Biden drops out

[Abby Normal]

Wow Elon

 

[Bolt Head]

Wow Elon

Kamala Hamas! LMFAOOOOO!

 

[sil-40]

Sexism?
You can't be serious. We don't not want her because she's female. I'd take Candace Owens in a heartbeat.
You're slinging typical leftist labels.

Child Sniffer dropped out like a loaded diaper, now we have Suggalottacox dripping down our leg.

So you're an opportunistic sexist if their political agenda doesn't suits yours. Got it.

 

[Bolt Head]

So you're an opportunistic sexist if their political agenda doesn't suits yours. Got it.

Typical leftist mind. No amount of simple, basic explanation even hinders your flinging of the baseless labels.
Sexist, racist, fascist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe, nazi, etc., etc., etc....
I see you're educated, knowledgeable, but that is different from IQ and logic, and indoctrination.

In order for me to be sexist, to any degree, I'd have to base my dislike on gender (there are only two), which is false, but you stepped clean around that.

 

[sil-40]

It's leftist behavior not to humiliate another human being based on an ignorant assumption that they can't get where they are unless they degradingly perform oral sex on men? And I'm the indoctrinated one?

So that we're clear, you believe that implying a woman can not get where she is professionally unless she (let's call it what you did but without the veil of phonetics) "sucks a lot of c**cks" is not sexism because you don't apply that same logic to every woman on the planet? That's like saying you can't be racist because you have a black friend.

It's either that or you're implying that you have first-hand knowledge of her sexual history. In which case, I will happily apologize for my presumptive comments.

 

[thperez1972]

It's leftist behavior not to humiliate another human being based on an ignorant assumption that they can't get where they are unless they degradingly perform oral sex on men? And I'm the indoctrinated one?

So that we're clear, you believe that implying a woman can not get where she is professionally unless she (let's call it what you did but without the veil of phonetics) "sucks a lot of c**cks" is not sexism because you don't apply that same logic to every woman on the planet? That's like saying you can't be racist because you have a black friend.

It's absolutely nothing like saying you have a black friend so you can't be racist.

You are so wrong on this it's tough to figure out if you're doing it on purpose and trolling people or if you are really so indoctrinated by the leftist playbook that you can only view people in terms of any marginalized groups they may belong to. For open minded people, someone is allowed to dislike a specific person, who happens to be black or a woman, because of something unrelated to their race or gender. In this case, there exists a specific candidate who, based on that candidate's speeches, is just plain ignorant and that candidate only succeeded because that candidate gave sexual favors to others in power. I don't like that candidate because of those factors. Their race and gender are irrelevant. But the leftist playbook says if I don't like someone and that person happens to be black or a woman, I'm automatically labeled a racist or a sexist, even if the factors have nothing to do with race or gender.

It's either that or you're implying that you have first-hand knowledge of her sexual history. In which case, I will happily apologize for my presumptive comments.

 

[Bolt Head]

It's leftist behavior not to humiliate another human being based on an ignorant assumption that they can't get where they are unless they degradingly perform oral sex on men? And I'm the indoctrinated one?

So that we're clear, you believe that implying a woman can not get where she is professionally unless she (let's call it what you did but without the veil of phonetics) "sucks a lot of c**cks" is not sexism because you don't apply that same logic to every woman on the planet? That's like saying you can't be racist because you have a black friend.

It's either that or you're implying that you have first-hand knowledge of her sexual history. In which case, I will happily apologize for my presumptive comments.

What I posted was not based on sex/gender. What I posted was sexually-charged and vulgar, but that doesn't make it sexist.

"Suggalottacox" is not strictly a female thing. Menstruating is, however.

Welcome to politics.

 

[sil-40]

That's rich, guys.

Oh, you know what? You're right. I completely forgot about all the other male politicians you claimed performed sexual favors to get where they were today. My mistake. Completely not sexist.

It's not a playbook. It's human decency which is clearly lacking here. You ever see me call Donald Trump an ignorant Orange Faux Dicktator who gets sexual favors from his disciples because his wife won't touch him? No...because it's hateful, ignorant and unsubstantiated to not treat him like a human being based on his merit. Conservatives are supposed to be the God-fearing, high road party of law and order...not whatever the hell it's turned into.

 

[thperez1972]

That's rich, guys.

Oh, you know what? You're right. I completely forgot about all the other male politicians you claimed performed sexual favors to get where they were today. My mistake. Completely not sexist.

It's not a playbook. It's human decency which is clearly lacking here. You ever see me call Donald Trump an ignorant Orange Faux Dicktator who gets sexual favors from his disciples because his wife won't touch him? No...because it's hateful, ignorant and unsubstantiated to not treat him like a human being based on his merit. Conservatives are supposed to be the God-fearing, high road party of law and order...not whatever the hell it's turned into.

Man...they got their claws in you good. You are hung up on the gender thing. You can't view Harris as a person. It has to be that Harris is a woman first.

But I have faith in you. I believe you can view someone as a person first if you just let open your mind. So let's try this again.

I assert it to be a fact that the person on stage in the below picture wearing camouflage pants is short. We can debate over the criteria for what constitutes short but I would say a reasonable person would consider a 34 year old who is 4 foot 3 inches tall as short. But incase you want to be unreasonable, just go with it anyway.

That person is a woman. But me presenting a fact about that specific person that is unrelated to gender does not make me sexist just because that person is a woman.

In addition, my not pointing out any male people does not make me sexist for pointing out a fact that is unrelated to gender about that specific person, who happens to be a woman.

If you still don't get it, I'm afraid your leftist indoctrination may have been too deep.

Bonus points if anyone can name the band.

 

[sil-40]

If you want to condone that on your site, go for it brother. If you want to pretend it’s not a sexist comment because you are incapable of facing that it is what it is, go for it. If it quacks like a duck, I’m going to call it a duck. You can throw some stripes on it but it’ll never be a zebra.

If you don’t like it, you can try all you like to convince me otherwise but if all you has is “Youre indoctrinated” in your attempts to defend vitriolic behavior, I don’t know what to tell you other than you might want to talk to a therapist or a priest.

And the Olympics may be going on right now but I do hope you consider trying out for mental gymnastics in 4 years.

 

[thperez1972]

Condone what? Someone voicing their opinion about the vice president? Should this site not allow people to voice an opinion you don't like about someone they disagree with? I'm sorry that you're easily triggered but I guess that's just part of the indoctrination. If you'd like, I can talk to the owner about setting up a safe space section where trigger words are not allowed.

 

[sil-40]

I understand the point you're trying to make. What I'm telling you is not that you're wrong but that you're having a conversation that's not even in the ballpark of the actual topic at hand. You're not defending the right to voice an opinion here. You're defending his stance. Lord have mercy, you're dense man. I know this demographic is triggered by words ending in "ist" but those things are real...they exist. If you don't believe me that what was said is sexism, go read the verdict of Parker vs. Reema Consulting. Now we aren't in the court of law or a workplace but the ruling strikes at the heart that it can't be sexist.

As alleged, the rumor was that Parker, a female subordinate, had sex with her male superior to obtain a promotion, implying that Parker used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, so seduced, a promotion. She plausibly invokes a deeply rooted perception – one that unfortunately still persists – that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success. And with this double standard, women, but not men, are susceptible to being labelled as “sluts” or worse, prostitutes selling their bodies for gain. . . . The complaint . . . invokes by inference this sex stereotype. . . .

In short, because “traditional negative stereotypes regarding the relationship between the advancement of women in the workplace and their sexual behavior stubbornly persist in our society, and “these stereotypes may cause superiors and coworkers to treat women in the workplace differently from men,” it is plausibly alleged that Parker suffered harassment because she was a woman.

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Only one is forgivable.

Also, calling me triggered and indoctrinated and all the other things you like to try to use to define me...categorizing me won't help you feel better about you. Trying to say that I'm sexist for calling someone sexist (??) is just gaslighting and arguing in bad faith. I celebrate humanity's differences. I don't use differences in sex, gender, etc. as a means to belittle or disparage.

 

[thperez1972]

I said his opinions did not rise to the level of sexist comments. I still maintain his comments are not sexist, despite the court case you cited. It doesn't take much reading to see the numerous differences between it and this discussion. If you go back and read again, you were the one triggered. It led to your insisting he be labeled as sexist. "Categorizing me won't help you feel better about you" says the person who tried really hard to characterize another member as sexist. You're a great example of confession through projection. So are you interested in that safe space? I think it could go in the section titles Administrative. It can even be named as "Sil-40's Safe Space."

 

[Bolt Head]

I understand the point you're trying to make. What I'm telling you is not that you're wrong but that you're having a conversation that's not even in the ballpark of the actual topic at hand. You're not defending the right to voice an opinion here. You're defending his stance. Lord have mercy, you're dense man. I know this demographic is triggered by words ending in "ist" but those things are real...they exist. If you don't believe me that what was said is sexism, go read the verdict of Parker vs. Reema Consulting. Now we aren't in the court of law or a workplace but the ruling strikes at the heart that it can't be sexist.



There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Only one is forgivable.

Also, calling me triggered and indoctrinated and all the other things you like to try to use to define me...categorizing me won't help you feel better about you. Trying to say that I'm sexist for calling someone sexist (??) is just gaslighting and arguing in bad faith. I celebrate humanity's differences. I don't use differences in sex, gender, etc. as a means to belittle or disparage.

I've read through all this FIVE times to try to see where Perez called you "sexist", and it does not exist. There has been no gaslighting by Perez or myself.

And I agree, between stupidity and ignorance, only one can be forgiven.

 

[Bolt Head]

 

[Magdump]

I've read through all this FIVE times to try to see where Perez called you "sexist", and it does not exist. There has been no gaslighting by Perez or myself.

And I agree, between stupidity and ignorance, only one can be forgiven.

Forgive, forget, ignore….the choice is easy bro…

 

[Jstudz220]

If you want to condone that on your site, go for it brother. If you want to pretend it’s not a sexist comment because you are incapable of facing that it is what it is, go for it. If it quacks like a duck, I’m going to call it a duck. You can throw some stripes on it but it’ll never be a zebra.

If you don’t like it, you can try all you like to convince me otherwise but if all you has is “Youre indoctrinated” in your attempts to defend vitriolic behavior, I don’t know what to tell you other than you might want to talk to a therapist or a priest.

And the Olympics may be going on right now but I do hope you consider trying out for mental gymnastics in 4 years.

Do you sit down when you pee? Just curious.

The amount of leftist propaganda you’re spewing is mind numbing. You seem like a fairly smart guy. It makes me think you’re trolling and don’t really believe all of the BS you’re regurgitating.

 

[Abby Normal]

Was Kamala a dei hirer? Let’s see what Joe has to say about his vp?

 

[Abby Normal]

Letterman got biden to speak the truth. #5.

 

[jdindadell]

Being sexist would indicate that you dislike the entire gender, everyone of them.

Pointing out the obvious when it refers to one person, who happens to not be the same gender as you is not sexism.

Much like racism, hating on one person who is not the same race as you is not racism. Gotta hate em all to be a legit racist.