I'm still kinda ticked off. I don't believe anyone was truly offended specifically but I believe they just did it because of spite.
Comments
I believe it was the NY Times that ran n article about billary being post-menopausal and that it makes her a better choice. Tsk Tsk, such insults........
You said you'd "have a huge issue" if she were "censored by the state". Would you have a huge issue with a reprimand of a civil servant who posted the same thing? Do civil servants have less freedom to offend than private citizens? I would say that civil servants have the least freedom to say anything that offends. Employees of private companies have more freedom to go against the PC tide but not that much more. And then we have self employed private citizens who are free to say almost anything except yell fire in a crowded movie theater. But, even private citizens like this female CEO who says a woman should not be president should not go public with those thoughts, otherwise she can expect backlash on her yelp business review pages from people about what a horrible person they think she is.
Also, you asked, "Is her argument any more valid than a racist attack on the president." I don't know if understand that question. Are you saying that what she said was AS BAD as a racist rant against our president? Or were you just trying to help me with that word "spurious"? You mean equating sexism and racism is spurious, Right?
P.S. In case you're wondering, I ain't mad
Sticks and stones will break my bones
But words will never hurt me.
No one teaches their children that any more. Now its all "Oh! Horrors! One thin skinned crybaby somewhere might possibly construe themselves to have been unintentionally offended in theory! Quick ... heat the tar, I'll pluck feathers!"
I submit for your consideration the truth that there can be no freedom of speech without offense. That's why freedom comes in.
She thinks that hormone difference is the cause of this? Kinda sexist isn't it, saying woman have less control of their emotions than men. I've had plenty of male and female bosses and found no difference when it comes to their sex. Found differences in how professional they were, and her being a CEO maybe she should be more professional. Being professional you have to keep your feelings in check, control your hormones/emotions and your mouth. It may come down to maturity and intelligence in either sex. I've seen plenty of men throw a hissy-fit.
From - National Review
Comedian Sarah Silverman admitted that a story she told about wage discrimination (in which she even went so far as to call out a specific employer by name) was a lie and then said people who might consider her lie a reason to question the movement she was supporting were maniacs.
In an April 6 wage-discrimination-activism video for Levo League, Silverman accused New York Comedy Club owner Al Martin of having paid her less than a male comic for doing the same work: I was out with my friend Todd Barry and we were doing sets around town together, and I was pretty well-known already, and we both did back-to-back 15-minute sets at this club, the New York Comedy Club, and he paid me 10 bucks . . . and we were outside talking and Todd somehow brought up that he, you know, mentioned that he got 60 bucks, she said. So I went back inside and I asked the owner Al Martin and I said, Al, why did you pay me $10 and you paid Todd Barry $60? And he, it was so perfect, Silverman continued, laughing. He goes, Oh, did you want a $60 spot? It was symbolic, I didnt need $60, but, you know it was pretty s****y.
Wow! Pretty s****y indeed! Just one problem: That didnt actually happen. As Martin explained to PJ Media on Tuesday, Barrys set was a booked job, while Silvermans was just a last-minute guest spot (read: expected to be unpaid regardless of gender) that he let her have as a favor and the $10 was cab fare he gave her just to be extra nice. In other words: He definitely didnt pay her less for the same job, because the set she did that night wasnt even a job at all.
In a statement to Salon, Silverman admitted that she had made the whole thing up and apologized to Martin: My regret is that I mentioned Al by name it should have been a nameless, faceless anecdote and he has always been lovely to me, she said. This is also HARDLY an example of the wage gap and can only do that very true reality a terrible disservice if I were trying to make it one, she said. When I was interviewed by Levo, they asked me Do you remember a time you were paid less for the same job and this story, being just that, popped into my head.
Notice that the only thing she explicitly said she regrets is not trying harder to not get caught. In fact, she didnt even acknowledge that she did a disservice to the movement by telling a false story only that it would be a disservice if [she] were trying to make the story an example of the wage gap when it wasnt one.
(For the record, specifically citing something as an example of the wage gap seems like a pretty clear instance of trying to make it an example of the wage gap.)
Silverman ended her statement by saying that people who might see an advocate having lied about a movement as a reason to question that movements message something Id consider a normal response were maniacs. To the maniacs who want to use this as a chit against womens issues, I ask that you please dont, she said. Because that would be super s****y.
I guess calling people maniacs for criticizing a cause could be one way to show you support it, but I can think of some better ones like, you know, not going out and doing something that undermines it.
Katherine Timpf is a reporter at National Review Online.
... and he isn't even funny.
And, lord, I've been on the most benign of "hobby sites" where the most horrifying forms of hatred are routinely expressed (and accepted) in the "off-topic" areas. Nothing here comes even close to some of the scary s**t I've seen on those places. Thank goodness!
*Well, that's not 100% true. If someone seriously advocated genocide or violent suppression of civil rights of a particular group in America solely based based on their race, religion, creed, beliefs or sexual orientation I might be tempted to drop a dime. But I'd certainly fire a public warning shot first.
2.If everyone agreed on everything the world would officially suck
3.I don't know what he/others said and I'm way too lazy to search, good karma to all b/sotls