HRC was wronged... wronged I tell you! Let the shrill, hysterical whining begin.

koenraad64:

HRC was wronged... wronged I tell you! Let the shrill, hysterical whining begin.

Excellent example. Rather than say people are mistaken, or even over-reacting, you invoke sexist themes ("shrill" "hysterical" "whining") to discredit your philosophical opponents. And I really have to commend your economy of words - great examples that are right out there, not embedded in some meandering paragraph. I mean when you decide to connote, there's no beating around the bush, is there?

I can only assume you were trying to post a caricature of Dowd's language. Otherwise, it strains belief that someone could be so nakedly, unselfconsciously, hypocritical.

Oh wait - this is discussion forum for the XX-factor. What was I thinking?

Carry on.

hypocritical? who are you calling hypocritical. no, I think you are simply projecting your own emotion ridden cognition here.

koenraad64:

hypocritical? who are you calling hypocritical. no, I think you are simply projecting your own emotion ridden cognition here.

Your top-post was dispassionate? Are you, perhaps, suggesting that I'm hysterical? [-snort!]

You know what I've found so utterly depressing about the election cycle thus far this year? The obvious willingness of otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people to employ prejudiced frames to bolster their philosophical positions.

That's why prejudiced frames are so culturally destructive - people tend to incorporate them when they see them used to support positions consonant with their own. The frames linger on after the debate fades, exerting their influence on the manner in which we conceptualize.

So, one stranger to another, I'm asking you - consider the possibility that there's merit to the allegations being made (repeatedly), and that people may be less upset about Hillary's loss than the manner in which prejudice was used to undermine her candidacy.

And maybe look at your top-post again, to see why I found it so blatantly mock-worthy.

Fielding, could you please use the words "frame" and "meme" more often? It's not quite enough like you're regurgitating a very narrow and dull way of looking at the world.

the language for these topics is awkward, and the concepts are often difficult for people to grasp. But I'm not only open to suggestions, I'm quite eager for them; if you can convey the concepts I'm attempting to discuss more cogently (and less repetitively), I'd consider it a favor if you'd provide an instructional demonstration.

Think of it as a public service for the Fray community - at least for those unfortunate few who find themselves reading one of my posts, or responses. You might end up sparing someone a great deal of pain.

shrill and hysterical are sexist terms, and your use of them invalidates your opinions on sexism

The problem I see, Fielding, isn't stylistic. I understand that you have to use these words over and over because there are no others for what you are trying to say. What bugs me is that what you are saying requires you to be so freaking redundant. Call it brow-beating or dry-humping or academic posturing, but by any other name the pointlessness of analysis for its own sake would be as soporific.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This is pretty easy to grasp, and well said. (I looked to see if it was cribbed… didn’t find anything.)

That's why prejudiced frames are so culturally destructive - people tend to incorporate them when they see them used to support positions consonant with their own. The frames linger on after the debate fades, exerting their influence on the manner in which we conceptualize.

I just don't see the overriding [self] importance of your ire towards HRC criticism. really... 'so culturally destructive', HRC wasn't and isn't the perfect candidate. Her actions and her words are worthy of criticism… and how.

HRC lost because she wasn’t a very good candidate. Any perceived sexist wasn’t a cause towards that loss, it was merely an irritant to HRC’s supporters.

Every candidate takes unfair hits. Its part of the game.

they are good words. strong, declarative and inciting.

Hillary lost because of her Iraq war vote, of her changing positions, of her heaping lies, she ran as the experience candidate which was total bull (McCain would have trounced her with that had she won), her Bosnia lies, her husband's baggage, her track record on health care, and because Obama was a better orator and kept his cool.

I suppose you'll call me I'm a sexist now. I rutting dare you to.