There was a lot there, but you focused in on only two words and blew it out proportion. Hate speech is related to immutable characteristics and is discrimination.
Warren and HRC have been subject to vitriol based solely onj their gender not their race or innate sexuality, although HRC has been accused of being a lesbian. Obama has been subject to vitriol based on his race, not his gender, but has been called gay. None of those characteristics are what a progressive or liberal would single out to abuse a person with, we see nothing wrong with color, gender or non-hetero sexuality. But the charges have been made by the conservatives, as they do consider such humans worthy of hate speech.
He even qualified what he said by using the word hate and hatred and vitriolic. You are charging him using the term hate speech, or in this case, it would be his calling out a slur based on gender, just as many called out what was said about Obama was racist. While some of of both attack memes did not apply to HRC, Warren or Obama, some of those things were based on hate toward women and all minorities. Both of those women and Obama are actually attacked by racists and misogynists, for their policies that don't discriminate.
So yeah, the intent of some who are against them is bigotry, but hate speech is defined better by the SPLC than either that poster or you are discussing. And tone can be hateful, and you have just unloaded on me as if I have to defend HRC as a supporter. I support her stances on women's rights but then Democrats do that as a whole, but she is a lightning rod because she literally is a woman. For the right, that is very threatening and they have resorted to hate speech based on her gender, as they have Obama on race.
As long as you are not against women's rights or do not trivialize them as far too many do, no one is talking about you or those who can't live with the thought that HRC may be the nominee, which is not foregone conclusion, it doesn't apply. Some have taken HRC's side simply because they are tired of over twenty years of hate speech directed at her by conservatives, and I do say it's hate speech, not just for the body that she was born in, but her policies on women. That is the real objection to some of the haters who want women to shut up. If you are in favor of women's rights at the level that HRC is, why does that offend you?
Some of us are reacting to the decades of hatred and continued marginalizing of women's rights. Just as many POC object to the smears on Obama that are cloaked in policy talk, as those on HRC have been, but when, and I've read this on DU, but I will not call the person out, because one cannot do that, so I don't play 'give me link' baiting game, I won't fall for that line of attack. I'm not the only one who has read posts that say she only got her place in the Senate or a chance at running for POTUS, because she was married to Bill.
Also that voting for her is voting for Bill, as if she could not capable or worthy to be in Senate and would have to have Bill in the Oval Office to tell her what to do. That is outright sexism, and has nothing to do with her, but it is prejudice based on her gender. Those are shallow, vindictive and telling complaints that show sexism is deeply within the speaker.
I would not have singled out those two words that you did in your response to someone else, but you went for that and didn't answer him except by going off on those two words. That's why I didn't bring that up in my reply to you, as I considered it jumping the shark on your part, not his, and not because of his views. You took that way out of the meaning of the message and ran with it. I didn't want to address that as I didn't see it as correct, and now I have, as you want to ask me what you asked him and then went off on me. I am not him, if he chooses to not come back and anwer you, that is not my fault.
But he was talking about the tremendous irrational hatred that HRC has been subjected to from the nineties. You may refuse to acknowledge this or may not have been in the USA when this occured, but she was called a murderer, lesbian and a noted neo-con called for killing Chelsea as part of the evil Clinton spawn that might begin a dynasty.
Which was OTT hateful and irrational and there was a bit of blow back from liberals on that at the time. The same conservatives that called for the death of the Clintons and Democrats haven't stopped the meme of a dynasty, but they didn't mind electing a second Bush and would vote for a third. Seeing that on a board that is supposedly Democratic is discouraging.
I watched Rush when he called HRC's daughter a dog on cable television. Is that hate speech based on her gender? You may not think so, but it isn't humor in the eyes of many women, I can tell you that. And it certainly wasn't from Hillary being conservative.
What that poster said was a lot more, mainly getting a Democrat in the White House, which iI support, not any particular candidate. If HRC doesn't get the nod, I'm good. I'm exploring learning about her from the record, not the media spin, because I honestly did not know her very well. I didn't support her during the primaries for POTUS, and although Obama was not my first choice, I proudly voted for him in 2008 with great enthusiasm after researching what they man actually said when I first checked him out in 2007 based on his stance about the IW. That is what I am doing now with HRC, but I don't even feel that I deserve disdain I was a supporter of HRC because she and I are Democrats.
As far as her vote on the IW, others also voted, but they seem to get a pass. It was explained by Ted Kennedy that while he didn't vote as she did, she was right with what she was given. I also remember that many people in NY wanted to get back at Bin Laden for 911. I was still uncomfortable with crowds in NYC's Times Square cheering the announcement of his death. But I didn't live through that event up close. Those were her voters.
For me, the only good thing about that was the excuse for the war was over with. I've seen learned that eveything over there is infinitely more complex than Americans will ever be able to grasp.
In the meantime I will be posting for her, or any other candidate who meets my views, but will not fall for the negative campaign waged that purports to be in support of Warren or Sanders by attacking HRC. Warren has been on board with HRC, and says she will not run. Even to the point of stating to one of those groups that demand she run, to stop using her for fundraising. Some would like to set up a bitter scenario with Warren, Sanders, HRC and Obama being enemies to each other. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are all comrades in arms to get the Democratic Party's agenda in action.
The trendy vitriol that is addressed at any of these persons is a waste of time and plays into the Segretti game the GOP wants us to fall into. I see no reason for people to be attacking each other on this board, or acting in an aggressive manner to each other. I don't do that and don't attack Democrats. If a Democrat is not doing their job, and we mainly speak of those from states, it is the duty of those in their states to tend to them at the voting booth. Blanket callouts of all or any of the Democrats is what the GOP and Libertarians want to see.
I consider myself to have answered the question you asked someone else, which is a waste of time IMHO, and not my job. Your sig line has a picture of Warren, this means she is your candidate. You will note that I do not have HRC as an avatar or in my sig line. But you appear to want me to represent all her supporters. I will not do that for you, I will not be confined that way.
Now, and at this point I am fatigued, I am asking what you will do if Warren, who has endorsed HRC for POTUS in the past, endorses her as primary candidate, or campaigns for her in the general?
Because I believe she will do both. It's a simple question and not meant to seen as a challenge or against Warren. I love her and Sanders, and have posted positively on both of them. I have even expressed my support for Sanders in the HRC group. But some women are feeling hated. I don't what the gender of the person you were talking to is and only used the term 'he' as a common pronoun, based on the 'mankind' term.
Rather than address two words, tell us about your candidate, what is great about her (really not hard to find things good to post about her, as I have) and what you are FOR. Not who you are against.
But I'm wasting my time, probably.
= new reply since forum marked as read
