[Dismal Operator]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-obamas-c...de-sexist/

Quote:

...

The drama concerns a debate in Congress about a bill that would give the president fast-track authority to enact the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive new trade agreement that's pitted Mr. Obama against much of his party's congressional rank-and-file.

Progressives like Brown and Warren oppose TPP, warning that it would push companies to ship American jobs overseas while undermining labor and environmental regulations in the U.S. and around the world.

...

In an interview last week with Yahoo News' Matt Bai, the president brushed aside those criticisms as purely "speculative."

"The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else," Mr. Obama said. "And you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny."

That dismissive tone didn't sit well with Brown, a fiery populist who's played a leading role alongside Warren in stirring up Democratic opposition to the fast-track bill and TPP itself.

"I think the president was disrespectful to her, the way he did that. I think the president has made this more personal than he needed to," Brown told reporters on Tuesday.

Pressed on which particular comments by the president he found disrespectful, Brown later added, "I think by just calling her 'another politician'...I think referring to her as her first name when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps. I've said enough."

The National Organization for Women piled on:

Quote:

National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O'Neill on Wednesday called President Obama's critique of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sexist.

O'Neill told The Hill she took issue with Obama calling Warren by her first name during an interview with Yahoo News published Saturday.

"Yes, I think it is sexist," O'Neill said. "I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Senator Warren's concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way."

...

O'Neill said Obama's "clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn't know what she's talking about."

On one hand this Onion-esque story shouldn't be surprising anymore, given that we're already in the realm of the absurd when it comes to these sort of cultural issues. On the other, there are a couple interesting points.

The first is that at the highest level of government, SJW blogging tactics are now being used to debate policy. The merits and demerits of this trade deal are momentarily taking a back seat to the identity of the individuals making the argument. Brown has now painted Obama's position as a position of evil now that it has come from a sexist place, the threshold for that sexism being the egregious act of referring to a woman by name.

The second point is that Obama himself has been in Warren's shoes more times than not, being shielded by identity issues when criticism arises. He is also firmly entrenched in the same camp as everyone mentioned in this story, from Sentaors Brown and Warren, to the NOW, and he's the President. Yet even he is not immune from this nonsense which shows that 'sexism' is at or near the very top of the SJW totem pole, and that going forward Hilary will be playing the Presidential Election Game with every armor cheat code possible engaged at once.

[Atlanta Man]

It is all politics, these people are all friends, and none of them is worth taking at their words. Patrice Oneal went to debate the president of NOW on Fox, the truth came out then.

[Kyriarch]

Always throwing their own under the bus, all the way to the top.

[samsamsam]

National Organization for Women is probably running low on money and this is a driver for a fund raising campaign.

[MMM]

Props to the President for calling her out as a cynical attention whore in a classy manner. I love it when they turn on each other.

[dasher]

Next up: Only YOU can stop sexism in the White House #votehilary2016

[RedPillUK]

I think this shows feminists are so desperate for power that if you call a woman Elizabeth, a girl's name implying feminine characteristics, instead of 'Senator Warren' which sounds more authoritive, powerful and manly, they get angry.

So thanks feminists, I now have a weapon to piss off the power tripping bitches with! It works even better if you use a nick name like 'Lizzie' instead.

[CJ_W]

uhh. . .you guys should Look at the TPP, that this is BAD news, the sexist thing is just a distraction.

[TheWastelander]

(05-14-2015 08:59 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

uhh. . .you guys should Look at the TPP, that this is BAD news, the sexist thing is just a distration.

Tell us about it, then.

Here's a summary of what the US is trying to get out of this agreement:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives#

Getting Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam to eliminate tariffs and other stuff on our exports sounds like a good thing to me.

[Darius]

(05-14-2015 09:14 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:59 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

uhh. . .you guys should Look at the TPP, that this is BAD news, the sexist thing is just a distration.

Tell us about it, then.

Here's a summary of what the US is trying to get out of this agreement:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives#

Getting Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam to eliminate tariffs and other stuff on our exports sounds like a good thing to me.

Quote:

http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013...provisions

Copyright and Intermediary Liability

The TPP negotiating partners appear particularly split with regards to intermediary liability and this split relates to the role and responsibility Internet intermediaries should acquire. Should Internet intermediaries be proactive in removing and filtering content or should they retain their original role of not ‘checking’ content? What should be the legal framework intermediaries should adhere to?

The issue of intermediary liability is not new and it has no easy answers and no easy solutions. ISOC has been consistent in suggesting that intermediaries should not be held liable for the traffic that runs through their channels; they should not become the ‘police’ of the Internet.

If the law requires Internet intermediaries to be proactive in removing or filtering content, then these same intermediaries will be in the position to make a determination of which type of content is legal and which is not. This is an intense exercise that requires the ability to produce recommendations that follow certain standards of due process. Private bodies do not possess the legitimacy nor the tools to make such determinations; expecting them, therefore, to do so on the basis of liability will inevitably create an environment of fear, as they seek ways to comply with this regime. Additionally, considering that intermediaries are essentially businesses with occasionally strong ties to content providers, we should also bear in mind how this direction might encourage an environment of anti-competitive and/or discriminatory practices.

Moreover, there is the issue of costs. Even if we were to legitimize the ability of Internet intermediaries to ‘review’ and determine what type of content should travel through their channels, this would require investment in identifying the best mechanisms and practices to do so. This investment will most probably be a combination of technical tools and human capital. Who will bear these costs? Will it be just intermediaries? Will it be users? Or, a combination of both?

Which brings us to the issue of symmetry. How will a strict liability regime fit within the existing copyright system? How does it fit within the Internet ecosystem as a whole? In the first case, there has been an extensive debate and effort to make sure that copyright does not subject intermediaries to a regime of fear where they need to perform certain tasks they were never meant to perform. In the second case, since its inception, the Internet has worked on an organized structure where each participating actor is assigned a specific role. In this instance, the role of intermediaries is to provide the platform for traffic to travel and not to ‘police’ that traffic or determine to whom it will be visible.

There is a provision that might hold ISP's responsible for policing what their customers do.

[CJ_W]

(05-14-2015 09:14 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:59 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

uhh. . .you guys should Look at the TPP, that this is BAD news, the sexist thing is just a distration.

Tell us about it, then.

Here's a summary of what the US is trying to get out of this agreement:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives#

Getting Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam to eliminate tariffs and other stuff on our exports sounds like a good thing to me.

There's already a post about it on the forums.

[DannyAlberta]

Merits of the proposed trade policy aside for a moment, how could anyone think what Obama said was even remotely sexist?

"The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else," Mr. Obama said. "And you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny."

Radfems, give your goddamn heads a shake. Just because a woman is disagreed with, on a factual basis, is NOT any way indicative of sexism. Sexism would be if Obama said, "Elizabeth Warren, being a woman, can't understand these complex issues on international trade."

The real agenda here is to create a society where all female politicians (and then all females) cannot be criticized for their views, for any reason, without such criticism being labeled sexist. In other words, another fine example of SHUT UP, they explained. To hell with that.

If women politicians want to play in the same sandbox as men politicians, their views and opinions cannot and will not be treated as sacrosanct. They will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as anyone else would receive.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of me defending Barry Obama, magina in chief and uber-beta of the year candidate.

[Samseau]

It's too bad that yet another slavery trade agreement goes unopposed because people get distracted talking about dumb shit like feminism.