What's this bug you have with Ashton? Did she block you on Twitter or Facebook or something? Pee in your soup?
I explained my issue at reply below
NDP leadership race 3
Thu, 2017-03-16 17:20
#302
Thu, 2017-03-16 17:48
#303
Pee in your soup?
It was BLM-V's soup that she peed in.
Thu, 2017-03-16 18:33
#304
The same phrase appears in the hit song "Stuck in the Middle With You" by the Scottish group Stealer's Wheel from the 1970s, but I guess nobody remembers that.
I completely remember that, but not least because Canadian artist Jeff Healey did a great cover of it, and a childhood friend of mine appeared in the video for it!
But I have to assume that in addition to being reluctant to appropriate Scots culture, Ashton must have noticed that the whole phrase from that song wouldn't reflect so well on the NDP:
CLOWNS to the left of me...
On the other hand, the next two lines:
JOKERS to the Right / Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
... make me wonder why the Liberal Party didn't license exclusive use of this song YEARS ago. :D
Thu, 2017-03-16 19:26
#305
I like all of them at this point...I hope Singh doesn't get in the race, because if he does, he's clearly going to be the all power to the party bureaucracy/keep the activists out in the cold/continue to obsess on balanced-budgets and looking just as hawkish as the Liberals and the Cons candidate. And that is exactly the kind of leader who would guarantee more lost ground for the party in 2020.
Thu, 2017-03-16 19:59
#306
Meanwhile... Man barred from NDP leadership race asks court to overrule party
I doubt he'll get much traction.
But if he does, it's the end of any kind of party autonomy.
Asking for a party to approve your nomination isn't like asking to join a club. It's asking for their approval of you, and their support of you. Their support for everything you say, everything you might say, and everything you said in the past. I can't really see how/why that should be a matter for the court, rather than a matter for the party.
When a party supports a candidate in some-or-other riding, they're not just giving support to that candidate, they're also necessarily denying it to a potentially better candidate. It's an "opportunity cost" thing. And on behalf of all the parties, I hope that candidate selection never becomes some legally mandated checklist thing.
Thu, 2017-03-16 20:43
#307
He wants to run for leader, not for a nomination.
Anyway, the party is the membership, and as the saying goes, "democratic" is its middle name. We've seen people arbitrarily denied the opportunity to seek nominations, and even having their nominations revoked, because someone in some office didn't like them, and now this is happening to someone who wants to run for leader. Now if the party were to establish transparent qualifications to enter the leadership race which can exclude fringe candidates, fine. But not otherwise.
Thu, 2017-03-16 20:48
#308
Left Turn
CTV QP: 'Intolerance is not a Canadian Value': Julian
http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1076361
Thu, 2017-03-16 21:02
#309
COMMENTARY: Jagmeet Singh and NDP must be aware of challenges posed by Quebec
http://globalnews.ca/news/3313943/commentary-jagmeet-singh-and-ndp-must-...
Fri, 2017-03-17 02:36
#310
I wonder why the party would make such a big show of barring the guy from running? He clearly wouldn't have much chance of winning...are they thinking he might be a saboteur on working on behalf of the Liberals(since he'd been a member of that party until seven months ago)?
Fri, 2017-03-17 10:06
#311
Some more information on why NDP might have blocked his leadership bid
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/15/toronto-man-goes-to-court...
Fri, 2017-03-17 10:51
#312
Graff, who ran unsuccessfully for Toronto city council in Beaches-East York in 2014, is suing councillors Michael Thompson and Mary-Margaret McMahon. Graff confirmed a report in the Beach Mirror last October that he launched the suit after the councillors spoke disapprovingly of his comments at a community meeting, when he referred to Scarborough as “Scarberia.”He also said he has an outstanding court case against the Toronto Star, over a column that was written during the 2014 municipal election.
Okay, so he's currently in the middle of two lawsuits, one of which relates to insulting comments he made about a particular area of Toronto.
Just speculation, but is it possible that, were he to lose one or both of these cases, the court could impose costs on him? Because the NDP might not consider NEW LEADER OWES SHITLOAD OF CASH FOR DUBIOUS LAWSUITS to be a headline that would work to the party's advantage.
Fri, 2017-03-17 11:14
#313
COMMENTARY: Jagmeet Singh and NDP must be aware of challenges posed by Quebec
http://globalnews.ca/news/3313943/commentary-jagmeet-singh-and-ndp-must-...
Thinly veiled Quebec bashing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/07/canada-immigrants_n_14635892.htm...
Almost a third of Canadians said the government should discriminate against Muslims when selecting foreigners to move to the country, and a third want to discriminate against people of colour to prioritize white immigrants. More than 65 per cent think immigrants have a responsibility to behave "more like Canadians."
“Whatever is driving Canada’s exceptionally positive history of immigration ... it does not appear to be an exceptionally tolerant public,” the study read.
1 in 5 want to end all immigration
Twenty per cent support ending immigration to Canada completely, while 46 per cent said they oppose the idea.
“That leaves a large block of voters who are open to the idea, at least in the abstract,” the study’s author, political science professor Michael J. Donnelly, wrote. “These results suggest that a serious anti-immigrant movement is not impossible.”
Yes, I realize Singh is not an immigrant. I also recall debate here about Mulcair's beard being a possible impediment although it was quickly discounted as an issue. Canada is becoming accustomed to diversity in ministers but I can't see Canadians electing a turban wearing PM anytime soon. Probably can't win provincially either.
Fri, 2017-03-17 11:27
#314
Canada is becoming accustomed to diversity in ministers but I can't see Canadians electing a turban wearing PM anytime soon. Probably can't win provincially either.
I dunno. Voters in Stephen Harper's backyard voted for a Muslim mayor. And some of the presumbaly not-crazy-about-immigration voters who supported Trump had previously been convinced to vote for a guy named Barack Hussein Obama(okay, technically, not an immigrant, but still very much bearing the trappings of a cultural "outsider").
I think if things were otherwise to go his way(and that's a big "if"), Singh could theortetically swing a coalition of New Democrats and the more tolerant sections of the Liberal voting-bloc, without his turban being much of an issue.
Fri, 2017-03-17 11:54
#315
I see the same justification people are using with Niki Ashton, in regards to experience compared to Trudeau.
The only similarity you have drawn between Ashton and Trudeau is that they have the same number of years in parliament as thought that is the only measure of experience that counts. In reality it doesn't matter at all. Do you have a list of names of NDP members who agreed with the "not ready" assessment of Trudeau based purely on the number of years he was in parliament? The comments I read here didn't reflect that view at all. The criticism was based on how little he did during those years in parliament. Someone with zero years in parliament could have more experience pertaining to leading the country than someone with 20 years experience in parliament.
Considering "years in parliament" as the sole signficant experience for Prime Minister of Canada seems weird to me. On top of that "not ready" was the Conservative ad campaign not the NDP's ad campaign.
Certainly NDP supporters here focused very little on Trudeau's lack of parliamentary experience. His lack of political experience including community involvement was more to the point. Even on the Conservative side community involvement counts for a lot.
If you are trying to make the point that NDP members are hypocrites you are probably right because almost everyone can be accused of being a hypocrite about one thing or another. As far as I can tell you are trying to take a single trait, years in parliament, as THE reason NDP supporters ruled out Trudeau. I never saw anyone condemn him solely on the basis of years in parliament. That is the only similarity you have drawn between the two candidates.
I was here, and by far the criticism was based on policy and Trudeau's vacuous public persona prior to the beginning of the election campaign. His verbal tick of sticking "emmms and umms" leaving no silences was interpreted as a lack of intelligence and/or shallowness. Continuing on criticism moved to the people he was surrounding himself with like Morneau and Freeland.
Furthermore it is not hypocritical to change your mind. Trudeau's lack of experience has not negatively impacted his performance as PM. He changed a great deal since he bid for the leadership of the Liberals. It is therefore valid for people to think that is even more likely to occur with Ashton. In other words she shows evidence of growth since her last bid for the leadership. She is incredibly accomplished for her age. I fear she lacks political instinct (Mulcair's downfall in my view). She is certainly a far more interesting and intelligent candidate than Trudeau.
Fri, 2017-03-17 12:30
#316
Do you have a list of names of NDP members who agreed with the "not ready" assessment of Trudeau based purely on the number of years he was in parliament?
Well Tom Mulcair is the leader of the party, & everyone else followed his narrative (Not Ready). You don't get any bigger than the leader of the party. Show me any MP who broke ranks with Mulcair & publicly disagreed with what Mulcair had said.
In addition Don Davies & NDP fundraised off of Trudeau hair. Saying hair isn't a good enough reason to be Prime Minister. Imagine if any other party were to fundraise off of a female leaders hair (like Niki Ashton)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ur4S7P0n0
She is certainly a far more interesting and intelligent candidate than Trudeau.
But again NDP partisans just brush all this off (like your quote above) saying Trudeau an airhead, so the double-speak is justified.
Fri, 2017-03-17 14:26
#317
MM, your comments about Ashton are beginning to sound like a personal vendetta against her AND a fixation with getting payback on everyone who ever called Justin inexperienced.
Given that Justin exceeded everyone's expectations in 2015, why are you still holding a grudge?
BTW, if you feel Ashton has to little federal experience to lead, how can you justify pushing for Jagmeet Singh, who has no experience at all in federal politics?
Fri, 2017-03-17 14:31
#318
MM, your comments about Ashton are beginning to sound like a personal vendetta against her
Which was the point I made. It's really become ridiculous. She has sufficient experience. Whether her relative youth, and that she looks at least to my aging eyes even younger than her age, is a positive or negative is another question.
Fri, 2017-03-17 14:46
#319
if you feel Ashton has to little federal experience to lead, how can you justify pushing for Jagmeet Singh, who has no experience at all in federal politics?
I'm not pushing Jagmeet Singh. However one person said he has more experience than Trudeau to be PM saying
I pointed out that Trudeau was a school teacher (who the f--- cares what subject) compared to a person who studied and practiced law which is a fair point for people who will create law. Managing negotiations is another thing lawyers do.
Now on the other issue
Which was the point I made. It's really become ridiculous. She has sufficient experience. Whether her relative youth, and that she looks at least to my aging eyes even younger than her age, is a positive or negative is another question.
Yet intersectional feminist Niki was SILENT about an NDP fundraiser raising money off of Justin Trudeau hair. Yet you say she is more experienced to be PM than Trudeau? Imagine for one second any other party was raising money off of a female leaders hair? Niki would be first in line to denounce that. Yet she remained silent. That (along with BLM) is not leadership to me.
Fri, 2017-03-17 15:39
#320
Voters in Stephen Harper's backyard voted for a Muslim mayor. And some of the presumbaly not-crazy-about-immigration voters who supported Trump had previously been convinced to vote for a guy named Barack Hussein Obama(okay, technically, not an immigrant, but still very much bearing the trappings of a cultural "outsider").
The Calgary mayor doesn't wear a turban and a full beard. Obama had a conventional culturally mainstream lifestyle, was Christian, married with two kids, and his mother was white. He is conventionally handsome. He ran after successive Republican wins so got the "change" vote. Since then, Trump was elected.
I don't see Obama or Nenshi as evidence that Canada is ready for a PM with a full beard and turban. I would love to be wrong. I just don't think that I am. I haven't heard much talk about his positions on issues. I'm not saying it's impossible federally, I just think it would take a lot.
So far Guy Caron, for me, is the clear front-runner. He is an economist. The economy is always the primary deciding factor barring an unusual event or circumstance. Caron justified the need for basic income on the structure of the economy arguing that it will take time to restructure the economy. I want to hear more but restructuring the economy is exactly what we need.
Fri, 2017-03-17 16:45
#321
Where did I say she was more qualified?
Fri, 2017-03-17 18:00
#322
Well Tom Mulcair is the leader of the party, & everyone else followed his narrative (Not Ready). You don't get any bigger than the leader of the party. Show me any MP who broke ranks with Mulcair & publicly disagreed with what Mulcair had said.
Mighty Middle: What MP (or MP equivalent) in any party in any country or province would break ranks with their leader during campaign season and pipe up and say "Actually, our leader is wrong, that other party's leader IS ready."?
I mean, other than Trump. I'd like to think he doesn't count.
Fri, 2017-03-17 19:41
#323
Mighty Middle: What MP (or MP equivalent) in any party in any country or province would break ranks with their leader during campaign season and pipe up and say "Actually, our leader is wrong, that other party's leader IS ready."?
Except the NDP fundraiser where they raised money off of Trudeau hair happened in Sept 2014, 13 months BEFORE election day.
Fri, 2017-03-17 20:23
#324
There's no oppression involved in jokingly referencing a white Christian cis-male heterosexul political leaders' personal appearance. If you are part of the dominant demographic, you can't BE persecuted.
Why are you outraged about something that was clearly a harmless joke? And not only that, a joke that utterly failed on the level of practical politics?
Why is the
Fri, 2017-03-17 20:48
#325
Not to quarrel either way, but the above post says (Reply to #335) but then on the same line says post #324.
Fri, 2017-03-17 20:49
#326
And some of the presumbaly not-crazy-about-immigration voters who supported Trump had previously been convinced to vote for a guy named Barack Hussein Obama
It's well known that Trump trailed Clinton in the popular vote nationwide, but not so well known that Trump trailed Romney's vote in the previous election nationwide and in almost every state. He did manage to better Romney's showing in a few states, which likely means he got some of Obama's vote in them, and those turned out to be the ones that got his majority in the Electoral College. But it was only a few hundred thousand voters out of 150 million.
Fri, 2017-03-17 21:09
#327
Responding to Ken Burch
So if Ruth Ellen Brosseau was running for leader and the Liberals mocked her hair in a fundraising pitch would you say the following?
There's no oppression involved in jokingly referencing a white Christian female heterosexual political leaders' personal appearance. If you are part of the dominant demographic, you can't BE persecuted.Why are you outraged about something that was clearly a harmless joke? And not only that, a joke that utterly failed on the level of practical politics?
You keep doubling down, defending sexist behaviour. Defending the indefensable when it comes to sexism. There is no way you'd defend this if it was a woman. Much less an NDP woman.
This was sexist, and there is no ands, ifs or buts about it.
Fri, 2017-03-17 22:29
#328
Thanks Mighty Middle for explaining that all sexes matter. Get back to me when women are on an equal footing in our society and I might reconsider your point. In the meantime making fun of a white privileged male, for being vainglorious, has nothing to do with sexism.
Fri, 2017-03-17 22:53
#329
In the meantime making fun of a white privileged male, for being vainglorious, has nothing to do with sexism.
I doubt you would have the same feeling if Nathan Cullen was mocked & fundraised off of his baldness.
Sat, 2017-03-18 05:18
#330
It's never sexist or in any other way oppressive to poke gentle fun at the appearance of a privileged straight Christian white male member of the ruling elite, Mighty. A full head of hair is not a disability, and jokingly raising funds off of Justin's 'do is not in any way offensive. If anything, he probably got a big laughed his well-coiffed head off about it.
Are you offended when Dutch Muslims and antiracists mock Geert Wilders' silly bleach-blond pompadour, or if women, people of color and immigrants in the U.S. laugh at whatever the hell covers Trump's head? The thing with Justin's hair was simply a much-milder version of that idea.
You've set up an absurd false equivalence here and your outrage at Niki Ashton is ludicrously unjustified.
Sat, 2017-03-18 06:10
#331
Ruth Ellen Brousseau is a working-class single mother. Even though she is now an MP, Ms. Brousseau is still subject to discrimination and oppression on the basis of class and gender, and always will be. Remember the grief she got for taking a two-week vacation in Las Vegas during the 2011 election campaign? The simple fact of the matter is that she had no alternative but to go ahead and take that vacation(a trip she had scheduled long before she knew when the election would be called)because, as a single woman raising kids on a bartender’s salary, REB honestly couldn’t afford to reschedule the trip Even the cost of changing the dates on the flights would have been outside her budget, and it was probably the first time off she had had in years. When her political career ends, Ruth Ellen Brousseau may well have to go back to her old job as a bartender.
Justin Trudeau, in addition to being white, heterosexual, Christian, and male, was already a multimillionaire at the time he entered politics. He was also the son of a former prime minister. When Justin retires from political life, he will move into even more stratified realms of economic and social privilege, whether or not he ever works another day in his life. There is no scenario in which Justin or anyone like him could ever be a victim of any form of discrimination or oppression as a resident of a rich white male supremacist country like Canada.
Therefore, the decision of another political making fun of REB’s appearance is not in any way comparable to making fun of Justin’s appearance.
Sun, 2017-03-19 01:03
#332
I’ll leave you for now with a few additional analogies that may help you understand why your whole argument here is based on total non-equivalence;
It is always offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of LGBTQ people…it is usually not offensive to make fun of the appearance of gaybashers.
It is always offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of non-European immigrants…it is usually not offensive to make fun of the appearance of anti-immigrant politicians.
It is always offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of First Nations people…it is usually not offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of police officers and Mounties who beat and kill First Nations people(though it may not be safe or wise to do so if you live anywhere between Thunder Bay and Thousand-Mile House).
It is always offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of black people…it is never offensive to make fun of the way Klan robes look.
It is always offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of Jews, Muslims, or Latinos…it is NEVER offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of Hitler or Steve Bannon-in fact, it's kind of obligatory.
Sat, 2017-03-18 07:21
#333
I appreciate your comments Ken but you are 1) just deflecting 2) Doubling down x 4. No way you wouldn't call out another party as being a bully if they fundraised and mocked Nathan Cullen being bald.
Sat, 2017-03-18 12:49
#334
It is always offensive to make fun of the physical appearance of LGBTQ people…it is never offensive to make fun of the appearance of gaybashers.
I disagree. If a gaybasher has acne, it is NOT acceptable to call him an "ugly, zit-faced bigot". Because you're not just ridiculing his bigotry, you're suggesting that having acne is somehow a character flaw. Which is insulting to everyone who has acne(many of whom may very well have experienced grief from bullies about it), not just to the bigot.
Now, yes, if someone belongs to a class of people who often get unfairly judged on their appearance, eg. women, then the offensiveness is doubled, ie. you're not just validating abuse of acne-sufferers. you're validating misogyny as well. But that's not the same thing as saying that insults about acne, by themselves, are benign.
Sat, 2017-03-18 14:03
#335
"I appreciate your comments Ken but you are 1) just deflecting 2) Doubling down x 4. No way you wouldn't call out another party as being a bully if they fundraised and mocked Nathan Cullen being bald."
You missed the vainglorious part of the equation. Trudeau deliberately uses his photo-op looks to win votes. If he was not a selfie loving arrogant elitist then it would be improper. It is never improper to point out the failings of entitled assholes who think they are our betters.
Sat, 2017-03-18 14:08
#336
Wow, it's just like the old days, when terrytowel would derail a discussion about an interesting subject with some controversial bit of bullshit, and everyone would stampede to show how wrong he was. Thanks, Mighty Middle, for bringing back those fun times.
Sat, 2017-03-18 15:36
#337
I accept your caveats, voice.
Sat, 2017-03-18 20:18
#338
I didn't deflect...I responded directly. It's NOT bullying to poke gentle fun at a POSITIVE physical feature...in this case, Justin's hair. And there is a massive difference between commenting on the physical appearance of a privileged man and doing so with a non-priviedged woman.
And even if your point WAS valid, you should be directing your anger towards the NDP as a party, not Niki Ashton as an individual. It's not as though the hair-raiser wouldn't have happened without her.
Let it go already.
Sat, 2017-03-18 17:18
#339
Going after Cullen for being bald would be objectionable because it is not something he has control over. Going after Singh for being featured in GQ would not be objectionable because dressing well enough to be featured in GQ means you are privileged and wealthy. If anyone in the NDP is like Trudeau, it would be Singh.
Sat, 2017-03-18 17:27
#340
Agree,
Sat, 2017-03-18 17:31
#341
@ Ken Burch
Glad we see eye to eye.
And FWIW, I think hairstyle is generally fair game, since it is usually a result of voluntary choice, and says something about how you want to present yourself to the world.
Though I guess an excessive focus on hair and clothing runs the risk of wallowing in the shallows.
Sat, 2017-03-18 18:49
#342
Jagmeet Singh is bald!!??
Sorry, I'm a bit late to this profound academic colloquium, so I might have misunderstood something. Perhaps I'll scroll back and attempt to seize the nub.
I'll bet you've never heard that expression, "seize the nub", eh?
Abe Lincoln had the uncanny ability to do just that.
And I'm channeling him here. Why? Because while bearded, albeit not bald, he yet sported an arguably receding hairline.
He should never have gone to the theatre. It didn't play out well.
So, here we are. Grasping at straws. Gasping for air. And grappling with fate. Wondering, as always, whether this very discourse was preordained, or the product of free will gone awry.
Have we lost the name of action?
Sat, 2017-03-18 19:34
#343
Are you offended when Dutch Muslims and antiracists mock Geert Wilders' silly bleach-blond pompadour, or if women, people of color and immigrants in the U.S. laugh at whatever the hell covers Trump's head? The thing with Justin's hair was simply a much-milder version of that idea.
I think that "offended" might be raising the bar too high. But in the same way that we all seem to understand that "spelling flames are lame", if you use your soapbox, or your microphone, or your 140 characters to make fun of someone's appearance then there's an opportunity cost -- you could have been criticizing their values or their writings or their beliefs.
Plus, when someone points out that the Health Minister for Belgium weighs as much as a chest freezer full of meat, you have no moral higher ground to climb to.
Sat, 2017-03-18 19:39
#344
Going after Singh for being featured in GQ would not be objectionable because dressing well enough to be featured in GQ means you are privileged and wealthy.
Is he buying the expensive turbans?
Or does he just have style? Hermes scarves are a Veblen Good, with the corresponding price tag, but I'm betting Singh could get his turbans on Gerrard for about eight bucks.
Sat, 2017-03-18 20:54
#345
"I think that "offended" might be raising the bar too high. But in the same way that we all seem to understand that "spelling flames are lame", if you use your soapbox, or your microphone, or your 140 characters to make fun of someone's appearance then there's an opportunity cost -- you could have been criticizing their values or their writings or their beliefs."
True but context is everything. This was a joke about a political foe at a fundraiser. Preaching to the choir is all that could have been missed. What I find absurd is that someone would suggest that anyone not speaking out against this piece of nothing was somehow lacking.
Sun, 2017-03-19 11:19
#346
And FWIW, I think hairstyle is generally fair game, since it is usually a result of voluntary choice, and says something about how you want to present yourself to the world.
So if a woman has a nice hairstyle she is ASKING FOR IT? To be mocked. After all it is fair game, right?
You missed the vainglorious part of the equation. Trudeau deliberately uses his photo-op looks to win votes. If he was not a selfie loving arrogant elitist then it would be improper. It is never improper to point out the failings of entitled assholes who think they are our betters.
But when Jagmeet Singh does it, that is okay?
If he was not a selfie loving arrogant elitist then it would be improper. It is never improper to point out the failings of entitled assholes who think they are our betters.
This is the same tactic the Conservatives use to justify their hatred for Trudeau. They say on the one hand Trudeau is not their PM. But troll Americans on-line who say Trump is not their President. Slamming them for not respecting democracy & the will of the people. When you confront people about their hypocrisy, they reply "So what? Trudeau is an airhead" And you just proved it with the quote below.
Trudeau is a “selfie loving arrogant elitist” and “entitled assholes”
But when Jagmeet Singh does the exact same thing (taking selfies, having a huge social media, posing in fashion magazines) that is okay.
My only point with all of this is that I don't beleive in personal attacks on ANYONE appearances, even if they are attractive. I think people should be talking about policy, and not poking at how people look. I think the Canadian public felt the same way, because the more CONS attacked Trudeau appearance, the higher his numbers went up. Which is why it was disappointing to see the NDP move in the direction of the Conservatives. I hope they move in the direction of sticking to the issues.
Now let's move on & back to the discussion at hand, the leadership?
Sun, 2017-03-19 10:42
#347
lol
Sun, 2017-03-19 11:18
#348
lol
There is a reason why O'Leary is leading in the CPC race. Despite the fact he is liberal on every single social policy, CONS are united in their despise and hatred from Trudeau and willing to vote for anyone who can knock him out in 2019. Even if it means voting for someone who is Liberal on social policies.
It seems most NDP members feel the same way with their visceral hatred for Trudeau. Link below
http://rabble.ca/comment/5230756#comment-5230756
My only point with all of this is that I don't beleive in personal attacks on ANYONE appearances, even if they are attractive. I think people should be talking about policy, and not poking at how people look. I think the Canadian public felt the same way, because the more CONS attacked Trudeau appearance, they higher his numbers went up. Which is why it was disappointing to see the NDP move in the direction of the Conservatives. I hope they move in the direction of just sticking to the issues.
Now please let's move on to something else, as we have beaten this subject to death!
Sun, 2017-03-19 11:21
#349
lol, you mean like Niki Ashton? I don't recall Ashton focusing on anyone's appearance. One of the reasons this conversation has gone off the rails is that there is little to discuss that hasn't already been discussed until the candidates flesh out their platforms.
Actually, I don't recall anyone in this conversation focusing on appearances other than yourself MM.
Sun, 2017-03-19 11:34
#350
Actually, I don't recall anyone in this conversation focusing on appearances other than yourself MM.
Well maybe not on this thread but in blog postings on Babble like
The Hair Apparent Chronicles: Liberal Convention prologue with keynotes by John Baglow
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/j-baglow/2014/02/hair-apparent-chronicle...
I don't beleive in personal attacks on ANYONE appearances, even if they are attractive. I think people should be talking about policy, and not poking at how people look.
HOWEVER I will give everyone an out here. Because Trudeau says he doesn't mind the mocking towards him, because women fare far worse with sexism. So if attacks on him can shine a light on sexism towards women, and start a conversation, great use it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c9YzlCUi3k
So PLEASE let's move on to something else. PLEASE!
Sun, 2017-03-19 13:13
#351
VOTD/Mighty Middle exchange:
Quote:
And FWIW, I think hairstyle is generally fair game, since it is usually a result of voluntary choice, and says something about how you want to present yourself to the world.So if a woman has a nice hairstyle she is ASKING FOR IT? To be mocked. After all it is fair game, right?
Well, I think I've already made it clear that mocking a woman's appearance can be problematic, because it plays into misogynistic cultural habits in which a woman's appearance is already given inordinate weight in judging her character.
That said, there could be some cases where I'd consider a woman's clothing to be fair game for comment. Extreme example, if the Queen were to show up in a t-shirt and sweat pants to read the Speech From The Throne, I'd suspect it was meant as a deliberate show of disrespect for the Commons, and thus a valid target of criticism. (This would apply equally to a King doing the same thing.)