Katie Britt SOTU response (split from Political Humor)

[CharonY]

I don't understand the thought process in filming the rebuttal in a kitchen. Also boo to geolocks.

[TheVat]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I don't understand the thought process in filming the rebuttal in a kitchen. Also boo to geolocks.

A woman's place is in the kitchen.  Katie's true calling is wife and mommy - the Senator thing is just a hobby that the Patriarch of the Home has kindly permitted her to do.  

Never underestimate the regressiveness of the American right-wing.  

Sorry you couldn't access the SNL video.  If I can find an all-region version, will post it.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

A woman's place is in the kitchen.  Katie's true calling is wife and mommy - the Senator thing is just a hobby that the Patriarch of the Home has kindly permitted her to do.  

Never underestimate the regressiveness of the American right-wing.  

Sorry you couldn't access the SNL video.  If I can find an all-region version, will post it.  

Here's a better...oh wait no...that's Elizabeth Warren

Maybe she's just a Elizabeth Warren Wannabe?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here's a better...oh wait no...that's Elizabeth Warren

And your point is…?

[iNow]

That we’re hypocrites who laugh at one Senator but respect and give a pass to another who obviously did the EXACT same thing.

The additional insinuation is that we as a group at SFN do this since we’re insincere partisan hacks who only see the letter beside the Senators names and can’t be bothered watching their conduct or beliefs or voting records.

He just wanted to poke us a bit with a rhetorical twig. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

And your point is…?

 

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

That we’re hypocrites who laugh at one Senator but respect and give a pass to another who obviously did the EXACT same thing.

The additional insinuation is that we as a group at SFN do this since we’re insincere partisan hacks who only see the letter beside the Senators names and can’t be bothered watching their conduct or beliefs or voting records.

He just wanted to poke us a bit with a rhetorical twig. 

That one.

This is the political humour thread, after all. (Though the youtube I posted is rather well done, I have no disrespect for Elizabeth Warren)

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

That we’re hypocrites who laugh at one Senator but respect and give a pass to another who obviously did the EXACT same thing.

Exact same thing? I didn’t realize that Warren cooked a dish/baked a pie as part of a SOTU response at the behest of her party. And that Britt was giving cooking advice. Yes, they are both women in a kitchen. But calling it the EXACT same thing is to paint this with so broad of a brush so as to lose all meaning.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Exact same thing? I didn’t realize that Warren cooked a dish/baked a pie as part of a SOTU response at the behest of her party. And that Britt was giving cooking advice. Yes, they are both women in a kitchen. But calling it the EXACT same thing is to paint this with so broad of a brush so as to lose all meaning.

 

You tell him Swansont!

...and don't let him get away with "insincere partisan hacks" thing either!

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You tell him Swansont!

...and don't let him get away with "insincere partisan hacks" thing either!

iNow’s response is likely satire of the expected response. Does your point differ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

iNow’s response is likely satire of the expected response. Does your point differ?

Substantially yes. Which was why I didn't sign on to it but admitted to the "poke with a rhetorical twig".

To wit:

I don't see it as the EXACT same thing, just that I was well aware of Warren's use of the kitchen as a political setting. Nor do I fault her for it.

I don't consider any of us insincere partisan hacks, nor do I think you all can't be bothered watching their conduct or beliefs or voting records.

But I think we can be biased.

Not that I believed Vat's hyperbole was intended as any more serious than INow's satire.

Plus I thought it was funny.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But I think we can be biased

Yes everybody is. But it would be improper to appeal to bias in order to dismiss legitimate criticism. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes everybody is. But it would be improper to appeal to bias in order to dismiss legitimate criticism. 

Here is the "legitimate criticism" you're defending?

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

I don't understand the thought process in filming the rebuttal in a kitchen. Also boo to geolocks.

A woman's place is in the kitchen.  Katie's true calling is wife and mommy - the Senator thing is just a hobby that the Patriarch of the Home has kindly permitted her to do.  

Never underestimate the regressiveness of the American right-wing.  

Sorry you couldn't access the SNL video.  If I can find an all-region version, will post it.  

I don't know much about Katie Britt, but I doubt that was her thought process in choosing to do the rebuttal from her kitchen.

Whatever Vat, or INow, might think of her politics, I very much doubt they believe it was either.

Maybe you can explain why you believe it is, or for some reason want to defend it as "legitimate criticism".

Surely you're joking, Mr. Swansont!

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here is the "legitimate criticism" you're defending?

Criticism exist outside of SFN threads.

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't know much about Katie Britt, but I doubt that was her thought process in choosing to do the rebuttal from her kitchen.

Whatever Vat, or INow, might think of her politics, I very much doubt they believe it was either.

Maybe you can explain why you believe it is, or for some reason want to defend it as "legitimate criticism".

Surely you're joking, Mr. Swansont!

 

How much of this was her thought process? She was not alone in this - one does not simply walk into a SOTU response - and since this is the view of the MAGA crowd I don’t have reason to doubt this was part of the thought process. The question is, why do you? Because of all the respect and support they show for women who don’t toe their line?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Criticism exist outside of SFN threads.

How much of this was her thought process? She was not alone in this - one does not simply walk into a SOTU response - and since this is the view of the MAGA crowd I don’t have reason to doubt this was part of the thought process. The question is, why do you? Because of all the respect and support they show for women who don’t toe their line?

 

I guess because I thought it was obvious that it was intended to make the Senator seem "down to Earth", someone voters would feel they could relate to.

Why do you think Elizabeth Warren used the kitchen for political purposes? Why do you think she would do that if she thought it might purvey a message of encouraging female subordination? She obviously thought it would make her seem less stiff and academic. I don't think she would have done at at the expense of equality for women.

The current Republicans don't show much respect for themselves, their religion, or their claimed values, when they toe the line with Trump, IMO, but I don't think "putting a woman in the kitchen" was what they were selling with their SOTU response.

Trumps MAGA crowd can only vote once.

 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trumps MAGA crowd can only vote once.

I’m certain they’re actively looking for ways to change that, most likely under the guise of election integrity 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess because I thought it was obvious that it was intended to make the Senator seem "down to Earth", someone voters would feel they could relate to.

Why do you think Elizabeth Warren used the kitchen for political purposes? Why do you think she would do that if she thought it might purvey a message of encouraging female subordination? She obviously thought it would make her seem less stiff and academic. I don't think she would have done at at the expense of equality for women.

I missed the part where Sen Britt cooked some food, but I didn’t watch the whole thing. What dish did she prepare? Was it before or after she misrepresented the human trafficking story?

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The current Republicans don't show much respect for themselves, their religion, or their claimed values, when they toe the line with Trump, IMO, but I don't think "putting a woman in the kitchen" was what they were selling with their SOTU response.

There are a number of people who do, including at least one republican senator (Tuberville - she was picked as a housewife)

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I missed the part where Sen Britt cooked some food, but I didn’t watch the whole thing. What dish did she prepare? 

So...you're saying it's okay if woman is there cooking, but not campaigning? Surely not!

Here just for you is a photo of Warren campaigning, not cooking, in her kitchen:

 

Cheers!

   

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Was it before or after she misrepresented the human trafficking story?

 

That's certainly a more credible line of "legitimate criticism", IMO.

Edited March 12 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So...you're saying it's okay if woman is there cooking, but not campaigning? Surely not!

Surely if I had said that you could provide a quote of me saying it.

Quote

Here just for you is a photo of Warren campaigning, not cooking, in her kitchen:

The SOTU is not a campaign event. If Britt had wanted to do what she did and put it up on her website as part of a campaign, that would be one thing. But this was the GOP’s response (not Britt’s personal response) to the SOTU. 

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess because I thought it was obvious that it was intended to make the Senator seem "down to Earth", someone voters would feel they could relate to.

Why do you think Elizabeth Warren used the kitchen for political purposes? Why do you think she would do that if she thought it might purvey a message of encouraging female subordination? She obviously thought it would make her seem less stiff and academic. I don't think she would have done at at the expense of equality for women.

I think it is obvious that context matters. In campaign tour, it is appropriate to be folksy. In the context of a state of the union address and rebuttal you would expect things to be more formal. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think it is obvious that context matters. In campaign tour, it is appropriate to be folksy. In the context of a state of the union address and rebuttal you would expect things to be more formal. 

Yes. But it not being so doesn't lead to what I see as Vat's hyperbole, that he has yet to double down on...unlike Swansont, who claims it's legitimate criticism. (his term for it)

On 3/11/2024 at 2:16 PM, TheVat said:

A woman's place is in the kitchen.  Katie's true calling is wife and mommy - the Senator thing is just a hobby that the Patriarch of the Home has kindly permitted her to do.  

Never underestimate the regressiveness of the American right-wing.  

Sorry you couldn't access the SNL video.  If I can find an all-region version, will post it.  

 

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Surely if I had said that you could provide a quote of me saying it.

 

Thus the "?) and the "Surely not")

You read far more into my words than is actually there...with a little help from INow even when I make it clear I don't agree with it.

Not that I ever claimed Warren and Britt were doing the EXACT same thing in the kitchen...I clearly stated otherwise.

But it's hardly a stretch to consider both the SOTU address, and the SOTU response, very much in part campaign speeches.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. But it not being so doesn't lead to what I see as Vat's hyperbole, that he has yet to double down on...unlike Swansont, who claims it's legitimate criticism. (his term for it)

Where did I specify any particular blurb as legitimate criticism? 

If you’re going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I’m out. No point in responding to bad-faith posting.

 

[MigL]

Previous to JC's humorous response showing a couple of pics of E Warren in a kitchen, there were only two posts.

This one

On 3/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, CharonY said:

I don't understand the thought process in filming the rebuttal in a kitchen. Also boo to geolocks.

by CbharonY, and this one

On 3/11/2024 at 1:16 PM, TheVat said:

A woman's place is in the kitchen.  Katie's true calling is wife and mommy - the Senator thing is just a hobby that the Patriarch of the Home has kindly permitted her to do.  
Never underestimate the regressiveness of the American right-wing.  

by TheVat.

This is how you characterized JC's response

21 hours ago, swansont said:

But it would be improper to appeal to bias in order to dismiss legitimate criticism. 

I think JC would like clarification as to which of the two posts you believe to be 'legitimate criticism'.
And why then deny making that statement ?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where did I specify any particular blurb as legitimate criticism? 

Was  'appealing to bias justified, or are we going to get more tap dancing ?

Edited March 12 by MigL

[swansont]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

This is how you characterized JC's response

No, that’s my response to the comment about bias. Had I wanted to characterize a response, I would have quoted the response.

The thing is, JC merely said I think we can be biased - it’s not an accusation that either of the criticisms in the thread were based on bias. Yet my response is somehow is? I don’t get it. 

 

”But it would be improper to appeal to bias in order to dismiss legitimate criticism.”

Note the future tense. Not present or past. Because such appeals happen. There’s an attitude that criticism of republicans doesn’t have to be addressed because democrats are biased.

 

Quote

I think JC would like clarification as to which of the two posts you believe to be 'legitimate criticism'.
And why then deny making that statement ?

I did. I wasn’t referring to either of them. I said that not all criticism appears here. 

 

Having said that, the suggestion here is that the comments in this thread aren’t legitimate criticism. Why not? What makes the criticism illegitimate? One isn’t permitted to not understand a thought process? That’s not legitimate?

There aren’t folks in the GOP that treat women as lesser people? That the GOP hasn’t embraced taking rights away from them?  They don’t argue against equal pay for women because men “need to make enough to support their families and allow the Mother to remain in the home to raise and nurture the children”?

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/02/141695/utah-republican-argues-against-equal-pay

MTG didn’t say “We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex, we are the weaker sex, but we are our partner’s, our husband’s wife“? Perhaps she was misquoted.

The current speaker of the house once blamed mass shootings on “no-fault divorce, feminism, abortion, and other expansions of social rights that took place in the 20th century.” (quote from article, not directly from the speaker)

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-johnson-speaker-shootings-abortion-b2437378.html

But sure, the right wing isn’t regressive. Claiming it’s not legitimate to say so is a rock-solid position to take.

 

(It’s not like TheVat was alone in their view

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-03-08/cultural-commentary-bidens-2024-state-of-the-union

And quite a few republicans hated Britt’s performance

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvasDkMWdXg )

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

(It’s not like TheVat was alone in their view

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-03-08/cultural-commentary-bidens-2024-state-of-the-union

 

If the lady that wrote that opinion piece for the LA Times thinks holding the response in the kitchen is regressive she might find better examples by looking in the mirror.

From the link:

"The 42-year-old rising GOP star wore a understated solid-green blouse, a no-nonsense hairdo and minimal makeup. But the look was so generic, she could have been a nonspecific character in a pharmaceutical ad if only she were gathering flowers at an outdoor market or riding a bike in a sleeveless shirt to celebrate the retreat of her moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis."

Of course, maybe that's just her thing and she would have equally picked apart the look of any Republican male that might have given the response.

I saw little of what I would consider legitimate criticism in that article. Maybe that's just me.

...no need to point out though...that Trump is so much worse it baffles me how any reasonable person could bring themselves to vote for him.

[iNow]

Who said anything about voters being reasonable?