“Why are people who want to protest what they consider intolerance themselves intolerant? Can we say hypocrisy?”?

I think by “inclusive” they actually meant something more along the lines of “intersectional.” Intersectionality, as it applies to women’s rights, means not limiting the movement to the interests of women who are cisgender, heterosexual, middle/upper class, and white. It does not mean including people who are antagonistic to the rights they are trying to defend. And since the right to choose was one of they key rights the march was meant to support and defend, excluding anti-choice groups isn’t really hypocritical.

^ It does not mean including people who are antagonistic to the rights they are trying to defend.
So, because a woman wants to champion developing humans but want equal pay, equal opportunity of advancement and promotions, safety on campus against attack, etc. they are opposed to the rights the marchers have simply because of that one point?

Yesterday the Women’s march in San Francisco coincided with the annual Walk for Life. People headed to the Women’s March actively asked people at the Walk for Life to join us.

I sure didn’t witness any criticism.

Were you there? Or are you taking your information from questionable sources?

@Hypocrisy_Central If you read carefully, you’ll see that I didn’t say that at all. What I said was that it is not hypocritical to exclude someone who is antagonistic to what you are trying to defend, and that having overlapping goals or interests does not change this if the point of disagreement is of central importance to the group doing the excluding.

It’s no different than a Christian group focused on spreading the gospel excluding a Satanist group focused on undermining Christianity in cases where both groups have secondary goals of feeding the homeless or protecting children. Their primary goals are so opposed that they can’t really be expected to officially endorse one another (even if individual members might still cooperate on projects that are just about their secondary goals).

Another thing to keep in mind is that the anti-choice group wasn’t prevented from participating in the march. It was prevented from being an official sponsor/partner of the march. In other words, everyone was welcome to march for their shared goals (even if they disagreed over a fairly major political issue).

@zenvelo He’s talking about the DC march. If you don’t like his source, you can always go straight to the horse’s mouth.

I live near the DC area. This was an issue and they did not say that women who were pro life could not march and were not welcomed but rather this was about having choice and they were not welcomed if they were going to make it about being anti choice.
Think about it this way. Have you ever seen Pro-life invite pro choice to their rallies? Also the rallies were more than just about Pro choice in abortion. It was about gay rights, and in general all of womens rights. From income equality to justice for wrongs done against women that favors the rapists sometimes if he comes from a good family, to the rights of people of different faith to practice their faith without becoming a target. It was about equal rights for all people. I don’t see it as being hypocritical. If black people had a march for all people but said that people who believe in slavery shouldn’t come, would that be hypocritical?
Same when you see white Supremacist march. Do you remember a time they invited Liberals to march with them? This is no different. I don’t remember anyone saying what hypocrites they were for not inviting all white people who may have opposing views.
I understood when they said inclusive, they meant women or men who want to see women given equal rights in every way.

@SavoirFaire It’s no different than a Christian group focused on spreading the gospel excluding a Satanist group focused on undermining Christianity in cases where both groups have secondary goals of feeding the homeless or protecting children
No, not quite the same, if there was going to be a mass feeding of the homeless done by many congregations if some secular group wanted to participate for that end, hardly any true saint would block them. If it was an event that was to promote peace in the streets by way of the gospel and that was the goal, even if the group was known to be secular if they merely wanted to promote peace, fine, if they wanted to promote that no God or religion will bring peace, then that is another thing. To champion the developing human is not taking away from any goal of women’s major rights.

@Pandora Have you ever seen Pro-life invite pro choice to their rallies?
No, but this was not about being a Pro-choice or Pro-life rally, or was it just a stealth Pro-choice rally under the disguise of being an anti-Trump rally? If it were a clear Pro-life rally then I would expect them to bar anyone not promoting the selfish right or a woman to disregard the father and the developing human he is half contributor to. I guess all the buzz from all the news feed interviewing women on why they were attending either a lot of those women were ignorant to the nature of the march or just plain lying to the reporters.

[…and in general all of womens rights.
If it is about all women’s rights you believe those women do not believe in them just because they champion the unborn developing humans? To say it is about all rights for women but because some do not believe on one issue disqualify them from attending is hypocritical no matter how you slice it.

If black people had a march for all people but said that people who believe in slavery shouldn’t come, would that be hypocritical?
It would be as hypocritical if there was going to be a Black Awareness march seeking more rights (real or imagined) for African American but discounting a group because they processed their hair to appear more like Caucasians or tinted it Blonde as if somehow doing so made them less acceptable to having increased rights for Blacks as if they are less Black or the rights do not apply to them because they chose to have their hair less than natural. If it were a march for Black rights I cannot see anyone who thought Blacks should be slaves would even be there

[…and in general all of womens rights.
Except those who wanted much or all of what you said but wanting the right to champion unborn developing humans as undermining all those other things you alluded to.

There is no requirement for any particular women’s group to be all inclusive. They are allowed to formulate their issues and agendas and interpret women’s rights according to their standards. If other women disagree then they are free to form their own group, Isn’t freedom of speech a wonderful thing?

Why get worked up about the march by people you hate? The anti choice people have a march, too. Go. Enjoy..

And try not grab anyone by the pussy. Though I hear “they don’t do anything” if you do.

Imagine having an event to promote Jewish culture and National Vanguard asking to sponsor it.

Having been a participant in several protests,I can attest that there are always overlapping interests. Many will push their own agenda hard,but are there to support the main cause.

Protests are a forum for like minded people to stand together on an issue, while raising awareness of other, similar issues.

For instance, I was at a protest for Trayvon Martin once. Many were there focused on the shooting of the unarmed teen by Zimmerman, and people like him. Others promoted unity, anti-poverty, and a myriad of issues related to the black community. There was even an old black guy wearing some sort of Egyptian looking head dress thing who spoke about slave reparations…

Protests seem like places people go when their fed up with the status quo,and don’t know what else to do but let the government know that the people are upset. But they are all humans, so their idiosyncrasies, and personal opinions will shape their exact views,which will inherently be slightly different from one another’s.

A common goal /issue brings them together. Having differences in opinions isn’t hypocritical at a protest, it’s normal. And the differences can lead some people to be more educated on subjects related to the main issue.

I was at the Boston march so I am commenting from that perspective.

You say Satanists would be welcome to feed the poor alongside members of your church. I’m sure your view would change however if they were not merely helping feed the poor but also in your space screaming about how satan is their savior, god is evil, etc.

Likewise, if anti-choice women came to the march to support other views they have that were aligned with the march, we wouldn’t even know they were anti-choice and therefore could not possibly discriminate against them. However, if they came and screamed about baby murder, they’d be considered counter-protesters because they’d be actively campaigning against women’s rights, and the march is for women’s rights.

And how did we treat counter protesters? Did we throw them out, beat them up? No. We ignored them. There were men there in MAGA hats. We ignored them.

And if anti-choice women let the march’s pro-choice stance stop them from showing up to support other pro-women issues, that’s on them.

Well a bunch of women would’ve seen as as hypocritical to have them voice their opinion on the matter of abortion where the women who started this whole thing wanted the message sent that all women have 100 percent domain over their bodies and that means whatever grows in it. You do get there were probably a lot of women like myself who don’t believe in abortion but feel it is none of our damn business nor the business of some old men from Washington to tell women what they can and cannot do. Hell I’m against men having unprotected sex with multiple women and cheating on their spouse and giving their spouse horrible sexual diseases but yet (some that kill), I don’t see the men in Washington imposing invasive penis tests on men who do. At least the ones caught with hookers. Why? Because men figure they have rights to do what they want with their bodies. Even if it means they can give their spouses HIV and any disease.

Where was it stated that it was policy of any organized march to exclude pro life individuals? There are of course going to be a person here or there opposed to anything you care to name, but it’s preposterous to assert that the huge masses assembled were unwilling to accept the participation of prolifers

There is no way that this was a “womans rights” march, though they call it that, I know.

This was an anti-Trump demonstration, pure and simple, in protest of the inauguration. All the calls and vocalizations we heard above- and speaking for the crowds attest to that.

Those of the pro-life persuasion shouldn’t want to be counted among their numbers anyway, since Trump campaigned on a pro-life position and Clinton on a Pro-choice.

There is nothing hypocritical, therefore, with anti-Trumpers wanting to exclude pro-life activists from their demonstration. And don’t say that anyone was there to protest Trump over woman’s rights— while Trump is indeed anti-abortion, his REAL record does not show a pattern of discrimination against women over pay, promotions, hiring, or other rights. Nor anything since the early 1970s for discrimination against African Americans. I see no threat or discrimination in Trump’s record or campaign against the disabled.

(popular footage showing Trump “mocking a disabled person” were actually of Trump mocking someone who could not back up their assertion or accusation when challenged to do so).

I like to remain politically neutral though everyone has some bias. However, Trump has become almost urban folklore. Its hard to believe ANYONE would believe 90% of what has been said about Trump, but they do. You’d think that the pogroms or gestapo were rearing their heads again.

I admit that Obama was a more likable guy than Trump, and their ideologies are opposite poles. But Hillary is equally unlikable and to me seems more likely to marginalize or retaliate against those who are not her constituents, and has already done many of the things which many people fear Trump will or might do. Most of us voted for whom we considered the lesser of two evils. Like most elections, this election was extremely close, and who is the winner is determined only by the method in which the vote is counted.

Give Trump a chance. Protests and demonstrations are legitimate even if they are mistaken or partially mistaken over the facts they use to support their cause. And—stay out of demonstrations that are not your side of the issue.

@Yellowdog (popular footage showing Trump “mocking a disabled person” were actually of Trump mocking someone who could not back up their assertion or accusation when challenged to do so).

You just lost all credibility in your post by repeating the Trump camp’s “alternative” fact that was a blatant bullying belittling move and cheered as such by the crowd.

All you are doing is pointing out a flaw in language, debate and rhetoric.

Hegel’s Dialectic

Spend some time down the wikihole.

All you are doing is pointing out a flaw in language, debate and rhetoric.

Is that directed at the original question or one (or more) of the responses?

OP

(((popular footage showing Trump “mocking a disabled person” were actually of Trump mocking someone who could not back up their assertion or accusation when challenged to do so).
You just lost all credibility in your post by repeating the Trump camp’s “alternative” fact that was a blatant bullying belittling move and cheered as such by the crowd.)))))—-

You can repeat what you’ve heard from your own fake and radically, extremely biased fake sources as long as Fluther is up and running—but Trump has never mocked a disabled person in a campaign. The footage shown is exactly as I said it was. It was not in context to a disabled person.
I’m sure that you really believe that Trump was mocking someone with disabilities,, and want to make as many people as possible think that as well. But those of us who watched the debates, which all the major networks besides Fox (and about 15% by CNN) would not even cover, then you probably don’t know what was happening, as you were probably spoon-fed something differently from a “mainline” source.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, people were leery of being misled by mainline media and were calling for alternative news sources. Now it seems that people love to be manipulated by having their worse fears played to, and spread the hysteria. Its almost like they get a charge or stimulation out of it. Have you actually seen anyu of the Trump rallies? I’d hate and fear him, too, if I believed some of the stuff I’ve heard and read. But the Trump campaign itself, and things they’ve said and worked on, show a radically different picture—the one that half the country voted for and disregarded the media

@Yellowdog

Hillary is equally unlikable
—At least 3 million voters disagree.

Its hard to believe ANYONE would believe 90% of what has been said about Trump
—He makes it really easy by making certain all of the facts of his disgusting nature are readily available on video or Twitter.

Give Trump a chance.
—I don’t have to “give” him anything. He has the chance whether I wanted him to have it or not (and I didn’t). He’s so far taken it and done nothing that could even be mistaken as benevolent. Did he make a statement that he saw the protests, that he heard them, that he was going to be their President as well? Nope. Didn’t even try.

I see no threat or discrimination in Trump’s record or campaign against the disabled. We can start with the fact that there was no attempt made to accommodate deaf viewers of the inauguration on television. While ASL interpreters were at the event, they were not filmed for television, and weren’t even on the Jumbotron. It was determined that closed-captioning was “enough”. If you’ve ever tried to watch a live telecast with closed-captioning on, you should know that it is not sufficient.

@Yellowdog The reporter he was mocking had a disability that made his wrists curl in. Trump wove his arms around with the wrists curled in while mocking him. We can debate all we want about whether that was mocking his disability or just mocking the reporter’s reporting skills, but most of us know what we saw and can see it for what it was. He didn’t do that motion while mocking any of the other dozens of people he mocked on the campaign trail.

Mocking in general isn’t very presidential behavior, imo.

The pot calling the kettle black? ‘Tis the nature of the beast.

@Hypocrisy_Central “if there was going to be a mass feeding of the homeless done by many congregations if some secular group wanted to participate for that end, hardly any true saint would block them.”

Perhaps you missed it, but I said exactly that: “even if individual members might still cooperate on projects that are just about their secondary goals.” What I said was that you couldn’t expect a Christian group to endorse a Satanist group (qua Satanists). So yes, quite the same.

“To champion the developing human is not taking away from any goal of women’s major rights.”

If the goal of the march is to champion women’s rights, and if the key right they are trying to defend is the right to choose, then inviting a group that is specifically against that right to be a sponsor/partner in the march is taking away from not just any goal, but their primary goal. This shouldn’t be hard to understand: while there are many things that women might be concerned about, the people behind the march are most concerned about a woman’s right to choose (which is an explicit target of the right, and the loss of which would represent a large step back in progress). So while the march was about women’s rights overall, it was most specifically about the right to choose. Inviting an anti-choice group to sponsor the march would be antithetical to that as such a group is—by definition—antagonistic to the key concern of the march’s organizers.

@Yellowdog “There is no way that this was a ‘womans rights’ march, though they call it that, I know. This was an anti-Trump demonstration, pure and simple, in protest of the inauguration.”

False dilemma fallacy. It can be—and was—both. It was a women’s rights march prompted by the inauguration of a person who has promised to roll back women’s rights. That the protest was directed at somebody doesn’t mean it wasn’t about women’s rights.

It should not have been called a women’s march for this very reason. The organizers failed at naming their cause.

Women against Trump would have been more appropriate.

It should not have been called a women’s march for this very reason. The organizers failed at naming their cause.

The goal was thousands of people on the streets. It was exceeded 100 times over.

Quibbling over the name is silly.

And it was about more than Trump. It was a message for Congress and elected officials everywhere. It was a message for people at home, and for corporations.

Trump was elected by a small number of voters, significantly fewer than Clinton’s.

While decent well-meaning people don’t have control of the federal government, they still have influence, and Saturday was a demonstration that good people care and will be heard.

@Yellowdog “popular footage showing Trump “mocking a disabled person” were actually of Trump mocking someone who could not back up their assertion or accusation when challenged to do so”

Bullshit. He didn’t simply mock a reporter for not backing up an accusation (and behavior which, in and of itself, is wholly unbecoming a presidential candidate), he flagrantly, mockingly, mimicked the reporter’s particularly disability. You can try to deny it all you want, but the whole world witnessed it.

“However, Trump has become almost urban folklore. Its hard to believe ANYONE would believe 90% of what has been said about Trump, but they do. You’d think that the pogroms or gestapo were rearing their heads again.”

One doesn’t have to believe it, one only has to look at statements Trump has made – during the debates, on the campaign, trail, in the media, on Twitter – to confirm it.

“Give Trump a chance.”

He’s had his chance. For a year and a half he’s had his chance. He’s had his chance and he’s given absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that he is fit for the office. No reason to believe that he is anything other than a self-glorifying, egotistical old man with the mentality and temperament of a schoolyard bully.

After securing the White House he didn’t even bother with the usual pretenses of unity and representing all Americans that president-elects usually do. Instead he embarked on a “victory tour” spewing the same ugly, hateful, divisive rhetoric he did during the campaign, only this time with copious amounts of “fuck you, losers! you suck, I rule!” thrown into the mix. His inaugural address was yet more of the same. He’s had a chance and he’s shown his nature time and time again.