|
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. |
On June 07 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 05:05 NewSunshine wrote:On June 07 2017 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 04:56 Sermokala wrote:
Edit xDaunt you have as much responsibility to correct people on what you mean as others do when they're confused about what you mean. You can make the point that it's ambiguous to if she literaly ment it or not the same way that trump tweets things. Looks pretty clear to me in this case that I explicitly stated that the issue was the sentiment behind the statement rather than a literal reading of the statement itself. I can't help it if people are going to ignore my posts. Of course what you say is going to be clear to yourself. What kind of argument is that for people misunderstanding your posts? If you're not being clear enough, and there is a miscommunication, does it not behoove you to make it clearer, instead of folding your arms and saying they should know better? If anyone is going to ignore your posts, that's probably why. Just from a reasonable-human-being-having-a-reasonable-conversation perspective. I made a post where I literally said "are we really going to pretend that she doesn't mean and believe precisely the obvious sentiment that is behind that phrase," and I'm the one who is to be held responsible for people not being able to grasp that I don't think that she literally thinks that white people are terrorists? Are you shitting me? Igne put it best a year ago or so when he said that people need to read others' posts with a little bit of charity. We're well outside of that minimum threshold here and into the realm of willful stupidity.
Did this ever get answered?
On June 07 2017 03:07 Plansix wrote:
What was she replying to when she said that? Because the full tweet says “you should make a shirt that says “being white is terrorism”.
Also, I had to read an Infowars article, so need a shower.
Because the quoted tweet is a reply to Kanye West, as far as I can tell. I might be wrong If we are going to talk about the “Obvious meaning” can we discuss it in the context of who she was replying to? Replies to Kanye West on twitter might not be 100% serious.
|
United States43799 Posts
On June 07 2017 05:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:
"Obvious sentiment behind the phrase" becomes not so obvious when you're not referring to the literal meaning of the phrase. That's the only way I can reconcile your statements, and it's confusing as all hell to read if that's what you're going with. Like seriously, it doesn't matter what your point is, if your word choice is misleading then your point isn't what comes across. No, I'm not going to accept this and here's why: what people did here (and do routinely) was take what I said and automatically ascribe the dumbest possible interpretation to it. And when there is some ambiguity in what I post, the response from posters is almost never (with the exception of very few posters) "xDaunt, do you mean this?" It's always "let's strawman the living fuck out of xDaunt's post in the worst possible way." That's what I object to.
Kanye's views on race are well known and established. The fact that it was a proposed t-shirt for Kanye is an extremely material fact which you glossed over.
Likewise the link between popular perceptions and media presentations of terrorism and race is an extremely well known and established issue. It is certainly fair to say that the skin colour of the perpetrator is a factor in whether or not an individual is branded a terrorist. A lot of the time being brown does quite literally make someone a terrorist.
What you did was quoted an infowars article that ignored both of the above and stated that her view was literally that "being white makes you a terrorist". Firstly, that's not what she said. Secondly, she was proposing that Kanye state that, she was putting words in his mouth, not her own. Thirdly, if we're talking Kanye then we need to look at the wider context of his statements on race. Fourthly, we need to examine the overall cultural conversation on how race alters the presentation of reality.
If I were to say "xDaunt, you should get a t-shirt that says "BLM act like a bunch of monkeys"" then it would be wrong to characterize me as having said that BLM act like a bunch of monkeys. What you are doing is the same mistake.
|
On June 07 2017 05:23 Schmobutzen wrote:
Kwark, you just make it too easy. Of course no, not all white people are complicit in the systemic racial problems against the blacks! That is an oversimplification! And yes, such a statement can be seen as racist as well.
Not the level of annoying behaviour whilst protesting is the point, although there is a point when the means override the ends, rather the demands and underlying racist policy of it.
I like my world in spe without racism, so I think of any movement in that direction should begin with the mindset of eradication of that and not taking some of those principles and turn them, to a further usage as a weapon.
Yup, GH uses broad brush labels and then assigns guilt to people based on skin color etc. It is racism, but ofc with enough definition twisting and making up new words, you can easily escape labels.
|
United States43799 Posts
On June 07 2017 05:36 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 05:23 Schmobutzen wrote:
Kwark, you just make it too easy. Of course no, not all white people are complicit in the systemic racial problems against the blacks! That is an oversimplification! And yes, such a statement can be seen as racist as well.
Not the level of annoying behaviour whilst protesting is the point, although there is a point when the means override the ends, rather the demands and underlying racist policy of it.
I like my world in spe without racism, so I think of any movement in that direction should begin with the mindset of eradication of that and not taking some of those principles and turn them, to a further usage as a weapon. Yup, GH uses broad brush labels and then assigns guilt to people based on skin color etc. It is racism, but ofc with enough definition twisting and making up new words, you can easily escape labels.
I'd like to say that I'm not complicit in American racism, after all, I've only been here a few years and I'm not allowed to vote. But on the other hand it's not like I'm trying especially hard to do anything about it. It doesn't really impact me, I can go through my daily life without really seeing it, whenever I encounter racism I'm the beneficiary of it and I don't notice it because to me it's just how the world has always treated me. I'm certainly not trying very hard to do anything about it, when I get the vote I'll not vote for white supremacists but that's about the extent of my commitment to the cause.
Whether or not that makes me complicit, well, that's up to you and your definition. But I think it's unlikely that I'd be so indifferent if it actually impacted me on a day to day basis.
|
On June 07 2017 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 03:56 biology]major wrote:On June 07 2017 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2017 03:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2017 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2017 03:22 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What was taken out of context? She told Kanye to go make a T-Shirt that says that "being white is terrorism." In light of all of the other shit that she tweeted, are we really going to pretend that she doesn't mean and believe precisely the obvious sentiment that is behind that phrase? You sure as shit wouldn't let a white person get away with telling someone to make a "being black is terrorism" T-Shirt --- and you would have no doubt what that white person meant if he also wore a white hood. Generally when people suggest you put something on a T-Shirt they are being facetious. But "Being black is terrorism" has no basis, whereas "being white is terrorism" is a hyperbolic comment on a real issue. Yeah, try arguing that to all of the people who have their property destroyed whenever BLM get its vandalism on. So are you suggesting that there is truth to the idea that "being black is terrorism" but there isn't to "being white is terrorism", that they both have truth and your feelings were hurt, or that there isn't truth to either? I'm suggesting that your attempt to argue that there's a basis for "being white is terrorism" while there is no basis for "being black is terrorism" is foolish. I don't think that you can differentiate between the two at all. Either paint both with the broad brush or none at all. So you it was that your feelings got hurt, go it. It's funny that you want to put BLM up against the ongoing history of white supremacy in this country, and is further indicative of your own complicity in white supremacy. Like you legitimately thought we could compare the two and they are unable to be differentiated. People do realize how absurd that is right? No, my feelings aren't hurt at all by the statement "being white is terrorism." I really don't give a shit beyond finding the statement to be both hilarious and a sad statement on the current state of society. As for your statement, I was merely pointing out the intrinsic intellectual dishonesty in it. We all know that you have an agenda to push (which we don't need to revisit), but it is ludicrous to suggest that there's no basis to brand all black people as terrorists while there is such a basis for white people. Your feelings were obviously hurt. There's no intellectual dishonesty (on my side). You're being incredibly foolish and doubling down on it by suggesting BLM or blackness and whiteness are interchangeable. I know you aren't that oblivious to history or contemporary events as to not see how preposterous that is. So I'm inclined to agree with the previous poster that you are just trolling or posting things so absurdly dumb they don't warrant interaction. If I could choose what race to be born in the US, I would choose white, asian, brown, black in that order. This is because I understand that my chances of being advantaged/disadvantaged are different based on race. That doesn't however mean that I view everything through the prism of race and blame white people for having an advantage, I don't care. Sometimes I feel that you aknowledge the differences of being black in America, but then you really try to guilt trip whites or whoever to somehow give up their position in society. That's not how it works, we have an unfair system, and it will slowly change over time, but never expect on an individual level to feel sorry for you for being black. No one wants your pity, folks want you to take responsibility for your role in perpetuating white supremacy and maybe, one day, stop. But we're literally just trying to get you folks to own it before we expect you to stop.
As an outsider, is it possible to receive an explanation as to the role the average (white?) American plays in perpetuating white supremacy? Is being a beneficiary enough? A silent onlooker? Unconscious everyday acts?
I ask out of an honest wish to know.
|
On June 07 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 05:05 NewSunshine wrote:On June 07 2017 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 04:56 Sermokala wrote:
Edit xDaunt you have as much responsibility to correct people on what you mean as others do when they're confused about what you mean. You can make the point that it's ambiguous to if she literaly ment it or not the same way that trump tweets things. Looks pretty clear to me in this case that I explicitly stated that the issue was the sentiment behind the statement rather than a literal reading of the statement itself. I can't help it if people are going to ignore my posts. Of course what you say is going to be clear to yourself. What kind of argument is that for people misunderstanding your posts? If you're not being clear enough, and there is a miscommunication, does it not behoove you to make it clearer, instead of folding your arms and saying they should know better? If anyone is going to ignore your posts, that's probably why. Just from a reasonable-human-being-having-a-reasonable-conversation perspective. I made a post where I literally said "are we really going to pretend that she doesn't mean and believe precisely the obvious sentiment that is behind that phrase," and I'm the one who is to be held responsible for people not being able to grasp that I don't think that she literally thinks that white people are terrorists? Are you shitting me? Igne put it best a year ago or so when he said that people need to read others' posts with a little bit of charity. We're well outside of that minimum threshold here and into the realm of willful stupidity. Did this ever get answered? Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 03:07 Plansix wrote:
What was she replying to when she said that? Because the full tweet says “you should make a shirt that says “being white is terrorism”.
Also, I had to read an Infowars article, so need a shower. Because the quoted tweet is a reply to Kanye West, as far as I can tell. I might be wrong If we are going to talk about the “Obvious meaning” can we discuss it in the context of who she was replying to? Replies to Kanye West on twitter might not be 100% serious.
It doesn't really matter what she was replying to. It's very clear looking at that tweet and the others that she falls into the same category as the other radical BLM activists. That's not even disputable, so I'm not sure why the rest of you want to waste so much time over that initial tweet.
|
On June 07 2017 05:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:
"Obvious sentiment behind the phrase" becomes not so obvious when you're not referring to the literal meaning of the phrase. That's the only way I can reconcile your statements, and it's confusing as all hell to read if that's what you're going with. Like seriously, it doesn't matter what your point is, if your word choice is misleading then your point isn't what comes across. No, I'm not going to accept this and here's why: what people did here (and do routinely) was take what I said and automatically ascribe the dumbest possible interpretation to it. And when there is some ambiguity in what I post, the response from posters is almost never (with the exception of very few posters) "xDaunt, do you mean this?" It's always "let's strawman the living fuck out of xDaunt's post in the worst possible way." That's what I object to.
I don't see how that tweet is anything other than in line with other crazy leftist hyperbole that routinely comes from same twitter handle. Like if you understood "Confederate general" in context, it would be anything other than a looney smack at Sessions. We have our very own GH alleging whiteness and white terrorism has special meaning that blackness and terrorism doesn't. It's like we have to walk past three levels of clear sentiment given the thrust of tweeting history to arrive at a muddled conclusion that fits some posters' presuppositions. That's a little too much on divination akin to explaining away ideological allies that make you look bad (I'm still not sure of the motivations behind explaining all this away, maybe it is just Trump syndrome.)
|
On June 07 2017 05:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:
"Obvious sentiment behind the phrase" becomes not so obvious when you're not referring to the literal meaning of the phrase. That's the only way I can reconcile your statements, and it's confusing as all hell to read if that's what you're going with. Like seriously, it doesn't matter what your point is, if your word choice is misleading then your point isn't what comes across. No, I'm not going to accept this and here's why: what people did here (and do routinely) was take what I said and automatically ascribe the dumbest possible interpretation to it. And when there is some ambiguity in what I post, the response from posters is almost never (with the exception of very few posters) "xDaunt, do you mean this?" It's always "let's strawman the living fuck out of xDaunt's post in the worst possible way." That's what I object to.
You've spent years destroying any benefit of doubt that other people in this thread are granted automatically. You've got to earn that back.
|
This might cheer up the conservatives in the thread
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has launched a new investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s effort to thwart a Bangladesh government corruption probe of Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor and close friend of the Clintons.
The Iowa Republican’s effort is the first new official inquiry of Clinton since her unexpected loss in the 2016 presidential election to President Donald Trump. Trump’s supporters often chanted “lock her up” during his many boisterous campaign rallies.
But upon assuming the presidency, Trump and leaders of the Republican-majority Congress displayed little appetite for reopening investigations of Clinton’s tenure as the chief U.S. diplomat and multiple persistent allegations of “pay-to-play” corruption involving the Clinton Foundation. Until now.
The Daily Caller News Foundation (TheDCNF) Investigative Group exclusively reported in May that Clinton sent top U.S. diplomats to pressure Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheik Hasina and her son Sajeeb Wazed in an effort to kill that country’s corruption investigation of Yunus and Grameen Bank. Yunus was then managing director of the state-owned Bangladesh bank.
In a June 1, 2017, letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Grassley repeated TheDCNF charge that Clinton threatened Wazed with an IRS tax audit if his mother did not back away from the corruption probe. Wazed has lived in the U.S. for 17 years.
“If the Secretary of State used her position to intervene in an independent investigation by a sovereign government simply because of a personal and financial relationship stemming from the Clinton Foundation rather than the legitimate foreign policy interests of the United States, then that would be unacceptable,” Grassley told Tillerson.
“Co-mingling her official position as Secretary of State with her family foundation would be similarly inappropriate. It is vital to determine whether the State Department had any role in the threat of an IRS audit against the son of the Prime Minister in retaliation for this investigation,” Grassley continued.
Grassley described how U.S. ambassadors James Moriarty and Dan Mozena, as well as Jon Danilowica, the Deputy Chief of Mission, met with Wazed in the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh’s capital, on numerous occasions while the corruption investigation was underway. All three are career diplomats.
Another official, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah also met with Wazed. Shah’s agency awarded $13 million to Yunus organizations and another $11 million to allied Yunus organizations during Clinton’s tenure. The Department of State oversees USAID programs.
As TheDCNF previously reported, Clinton’s aid to Yunus included 18 grants, contracts and loans awarded to two of his America-based foundations, the Grameen Foundation USA and Grameen America, according to USASpending.gov.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/04/senate-committee-launches-a-new-clinton-investigation/
|
xDaunt is usually pretty good about clarifying his point if you ask without being an ass. It's not a bad thing to try.
|
United States43799 Posts
On June 07 2017 06:12 LegalLord wrote:
xDaunt is usually pretty good about clarifying his point if you ask without being an ass. It's not a bad thing to try.
Yeah but then you ask him to clarify what he meant and he says he definitely did mean what you thought he meant before denying it, saying he never said it and that if he did say it he didn't mean it. It's a whole ordeal.
|
(Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee)
|
On June 07 2017 06:12 LegalLord wrote:
xDaunt is usually pretty good about clarifying his point if you ask without being an ass. It's not a bad thing to try.
You're right, and this has been my experience too. But I think it is entirely fair to say that he is at times intentionally vague or nondiscript. He often doesn't put as much effort into actually making his ideas/posts clear on their own. People shouldn't need to research xDaunt's views/posts in order to decode what he means. If he put just like 20% more effort into posts and made it a priority for people to understand what he means, it would make a world of difference. Sure, people jump down his throat too easily, but it would be silly to pretend people are *entirely* wrong for often misunderstanding. His posts can be vague/safe...overly so.
|
Lawyers for Twitter users blocked by President Trump after they criticized or mocked him are asking him to reverse the moves, arguing that the Constitution bars him from blocking people on the social media service.
The request raises novel legal issues stemming from Mr. Trump’s use of his Twitter account, @realdonaldtrump, to make statements about public policy. In a letter sent to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, lawyers for several users he has blocked argued that his account was a “public forum” from which the government may not constitutionally exclude people because it disagrees with views they have expressed.
“This Twitter account operates as a ‘designated public forum’ for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional,” the letter said. “We ask that you unblock them and any others who have been blocked for similar reasons.”
www.nytimes.com
|
On June 07 2017 06:12 Nevuk wrote:This might cheer up the conservatives in the thread Show nested quote +Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has launched a new investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s effort to thwart a Bangladesh government corruption probe of Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor and close friend of the Clintons.
The Iowa Republican’s effort is the first new official inquiry of Clinton since her unexpected loss in the 2016 presidential election to President Donald Trump. Trump’s supporters often chanted “lock her up” during his many boisterous campaign rallies.
But upon assuming the presidency, Trump and leaders of the Republican-majority Congress displayed little appetite for reopening investigations of Clinton’s tenure as the chief U.S. diplomat and multiple persistent allegations of “pay-to-play” corruption involving the Clinton Foundation. Until now.
The Daily Caller News Foundation (TheDCNF) Investigative Group exclusively reported in May that Clinton sent top U.S. diplomats to pressure Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheik Hasina and her son Sajeeb Wazed in an effort to kill that country’s corruption investigation of Yunus and Grameen Bank. Yunus was then managing director of the state-owned Bangladesh bank.
In a June 1, 2017, letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Grassley repeated TheDCNF charge that Clinton threatened Wazed with an IRS tax audit if his mother did not back away from the corruption probe. Wazed has lived in the U.S. for 17 years.
“If the Secretary of State used her position to intervene in an independent investigation by a sovereign government simply because of a personal and financial relationship stemming from the Clinton Foundation rather than the legitimate foreign policy interests of the United States, then that would be unacceptable,” Grassley told Tillerson.
“Co-mingling her official position as Secretary of State with her family foundation would be similarly inappropriate. It is vital to determine whether the State Department had any role in the threat of an IRS audit against the son of the Prime Minister in retaliation for this investigation,” Grassley continued.
Grassley described how U.S. ambassadors James Moriarty and Dan Mozena, as well as Jon Danilowica, the Deputy Chief of Mission, met with Wazed in the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh’s capital, on numerous occasions while the corruption investigation was underway. All three are career diplomats.
Another official, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah also met with Wazed. Shah’s agency awarded $13 million to Yunus organizations and another $11 million to allied Yunus organizations during Clinton’s tenure. The Department of State oversees USAID programs.
As TheDCNF previously reported, Clinton’s aid to Yunus included 18 grants, contracts and loans awarded to two of his America-based foundations, the Grameen Foundation USA and Grameen America, according to USASpending.gov.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/04/senate-committee-launches-a-new-clinton-investigation/
Trump Inc. straight up said they can’t be bothered to track funds received by foreign agents because it would be do cumbersome. But this is how the senate is going to spend it’s time.
This is such a naked attempt to grab headlines by saying Clinton Foundation I question if even CNN will fall for it.
|
On June 07 2017 06:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Lawyers for Twitter users blocked by President Trump after they criticized or mocked him are asking him to reverse the moves, arguing that the Constitution bars him from blocking people on the social media service.
The request raises novel legal issues stemming from Mr. Trump’s use of his Twitter account, @realdonaldtrump, to make statements about public policy. In a letter sent to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, lawyers for several users he has blocked argued that his account was a “public forum” from which the government may not constitutionally exclude people because it disagrees with views they have expressed.
“This Twitter account operates as a ‘designated public forum’ for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional,” the letter said. “We ask that you unblock them and any others who have been blocked for similar reasons.”
www.nytimes.com
rofl. kinda interesting case. For what its worth, I believe a president should be allowed to have a totally off the rails twitter account. if the president feels like shitposting, he should be able to shitpost and block haters.
More broadly, I think social media and people's cell phones have become an integral part of our personalities, social lives and a lot more. Limiting what someone can do on social media is almost always terrible in my eyes. Social media is becoming a part of who we are.
|
On June 07 2017 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 05:30 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:
"Obvious sentiment behind the phrase" becomes not so obvious when you're not referring to the literal meaning of the phrase. That's the only way I can reconcile your statements, and it's confusing as all hell to read if that's what you're going with. Like seriously, it doesn't matter what your point is, if your word choice is misleading then your point isn't what comes across. No, I'm not going to accept this and here's why: what people did here (and do routinely) was take what I said and automatically ascribe the dumbest possible interpretation to it. And when there is some ambiguity in what I post, the response from posters is almost never (with the exception of very few posters) "xDaunt, do you mean this?" It's always "let's strawman the living fuck out of xDaunt's post in the worst possible way." That's what I object to. You've spent years destroying any benefit of doubt that other people in this thread are granted automatically. You've got to earn that back.
There's nothing to earn back, because nothing was lost. Only the lesser posters don't understand this.
EDIT: And if anything, my posting is better now than it used to be.
|
On June 07 2017 06:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Lawyers for Twitter users blocked by President Trump after they criticized or mocked him are asking him to reverse the moves, arguing that the Constitution bars him from blocking people on the social media service.
The request raises novel legal issues stemming from Mr. Trump’s use of his Twitter account, @realdonaldtrump, to make statements about public policy. In a letter sent to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, lawyers for several users he has blocked argued that his account was a “public forum” from which the government may not constitutionally exclude people because it disagrees with views they have expressed.
“This Twitter account operates as a ‘designated public forum’ for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional,” the letter said. “We ask that you unblock them and any others who have been blocked for similar reasons.”
www.nytimes.com
Holy god, that sounds like PRECISELY the kind of thing that would make Trump the most kind of angry. Hilarious.
|
On June 07 2017 06:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 07 2017 05:30 xDaunt wrote:On June 07 2017 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:
"Obvious sentiment behind the phrase" becomes not so obvious when you're not referring to the literal meaning of the phrase. That's the only way I can reconcile your statements, and it's confusing as all hell to read if that's what you're going with. Like seriously, it doesn't matter what your point is, if your word choice is misleading then your point isn't what comes across. No, I'm not going to accept this and here's why: what people did here (and do routinely) was take what I said and automatically ascribe the dumbest possible interpretation to it. And when there is some ambiguity in what I post, the response from posters is almost never (with the exception of very few posters) "xDaunt, do you mean this?" It's always "let's strawman the living fuck out of xDaunt's post in the worst possible way." That's what I object to. You've spent years destroying any benefit of doubt that other people in this thread are granted automatically. You've got to earn that back. There's nothing to earn back, because nothing was lost. Only the lesser posters don't understand this. EDIT: And if anything, my posting is better now than it used to be.
And you want to be asked nicely to explain your posts.
lmao
|
On June 07 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 06:12 LegalLord wrote:
xDaunt is usually pretty good about clarifying his point if you ask without being an ass. It's not a bad thing to try. You're right, and this has been my experience too. But I think it is entirely fair to say that he is at times intentionally vague or nondiscript. He often doesn't put as much effort into actually making his ideas/posts clear on their own. People shouldn't need to research xDaunt's views/posts in order to decode what he means. If he put just like 20% more effort into posts and made it a priority for people to understand what he means, it would make a world of difference. Sure, people jump down his throat too easily, but it would be silly to pretend people are *entirely* wrong for often misunderstanding. His posts can be vague/safe...overly so.
My posts are direct and to the point. I'm not intentionally vague. I don't hide things. I don't need to play stupid games. People look for stupid, trivial shit to challenge me on. This "white people are terrorists" business is a prime example. I'm not going to take the blame for them shitting up the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
