Is Trump's golf-swing hitting Hillary GIF sexist?

[Ryika]

No, no, i am presuming that the creator shares Trump's mindset and i argue that the gif is sexist because it comes from that mindset.
That's subjective. Of course. And judging speech by the speaker should come with a very high burden, standard, whatever.
In my view such a threshold is passed in this case.

That's just a ridiculous stance to have in my opinion. A thing stands on its own, it does not somehow become something else because of its creator.

I mean think about what it means that you're saying there. Trump and Hillary might not be the best case to argue about this, but let's assume there is a hypothetical person that has missed all the private information about Trump and Hillary, and just likes the meme because political smack talking entertains him. Literally clicks the like button.

Then another person accuses that person of being a sexist. Is the person then a sexist by virtue of you deciding that this person is a sexist for liking a gif that has nothing that makes it "objectively sexist", but because of external factors, you have decided is now "subjectively sexist"? Would he have to apologize for liking the gif? Or does that mean that a person who likes a sexist gif for non-sexist reasons is not a sexist?

There are so many problems when you add tributes to the work that are actually tributes of the creator of that work.

Showing a man punching a woman is not sexist.
Showing a sexist punch someone of a different gender is.

Even that doesn't make sense. Let's say a sexist man is attacked by a woman for being a sexist and he defends himself by punching her in the face and knocking her out. A TV station reports on the incident and shows the footage. They're now being sexist in your opinion? Would the TV station have to apologize for distributing such material?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@metatron: So everything coming from a scientist is scientific, artist is always creating an art and president cant have a sense of humor?

 

[metatron]

That's just a ridiculous stance to have in my opinion. A thing stands on its own, it does not somehow become something else because of its creator.

Yeah, that's why there are standards. Arguably says CNN's standard for attributing such qualities to speech are faulty in general and my standards would be different, but here we apparently agree.

I mean think about what it means that you're saying there. Trump and Hillary might not be the best case to argue about this, but let's assume there is a hypothetical person that has missed all the private information about Trump and Hillary, and just likes the meme because political smack talking entertains him. Literally clicks the like button.

Yeah, that's fine. Even in this specific case that's fine for large numbers of people, if their motivation is as you described it.

Even that doesn't make sense. Let's say a sexist man is attacked by a woman for being a sexist and he defends himself by punching her in the face and knocking her out.

Yeah, part of my statement was a rather obvious implication that we are not talking about self-defense.

Common thread: Intent matters, sometimes.
I see what you are saying: Speech, works of photographic art, should be judged on their merits.
Sure, to a degree.
At some point though their origin matters.

 

[Narz]

By posting that gif Trump demonstrates that he neither understands nor respects why 65 million Americans voted for her. That's a problem.

It's not a problem for him.

 

[Perfection]

What happened to the sense of humor? To loose it is deplorable...

what happened to the sense of respect to the American voter?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

what happened to the sense of respect to the American voter?

This and dont say itsnt funny or that its sexist:

 

[Perfection]

This and dont say itsnt funny or that its sexist:

That was a terrible comment and she apologized for it as she should have. It does not justify Trump's behavior.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That was a terrible comment and she apologized for it as she should have. It does not justify Trump's behavior.

Did she apologized for killing the leader of Libya and the subsequent destruction of that country? Who cares since that apology wouldnt be worth much. Let Trump have his tweets. Make fun not war.

 

[Lexicus]

what happened to the sense of respect to the American voter?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my sense of respect for the American voter departed me about the time American voters decided to re-elect George W Bush.

 

[metalhead]

It's not a problem for him.

It ought to be, if he wants to be re-elected. And given that one-term presidents are pretty much automatically deemed to have been failures, I think he wants that very badly. You don't get the really cool stuff named after you if you're a one-termer.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, part of my statement was a rather obvious implication that we are not talking about self-defense.

Why would self-defense be different from footage of him punching her for any other reason that is not "because she is a woman"?

What is (in relation to the topic at hand) the difference between a gif showing sexist punching a woman because he had to defend himself, and a sexist punching a woman because... I don't know... she's his opponent in a cage fight for example? How would footage from such a fight be "sexist" just because the man is known as a sexist?

Common thread: Intent matters, sometimes.
I see what you are saying: Speech, works of photographic art, should be judged on their merits.
Sure, to a degree.
At some point though their origin matters.

The origin matters to how you react to it, yes. If Roosh V were to release a romance movie tomorrow, then I'm most certainly not going to enjoy it, even if it's a really great movie, just because I know what kind of a terrible man the creator of the movie is. But that doesn't mean the movie is now sexist just because Roosh V is, it just means that what I know about the man who made the movie, has tainted the movie for me.

That is a natural human reaction (to Roosh V in general ), but it does not make the movie sexist, it just makes us associate it with sexism.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It ought to be, if he wants to be re-elected. And given that one-term presidents are pretty much automatically deemed to have been failures, I think he wants that very badly. You don't get the really cool stuff named after you if you're a one-termer.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Trump is just different plus naming things after himself isnt a novelty for him...

 

[Lexicus]

It ought to be, if he wants to be re-elected.

What on Earth makes you think that exhibiting respect for Hillary voters would improve his chances of re-election? If anything, I think the precise opposite is likely - that his chances of reelection will be improved by displays of contempt for her and her supporters.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What on Earth makes you think that exhibiting respect for Hillary voters would improve his chances of re-election? If anything, I think the precise opposite is likely - that his chances of reelection will be improved by displays of contempt for her and her supporters.

I dont think that contempt would help him - it didnt work for Hillary for sure...

 

[Arent11]

That was a terrible comment and she apologized for it as she should have. It does not justify Trump's behavior.

Did she apologized for killing the leader of Libya and the subsequent destruction of that country? Who cares since that apology wouldnt be worth much. Let Trump have his tweets. Make fun not war.

(1) Millions of people voted Trump & Millions voted Clinton. Which means that there are thousands of people in each camp that have a higher education & are more clever than you are, even if you have a PhD. So, one could assume that they are not all "dumb" but have a reason that might not be connected to the daily bullfeathers published by certain newspapers or said by certain actors. If half of the country is voting Trump they have a good reason. & if the other half is voting Clinton they have a reason, too. One could now try to identify both reasons & bring them together. Or one can just call each other names.

(2) The "sexist", "dumb" or "childish" argument is obviously not about the content at all, but only about the person who does it. If a child volunteers to mow the white house lawn, depending on whether it's under Trump or Clinton & who someone leans to, he will either talk about how "great" that is or accuse the other party of "child labor". It's really more hillarious than serious.

 

[metatron]

Why would self-defense be different from footage of him punching her for any other reason that is not "because she is a woman"?

What is (in relation to the topic at hand) the difference between a gif showing sexist punching a woman because he had to defend himself, and a sexist punching a woman because... I don't know... she's his opponent in a cage fight for example? How would footage from such a fight be "sexist" just because the man is known as a sexist?

This is rather pedantic. You know full well that context makes all these scenarios different, and that consequently my statement would apply to a different degree (e.g. not at all).
You are making an illegitimate demand here for a simplistic cover-all heuristic.

The origin matters to how you react to it, yes. If Roosh V were to release a romance movie tomorrow, then I'm most certainly not going to enjoy it, even if it's a really great movie, just because I know what kind of a terrible man the creator of the movie is. But that doesn't mean the movie is now sexist just because Roosh V is, it just means that what I know about the man who made the movie, has tainted the movie for me.

That is a natural human reaction (to Roosh V in general ), but it does not make the movie sexist, it just makes us associate it with sexism.

Yeah, you are arguing here for speech and art being judged at face value exclusively.
This is a radical position, allmost definitionally.
I'm saying that i am willing to go with you some 85% of the way, probably farther than most people would be willing to, but that there are limits and consquently exceptions.

Also: This is not about interaction.
Intent and context do exist in their own right, they are not a matter of "my reaction" as you put it.
Obviously i can be biased or plain in error. That doesn't change that intent and context can be judged and through argument or negotiation we could render such judgement comparatively fairly.

(2) The "sexist", "dumb" or "childish" argument is obviously not about the content at all, but only about the person who does it. If a child volunteers to mow the white house lawn, depending on whether it's under Trump or Clinton & who someone leans to, he will either talk about how "great" that is or accuse the other party of "child labor". It's really more hillarious than serious.

Yes people do that.
No that's not comparable to the matter at hand.

Trump doesn't have a history and a widely ascribed intent and ideology regarding a) children b) landscaping c) child labour d) volunteerism etc.
Some liberals claim there was an analogous case to be made here (something something Latino immigration) but it's an obviously rather flimsy case.
Sorta like calling Obama a secret Muslim for pardoning turkeys, not pork.

 

[metalhead]

The problem with this line of thinking is that Trump is just different plus naming things after himself isnt a novelty for him...

His entire business plan centers on getting his name put on things. He's different in that this aspect of the presidency is likely the only thing that matters to him. He's never had his name on a bridge, or a school, or an aircraft carrier. If you think that doesn't matter to him, then you don't know him AT ALL.

What on Earth makes you think that exhibiting respect for Hillary voters would improve his chances of re-election? If anything, I think the precise opposite is likely - that his chances of reelection will be improved by displays of contempt for her and her supporters.

The people who like that sort of thing aren't going anywhere. I mean really, if you're part of the intended audience for a GIF of Hillary Clinton getting knocked down with a golf ball, you figured out a couple of years ago who the candidate for you is and are likely quite happy with your choice.

Continuing to play to those people doesn't earn him anything he won't already have. He doesn't have to outwardly exhibit respect for anyone and I would never expect him to be respectful towards anyone not named Putin. But he absolutely should be trying to gain some understanding of the people who voted for her, and why, because the aggrieved outsider schtick isn't going to sell as well after he's been president for 3 years. He'll need a different tack.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, you are arguing here for speech and art being judged at face value exclusively.
This is a radical position, allmost definitionally.
I'm saying that i am willing to go with ysou some 85% of the way, probably farther than most people would be willing to, but that there are limits and consquently exceptions.

I feel like this discussion isn't making much progress, but no, you have that backwards.

My argument is the following:
If people who do not know anything about how a piece of art was created, do not see a piece of art as sexist, then it's safe to assume that that piece of art is not inherently sexist. That's the only statement I'm making.

You can still judge the piece of art, can say that it was created by a sexist, created for sexist reasons, or that it was the artist expressing sexist desires, and maybe even that because of the context the work of art was created in, it is a deplorable work of art in your opinion, and that opinion may have merit for some people, but none of that makes the work of art itself sexist.

If you take out all of the context, you have a video where a man hits a golf ball, and then a woman gets hit by that golf ball.

Is that sexist?

No.

 

[metatron]

Valessa, yeah, technically, very technically.
But what level of naivete are we inferring as a basis for this rationale?
Like there has to be room for some inquisitveness to be assumed as implicit.

Like, to be perfectly blunt, who the heck parks their jet on a golf course?

Continuing to play to those people doesn't earn him anything he won't already have.

I'm not sure that's true. Polling data suggests that virtually nothing should be more wellcome for Trump than attention of any kind be given to Hillary Clinton.

 

[Lexicus]

The people who like that sort of thing aren't going anywhere. I mean really, if you're part of the intended audience for a GIF of Hillary Clinton getting knocked down with a golf ball, you figured out a couple of years ago who the candidate for you is and are likely quite happy with your choice.

Continuing to play to those people doesn't earn him anything he won't already have. He doesn't have to outwardly exhibit respect for anyone and I would never expect him to be respectful towards anyone not named Putin. But he absolutely should be trying to gain some understanding of the people who voted for her, and why, because the aggrieved outsider schtick isn't going to sell as well after he's been president for 3 years. He'll need a different tack.

One - I don't think that the aggrieved outsider schtick has outlived its usefulness. There is even some actual truth to it, despite the fact that he's President, he is isolated as no other President has been at this point in a Presidency. Really though, even when he wasn't President the aggrieved outsider schtick was patently ridiculous on factual grounds, so I don't think there's any reason to think it's not going to work in 2020.

Two - I think the Republican re-election strategy is going to center on preventing Democratic votes from being cast/counted, rather than on what we might think of as a "normal" election strategy. This will be much more successful than it ever was during Obama's Presidency as we will not see even token federal efforts to enforce civil rights provisions or ensure that the election is fair.

Three - This is the most depressing point, at least for me. I suspect that Trump's coalition will not abandon him come election time, regardless of what they're now telling opinion pollsters, because I think that Ta-Nehisi Coates' diagnosis is substantially correct. Trump is the Great White Hope, literally, of all the people who (self-consciously or not) want the US to remain (or become, or whatever) a white ethnostate. I suspect this interest in white supremacy will ultimately prove more important than other considerations, just as it did in 2016. And, related to this, I think that plenty of people who voted for Trump now "disapprove" of him, but stack him up against a real, living, breathing Democrat, and they will flock back to Trump as the lesser evil.

Now, I really hope I'm wrong about this third point but...what I saw in 2016 makes me doubt that I am.