BF2S Forums #MeToo

Dilbert_X wrote:

But he's a self-confessed liberal who took people's guns away.

And liberals never balance budgets, must be fake news.

The Republican Congress balanced the budget and forced welfare reform. He signed it. Then they frittered away the surplus as soon as Bush was elected.

How would you know?

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

And yet you hated his wife so much you voted to keep him out of the White House?

Absolutely. His wife is heinous.

Why?

She is probably one of the most disingenuous and unlikable people that has ever run for high office. Every single thing she spoke or released sounded like it had passed through a focus group before it was published. She's arrogant, entitled and hates people. She has literally every personality trait that would lead a politician to flop. The only reason she got as far as she did was because the media carried her. Biden, for all his idiocy, at least knows how to play the game and get elected.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Absolutely. His wife is heinous.

Why?

She is probably one of the most disingenuous and unlikable people that has ever run for high office. Every single thing she spoke or released sounded like it had passed through a focus group before it was published. She's arrogant, entitled and hates people. She has literally every personality trait that would lead a politician to flop. The only reason she got as far as she did was because the media carried her. Biden, for all his idiocy, at least knows how to play the game and get elected.

So no polices? You liked the work her husband did but you didn't like her personally enough to vote for them to make a comeback?

This is good for this thread that we finally got to Clinton. The "woman hating thread" needs a woman to hate.

it can be explained by the concept of 'mauvaise foi'. it's the same reason why jay preens and postures with the attitudes of a Texas oil magnate or koch manlet, despite being chum in the eyes of the real 'winners' in america.

Larssen wrote:

I don't know what pruning back the safety net would mean in this case.

Neither does Jay. The vast sum of people who talk about creating a robust safety net or one that rewards innovation have no idea how to design one or often even how their own existing safety net works.

It's a meme or slogan. The only people on the right who spent time looking into how the safety net works were doing research on how to destroy it instead of making it better.

The American right has no economic ideas besides cutting taxes and benefits. They convince voters to go along with them by telling them they are fags or "vote like women" (???) if they vote Democrat.

I remember when Jay used to wear a suit and tie to work everyday until he figured out business casual. "Dress for the job you want" or something like that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I wonder if this is the sort of thing Jay did, a little more than plugging numbers into equations.
Obviously there's some trivial fun stuff in there.
https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/ … 15403/view

remember, he basically got a literature degree too because he took an elective one year and had to write a book report.

easy!

the funniest thing about all these ‘true liberals’ on the internet, who continually like to invoke their ‘first principles’ and throw around the big shiny Enlightenment word, is that it’s quite clear none of them have ever read an Enlightenment text or thinker.

their relation to the Enlightenment is the same relation between the nazis and Aryans, i.e. self-invented and mythical, contrary to all fact and field datum. the only difference is they go off on wild rambling missions on online blogs and comment sites now, rather than sending expeditionary forces to find hidden treasures in the Himalayas that would establish once and for all their God-men lineages.

consider the utter meaninglessness of Jay’s self-aggrandising talk about vouchsafing the Enlightenment ‘tradition’, when everywhere he seems to be about as classically illiberal as can be possible.

the entire impetus of the Enlightenment was to instrumentalise reason and rationality to form new societies, governed by the wise and protected against the caprices of despotism. it was the era which saw the widespread enlargement and establishment of institutions such as the modern 'liberal' university and the promulgation of learning for learning's sake -- of renaissance scholarship and a renewed interest in classicism. jay hates elites and the educated; he distrusts credentials; he thinks taking lessons from history or learning is mere copying of exam answers.

the entire idea of Enlightenment politics, revolutionary or not, was to set-up systems of checks and balances on absolute power, to separate powers between church and state, to establish non-partisan legal systems and judiciaries who would judge every man as the same before the law; to encourage independent fourth estates of journalists and writers who could hold power to account, and wield facts and bring uncomfortable truths to public light; legalism and due process over absolute authority and the divine right of kings and leaders.

Jay is full of regurgitated complaint when judges rule against leaders and meddle in government (as in the UK supreme court’s reversal of bojo’s illegal prorogation). he thinks that journalists are the ‘worst’ group of people in society, only ever out to frustrate leaders and sow discord.

liberal societies were firmly rooted in the idea of the public space, the agora, a place where informed and reasoned individuals could debate and exchange ideas, to the mutual enrichment of all; a complex system of competing interests and views finely navigated; compromise and comity. Jay thinks every issue is down to the people in blue ties messing everything up for the people in red blazers.

in fact, every single attitude that jay expresses in the name of his impeccable and noble ‘Enlightenment’ vision is actually pre-Enlightenment. he is always on the side of executive power and thinks that due process, checks and balances and public scrutiny should be smoothed over and expedited wherever possible. Jay’s politics are monarchy-lite. no surprises that the quisling authoritarian has sweat on his top lip for fancy philosophical ideas he’s never taken any efforts to read outside the National Review.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-11 05:57:50)

The Strong Female Protagonist. You can't name a more boring character.

Look at her! So determined. That's her personality. Determined and tough. Nothing is ever too tough for her. The men around her are weak, flawed, and easily defeated.

This is what ruined Westworld. The entire show is now the adventures of Evan R. Wood, Strong Female Protagonist. She goes scene to this scene owning men, being tough, and owning men. She never makes mistakes. She is always one step ahead of everyone. She is going to take down all of humanity because it was really all just led by a bunch of weak men who weren't ready to take on the one Strong Female Protagonist.

And that's why Westworld is failing. No one wants to watch a Strong Female Protagonist all day. Not even women are interested in that.



Now this is a strong female protagonist.

HBO had no choice. If they didn't renew it Evan R. Wood would get the Social Justice Warriors on Twitter relied up against them.

She is a social justice robot

Westworld actress Evan Rachel Wood is the latest star to break ranks with Hollywood’s left-wing elite by backing fellow actress Rose McGowan’s recent stand against Democrats and the media in the wake of Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden.

Evan Rachel Wood tweeted her support of Rose McGowan, writing “I have to say this is… spot on,” in response to McGowan’s recent statement describing her disillusionment with the left-wing establishment, calling them a “cult.”

Your show is failing. What do you do then? Make more enemies.