Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Hillary Clinton's disappointing claim.


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#21 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:18 PM

^ What is it about Hillary Clinton that causes you to characterize her as a "skank"? Other than your general sense of misogyny.

Edited by yadda yadda, 16 September 2017 - 09:18 PM.


#22 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:33 PM

View Postyadda yadda, on 16 September 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

^ What is it about Hillary Clinton that causes you to characterize her as a "skank"? Other than your general sense of misogyny.

You're taking "skank" entirely out of context. I said she's a "middle-class bourgeois skank", meaning she's a morally-depraved sack of poo, like everyone else who buys into bourgeois politics.

Edited by gsmonks, 16 September 2017 - 09:37 PM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#23 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:36 PM

The bourgeoisie is morally depraved in that it wholly ignores the plight of the poor and disenfranchised, and is doubly morally depraved as it seems incapable of the self-honesty and introspection required to have or demonstrate empathy (for the poor and disenfranchised).
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#24 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:38 PM

Skank: Noun: Any substance considered disgustingly foul or unpleasant
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#25 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:41 PM

Skank: Noun: a sleazy or unpleasant person.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#26 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:03 PM

^ Merriam-webster has it *slightly* different:

Quote

a person and especially a woman of low or sleazy character

I personally have never heard a man referred to as a skank, but others experiences may differ.

Edited by sierraleone, 16 September 2017 - 10:03 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#27 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:16 PM

I don't pay any attention to anything that comes out of Webster's. It's a US dictionary that has its roots in buggering the English language up the arse and calling the result "American English".
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#28 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 10:35 PM

^ What dictionary do you use? Oxford:

Quote

2 North American informal A sleazy or unpleasant person.
2.1 derogatory A woman who has many casual sexual encounters or relationships.


Not always, but generally when I see an adjective/noun for humans that has a derogatory definition for one gender, it tends to be interpreted to have gendered overtones when the nominally gender-neutral definition is purportedly intended.

Edited by sierraleone, 16 September 2017 - 10:37 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#29 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 02:06 AM

The derogatory version applies in context. In this instance it does refer to a woman of low or sleazy character. Middle-class bourgeois skank is the context, meaning she has little or no concern for the poor and disenfranchised, and will continue to treat them with depraved indifference.

For depraved see morally corrupt.

For depraved indifference, see:

https://definitions....d-indifference/

Depraved indifference is the act of allowing people, especially children, live in grinding poverty when you have the means to fix the problem.

Depraved indifference is when you allow an intolerable problem (grinding poverty, the abomination that is the penal system, the treatment of the handicapped, mentally ill, people with no access to higher education) to continue, generation after generation, when you have the means to put an end to the problem.

The minimum wage is an example of depraved indifference by a whole class of people.

Hillary Clinton, indeed the whole of the middle class, is guilty of depraved indifference, and will do nothing to fix the problem so long as their collective dick is being sucked by successive generations of politicians whose only interest is in getting elected and staying in power.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#30 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 02:11 AM

View Postgsmonks, on 16 September 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

I don't pay any attention to anything that comes out of Webster's. It's a US dictionary that has its roots in buggering the English language up the arse and calling the result "American English".

Highbrow attitude from the person who then says this:

View Postgsmonks, on 17 September 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

Hillary Clinton, indeed the whole of the middle class, is guilty of depraved indifference, and will do nothing to fix the problem so long as their collective dick is being sucked by successive generations of politicians whose only interest is in getting elected and staying in power.

And earlier said this:

View Postgsmonks, on 16 September 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

The problem with Clinton is that she's a middle-class bourgeois skank. Like all modern politicians, she's about giving head to the middle class (the greater proportion of voters) to the exclusion of all else. The veterans, the poor, the mentally ill (including those in the penal system), the working poor, are treated with depraved indifference by both parties, and this is equally true in Canada, Europe, and around the world.

Elections come down to two things: the budget, and giving head to the middle class. This was kind of okay when corporations were taxed at a rate of around 95%, but in this day and age when even the middle class has the corporate jackboot on its neck, politicians can only make empty promises to the middle class.

Any politician who only cares about giving head to the middle class is a syphilitic pustule of depraved indifference, in my estimation. Bernie was the only politician, in decades, to actually address the underlying problems and do something about them.

But hey, if you're okay with depraved indifference towards society's most vulnerable, I guess you can be excused, because that makes you like most people.

Which is on the level of a pre-teen to early teen, who has just discovered dirty words and uses them at every given opportunity. I have news for you, doing this is only slightly funny the first time it is done, after that it is just boring and annoying (or stupid, take your pick).
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#31 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,772 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 10:10 AM

View PostElara, on 18 September 2017 - 02:11 AM, said:


Which is on the level of a pre-teen to early teen, who has just discovered dirty words and uses them at every given opportunity. I have news for you, doing this is only slightly funny the first time it is done, after that it is just boring and annoying (or stupid, take your pick).

Amen!

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#32 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 12:03 PM

Bollocks. It's a profound observation of the ills of modern society and describes perfectly why it's doomed to fail, badly.

If it's the language that offends you, you have a pretty warped sense of priorities.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#33 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,772 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 12:50 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 18 September 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

Bollocks. It's a profound observation of the ills of modern society and describes perfectly why it's doomed to fail, badly.

If it's the language that offends you, you have a pretty warped sense of priorities.

If you want people to listen, the language you use becomes paramount.  It's more than [we women] being offended at your choice of words. It's that the communication itself becomes degraded.  Speak for clarity, speak your mind of course, but don't be surprised that people take issue.  You chosen form and manner of speech is entirely intended to create agitation.  So, let's not play innocent and pretend you don't know the intent of your communication.

Which is fine btw.  We all have a tone in our communication.  Yours is abrasive, but I've never known you to be dishonest in your opinions.  So there's that.  But please, don't pretend you're not a provocateur with your language.  That's beneath you.  You write to provoke thinking/people.  Which is a good thing.  But, when you do that, don't throw up your hands when people are provoked.  It's what you intended.  ;)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#34 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 09:25 PM

Again, bollocks, Cait.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.pqed.org/...-profanity.html

Profanity is commonly used when all reasonableness and reason fails. For example, no one (literally) pays the least attention to our core social ills and does anything about them. So it becomes necessary to refer to the mainstream, who won't lift a finger to end poverty or improve conditions for the mentally ill and those leading to lawlessness, as "a bunch of useless assholes".

Writers from Shakespeare to Kurt Vonnegut wouldn't have hesitated to refer to such as such.

If I'm using words that offend, maybe you should be looking into the many reasons I use language that offends, instead of wasting time complaining about the form of the message. That is, unless you too don't care about the message.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#35 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,772 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 10:43 AM

View Postgsmonks, on 18 September 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

Again, bollocks, Cait.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.pqed.org/...-profanity.html

Profanity is commonly used when all reasonableness and reason fails. For example, no one (literally) pays the least attention to our core social ills and does anything about them. So it becomes necessary to refer to the mainstream, who won't lift a finger to end poverty or improve conditions for the mentally ill and those leading to lawlessness, as "a bunch of useless assholes".

Writers from Shakespeare to Kurt Vonnegut wouldn't have hesitated to refer to such as such.

If I'm using words that offend, maybe you should be looking into the many reasons I use language that offends, instead of wasting time complaining about the form of the message. That is, unless you too don't care about the message.

Excuses for your language don't make the conversation any more productive.  The entire purpose of language is to communicate.  Your choice of words is of course yours alone.  I presume you are communicating in the exact manner you wish, to relay the exact POV you desire.  That's fine.  We all do that.

But, don't get you panties in a bunch when people don't see your POV, because, while we all choose our words to best describe our POV, we also have to choose the best way to allow others to see our POV.  Oftentimes, language that is intended to offend, only communicates an offensive POV.  And do not claim that your language isn't intended to agitate.  It is.  We have years of evidence that that's exactly what you intend.

In fact, that's the primary thing you have communicated with all your posts.  Like I said above, you are a provocateur, and you intend to excite.  And again, I don't mean that as a negative, you do it to make people think [I presume]. But, you often get caught up in your own provocative narrative, and lose sight of the topic.  That means you are failing to communicate, you are only provoking.

Listing numerous excuses for why you can use profanity is not the point.  I don't have a moral or social issue with profanity.  Like you, I realize that it is often used like an exclamation point in punctuation--it underlines a bigger POV.  But we all have to recognize that the point of communication is to actually relate something to others. Overuse of profanity, or not knowing your audience, nullifies the  entire point of communication because you lose your intended audience.

Unless you're doing this just for your own pleasure, in which case you're something else.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#36 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 07:05 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 16 September 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

View Postyadda yadda, on 16 September 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

^ What is it about Hillary Clinton that causes you to characterize her as a "skank"? Other than your general sense of misogyny.

You're taking "skank" entirely out of context. I said she's a "middle-class bourgeois skank", meaning she's a morally-depraved sack of poo, like everyone else who buys into bourgeois politics.

It may be out of context but your "middle-class bourgeois" characterization is just so much white noise to me. You say that sort of thing so much it really doesn't incur recognition in me anymore, just unnecessary and irrelevant rhetorical baggage. Too much repetition and too much ginned up misdirected outrage for me, I just shut it out. As if Hillary Clinton hasn't tried to help the poor and oppressed throughout her career. But "skank", that I did notice because to me there is nothing remotely skanky about Hillary Clinton. Whatever your complaints or criticisms  you may have of her, politically, ideologically, morally, I don't see how skank fits as an accurate characterization of this accomplished and capable woman. Skank to me means slutty or sexually loose, maybe not regularly bathed. Like a crack ho' trying to raise funds for a fix. I'm sure you'll wiggle out by dismissing my take on skankiness as out of your context of middle-class bourgeois, I miss your point, because that's always your play. But middle- class and skankiness don't really mesh, frankly. Skanks are low class, and Hillary Clinton is high class no matter how you try to slice or dice it or display your misogyny.

We had a discussion awhile back about how you felt that HRC fell short in your estimation in answering the bell for the Catholic charity political "roast" dinner that she and  not yet 45 attended. To me and Elara it seemed like you were attempting to hold Hillary to a higher standard than a coarse and vindictive 45, and I seem to recall a lot of your middle-class bourgeois perspective of her was all over her in that discussion, too.  We disagreed with and questioned your understanding of the concept of a roast which to you was evidently only mastered and properly executed by Don Rickles in the 70's or 80's. I don't want to relitigate that argument because distorting reality into a frustrating pretzel once is plenty enough, but a skank would've cursed out Donald and ripped out his hair plugs or his toupee, whatever the hell that thing on his head is. That's what uncultured skanks do. Hillary answered with a few jokes. That's what classy, reasonable people do. By the way, I concur that your usage of overdone profanity and references to arses, erections, and rectal spew does not really act to advance or solidify your arguments, at least in my mind. But that's just me and maybe a few others. If you think rectal spew expresses your core beliefs then by all means keep on spewing.

Edited by yadda yadda, 19 September 2017 - 11:01 PM.


#37 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:12 AM

View PostCait, on 19 September 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

View Postgsmonks, on 18 September 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

Again, bollocks, Cait.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.pqed.org/...-profanity.html

Profanity is commonly used when all reasonableness and reason fails. For example, no one (literally) pays the least attention to our core social ills and does anything about them. So it becomes necessary to refer to the mainstream, who won't lift a finger to end poverty or improve conditions for the mentally ill and those leading to lawlessness, as "a bunch of useless assholes".

Writers from Shakespeare to Kurt Vonnegut wouldn't have hesitated to refer to such as such.

If I'm using words that offend, maybe you should be looking into the many reasons I use language that offends, instead of wasting time complaining about the form of the message. That is, unless you too don't care about the message.

Excuses for your language don't make the conversation any more productive.  The entire purpose of language is to communicate.

Well, that is patent nonsense. Language serves many purposes. Communication of information is hardly the whole ball of wax, otherwise our existence would be boring, dry-stick stuff.

When it comes to communication, a part of communication involving language is making people pay attention. This involves a good many devices, including profanity.

You're conflating this with gratuitous swearing. For a person of your intelligence, you should know that the two aren't even in the same ball-park.

As I said before, if you're focussing on this instead of the message, either you don't like the message, or it makes you uncomfortable and you don't want to examine something in yourself. Deflect, digress, don't talk about it.

I'm not saying this is a failing solely in yourself. It's a social failing that speaks to the state of society as a whole. We've had thousands of years to admit there's a problem with the penal system, and plenty of time to fix that problem. We've had thousands of years to address poverty and put and end to it, but all but a few bury their heads in the sand and do nothing. Everyone loves to rant and rave about such things, but where are they when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is?

And here we are, with the conversation derailed and focussed on the wholly irrelevant subject of language. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the same inertia that prevents society from doing anything about our core social ills is at work here, in the same insidious way that's worked for it for millennia. I want to do something about it, except when it comes to actually doing something about it. Let's nitpick a few words, instead. That effectively stops the conversation and deflects from the subject matter.

Meanwhile, Billary is still a rich-hypocrite Dixiecrat who never missed a meal in her life, who will never in a million years make a material sacrifice aimed at eradicating poverty, ending the abomination that is the penal system, of dealing with racism. She makes statements, to be sure, but talk is cheap. Worthless if it doesn't lead to change.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#38 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:12 AM

dubble poast

Edited by gsmonks, 20 September 2017 - 02:15 AM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#39 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:24 AM

View Postyadda yadda, on 19 September 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:


^ What is it about Hillary Clinton that causes you to characterize her as a "skank"? Other than your general sense of misogyny.
Skank to me means slutty or sexually loose, maybe not regularly bathed. Like a crack ho' trying to raise funds for a fix. I'm sure you'll wiggle out by dismissing my take on skankiness as out of your context of middle-class bourgeois, I miss your point, because that's always your play. But middle- class and skankiness don't really mesh, frankly. Skanks are low class, and Hillary Clinton is high class no matter how you try to slice or dice it or display your misogyny.

Billary "high class". You're joking, right? For someone who talks a blue streak about "change" and "ending poverty", she has ever once in her life stopped stuffing her face and making any material contribution to those ends. Her fat arse attests to just how much she cares about the poor, the working poor, the disenfranchised, and the most vulnerable in society.

When was the last (or first) time you saw her stand with a crowd, in a wholly committed manner, in an effort to affect change?

She's a rich wanker who slums it in order to play politics with the rest of Washington's hypocrites.

She'd no more miss a meal to save a starving child than she'd sleep in a tent to help put an end to homelessness.

To have class means to act selflessly on behalf of others. To be self-serving is something else entirely.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#40 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 04:02 AM

^. Sorry, bollocks and misogynistic rectal spew as far as I'm concerned. But everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Though I would be interested to know how one ends homelessness by sleeping in a tent? Or how missing a meal saves a starving child when you can just feed them or fund a program that does. BTW, how many starving homeless kids have you saved this week by missing meals and sleeping in a tent? Just curious.

Edited by yadda yadda, 20 September 2017 - 04:07 AM.



0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users