Maybe Dana meant the larger 'us' that includes the right wing media human centipede (h/t Seth Triggs), since (as you indicate) they don't seem to be wasting breath/bandwidth on the 'equivalent'.
You want someone to run the numbers on how many MAGA bottom-feeders need to be reminded by their trickle-down handlers to avoid fantasizing about one vs. the other?
I disagree with you about one thing here: session musicians create music, which is a beautiful thing. These Fox “professionals” are depraved whores who contribute to chaos and evil.
Focusing on a female politician who is attractive, calling her "hot," while ignoring the looks of equally attractive male politicians, is sexism by definition.
I don't want to offend you here. It's something we do without thinking. We judge women first on their looks, and then judge the judging, before we even go to that question regarding men. I think many women do the same thing. We call Ossoff "forceful" and only later note that he's good looking. (He's 39, BTW. She's 36.)
Watching both AOC and Ossoff in action, I think she's better on her feet than he is, while he may be a better speaker from a podium. Both are essential skills in a politician. But they don't tell you anything about how they would use power. They just tell you things you want to know about their candidacies for higher office.
Anyway, I'll back out quietly now. Keep up the good work, Mike. You give me a lot to think about.
I don't take it that way at all?? The response is a discussion of the way Faux news goes after AOC over her supposed unattractiveness, which -is- obviously sexist. (and false) Are they also going after Ossoff? He's a family man so he's not expected to date...I'm confused. Is it necessary to draw equal lists of hot men and women? Is it relevant?
You correctly interpreted what I was doing. I am reacting to Republicans being sexist against her, the fact that Republicans say insane things like "liberal women are all ugly" among other sexist demagoguery. I am rubbing it in their face that she's an intelligent, attractive woman, and she can outmaneuver all of them rhetorically.
We get it — you responded to the mere title rather than the point of the whole piece. Which is fair insofar as Mr Brock has a generally good track record of matching the two.
The major reason I can't watch Fox, even more so than what they're selling, is the bimbos they have selling it. When I turn on TV my lookist bias emerges. I want to see attractive people. Most TV is dependable for that. But Fox? They're even uglier outside than inside. It makes superficial seem like a bad thing.
In the increasingly likely event that the "socialists" take over, there are going to be calls to censor Fox News the way Brendan Carr wants to censor ABC. We don't need that. We need to just apply the same standard that applies elsewhere. For instance, it is law in this country that a fruit beverage has to be at least 90 percent real fruit juice to be sold as fruit juice, otherwise it must be sold as a "fruit drink."
I don't think that's accurate. The only socialists anywhere near any seats of power are DSA aligned and the DSA explicitly calls out freedom of speech in their platform:
"Democratic socialism is committed both to a freedom of speech that does not recoil from dissent, and to the freedom to organize independent trade unions, women’s groups, political parties, and other social movements."
I'm not aware of any modern western socialist movements that support censorship. Are you?
Everything you wrote is true. I will add that JDVance, the vice presidential product of Peter Thiel, says outrageous things like “they’re eating cats and dogs” and “Democrats hate America” not because he believes them but because he has been paid and promoted to say them so that it isn’t only his demented racist president who says such things. Trump says them because he likes to watch his victims - all of us - twitch and dance and ignore his criminal grifting.
The newscasters and politicians who say that crazy shit DO actually believe it. Same as religious crazies. They all convince themselves their lies are true so they can better convince others. The late, great and slightly mad evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers did fabulous work on the evolutionary origins of self delusion. And if you think about it, the delusion probably started back when we were wandering around in small tribes and one of the tribe members self-proclaimed to be a shaman. They knew full fucking well, for a while anyway, that they had no connection to the invented gods. But the status of the gig was too good to give up so they began believing their own bullshit. Newscasters, politicians and religious fundamentalists of all persuasions are no different.
Every single Republican Congressman would drop his wife/GF/sidepiece like a flaming hot skillet if they thought AOC might give them the time of day—and yes, that includes the closeted ones.
The right likes Mar-A-Lago plastic face. So, if they don't find her attractive, it's not an insult.
"This is the one where they get to hurt people and be paid for it and have their hurting called work."
Just like the ICE Gestapo, prison guards and most cops. The cruelty is the point. That's why they do the job.
So is Jon Ossoff. But AOC is female so let’s be sexist.
Who disagrees that Jon Ossoff is attractive? I know many women (and at least one gay man) who thinks he's hot. How am I being sexist?
Maybe Dana meant the larger 'us' that includes the right wing media human centipede (h/t Seth Triggs), since (as you indicate) they don't seem to be wasting breath/bandwidth on the 'equivalent'.
You want someone to run the numbers on how many MAGA bottom-feeders need to be reminded by their trickle-down handlers to avoid fantasizing about one vs. the other?
I disagree with you about one thing here: session musicians create music, which is a beautiful thing. These Fox “professionals” are depraved whores who contribute to chaos and evil.
The Megyn Kelly arc alone has long since beggared my imagination.
Focusing on a female politician who is attractive, calling her "hot," while ignoring the looks of equally attractive male politicians, is sexism by definition.
I don't want to offend you here. It's something we do without thinking. We judge women first on their looks, and then judge the judging, before we even go to that question regarding men. I think many women do the same thing. We call Ossoff "forceful" and only later note that he's good looking. (He's 39, BTW. She's 36.)
Watching both AOC and Ossoff in action, I think she's better on her feet than he is, while he may be a better speaker from a podium. Both are essential skills in a politician. But they don't tell you anything about how they would use power. They just tell you things you want to know about their candidacies for higher office.
Anyway, I'll back out quietly now. Keep up the good work, Mike. You give me a lot to think about.
I don't take it that way at all?? The response is a discussion of the way Faux news goes after AOC over her supposed unattractiveness, which -is- obviously sexist. (and false) Are they also going after Ossoff? He's a family man so he's not expected to date...I'm confused. Is it necessary to draw equal lists of hot men and women? Is it relevant?
You correctly interpreted what I was doing. I am reacting to Republicans being sexist against her, the fact that Republicans say insane things like "liberal women are all ugly" among other sexist demagoguery. I am rubbing it in their face that she's an intelligent, attractive woman, and she can outmaneuver all of them rhetorically.
We get it — you responded to the mere title rather than the point of the whole piece. Which is fair insofar as Mr Brock has a generally good track record of matching the two.
The major reason I can't watch Fox, even more so than what they're selling, is the bimbos they have selling it. When I turn on TV my lookist bias emerges. I want to see attractive people. Most TV is dependable for that. But Fox? They're even uglier outside than inside. It makes superficial seem like a bad thing.
The right-wing media human centipede is indeed the realm of the topsy-turvy.
In the increasingly likely event that the "socialists" take over, there are going to be calls to censor Fox News the way Brendan Carr wants to censor ABC. We don't need that. We need to just apply the same standard that applies elsewhere. For instance, it is law in this country that a fruit beverage has to be at least 90 percent real fruit juice to be sold as fruit juice, otherwise it must be sold as a "fruit drink."
Fox is a news drink.
"news drink" that's pretty funny
I don't think that's accurate. The only socialists anywhere near any seats of power are DSA aligned and the DSA explicitly calls out freedom of speech in their platform:
"Democratic socialism is committed both to a freedom of speech that does not recoil from dissent, and to the freedom to organize independent trade unions, women’s groups, political parties, and other social movements."
I'm not aware of any modern western socialist movements that support censorship. Are you?
Project much? DSA isn't 1950s Soviet UIs taken out of deep freeze.
Everything you wrote is true. I will add that JDVance, the vice presidential product of Peter Thiel, says outrageous things like “they’re eating cats and dogs” and “Democrats hate America” not because he believes them but because he has been paid and promoted to say them so that it isn’t only his demented racist president who says such things. Trump says them because he likes to watch his victims - all of us - twitch and dance and ignore his criminal grifting.
I like the chorus of, “they are professionals.” We are what we “profess” over and over and over again. We most certainly are.
"The independent-thinker LARP does not survive contact with the invoice."
🤌🏻
The newscasters and politicians who say that crazy shit DO actually believe it. Same as religious crazies. They all convince themselves their lies are true so they can better convince others. The late, great and slightly mad evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers did fabulous work on the evolutionary origins of self delusion. And if you think about it, the delusion probably started back when we were wandering around in small tribes and one of the tribe members self-proclaimed to be a shaman. They knew full fucking well, for a while anyway, that they had no connection to the invented gods. But the status of the gig was too good to give up so they began believing their own bullshit. Newscasters, politicians and religious fundamentalists of all persuasions are no different.
Every single Republican Congressman would drop his wife/GF/sidepiece like a flaming hot skillet if they thought AOC might give them the time of day—and yes, that includes the closeted ones.
She is definitely hot.