Guys. This is our First Lady. Dancing like an idiot on national TV. Am I in the future?
Evolution Of Mom Dancing (w/ Jimmy Fallon & Michelle Obama) www.youtube.com
In honor of the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign, Jimmy Fallon and Michelle Obama present the "Evolution of Mom Dancing." Let's Move with Michelle Obama an...
J.S.: She's so cool.
R.D.: I KNOW. I can't even handle it - I love it so much! I was completely slayed when "The Pulp Fiction" move was followed by "The Oh My God I Love This Song" move...too damn good!
R.M.: I LOVE her!!!!!!
J.R.: Amazingly cool. I think I just heard Sean Hannity's head explode.
Me: Dignity.
B.R.: Right, Rich? She's got it in spades. She did this because she knew it would help promote her project in a fun way.
Me: Other than being married to the president, what has she accomplished?
B.R.: Um, a lot dude. Go look up Let's Move and read the new post about their third birthday. It lists tons of accomplishments in small communities and large corporations, achieving awesome fitness goals and setting new standards for healthy eating. Every First Lady takes on a project, you know that. Most succeed, others just fade away. Michelle Obama is succeeding AND lookin' good doing it.
Me: I guess I have a higher standard as to what constitutes accomplishment.
B.R.: Then you must live in a constant state of disappointment.
Me: No, I have no expectation of first ladies, therefore I am never disappointed.
B.R.: Wait...you have no expectation of First Ladies, and you're not impressed by anything she's done?
J.R.: Still, it's hard to compare that with what Republican First Ladies have done. Who can forget Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No!" campaign? Or the Betty Ford Clinic?
Me: Nope. Riding on the coattails of a powerful man does not impress me.
J.R.: I suppose I'm hoping for too much, Rich, to imagine you'd be impressed with the CV of Hillary Clinton...
Me: Hillary is an accomplished woman by any measure, although how much i value those accomplishments is another discussion. However, she attained her position largely by starting as the wife of a powerful and accomplished man.
J.R.: That's quite a conclusion, Rich. Hillary received national attention in 1969 for her commencement speech at Wellesley. Got her J.D. from Yale in 1973 and was a congressional counsel before she married Bill in '75. Sure, her greater achievements came after she married Bill, but of course the exact same thing could be said of his career. Bill had a similarly promising early adulthood, winning a Rhodes Scholarship, interning for a senator, and getting his J.D. from Yale in '74, but he was not a powerful and accomplished man when they married. He became AG of Ark. in '76, governor in '78. Even before he became governor, Hillary taught law, served as a regional campaign director for Jimmy Carter ('76), and helped to found the Children's Defense Fund. Interestingly, she kept her maiden name during the first several years of their marriage specifically so that her own achievements wouldn't so easily be conflated with those of her husband. She was worried that people might someday think she had simply ridden her husband's coat tails. Typical paranoid woman, I suppose.
Me: All correct, but my conclusion stands. Her greatest achievements would never had been even accessible to her had she not been the wife of a president.
J.R.: If your conclusion is accurate, would you agree, then, that this is evidence of a systemic sexism that continues to limit the achievements of even the most outstanding and talented women?
Me: A talented, hardworking woman has just as much opportunity as a talented, hardworking man. Blaming sexism (or using it as an excuse) for failure is not justifiable.
B.R.: Equal potential, yes. Equal treatment, no. Equal value, yes. Equal opportunity, no.
J.R.: Okay, let me see if I have this right. 1. Talented, hardworking women have just as much opportunity as talented hardworking men. Sexism cannot be used as an excuse for lower achievement, ergo sexism does not actually limit talented, hard-working women. 2. Hillary Clinton, about as talented and hard-working a person as anyone you can name, only reached a high level of achievement on her husband's coat tails. Now this is where I get lost... are you saying that Hillary Clinton isn't really very talented or hard-working? Or maybe you're saying that talented women have every opportunity to succeed as long as they are assisted by a powerful man, but that this is as it should be and is not at all sexist? Or maybe it's just that you prefer to think that liberal women (like Hillary) only succeed through unfair advantages while conservative women (Condi Rice?) achieve through their own hard work?
B.R.: What we have here is called a "logic hall of mirrors".
Me: I did not say the was no sexism. I said that it wasn't an excuse. I made no mention of political persuasion. And the issue at hand here is women riding the coattails of successful men, particularly first ladies. So if you wouldn't mind restricting your remarks to that.
Me: And B.R., your remark seems disrespectful. I would ask you discontinue.
B.R.: Alright.
B.R.: I've lost track of what's being proven or disproven - which is why I remark on the confusion. Take it personally if you like, but that wasn't my intent. My main point here is that the First Lady's previous life experiences, as well as the benchmarks of her Let's Move project, are reason enough to deem her an accomplished, successful woman. If you disagree, that's fine, but you haven't done much to prove to me that she's NOT an accomplished, successful woman. I think it's disrespectful to assume that the wives of presidents (or any successful men) are simply riding their husbands' coattails. It tosses aside the value of their support and contribution to their husbands' achievements, and is presumptuous at best when assigning the worth of their individual pursuits. When a successful man accepts a victory and says, "I couldn't have done it without my wife", I'd say those words are rarely empty. When I see a military family, for instance, I don't just thank the man in uniform for his service; I thank his wife as well. Her contributions to their family's sustenance are hardly mentioned, but almost certainly of incredible merit.
Me: you seem to want to interpret my remarks through some sort of template. You will note, however, that i did not say that riding coattails was necessarily a bad thing. I only noted the reality of it. I just happen to think that people in a position to access remarkable power ought to have accomplished similarly remarkable things.
B.R.: I think the phrase "riding coattails" denotes a lack of effort, contribution, or deservedness. I don't think any of that applies to Michelle Obama.
Me: Um, yeah. You were admiring her for dancing...
B.R.: Do you think my definition of "riding coattails" applies to Michelle Obama?
Me: You want me to comment on your definition applying to Mrs. Obama?
B.B.: I cannot describe my love for people who start devil's advocate arguments on Facebook, but refuse to commit to any stance in order to act offended whenever the other party takes their comments to their logical conclusion. This way they can be negative and condescending without taking any responsibility for it.
Me: ?
B.R.: Yeah, bored now. This duck-and-move tactic gets pretty tiring.
Me: I made several straightforward statements. You inferred a bunch of stuff I did not say, which is why I asked you about a template. I will not defend positions I did not take, even though you thought I took them.
B.R.: I wouldn't call them straightforward. You accused Michelle Obama of riding her husband's coattails, which is universally a negative statement, and then you pointed out that you hadn't defined it as a negative statement. So I did. No one has ever used that phrase except as a negative statement, Rich. Then I showed you what the phrase meant, at least to me, and you ducked and moved. It's wishy washy and boring.
B.B.: I will say your patience is most admirable.
B.R.: Eh, looks like we've all got patience here, but thanks. Rich maintains patience with me just as often, I'd say.
Me: Ben thinks deeper than the typical surface stuff, and that is admirable.
B.R.: Thanks, Rich.
M.H.: I have to say, that while Rich seems to have no problem labeling Ben as "disrespectful," or if you want to be incredibly specific for every moment in the time continuum, his COMMENTS were "disrespectful," by avoiding direct questions and pretending that his views are not his ACTUAL views, RICH is the only disrespectful commentator I read in this thread. (Sorry for that very long sentence.) B.R. promotes some of the most thoughtful and respectful dialogue I read on FB.
B.R.: Get ready to defend yourself. haha
Me: She's not worth it.
Me: B.R. has earned the right to call me out, and I presume that is the same for him as well.
J.R.: Rich: You got our attention by making statements that seemed outrageous. That's fine. Several of us challenged you to back up your statements, which is what happens when someone makes a statement that seems outrageous. But you don't respond to these challenges with facts and logic. You just duck and weave. This is consistent with what you have done in numerous other FB conversations. Eventually, it leads to people dismissing you because it seems like you just want to say things that fit your world view without having the facts or critical thinking to support them.
Me: Here is a summation of my comments: I believe that someone who has access to power because of their connection to a powerful person ought to have accomplishments commensurate with that power. First ladies generally do not have those kinds of accomplishments commensurate with that power. First ladies generally do not have those kinds of accomplishments apart from their relationship to the men they married.
There is nothing particularly controversial about those statements, and I see no need to defend them. It seems my chief sin is that I didn't join the Michelle love-fest. To my liberal friends: She just doesn't impress me. Neither did Mrs. Bush, Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Truman, or Mrs. Nixon.
J.R.: You've made several controversial statements, including: "I have a higher standard (than what Michelle Obama has done) as to what constitutes accomplishment." "(Hillary Clinton) attained her position largely by starting as the wife of a powerful and accomplished man." "(Hillary's) greatest achievements would never had been even accessible to her had she not been the wife of a president." "A talented, hardworking woman has just as much opportunity as a talented, hardworking man." "Blaming sexism (or using it as an excuse) for failure is not justifiable."
You're not being criticized for not joining "the Michelle love-fest", that's just the battle you want to fight because it makes your opponents sound petty. You're being called out for making a series of provocative and controversial statements that you are unwilling to explain or defend, ultimately saying that "there is nothing controversial about those statement, and I feel no need to defend them." When people like me challenge you to support your own statements, we're listening. We are surprised by your statements and asking you to explain - giving you an opportunity to persuade of a different perspective. Instead, you confirm my worst fears by offering no support whatsoever, leading me to simply want to dismiss you as someone who doesn't think deeply, doesn't really think for himself, but simply repeats the platitudes he hears on conservative talk radio.
Me: Look, J.R..You have made the claim that "several" people have challenged me to back up my statements. You say I've been directly questioned multiple times. But I have re-read this entire thread, and I see these supposed failures of mine are only just mentioned, but somehow I have been challenged all along by multiple people. It seems to me that there is only one direct question I haven't answered: "Do you think my definition of "riding coattails" applies to Michelle Obama?" And I asked why I was pressed to answer a question using someone else's definitions.
Feel free to engage in revisionist history. It makes me no never mind. And by all means, diminish me as a person. And yes, include the obligatory caricature that I must listen to conservative talk radio. But somehow you forgot to mention the cleverly misspelled "Faux" news. Whatever you need to make yourself feel superior.
S.E.: Rich, could you give examples of accomplishments that do meet your standards? More specifically, a first lady, having the access to power that you mention, should have what sorts of accomplishments to her name, in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious.
J.R.: Rich, you diminish your own dignity by the way you conduct yourself in this discussion, retreating into a fabricated sense of victimhood instead of supporting your statements. When you jump into a thread making bold and contrary statements, you are going to be challenged. You're acting like the guy who wants to wear his Cowboys jersey in Philadelphia and then complains that his feelings are hurt when he gets booed.
Me: "It makes me no nevermind" = victimhood. Gotcha. And I note that I am the only one who is controversial and has therefore been demanded to back up his opinions. This of course is a typical leftist tactic: isolate and marginalize. So now the conversation is about my failures as an interlocutor rather than the topic at hand.
Me: S.E., thanks for an unencumbered question. An accomplishment commensurate with the kind of power access first ladies have would be much of what Hillary has accomplished. I admit she rose to prominence as a first lady, but her subsequent accomplishments have far eclipsed this. She now stands alone, apart from her has-been husband.
Me: B.R. has earned the right to call me out, and I presume that is the same for him as well.
J.R.: Rich: You got our attention by making statements that seemed outrageous. That's fine. Several of us challenged you to back up your statements, which is what happens when someone makes a statement that seems outrageous. But you don't respond to these challenges with facts and logic. You just duck and weave. This is consistent with what you have done in numerous other FB conversations. Eventually, it leads to people dismissing you because it seems like you just want to say things that fit your world view without having the facts or critical thinking to support them.
Me: Here is a summation of my comments: I believe that someone who has access to power because of their connection to a powerful person ought to have accomplishments commensurate with that power. First ladies generally do not have those kinds of accomplishments commensurate with that power. First ladies generally do not have those kinds of accomplishments apart from their relationship to the men they married.
There is nothing particularly controversial about those statements, and I see no need to defend them. It seems my chief sin is that I didn't join the Michelle love-fest. To my liberal friends: She just doesn't impress me. Neither did Mrs. Bush, Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Truman, or Mrs. Nixon.
J.R.: You've made several controversial statements, including: "I have a higher standard (than what Michelle Obama has done) as to what constitutes accomplishment." "(Hillary Clinton) attained her position largely by starting as the wife of a powerful and accomplished man." "(Hillary's) greatest achievements would never had been even accessible to her had she not been the wife of a president." "A talented, hardworking woman has just as much opportunity as a talented, hardworking man." "Blaming sexism (or using it as an excuse) for failure is not justifiable."
You're not being criticized for not joining "the Michelle love-fest", that's just the battle you want to fight because it makes your opponents sound petty. You're being called out for making a series of provocative and controversial statements that you are unwilling to explain or defend, ultimately saying that "there is nothing controversial about those statement, and I feel no need to defend them." When people like me challenge you to support your own statements, we're listening. We are surprised by your statements and asking you to explain - giving you an opportunity to persuade of a different perspective. Instead, you confirm my worst fears by offering no support whatsoever, leading me to simply want to dismiss you as someone who doesn't think deeply, doesn't really think for himself, but simply repeats the platitudes he hears on conservative talk radio.
Me: Look, J.R..You have made the claim that "several" people have challenged me to back up my statements. You say I've been directly questioned multiple times. But I have re-read this entire thread, and I see these supposed failures of mine are only just mentioned, but somehow I have been challenged all along by multiple people. It seems to me that there is only one direct question I haven't answered: "Do you think my definition of "riding coattails" applies to Michelle Obama?" And I asked why I was pressed to answer a question using someone else's definitions.
Feel free to engage in revisionist history. It makes me no never mind. And by all means, diminish me as a person. And yes, include the obligatory caricature that I must listen to conservative talk radio. But somehow you forgot to mention the cleverly misspelled "Faux" news. Whatever you need to make yourself feel superior.
S.E.: Rich, could you give examples of accomplishments that do meet your standards? More specifically, a first lady, having the access to power that you mention, should have what sorts of accomplishments to her name, in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious.
J.R.: Rich, you diminish your own dignity by the way you conduct yourself in this discussion, retreating into a fabricated sense of victimhood instead of supporting your statements. When you jump into a thread making bold and contrary statements, you are going to be challenged. You're acting like the guy who wants to wear his Cowboys jersey in Philadelphia and then complains that his feelings are hurt when he gets booed.
Me: "It makes me no nevermind" = victimhood. Gotcha. And I note that I am the only one who is controversial and has therefore been demanded to back up his opinions. This of course is a typical leftist tactic: isolate and marginalize. So now the conversation is about my failures as an interlocutor rather than the topic at hand.
Me: S.E., thanks for an unencumbered question. An accomplishment commensurate with the kind of power access first ladies have would be much of what Hillary has accomplished. I admit she rose to prominence as a first lady, but her subsequent accomplishments have far eclipsed this. She now stands alone, apart from her has-been husband.
J.R.: Victimhood: "Supposed failures", "diminish me as a person", "obligatory caricature", "Whatever you need to make yourself feel superior", "isolate and marginalize", "my failures as an interlocutor." Still haven't supported your statements, just repeating your polemics and complaining about how you're being treated.
J.S.: Big Billy Goat Gruff slammed into the troll. "Arrrgh!" screamed the troll as it was lifted clean off its feet and thrown way, way, way up into the air. The troll landed head down on the bridge, making it shake and rattle from top to bottom. Big Billy Goat Gruff stomped and tromped on the troll with his huge hooves until the troll was smashed flat on the wood boards. Then he tossed him into the raging stream with his huge horns and the troll sailed down the ravine and out of sight, never to be seen again in those parts.
Me: Notice I answered Shannon's question. I wonder why? Do you suppose because it was asked without a bunch of condescending crap?
J.R.: Rich: Can you provide any concrete support for your assertion that Hillary Clinton has any less claim to deserving credit as an outstanding achiever than any man? I'm asking for evidence, as opposed to your opinion. Can you give me some examples of contemporary people who you believe do deserve credit as outstanding achievers on their own merits - men and women who you believe went beyond your expectation of success commensurate with the advantages given to them? Do these questions fall into the category of condescending crap?
Me: *sigh* I give up. I did not claim Hillary deserved less credit than a man. I did not imply it. I did not hint at it. It's no wonder there is so much division in this country. The Left refuses to believe anything except the very worst about the Right, preferring their tired caricatures. I'm done.
J. R.: Once again, Rich, you sidestepped the point and the questions, avoided accepting responsibility for what you previously said, misinterpreted my question, ignored what I asked you to address, and then added another round of manufactured victimhood. I didn't say that you said Hillary Clinton deserved less credit than a man. I said you asserted that Hillary Clinton has less claim to deserving credit as an outstanding achiever, and you did say that. You said Hillary only deserved credit for achieving what one would expect from the advantages she gained being married to a powerful man. You even said she STARTED by being married to a powerful man. I made the case that these assertions simply aren't true, but rather than responding to my points you simply cherry-picked words and took them out of context in order to act offended - the worst kind of dodge. I asked you to show me a man who is any more deserving of making that claim of outstanding achievement. But every step of the way you have refused to provide real-life examples, facts, or any supportive material. You claim to have addressed Shannon's question, but you didn't. She asked for examples, and you simply elaborated on your opinion and vague characterizations of what theoretically an achievement might look like. Your perspective is incredibly insulting to women everywhere, not just Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, but every woman whose accomplishments are dismissed as only being a byproduct of what a man has accomplished. I ask, in fact, I demand that you either offer concrete support for your offensive opinions or stop spouting them in this forum, stop your incessant bobbing and weaving and acting like you are the one being insulted. I remain very interested in substantive conversations with people who will offer evidence to support their positions, who will acknowledge good points made by the opposition, and who will respond in good faith to the actual points being made. Until you find it in yourself to do that, I am happy to see you give up.
Me: ...and out come the long knives. leftists are so predictable
J.S.: “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
― Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
J.S.: In reference to Trolls.
B.R.: Sorry, Rich, but someone here had to be substantial.
K.B.: You know what's funny? That this thread is the exact definition of trolling. OP about something specific. Troll enters and makes the conversation about something else, though tangentially related. Argument ensues. Devolves into left/right nonsense. Someone, please, call somebody a Nazi. ;-)
K.B.: Also, to get back to your original point, yeah, the First Lady is pretty rad. A sense of humor goes a long way in the halls of power, at least in my book. Her ability to connect and inspire people is, well, inspiring.
J.S.: Big Billy Goat Gruff slammed into the troll. "Arrrgh!" screamed the troll as it was lifted clean off its feet and thrown way, way, way up into the air. The troll landed head down on the bridge, making it shake and rattle from top to bottom. Big Billy Goat Gruff stomped and tromped on the troll with his huge hooves until the troll was smashed flat on the wood boards. Then he tossed him into the raging stream with his huge horns and the troll sailed down the ravine and out of sight, never to be seen again in those parts.
Me: Notice I answered Shannon's question. I wonder why? Do you suppose because it was asked without a bunch of condescending crap?
J.R.: Rich: Can you provide any concrete support for your assertion that Hillary Clinton has any less claim to deserving credit as an outstanding achiever than any man? I'm asking for evidence, as opposed to your opinion. Can you give me some examples of contemporary people who you believe do deserve credit as outstanding achievers on their own merits - men and women who you believe went beyond your expectation of success commensurate with the advantages given to them? Do these questions fall into the category of condescending crap?
Me: *sigh* I give up. I did not claim Hillary deserved less credit than a man. I did not imply it. I did not hint at it. It's no wonder there is so much division in this country. The Left refuses to believe anything except the very worst about the Right, preferring their tired caricatures. I'm done.
J. R.: Once again, Rich, you sidestepped the point and the questions, avoided accepting responsibility for what you previously said, misinterpreted my question, ignored what I asked you to address, and then added another round of manufactured victimhood. I didn't say that you said Hillary Clinton deserved less credit than a man. I said you asserted that Hillary Clinton has less claim to deserving credit as an outstanding achiever, and you did say that. You said Hillary only deserved credit for achieving what one would expect from the advantages she gained being married to a powerful man. You even said she STARTED by being married to a powerful man. I made the case that these assertions simply aren't true, but rather than responding to my points you simply cherry-picked words and took them out of context in order to act offended - the worst kind of dodge. I asked you to show me a man who is any more deserving of making that claim of outstanding achievement. But every step of the way you have refused to provide real-life examples, facts, or any supportive material. You claim to have addressed Shannon's question, but you didn't. She asked for examples, and you simply elaborated on your opinion and vague characterizations of what theoretically an achievement might look like. Your perspective is incredibly insulting to women everywhere, not just Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, but every woman whose accomplishments are dismissed as only being a byproduct of what a man has accomplished. I ask, in fact, I demand that you either offer concrete support for your offensive opinions or stop spouting them in this forum, stop your incessant bobbing and weaving and acting like you are the one being insulted. I remain very interested in substantive conversations with people who will offer evidence to support their positions, who will acknowledge good points made by the opposition, and who will respond in good faith to the actual points being made. Until you find it in yourself to do that, I am happy to see you give up.
Me: ...and out come the long knives. leftists are so predictable
J.S.: “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
― Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
J.S.: In reference to Trolls.
B.R.: Sorry, Rich, but someone here had to be substantial.
K.B.: You know what's funny? That this thread is the exact definition of trolling. OP about something specific. Troll enters and makes the conversation about something else, though tangentially related. Argument ensues. Devolves into left/right nonsense. Someone, please, call somebody a Nazi. ;-)
K.B.: Also, to get back to your original point, yeah, the First Lady is pretty rad. A sense of humor goes a long way in the halls of power, at least in my book. Her ability to connect and inspire people is, well, inspiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment