Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Before Maddow's Sex Change Operation

Before Maddow's Sex Change Operation (Page 5)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2010, 06:06 PM
 
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2010, 04:24 AM
 
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2010, 09:11 PM
 
Rachel Maddow does it again. Either Rachel Maddow is turning a bunch of women into Lesbians or she is starting a new trend. Maybe both!

Anne Hathaway has gone with the boy cut.

Anne Hathaway Debuts New Short Haircut - StyleList

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2010, 10:20 PM
 
Good thing hyteckit is here to keep the thread going by himself.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2010, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Good thing hyteckit is here to keep the thread going by himself.
Some need to be reminded how wrong they are.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2010, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Good thing hyteckit is here to keep the thread going by himself.
It's like Apple announcing new iPods.

Store is down! It's back up again!

New boy cut!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 06:31 AM
 
The intellectual dishonesty displayed in this thread is an example of one of the reasons why I (and likely others) don't participate in these forums much anymore. This forum is overrun with children who think that they fool people into accepting their arguments by making some really amazing (but incredibly stupid) apples to oranges comparisons. Over...and over, and over. When that doesn't work, they add in a few person attacks, "strawmen" and other lame attempts to change the subject.

Based on the stunning arguments presented here, Ann Hathaway and Emma Watson would present no different image had they gotten army-style crew cuts and decided to wear nothing but bowling shirts (instead of just getting a likely temporary, shorter feminine style hair cut). For example, there's apparently no difference in the amount of femininity displayed by Maddow as there was back when Mia Farrow popularized (for a short time) the short cut back in the late Sixties, right? Or Betty Boop, whose locks cling closely to her head?

Congratulations smart guys (and girls). You really impress!
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 10:03 AM
 
What you said,
Maddow used to be quite an attractive young woman. I wonder what prompted her to want to look like a man?

It's her right to do so, but I'm curious if it was some kind of mental illness, or some kind of self esteem issue or something. Don't get me wrong, some women are just naturally masculine looking and it's not a choice. Here we have a very attractive and feminine woman who for some reason decided that conventional good looks was somehow a bad thing for her. That was a choice she made, and I'm curious as to why she made it.
Probably the mental illness comment that so many religious wingnuts use to explain their hatred of gays.

Anyway, glad to see ya go, I know you'll pray for me right?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 12:05 PM
 
Hair cut, nah! When they start wearing flannel shirts ...
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The intellectual dishonesty displayed in this thread is an example of one of the reasons why I (and likely others) don't participate in these forums much anymore. This forum is overrun with children who think that they fool people into accepting their arguments by making some really amazing (but incredibly stupid) apples to oranges comparisons. Over...and over, and over. When that doesn't work, they add in a few person attacks, "strawmen" and other lame attempts to change the subject.
My head just exploded due to an overload of hilarious irony.

Silver lining? I guess if us 'children' continue to annoy stupendousman with our stupidity then he'll leave, god willing...
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 12:27 PM
 
I'm sure he'll find a jerk fest where they all agree with each other.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 12:28 PM
 
I've perused only page 5 of this thread so maybe this is an outlandish question.

But it would seem people are debating the facets of a woman's femininity and/or sexuality based on hair style/length?


Is that really the basis for this debate or am I missing something else here?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 12:31 PM
 
Page one set the tone.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 03:57 PM
 
You really need to light some candles, draw a bath, and let the whole thread just wash over you.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:07 PM
 
Sure, for Watson, Farrow, and Hathaway short hair is a fad... lots of women enjoy variety in hairstyle. Fads change. We've discussed this. :eyeroll: It's entirely possible for Maddow to grow her hair back out again, put on bright lipstick, and yet... still be gay. Lots of lesbians have long hair. Short hair. Whatever. Big whoop.

Using obtuse and convoluted language to basically call the other side stupid is just playground rants, and score no points. Who won this thread? Who took their ball and ran home? Hmm.

Neener neener.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Who won this thread?
Everyone who never clicked on it.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Hair cut, nah! When they start wearing flannel shirts ...
DeRossi in a flannel shirt is still hotter than most women.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
My head just exploded due to an overload of hilarious irony.

Silver lining? I guess if us 'children' continue to annoy stupendousman with our stupidity then he'll leave, god willing...
Yeah, everyone really misses the even-keeled discussion that he brought here...

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
DeRossi in a flannel shirt is still hotter than most women.
I see that you hate boobs.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 09:33 PM
 
You know how I know you're gay? You hate boobs.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 09:49 PM
 
I like boobs as much as the next guy, but I'm more of an...
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
You know how I know you're gay? You hate boobs.
for those that want to see fat men with glandular issues:
 
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Sep 1, 2010 at 01:02 AM. Reason: thread bombing is not cool.)
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 10:21 PM
 
Can. Not. Unsee.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 10:54 PM
 
Ban. For real.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
http://luciferloves.us/image/funny/Archive/moobs1.jpg
Reported.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2010, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Who took their ball and ran home? Hmm.
Neener neener.
Wasn't it some one who thinks he's just so stupendous?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2010, 06:12 AM
 
Don't blame me.

Our societal gender roles don't allow women to go topless, but they sure allow fat guys to go topless.

You see a lot more fat man boobs at the beach.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Probably the mental illness comment that so many religious wingnuts use to explain their hatred of gays.
So the lack of intellectual honesty is a knee jerk reaction, based on a preconceived bias against some who claim to be religious and hate?

Gotcha.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
My head just exploded due to an overload of hilarious irony.
I'm guessing that if your saw an "overload of hilarious irony" in my post, you were having some troubles with your head before I ever got to you.

..and I never said I was taking my "ball" and leaving. I was simply pointing out that it isn't really all that satisfying debating people whose skills rely on stuff like strawmen, false analogies, ad hominem attacks, etc.

The argument that this:



= this:



Is laughable, and that's pretty much what some of you guys have left. Don't blame me when the audience for your comedy act dries up. It just simply isn't all that entertaining anymore.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 07:59 AM
 
Intellectual honesty? Say what you mean.

I've been waiting for that pic to make an appearance in this thread. While it is highly butch, we've already discussed the fads of college, and Maddow has changed looks since then several times. To suggest that's her current image, when you have to wade through over 10 pages of google image results to find it, well... do you think that's honest? What are we debating here anyway? That there are bad pix of Maddow? There are bad pix of Angelina Jolie too. Or is that a comparison I'm not allowed to make?

Let's compare her current general image:



It's no misty glam shot, but her beauty shows while maintaining a professional demeanor. You want more makeup?



Anyway, the no-makeup plain tshirt photo that started this thread has been discussed. Lesbian types, makeup styles, and women's evolving fashions have been discussed. What's next? Are we done? Or is this just a struggle for the last word?

(Maybe that's just me. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Let's compare her current general image:
...which is fine. I believe that the image above would be deemed reasonably feminine by the majority of the general public who saw it, even when compared to the earlier, more feminine photogragh. The question then would be is whether or not this is MSNBC's image (which they mandate to make her more palatable to viewers), or Rachel's herself. Most images I've seen of her which were more personal, private, and not to be part of the official broadcast look decidedly less feminine.

Anyway, the no-makeup plain tshirt photo that started this thread has been discussed. Lesbian types, makeup styles, and women's evolving fashions have been discussed. What's next? Are we done? Or is this just a struggle for the last word?

(Maybe that's just me. )
It appears that Rachel's 360 degree shift in appearance isn't the result of "evolving fashions" or a fad. She went from a traditionally feminine personal appearance to one that would be considered much more masculine and to one degree or another, has adopted that more masculine look full time. My question is why she would shun her traditional good looks and what most would view as normal feminine styling?

Is it because she's a lesbian? If so, why do lesbians need to look more like men? That would seem to suggest that some sort of gender confusion might be a reason for their sexual preference. If you want to look like a man, do the things men do, and have the same sexual preference most men have, it's very possible that it's not just a matter of sexual preference at play, but possibly some deeper mental condition which results in some sort of gender confusion. I have no idea if this is a problem for Maddow or not. I was just suggesting the possibility.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So the lack of intellectual honesty is a knee jerk reaction, based on a preconceived bias against some who claim to be religious and hate?
Ah,some claim to be religious, but really aren't.
That makes it alright then.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Is it because she's a lesbian? If so, why do lesbians need to look more like men? That would seem to suggest that some sort of gender confusion might be a reason for their sexual preference. If you want to look like a man, do the things men do, and have the same sexual preference most men have, it's very possible that it's not just a matter of sexual preference at play, but possibly some deeper mental condition which results in some sort of gender confusion. I have no idea if this is a problem for Maddow or not. I was just suggesting the possibility.
Try doing some research if you really care.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
What's next? Are we done? Or is this just a struggle for the last word?
We were done the first time you put stupendousman is his place on page one, it's been all backpedaling and nonsense since then.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 01:50 PM
 
So, in other words, appearances are everything. If somebody appears to dress and look like the opposite gender, they must be gender confused. If they don't, they are cool.

Since we are assigning psychological traits based purely on appearance, I suppose that people with dramatically contrasting shirts and pants/dresses must be bipolar or schizophrenic or something? If a woman wants to dress provocatively they must be slutty? There are a whole host of reasons for somebody to want to dress a certain way, you cannot assess their psychological makeup based on this. You just can't.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Is it because she's a lesbian? If so, why do lesbians need to look more like men? That would seem to suggest that some sort of gender confusion might be a reason for their sexual preference.
What you're calling "gender confusion" is really more like "subverting cultural norms".

Gender confusion is what happens when your gender causes you stress. People with actual gender confusion consider solutions like radical surgery.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 03:50 PM
 
He's inferring homosexuality is a mental illness and in some cases this is more apparent by women who appear like Maddow, and who while cognizant of their fashion choices, are somehow "confused".
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The argument that this:



= this:



Is laughable.
W0W!!!

You really are "debating the facets of a woman's femininity and/or sexuality based on hair style/length" and physical appearance? (quote is from an earlier post of mine)

How does short butch-looking hairstyle equate to lesbian?
What about the pics of Natalie Portman with her head shaved for her role in "V for Vendetta"? Does that make her a lesbian because she looks more butch with a buzz cut?
What about Sinead O'Connor and her decade-plus with super short hair? Does that make her a lesbian because she looks more butch with a buzz cut?


Are you really trying to make the argument that looks influence and/or determine gender or sexual identity?
If not, what argument are you trying to make by comparing these two pictures?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It appears that Rachel's 360 degree shift in appearance isn't the result of "evolving fashions" or a fad. She went from a traditionally feminine personal appearance to one that would be considered much more masculine and to one degree or another, has adopted that more masculine look full time. My question is why she would shun her traditional good looks and what most would view as normal feminine styling?
My question is "So what?" There are butch-looking women, femme-looking women and every-type-of-looking women in between the two extremes. And this range of appearances is just as applicable to straight women as it is to gay women. So what if Rachel Maddow's preferred look is more butch/less feminine than other women. Does it matter in any way to anyone but Rachel and her partner?

Looks and fashion choices are in no way determined or deterministic, they are simple personal preferences. Kinda like how I like to wear my hair short year-round with a full beard and how I like to wear Hawai'ian shirts all summer long and flannel shirts all winter long. None of those choices in any way determines anything me; They are personal preferences and nothing more. To try and read into someone's choices for personal grooming and/or style something about gender identity is preposterous at best and foolish at worst.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
To try and read into someone's choices for personal grooming and/or style something about gender identity is preposterous at best and foolish at worst.
Stupendous he ain't.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Ah,some claim to be religious, but really aren't.
That makes it alright then.
No, it doesn't. Reacting to someone based on the notion that they MIGHT be one of those people, even if they aren't, is no more right.

Originally Posted by screener View Post
Try doing some research if you really care.
Thanks. I'm saving that response. Every time I don't have an answer or don't want something discussed, it will act as a great labor saving device. GENIUS!

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, in other words, appearances are everything. If somebody appears to dress and look like the opposite gender, they must be gender confused. If they don't, they are cool.
I didn't say that they "must." I suggested that MIGHT be the case, as it very well may.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
What you're calling "gender confusion" is really more like "subverting cultural norms".

Gender confusion is what happens when your gender causes you stress. People with actual gender confusion consider solutions like radical surgery.
It's not possible that some people suffering from something find ways to cope that don't go to such extremes? For instance, there are people who know that they have the inclination to abuse alcohol and are alcoholics but don't always go out and get drunk all the time. They know in their head how they feel and they struggle with it, but cope and manage without going to extremes.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
W0W!!!

You really are "debating the facets of a woman's femininity and/or sexuality based on hair style/length" and physical appearance? (quote is from an earlier post of mine)
Our chosen personal appearance reveals a lot about our personality and how we wish to be perceived.

How does short butch-looking hairstyle equate to lesbian?
I never said it did. That was someone else's suggestion. I asked if that were the case, why lesbians would want to appear to be masculine?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
My question is "So what?" There are butch-looking women, femme-looking women and every-type-of-looking women in between the two extremes. And this range of appearances is just as applicable to straight women as it is to gay women. So what if Rachel Maddow's preferred look is more butch/less feminine than other women. Does it matter in any way to anyone but Rachel and her partner?
She's a "public figure." Part of her job is to consider how she presents herself to the public. If you have no curiosity as to why a public figure would engage in such a dramatic shift in personal appearance, in a way that made her appear a little odd, then it would probably have been better for you to skip the thread entirely. We've already shown it's not likely just a fashion "fad" but rather a conscious, consistent choice.

Looks and fashion choices are in no way determined or deterministic, they are simple personal preferences. Kinda like how I like to wear my hair short year-round with a full beard and how I like to wear Hawai'ian shirts all summer long and flannel shirts all winter long. None of those choices in any way determines anything me; They are personal preferences and nothing more. To try and read into someone's choices for personal grooming and/or style something about gender identity is preposterous at best and foolish at worst.
If you don't think that the way we present ourselves gives clues to how we feel about ourselves, and how we wish others to see us, it's you that I believe is being foolish.

Originally Posted by screener View Post
Stupendous he ain't.
Is that really the best you've got? You are helping me prove my point about the uselessness of debating some people here.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 06:52 AM
 
The responses above help prove the point I made earlier.

We've got strawmen, personal insults, false claims, knee jerk reactions and what appears to be a complete state of denial about the nature of human existence and how personal appearance can reflect how we perceive ourselves and how we wish others to perceive us.

Why should anyone really bother, in such a case? Glutton for punishment?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 07:48 AM
 
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, it's also a two-way street. Is that how that goes?

Your own personal tactic of insistent reiteration and high-wire semantics hasn't proven anything. If we all agree the discussion has ended, let's close the thread.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's not possible that some people suffering from something find ways to cope that don't go to such extremes? For instance, there are people who know that they have the inclination to abuse alcohol and are alcoholics but don't always go out and get drunk all the time. They know in their head how they feel and they struggle with it, but cope and manage without going to extremes.
I never implied differently.

Using your analogy however, we should assume not drinking suggests someone is an alcoholic. I mean, why else would they use an alcoholic's coping strategy?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, it's also a two-way street. Is that how that goes?

Your own personal tactic of insistent reiteration and high-wire semantics hasn't proven anything. If we all agree the discussion has ended, let's close the thread.
The point is that I never reallly sought to "prove" anything. I was asking questions, and seeking feedback on what people thought Maddow's motivation might be.

People with an agenda often times are too eager to "disprove" something just for the sake of shutting down discussion. If they can insult the person asking questions, change the subject, or argue against something they never offered, it's a lot easier to shift the discussion back to a place they are comfortable with.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion than have the self control to simply stop. There's no need to a close a thread because it makes some people who don't the direction of the thread uncomfortable for some reason.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I never implied differently.

Using your analogy however, we should assume not drinking suggests someone is an alcoholic. I mean, why else would they use an alcoholic's coping strategy?
A reasonable person would ask themselves if the person in questions exhibits, or has exhibited any signs that would suggest a greater than average likelihood that they might have a drinking problem before they made any kind of query about such a thing.

You see someone who refuses to go to a bar who had previously exhibited signs of consistently being drunk, it's not unreasonable to suggest that maybe they are abstaining as a coping mechanism.

I think we've established that there may be reason to believe that Maddow may have a greater than average chance that the behavior in question could apply to her, as compared to the average person.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
a complete state of denial about the nature of human existence and how personal appearance can reflect how we perceive ourselves and how we wish others to perceive us.
You see to be in a state of denial of the length and breath of fashion for either gender, and that's without acknowledging it's fluidity.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why should anyone really bother, in such a case? Glutton for punishment?
You started posted again, didn't you?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A reasonable person would ask themselves if the person in questions exhibits, or has exhibited any signs that would suggest a greater than average likelihood that they might have a drinking problem before they made any kind of query about such a thing.

You see someone who refuses to go to a bar who had previously exhibited signs of consistently being drunk, it's not unreasonable to suggest that maybe they are abstaining as a coping mechanism.

I think we've established that there may be reason to believe that Maddow may have a greater than average chance that the behavior in question could apply to her, as compared to the average person.
Are you saying it's been demonstrated she's different than the average woman who dresses masculinely?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
People with an agenda often times are too eager to "disprove" something just for the sake of shutting down discussion. If they can insult the person asking questions, change the subject, or argue against something they never offered, it's a lot easier to shift the discussion back to a place they are comfortable with.
I suppose your 30+ replies (most in the thread) have nothing to do with your own agenda on the issue.

Continue to backpedal, it's amusing to see.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The point is that I never really sought to "prove" anything. I was asking questions, and seeking feedback on what people thought Maddow's motivation might be.
And what most of us have pointed out is that your questions in this thread are of no logical merit.

Questioning a change, even a dramatic change, in a person's appearance over the course of 19 years--Assuming Rachel Maddow was 18 when her high school photo was taken--is ridiculous. People don't look the same over the course of their adult lives and to ask "questions" based on an assumption that they do (look the same over the course of their adult lives) is illogical and suggests willful ignorance by the person asking the question.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 11:48 AM
 
But she's disregarding societal norms!
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Our chosen personal appearance reveals a lot about our personality and how we wish to be perceived.
WRONG! You assume, continually, that a person's changes in personal appearance are a) fully deliberate and b) are intended to "reveal" something about said person's personality and how they wish to be perceived.

Our chosen personal appearance CAN reveal "a lot about our personality and how we wish to be perceived" but does not necessarily have to "reveal a lot about our personality and how we wish to be perceived". In other words, a person's appearance is always deliberate--they always choose how to appear--but it is not always done with the intent of making a deliberate statement about themselves.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,