Boycott Bee!

[Broken_Erika]

I'm assuming she knows what he is and she didn't care.(At least until he became president) Or she's just clueless. Those are the only two realistic possibilities.....other than blackmail....

 

[metalhead]

Don't twist my words into something they don't mean. It's one thing if a woman has no idea that her future husband will turn out to be a cheat and abuser. It's another thing if she knows he will do that (based on past evidence or current experience).

I don't see how this is anything other than blaming the abused person for her own abuse. You're saying it's partly her fault, basically. Right? I'm not twisting your words, this is very clearly what you are saying.

Whether she was blackmailed or not (I said it was plausible, and there is circumstantial evidence to support it), do you really think it was incumbent on her to go back and independently research his prior marriages and relationships to see if he ever abused any of his previous spouses? And that she is blameworthy for not doing so? Who in their right mind would do that?

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Even irrelevant Instagram posts?

How are they irrelevant?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't see how this is anything other than blaming the abused person for her own abuse. You're saying it's partly her fault, basically. Right? I'm not twisting your words, this is very clearly what you are saying.

Whether she was blackmailed or not (I said it was plausible, and there is circumstantial evidence to support it), do you really think it was incumbent on her to go back and independently research his prior marriages and relationships to see if he ever abused any of his previous spouses? And that she is blameworthy for not doing so? Who in their right mind would do that?

Ohforpetessake!

Trump was famous for his marital infidelities. Unless she was living in a cave somewhere, she couldn't have NOT known about it. And any woman who marries a man who is famous for cheating is an idiot. That's irrespective of any other abuses he's committed.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Unless she's in it for the money.

 

[Berzerker]

the idiot's laughing all the way to the bank

 

[Kaitzilla]

It is especially disgusting when it is done during the prime time when children might be watching.

Look, I dislike Trump like the next guy. I am a (legal) immigrant myself. But people like Samantha Bee do not help the cause. Being a comedian does not give you license to degrade people. And I can't help but agree with Fox that unlike Roseanne there will be no cancellation of Full Frontal and no 7 days 24 hour coverage of this remark. Which, unlike tweet, you cannot even delete.

Samantha Bee deserves backlash and boycott . TBS has to take her off the air. And then some. Replace her with someone who can actually help immigrants and their kids without using vulgarities, reaching for lowest of low and degrading another woman.

Ya, I looked the word up and her show will probably be canceled.

Usage alert
All senses of this word are vulgar slang and are very strongly tabooed and censored. The meanings that refer to a woman and a contemptible person are used with disparaging intent and are perceived as highly insulting and demeaning. There are many words used to refer to people in sexual terms. However, to call a person a xxxx, especially a woman, is one of the most hateful and powerful examples of verbal abuse in the English language.

Hah! Just kidding.
It's ok if its a sexist remark if the sexes are the same, and ok if its a racist remark if the races are the same.
It is assumed the hatred can't be there because nobody really hates themselves or can stay mad at themselves for a decent amount of time.

One is an insult targeting a single person. One is a racial slur targeting several million people. Saying they are both "insults" is erroneous. Saying it over and over will eventually become lying.

I don't know.
It seems like Bee's word could insult millions of women.
I was always told to never, ever say it because it was the nuclear weapon of female insults.
Like on a scale of 10 to 1 from bad to worst insults, I think slut was ranked #10 and Bee's word was ranked #1.

 

[Berzerker]

that sucks, I like her show

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's ok if its a sexist remark if the sexes are the same

No, it is not.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

As Barbara Ehrenreich put it, Ivanka earned the "c" word epithet.

 

[miaasma]

who would ever call a woman that word?

surely nobody in the trump administration

 

[adcarrymaokai]

It's a captivity of her own making. Did she marry him at gunpoint? Did he blackmail her into it? Did he threaten her family if she didn't marry him? How could she be unaware of his past treatment of former wives and seriously think that she'd be the one to have a "happily ever after" ending, that she was somehow different?

Interesting. You find that Ivanka Trump being called a **** is highly offensive despite the fact that it won't have any effect on her life and material conditions in any way, shape, or form, yet you pretty much victim-blame Melania for marrying Trump, which has some severe and unintended consequences Melania could not have known in advance, especially as an immigrant woman. She married a businessman and a reality-show star, not a US president.

And when you look at Trump's administration, Melania is the only adult with no real power. All of Trump's children have some kind of significance and tasks they perform, some political power. Melania is just Trump's wife who gets dragged everywhere he goes, whether she wants it or not.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Interesting. You find that Ivanka Trump being called a **** is highly offensive despite the fact that it won't have any effect on her life and material conditions in any way, shape, or form, yet you pretty much victim-blame Melania for marrying Trump, which has some severe and unintended consequences Melania could not have known in advance, especially as an immigrant woman. She married a businessman and a reality-show star, not a US president.

WHOOSH!

There are people who see this incident as meaning that it's okay to not only call Ivanka Trump a ____, but by extension, all other women. I'm sure she's probably heard much worse in her life; actually, the implication that Trump would "date" her if they weren't father and daughter would be so much worse (in my estimation). But as shown in the thread here, there are some male forum members who think it's okay to insult me in the same very specific, disgusting way. So yeah, this whole thing is highly offensive.

As for Melania Trump, nobody held a gun on her and forced her to marry a man who she had to have known had a pattern of cheating on his wives. His political aspirations are irrelevant as far as that's concerned. If a woman is stupid enough to marry a serial cheater, she's an even bigger idiot to expect that things would be different with her.

This in no way is a suggestion that whatever Trump has done to her is acceptable. It's one thing to say she's stupid for having married him, but I am in no way saying she deserves whatever comes next.

And when you look at Trump's administration, Melania is the only adult with no real power. All of Trump's children have some kind of significance and tasks they perform, some political power. Melania is just Trump's wife who gets dragged everywhere he goes, whether she wants it or not.

I expect she's pretty well tied to him for as long as he wants, due to whatever pre-nup she would have had to sign if she wanted to marry him.

 

[metalhead]

Ohforpetessake!

Trump was famous for his marital infidelities. Unless she was living in a cave somewhere, she couldn't have NOT known about it. And any woman who marries a man who is famous for cheating is an idiot. That's irrespective of any other abuses he's committed.

Well this is quite a goalpost move. A philanderer is not the same as an abuser. I'm not talking about the fact that he is notorious for cheating, though I seriously doubt his exploits were of much interest in Slovenia.

He has physically and emotionally abused his children and his first two wives. It is not on her to know that, it is not her fault for not knowing that, nor should one assume that because their husband is known for cheating on his spouses, he will also be abusive. Some people can abide cheating; it's not on us to judge someone for that.

This man with a history of abuse, his wife has not been seen in public for over 3 weeks. In any other circumstance, this would be a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong. That he has serious control issues if nothing else. This is not her fault, and your equating it with cheating seriously cheapens spousal abuse.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well this is quite a goalpost move. A philanderer is not the same as an abuser. I'm not talking about the fact that he is notorious for cheating, though I seriously doubt his exploits were of much interest in Slovenia.

He has physically and emotionally abused his children and his first two wives. It is not on her to know that, it is not her fault for not knowing that, nor should one assume that because their husband is known for cheating on his spouses, he will also be abusive. Some people can abide cheating; it's not on us to judge someone for that.

This man with a history of abuse, his wife has not been seen in public for over 3 weeks. In any other circumstance, this would be a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong. That he has serious control issues if nothing else. This is not her fault, and your equating it with cheating seriously cheapens spousal abuse.

JFCOASB.

Quote where I ever said Melania is to blame for being abused. I never said that.

I said she's an idiot for marrying a known cheater. Even if abuse is never part of the marriage, that in and of itself is an idiotic thing for a woman to do.

I don't blame her in any way if Trump has abused her. That's on him, if it happened. But she was dumb to walk into marriage with someone who is incapable of respecting his wives enough to remain faithful to them. That's a red flag that should be a warning to anyone.

In Trump's case, there was enough crap in the news over a period of decades to give her reason to think ten times before marrying him. Why she would expect it to be a bed of roses based on past evidence, I have no idea.

 

[Broken_Erika]

This man with a history of abuse, his wife has not been seen in public for over 3 weeks. In any other circumstance, this would be a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong......

The Onion might have had it right....
Melania’s Staff Asks For Privacy From President While She Recuperates
edit:

Hmmmm. This can't be good......

edit again:This Tweet is a verified "Alternative Fact"; Just like the link above it!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

How's this? It is a FACT that it's never okay on this forum. Thunderfall and the other admins said so.

It's a FACT that it is never okay with me. I say so.

But you didn't say "it's not okay on this forum" did you, you said "it's not okay". So yes, that is not a fact. And although it may be a fact that I'm not allowed to do it on this forum, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to express the opinion that it is not "never okay" to do so in general.

It's amazing how so many of you here keep acting like "fanny" is the word I was referring to, no matter how many times I've said it isn't.

You may have noticed that your refusal to identify the word you're talking about sparked a round of speculation about potential words it could be, which then became its own discussion. We know this isn't the word you were referring to now, but that doesn't alter the fact that at the time I made that post that's what I was talking about.

There has been considerable talk about how Ivanka is undermining democracy in your country by overstepping her place. That photo is an example from a Canadian perspective. Are you trying to tell me that Americans think it's appropriate that she's sitting in on meetings with foreign leaders and posing for cutesy photos while sitting in the president's chair?

I'm not telling you anything. I was commenting on the irony of railing against the very premise of an unelected family member having any sort of political role, whilst at the same time being completey fine with the concept of the "First Lady", which is exactly that. Your rebuttal about it being different because it's not the exact same family member missed the point entirely, although could at least be considered an actual reply to what I said. But all this about some specific photo with your Prime Minister has nothing to do with what I said at all.

But as shown in the thread here, there are some male forum members who think it's okay to insult me in the same very specific, disgusting way. So yeah, this whole thing is highly offensive.

If anyone in this thread has said anything about using this insult against you specifically then I must have missed it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But you didn't say "it's not okay on this forum" did you, you said "it's not okay". So yes, that is not a fact. And although it may be a fact that I'm not allowed to do it on this forum, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to express the opinion that it is not "never okay" to do so in general.

Strictly speaking, the admins are the ones who say it's not okay on this forum. I merely pointed out that FACT.

And if you were ever to walk up to me in person and call me that word, my reaction would not be positive.

You may have noticed that your refusal to identify the word you're talking about sparked a round of speculation about potential words it could be, which then became its own discussion. We know this isn't the word you were referring to now, but that doesn't alter the fact that at the time I made that post that's what I was talking about.

Congratulations on finally catching up with the FACT that "fanny" isn't the word I meant, after my stating this numerous times.

I'm not telling you anything. I was commenting on the irony of railing against the very premise of an unelected family member having any sort of political role, whilst at the same time being completey fine with the concept of the "First Lady", which is exactly that. Your rebuttal about it being different because it's not the exact same family member missed the point entirely, although could at least be considered an actual reply to what I said. But all this about some specific photo with your Prime Minister has nothing to do with what I said at all.

My understanding is that a president is expected to have a wife or some other female to act in the role of First Lady (or if Hilary had won, Bill Clinton would have been expected to fulfill the role of First Gentleman). I am perfectly aware that it's an unelected position. I also get the impression that it's a role that involves ceremonial duties, entertaining the spouses of visiting heads of state, sponsoring various charities, and so on. Therefore it's a position that is expected to be fulfilled by somebody.

Melania should be doing that since she's not sick or disabled in some way. But she appears to take zero interest in the duties of a First Lady (don't bother trotting out her kid as an excuse; other First Ladies have managed). Therefore it appears that Ivanka (the equally unelected daughter) has stepped up in some respects.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Strictly speaking, the admins are the ones who say it's not okay on this forum. I merely pointed out that FACT.

Yes. As I keep pointing out, I wasn't talking about what words are and aren't allowed on this forum. I was talking about the general notion of if it's ever okay to call a woman "the c word". When I said this wasn't a fact, you immediately shifted the goalposts to a specific example where it was against the rules. It wasn't a subtle goalpost shift, you must have noticed you were doing it. So let's just put the goalposts back where they were shall we? What words aren't allowed on this forum is not relevant (although I suppose it's worth pointing out that it is just the word itself which is not allowed, not the specific crime of using it against a woman).

And if you were ever to walk up to me in person and call me that word, my reaction would not be positive.

Sorry, not relevant at all.

Congratulations on finally catching up with the FACT that "fanny" isn't the word I meant, after my stating this numerous times.

Are you really this obtuse or are you doing it just to wind people up? I never, ever thought you were talking about the word "fanny" and never said as such. Please stop talking about this as if I did. Again, it's not relevant. The point stands that both Canadians and USAians use "fanny" in the same way, which is different to the Australian/Brit use, hence me deciding that saying "American" was good enough. Which is what you initially challenged me on. Again, let's just pop those goalposts back over there shall we... there we go.

My understanding is that a president is expected to have a wife or some other female to act in the role of First Lady (or if Hilary had won, Bill Clinton would have been expected to fulfill the role of First Gentleman). I am perfectly aware that it's an unelected position. I also get the impression that it's a role that involves ceremonial duties, entertaining the spouses of visiting heads of state, sponsoring various charities, and so on. Therefore it's a position that is expected to be fulfilled by somebody.

Melania should be doing that since she's not sick or disabled in some way. But she appears to take zero interest in the duties of a First Lady (don't bother trotting out her kid as an excuse; other First Ladies have managed). Therefore it appears that Ivanka (the equally unelected daughter) has stepped up in some respects.

That's all very interesting, but again it's an unelected post filled by a family member of the person who was actually elected. It remains ironic (from my perspective) to rail against the general idea that such a thing is a complete anathema to the concept of democracy, whilst being fine with the existence of the First Lady role. That's all I was ever saying on the matter.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

stuff

more stuff

even more stuff

That's all very interesting, but again it's an unelected post filled by a family member of the person who was actually elected. It remains ironic (from my perspective) to rail against the general idea that such a thing is a complete anathema to the concept of democracy, whilst being fine with the existence of the First Lady role. That's all I was ever saying on the matter.

I'm not the one who started carrying on about "a complete anathema to the concept of democracy."

I don't see a problem with the First Lady having a ceremonial role or fulfilling certain social and charitable duties. I do have a problem with a First Lady (or someone who isn't the president's wife but has stepped into that role) horning in on political meetings, getting involved in policy-making, etc.

I assume I don't need to explain the word "ceremony", do I? Or "charity"? Or the concept of a "social role"? These are things that politicians' wives have been expected to do for thousands of years. Why should Melania Trump get a pass on that - is she that special? She doesn't appear to understand her social obligations as First Lady (mind you, Trump is clueless as to what he's supposed to be doing, as well).

I'm done with this part of the conversation.