Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 23 2024 05:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: New defamation lawsuit against Trump:
The men formerly known as the Central Park Five before they were exonerated filed a defamation lawsuit on Monday against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
With Election Day two weeks away, the group accused the former president of making “false and defamatory statements” about them during last month’s presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The group is asking for a jury trial to determine compensatory and punitive damages.
“Defendant Trump falsely stated that plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime. These statements are demonstrably false,” the group wrote in the federal complaint.
The men are upset because Trump essentially “defamed them in front of 67 million people, which has caused them to seek to clear their names all over again,” co-lead counsel Shanin Specter told The Associated Press in an email.
The five men wrongfully convicted of a 1989 New York City assault who became known as the Central Park Five have filed a defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
The suit filed in Pennsylvania federal court was prompted by Trump's recent remarks during the September 10 presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris when he falsely claimed that the men were responsible for the crime and that the victim in the incident had died.
"They admitted, they said they pled guilty and I said, 'well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately....And they pled guilty, then they pled not guilty," Trump said.
Trump appeared to be confusing guilty pleas with confessions. The victim in the case is still alive but reportedly deals with lingering health issues from the attack. ... "Defendant Trump's statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects," attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. "Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison."
"None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed," the attorneys wrote.
The members of the so-called Central Park Five filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Monday, alleging he made defamatory statements about them during the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, the suit claims that Trump falsely said during the debate last month that the five Black and Latino men who wrongly convicted for the rape of a White female jogger when they were teens in 1989 pleaded guilty to the crime and killed a person during a series of assaults that occurred in Central Park. ...
The Central Park Five were teenagers at the time of the assaults against Trisha Meili, the White female jogger, and two men, all of whom were attacked on the same night while jogging in Central Park. They were arrested and charged for the rape and assault of Meili and other crimes. The five pleaded not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout the trial, but were convicted in 1990.
But the five were exonerated and their convictions tossed out in 2002, when DNA evidence was matched to a different man who confessed to the assaults. They're now known as the "Exonerated Five."
You have to quote people literally, but you can't take Trump literally also. You just have to know.
Yeah it’s actually quite simple, you just have to take the things he states literally as hyperbolic allegory and the metaphors and hyperbole he uses as what he literally means
And everything else is 9th dimension parcheesi meant to own the libs.
It’s such a simple method of communication even ChatGPT can reliably decode it
On October 23 2024 02:57 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 02:57 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
On October 23 2024 02:57 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
You wanna zoom back out and explain to me what the criticism is that can apply to anyone? Does the answer make a material difference to my point? So anyone can be criticized for believing that transitioning your gender is a real thing? You know that group includes trans people and their right to exist, right? You see how you twisted yourself up so much that in order to get out of your shitty argument, you backed into a bigger, even shittier version of that argument? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by debating the smaller, already shitty argument, but you can blow it up if you really want.
"Oh, I'm not saying people are ridiculous who think they can jump over the moon, I'm just saying that anyone who thinks that jumping over the moon is possible is ridiculous." You see how that's not actually different, right? Do you want try and shift the goalposts again? Or do you wanna give it a rest?
A lot of people argue that blacks, hispanics, and native americans are underrepresented in Ivy league schools and there should be more of them. Functionally that is the same as saying Asians and whites are overrepresented in Ivy league schools and we need less of them. But if someone was making the former point I wouldn't change what they said to "so-and-so wants to rail against there being too many Asian people in Ivy league schools" and even if I did try to do that I wouldn't use quotation marks because that would be underhanded and dishonest.
Also saying that men can't become women is not even incongruent with the idea of transgenderism. Someone can consider man and woman to be biological terms in the same manner as male and female. Nobody has to accept the definition of man/woman that has since been made up. Now is this the way dogmeat meant it? I don't know, ask dogmeat. Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's definitely why you shouldn't misquote people or try to extrapolate out other things they haven't said, e.g. whether transgenderism people have a "right to exist," and whatever that entails.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:41 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:29 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:25 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:19 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:05 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
On October 23 2024 03:19 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:41 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:29 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:25 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:19 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op.
I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like
"Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"
You want the retelling to be
"Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"
I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:41 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:29 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:25 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op.
I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like
"Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"
You want the retelling to be
"Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"
I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true.
Both of your bolded statements are factually correct. I have no problem with anyone stating either of those, because they're true.
Can you please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, or whatever story you were referencing earlier? I'm interested in learning about it.
On October 23 2024 03:29 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:41 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 23 2024 03:29 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op.
I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like
"Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"
You want the retelling to be
"Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"
I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true.
Both of your bolded statements are factually correct. I have no problem with anyone stating either of those, because they're true.
Can you please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, or whatever story you were referencing earlier? I'm interested in learning about it.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
You wanna zoom back out and explain to me what the criticism is that can apply to anyone? Does the answer make a material difference to my point? So anyone can be criticized for believing that transitioning your gender is a real thing? You know that group includes trans people and their right to exist, right? You see how you twisted yourself up so much that in order to get out of your shitty argument, you backed into a bigger, even shittier version of that argument? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by debating the smaller, already shitty argument, but you can blow it up if you really want.
"Oh, I'm not saying people are ridiculous who think they can jump over the moon, I'm just saying that anyone who thinks that jumping over the moon is possible is ridiculous." You see how that's not actually different, right? Do you want try and shift the goalposts again? Or do you wanna give it a rest?
A lot of people argue that blacks, hispanics, and native americans are underrepresented in Ivy league schools and there should be more of them. Functionally that is the same as saying Asians and whites are overrepresented in Ivy league schools and we need less of them. But if someone was making the former point I wouldn't change what they said to "so-and-so wants to rail against there being too many Asian people in Ivy league schools" and even if I did try to do that I wouldn't use quotation marks because that would be underhanded and dishonest.
Also saying that men can't become women is not even incongruent with the idea of transgenderism. Someone can consider man and woman to be biological terms in the same manner as male and female. Nobody has to accept the definition of man/woman that has since been made up. Now is this the way dogmeat meant it? I don't know, ask dogmeat. Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's definitely why you shouldn't misquote people or try to extrapolate out other things they haven't said, e.g. whether transgenderism people have a "right to exist," and whatever that entails.
There's a group. It has A B C D, and E. A, B, and C represent 3.33% of the group each. D and E represent 45% each.
If you say "A is underrepresented", it is not the same as saying "D and E are overrepresented". You could say "Therefore, the rest of the group is overrepresented", that would be true. If you try break it down into different subsets, you're making a different statement. The best you could say truthfully is "Therefore, D and E are among the overrepresented", which qualifies that they're just part of the group and not necessarily over or underrepresented itself.
So, no, bolded is a functionally different statement on a basic, logical level.
Who do you guys think is going to win? Seems like Trump is pulling ahead in the betting polls but in the other prognosis, Harris is ahead. And how much do you think his latest McDonalds stunt means? Seems like everyone is talking about Trump again, on both sides. I can hardly find any news on Harris.
On October 23 2024 03:19 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
You wanna zoom back out and explain to me what the criticism is that can apply to anyone? Does the answer make a material difference to my point? So anyone can be criticized for believing that transitioning your gender is a real thing? You know that group includes trans people and their right to exist, right? You see how you twisted yourself up so much that in order to get out of your shitty argument, you backed into a bigger, even shittier version of that argument? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by debating the smaller, already shitty argument, but you can blow it up if you really want.
"Oh, I'm not saying people are ridiculous who think they can jump over the moon, I'm just saying that anyone who thinks that jumping over the moon is possible is ridiculous." You see how that's not actually different, right? Do you want try and shift the goalposts again? Or do you wanna give it a rest?
A lot of people argue that blacks, hispanics, and native americans are underrepresented in Ivy league schools and there should be more of them. Functionally that is the same as saying Asians and whites are overrepresented in Ivy league schools and we need less of them. But if someone was making the former point I wouldn't change what they said to "so-and-so wants to rail against there being too many Asian people in Ivy league schools" and even if I did try to do that I wouldn't use quotation marks because that would be underhanded and dishonest.
Also saying that men can't become women is not even incongruent with the idea of transgenderism. Someone can consider man and woman to be biological terms in the same manner as male and female. Nobody has to accept the definition of man/woman that has since been made up. Now is this the way dogmeat meant it? I don't know, ask dogmeat. Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's definitely why you shouldn't misquote people or try to extrapolate out other things they haven't said, e.g. whether transgenderism people have a "right to exist," and whatever that entails.
There's a group. It has A B C D, and E. A, B, and C represent 3.33% of the group each. D and E represent 45% each.
If you say "A is underrepresented", it is not the same as saying "D and E are overrepresented". You could say "Therefore, the rest of the group is overrepresented", that would be true. If you try break it down into different subsets, you're making a different statement. The best you could say truthfully is "Therefore, D and E are among the overrepresented", which qualifies that they're just part of the group and not necessarily over or underrepresented itself.
So, no, bolded is a functionally different statement on a basic, logical level.
Yes, I could have worded that better. Thanks for catching that. I was using my knowledge of Asians and whites being overrepresented but I wrote it as something you could deduce from the other races being underrepresented.
To make my point more simple I could cite the example of Lowell High School, a prestigious school in San Francisco. They were criticized by the SFChronicle for a lack of diversity. Although 82% of their student body consists of minorities, the problem here is that something like 60% alone is Asian. Apparently Asians are doing quite well in academia. So in this case A, B, C, and D are underrepresented and E (Asian) is overrepresented. So arguing that the student body should be more representative of the general population is functionally the same as saying "there are too many Asians." But my point stands that saying The SFChronicle is railing against Lowell High School "for having too many Asians" would be a dishonest way to frame things.
On October 23 2024 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:41 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op.
I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like
"Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"
You want the retelling to be
"Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"
I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true.
Both of your bolded statements are factually correct. I have no problem with anyone stating either of those, because they're true.
Can you please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, or whatever story you were referencing earlier? I'm interested in learning about it.
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Thanks for the source! If that article about the Canadian teacher is indeed true and is actually what people are using as ammunition against the trans community, then this topic is even less serious than I thought lol.
Maybe TDS should stand for Trump Trans Derangement Syndrome, because of how far conservatives will go to hate on that marginalized group.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:41 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op.
I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like
"Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"
You want the retelling to be
"Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"
I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true.
Both of your bolded statements are factually correct. I have no problem with anyone stating either of those, because they're true.
Can you please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, or whatever story you were referencing earlier? I'm interested in learning about it.
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Thanks for the source! If that article about the Canadian teacher is indeed true and is actually what people are using as ammunition against the trans community, then this topic is even less serious than I thought lol.
Maybe TDS should stand for Trump Trans Derangement Syndrome, because of how far conservatives will go to hate on that marginalized group.
You have it backwards. Normal people everywhere would think this is inappropriate wardrobe to the classroom whether it's done by a cis person or a trans person. The derangement is the people that would carve out an exception for someone they believed to be trans because nothing is over the line if it allows them to showcase their tolerance.
On October 23 2024 04:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Hmmmm....
[quote]
[quote]
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op.
I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like
"Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"
You want the retelling to be
"Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"
I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true.
Both of your bolded statements are factually correct. I have no problem with anyone stating either of those, because they're true.
Can you please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, or whatever story you were referencing earlier? I'm interested in learning about it.
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Thanks for the source! If that article about the Canadian teacher is indeed true and is actually what people are using as ammunition against the trans community, then this topic is even less serious than I thought lol.
Maybe TDS should stand for Trump Trans Derangement Syndrome, because of how far conservatives will go to hate on that marginalized group.
You have it backwards. Normal people everywhere would think this is inappropriate wardrobe to the classroom whether it's done by a cis person or a trans person. The derangement is the people that would carve out an exception for someone they believed to be trans because nothing is over the line if it allows them to showcase their tolerance.
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
On October 23 2024 05:20 BlackJack wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
On October 23 2024 04:41 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
Peak irony attained.
I'm not sure what's ironic about that last sentence. I'm pretty consistent on that. Your stance is that we can take something Trump said, and combine it with "context" from the last 8 years, and pop out a new amalgamation of a quote that we can entirely attribute to Trump.
A few days ago when the media was reporting that "The Shade Room" producers told them they were told by an unnamed Trump adviser that Trump was too exhausted to do the interview you kept referring to Trump's exhaustion as "a quote from a Trump adviser." I think the real problem is you can't tell the difference between a bit of hearsay and a quote.
You literally just fabricated a statement by that DogMeat guy, while the rest of us (over the past few days) were actually citing a quote from a Trump advisor and additionally quoting Donald Trump about him wanting to use the military to silence the radical left...
I know we talked about Harris and the rest of Trump's version of the "radical left" earlier, and we now have additional examples of who Trump considers to be the "enemy from within" who deserve to be silenced by the military: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.
Check out these four minutes, from 8:30 to 12:30.
To quote Jon Stewart: "It's exactly what he said" and "He is literally saying that!"
Thanks for sharing the clip but I already saw it. Of note if you rewind a little bit you'll see Jon Stewart mocking the mainstream media over having a shit-fit about Trump working at McDonalds for a photo-op and mentioning rumors that Arnold Palmer had a legendary penis. Which pretty much reinforces my main point from days ago - these efforts are counter productive. Trump gives so much to attack him over that finding the need to rage over these silly things just hurts their credibility as foaming-out-the-mouth Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. It's not like Trump is the first politician to do a silly photo-op.
I think we've litigated Trump's comments enough but at the end of the day we just have a difference of opinion on what he said. I want the re-telling of his comments to look something like
"Trump suggests military should be used on Election Day, if necessary, to handle 'enemy within,' which is a term he has also applied to Democrat politicians Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi"
You want the retelling to be
"Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris"
I think my version is more literal to what he said and you think your version is more literal. Perhaps the problem is I'm using the version of "literally" meant to mean something is exactly as is and you're using the informal definition of "literally" to express emphasis while not being literally true.
Both of your bolded statements are factually correct. I have no problem with anyone stating either of those, because they're true.
Can you please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, or whatever story you were referencing earlier? I'm interested in learning about it.
Bill Maher has also referenced this case multiple times and is the only reason why I know of it.
Thanks for the source! If that article about the Canadian teacher is indeed true and is actually what people are using as ammunition against the trans community, then this topic is even less serious than I thought lol.
Maybe TDS should stand for Trump Trans Derangement Syndrome, because of how far conservatives will go to hate on that marginalized group.
Seems fair to me
Proportion wise, trans people are close to the most irrelevant political topic to me possible. I’ve met 3 in my life, 2 of whom I liked, one of whom I disliked, on a purely personality level
They’re not rampantly sexually assaulting people. The issue of women’s sports IMO is an area for debate, but most of the people who want trans athletes excluded also frequently denigrate woman’s sport
‘WNBA players can’t dunk who cares?’ juxtaposed with the exact same folks going ‘trans people are ruining woman’s sports doesn’t really track.
I can’t recall whose wisdom it was but ‘don’t be a cunt’ as a maxim to live one’s life seems OK to me
I’m not some savant with access to all human history, I genuinely can’t recall from my readings many times when such a small, largely inconsequential subset of a population gets so much hate and approbrium for no particularly good reason
The large fake boobs situation is a ridiculous "discussion". Why is this something we're supposed to take seriously? The person who did this is a troll, right? Wake me up when a person who's not a troll - someone who actually sincerely does look like this and prefers it this way - takes up a teaching position. Then a discussion can be had. Otherwise I think we can safely consider the issue resolved. Trolls gonna troll. They'll always stretch people's tolerance and patience to a limit, that's their whole purpose.
"[...] was placed on leave after The Post revealed she doesn’t always don the Z-cup prosthetics outside school."
Like, do you get it? People got trolled. Trolls are very, very good at riling people up over a non-issue. Where is the real issue? The issue without a troll involved?
Please explain exactly what part of the wardrobe is inappropriate, because all the pictures in that article show that teacher fully clothed. If you're saying that a person with large breasts is inappropriate because they have large breasts, then I disagree with you. If you're saying that wearing fake breasts just for a gag is inappropriate, then I agree with you (but there doesn't seem to be verification that that's actually happened with this person... the article seems inconclusive about a lot of things). So please be specific with what your issue is.
This was a very long conversation I am walking into, so forgive my ignorance here. Are you saying Kayla Lemieux should be allowed to teach at a school while wearing these prosthetic breasts?
I think someone can say the wardrobe is fine, and that women with very large breasts shouldn't be disallowed from being teachers, while also easily saying the situation with Kayla Lemieux is clearly not appropriate for teaching.
I literally have no idea who Kayla Lemieux is, outside of the one New York Post article that was cited. If Kayla is actually a guy who simply stuffs his shirt with fake breasts before school every day, just to troll whoever, then I have no idea what his deal is. If Kayla is actually a woman with real, really large breasts, and if this article is just plain wrong about some of its claims, then I don't think it makes sense to hate on this woman.
(I'm just walking into this conversation too lol.)
I think all BJ is trying to point out is that if you are too tolerant bad actors can take advantage of you/system. So be less tolerant, to whatever is the correct amount.
I'd be more in the just be tolerant and deal with the bad actors as one offs and move on, camp.
EPT
) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks! 
