Another example of CBS bias and hatred to the President

[Opti]

Apr 1, 2017 10:15:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 1, 2017 10:01:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't even think it speaks to core competency.  women are never making it past the first checkpoint with certain gatekeepers.

it is more like a grocery wholesaler that is selecting shelf sale fruit.  y'all are getting culled out before you even get the CHANCE to show competency.  and it is not just jobs.  i think it hits you at every level of society.

is it getting more subtle over time?  sure.  well....until 2016, anyway. 

You know, the more I read about how rotten and sexist I am from a guy who doesn't know a blessed thing about me...

You do get there are general tendencies, right? Its been proven that's there is lots of bias against women. In quite a few studies. Women musicians started showing up in orchestras in greater numbers after a study showed the major bias. So the good orchestras instituted having musicians first play behind screens, and not surprising to me, suddenly more female musicians got jobs in orchestras. They were always that good, its just until the studies came out it was easy for the powers that be to ignore or downplay the bias.

Much like you have been doing. ( To recap, its not always just about you. Sometimes DJ and I, for example, are talking in general. )

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 1, 2017 16:48:05 GMT -5 Opti said:

Apr 1, 2017 10:15:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You know, the more I read about how rotten and sexist I am from a guy who doesn't know a blessed thing about me...

You do get there are general tendencies, right? Its been proven that's there is lots of bias against women. In quite a few studies. Women musicians started showing up in orchestras in greater numbers after a study showed the major bias. So the good orchestras instituted having musicians first play behind screens, and not surprising to me, suddenly more female musicians got jobs in orchestras. They were always that good, its just until the studies came out it was easy for the powers that be to ignore or downplay the bias.

Much like you have been doing. ( To recap, its not always just about you. Sometimes DJ and I, for example, are talking in general. )

I've defended the usefulness of stereotypes in the past, hence I shouldn't complain.

I generally don't much care for any "woe is us" polemic that doesn't come with actionable solutions attached, especially when it's being used to justify bad behaviour.

[Deleted]

Mar 31, 2017 22:52:51 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Can you imagine the blow back and moral outrage if these comments were directed at a female politician? But I guess it's ok because Trump is a white male and republican.

Why do you care?? Trump doesn't.

“You know, it really doesn`t matter what (the media) write as long as you`ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”



-Donald Trump

In fairness there is SOME legitimacy to that claim (whether he actually said it or not).

It doesn't matter what people say... what matters is the reality of what actually happens. In a "comments about looks" issue, the only thing that matters is that the answer to the question "Is your target audience finding you acceptable?" be "Yes!"

If you are going home with a babe on your arm... then your target audience approves.

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2017 2:20:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

Mar 31, 2017 16:49:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We'll discuss this PRINCIPLE in the other thread.

The principle in this thread is whether your focus on Pres. Trump's appearance is any more appropriate than "men's" focus on women's appearance. ISFAIC, the answer is plainly 'no'.

Either focus on the things you want other people to focus on or pipe down and let them focus on the same things you do. Your attempt to divorce focus from judgment is nothing but a poor excuse for bad behaviour.

I'd much rather discuss the principle DJ brought up in this thread. As an admin, you should remember that no one is supposed to determine what is discussed in a thread as long as it does not violate the COC. I get you want to discuss comparing any focus on Trump's appearance with the usual focus on women's appearance, but it is a false equivalency as DJ pointed out. Men who look bad are not perceived to have other flaws simply because they look bad. This is not true for women. And that's why the comparison fails.

Hillary's pantsuits were brought up to criticize her as a woman, as competent. Trump's badly fitting suits barely got any play in comparison. And as noted earlier, all the dislike of his hair and complexion, had nothing to do with his perceived competency.

That's very important. By failing to acknowledge sexism when its pointed out, you are helping to perpetuate it. MHO.

Wouldn't you say though that pointing it out where it doesn't actually exist also perpetuates it?

Perfect example: If people of both genders are called out on their hair issues, then it's not sexism, because BOTH sexes are represented in the call-outs.

[zibazinski]

I'm one of those who thought both candidates dressed poorly and I couldn't imagine why with their money, they'd wear such unflattering clothing. Her hair looked better though. That guy still needs a decent haircut. I'm shallow, I know. I see older guys with facial hair and I can't understand why they don't realize how aging it is. They look like they should be my grandfather not my age.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 1, 2017 19:30:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 1, 2017 2:20:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'd much rather discuss the principle DJ brought up in this thread. As an admin, you should remember that no one is supposed to determine what is discussed in a thread as long as it does not violate the COC. I get you want to discuss comparing any focus on Trump's appearance with the usual focus on women's appearance, but it is a false equivalency as DJ pointed out. Men who look bad are not perceived to have other flaws simply because they look bad. This is not true for women. And that's why the comparison fails.

Hillary's pantsuits were brought up to criticize her as a woman, as competent. Trump's badly fitting suits barely got any play in comparison. And as noted earlier, all the dislike of his hair and complexion, had nothing to do with his perceived competency.

That's very important. By failing to acknowledge sexism when its pointed out, you are helping to perpetuate it. MHO.

Wouldn't you say though that pointing it out where it doesn't actually exist also perpetuates it?

Perfect example: If people of both genders are called out on their hair issues, then it's not sexism, because BOTH sexes are represented in the call-outs.

What never ceases to amaze me is how the same people who decry the stench of unsophistication and malice issuing from the mouths of their disfavoured ideologues seem to think they themselves are perceived differently when they do it.

[mmhmm]

I kinda figure when throwing shade the source ends up a lot darker than the target.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 1, 2017 22:30:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I kinda figure when throwing shade the source ends up a lot darker than the target.

I say it depends on what kind of shade is being thrown, and the circumstances of the person doing the throwing. In particular, if you're able to laugh while dishing it out, make sure you can also laugh while taking it.

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2017 22:30:11 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I kinda figure when throwing shade the source ends up a lot darker than the target.

I think that depends on if the shade is real... or if the shade is artificially created, and assisted by others also casting false shade and/or supplying the shade producer with power.

Sometimes false shade can be much darker... The difference between shade and shadow.

[Lizard Queen]

The difference is, women are expected to have nice looking hair, even if it takes great time and expense to achieve that standard.  The standard for men is neatness.  $10 haircut, and they're good to go.  If they're bald, they can shave it, keep it short, or try to hide it with a combover.  Sure, we smirk at the combover, because who are they fooling, but it's not that uncommon that they stick out from the crowd.  If women were to have the same, easy hairstyles as men, what do people say about them?  What if they're unfortunately balding?  Ouch!  Then, you have women of color who have even more steps and expense to take to try to achieve the preferred societal standard for women.  

So, to compare a super rich guy who could get away with all kinds of easy hairstyles, or have a stylist on call 24/7, to a woman who's got to go to great lengths just to try to fit in--do you really think that's a 1:1 comparison?  The standards are not equal.  The difficulty and expense to achieve each standard is not equal.  Plus, the 'badness' of the hairstyles is not equal.

[Opti]

Apr 1, 2017 19:30:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 1, 2017 2:20:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'd much rather discuss the principle DJ brought up in this thread. As an admin, you should remember that no one is supposed to determine what is discussed in a thread as long as it does not violate the COC. I get you want to discuss comparing any focus on Trump's appearance with the usual focus on women's appearance, but it is a false equivalency as DJ pointed out. Men who look bad are not perceived to have other flaws simply because they look bad. This is not true for women. And that's why the comparison fails.

Hillary's pantsuits were brought up to criticize her as a woman, as competent. Trump's badly fitting suits barely got any play in comparison. And as noted earlier, all the dislike of his hair and complexion, had nothing to do with his perceived competency.

That's very important. By failing to acknowledge sexism when its pointed out, you are helping to perpetuate it. MHO.

Wouldn't you say though that pointing it out where it doesn't actually exist also perpetuates it?

Perfect example: If people of both genders are called out on their hair issues, then it's not sexism, because BOTH sexes are represented in the call-outs.

Both sexes are not called out on their hair issues in an equal and like fashion though. Yes Trump gets grief for his hair and some bald men get grief too, but its rare that it impacts getting hired or promoted. But women of my age while job hunting are regularly told to dye their hair and cut to certain lengths. I think men get that advice much less often although I know men who dye their hair because age discrimination is starting to hit men as well.

Women's appearance in my experience is judged much harsher than men in both work and social settings.

If things were really equal, Trump would have lost because of his bad hair had he been a woman. Men are allowed to have bad hair, be fat, dress marginally and still be seen as powerful. Remember all the grief Margaret Thatcher got for her looks? Women as a whole still get treated worse than men in that regard. And you can see how unequal it is, just by looking at how some less than handsome male politicians are treated. Christie gets some grief for being large, but let's be honest - I don't think there are any women that are really large who have made political office. And I think that's because a fat woman is considered out of control and incompetent because she isn't thin whereas men for the most part are just seen as competent guys who eat too much. This obviously is a generalization and I think younger folks, perhaps born in the 80s and later are more even in their judgements but I routinely see how double standards are embraced for many of those born in the 1950s and earlier. Its not everyone, but I see signs of it everywhere. Lots of chatter about Hillary's suits, and much less about Trump's ill fitting ones.

I think its an article in a Time magazine about transgenders, but one person who transistioned to a man commented on how different he was received. When he presented as a woman, he was assumed to be incompetent until proving otherwise, and he truly enjoyed living the opposite. Having it assumed he was competent simply because he was male and only being perceived as incompetent when it was proven over and over someone should be seen that way.

MO.

[weltschmerz]

Apr 1, 2017 19:19:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Mar 31, 2017 22:52:51 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Why do you care?? Trump doesn't.

“You know, it really doesn`t matter what (the media) write as long as you`ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”



-Donald Trump

In fairness there is SOME legitimacy to that claim (whether he actually said it or not).

It doesn't matter what people say... what matters is the reality of what actually happens. In a "comments about looks" issue, the only thing that matters is that the answer to the question "Is your target audience finding you acceptable?" be "Yes!"

If you are going home with a babe on your arm... then your target audience approves.

Oh, he absolutely DID say it, when giving an interview to Esquire magazine.
Regardless of whether or not his target audience approves or not.....Trump reduces women to "a piece of ass."

Charming.

[weltschmerz]

I'd call him a pig, but that wouldn't be fair to our porcine brethren.

[Gardening Grandma]

Apr 2, 2017 14:18:38 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I'd call him a pig, but that wouldn't be fair to our porcine brethren.

Oh he's a pig all right, but you can't criticize his bad combover because that's not politically correct.  You can't criticize his complete lack of qualifications (as demonstrated on a daily basis) because that's "disrespectful" to the office.   In fact, the conservatives want you to pretend that he never bragged about assaulting women, that he never bragged about "moving in" on a married woman while his own wife was pregnant, that he never mocked a disabled man.  They'd like you to just pretend that he is somehow, magically, now "presidential".

Not gonna happen.  

He's a pig. A disgusting pig at that.

[Deleted]

Apr 2, 2017 14:16:50 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Apr 1, 2017 19:19:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

In fairness there is SOME legitimacy to that claim (whether he actually said it or not).

It doesn't matter what people say... what matters is the reality of what actually happens. In a "comments about looks" issue, the only thing that matters is that the answer to the question "Is your target audience finding you acceptable?" be "Yes!"

If you are going home with a babe on your arm... then your target audience approves.

Oh, he absolutely DID say it, when giving an interview to Esquire magazine.
Regardless of whether or not his target audience approves or not.....Trump reduces women to "a piece of ass."

Charming.

Are you suggesting that treating the opposite gender as "less than" is something limited to men? There are many women that think men are here just to serve them (the entire "women are better than men" section of the feminist crowd, for example... you KNOW that they are out there)... which is equally as degrading.

And I know it gets tiring to hear this... but... Hillary treated every woman Bill had a fling with as nothing more than "a piece of ass" ("it didn't matter, he was just getting a piece of ass" attitude about them, allowing her to insult, belittle, and otherwise attack THEM as if they were the only ones guilty of anything)... so even that isn't limited to men.

People in power treat EVERYONE "below them" as "less than" is a general rule of thumb, I've come to realize. It's part of that whole "power corrupts" thing... I think.

[Value Buy]

Apr 2, 2017 13:41:11 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

The difference is, women are expected to have nice looking hair, even if it takes great time and expense to achieve that standard.  The standard for men is neatness.  $10 haircut, and they're good to go.  If they're bald, they can shave it, keep it short, or try to hide it with a combover.  Sure, we smirk at the combover, because who are they fooling, but it's not that uncommon that they stick out from the crowd.  If women were to have the same, easy hairstyles as men, what do people say about them?  What if they're unfortunately balding?  Ouch!  Then, you have women of color who have even more steps and expense to take to try to achieve the preferred societal standard for women.  

So, to compare a super rich guy who could get away with all kinds of easy hairstyles, or have a stylist on call 24/7, to a woman who's got to go to great lengths just to try to fit in--do you really think that's a 1:1 comparison?  The standards are not equal.  The difficulty and expense to achieve each standard is not equal.  Plus, the 'badness' of the hairstyles is not equal.

$10 haircuts?
Now who is being sexually biased? Even at Great Clips, a five dollar tip is expected for a buzz cut of three minutes on top of the haircut price which the business is only patronized by rednecks and kids........
I know I, as a man, was scrutinized and graded by the women in the business world, by the neatness of the pressed shirt, it's proper color to match the slacks, The tie which had to not only fit properly around the neck but had to be in style, and last but not least, by my behind.
Even after we went business casual, the coordination and hair neatness as well as the tight butt was still mandatory.......How do I know this? The catiness in the lounge area
It had to be tight.........

[weltschmerz]

Apr 3, 2017 8:18:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Apr 2, 2017 14:18:38 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I'd call him a pig, but that wouldn't be fair to our porcine brethren.

Pigs are intelligent animals, whose natural inclination is actually to be clean, if you can believe it.

While Trump claims to have "really good brains" his inclination to hang out with a partial rectum and sphincter, possibly smeared with fecal matter, shows him to be neither intelligent nor clean.

I know! Pigs are very intelligent, and far better behaved than Trump.

[Lizard Queen]

Apr 3, 2017 8:04:57 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Apr 2, 2017 13:41:11 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

The difference is, women are expected to have nice looking hair, even if it takes great time and expense to achieve that standard.  The standard for men is neatness.  $10 haircut, and they're good to go.  If they're bald, they can shave it, keep it short, or try to hide it with a combover.  Sure, we smirk at the combover, because who are they fooling, but it's not that uncommon that they stick out from the crowd.  If women were to have the same, easy hairstyles as men, what do people say about them?  What if they're unfortunately balding?  Ouch!  Then, you have women of color who have even more steps and expense to take to try to achieve the preferred societal standard for women.  

So, to compare a super rich guy who could get away with all kinds of easy hairstyles, or have a stylist on call 24/7, to a woman who's got to go to great lengths just to try to fit in--do you really think that's a 1:1 comparison?  The standards are not equal.  The difficulty and expense to achieve each standard is not equal.  Plus, the 'badness' of the hairstyles is not equal.

$10 haircuts?
Now who is being sexually biased? Even at Great Clips, a five dollar tip is expected for a buzz cut of three minutes on top of the haircut price which the business is only patronized by rednecks and kids........
I know I, as a man, was scrutinized and graded by the women in the business world, by the neatness of the pressed shirt, it's proper color to match the slacks, The tie which had to not only fit properly around the neck but had to be in style, and last but not least, by my behind.
Even after we went business casual, the coordination and hair neatness as well as the tight butt was still mandatory.......How do I know this? The catiness in the lounge area
It had to be tight.........

Lol,

Ok, $14 is what my DH pays currently, I think.  $17 out the door.  Just a haircut for me is more, then add in the highlights, it is over $60 (and that is really on the cheaper side--this stylist and I go way back).  I am also really low maintenance in this regard.  You should check out what the other women here pay for keratin treatments, etc.

[toshmanta]

Donald's appearance is not a competency issue but his glue sniffing certainly is.

[Value Buy]

Here is tonights top headline at CBS News.com

www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trust-money-withdrawal/

[Gardening Grandma]

Apr 3, 2017 18:31:19 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Here is tonights top headline at CBS News.com

www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trust-money-withdrawal/

HE definitely has some ethics (or lack tbereof) issues. They need to be reported. You want CBS to sweep this under tbe rug like Faux Snooze does?

[Value Buy]

Apr 3, 2017 18:55:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Apr 3, 2017 18:31:19 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Here is tonights top headline at CBS News.com

www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trust-money-withdrawal/

HE definitely has some ethics (or lack tbereof) issues. They need to be reported. You want CBS to sweep this under tbe rug like Faux Snooze does?

No, I expect CBS to acknowledge and report what is most important.
The Susan Rice scandal implementing the Obama WH in the wiretapping of a candidate for the Presidency.
When did they give the info to Hillary and why have we not brought them up on charges? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 3, 2017 21:48:16 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Apr 3, 2017 18:55:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

HE definitely has some ethics (or lack tbereof) issues. They need to be reported. You want CBS to sweep this under tbe rug like Faux Snooze does?

No, I expect CBS to acknowledge and report what is most important.
The Susan Rice scandal implementing the Obama WH in the wiretapping of a candidate for the Presidency.
When did they give the info to Hillary and why have we not brought them up on charges? 

It's not known yet whether the intel was given to Ms. Clinton, only that Ms. Rice dined privately with Ms. Clinton during the campaign season. That's as weak as the evidence connecting the Russians to Pres. Trump's campaign.

[Opti]

Apr 3, 2017 13:02:53 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Apr 3, 2017 8:04:57 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

$10 haircuts?
Now who is being sexually biased? Even at Great Clips, a five dollar tip is expected for a buzz cut of three minutes on top of the haircut price which the business is only patronized by rednecks and kids........
I know I, as a man, was scrutinized and graded by the women in the business world, by the neatness of the pressed shirt, it's proper color to match the slacks, The tie which had to not only fit properly around the neck but had to be in style, and last but not least, by my behind.
Even after we went business casual, the coordination and hair neatness as well as the tight butt was still mandatory.......How do I know this? The catiness in the lounge area
It had to be tight.........

Lol,

Ok, $14 is what my DH pays currently, I think.  $17 out the door.  Just a haircut for me is more, then add in the highlights, it is over $60 (and that is really on the cheaper side--this stylist and I go way back).  I am also really low maintenance in this regard.  You should check out what the other women here pay for keratin treatments, etc.

Agreed. $10, $20, not really material if you are comparing it to $60, $100 or more. Its one of the many things that make being female in this society much more expensive than being male.

[Value Buy]

Update!
CBS has confirmed their hatred and vitriol towards the President via Colbert's tantrum on the air the other night.
The fact that the company censors did not censor the routine speaks volumes on their intentions.

I do have to assume, they DID NOT censor any of the routine, because it was played in violation of community standards set by the Government agency controlling over the air profanity.

[Opti]

May 4, 2017 11:06:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Update!
CBS has confirmed their hatred and vitriol towards the President via Colbert's tantrum on the air the other night.
The fact that the company censors did not censor the routine speaks volumes on their intentions.

I do have to assume, they DID NOT censor any of the routine, because it was played in violation of community standards set by the Government agency controlling over the air profanity.

I guess this means you haven't read any of the articles on what the FCC said about this incident? Censoring is much more limited now than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

www.thewrap.com/fcc-chief-responds-to-stephen-colbert-joke-its-a-free-country-video/

“The FCC — outside of our decency rules — we don’t get into the business of regulating content,” Pai said in an interview Wednesday. “What I can say is that I realize this is a politically polarized time and I would hope that everyone can participate in the public discourse in a way that’s civil and operates in good faith.”

Pai’s comments came in an interview with Newsmax TV‘s Steve Malzberg on “America Talks Live” on Wednesday afternoon. Malzberg asked the FCC Chairman if he was “considering any action” against CBS for the raunchy joke.

“It’s a free country, and people are willing and able to say anything these days,” Pai said, referencing the First Amendment right to free speech and a Supreme Court decision limiting the FCC’s ability to sanction broadcasters for what they put on the air.

“That’s one of the things we have to respect going forward, what the courts have said about our legal power in this area,” he said. “By and large, unless it’s indecent, profane obscene under our rules or as interpreted by the Supreme court, the FCC’s authority here is pretty limited.”

[Tennesseer]

May 4, 2017 11:06:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Update!
CBS has confirmed their hatred and vitriol towards the President via Colbert's tantrum on the air the other night.
The fact that the company censors did not censor the routine speaks volumes on their intentions.

I do have to assume, they DID NOT censor any of the routine, because it was played in violation of community standards set by the Government agency controlling over the air profanity.

There are far more worse words spoken on TV-just not normally on ABC, NBC, or CBS and just not during prime time hours (8-11 p.m. eastern time zone) A most recent example of TV shows with words like asshole, fuck, cocksucker and the like were said on FXTV's (A Fox channel) Feud (Bette Davis and Joan Crawford). It was not shown during the early prime time hours when little tykes would have been up and watching TV but it was on during the later prime time hours (10 p.m. eastern time). No censorship on that Fox series.

Colbert's CBS show is aired after prime time hours when the kiddies should be in bed.

[mmhmm]

I've got to agree with Tennesseer here. Much of the objection to what was said comes from those who object to such vulgarities coming over the public airways. In the past, this was much more tightly controlled. I remember when you wouldn't have heard the word "butt" on television/radio, much less some of the other things you hear currently. The rules have been relaxed.

Personally, I didn't watch this and have only read about it. I don't care much for the use of vulgarities anyway, so it's certainly not to my taste. I don't find it entertaining or amusing. However, I realize mine is not the only view and others feel differently. I use the TV remote control or the back button or "right upper corner x" to apply my preferences. It works well for me.

[tallguy]

May 4, 2017 11:06:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Update!
CBS has confirmed their hatred and vitriol towards the President via Colbert's tantrum on the air the other night.
The fact that the company censors did not censor the routine speaks volumes on their intentions.

I do have to assume, they DID NOT censor any of the routine, because it was played in violation of community standards set by the Government agency controlling over the air profanity.

Yes, they did bleep one word, as I recall.  The one you would expect, of course.  And Colbert did say the next night that he would do it again, with the one regret being that part of the language was a bit crude and would not have been repeated. 

[bean29]

May 5, 2017 0:35:27 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 4, 2017 11:06:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Update!
CBS has confirmed their hatred and vitriol towards the President via Colbert's tantrum on the air the other night.
The fact that the company censors did not censor the routine speaks volumes on their intentions.

I do have to assume, they DID NOT censor any of the routine, because it was played in violation of community standards set by the Government agency controlling over the air profanity.

Yes, they did bleep one word, as I recall.  The one you would expect, of course.  And Colbert did say the next night that he would do it again, with the one regret being that part of the language was a bit crude and would not have been repeated. 

Meh, I sometimes consider myself a prude, I really don't find anything objectionable in this bit. This kind of stuff is on TV on a regular basis. A murder was recently shown on Facebook Live. Violence is a daily part of TV. Nothing will come of this.