| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44654 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:19 biology]major wrote: I have't been watching too much today, will tune in to Bill Clinton's speech. Did they mention terrorism, or ISIS yet? They're talking about 9/11 now so yes, but not more recent stuff. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:19 biology]major wrote: I have't been watching too much today, will tune in to Bill Clinton's speech. Did they mention terrorism, or ISIS yet? Outside of 9/11, no. I think that the real focus on foreign policy is coming Thursday. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:14 zlefin wrote: hard to say; I would have liked to have more people in the primary. It is pretty common that the reason some people look good is because noone is attacking them. I mean, some people have extremely high approval ratings, because they're not in a position of actual power so noone has a reason to attack them. Or because all they do is very unobjectionable things. e.g. first ladies usually have much higher approval ratings than the president; because they're attacked less and usually all their activism is put on something unobjectionable. That doesn't mean they're much better people or more qualified for the job. For sure, I agree with you. More people would have been great to develop the stances better in debates and such. In the Republican race you have four very distinct voices... with the Democrats you had a very progressive movement and Hillary, I dunno, I'm not a fan. Not enough attention was brought to the non-social issues imo. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44654 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:17 xDaunt wrote: This 9/11 shit is lame as can be. I think this guy is making an important point though- that Hillary fought to help first responders, while Trump used 9/11 as a payday. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this guy is making an important point though- that Hillary fought to help first responders, while Trump used 9/11 as a payday. And that bill to assist first responders is still stalled out in the house if I remember correctly. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:21 FiWiFaKi wrote: For sure, I agree with you. More people would have been great to develop the stances better in debates and such. In the Republican race you have four very distinct voices... with the Democrats you had a very progressive movement and Hillary, I dunno, I'm not a fan. Not enough attention was brought to the non-social issues imo. you also had the 2-3 people who couldn't get any traction at all and dropped out pretty fast. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Just seems to be the mistake of the entire Hillary campaign; she's pandering to literally everything and it's making each individual issue she pushes less meaningful. She's stretched too thin and I think from a purely campaign-oriented perspective it's going to really hurt her in November. It just makes it worse that her trustworthiness is already so low | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23322 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think this guy is making an important point though- that Hillary fought to help first responders, while Trump used 9/11 as a payday. Remember how hard she fought to get it reinstated? I don't think those folks generally buy that nonsense. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44654 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:16 GGTeMpLaR wrote: There is a difference between saying Louis C.K. said that word in a racist, insulting way and Louis C.K. said that word in a way that is racially charged Read the parent quotes of what I was responding to from Doodsmack before continuing to argue against a position I don't hold edit: I will say I disagree with your underlined point though. I think it's easily possible to say it in a way that isn't racial Can you please give some examples of ways that "nigger" can be used non-racially? It's defined as an ethic slur towards black people, so it's a racial term by definition. "1. offensive; see usage paragraph below — used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a black person 2. offensive; see usage paragraph below — used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a member of any dark-skinned race: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger "In the English language, the word "nigger" is an ethnic slur, usually directed at black people. The word originated as a neutral term referring to people with black skin,[1] as a variation of the Spanish and Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger ("black").[2] It was often used derogatorily, and by the mid-twentieth century, particularly in the United States, its usage became unambiguously pejorative, a racist insult. Accordingly, it began to disappear from popular culture, and its continued inclusion in classic works of literature has sparked controversy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger (Bolded parts are my own.) As far as I'm aware, the word "nigger" always has racial overtones, and the only way I can think of for a white person to use the term that isn't racist is if, in a history lesson, it's merely being explained that the word "nigger" has historically been used in a derogatory manner, and is today. So the history teacher isn't being a racist per se, but is purposely using the word to explain its racial etymology in an educational setting. Of course, this is still using the term racially, just not racistly. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44654 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:25 Plansix wrote: And that bill to assist first responders is still stalled out in the house if I remember correctly. Despite Hillary Clinton's and Jon Stewart's best efforts... thanks Republicans  | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23322 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Despite Hillary Clinton's and Jon Stewart's best efforts... thanks Republicans If that was her best effort I'm thoroughly unimpressed at her ability "get stuff done", I think those needing the bill feel similarly. John did more work in one day than Hillary did in total regarding the reauthorization. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44654 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote: If that was her best effort I'm thoroughly unimpressed at her ability "get stuff done", I think those needing the bill feel similarly. You know full well that those bills need to be voted on  | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44654 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:31 radscorpion9 wrote: oh how quaint. A little person! The democratic party is really inviting everyone under the sun Both conventions have invited a lot of very interesting people. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Can you please give some examples of ways that "nigger" can be used non-racially? It's defined as an ethic slur towards black people, so it's a racial term by definition. "1. offensive; see usage paragraph below — used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a black person 2. offensive; see usage paragraph below — used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a member of any dark-skinned race: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger "In the English language, the word "nigger" is an ethnic slur, usually directed at black people. The word originated as a neutral term referring to people with black skin,[1] as a variation of the Spanish and Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger ("black").[2] It was often used derogatorily, and by the mid-twentieth century, particularly in the United States, its usage became unambiguously pejorative, a racist insult. Accordingly, it began to disappear from popular culture, and its continued inclusion in classic works of literature has sparked controversy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger (Bolded parts are my own.) As far as I'm aware, the word "nigger" always has racial overtones, and the only way I can think of for a white person to use the term that isn't racist is if, in a history lesson, it's merely being explained that the word "nigger" has historically been used in a derogatory manner, and is today. So the history teacher isn't being a racist per se, but is purposely using the word to explain its racial etymology in an educational setting. I've been called nigger randomly by one of my stupid white friends online being a complete goofball and I don't think he had any intention of demeaning blacks by doing so - he was just being a dork It's really not difficult to imagine if you come to the conclusion that language isn't an objective truth I still don't use the word for social taboo reasons but I don't think that sort of religious 'oh my god that word is bad you can't say that' is rational at all. I literally just ignored the fact that my friend used it like that and didn't care; I knew he didn't mean anything racist by it. Especially when you add on 'well, you can say it if you're black and it's okay, but if you aren't black you can never say it or youre insulting blacks and a racist', which I think makes it an even less rational position You've got what I would call 'voldemort syndrome' | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23322 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You know full well that those bills need to be voted on Which is why Hillary used her political influence and presence to help John save those people's lives... Oh wait, that's not what she did, she said practically nothing while they died off until she was ready to take credit for passing the bill which she watched fade away with little more than a blog post. You know that's disgusting politics manifest, please don't lower yourself to dismissing/minimizing it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2016 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Rofl Dean, now if Hillary loses it's all his screams fault. Which is why Hillary used her political influence and presence to help John save those people's lives... Oh wait, that's not what she did, she said practically nothing while they died off until she was ready to take credit for passing the bill which she watched fade away with little more than a blog post. You know that's disgusting politics manifest, please don't lower yourself to dismissing/minimizing it. Wow, you have gone full troll. Got take a nap or something. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
(not that I know enough about this particular bill to know if that's what's going on, it's just an observation, but I kind of trust the people on the stage because they're not good enough speakers to be in the pocket of Clinton at first glance) | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Trump is running on immigration, terrorism, and trade deals and basically saying f the rest. Meanwhile at dnc no mention of any of those things. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
