Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

PJ is decently funny on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me! But that's mostly quibs, which he can handle well.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

Former Human posted:

He wasn't just against raising the minimum wage, he claimed there shouldn't even be a minimum wage. Instead, poor people should get tax credits. I'm not sure what good that does when poor people don't pay much in taxes in the first place :confused:

It's just another conservative sleight of hand that assuages under-informed voters while filtering more and more money to the top.

Not to be pedantic, but poor people pay a lot in taxes (a larger % of their income), its just not income taxes. Its sales, property, payroll and other taxes. Now, if we could give people sales tax credits that'd be awesome.

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

ApexAftermath posted:

No he was specifically implying he thinks AI technology is close enough to being real that soon all tech support could be done by AI computers and we will lose those jobs entirely. He is a moron.

Define soon, because the academic literature says <20 years. Realize this is what IBM is training Watson to do too. Guy was still an idiot though.

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

frenton posted:

I think it's a bit harsh to say "Bill Maher hates Muslims" but I am apparently in the minority. It's not like he's saying we should kill every Muslim or that every Muslim is a violent lunatic. He's just pointing out the very real fact that in the modern world a violent religious zealot's religion is likely Islam. It's obviously not a condemnation of every Muslim, it's a criticism of the religion itself and the culture it can create. While this isn't exclusive to Islam, as Bill pointed out on the show, it's not the year 1400. If it was we would be having this discussion about Christianity instead.

Really, I think Maher should be able to do a little bit better than "not advocating genocide".

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

peter banana posted:

Are you serious?

Hey if she didn't want to get physically assaulted she should have been a buff dude or not opened her clap-trap, 'amirite!

But seriously, Maher for all his liberalism is still of the boomer generation and it shows sometimes.

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

Super Deuce posted:

Is it misandry to suggest a man be beaten up?

Go back to redpill if you think the world is that loving simple.

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

Super Deuce posted:

It would be misogyny to suggest all women should be beaten. It's not misogyny to suggest one woman be beaten. It really is simple.

So radical islamists aren't misogynist because they don't beat all women, just the ones they choose to beat?

How often has Maher argued that a man should be beaten?

Also you're just being willfully ignorant about the history of violence against women who speak up or participate in politics not just in the US but across the world. But you know, continue to pretend that you can't just decide that prejudice is only prejudice if it is applied to every single person ever. So in your world, the Klan isn't racist, redpill never says anything sexist, and its just these drat minorities whining about nothing all the time.



(Also note the classic tactic of removing the context to discriminatory comments. This is often a first line of defense, since by removing the context they can strip out the systematic cultural and social norms of discrimination and replace it with hypotheticals from an imagined world.)


IRQ posted:

Something something patriarchy something something just because it's a woman and history it is inherently misogynistic.


Personally, I don't really think it's misogynistic to say that, for instance, Anne Coulter should get hit by a garbage truck that is on fire.


Do you say this about every single conservative commenter you dislike? Why or why not?

(Also another common tactic, the pre-dismissal of valid concepts, so now in this conversation it is implied the entire concept of "the past impacts the present" is non-sensical.)

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:05 on May 12, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

The Dave posted:

It's stupid to say wanting a woman to get hit is instantly misogyny. There's more to it then just words.

If he wants her to get hit because she's a woman, misogynistic.

If he wants her to get hit because he gets off on women getting hit, misogynistic.

If he thinks all women should be hit for what they do, misogynistic.

If he never thinks men should be hit but it's okay for a woman to be (which we know isn't true), misogynistic.

If he thinks all dumb people, regardless of gender, should be hit, not misogynistic, just hot tempered.

However if he only ever calls women dumb, then it goes back to misogyny. However we know that's not the case with Maher.

It's really not that hard.

So under your rules, is it impossible to say something sexist or racist so long as you don't think you are doing it for sexist or racist reasons? Is it impossible for someone to act in a discriminating way without intending to be discriminating?


Don't you see the hypocrisy between his rabid attacks on Muslims for violence against women and his own (even joking) advocacy of the same? How many times has Maher called her a MILF (hint: many)? The context of the man and the comments matter.





IRQ posted:

Pretty much!

I mean, I may vary what particular large motor vehicle they should be struck by and what modifiers may be present (eg fire) as the moment takes me.

(Not really, you're trying to reduce real societal factors and biases in which the past does indeed impact the present down to very specific instances in which they are not actually relevant.)

Your own posting history still seems rather one sided on this topic, but I am far too lazy to actually look hard or anything. My main point is that ignoring the context isn't a valid way to look at discrimination. The long standing history of excluding women from the American political process and from the media is a real part of that context.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:41 on May 12, 2014

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply