Washington Post Social Justice Warrior Columnist Wants to Know Why Bernie Sanders Won't Let Hillary Clinton Interrupt Him At Will, Because Women Are Kinda Entitled To Do Whatever They Want

Hard to read this any other way. She spends the bulk of the article defending what she's going to say -- knowing that it's pretty egregious -- but then says it anyway.

Remember, this is not about Bernie Sanders interrupting Clinton. That is something that happens in every debate, but if it were about that, at least one could see something of an argument -- why is Bernie Sanders interrupting Hillary to mansplain to her?

No, this is about Hillary Clinton interrupting Sanders, and Sanders saying, "Excuse me, I'm talking here."

By refusing to permit Hillary Clinton to interrupt him, he's guilty of a sexism infraction.

One could speculate a great deal about that [the possibility that Hillary is deliberately interupting Sanders precisely to get him to object, so that feminists can then whine about]. But then, there is this: Why, at this late date and this many debates into the 2016 presidential election cycle, has Sanders made demonstrably little to no effort to alter the way he interacts with the woman he at least strongly suspected he would be running against him from the day he declared his campaign? He has almost certainly had the same advice and information that every male candidate gets about the need to be constantly mindful about coming across like a chauvinist or a bully when on a debate stage facing a female competition.

Why should he change the way he deals with Hillary, just because she's a woman? If a man interrupted him, he'd also object; but this Social Justice Warrior bint is pretty sure Bernie should let her interrupt at will, otherwise he could "come across like a chauvinist or bully."

They try to hide this, but feminism isn't about equality, and hasn't been for at least a decade: It is about asserting, obliquely and covertly, that women are simply Superior, and should be deferred to by men on the very basis of their sex.

By the way, this illustrates a common dishonest argument: When one knows what one is saying is highly objectionable, dishonest, or bigoted, but wants to argue for it anyway, one quickly moves from making the claim in a positive way to talking about appearances.<

This woman, while a bit dogmatic, predictable, and dull as a fossilized turd, can't quite attack Bernie for simply objecting to being interrupted; instead, she moves the terms of debate to the appearances of him objecting to be interrupted.

This permits her to take the Female Supremacists' side -- "I'm not saying they're right, but I'm saying for the sake of appearances he should have behaved as if they were right" -- without having to forthrightly take that side.

But let's get beyond appearances -- what of actual truth?

Should a man not object to a woman who interrupts him, simply because she's a woman?

Well, Jannell Ross won't say. But she will say, for the sake of appearances, Sanders should comport himself with this "rule" which is not a rule and which is, on its face, thoroughly repugnant and indefensible.

Switching the conversation from truth to appearances is a great way to defend disgusting bigotry and chauvinism while maintaining a cowardly safe distance from explicitly doing so. You get to just say "To appease the women who think this way, you should give in to them. You know, accept second-class citizen status for appearances' sake., I'm not saying, necessarily, that you are a second class citizen. (Of course, I'm also not saying you're not.) I'm just saying, unless you want us all to collectively hiss and shriek at you, you should act as if you are a second-class citizen."

posted by Ace at 06:31 PM

| Access Comments