USA Vice Presidential Debate 2020 - Harris v Pence

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Lion Heart said:

HOW IS SHE ABRASIVE??? If anything, she let him get away with too much!!

JESUS CHRIST.

Sexist insecure men

Its not sexism, its people being biased to their political party

[littlepotter 76,616]

10 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Trash debate yuh

I love how throughout the thread you're just adlibbing the debate like ariana

[HeavyMetalLover 16]

22 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

Its not sexism, its people being biased to their political party

A political party that is extremely sexist and misogynistic, among other things.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, HeavyMetalLover said:

A political party that is extremely sexist and misogynistic, among other things.

There is a difference bwtween saying republicans are sexists, and saying they are sexist because they thought Kamala lost the debate

[Meruk Holland 2,391]

Just now, Faysalaaa said:

There is a difference bwtween saying republicans are sexists, and saying they are sexist because they thought Kamala lost the debate

The two kinda go hand-in-hand. Republicans having a bias against Kamala based on her being a woman (or being a POC for that matter) will be more likely to say that her opponent won the debate, regardless of the actually outcome. No, they aren't sexist because they thought Kamala lost, but they thought she lost (partially) because they are more likely to be sexist.

[HeavyMetalLover 16]

4 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

There is a difference bwtween saying republicans are sexists, and saying they are sexist because they thought Kamala lost the debate

Not really - especially when they use the terminology stated. It’s pretty clear. I agree that they’re biased to their own party, but acknowledging the implicit sexism and misogyny is important. You seem to be dismissing it for some reason, which is sort of bizarre.

[badboymonsterx 555]

Kamala clearly won the debate... 2nd place goes to the fly. 

[Stephen 30,433]

If a white man said everything the way Kamala did they would not criticize him for being abrasive or aggressive, they would see it as strength.

Trump was a million times more aggressive in the first debate and his base thinks he's "tough" and "dominant". 

[bionic 50,111]

1 minute ago, Stephen said:

If a white man said everything the way Kamala did they would not criticize him for being abrasive or aggressive, they would see it as strength.

Trump was a million times more aggressive in the first debate and his base thinks he's "tough" and "dominant". 

Right? Look at Trump v Hillary. Trump was all over the place being legitimately aggressive and saying horrible things and not many comments were raised but if Hillary’s voice got slightly louder you’d think she’d threatened his life

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, HeavyMetalLover said:

Not really - especially when they use the terminology stated. It’s pretty clear. I agree that they’re biased to their own party, but acknowledging the implicit sexism and misogyny is important. You seem to be dismissing it for some reason, which is sort of bizarre.

 

54 minutes ago, Meruk Holland said:

The two kinda go hand-in-hand. Republicans having a bias against Kamala based on her being a woman (or being a POC for that matter) will be more likely to say that her opponent won the debate, regardless of the actually outcome. No, they aren't sexist because they thought Kamala lost, but they thought she lost (partially) because they are more likely to be sexist.

If the Republican candidate was a woman, Republicans will view the Republican woman as the winner.

Just because alot of Republicans are sexist, you cant accuse every criticism they have through sexism. Most Democratic white males are also sexist, does this mean we can accuse them of sexism for their criticism on a female Republican? Does this mean Democrats are right when they accused Bernie Bros white males of being sexist against Hilary and Warren?

Im not saying there is no sexism, but stop simplifying things by accusing others of Sexism and toxic masculinity because they have criticism of Kamala.

[NCgaga 4,345]

There is really no point in debating on who won the debate. People will always say their nominee won, and will pick reasons throughout the debate on why they won. 
 

IMO Kamala won. She gave examples on plans. That’s what I’m looking for in a debate. Pence just reiterated Trump’s talking points, and was probably instructed to do just that. 

[HeavyMetalLover 16]

5 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

 

If the Republican candidate was a woman, and the Democrat canididate was a man, Republicans will view the Republican woman as the winner.

Just because alot of Republicans are sexist, you cant accuse every criticism through sexism. Most Democratic white males are also sexist, does this mean we can accuse them of sexism for their criticism on a female Republican?

Why are you defending them, though? The Republican party and the Trump/Pence administration are rooted in misogyny and sexism. You can’t just ignore that, as you are doing. This isn’t a hypothetical situation I’m arguing. I’m not accusing “every criticism,” but this specific one - which is unsurprising and reminiscent of how Hilary was treated four years ago. It’s the same old crap.

You can’t compare the overall sexism and misogyny of the two parties - it’s night and day.

[Stephen 30,433]

2 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

 

If the Republican candidate was a woman, and the Democrat canididate was a man, Republicans will view the Republican woman as the winner.

Yes but they likely wouldn't call the Dem male candidate abrasive and aggressive for the same performance Kamala gave. Because she was not either of those things, she was strong and confident. They would attack the Dem male on other things to claim that he lost. 

Labeling the black woman candidate abrasive and aggressive is an easy way to diminish her performance by appealing to racial stereotypes that many Republicans already internalize and perpetuate. It's not only racist and misogynistic but also a lazy way to claim her "loss" of the debate.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, HeavyMetalLover said:

Why are you defending them, though? The Republican party and the Trump/Pence administration are rooted in misogyny and sexism. You can’t just ignore that, as you are doing. This isn’t a hypothetical situation I’m arguing. I’m not accusing “every criticism,” but this specific one - which is unsurprising and reminiscent of how Hilary was treated four years ago. It’s the same of crap.

You can’t compare the overall sexism and misogyny of the two parties - it’s night and day.

Im not defending them, I simply want better arguments and dialogue. Accusing others of sexism because they criticize a woman is very simplistic. 

Im not comparing sexism between the two parties, but the fact is the majority of Democrats are sexist. Does this mean any criticism they have of a woman will be sexist? things are more complicated than this.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Yes but they likely wouldn't call the Dem male candidate abrasive and aggressive for the same performance Kamala gave. Because she was not either of those things, she was strong and confident. They would attack the Dem male on other things to claim that he lost. 

Labeling the black woman candidate abrasive and aggressive is an easy way to diminish her performance by appealing to racial stereotypes that many Republicans already internalize and perpetuate. It's not only racist and misogynistic but also a lazy way to claim her "loss" of the debate.

While I agree its wrong to criticize a black woman this way today, obviously because these stareotyles are often used against black women. But their criticism of Kamala is accurate in my opinion. Yes shes strong but shes also all the things they said about her. Shes the wrong kind of strong woman like Hilary Clinton.