Otm x2
― flappy bird, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:31 (eight years ago)
It's a gauge of how many people are engaged in support and have a stake? It's *exactly* the point that they should have good content and guests, where "good" carries a level of social responsibility that balances with those listener/dollar numbers
If some guy with no family and no job is saying sexist shit on the sidewalk, individuals in the immediate area might have problems but as a society we're relatively safe. Ideally he has a responsibility to his peers not to be a dick, but the stakes are relatively low.
Having a well-supported, popular media platform has a different set of expectations.
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:38 (eight years ago)
I mean, they're halfway between a guy yelling in an alleyway and NBC Nightly News on the responsibility index here. Probably still closer to the alleyway guy, unless you're in the DSA and a quarter of the people in the room are there because of a podcast
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:39 (eight years ago)
it's just to establish their importance/popularity to the lay reader yeah
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:40 (eight years ago)
The thing about this is that almost none of the offensive shit people are actually mad about is on the podcast itself.
― Simon H., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:40 (eight years ago)
the pitfalls of incredibly minor celebrity right there
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:41 (eight years ago)
But, again, I'm not sure what issue with Chapo you are raising (or concern trolling about) -- in the article I just see a lot of ridiculous blurring of CumTown and Chapo, which are nothing alike, and a lot of unattributed stuff ("some suspect" "some women say") and complaints about "Chapo fans." It's ridiculous. The only concrete thing about Chapo mentioned is a tweet in which two Chapo hosts posed in a photograph that was then included in an offensive tweet by SOMEONE ELSE, and that person apologized for the tweet.
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:44 (eight years ago)
the cosby tweet was really stupid, i found it interesting not as some representation of sexism on the left but just in the way in which people who have gotten rich off of pointing out others' smacking tone deafness could fall so flat on their own faces
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:46 (eight years ago)
The fact that people are mad about the Cosby tweet but not about all the Jared jokes means that you should keep your offensive stuff on audio so its not as easy to retweet.
― President Keyes, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:52 (eight years ago)
I don't feel like the Jared Fogle jokes specifically make light of rape or rape survivors, they seem more targeted to the absurdity of him as a corporate spokesman and what that says about corporate marketing, but I'd be open to being convinced otherwise. And without getting into specifics I am close enough to the subject of child sexual abuse that I take it very seriously.
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:58 (eight years ago)
Well the Cosby tweet was making fun of Hollywood and fame rather than victims, but it was still dumb
― President Keyes, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:01 (eight years ago)
Sure, agree, and also it was a failed attempt at sending up a certain style of conservative rhetoric. But, again, they didn't tweet it, Josh Androsky did.
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:02 (eight years ago)
To me the Jared stuff is in the exact same vein, and it is on their show, often. I think the joke goes over better because defending a child molestor is so obviously over the top, whereas Cosby and his ilk have many defenders.
― President Keyes, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:06 (eight years ago)
Hey, Subway isn't to blame, they just gave him money to be a pitch man
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:10 (eight years ago)
But for some reason you never see articles about "misogyny in the center" or "misogyny in the democratic party" even though it exists at least equally there. "The socialist left" has to be constantly put on the defensive about sexism that exists at least equally everywhere else. Weinstein was a major democratic party fundraiser and Clinton supporter.
You live in a very constricted media world indeed if you're not seeing people using Weinstein (and Bill Clinton) as a cudgel to bash centrist Democrats.
But I agree that there's no particular reason to adopt a "misogyny in the socialist left" lens. Movements that have men in them have misogyny in them. There's zero reason to think a person who's a sincere and fervent opponent of corporate capitalism is less apt than anyone else to be a sexual assaulter. The cudgel should be used to hit the assaulters and their enablers, not the political philosophies they fight for when they're not busy assaulting and enabling.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:15 (eight years ago)
right, that's the only point I'm really driving at. We don't need any more thinkpieces from center outlets about whether "the left has a misogyny problem." Men have a misogyny problem. So when it's used specifically toward the left, it tends to seem more like a cudgel, just as you point out it is when the right use Clinton and Weinstein against the democrats (I wasn't saying it doesn't happen, just that Vox would never publish an in-depth examination of misogyny in mailine democratic party organs).
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:56 (eight years ago)
it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:10 (eight years ago)
now I'm thinking of the Achewood strips from the time when Todd the squirrel was running for elected office and his policy ideas were ok but the way he phrased everything was horrible and sexist
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:11 (eight years ago)
ok, his stances were questionablehttp://achewood.com/index.php?date=02062004
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:12 (eight years ago)
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:10 (one minute ago) Permalink
The mainstream democratic party isn't trying to bill itself as the wing that's for women's rights?
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:12 (eight years ago)
the democrats are the mainstream party on the left, guess I need to be clear since this is the left of center-left thread
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:14 (eight years ago)
I mean I don't think they're very much on the left, buuuuuut
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:15 (eight years ago)
Current DNC leadership is only about 1/3 female.
https://www.democrats.org/about/our-leaders
Do you think mansplaining never goes on in their meetings? Where is the thinkpiece?
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:23 (eight years ago)
― mh, Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:10 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
LOL didn't Sanders say that abortion/reproductive rights don't need to be a make-or-break issue for left candidates?
― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:26 (eight years ago)
That was quite a while ago I think? He's been a pretty damned staunch defender of abortion rights for the last while.
― Simon H., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:28 (eight years ago)
Like 5 months ago?
― President Keyes, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:29 (eight years ago)
Fuck, time is not moving fast enough.
― Simon H., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:33 (eight years ago)
I think there was a lot of tooth-gnashing about the fact he said Planned Parenthood is part of the establishment
Which I don't think is wrong -- because of the inequities in healthcare and especially in reproductive and women's health, there's a strong need for an institution like PP as part of the landscape, and in a country with universal healthcare we'd need _more_ clinics offering those services, because of the specialization. However, saying that to people who are constantly battling against republicans trying to eliminate funding any way possible who are hell-bent on the elimination of abortion rights, it sounds horrible.
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:33 (eight years ago)
Someone hit the button.
https://dejareviewer.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ludicrous-speed.jpg
― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:34 (eight years ago)
― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:26 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I'm pretty sure it was in the context of backing a candidate for Omaha mayor, i.e. an office that has absolutely zero impact on abortion.
However, I think it's worth asking: if you have a race where the only viable democratic candidate is quietly pro-life but progressive on a lot of other issues, and the alternative is some kind of GOP monster, shouldn't you back the democrat? That was the case in the Louisiana senate special election for example -- should progressives not have supported that guy? I don't understand why this seems to be conventional wisdom on pretty much every other issue but not abortion.
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:36 (eight years ago)
Also, there is a difference between pro-life and supportive of legislation that restricts abortion access, the two are not always the same. Doesn't Tim Kaine lean pro-life?
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:38 (eight years ago)
Yeah, and it diluted the national platform on reproductive health to have him on the ticket
It's not nearly as bad as Gore picking Lieberman. Somehow that's gotten lost over time, but it's still one of the things that makes me insanely irritated
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:41 (eight years ago)
it's too bad American civilization won't survive to that glorious day when unwanted pregnancies are goddamn technologically impossible
cuz fucking fucking fuckin abortion
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:43 (eight years ago)
However, I think it's worth asking: if you have a race where the only viable democratic candidate is quietly pro-life but progressive on a lot of other issues, and the alternative is some kind of GOP monster, shouldn't you back the democrat?
Well, for me, the answer is yes. That answer will differ for every voter, obviously, but I'd venture to guess that Democratic and leftist women would generally feel differently about it. And the goal should be to ensure that the viable candidates are progressive on all the issues, not just a few.
We could make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past tomorrow with comprehensive reproductive healthcare as part of a universal healthcare program. But we won't.
― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:52 (eight years ago)
... how the fuck are you going to make unwanted pregnancies technologically impossible
what
― flappy bird, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:59 (eight years ago)
O yeah lol forgot hilary had a running mate
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:03 (eight years ago)
I forget Kaine's existence on a regular basis.
― Simon H., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:04 (eight years ago)
fb: baby factories
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:08 (eight years ago)
Well, for me, the answer is yes. That answer will differ for every voter, obviously, but I'd venture to guess that Democratic and leftist women would generally feel differently about it.
I wouldn't venture to guess anything about what they'd generally feel. I'd imagine there are different opinions on it though.
The point is that Tim Kaine's pro-life leanings were never made out to be a reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton, but Sanders endorsing a candidate for mayor of Omaha is supposed to be some kind of albatross.
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:11 (eight years ago)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bernie-sanders-tim-kaine-veep-convention-226313
If you're going to relitigate this every fucking chance you have, at least get your facts straight.
― Marcus Hiles Remains Steadfast About Planting Trees.jpg (DJP), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:20 (eight years ago)
Tim Kaine's anti-choice trash was in fact something many of us involved in reproductive justice work were very pissed about and talked about a lot.
― she carries a torch. two torches, actually (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:25 (eight years ago)
Yeah, I was going to say, it was a thing
Every super policy wonk person I know caucused for O'Malley in Iowa!
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:27 (eight years ago)
also, flappy: what Phil D said
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:30 (eight years ago)
me llamo tim kaine
― -_- (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:31 (eight years ago)
Tim ka-YEEN
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:32 (eight years ago)
We could make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past tomorrow with comprehensive reproductive healthcare as part of a universal healthcare program.
I always wonder if there's a way to sell Christian voters on this sort of argument. At least one noted leftist (Elizabeth Bruenig) is pro-life but favors this type of approach/thinking.
― Simon H., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:35 (eight years ago)
I think it probably depends greatly - you could certainly approach, say, your average Lutherans and Episcopalians and whatnot with that argument. But both a lot of Catholic leaders and congregants, as well as evangelicals of all stripes, categorize a variety of widely used birth control methods as "abortifacents" because they stop a fertilized egg from implanting. That makes it tantamount to abortion in their eyes, so its a non-starter.
― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:41 (eight years ago)
I understand why Bruenig states her views the way she does, but afaik she and her husband are against legislation further constricting the status quo, which means she's pro-choice. It's a rhetorical position that's useful for attracting people who are personally against abortion and want to make peace with it being part of the system.
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:45 (eight years ago)
also, what Phil said is the rhetoric of a lot of people, but it's not necessarily indicative of their actual actions, which muddies the issue further
― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:46 (eight years ago)
I always wonder if there's a way to sell Christian voters on this sort of argument.
No, because American Christianity has very little to do with 'Christianity' in the sense of the positive principles laid out by the religion. For most it's not that 'innocent babies are being murdered, how can we stop that' it's 'these immoral/poor people won't stop having sex in ways we don't approve of!'
― louise ck (milo z), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:53 (eight years ago)