In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I'd be surprised noone has been convicted of swatting, since it clearly is a crime, and a felony at that. While it's pretty hard to catch the perpetrators; I'd think someone woulda been caught by now.
On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote: Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements.
Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
It's not THAT prevalent, not like its happening all day every day. So if its super hard to catch the person in the first place, plus its only happened a hand full of times really the conviction rate is going to be close to nil.
But the case that everyone talks about is made up.
On May 01 2016 11:26 OuchyDathurts wrote: To my knowledge no one has ever been convicted of SWATing yet. The story that kept making the rounds before is a load of shit.
On May 01 2016 11:26 OuchyDathurts wrote: To my knowledge no one has ever been convicted of SWATing yet. The story that kept making the rounds before is a load of shit.
Watched Obama's final White House Correspondence Dinner... it's amazing how hilarious and eloquent of an orator he still is after all these years... and he literally dropped the mic on his way out!
New Hampshire’s Republican establishment is trying to limit the influence of Donald Trump supporters at the party’s crucial national convention in July despite the presidential frontrunner having won the state’s primary overwhelmingly.
In an email obtained by the Guardian, the state’s Republican leadership proposed a slate where the delegate chair and every committee slot would be filled by supporters of other candidates.
Trump won overwhelmingly in the Granite State’s February primary with 35% of the vote. His nearest competitor, John Kasich, only received 15% of the vote in the state’s first-in-the-nation primary. Under New Hampshire’s relatively proportional rules, where any candidate who gets over 10% of the vote receives delegates, Trump was awarded 11 of the state’s 23 delegates.
But the email sent by state party executive director Ross Berry on Saturday evening appears to be an attempt to deny the real estate mogul’s supporters such influence.
Berry has proposed a slate that includes two supporters apiece of John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz and one supporter of Marco Rubio. The eighth slot is left unfilled. Delegates now have less than 48 hours to vote for an alternative. Any delegate wishing to vote for an alternative candidate is required to go through the time-consuming process of voting for a full slate of new candidates.
“If you are NOT voting for the slate, you MUST include the name for each of the positions listed,” it says.
While the Trump campaign has faced a multitude of challenges with delegate selection in states where that process is separate from the primary election, delegates are picked directly by the campaign in New Hampshire. This means that every delegate bound to Trump on the first ballot has been hand chosen by the real estate mogul’s campaign.
On April 30 2016 09:29 oBlade wrote: [quote] Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care?
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
On May 01 2016 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watched Obama's final White House Correspondence Dinner... it's amazing how hilarious and eloquent of an orator he still is after all these years... and he literally dropped the mic on his way out!
This man should the the highest grossing inflation adjusted former president just through speech fees alone
On May 01 2016 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watched Obama's final White House Correspondence Dinner... it's amazing how hilarious and eloquent of an orator he still is after all these years... and he literally dropped the mic on his way out!
This man should the the highest grossing inflation adjusted former president just through speech fees alone
Larry Wilmore bombed so hard I almost felt bad for the guy. Don't think I've cringed that much since the situation roasted Trump.
On May 01 2016 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watched Obama's final White House Correspondence Dinner... it's amazing how hilarious and eloquent of an orator he still is after all these years... and he literally dropped the mic on his way out!
This man should the the highest grossing inflation adjusted former president just through speech fees alone
Larry Wilmore bombed so hard I almost felt bad for the guy. Don't think I've cringed that much since the situation roasted Trump.
That is exactly the comparison I used last night. Oh man.
On May 01 2016 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watched Obama's final White House Correspondence Dinner... it's amazing how hilarious and eloquent of an orator he still is after all these years... and he literally dropped the mic on his way out!
This man should the the highest grossing inflation adjusted former president just through speech fees alone
On April 30 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote: [quote] I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
On April 30 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote: [quote] I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies.
I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument.
It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy.
I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
Please let me try to explain it. Kwizach is not saying that Trump actually deserves blame for this lady doing a nazi salute. He is saying that the lady is doing a nazi salute. You have been saying that she was not doing a nazi salute. Kwizach at no point inferred guilt on Trump's behalf due to this salute, he is merely requesting that you at least show the willingness to admit that what this lady is doing, is a nazi salute. You don't have to draw any conclusions based on this, you don't have to consider trump a nazi, or the lady a nazi (she might have not known what she was doing), you just have to admit that this is what a nazi salute looks like. Whether or not there's any type of correlation between her nazi salute and her ideological beliefs, or between her ideological beliefs and Trump's ideological beliefs, that is an entirely different question (just to be clear, I personally think this is more likely to speak of this lady's ignorance than of her being a nazi, and I don't think Trump is guilty by association in this particular case).
It's kinda like, say there's a guy at a bernie sanders rally wearing a che guevara tshirt with a 'marxists around the world unite' slogan underneath the picture. Then some guy who is not a fan of bernie sanders says 'look at this, there's a guy wearing a marxist shirt'. And then, the equivalent of you in this discussion, chimes in to say 'what, this is not a marxist tshirt, bernie is not an actual communist, he can't control what everyone in his huge audiences wears or how they salute'. And then the equivalent of kwizach goes 'dude, that is clearly a marxist tshirt. You don't have to infer any guilt by association because of this, but you cannot deny that this is actually a marxist tshirt'.
EPT
