Social worker: "Hating women isn't a meme for me...it's a way of life"

[Toni]

For now, I think this is just Metaphor getting off on attacking non-whites and women using dubious information.

You would think that I just want to attack 'non-whites' (way to other people and make whites the default, bigot) and 'women' even if I'd posted 'verifiable' sources, so what's the point of saying it?

The original tweet is all over twitter if you want to see it. People have retweeted it and screenshotted it even after the original was deleted.

But it doesn't surprise me that you refuse to engage with the material, because it's hard for you to defend the material. So instead you maintain fantasies that none of it ever happened.

I haven’t found it on Twitter. I did find a site that I believe the purported author tweets on and the tweet you quoted is dramatically different in nature compared with any other tweets I can find and plausibly attribute to the purported author.

I see no purpose in discussing something that I think has been misrepresented if not outright altered to change the meaning or even invented out of whole cloth.

Again if you or anyone else would like to provide a legitimate source, then there is something to discuss. Because I have seen dozens of fake Trump tweets, which hardly seems necessary given the content of his genuine tweets.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hmmm. A misandrist. She needs to lose her job. It's now been said. Do you also believe the mysogynist should lose their job?

Actually, whether she should lose her job depends on how much her attitude may interfere with her day to day job.

If she's a front lines or a policy setting social worker, it seems to me her hatred would indeed be incompatible. If she's an academic, no. Other feminist academics say far worse all the time.

If you mean President Trump, no. He was elected fair and square.

He was also impeached fair and square, yet you still don't believe THAT was warranted. You don't believe his mysogynist behavior should have led to a conviction? You think that one person whose hatred could be grounds for dismissal but you don't support the dismissal of another person whose hatred should reasonably constitute such grounds? That's the view of a fucking hypocrite.

 

[Metaphor]

He was also impeached fair and square, yet you still don't believe THAT was warranted. You don't believe his mysogynist behavior should have led to a conviction?

What on earth are you talking about? Trump wasn't impeached for 'misogynist behaviour'.

You think that one person whose hatred could be grounds for dismissal but you don't support the dismissal of another person whose hatred should reasonably constitute such grounds? That's the view of a fucking hypocrite.

I haven't the faintest notion what you are talking about. The POTUS isn't hired or fired based on temperament or 'misogyny'. He was hired by the Electoral College and only the Senate can fire him, and they didn't. I didn't follow the Trump impeachment and I don't know the evidence, but from my understanding of it voting was strictly partisan (except Romney?) and so the evidence didn't seem to matter in any case.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Derec]

What on earth are you talking about? Trump wasn't impeached for 'misogynist behaviour'.

Jarhyn must be thinking that Trump grabbed her by the pussy.

 

[Jarhyn]

He was also impeached fair and square, yet you still don't believe THAT was warranted. You don't believe his mysogynist behavior should have led to a conviction?

What on earth are you talking about? Trump wasn't impeached for 'misogynist behaviour'.

You think that one person whose hatred could be grounds for dismissal but you don't support the dismissal of another person whose hatred should reasonably constitute such grounds? That's the view of a fucking hypocrite.

I haven't the faintest notion what you are talking about. The POTUS isn't hired or fired based on temperament or 'misogyny'. He was hired by the Electoral College and only the Senate can fire him, and they didn't. I didn't follow the Trump impeachment and I don't know the evidence, but from my understanding of it voting was strictly partisan (except Romney?) and so the evidence didn't seem to matter in any case.

So you don't believe that misogynistic behavior, rape, is not appropriate grounds for impeachment? He can be fired. Should he be fired for misogynistic behavior? He is the leader of the free world, many women who have to work with him who get no say in it. His existence creates a hostile work environment, and he has multiple rape and sexual assault suits against him. So if there was a misandrist whose behavior brings that much negative behavior and impact on someone, would you support their removal from a position of power over a large workforce including both men and women?

The fact is, you are a hypocrite if you would support the removal of a woman over misandry, but not a man over misogyny.

In fact, I recall explicitly when there was an impeachment hearing relating to issues of misogynistic behavior, perpetrated entirely by Republicans. So yes, sometimes a president IS fired on the basis of misogyny.

The fact is, there's a whole lot of misogynistic behavior in business. Look at Bloomberg's business... There is a whole culture there of misogynistic behavior, where women are commonly and openly referred to as "SFUs": "short, fat, ugly (women)", and objectified as such. Do you object to THAT in the same extent? I criticize some people here by an inability to evenly abstract and thus argue and apply their principles. You commonly display that you care about one MIS* but not another MIS*. It says you don't really have a principle, you just have a specific one-sided goal of selfishness and it is apparent to the rest of us that everyone else be damned.

 

[Toni]

Hmmm. A misandrist. She needs to lose her job. It's now been said. Do you also believe the mysogynist should lose their job?

Actually, whether she should lose her job depends on how much her attitude may interfere with her day to day job.

If she's a front lines or a policy setting social worker, it seems to me her hatred would indeed be incompatible. If she's an academic, no. Other feminist academics say far worse all the time.

If you mean President Trump, no. He was elected fair and square.

He was also impeached fair and square, yet you still don't believe THAT was warranted. You don't believe his mysogynist behavior should have led to a conviction? You think that one person whose hatred could be grounds for dismissal but you don't support the dismissal of another person whose hatred should reasonably constitute such grounds? That's the view of a fucking hypocrite.

Misogyny, rape, sexual assault, conduct unbecoming unfortunately were not among the allegations he was impeached for. Not that he would have been convicted. Unfortunately.

Jury has never been convened on whether he was elected 'fair and square.'

 

[Metaphor]

So you don't believe that misogynistic behavior,

Despite feminist kvetching, "misogynist behaviour" is not a crime. There's no law about committing "misogyny" (is there?). Is it a Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?

rape, is not appropriate grounds for impeachment?

I don't know: is it? He wasn't impeached for rape, was he? If Democrats thought that was impeachable and provable, why didn't they add that to the articles of impeachment?

He can be fired. Should he be fired for misogynistic behavior? He is the leader of the free world, many women who have to work with him who get no say in it. His existence creates a hostile work environment, and he has multiple rape and sexual assault suits against him. So if there was a misandrist whose behavior brings that much negative behavior and impact on someone, would you support their removal from a position of power over a large workforce including both men and women?

Does he refuse to shake hands with women world leaders? Does he refuse to consider women for appointed positions? Are the people who were under him who have quit been disproportionately women?

The fact is, you are a hypocrite if you would support the removal of a woman over misandry, but not a man over misogyny.

In fact, I recall explicitly when there was an impeachment hearing relating to issues of misogynistic behavior, perpetrated entirely by Republicans. So yes, sometimes a president IS fired on the basis of misogyny.

Oh, who was impeached and convicted over "misogyny"?

The fact is, there's a whole lot of misogynistic behavior in business. Look at Bloomberg's business... There is a whole culture there of misogynistic behavior, where women are commonly and openly referred to as "SFUs": "short, fat, ugly (women)", and objectified as such. Do you object to THAT in the same extent?

Do I object to people being bullied at work? Yes.

I criticize some people here by an inability to evenly abstract and thus argue and apply their principles. You commonly display that you care about one MIS* but not another MIS*. It says you don't really have a principle, you just have a specific one-sided goal of selfishness and it is apparent to the rest of us that everyone else be damned.

You may believe I don't have principles; I believe you are sufficiently prejudiced that you cannot process somebody else's nuance.

 

[Metaphor]

He was also impeached fair and square, yet you still don't believe THAT was warranted. You don't believe his mysogynist behavior should have led to a conviction? You think that one person whose hatred could be grounds for dismissal but you don't support the dismissal of another person whose hatred should reasonably constitute such grounds? That's the view of a fucking hypocrite.

Misogyny, rape, sexual assault, conduct unbecoming unfortunately were not among the allegations he was impeached for. Not that he would have been convicted. Unfortunately.

Jury has never been convened on whether he was elected 'fair and square.'

Well jury is out on whether Obama was born in Kenya or not

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The twitter account is set as private so it's not possible to verify the article/premise linked or whether the offensive tweet was the provocative start to a statement that is later refuted in the thread, or whether the tweet was faked, as I've seen other tweets obviously faked, usually for lol. In the absence of verification, or the possibility of verification of this so called author's premise/story: I call bullshit.

40,000 retweets basically shows it's not fake.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The twitter account is set as private so it's not possible to verify the article/premise linked or whether the offensive tweet was the provocative start to a statement that is later refuted in the thread, or whether the tweet was faked, as I've seen other tweets obviously faked, usually for lol. In the absence of verification, or the possibility of verification of this so called author's premise/story: I call bullshit.

40,000 retweets basically shows it's not fake.

There are more than 40k incels in the world. So, no.

When there is a reliable op that also isn't anecdotal drama used to push an agenda, please let us know.

 

[laughing dog]

The twitter account is set as private so it's not possible to verify the article/premise linked or whether the offensive tweet was the provocative start to a statement that is later refuted in the thread, or whether the tweet was faked, as I've seen other tweets obviously faked, usually for lol. In the absence of verification, or the possibility of verification of this so called author's premise/story: I call bullshit.

40,000 retweets basically shows it's not fake.

Given the demonstrated gullibility of the public, there is no reason to think the number of retweets is correlated with veracity.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Approximately 40k retweets:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DaveSchreiber3/status/956228048550064130

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The twitter account is set as private so it's not possible to verify the article/premise linked or whether the offensive tweet was the provocative start to a statement that is later refuted in the thread, or whether the tweet was faked, as I've seen other tweets obviously faked, usually for lol. In the absence of verification, or the possibility of verification of this so called author's premise/story: I call bullshit.

40,000 retweets basically shows it's not fake.

Given the demonstrated gullibility of the public, there is no reason to think the number of retweets is correlated with veracity.

Veracity isn't the issue, the question is whether it was real. You can't retweet what wasn't tweeted.