So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon 401 Replies latest social current

bohm

Simon: False and you likely know it.
No I don't. I went back and read the tweet in context on twitter and tried to read a bit about her. Did you knew there is a muslim hate site on her? I don't know if she really want Sharia law. If she does I 100% oppose that view as you know.
The alt-right media is hilarious. Breitbart ran a front-page story because Madonna had said "fuck"! Can you believe it? A swear word! The journalist had never heard such crude and foul language and was reaching for the smelling salt! The ensuing comment thread was of course entirely civil.
No,
Well yes breitbart totally did!
Then there was a nazi who got half-punched on camera. The alt-right media went into a frenzy because that obviously demonstrate the entire demonstration is shock-full of violent protesters who were running rampant through the streets, running over nazis with their baby strollers.
No, there have been many attacks on people, regular Trump supporters, than that. The insidious thing is suggesting that it's OK to physically attack people in the street just because you label them a nazi ... by a group who seems to label everyone who disagrees with them a nazi.
I do not doubt there has been other attacks (can you give some sources though? and not the anarchists), but now it happened that the nazi was the one who got the news and as far as I know these were remarkably peaceful protests.
I do not think it is okay to attack someone in the streets but why is that relevant? the point is this was actually a serious talking point, see again the Sargon video.
Yes, it does. They are thugs! Violence to silence people they disagree with politically? What do they have to do for you to say its wrong?!?
well I did say that was wrong :-).
It it OK for the other side to beat people then? Can you not see that supporting or excusing this crap makes it OK when others do it too?
No I don't think it is okay to punch someone, even someone as creepy as that nazi guy (sorry, white supremacist with nazi leanings and followers, whatever)
This is the problem I have with the left, the utter and appalling hypocrisy, feigning outrage about things and then turning round and applauding when their side do it.
Do you see me applauding?
I don't think madonna is taken seriously, even when she was promising to give a crowd of people blow-jobs (oops, lets "respect women!").
well just follow breitbart! she got plenty of coverage in multi-thousand comment threads.
But the insidious creep of Islam and Sharia into western society should be fought tooth and nail because it is a cancer.
I agree! I agree that all anti-democratic, anti-speech, anti-rationality based groups should be fought.
Simon

I don't know if she really want Sharia law. If she does I 100% oppose that view as you know.
Well she does, clearly, you obviously can't search for shit. She also tries to de-platform muslim apostates / liberals.
Well yes breitbart totally did!
FFS, you cut off my answer as just "No" so it completely changes it contextually? That's NOT what I said, I wasn't saying "Breitbart didn't do this", I was pointing out that there is more to the issue that your trivial and fanciful version of it and that yes, it is valid because the set of speeches by all those women apparently there to protest Trump's rude and obnoxious comments were themselves rude and obnoxious.
People can now see how you are IMO intentionally trying to be deceptive and dishonest.
Do you see me applauding?
I see you excusing, attempting to diminish, divert and deny, over and over again.
Laws and civility are easy when it's people we like and agree with. What really shows things up is how people behave toward those they don't.
Sorry, but the left has some great rhetoric about tolerance and such but so often fails when it comes to practice.
bohm

Well she does, clearly, you obviously can't search for shit. She also tries to de-platform muslim apostates / liberals.
Well obviously I can't but I trust you have!. I oppose that view and think it is a serious mistake to have her speak at these marches. New evidence --> new opinions. For my own sake, can you give a link to a place where she says she support Sharia? (not the tweet. I already looked at her history. no I do not think that tweet was appropriate at all and it raises very serious concerns).
yes, it is valid because the set of speeches by all those women apparently there to protest Trump's rude and obnoxious comments were themselves rude and obnoxious.
Well, we are again discussing and contrasting divergent views of many, different people.
Let's take madonna. If trump had said "fuck", and madonna opposed trump for saying "fuck", but she herself said "fuck" in her speech, that's hypocritical. If she opposes Trump for saying the thing about grabbing women by the pussy and being an idiot, then saying "fuck" in her speech is not hypocritical.
I agree you can't say that others should not say fuck (or use rude words) and use rude words yourself. That IS hypocritical. But sure you can swear like a sailor and oppose Trump for the pussy-grabbing comment, I don't see the contradiction. Do you?
Simon

It's about more than the use of certain expletives and you know it. More spinning things, trying to make it out to be something it is not.
All these celebrities that are pathetic examples when it comes to "objectifying women" but suddenly are incredibly virtuous and righteous ... until they get a microphone and show that they are just the same as Trump.
Wasn't that the point of the march? To object to that kind of language? Will there be another march to protest them now?
Did you watch the Clinton ad? I notice you keep avoiding any mention of it.
Here's the link for you again:
https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/823922489780817920
bohm

Wasn't that the point of the march? To object to that kind of language? Will there be another march to protest them now?
No, I don't think the point of the march was to object to swear words... I certainly don't care. I don't understand (well I understand but don't agree) with the use of pop stars as "spokespeople". But you know, consistency: Breitbart made the angle swear words and pop stars. I think that is pretty dumb too.
Maybe you can explain the video. It is a video of women from the left who are swearing. Your point is that these same women, who are swearing, have said that swearing is bad and now they are doing it themselves?
I agree that would be hypocritical. I also think the language about menstruation, etc. is yucky. I don't understand why some forms of feminism has adopted it, but then again, I am an equity feminist...
Spoletta

I'm sorry, but equating the women's march with a call to establish Sharia law is a load of BS! I don't personally know one woman that approves of the treatment of women in some third world countries.
Those that paid attention, would have realized that people like the hated Hillary Clinton have spent a good deal of their time trying to improve the lives of those women. And please don't mention the Clinton foundation. Those who claimed that only a small amount of their money went to charity, omit the fact that the foundation runs it's own programs that supply aid around the world. Add that to their charitable donations and you're well over 90% going to good causes. Of course, most people would prefer to get their information from Breitbart, rather than reputable charity watchdog groups.
Certainly, there were all sorts of strange groups involved in the march, but I would argue that that the real message was not to fight for MORE rights, it was to preserve the rights that women have fought for for centuries.
If you really think that Trump and Pence don't pose any threat to the rights of minorities, other religions and nationalities, the LGBT community, or women in general, then you could only be getting your information from Youtube, Facebook,Twitter, Fox, Breitbart, and numerous other dubious sources that put the Watchtower to shame when it comes to cherry picking.
I choose to consider all sources, fact check when possible, and believe my own eyes and ears. When a false statement is made, and recorded, then it is a fact that it's a lie.There is no alternate fact.
I suspect that some of you don't really believe what you're saying, just like to poke the hive and watch the reaction. Some others, however, seem to care only if something disturbs their little universe. I think I'll stick with those who care about everyone.
Simon

Your point is that these same women, who are swearing, have said that swearing is bad and now they are doing it themselves?
You know it is not simply about certain cuss words. It's the hypocrisy that the march was to protest Trump's language, language that was apparently so objectionable but suddenly OK.
Which of course is why you now want to say the march wasn't about that at all.
Did lots of women just have non-refundable flight and hotel bookings for what they expected was going to be Clinton's inauguration? LOL
They can march and they can protest. I can point and say "hypocrites" and not take them seriously - the outrage, the claims of pay inequality or the oppression by "the white patriarchy" or whatever the bogey-man (oops, I should say bogey "person") is today.
bohm

You know it is not simply about certain cuss words. It's the hypocrisy that the march was to protest Trump's language, language that was apparently so objectionable but suddenly OK
Quite frankly, I don't know that. I don't think the march was to protest the use of the word "fuck" or similar. Just to make it clear: Your claim is that the march was about protesting swear words like "fuck", etc.? That brought 4M men and women to the streets?
What I think many objected to (I certainly do) is a president who brags about grabbing women in the crotch, asides all the other Trump crap. What he describe is sexual harassment. It is not the word "pussy", but that he feels he can go up to woman and grab them by their genitals.
Simon

Your claim is that the march was about protesting swear words like "fuck", etc.?
No, I've been asking what it was about. No one seems to know.

What I think many objected to (I certainly do) is a president who brags about grabbing women in the crotch, asides all the other Trump crap. What he describe is sexual harassment. It is not the word "pussy", but that he feels he can go up to woman and grab them by their genitals.
OK, so that is what you are going with now as the reason for the march ... is that your final answer? It only took 20 pages ...
Now, how does any of it help?
bohm

OK, so that is what you are going with now as the reason for the march ... is that your final answer? It only took 20 pages ...
No. I think the people in the march had different reasons for going but that is probably a reason many shared.
Other reasons are his position on global warming (and the environment in general), his idea of building a border wall, pulling out of TPP, limiting access to birth control, his various sayings about minority groups including the idea of a national registry (a republican concerned about the constitution could easily get upset about that idea), that everything about him seems to have to do with Russia, that he is a fraud and conman, that he is the posterchild of a war against truth and honesty in public discourse and that three intelligence agencies believe the Russians were involved in the election campaign and selected him as a preferred candidate. Do you have any idea about how livid the (pretty damn conservative) ex-intelligence community is about that?
...but you are right: There are also people who were in the march for reasons I cannot support, or which makes no sense.
If you are really interested in the question why not go to social media and ask around? Or read about the march from people who supported it, as opposed to the people selected by the alt-right media?

So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

Share this