bleeding heart

I think the "leftist media" theme is silly, entirely misses the real problems, and is akin to complaining about jock-itch in the middle of a firefight. The Propaganda Model's Five Inter-related Filters: 1. Corporate Ownership 2. Advertising 3. Sourcing 4. Flak 5. The Enemy http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm

Is he to apologize to the Arizona Governor?

It's slimy journalism. That phrase is a conventionally-understood metaphor--for guilt, among other things--but they can say, "No, we just meant in the literal sense!" That's textbook tabloid journalism.

??? Are you serious?

Even so far as this is true (and it surely is not always the case), that sounds less like a description of science as an ideology, and more like an (arguably) ideological undermining of scientific principles. Whereas religion, for example, is perhaps inherently ideological...not the deviation from accepted doctrine, but the doctrines themselves.

Sure he did. You know my views on what political leaders "participate in" as a matter of course.

It is arguably one of THE chief problems, because it bespeaks so much else about their views of humanity itself. That's why, in terms of Islam, the liberal feminist voices are so crucial...and in a lot of places, it takes amazing guts.

No one has suggested any such thing. But then, you don't even know what "sexist" means...so we can only expect so much, I guess.... There was no "defense" of it...it was being explicitly opined that segregation sucks. You seem to be the only one arguing that only SOME segregation sucks.

You must consider it pretty sexist. lol.

I don't know. I don't see that those most concerned with parsing out the difference--which is so obvious that they can't quite explain it to anyone--do not with some regularity offer "opinions" which are also pretty unambiguous "judgements." So I don't know why this particular case stands out for them, and how it differs from matters they might judgementally opine on elsewhere. I mean, of course there should be a fair trial...who has suggested otherwise? And are we to preface each opinion with "In my opinion?"......

Well, but now whatever point you're fundamentally trying to make remains unclear. If it's that my reply was in a place that might engender confusion about my point...I agree that at least one person appears to have been a bit confused. And yet, as you said, I thought we had clarified matters already, "confirming" one another's points. We maybe have entered some moebius strip of semantics here. Hopefully not.

No it's not. You see, words, including "sexist," have actual denotations and connotations...which can be easily found out. Give it a try!

Still no photograph. So DoP can't in good conscience believe it.

Ah. An honest mistake, and no harm done. Thanks for the clarification.

If you think sex is "sexist" then you're beyond help. I suggest electroshock therapy.

As some women know, I am fond of several positions.

Sure he is. See above. You provided him a link about segregation in synagogues...and he's still an agnostic on the issue...because you have failed to post a picture, a terrible failing in your argument, evidently.

Exactly so.

???

No good, Guyser2. If you don't post a picture, then facts don't exist.

\ Uh, no...I'm the one who was pointing out that I wasn't applying it to anyone specifically in this thread. Broadly-prevalent human tendencies was my point, as I said, inspired by Cyber's remarks about the way people respond to authority in so many cases.

Sure, for the paranoid, Cybercoma is a closet ultraconservative who wishes women had second-class status.

"Poof" indeed. A reactionary genie appearing on your shoulder like the Great Gazoo and whispering in your ear: "The Muslims are coming, Flintstone. Be very afraid."

It applies exactly as I said. Because--as AW might say--I understand what I am saying, and what I mean to say, better than you possibly can. If you want to point out that my remarks can be read as you read them, because of their position in this thread...that's fine. I don't ever mean to hijack threads, but frequently am inspired by posts to ruminate on points made that don't necessarily apply directly to the topic at hand. But when I say what I mean...I am saying what I mean. That simple.

I was responding in a general fashion to remarks about what was posted as a general tendency. I was speaking off the cuff of what I view as a large-scale human weakness: the adoration of power (which, as I said, is undoubtedly far more complex than my brief remarks can navigate). How or whether it applies specifically to the case under discussion is another matter.