Reply #13: Then what would be the acceptable alternative? It's a tactic that IS used, after all. [View All]

[PurityOfEssence]

This is almost like newspeak: if you can eliminate the word, you can eliminate the thought.

Once again: not all bigots are white, and not all sexists are male. Close-mindedness, presumed privilege and cynical maneuvering are species-wide afflictions. Sadly, many of traditionally marginalized groups consider themelves exempt from civility because it's "their turn", yet see no hypocrisy to demanding better behavior from those of their oppressor groups, who are still tainted even if they toe the line.

Bear in mind that those on the board of the various oppressor groups are here voluntarily and mostly are adamantly pro-civil rights and acceptance of the various groups. They do so with the full knowledge that this will affect them personally, and do it out of a sense of right and wrong.

The 40 days of faith revue was a playing of the race and religion cards to strip supporters away from Clinton. McClurkin was just an unintended consequence, but badly handled to appease bigots among the fold.

Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that the "boy's club" line isn't a bit divisive? It implies that all males of the system are in league to shut out women and do so willingly. This is designed to channel all residual frustration from dealings with wholly unrelated males toward any opponents.

These things exist and are being used. One poster had no problem characterizing men as unable to be faithful, and when confronted, saw no inherent bias to her assertions; they were, after all, unquestionably true. I side with the downtrodden, too, but bullshit is bullshit and we owe it to ourselves to point out reality.

So, does this not exist, is it forbidden subject matter, or do you propose more gentle terms?