Ten oz

The ads I see on YouTube are literally 5 seconds long, lol. Long ones you can just skip after 5 seconds. So I how no idea what they are about or what's being said. What is my definition? Did I say Corbyn used it in a sexist manner? Swing both ways. If ones makes a habit of excusing bad behavior they tend to never see bad behavior for what it is. The whole thing is relative based on one's own culture and habits. Compared to Hilter I'd say David Duke is a pro equility hippie.

I listed the insults I am familiar with and at no point claimed men don't get insulted. Different groups of people, even within the same country, speak differently. I haven't heard "stupid man" used by women. Then again you reference "tv commercials" and as I have mentioned many times in other threads I do not have cable. I watch Netflix and Amazon Prime. I don't see tv commercials so I have no frame of reference for what you're taking about. Your media consumption and thus the type of language you are exposed to is different than mine. Stubborn isn't synonymous with stupid. I have honestly never heard any of those. Most famous Chefs I can think of are men. Anthony Bourdain,, Wolfgang Puck, Jose Andres, and etc comes to mind. As for the laundry and unless without their spouse stuff I suspect those are sayings from another generation and are no longer broadly used. People waiting off longer to marry and spend more time independent as young adults have changed the structure of marriage. At least it has for the people I know. In my opinion it goes without saying that no one likes to be called. Separately I have not call the comment sexist at any point in this thread. Rather I have simply pointed out that the way people speak does matter and that different types of people have different vocabularies.

Considering Trump's Sec of Defense and the U.S. envoy in Syria resigned over it I think there is more here than just an empty announcement.

That is all relative to Trump himself and who you are reading from. As a General who had been fired by the previous administration Mattis was one of the more partisan Sec of Defense we've had. At different points throughout Trump's time in office McMaster, Cohen, Tillerson, Kelly, Mattis, and even for a short time Flynn were considered to be the adults in the room. All would have been too controversial for any Republican President other than Trump and all have been booted by Trump.

I am not sure what you by all around partisan support. Mattis is a fairly extreme figured. The Obama admin had forced him to retire and his nick name is "Mad Dog" because he is known for extreme positions. Only relative to Trump is Mattis viewed as something resembling a moderate or non-partisan figure. That is how bad things are here, so bad that yesterday's extremists are viewed as moderates today due to the curve Trump puts on the scale.

Here in the U.S. the Sec of Defense and Chief of Staff (both retired Generals) have very recently stepped down over differences they had with Trump over military related foreign policy. At this moment I have no idea which advisers Trump's accepts insight from. I don't even know who is in the room anymore. So while I would like to hope that my govt is quietly supporting the Ukraine and that the Royal Naval is operating in the Black Sea with U.S. support (full operational logistics) I do not know if that is true.

Saudi Arabia is fighting a proxy war against Iran in Yemen. It does appear that may spread into Syria. How that all plays out is several levels above my comprehension. Accurate an consistent news from Yemen is hard to come by and the long term desires of Russia (Iran's and Syria's benefactor) is unknown to me. There are a whole lot of moving parts going on at the moment. Very scary times.

England has sent a war ship to the Black Sea to show support for the Ukraine. I wish there was a more organized effort including all Allies.

Turkey appears ready to quickly jump into the vacuum the U.S. pull out of Syria is about to create.

The way things have been going here your comment could be perceived as a compliment.

Actually I haven't. Culturally here in the U.S. among the people I have been around throughout my life "stupid man" isn't something I recall. I have heard a**hole and d*ck countless times. Those two slurs are pretty much always gender specific towards men. However neither challenges a man's intelligence. Both those slurs primarily criticize aggressive and pushy behavior. Gender specific criticisms of men don't typically challenge intelligence. There are even gender specific ones that concede intelligence while criticizing other behavior like Wise Guy and Smart Aleck. That said different slang in prominent in different areas and we (you and I) live in different countries. So our experience will be different. *Edit - I have heard women say things like "he's just a boy" to imply someone behaves stupid or immaturely. There really isn't an equivalent for women. She's just a girl doesn't really mean anything.

A lot of different countries have skin in game. Obviously Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are directly involved but EU members are as well. The Syrian refugee crisis have significantly impacted Italy, France, England, and Germany. Unilateral withdraw is a mistake. Beyond what it may or may not do with regards to ISIS what it may do to our allies and future relationships needs to be considered as well.

Here is an interview with the FBI profiler that helped catch the Unabomber. In it he explains how the FBI was able to determine the Unabomber's age and where he was brought up based of the Unabomber's use of words like "broad" and "chick". Link The way people speak does say a lot about them. If someone calls using the toilet using the Loo you'd assume they were from England. If they called the toilet the Head you'd assume military. I have only ever heard Washroom rather than Bathroom used by older people. language is very nuanced. You may feel "stupid woman" is an ambiguous remark but I have never heard a Woman refer to another woman as a "stupid woman". I have heard other insults but not that one specifically. "Stupid woman" is most typically used by men. Assuming you accept (more commonly used by men) that why would that be so? I went hiking yesterday with a friend of mine and his 2 daughters ages 11 & 13. The two daughters had numerous little inside phrases that only mean anything in context to each other. Two people speaking the exact same words can have totally separate meanings. When someone tells me Merry Christmas they can be wishing me good cheer or they could be making a religious based political statement. Moreover key words become weaponized in politics all the time. I am not familiar enough with politics in England to have any sense for which key weaponized words and phrases Corbyn would use. I personally don't find "stupid woman" purposefully offensive but I am not the one who said it. Ultimately this is why public figures should be careful when they open their mouths.

You're implying that interpretation is a bad thing and ignoring how common it is to human communication. Much of what people say cannot be understood literally. Metaphors, gestures, analogies, sarcasm, exaggeration, subtly, and so on require interpretation to be understood. The way one chooses to use certain gestures, sarcasm, and etc can be inappropriate or offensive depending on the environment. As previously mentioned that is one of the reasons why employers interview for jobs. A resume contains all the formal bits that outline ones eligibility for a position. Regardless of what ones history is on paper employers still make interpretations about fitness for employment based on face to face conversations. One can never read another person's mind. True intention behind a statement can never be known for a certainty. We are always interpreting what others mean. In politics communication is one the primary skills. The most educated candidate in world with all the best ideas stands little chance of being elected if they communicate in a way people find awkward or cannot relate to. Choosing to say affirmative rather than yes even if either is accurate can be enough to give people misgivings or rally them to ones side. I personally do not find what Jeremy Corbyn said sexist. However I am not British or well versed in the common speech patterns of Corbyn's audience. Just as key words in U.S. politics often mean something deeper so too do certain words of phrases in England. Dog whistles are designed to only be heard by specific individuals. I do not speak in Corbyn's regional dialect. Additionally the statement doesn't have to be intentionally sexist to be sexist. Everything is relative after all. Many of Saudi Arabia's most progressive men are sexist by western standards.

Sure I would make the case for myself in whatever way I thought was most effective. What else would there be to do? I don't understand where you are going with this. I can't stop people from think bad things about me or prevent them from voicing their thoughts.

Everyone makes their own judgements. People don't uniformly make the same judgements. Just because you judge me one way doesn't mean "others" will as well. If they do that is my cross to bare. Complaining won't change it.

Now that the scale of Russian interference in both the U.S. 2016 election and Brexit Putin has jumped in complaining that the will of voted is being "disrespected". One really can't make this stuff up.

If you think I am an ignorant bigot there is nothing I can do about it. I have no control over your thoughts.

If you interpreted offense in my last post than I would guess we (you and I) view the world very differently. It wouldn't make you wrong. What offends you offends you. I have no right to say what you should or should not be offend by. That is why it is very important to know and understand ones audience when speaking. Different things upset different people. Very few things, perhaps nothing, in this world are interpreted the same way by everyone.

@MigL language is meant to be interpreted. People use language to communicate to others. What people say is absolutely something often used to judge them. That is why employers interview applicants for example. The way people speak and what they say does say a lot about them. Use of language was how the FBI developed an accurate profile (race, age, education) of the Unabomber.

How people speak says a lot about them. Whether it is comedians complaining about certain audiences not getting their jokes or politicians claiming to be misunderstood I am tired of arguments against the importance of language. The reality is language does reflect attitude, culture, worldview, education level, age, and etc. Linguistic analyse is a real field of study. There are various words and phrases that are more common among individuals of certain beliefs. Since Radio and Television people have been able to hear and see politicians in real time. In previous eras a politician's words would filter through many editors before being seen and heard by general audiences. Today politicians no longer have such luxuries. That said I think with each passing decade public figures have increasing amounts of freedom. Just 50yrs ago sweating on TV or being overheard cursing would destroy a career. People today complain about being accused of 'isms but I think the bar is far lower today than it once was. Public figures once had to have nearly perfect posture, dress, enunciation, etc. Today politicians are often free to ditch formal clothes, speak loosely, and make a few grammatical errors. In politics there is always opposition. Corbin has detractors. All politician's do. Of course those who Corbin called stupid are upset about it. Of course those who oppose Corbin attack him for it. It's the nature of the beast. Next time Corbin might be more careful or if he feels such language motivates his supporters he might double down on it.

Turkey appears to be considering new rounds of troop deployments into Syria citing the a failure on the part of the U.S. to handle security threats in the region, Link. Meanwhile in the U.S. the White House is looking to withdraw from Syria with POTUS proclaiming (via tweet) that ISIS has been defeated in Syria and that ISIS was "only reason for being there", Link. Current developments make the future uncertain. It seems that despite repeated use of chemical weapons Assad while go unpunished and his power in the region buoyed by Russia will be solidified. I have no idea what, if any role, the U.S. will play moving forward.

Yet that isn't how you two met. You two knowingly agreed to a date. The what if game can be played in any number of directions. What if you were both born in Saudi Arabia, what if you were both women, what if she was a cop and you robber, etc, etc, etc. My parents met at work. They both essentially had the same job in the 70's. My father switched shifts prior to asking my mom on a date. After switching shift they were never at work at the same time. Once they were dating my father transferred to a different office in another city. That was 4 decades ago yet they had enough sense to not just carry on together at work. On more general note Tyson isn't claiming to have dated, attempted to date, or even flirted with his assistant. It provides Tyson a defense he isn't even making for himself to imply it would be okay had he been making a move on his assistant.

Among enlisted members the rule for dating is that members should be within 2 ranks (up or down) of each other. There are numerous cavets however. Members would be expected to separate just because one is promoted. There are also cavets for enlisted & officer relations as sometimes one is already married to an enlisted members at the time of their commissioning. My piont was that it is common for rules related to dating fellow co-workers to be in place and those of high stature dating co-workers of lower stature is often frowned upon. My point here was just that I think Tyson's behavior with his assistant was out of line with what would be tolerated among his peers in a ademia. I already criticized Clinton in this thread. So bringing him up again in a whataboutism manner makes no sense to me.

POTUS is the Commander in Chief and over the State Department. Congress can remove funding and pass laws prohibiting U.S. assets being utilized but those actions will require further action. In the short term this doesn't prevent POTUS from anything specific.