All your 3am are belong to us.

I’ll bet millions, millions, hell, tens of millions of PUMAs across this nation and in the heartland are pissed off about this obvious and sickening insult to them and their spiritual leader, Hillary.

And if you believe that you’re as dumb as doughy pantload.

Next rethug marketing strategy please!

“the most substantive proof so far that Obama’s youthful arrogance is getting the better of him”

Who, exactly, is cheetos jonah to talk about “youthful arrogance?”

“Again, the people who are most outraged about slights to Hillary Clinton are people who’ve spent the better part of two decades trying to destroy her family and everything they’ve worked for.”

Sort of like Rush’s sudden concern about “Paul Welfare” when he was “concerned” that “the left” was “exploiting” his death.

The 3 am ad would never have occurred to me if I hadn’t seen mentions of the “suspicious” timing in a Shakesville thread. I’m not sure why they think the Obama campaign would go through the trouble of annoying everyone with a mid-morning wake up text just to make reference to a campaign ad that was openly mocked when it appeared and largely forgotten about by now.

Like Caren mentioned, the timing came because of the media leak. The mind boggles that people are making it into an attack on Hillary Clinton. Which goes back to the anti-PUMA motto of “it isn’t always about you (no- really)”.

I’m sure nobody can predict where this thread is going…

Honestly at this point Jesse it looks like taunting. As if you’re going out of your way to piss off any and all Clinton supporters with a perfect mix of preachy dude knows best and sweeping generalizations about everything Clinton-related. I suppose this is ostensibly an attack on the right-wing but then you have a picture of Clinton saying something stupid front and center. Coming on the heels of a knee-jerk “any feminist who doesn’t love Biden is a moron and no I didn’t do any basic research” post. It makes your excuse that you are actually defending Clinton a bit hard to swallow.

It seems that you’ve decided that your primary role here is to fight with Clinton supporters by posting poorly-worded overally general attacks, getting into fights over reading comprehension then immediately doing it again.

At some point the content of your posts doesn’t even matter any more, just the fact that you spend more time shit-stirring around Clinton than on any other topic is off-putting enough. You appear to have Clinton on the brain.

I’m sure nobody can predict where this thread is going…

::headdesk::

Honestly at this point Jesse it looks like taunting.
There is a decent sized group of people who- despite evidence that the text messages went out when they did because CNN leaked the story- think that the timing was a jab against Hillary Clinton’s “3 am” ad. An ad that wasn’t that great in the first place. Was Jesse taunting those who think that? I can’t (won’t) speak for him, but I know I’m going to be taunting ‘til the cows come home. Because it is ridiculous.

You appear to have Clinton on the brain.
Can’t imagine why he would. It isn’t like the comments section of a post Jesse wrote about PUMAs not being all that pro-Clinton ended up so far away from the point that a map and a Sherpa couldn’t help. Oh, wait…

Dragging out the over reacting emotional woman rebuttal.

Way to go you feminist man you!

Not only big cry babies, but people with a huge self-destructive streak.

Maybe a lot of them feel insulated from the effects of 4 years of Bush Redux.  Certainly, the embittered middle aged feminists looking to de-feminist me because Obama won don’t give a shit about the foundational issue of modern feminism, which is reproductive rights.

I actually head this statement expressed forthrightly on a (once) respected feminist blog. Something along the lines of, “Let the young women who are so in love with Obama worry about Roe.” Pretty sickening.

head=heard.

Certainly, the embittered middle aged feminists looking to de-feminist me because Obama won don’t give a shit about the foundational issue of modern feminism, which is reproductive rights.

Once again, the real unexplored division in this campaign comes to the forefront.

Not race or gender—but generation.

I actually head this statement expressed forthrightly on a (once) respected feminist blog. Something along the lines of, “Let the young women who are so in love with Obama worry about Roe.”

I’ve seen that more than a few times. At once place in particular multiple posters and commenters have come out and said that they are too old to have kids themselves and therefore reproductive rights don’t matter at all to them. How that can be read as a feminist statement rather than an incredibly selfish one is beyond me. And then of course right after saying that they turn around and bash Obama for something he’s said on reproductive rights. It strikes me as flailing about in the same way that right-wingers want us to believe that Obama is a Muslim, a crazed Christian and a snooty atheist. As long as the message is that Obama sucks the content can be incoherent.

Dragging out the over reacting emotional woman rebuttal.

Not only am I a man but telling someone to calm down is hardly sexist. That people are overly emotional in these discussions seems rather obvious. (Perhaps myself included sometimes)

The 3 am ad would never have occurred to me if I hadn’t seen mentions of the “suspicious” timing in a Shakesville thread.
From people to fucking stupid to comprehend the existence of time zones?

‘Margalis is male, moron.’

Gee, I wonder where I got the idea you’d use gender stereotypes to dismiss women?

Given all the sexist crap you’ve spewed, you’re just going to have to forgive my assumption and deal with it.

Fix your male privilege.

“but telling someone to calm down is hardly sexist.”

It’s sexist when used as a tool to dismiss women’s arguements as little more than emotional responses.

Ya know…like the whole PUMAS are just angry women theme that’s been tossed around on this blog for quite some time now.

No, actually over here we’re pretty sure PUMAs are McCain operatives.

PUMAs are just Republican ratfuckers, not angry women.

Yup, its Operation Cahos re-branded.

Who wants to be in the Mirror Universe where Clinton won the nomination there’s an organization of supposedly disaffected Obama supporters that are really Republicans accusing Clinton of racism?

Maybe called PANTHER, or some crap like that.

Jesse, you’re sexist for many reasons.

And again: Fix your male privilege. It keeps showing.

So kind of you to include an unflattering photo of HRC with this post, never mind that it has essentially nothing to do with the content.

I just can’t imagine where Margalis got the idea that you were more interested in taunting Clinton supporters than in making any sort of logical and intelligent point.

How did I know the photo was going to come up?

How did I know you wouldn’t have any response except to insult me?

Jesse, that’s my point. You’re ostensibly mocking Goldberg, but you feel the need to illustrate it with a funny Hillary face. On its own merits? No big deal. But if there’s anyone who’s obsessively seeing things “through the lens of Hillary Clinton,” it would seem to be you.

Read the comment, plz.

Uh, I did, before you edited it.

The insulting one was the one that followed it, dumbass. Remember?

Several people have now pointed out that this pic and post seems to be mocking Clinton and her supporters, intentional or not. Honestly, I thought that the link was going to be an anti-Clinton rant (thankfully, it wasn’t) when I first saw pic. And, when I read it, I got the impression that the post was mocking Clinton herself for something she’s not even remotely involved in, but obviously it’s not because you are telling us it’s not. The author knows her/his intent better than the reader.

What baffles me is that, since it was not the aim of the pic/post to mock or taunt Clinton supporters, why insult everyone that points it out instead of updating the pic to better reflect the actual intentions behind the post?

God, do you have a fucking list of strawfeminist bullshit you refer to EVERY TIME you post or what?

Keep going, I almost have bingo.

Feminists are critisizing the way I insult a woman= WAAAH, I CANT TALK ABOUT CLINTON BECAUSE IM A MAN WAAAH

That, Jesse, is male fucking privilege.

A feminist is pointing out sexist stereotypes= SHE’S CALLING ME A WOMAN HATER

More male privilege bullshit.

Jesus jumped up Christ go read Feminism 101.

Oh and while you’re at it, go brush up on what intent means when you’ve offended someone.

It means fuck all, Jesse.

Fuck. All.

Obviously I’ve stumbled into a thread that I should stumble out of as soon as I can, but before I go…

WTF is wrong with that picture?  Sure, both people in it have those goofy grins people get in staged photos, but I wouldn’t in a million years have looked at it and thought, “Whoever posted that must hate a) Hillary Clinton and B) women in general.”

I’m still not seeing how it would even be possible to sens a nationwide message out simultaneously at 3:00 AM in all time zones.
The fact that some lying Republican assholes claim to be feminists does not make insulting those lying fucking scumbags an attack on feminism or an attack on women. I guaran-fucking-tee you those bitching at Jesse in this thread are woman-hating anti-choice Republican pukes.

It’s sexist when used as a tool to dismiss women’s arguements as little more than emotional responses.

It’s not sexist when used as a tool to dismiss people of all sexes.

Let’s point out once again that I have a huge throbbing penis. Jesse appears to be equal-oppotunity when it comes to telling people to chill.

I’m still not seeing how it would even be possible to sens a nationwide message out simultaneously at 3:00 AM in all time zones.

I only signed up for the email alert, not the text, so I don’t know which time zone got the text at 3 am (I’m assuming Eastern). But this narrative apparently feels that’s the only one that counts. Or something.

And please, give me some ways in which I can fix my male privilege.  I am desperately eager to learn how my lifetime of respecting and admiring women has gone to shit in two days of wildly off-target PUMAing.

It’s a chick thing; you wouldn’t understand.

there was an earlier image involving Clinton pointing and claiming pwnage.  Her mouth was in a slightly odd mid-word shape.

Ah, I see.  Pig.

I thought the “I just pnwed 3 am” picture was great. And I voted for Clinton in the primary. (And will be voting for Obama in November, because while he doesn’t meet 100% of what I’d like to see in a candidate, neither did Clinton, and I could conceivably need my reproductive rights for the next 15 years or so and I’d like the next generation to have them too.)

I guaran-fucking-tee you those bitching at Jesse in this thread are woman-hating anti-choice Republican pukes.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Yours truly,

A lesbian, pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-death-penalty, feminist, environmentalist, third-generation Democrat….oh, and a vegan, so I won’t put myself in the running for that ice-cream sundae. Nice photo!

Things I have learned today:  making LOLs of politicians?  OK.  Making a LOL of Hillary Clinton?  An affront to women everywhere.

Good to know.  Wouldn’t want my male privilege showing.

I’m not sure what it was about Obama winning that abruptly disintegrated the reading comprehension skills of so many claiming to be Hillary supporters, but it’s pretty astounding that people actually read the original post as anti-Clinton.

It’s also pretty astounding that they’re spending their time attacking Jesse rather than the person who actually, you know, insulted Hillary Clinton.  You’d think that they were more interested in trolling on left-wing websites than in defending Hillary, wouldn’t you?

Making a LOL of Hillary Clinton?  An affront to women everywhere.

Did anyone say that?

Lizard,

Unless I missed something, this all started over a LOL that Jesse posted.

it’s pretty astounding that people actually read the original post as anti-Clinton.

No, Mnemosyne, I read the post as Jesse intended it. That’s why I questioned the need to place a mocking photo of Hillary alongside it.

And the question is answered.  Thanks, Lizard.

“Your case for sexism is based on altering the genders of the people involved.  “

Actually, it’s based on numerous statements you’ve made prior to this thread. As I said, it’s not surprising that I would assume M’s gender was female, because to date your insults have been gender specific.

“non-sexist acts sexist based on dishonest or even totally fabricated examples “

Total fabrication? I’m sorry did you or did you not state one can be a feminist or a puma but doubtfully both?

Sexist statememt.

Did you or did you not whine about an all encompassing feminism? (translated: feminists have to be nice to the menz or menz will feel left out!!)

Sexist.

When you were condescended to by a woman, the very first response you gave was a SEXIST condescending remark.

Note the difference between simply condescending and SEXIST condescending.

“the simplest answer to your question is that I’m apparently not allowed to talk about Hillary Clinton in any way, shape or form without being accused of acting as a woman-hating sexist full of male privilege lashing out women everywhere. “

This? This is a strawfeminist CLASSIC used by men who cannot handle having their privilege pointed out. All critisism is reduced to SHE SAID I HATE WOMEN!!

“And please, give me some ways in which I can fix my male privilege.”

1)when a feminist points out your male privilege, try listening instead of defending.

2)don’t use classic sexist arguments (*see above)

3) Don’t define feminism. (ie one can be this and a feminist or that but not both. Women in case you haven’t noticed in your lifetime of admiring and respecting us have to survive in a male dominated world. Before you critisize the women -PUMA or otherwise- for their choices, fucking recognize THAT. Women often do things that support the male dominated system because bucking it can Get Us Killed)

Start there.

I hadn’t realized that Hillary has become such a spotless martyr to Evil Patriarchy that even a mild LOL picture is OMG THE WORST INSULT EVER HOW DARE YOU INSULT SAINT HILLARY!!!1ONE!!

At this point, I don’t even care if you vote for McCain.  I just want to be able to discuss Hillary Clinton as a politician and an actual person and not the plaster statue that all of her supporters seem to want to turn her into.  If you can’t even look at what’s supposed to be a parody of what right-wingers think of Hillary without deciding it’s a mortal insult to her and everything she stands for, you may need to turn the outrage dial down just a bit before you give yourself an aneurysm.

“Making a LOL of Hillary Clinton?  An affront to women everywhere.

Did anyone say that? “

Nope. That’s why it’s a very tiresome and boring strawfeminist statement.

*sigh*

vicious circle:  (noun) (logic) A fallacy in which the premise is used to prove a conclusion which is then used to prove the premise.

If you can’t even look at what’s supposed to be a parody of what right-wingers think of Hillary without deciding it’s a mortal insult to her and everything she stands for, you may need to turn the outrage dial down just a bit before you give yourself an aneurysm.

I’m genuinely curious—-was this also your reaction to the New Yorker cover of the Obamas? (Personally, I found it offensive and said as much.)

At this point, I don’t even care if you vote for McCain.

To repeat for the one millionth time, Obama has my vote. But he does not have my enthusiasm.

To be clear, I am NOT equating Jesse’s Hillary pic with the New Yorker cover. But what you just wrote, Mnemosyne, was precisely the argument that most progressives (rightly) decried when that cover artwork appeared.

*double sigh*

Repeating:

vicious circle:  (noun) (logic) A fallacy in which the premise is used to prove a conclusion which is then used to prove the premise.

Thanks for the ride, Lizard, but I think I’ll get off now and do something else.

SAP, I wasn’t talking to you.

Awesome picture.  I’m so jealous.

That comment’s not going to win me the ice cream sundae, though, is it?

I wandered into Shakesville with a comment and the name-calling went into overdrive. I think “Mad PUMA Disease” makes the brain spongey. Tennessee Guerilla Women is even worse. Things will probably calm down once the Denver coup fizzles and the PUMA Power Project peters out (is it sexist to say “peters out”?)

LanceThruster, you “wandered into Shakesville” posting vaguely anti-Semitic crap in reference to Joe Biden, and you were called on it. Don’t make shit up.

Jesse, I specifically said I was NOT making a comparison between your dumb photo and the New Yorker cover; I was questioning the broad (and, on its face, context-nonspecific) statement Mnemosyne used to defend the former.

I. Win. This. Round. Because. I. Say. So. And. It’s. Cool. To. Use. Lots. Of. Punctuation.

I admit to a tendency of reading the posts here and not the comments threads. But did I miss something? What happened to the comment threads here? Was it like this before that PUMA post a few days ago?

(And by “this” I mean the threads steering far away what was actually written in the post to whatever point in left field needs to be hit in order to start a fight/insult Jesse/both)

Brandy, I fully admit that Pandagon brings out the worst in me these days. It wasn’t always so.

You say you’re not making a comparison a single comment after you explicitly do.

Jesse, you’re more smug than smart, aren’t you? I’m too tired to simplify any further. Read it again and maybe you’ll get it. Goodnight!

“You could stop being so awful. “

And you could stop being a sexist little prick.

I was curious as to why so many feminists gave up on this place. Now I see why.

Nope, no male privilege here. It doesn’t exist in *you* does it Jesse? You’ve managed to be the one miracle exception. Like all those white guys who don’t have CEO jobs therefore they have no white privilege.

“Again.  I.  Win. “

Honey, I’m not a man so your big dick contest is wasted. Go whip it out and piss with someone else.

Lied? Nope.

Honeypiesweetyass= sexist

“you can’t be a puma and feminist”(paraphrasing)=sexist

“youre just angry/upset/enraged”=sexist

“you’re version of feminism..blah blah encompassing”=sexist (we aren’t here to hold your hand and give you a binky)

You wouldn’t know actual feminist principles if they hoofed you in the junk.

Incidentally, I don’t give a sweet rats ass if sexists take me seriously or not.

pheeno:

“Your case for sexism is based on altering the genders of the people involved.“

Actually, it’s based on numerous statements you’ve made prior to this thread. As I said, it’s not surprising that I would assume M’s gender was female, because to date your insults have been gender specific.

Another possibility is that, as in this case, you read into previous statements a gender-specificity that wasn’t actually there.

I hate to wander into someone else’s back-and-forth, but as a feminist I think it’s important to speak up for alternate versions of feminism when counterproductive ones rear their heads.  Pheeno, in the same post you object that Jesse’s subtext is: “feminists have to be nice to the menz or menz will feel left out!!” and then go on to say that PUMAs shouldn’t be judged because “Women often do things that support the male dominated system because bucking it can Get Us Killed.”  In other words, feminism prohibits criticism of women who insult men, and it also prohibits criticism of women who support a male-dominated system.  Having some acquaintance with feminist principles myself, I can say that they make ample allowance for the criticism of PUMAs and of any other woman who has inverted those principles to argue from the position that The Political Is Personal, as the PUMAs have done.  You’re getting it twisted, and it makes feminisms that involve supporting principles and positions rather than groups of women banded together for any cause look bad.  If we can’t examine a man’s statements for those principles and positions as fairly as we would a woman’s, we’re not doing feminism any favors.  If we have some past experience—legitimate or not, I don’t know the history—that makes us incapable of doing so in the case of any particular man, then we ought to be able to realize that the opportunity for productive dialogue has passed, and that our choosing to have unproductive dialogue in the public sphere may not be in feminism’s best interests.

LanceThruster, you “wandered into Shakesville” posting vaguely anti-Semitic crap in reference to Joe Biden, and you were called on it. Don’t make shit up.

Lizard on 08/25 at 01:31 AM

Yes. Don’t make shit up indeed. Nothing “vague” or anti-Semitic about it. It was Biden’s own words. The question keeps getting asked by the Israel Lobby if Sen. Obama will be good for Israel. That’s one of the reasons he is constantly being unfairly smeared.

So kind of you to include an unflattering photo of HRC with this post, never mind that it has essentially nothing to do with the content.

You’re turning into a caricature of yourself, Lizard.  Seriously.  I mean, have you even been to a right wing blog?  The photos they post of Hillary would make your hair curl.

And I’m a woman, by the way, so spare me any sexism blowback.

I mean, have you even been to a right wing blog?
I’d lay odds she (or more likely he) runs one under a different name while ratfucking progressive blogs.

“and then go on to say that PUMAs shouldn’t be judged because “Women often do things that support the male dominated system because bucking it can Get Us Killed.””

Not quite. Before PUMAS can be judged on this, the entire backdrop and context of womens realities need to be considered. Then one can draw conclusions on PUMAS being full of spiteful pissed off women. Which incidentally, from what I can find seems to be more of a media portrayal than anything else. And I’m automatically suspicious of the spiteful angry woman stereotype and I’m very tired of hearing the word “angry” used to describe women in a negative manner. And this is something that is repeated here frequently. Posters have been quick to say ” oh X poster is just angry Clinton didn’t win” and “X poster is just enraged Obama isn’t being equally insulted”. Any critisism is reduced to irrational responses, which is also a common tactic used against women. No one bothers to look at the actions that provoke such responses if those responses even exist. And when it’s not being reduced to “just being angry” you get the fine examples above. “She’s probably a right wing blogger”.

I mean, come ON.

“You’re an idiot, and I’m tired of dealing with you.  I think that’s a compromise we can both agree on, right? “

Yes, we can agree you’re an idiot.

Nobody is talking about spiteful angry women other than the lying Republican ratfuckers like yourself. The rest of us know that actual feminists aren’t complete fucking morons.
I suppose you think it’s progressive feminists appearing in ads for the McCain campaign?

See what I mean?