Once again, a feminist addresses brutal dictatorships to lament, not about how women shouldn't be legally raped, gentally mutilated, forced into marriage, and selectively aborted, but about how women in the western world should be involved in policies she supports. Fall into line, brown shirts. Here's an article on the debacle: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/25/emma-watson-and-the-chamber-of-feminist-conundrums/
I'm sorry I can't give any credit to an article from a biased source, and The Federalist is very much a biased source.
It's commentary, not news. Why do people not know the difference anymore? Everything people post on this website is commentary. You think the posters on this forum are unbiased? Even if it were touted as news, all news is biased, too. Most of it is liberal, even liberals agree. I think what you mean is that this site is biased in a way that you don't agree with. You should be more open minded. I read salon, new York times, new yorker, huffington, politico, msnbc, vox, etc, all more liberal that the last. Know thy enemy, afterall. (Using "enemy" loosely there). Don't be a liberal news snob. No one likes those.
Isn't this like saying that we shouldn't worry about children who don't get breakfast in Detroit because there's kids in Africa who eat 3x a week? There's always somebody worse off, that's true, but that doesn't make the next worse off feel any better. Besides that it seemed Watson was mainly just talking about affluent people pushing their kids into gender roles, which isn't even the same issue really Basically, it seems you and this blog are just jealous that she's the highest paid actress in the UK, and don't think she's entitled to any opinion on anything because of that. Successful actors and actresses use their positions to push causes they favor, just like you, get over it.
She isn't lecturing her kids about finishing their dinner. She's lecturing the un. It comprises countries that traffic women, burn their faces if they try to get educated, make them into sex slaves, force them into marriage, selectively abort them, etc. She then goes into there and whines to the first world about gender roles. It's a perfect illustration of how out of touch the left is with reality. Am I jealous? Lolwut! I have no desire to be so delusional accepting of faux tolerant liberal views that I peddle them to ruthless dictators instead of stating the truth. Aren't liberals embarrassed, or are they really so deep in arrogance they literally can't see the ridiculousness of this. This gets better and better. Please, more liberals defend Emma Watson ' rant about gender norms in the first world to the likes of iran, north korea, China, palestine, etc. I invite you too.
highlighted part = Assumption. No where did I say it was news biased in the way it reports I am as open minded as most, having spent a great deal of time seeking out articles, books and research that is as unbiased as possible along with the outer limits of each of the sides arguments.
YES, gender roles...because gender roles contribute to sexism which contributes to the abuse of women. You are out of touch with that fact. """"""It comprises countries that traffic women, burn their faces if they try to get educated, make them into sex slaves, force them into marriage, selectively abort them"""" Awful ! Treating women like animals!!! ....can you imagine there are even people who want women to be nothing more than broodstock , they want to take away women's right to abortion!!! They want to take away something that would help women become more independent!!! To end the desperation, to escape the need for being forced to marry , to get educated! IMAGINE some people want to make women's lives even harder by insisting they give birth like slaves....
As usual, honesty and/or comprehension of written words is not your strong suit. Please show in the post of mine you quoted where the word" traders" is??? Did you imagine it? Or just make it up? Reading back through the other posts it shows that to escape addressing what you don't like you segue off on a minor point hoping no one will notice you don't have an answer...
What is your definition of an unbiased source? I'm going to sit here and try not to snicker waiting for your response. Because I know it's going to be a good one.
Perhaps a more considered, less strident analysis of what she said is appropriate. " Emma Watson launched the HeForShe campaign at the UN last week and extended a “formal invitation” to men to participate in the conversation about gender equality. “Gender equality is your issue too,” said the actor and UN Women goodwill ambassador. Watson’s speech struck a chord with many and fanned the feminist fire that is, slowly but surely, being reignited. The reason Watson invited men to join the conversation was that gender stereotypes also limit them. “Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong,” she said. But while gender stereotypes can be suffocating to men too, it is women, girls and transgender people who face the lion’s share of boundaries and limitations... " http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...equality-campaign-is-an-invitation-to-men-too
It's an opinion piece. It's supposed to be bias. Biased to the authors opinion. You are basically saying "this opinion is too opinionated, and I only read unopinionated opinions". Unbiased opinions? What will they think of next. Basically, Emma was telling third world brutality that they are no worse that the west because of "sensitivity". Faux liberal tripe, from a leftist illfeminist airhead actress. She's either a pawn of repressive slave traders, or, at best, a self righteous idiot that begs common sense people to run away from feminism, as it represents nothing but idiotic self serving celebrities, instead of, ya know, helping suffering women.
"Men and women should feel free to be more sensitive" SHOULD HAVE BEEN "women should be free to an education, without fear of beheading by government sanctioned jihadists". I hate having to spell things out for people. "Sensitive", lolwut?
Well, it looks as if some people aren't too happy about Emma's speech. So much so, hackers are threatening to post nude pics of her online. http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/09/23/emma-watson-photos-4chan-leak-threat Well, that's just horrible.
Snicker[sic] all you like (though what chocolate has to do with anything is beyond me), if by perchance you mean sn-igger then there a number of sources I use. For actual research I use the source articles that have been peer reviewed, for general news stories like the one in the OP I don't consider ANY news site as wholly unbiased, hence why I tend to look through numerous ones, put the information together and realise that the 'truth' is probably somewhere near the middle stance of all the reports. I find it disingenuous that some members here glean all their information from obviously biased sources that favour their own ideology without ever looking elsewhere and then claiming their OP is 'Fact'.
and not a very good one. then you, as a 'decent' person should have indicated that it was biased in the OP Who has obvious disrespect for anything that does not adhere to their ideology. I prefer reading things that have a balanced viewpoint, this so called story has no balance. There is bias and then there is BIAS, guess which one your OP comes under. That is your assumption without anything other than your own bias to support it. Ad hom attacks are never seen as the fore-front of decent people. Again assumption without merit.
THIS IS NOT A STORY. It's commentary. It's someone giving their opinion about her speech. I do not need to let people know that opinion pieces are biased. That is their entire purpose. How do you not get this? The funniest thing about it is that you need a bias warning, as if you are so far above bias that to read a bias opinion would upset you greatly.
Except in your OP you stated "Here's an article on the debacle" .. article - a piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication, where as a commentary is an expression of opinions or offering of explanations about an event or situation. Nice try at changing your OP .. it's called moving the goalposts, and the rest of your post is nothing more than an attempt at distraction.
Commentary can come in the form of an article. The goalposts are the same. If you sincerely are offended that an article of commentary is biased, then you need a clue.
While it would be easy to dismiss your preference for the other word as mere trite pretentiousness, methinks the more sinister truth is that you probably just like it because it's an anagram for the n-word. So then what you're saying here is that it really didn't matter what source the OP used, you would have just called it biased because he produced a source at all. Whereas your arguments are credible because they are backed by....... nothing? Merely your personal perception of what you believe to be true based on what you've selectively chosen to believe and disregard from multiple sources? Talk about odd criteria for credibility. You're essentially saying that unless someone sees things from your point of view, they are automatically wrong and they can do nothing to disprove you. Because your subjective observations are the only barometer for accuracy. Do you understand why this is silly? (This is why I was snickering, by the way. I knew your answer would be good).
Fair enough, not a word I have heard of before .. sni-gger by the way means; Laugh in a half-suppressed, typically scornful way: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/s(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) - for some reason the filter takes the word sni-gger out, stupid really. snicker in the UK is a chocolate bar. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snickers your attempt to place your own failings onto me are noted and treated with the contempt they richly deserve. No that is your assumption .. difference is I can tell what is a 100% biased site you obviously cannot. My arguments are backed up with solid research not knee jerk reactions that have certain people drooling at the mouth because it fits their own assumptions and my personal perception doesn't enter into it, it is a shame you don't have the ability to place your own bias to one side when researching issues. If I post something from a personal perspective I ALWAYS state "In my opinion" or "in my personal opinion" .. but then for some people their personal opinion over rides the reality, this OP and article being a prime example. Yet again you are attempting to place your own failings onto me, I have had numerous discussions where my point of view has been shown to be wrong .. unlike you it doesn't upset me or make me resort to making accusations without merit, in fact it means I have learnt something, unlike you I am not brain washed into only accepting what I am told to accept. I understand what you are trying to do, it is so obvious and shallow that only a fool would not see it .. by placing your own bias onto me you are attempting to lower me to your level .. it failed.
