If you could go to a few meetings, be cured, then stop, that would make AA a fraud. Under AA doctrine, it isn't possible to do that; you will relapse.

Jesus, ban the uncle bro. If only for the kids in attendance.

Not my place to do that.

I think after the last incident where the party started at 3 and he had to take his 'fiancée' home at 230 because she was too wasted to eat the food in front of her (kept saying things like 'I can't find it/where's my food?') was the last straw for my grandma.

She was actually gone by the time I arrived. I haven't seen her at anything since.

Pretty hot take from Vox:

1. Bernie Sanders says Hillary should stop "shouting" about gun control.
2. Clinton implies that this choice of words is indicative of sexist attitudes about assertive women.
3. Sanders campaign gets defensive about being accused of sexism. (Possibly relevant: Sanders semi-regularly accuses men of "shouting" about gun control as well.)
4. Vox hot take: Bernie is in the wrong here for trying to defend himself against (arguably meritless) accusations of sexism made by a political opponent. Instead, he should just learn from it and move on. Learn what? Unclear.

I guess learn language in politics can be skewed to whatever slant your opponent wants it to be skewed to.

I don't think you're that naive.

Take a similar case:

• Old white guy, speaking to other white person, who he would like to come closer: "hey boy, come over here"
• Old white, speaking to black person, who he would like to come closer: "hey boy, come over here"

Which is bad form? Is it relevant the old white guy always calls other people "boy"? Should the old white guy know better?

The correct answers are: yes the 2nd is bad form, maybe, and yes. The answer to the second question is only interesting insofar as we want to answer the question of what the old guy intended but doesn't help us answer the question about whether he should understand social norms or potentially offensive things.

The accusation here is that claiming a woman is 'shouting' despite the fact AFAIK Hillary Clinton is literally not shouting about gun control is bad form, because of the implicit sexism that women who are asking for things are necessarily nagging, being shrill, unnecessarily loud, and should seek to be meeker.

Even if Sanders says it to men, the assumption is Sanders should be aware of how it comes off if he's telling a woman to stop shouting and that he will come off poor if he does that.

The lesson:

I agree the article is probably overly long and the point not super clear but it's not unclear, either. The point is even if Sanders says O'Malley or Webb is 'shouting' it's interpreted entirely differently when he says it to a women, if he didn't intend it like that. See old white guy saying "boy" to white guy versus black guy above. Even if Sanders natural inclination it to say someone, man or woman, is "shouting" as a sort of euphemism or as a normal part of his speech, he should still not do that. He should not tell a woman to stop shouting if she actually isn't shouting.

------

I will anticipate that if this raises the hackles of people, the precise end of this conversation is the belief that white guys in fact should absolutely not have to moderate themselves at all and that having to contextually adapt their speech so as not to induce offense is some kind of incorrigible burden that no white guy should ever, ever have to bear.

Calling anyone a boy who is not is a demeaning insult. So both are in bad form.

Saying anyone is shouting has nothing to do with sex. It has a bad connotation for anyone whether male or female. That is why he used the term. Saying a guy is shouting, when he is not, also has a bad connotation, abusive, irrational etc. It has nothing to do with sexism, except the listener maybe has a different negative connotation associated with it depending a male or female. It is either ok to mischaracterise someone as shouting or not but it really has nothing to do with sexism.

A recent study confirms that religious people are self-satisfied *******s:

The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World

It's basically the PC argument. He shouldn't do it because it's not PC but he may not agree with being PC. Then it just reduces to trying to explain why PC is good.

No reason why he shouldn't also be defended from accusations of being sexist - They will mostly be taking it as the standard usage of the term and if he uses "shouting" indiscriminately then it's not sexist even if it not PC.

1) yes, bernie should know better and avoid this
2) yes, he should just ignore the response from hil's camp
3) yes, we should also give hil flak for her weaselwordy response which was carefully crafted to imply Bernie is sexist while still maintaining a SEMANTIKES-worthy plausible deniability. She could have made the general point without trying to score a cheap shot.

Lol I feel like this is common sense but glad there is some proof

DAM SON

1) It's incredibly naive to suggest that Hillary brought this up to draw Bernie's attention to his cultural blindspots and to encourage him to reflect on the nature of structural sexism or whatever. It was indeed intended as an attack on him.

2) Out of curiosity, if it's Bernie's view that Hillary is imbuing the subject of gun control with more emotional weight than it objectively deserves, are there actually any words he can use to inoffensively convey that thought? He can't use hyperbole and accuse her of "shouting." It's an obvious nonstarter to say that she's being too emotional, needs to calm down about the issue, view it more objectively, etc.

3) At some point, it becomes slightly ridiculous to infer meanings to a speaker that are not intended. Like if a Vietnamese person is named Dong, using the word "Dong" in reference to him is not offensive or uncouth just because that word is also an English slang term for a penis. I'm with you that it's just good manners to avoid giving offense to people, but it also seems unreasonable to be offended by words that aren't connected to any kind of intended meaning that could be construed as offensive.

Trump nuthugging Sheldon Adelson is another support for my pet theory that Trump is light on liquid assets and doesn't have the funds to mount a standard campaign.

Maybe? You were initially confused about the lesson of that article, not wondering about whether or not Clinton was sincere in her criticism of Sanders.

I'm not entirely clear what Sanders is trying to say. He said:

I guess he's trying to say people need to moderate their rhetoric? He isn't literally talking about volume, so, OK, how's that, then?: "Extreme rhetoric is not going to do what I hope all of us want." This is what you would advise a struggling writing student trying to make a persuasive to do anyway: dismiss the euphemism and the the hyperbole and just state your point clearly. Sanders is clearly not talking about literal screaming, and contrary to what you suspect, I'm pretty sure he's not talking about emotion per se. I think he's pretty clearly trying to make the case that the Democrats ought to see out something of a political compromise on gun control (e.g., people in Vermont, a rural state, are correct pursue a more libertine approach to guns). I'm almost positive he's actually not arguing the gun control debate isn't worthy of emotion but is instead pleading with Democrats to concede some ground to gun rights.

My edit of his statement has the added benefit of being clearer and more easily understood what he's arguing: he's not claiming people are too emotional, he's articulating a point that they're strident about something they should compromise or moderate themselves on.

The author of the article you cited didn't do that. She even wrote as much:

That was the point. She's not inferring sexist meaning behind the words, but that...:

She's acknowledging that Sanders probably had no ill intent and that the statement is seemingly neutral.

hold up there, dawg.

that quote there, the "Sanders needs to be aware..." bit, that wasn't Hillary's phrasing. That was Emily Crockett's. Here's what Hilary said:

She's certainly not acknowledging anything about Sanders' intent there. It's vague as hell, and that's not an accident.

unrelated, from the article:

wtf, is this real? I work with a ton of westcoasters, and they all ****ing uptalk, and honestly I don't think I even notice when women do it but when men do it it drives me ****ing insane.

Good to see the aids that we're going to face starting this summer

Definitely real wrt vocal fry. I only even know that's what it's called because of women complaining about women who do it. And everybody's aware of the upspeak phenomenon, and like selfies, it's just about always pinned on women. I personally can't fathom how people manage to give a **** about any of that stuff, but they do.

Hillary made a vague attack her surrogates followed up with sharper barbs. This was a smear job plain and simple. Isn't she now implying his position is racist?
I assume that they are not worried about Bernie just trying out GE themes.

Dude, I understand that was Emily Crockett. That was the point! Bobman said he didn't understand the article; are we now debating the merits of Hillary Clinton, tactician? The gullibility of Emily Crockett? Maybe that instead, that she can't discern a political hit job from a sincere criticism? Maybe? Is that the goalpost now? Is anyone actually ****ing reading this?

To summarize:

bobman shows up: this article is terrible, what is the lesson here, ITS NOT CLEAR!?
me: yes it is, read it. You shoudn't say women are shouting when they aren't literally shouting due to the fact it's a common trope to insult women
bobman: well that Hillary Clinton sure is a cynical crass politician
me: yeah well OK whatever, but you understand what the author was trying to say then?
pvn: hold up there, Hillary Clinton sure is a cynical crass politician!
ikestoys: oh gawd will the victimization of men ever end, this summer will be terrible?!
seattle: Hillary Clinton sure is a cynical crass politician!

For ****s sake you guise. If you guys just want to say Hillary Clinton is a horrible person, well say that. Don't show up with raised by wolves wonderment about the world when it's just some proxy for calling Hillary Clinton a horrible cynical gender-card player. I get it, but just say that. Because that's interesting to a point but for me not that contentious. I agree, Hillary Clinton is a politician, a not that good or interesting one, and embodies alot of the worst the establishment political class has to offer. Even if she was cynically attacking Sanders, it doesn't magically invalidate Crockett's point.

We can understand that say, for instance, when right-wingers concern troll about the fate of gays in the Muslim world, it doesn't mean there's like not an awful lot of **** happening to gay people in the Muslim world that should be remedied; it just means the American right wingers laying the criticism are often completely insincere about it, since they either want to do nothing or justify discrimination of gay people in the US. THAT I can understand. So if bobman showed up to say, well, Clinton is insincere and was just smearing Sanders, OK, fine, whatever, that's probably true. Clinton's line seemed canned and like she prepped for it.

You can't then leap from there (as I'm sure ikes is wont to do) and say, well, this ISN'T true:

bobman showed up initially claiming he didn't understand this, that it wasn't clear. I said initially that he almost surely isn't that naive and as suspected, this appears to just be some bizarre way to say Hillary Clinton totally sucks. OK, cool, say that.

I am sure Hillary will clear this up on 60 minutes when she declares that Bernie is not a sexist as far as she knows.. I want to believe that Bernie's response to Hillary's gambit here is to start mentioning her damn emails in every interview.

Yeah just go along with the right wing stereotype from the left and call her a SCREAMING BITCH already for crying out loud. No need to state the author is FOS. Just go along with the program here.

That's your bit of projection that there's only one way to criticize Clinton, either call her a SCREAMING SHOUTY SHRILL BITCH or just kowtow to the social justice warriors on Vox who are so FOS, because who can imagine other ways to talk to a lady?

You seem to be overlooking a key point that's really central to the hotness of this take. The fact that the author acknowledges that Sanders doesn't actually have sexist views is what makes it all so bizarre. The actual context of the political spat is that Clinton implied that Sanders had sexist views because he described a statement of hers as shouting. The reply from Sanders' campaign was that that attack was unfair and inaccurate, which seems more or less true? (Not going to endorse the line about Hillary being a good VP, mostly because it's a pathetic attempt at a burn.) The assertion that it's not really about Sanders being attacked as a sexist is crazy. That's exactly what it's about! The point is that it needs to not be about that in order to spin the standard line about how it's all about sensitivity and possible interpretations and everyone has a duty to police their speech for potential offense, blah blah blah. But no one has a duty to not defend themselves against baseless political attacks. It's crazy

Your hypothetical writer's workshop point is kind of a great illustration. If one of Bernie's speechwriters had wanted to strike this word from a prepared speech because it might read as gendered, gold star to that guy! He's got a keen ear for political sensitivity and concrete expression of meaning! But again, the finer points of diction are not the actual subject of the actual thing that happened that's being written about. The actual thing that happened is that Clinton implied that Sanders had sexist views because of his infelicitous word choice, which everyone seems to agree does not actually mean that Sanders has sexist views.

OK, I stopped reading here, if by "she" you mean Crockett, ok, it was not clear. The discussion was more about Hillary's response than the article itself IMO.