203
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
203 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30908 readers
1617 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
My point is that they are all self aware enough to know they can't just say "I just won't vote for any woman", so they will give you any other reason if asked. It doesn't have to make sense to us, as long as they can justify it in their head.
And that, in our current political climate, there are just enough of these losers, in the right zip codes, to make a difference.
This is part of the reason I so strongly want AOC to take over Schumer's Senate seat for a term or three. If she runs for President in 2028, she will probably lose. But if she moves to the Senate and is as effective there as she has been in the House, maybe the country will be ready by 2040.
Definitely agree, AOC would be most effective in and have the best chance to win Schumer's seat.
Edit: just as an update, I've since learned that I was wrong and that "aggressive" and "un/likeable" are misogynistic red-flag terms. I apologise, you were right about those terms.
I absolutely hear you and I don't disagree.
It's really frustrating that people lie about their shitty bigoted feelings. Whether that's because they're incurious about why they dislike a female candidate (i.e. not interested in facing or dealing with their internalised misogyny), or they're ashamed that they feel that way, or they secretly feel that they're right to feel that way, or as you say they're just outright proud misogynists who know that the optics of saying "I won't vote for her because she's a woman" are bad, it doesn't matter.
One of the most difficult impacts of people lying about their real reasons for disliking candidates that are part of marginalised groups is that it makes the rest of us have to be very vigilant around any criticism of those candidates, because there is always the chance that somebody criticising that candidate is a racist, a homophobe, or a misogynist, and is trying to mask that. That means it is actually harder to genuinely just "not like" a candidate, for their personality, words, actions, etc., because good people are rightly paranoid.
Anyway, honestly I don't think we're disagreeing on fundamentals here. I'm just trying to explain why I am reluctant to label people as misogynists without any "real" clue, such as using those red-flag words like "bossy" or "shrill". I know it's a bit fussy but it's important to me that we can be clear about things like that.
Agreed that the US is not ready for AOC in 2028. Also agreed that it would be good to see her energised and with a seat in the senate. HUGELY agreed that it would be fantastic to see Schumer piss off to whatever millionaire's pigpen he'll wind up in.