1788
How dare you...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1788 points (97.6% liked)
Political Memes
5614 readers
1529 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not to defend “them”, but I really do believe that very little of this has anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman. It’s a red versus blue thing, democracy versus fascism. At this point, it doesn’t really matter who runs for president, wrt gender or even race. Trump has attacked her race far more than mentioning anything about her gender. Nonetheless, Trump just sees the dems as “the enemy“, and has convinced all of his cultists to view things in the same terms.
Any other Republican of this current generation would probably attack her on her gender as much as her race, but for some reason, Trump only attacks things he doesn’t understand such as biraciality (biracialness? Biracitude?).
They've attacked the fact she's a childless woman plenty. Like if it mattered for her policies. I doubt they'll straight up attack her for just being a woman much because they still want the conservative woman vote but they'll sure as shit attack her for woman things.
Hey, that lady hasn't had kids. I haven't had kids, but that's ok because I'm a man. Fuck that bitch, she doesn't have kids, she can't be an american. /s
I think what he is saying is sexism is at play much less than tribalism.
I dont think any sane person can say that sexism is not at play at all.
That's fair enough. Really it's a travesty at all that we have to rank what's being attacked, especially when it has nothing to do with policy.
They’ve attacked her because she doesn’t have any biological children, not because she’s a woman. Although they may be related, the attacks were very specifically against her, not having any biological children.
Because they talk about men not having kids all the time...
They certainly make it as difficult as possible for game to adopt children.
Stop trying to make this simple and black-and-white as they want you to think it is. They’re playing into their bullshit.
What?
Nobody has ever called out a male politician for not having kids. Attacking her for not having kids is literally exclusively about gender.
You don’t know that. And if you’re claiming that’s a fact, then prove it.
When you have to invent things just to make your point, you can’t have a very good point.
....
So you admit your claim is nonsense.
no, they are saying you are an idiot. you not getting that is another proof.
How do you go about proving a lack of evidence? If I claim that there are no bears living on the moon, and you demand proof, how can I possibly provide sufficient proof of a lack of bears?
I’m not the one who made the ridiculous claim, so proving it isn’t my problem. Why don’t you take it up with the person who made it?
You truly aren't understanding why your position is nonsensical, and that's hilarious to me.
In my example, if you were to disagree with the claim that bears aren't living on the moon, then the only way to prove one way or the other is to show evidence that bears do live on the moon. That's not my claim, so I'm not charged with finding evidence that bears live on the moon. If you want my proof that they don't, my proof is that there is no evidence that bears do live on the moon. There's no reason to believe that they do. That's as far as a null can be proven. Just look at all the following evidence I've found in all my long searching for evidence of bears living on the moon:
...
Convinced?
For the actual argument here, the claim is that nobody criticize male politicians for not having children. You said prove that nobody has done that. Well, there's no reporting of that criticism, so what, you want a link that goes to 404: page not found? To discredit that claim, you need to prove the negative; find a criticism of a male politician for not having children. If you can't find it, then you haven't refuted the claim.
Yes, that was an idiotic claim for them to make.
Please explain how someone would prove that it doesn't exist.
We will all wait with bated breath for what will surely be a very informing answer. The stage is all yours.
All you need is one counter-example, dumbass.
Trump and his reich frequently attack her for being a step mother, accuse her of using sex for professional gain, and call her a cat lady. What the fuck are you talking about?
If you have been suddenly struck with amnesia, I suggest you read my comment again. The answer to your incredibly insulting question is there. If it was so shocking and unacceptable to you that you suffered sudden amnesia as a result of reading my comment, that’s on you.
lol
Maybe if you complain some more, the world will be exactly the way you want.
The sense of entitlement from you…
You're awfully belligerent and condescending for someone with nothing to say.
While I agree that at its heart it's a red vs blue issue, I've seen more than enough explicitly sexist commentary from Trump supporters, most commonly suggesting that Kamala has attained her status via sexual favors rather than years of public service.
Ahem…
I’ve heard people openly talking about this election being “whether a woman gets to be president or not”.
I think what he is saying is sexism is at play much less than tribalism.
I dont think any sane person can say that sexism is not at play at all.
I’m not disagreeing, just saying sexism is playing a much bigger part than I anticipated.
Were they saying it like it was a good thing or bad thing?
They were saying it the misogynistic way.
I'm sure it has much nuance, but all things being equal. If she were a 45 year old white man, I believe it would be a lot less close.
I believe that a lot of it has to do with her being a non-white woman.
Obviously, something like 30-40% of people had already picked a side and were going to vote either Trump or whoever was not Trump on the other ticket. But, there are still plenty of people in the middle. Given how extreme the US is, the "middle" isn't reasonable, thoughtful people. They're all voting for the democrats. It's racists who don't think abortion should be banned. It's sexists who are concerned with corruption. It's people who are in the alt-right bubble and think that George Soros and Bill Gates are using mosquitoes to infect people with 5G... but who think Trump is a Freemason, so you can't vote for him.
👍 in my country I'm in the middle, but by US-American standards I'm far left (or more left than the democrats at least).
Pretty much, I used to think Hillary was just THAT unpopular, and that Trump could never win a fair election with someone competent, capable, and without baggage.
I really hope I wasn't wrong...
They are new to politics, and are using the only model they find applicable:
Sports spectating, ala pro-wrestling or college football.
To add to that, calling them sexist further entrenches them. A big part of that movement is a reaction to being called sexist, racist, etc... All you're doing is playing into their own propaganda. That's why the "weird" moniker was so much more effective.