Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Dark n Stormy Knight
Dark n Stormy Knight's Journal
Dark n Stormy Knight's Journal
March 9, 2015
That post shares only a couple of examples of the sort of thing Schilling has frequently posted to his blog and other high traffic outlets.
And, I personally find it odd that, in light of the topic at hand, little has been said about Schilling's failure to speak out against similar reprehensible behavior in the GamerGate situation. Horrible as they were, the comments about his daughter were not made to her, but to him in a one-time situation. While in the case of GamerGate, the threats were made directly to the women and were ongoing.
So, while it's good to see misogynistic behavior denounced, before we jump on the Curt Schilling as feminist hero bandwagon, let's not forget that Schilling, deeply involved in the gamer world, did not and has not spoken out against the disgusting violent GamerGate threats made against women. In fact, I have a very strong suspicion that as long as such threats are made against liberal or feminist women, not only will he not speak out, he won't really mind at all.
More on Schilling's own personal brand of cyber-bullying here.
Just don’t get hoodwinked into believing that Curt Schilling is not one of them.
Curt’s point that there are a lot of awful people on social media was a valid one as well, except he totally ignored the fact that he is among them.
Curt Schilling has both authored and shared some of the more alarming examples of hate speech I’ve ever seen a person of his profile make, and the response has been little more than a few eye rolls and a hope that maybe if we just ignore him he’ll go away. Towards the end of 2014 Curt made three posts on his Facebook page that I feel need to be discussed before his hero tour picks up any more steam.
So why bring all this up? Because all we’re hearing about now is what a hero Curt Schilling is for standing up for his daughter and going after the trolls who said horrible things about her, but who goes after Curt when he shares a post calling black people n***ers or posts political memes of 9/11 jumpers?
Curt talks about accountability, but where was the accountability for him? I certainly didn’t write to ESPN and demand that Curt get fired for the terrible things he shared, but according to pretty much everyone, that would have been the correct way to handle it, right? Accountability is a two way street, and Curt Schilling’s social media postings have crossed that line several times.
So while you listen to masses laud him as a hero for going after the cyber-bullies who attacked his daughter, just keep in mind that most of the people he retweeted have/had just a small handful of followers. Curt Schilling has a vast audience. Tens of thousands of people were exposed to his hateful and wildly offensive postings and yet there has been no recourse. He still works for ESPN and I can guarantee you he doesn’t think he did a single thing wrong by posting any of the three examples I’ve cited.
So while you listen to masses laud him as a hero for going after the cyber-bullies who attacked his daughter, just keep in mind that most of the people he retweeted have/had just a small handful of followers. Curt Schilling has a vast audience. Tens of thousands of people were exposed to his hateful and wildly offensive postings and yet there has been no recourse. He still works for ESPN and I can guarantee you he doesn’t think he did a single thing wrong by posting any of the three examples I’ve cited.
That post shares only a couple of examples of the sort of thing Schilling has frequently posted to his blog and other high traffic outlets.
And, I personally find it odd that, in light of the topic at hand, little has been said about Schilling's failure to speak out against similar reprehensible behavior in the GamerGate situation. Horrible as they were, the comments about his daughter were not made to her, but to him in a one-time situation. While in the case of GamerGate, the threats were made directly to the women and were ongoing.
So, while it's good to see misogynistic behavior denounced, before we jump on the Curt Schilling as feminist hero bandwagon, let's not forget that Schilling, deeply involved in the gamer world, did not and has not spoken out against the disgusting violent GamerGate threats made against women. In fact, I have a very strong suspicion that as long as such threats are made against liberal or feminist women, not only will he not speak out, he won't really mind at all.
More on Schilling's own personal brand of cyber-bullying here.
February 23, 2015
Given those realities, who can say what we would be like in a world where our sexual desires, and the way we express them, were freely chosen instead of imposed on us by a lifetime of social conditioning? Fifty Shades of Grey may represent the ultimate appropriation for capitalist consumption of themes that have resonated throughout history, but one thing its popularity can’t tell us is the truth about female sexuality.
Such a great article I think it needs its own OP. I'll try to get to that.
The patriarchy has been such a powerful and influential force over a long period of time that we can
safely assume that it has has significant influence on just about everything, but particularly things related to male-female relationships and sexuality in general.
You want to talk absurdity? Denying that one's sexual preferences, including kinks, within one's sexual orientation can be taught is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Not in the least reality-based.
Most things are learned and what is learned is overwhelmingly influenced by the society in which one lives. And most things about the society in which we live have come down to us though the system of patriarchy. That's the reality.
Questioning whether what we've been taught to enjoy is ultimately positive for us as women and for humanity in general, is not a "Church Lady" thing.
And here is an extremely insightful article that addresses that in relation to 50 Shades.
The real reasons for the popularity of Fifty Shades, and for the persistent role of domination and submission in women’s sexual imaginations, are rooted in what it actually means to live life in a female body—and the truth about that is so dark it makes Christian Grey’s Red Room of Pain seem as innocuous as a backyard sandbox.
So when people pontificate about women’s intrinsic sexual nature, I find myself thinking: How do you know? How can we ourselves even know? From earliest childhood, women’s experience of sex is so inextricably intertwined with all forms of male control that submission is forever eroticized in more ways than we can possibly unravel. As females, we have been dominated physically, politically, socially, legally, and economically, and pop culture endlessly reinforces the message. Hip-hop derides bitches and ho’s, an entire genre of blockbuster videogames depicts female characters as sexualized corpses or disposable prostitutes, fashion sells bondage dresses with leather cages, and Hollywood recycles domination themes from 9 1?2 Weeks to Secretary to Venus in Fur. Sex is fused with violence for countless women who suffer domestic abuse by husbands and lovers. More than a third of all female homicide victims are killed by intimate partners.
Given those realities, who can say what we would be like in a world where our sexual desires, and the way we express them, were freely chosen instead of imposed on us by a lifetime of social conditioning? Fifty Shades of Grey may represent the ultimate appropriation for capitalist consumption of themes that have resonated throughout history, but one thing its popularity can’t tell us is the truth about female sexuality.
Such a great article I think it needs its own OP. I'll try to get to that.
January 10, 2015
Video of the Moment: companion video to the Elizabeth Warren meme
OK, maybe the moment was 4 and half years ago, but, with all due respect (and that's a lot of respect) to Elizabeth Warren, I don't think anyone will every explain trickle down quite as well as Stephen Colbert did in this The Word segment:
And here is a transcript of the best/worst part, (The words from the screen next to Colbert a re shown in parentheses after the related script text.) But, watch the video. It's hilarious.
Yes. Deficits do matter. And that is as true today as the last time a Democrat was in office. (Back then we called them surpluses) In fact, Republicans have put their deficit nuts on the table. By repeatedly filibustering benefits to 15 million unemployed Americans, because that would add $33 billion to the deficit. And that would just be passing that bill onto future generations. (Of Chinese)
So, arguing to add $1 trillion to the deficit to give these tax cuts to the wealthy makes it look hypocritical and heartless. (Instead of just hypocritical) Well, here's why they're not. Economists know tax cuts for wealthy Americans benefit everyone. It's even got a name. ("Self-serving rationalization"
It's called the "trickle down theory". Here's how it works. Let's say I'm in the top 3% of wage earners. Because I am. And this Bud Light Lime is a refreshing tax cut. With lime. (Tastes great, less filing) Now, the bigger my tax cut is, the more money I can pour into the system.
Then, very soon, the benefits will work their way through the system, and trickle down. I mean, like a racehorse. Then, the other 97% of poorer Americans are welcome to have as much of that as they can collect. (Transcript courtesy of this Daily Kos Diary.)
So, arguing to add $1 trillion to the deficit to give these tax cuts to the wealthy makes it look hypocritical and heartless. (Instead of just hypocritical) Well, here's why they're not. Economists know tax cuts for wealthy Americans benefit everyone. It's even got a name. ("Self-serving rationalization"
It's called the "trickle down theory". Here's how it works. Let's say I'm in the top 3% of wage earners. Because I am. And this Bud Light Lime is a refreshing tax cut. With lime. (Tastes great, less filing) Now, the bigger my tax cut is, the more money I can pour into the system.
Then, very soon, the benefits will work their way through the system, and trickle down. I mean, like a racehorse. Then, the other 97% of poorer Americans are welcome to have as much of that as they can collect. (Transcript courtesy of this Daily Kos Diary.)
January 9, 2015
Fraud appears limited to relatively few cases in the disability program, although it is difficult to know precisely how many beneficiaries could be working. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that about 0.4 percent of disability beneficiaries were likely receiving improper payments, because they were working before or after they began receiving checks. Another report by Social Security's inspector general examined administrative law judges who were approving an unusually high proportion of disability applications and concluded that some of those approvals may have been mistaken. That group of beneficiaries also accounted for about 0.4 percent of all those receiving disability payments.
And while it's true that more and more people are on disability, this is largely a result of the fact that the workforce is getting older and more likely to be hurt or sick, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-of-center think tank. About seven in ten disability recipients are at least 50 years old -- and that group is also expanding to include the women who entered the workforce at the beginning of their careers decades ago.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/07/social-security-disability-payments-would-be-cut-by-a-fifth-without-new-action/
Mo Better info at my subsequent post on the subject.
Massive fraud in the Social Security Disability system!
Appears to be a RW fiction.
Fraud appears limited to relatively few cases in the disability program, although it is difficult to know precisely how many beneficiaries could be working. A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that about 0.4 percent of disability beneficiaries were likely receiving improper payments, because they were working before or after they began receiving checks. Another report by Social Security's inspector general examined administrative law judges who were approving an unusually high proportion of disability applications and concluded that some of those approvals may have been mistaken. That group of beneficiaries also accounted for about 0.4 percent of all those receiving disability payments.
And while it's true that more and more people are on disability, this is largely a result of the fact that the workforce is getting older and more likely to be hurt or sick, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-of-center think tank. About seven in ten disability recipients are at least 50 years old -- and that group is also expanding to include the women who entered the workforce at the beginning of their careers decades ago.
Mo Better info at my subsequent post on the subject.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: East Coast
Home country: USA
Current location: MidAtlantic US
Member since: Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:05 PM
Number of posts: 9,760
