|
we are reading wildly different threads. introvert suggested it was just another triggered liberal reaction, and at worst some are responding in kind and most are simply disagreeing.
and i had to go back and read it all to make sure, but out of those, i only found the word stupid and it was not directed at introvert(it was only himself using it too.)
oh i found no leg to stand on, but it was in reference to a claim of bias and nothing to do with his clarification.
in fact the only time Introvert even hinted at taking some offense he in fact had no legs to stand on. he said exactly what he was accused of saying, short the word cancer. it happens. we’ve literally all done it.
|
On May 18 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:
reading the last page of the thread where everyone attacks introvert for pointing out a clarification it has become apparent that the thread is now just a safe space where thinking is prohibited. multiple posts accusing introvert of being a stupid, hypocritical, reprobate "without a leg to stand on." RIP thread
I don't think that's how safe spaces work. also pretty sure the thread isn't a safe space at all.
|
Counter point: it is a really dumb hill to die on. Leaders of nations shouldn’t call criminals animals. It leads to the criminals being abused.
Second counter point: his characterization of the media’s coverage of Trumps statements was inaccurate. He asserts that “the media” was mischaracterizing the statement and did not provide context. The coverage I have seen has clearly pointed out that Trump was talking about the MS-13 gang and did so because the president called a group of criminals animals. That is shocking language from the president.
If Introvert had provided citations to the bad reporting, that would have been helpful. People did pile on. But I’ve gotten piled on for voicing my dislike for Apple’s encryption stance with the FBI and survived to fight another day.
|
On May 18 2018 01:50 brian wrote:
we are reading wildly different threads. introvert suggested it was just another triggered liberal reaction, and at worst some are responding in kind and most are simply disagreeing.
and i had to go back and read it all to make sure, but out of those, i only found the word stupid and it was not directed at introvert.
oh i found no leg to stand on, but it was in reference to a claim of bias and nothing to do with his clarification.
Agreed. If folks are going to assert the media is bias, citations are needed.
|
On May 18 2018 01:50 brian wrote:
we are reading wildly different threads. introvert suggested it was just another triggered liberal reaction, and at worst some are responding in kind and most are simply disagreeing.
and i had to go back and read it all to make sure, but out of those, i only found the word stupid and it was not directed at introvert.
oh i found no leg to stand on, but it was in reference to a claim of bias and nothing to do with his clarification.
the guy he was responding to put quotes around sentences attributed to Trump wherein "immigrants" are referred to as "animals." so yeah maybe we are reading different threads.
|
On May 18 2018 01:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:50 brian wrote:
we are reading wildly different threads. introvert suggested it was just another triggered liberal reaction, and at worst some are responding in kind and most are simply disagreeing.
and i had to go back and read it all to make sure, but out of those, i only found the word stupid and it was not directed at introvert.
oh i found no leg to stand on, but it was in reference to a claim of bias and nothing to do with his clarification. the guy he was responding to put quotes around sentences attributed to Trump wherein "immigrants" are referred to as "animals." so yeah maybe we are reading different threads.
i’m sorry, i have no idea what your point is here in reference to your claim people are attacking introvert and need a safe space.
this post and your first are seemingly fully unrelated. i fully understood the conversation happening with regards to humans being animals. i do not understand how that translates into attacking introvert.
|
On May 18 2018 01:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:50 brian wrote:
we are reading wildly different threads. introvert suggested it was just another triggered liberal reaction, and at worst some are responding in kind and most are simply disagreeing.
and i had to go back and read it all to make sure, but out of those, i only found the word stupid and it was not directed at introvert.
oh i found no leg to stand on, but it was in reference to a claim of bias and nothing to do with his clarification. the guy he was responding to put quotes around sentences attributed to Trump wherein "immigrants" are referred to as "animals." so yeah maybe we are reading different threads.
And if you watch the live tape, it is not 100% clear if Trump is talking about all the people being deported or the MS-13 gang/criminals.
|
On May 18 2018 01:58 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:56 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 01:50 brian wrote:
we are reading wildly different threads. introvert suggested it was just another triggered liberal reaction, and at worst some are responding in kind and most are simply disagreeing.
and i had to go back and read it all to make sure, but out of those, i only found the word stupid and it was not directed at introvert.
oh i found no leg to stand on, but it was in reference to a claim of bias and nothing to do with his clarification. the guy he was responding to put quotes around sentences attributed to Trump wherein "immigrants" are referred to as "animals." so yeah maybe we are reading different threads. i’m sorry, i have literally no idea what your point is here in reference to your claim people are attacking introvert and need a safe space. this post and your first are seemingly fully unrelated. i fully understood the conversation happening with regards to humans being animals. i do not understand how that translates into attacking introvert.
1) so introvert posts an innocuous clarification of shameless trump bashing (shameless because it, like trump, eschews fact)
2) someone says blah blah introvert why are you defending trump
3) introvert posts this, an eminently reasonable post:
On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious.
4) he starts getting called out for being a "hypocrite" republican "with no leg to stand on," etc etc, drawn into a stupid pointless argument over whether trump is the worst human scum on the planet
5) after a gentle fact-based application of counter-spin to a shameless trump-bashing post, the people flip the script: it is now introvert who is deviously slipping his alt-right spin into the conversation; he doesnt come out and SAY that all (illegal) immigrants are animals but thats what he MEANS, because he's just an alt right trump defender and we all know that trump thinks immigrants are animals
so who is triggered here?
|
On May 18 2018 02:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:58 brian wrote:On May 18 2018 01:56 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 01:50 brian wrote:
we are reading wildly different threads. introvert suggested it was just another triggered liberal reaction, and at worst some are responding in kind and most are simply disagreeing.
and i had to go back and read it all to make sure, but out of those, i only found the word stupid and it was not directed at introvert.
oh i found no leg to stand on, but it was in reference to a claim of bias and nothing to do with his clarification. the guy he was responding to put quotes around sentences attributed to Trump wherein "immigrants" are referred to as "animals." so yeah maybe we are reading different threads. i’m sorry, i have literally no idea what your point is here in reference to your claim people are attacking introvert and need a safe space. this post and your first are seemingly fully unrelated. i fully understood the conversation happening with regards to humans being animals. i do not understand how that translates into attacking introvert. 1) so introvert posts an innocuous clarification of shameless trump bashing (shameless because it, like trump, eschews fact) 2) someone says blah blah introvert why are you defending trump 3) introvert posts this, an eminently reasonable post: Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. 4) he starts getting called out for being a "hypocrite" republican "with no leg to stand on," etc etc, drawn into a stupid pointless argument over whether trump is the worst human scum on the planet 5) after a gentle fact-based application of counter-spin to a shameless trump-bashing post, the people flip the script: it is now introvert who is deviously slipping his alt-right spin into the conversation; he doesnt come out and SAY that all (illegal) immigrants are animals but thats what he MEANS, because he's just an alt right trump defender and we all know that trump thinks immigrants are animals so who is triggered here?
so we’re good on 1 2 and 3 being perfectly reasonable, right?
4) he was told he has no leg to stand on in a claim regarding bias, not his clarification. you have an issue with this? i didn’t see the word hypocrite but granted it wasn’t part of the original list so i wasn’t looking for it. i do not think an argument about trump is considered attacking Introvert at all. if that were the case i would suggest instead it is you that needs the safe space.
5) where does this happen? if this is in reference to the claim that he pre supposed the answer to ‘are ms-13 gang members animals,’ then, well, he did that. and additionally it was posted after your initial claim that introvert was being attacked.
we are definitely reading different threads. hopefully nobody is actually triggered.
|
On May 17 2018 20:18 farvacola wrote:
Nah, he harasses people through PM in relation to their political posts, so I don't see why folks couldn't discuss it here.
Seeker has asked me not to post the PM, but in short GH sent me a nasty message which was kind of out the blue, and based on a completely warped interpretation of one of my positions. I've tried to be charitable about the way he treats me and other posters in the past, but frankly I'm sick of it. Instead of sending him a PM back, I opted to just go ahead and toss it to the mods to decide.
Anyways, if he wants to be an ass to me, he can at least do it publicly. Alternatively, he could refrain from being an ass.
|
4) On May 17 2018 23:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. Yea, you don't really have a leg to stand on when complaining about this kind of irrational bias. It really amazes me how Republicans, by becoming disgustingly partisan and electing horrific demagogues to office, completely destroyed almost any sense of decency, bipartisanship, ethical conduct, and reasonable discourse in our political process and yet think they can then criticize anyone else on it.
That's not an attack on introvert?
5) On May 18 2018 01:47 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine. + Show Spoiler +Introvert provided a really good example of this. Introvert appears to be in favor of the president of the United States calling people animals, but doesn't want to say that outright. Instead, he changed the debate from "Is it okay for the President of the United States to call people animals, even if they're criminals such as MS-13?" to what the video refers to as the next argument: "Was the president talking about MS-13?" which is premised on an underlying assumption that if he was, it was okay to call them animals. Once the conversation moved back to the original question, he called that spin.
Edit: he (introvert) didnt change the debate! the other posters who were clearly wrong, who were clearly trafficking in falsehoods, changed the debate on him. but they present these shifted goalposts as somehow introvert's doing, part of his alt right scheming
maybe it's not that we are reading different threads but that i'm the only one reading
|
Introvert initially responded to this post:
https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=206#4108
In which he claims that the video is misleading because it fails to provide context to the use of “animals”, as if it would somehow be acceptable to use that language as President. The video clip in question is not from a major news organization.
Introvert then goes on to:
https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=206#4113
Pick a fight, claiming anti Trump bias didn’t allow context of Trumps statement to be understood. Never really questioning “maybe they think that criminals shouldn’t be referred to as animals by elected officials.”
I would argue that Introvert got the exact response he was seeking in the thread and your objections to those responses are without merit. He got the fight he was looking for.
|
who is doing the goal post shifting here?!?!? that thing you always accuse danglars of doing (and which he does)?!
introvert was talking about whether trump has ever said "they [meaning illegal immigrants] are animals." now you are saying well, saying anybody is an animal is still bad. yeah ok, but thats not what we were talking about
|
On May 18 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:
reading the last page of the thread where everyone attacks introvert for pointing out a clarification it has become apparent that the thread is now just a safe space where thinking is prohibited. multiple posts accusing introvert of being a stupid, hypocritical, reprobate "without a leg to stand on." RIP thread
IgnE unleashed 
On May 18 2018 02:36 IgnE wrote:
who is doing the goal post shifting here?!?!? that thing you always accuse danglars of doing (and which he does)?!
introvert was talking about whether trump has ever said "they [meaning illegal immigrants] are animals." now you are saying well, saying anybody is an animal is still bad. yeah ok, but thats not what we were talking about
I’ll debate you on that classification and why certain evasion is appropriate to keep topics centered and resolved (when you’re taking a minority position and hearing questions and points on 12 sides of the issue). I do like having long arguments with people that can follow long arguments and show an earnestness in learning about the other side and fairly representing theirs.
This episode is holding up a mirror to everyone’s innate cognitive dissonance.
|
On May 18 2018 02:31 IgnE wrote:4) Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 23:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. Yea, you don't really have a leg to stand on when complaining about this kind of irrational bias. It really amazes me how Republicans, by becoming disgustingly partisan and electing horrific demagogues to office, completely destroyed almost any sense of decency, bipartisanship, ethical conduct, and reasonable discourse in our political process and yet think they can then criticize anyone else on it. That's not an attack on introvert? 5) Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 01:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM Introvert provided a really good example of this. Introvert appears to be in favor of the president of the United States calling people animals, but doesn't want to say that outright. Instead, he changed the debate from "Is it okay for the President of the United States to call people animals, even if they're criminals such as MS-13?" to what the video refers to as the next argument: "Was the president talking about MS-13?" which is premised on an underlying assumption that if he was, it was okay to call them animals. Once the conversation moved back to the original question, he called that spin. maybe it's not that we are reading different threads but that i'm the only one reading
4) again, the no leg to stand on is not at all in relation to his clarification, and rather the idea of bias in general. when he continues to go on to generalize, no, i think that’s clearly a generalization. i would accept that generalizations don’t help an argument at all but i will not accept that as a direct attack on Introvert.
5) that’s the post i had alluded to. introvert did presume that answer, that happened. i don’t intend to comment on whether calling people animals or not is an issue. regardless, he presumed the answer as mentioned. and again, that was posted *after* your claim he was being attacked. so even if introvert hadn’t said what he said, it would be odd to use it in support of your claim when it hadn’t yet existed.
are you sure you’re reading? these post script snips you continually make to me seem very odd. i’m not triggered and i have read them, i think, quite carefully. i’m afraid maybe you havent after this third attempt to say stratos said introvert had no legs to stand on in his clarification when that is clearly not what is written. please read that post again before making any snide remarks my way, it’s particularly egregious when you’re trying to complain about posters attacking other posters.
On May 18 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 02:36 IgnE wrote:
who is doing the goal post shifting here?!?!? that thing you always accuse danglars of doing (and which he does)?!
introvert was talking about whether trump has ever said "they [meaning illegal immigrants] are animals." now you are saying well, saying anybody is an animal is still bad. yeah ok, but thats not what we were talking about This episode is holding up a mirror to everyone’s innate cognitive dissonance.
amen to that
|
On May 18 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:
reading the last page of the thread where everyone attacks introvert for pointing out a clarification it has become apparent that the thread is now just a safe space where thinking is prohibited. multiple posts accusing introvert of being a stupid, hypocritical, reprobate "without a leg to stand on." RIP thread
Introvert hasn't been attacked for pointing out a clarification.
If he had that wouldn't demonstrate that the thread is a safe space.
If he had that wouldn't demonstrate that thinking is prohibited.
If the thread was a safe space that wouldn't demonstrate that thinking is prohibited.
Surprised that you would post this, you're generally a quality poster. Basically anything that isn't in quotation marks in that post is false.
(PS the link to Innuendo Studios doesn't say what you think it does)
|
On May 18 2018 02:48 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 02:31 IgnE wrote:4) On May 17 2018 23:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. Yea, you don't really have a leg to stand on when complaining about this kind of irrational bias. It really amazes me how Republicans, by becoming disgustingly partisan and electing horrific demagogues to office, completely destroyed almost any sense of decency, bipartisanship, ethical conduct, and reasonable discourse in our political process and yet think they can then criticize anyone else on it. That's not an attack on introvert? 5) On May 18 2018 01:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM Introvert provided a really good example of this. Introvert appears to be in favor of the president of the United States calling people animals, but doesn't want to say that outright. Instead, he changed the debate from "Is it okay for the President of the United States to call people animals, even if they're criminals such as MS-13?" to what the video refers to as the next argument: "Was the president talking about MS-13?" which is premised on an underlying assumption that if he was, it was okay to call them animals. Once the conversation moved back to the original question, he called that spin. maybe it's not that we are reading different threads but that i'm the only one reading 4) again, the no leg to stand on is not at all in relation to his clarification, and rather the idea of bias in general. when he continues to go on to generalize, no, i think that’s clearly a generalization. i would accept that generalizations don’t help an argument at all but i will not accept that as a direct attack on Introvert. 5) that’s the post i had alluded to. introvert did presume that answer, that happened. and again, that was posted *after* your claim he was being attacked. so even if introvert hadn’t said what he said, it would be odd to use it in support of your claim when it hadn’t yet existed. are you sure you’re reading? these post script snips you continually make to me seem very odd. i’m not triggered and i have read them, i think, quite carefully. i’m afraid maybe you’re not after this third attempt to say introvert had no legs to stand on in his clarification when that is clearly not what is written. please read that post again before making any snide remarks my way.
jesus christ dude i never said "no legs to stand on" referred to his clarification. your reading that it was related to his charge of bias is accurate, but your reading that its just "a generalization" and not an attack is far off the mark. he was essentially accused of being a hypocrite. it is an accusation that is as post-fact as the post that started all this, since introvert is not a republican, didnt vote for trump, and by my accounts is one of the more serious, thoughtful posters in the thread. its an attempt to dismiss him from the thread: "sorry you have no purchase here. you are not wanted."
regarding this point 5, its very clear that introvert knew that trump referred to some people as "animals" but it is the other side who changed the debate. its not a devious alt right tactic to influence us or threaten us. the other side shifted the goalposts, and then demanded introvert condemn trump or be branded an alt right nut job. the end result of clarifying a simple untruth.
i quoted the post in point 5, even though it had been made after my iitial post in this thread because it was the culmination of othering attacks and predictable in itself. but i could have quoted others:
On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties.
is that not an attack on introvert?
|
Ehh, I'd wager intro is a pretty typical California Republican 
|
and id wager GH is a pretty typical portland democrat
|
On May 18 2018 03:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 02:48 brian wrote:On May 18 2018 02:31 IgnE wrote:4) On May 17 2018 23:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. Yea, you don't really have a leg to stand on when complaining about this kind of irrational bias. It really amazes me how Republicans, by becoming disgustingly partisan and electing horrific demagogues to office, completely destroyed almost any sense of decency, bipartisanship, ethical conduct, and reasonable discourse in our political process and yet think they can then criticize anyone else on it. That's not an attack on introvert? 5) On May 18 2018 01:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:25 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. It’s a nit pick on one story. Meanwhile Introvert voted for the guy who called for banning all Muslims and creating a database of Muslims, but he still wants to believe there’s no overall thrust of bigotry coming from trump. It’s these and other defenses of Donald Trump as president that constitute abandoning one’s mental faculties. Actually, while I kind of consider this personal info, in a manner, I actually didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I shouldn't have to say that, because my point on this comment isn't related. But apparently multiple people think it matters. On May 18 2018 01:23 Kyadytim wrote:On May 18 2018 01:09 Introvert wrote:On May 18 2018 00:47 Kyadytim wrote:On May 17 2018 16:51 Introvert wrote:
There have to be more important issues on which to burn all of one's credibility. It's not that he's "simple" or "stupid," it's that it's plain to everyone who can turn off the special Trump centers of their brains for 30 seconds that, when asked about MS-13, he responds by talking about MS-13. If he said "MS-13" he'd probably get criticized for saying it when the lady already said it. "He's so stupid he has to repeat what people say to him out loud!"
And it is certainly ridiculous for so many people and reporters to be presenting this as simply "Donald Trump's opinion on immigrants" without even allowing for an alternative interpretation. That's not journalism, it's advocacy. Considering that so many people don't read past the headline, it's espeically egregious. I used to read several conservative news outlets regularly to avoid being entirely in a bubble, and there's been an increasing usage of phrases such as special Trump centers in the brain or Trump derangement syndrome that unsubtly imply that people who disagree with Trump have been driven insane by him. Related, you just either called a bunch of people insane or implied that we disagree with Trump because we have brain cancer. That doesn't really contributed to amicable discussion. But they have. Few on the right were harsher on Trump during the campaign for his rhetoric than I was. Yet for all the crap Trump has said, everyone has trouble stepping back for a few seconds and see what is actually being said. This happens a lot but I focused on that last night because I had a few minutes and it was such a ridiculous example. As for "amicable discussion" I'd say that posting the conext-less clip you did then saying that a figure of speech was (or could be) implying you have cancer is arguing in very bad faith, and that's also pretty bad for discussion (and let's be real, "discussion" wasn't the objective when you posted that). Stop putting words in my mouth. Discussion of how the Trump administration is moving closer to being a totalitarian government by a subset of the population and against the rest of it was what I wanted. Instead I got you changing the discussion to how vague it is acceptable for Trump to be. As for contextless: In case I haven't been perfectly clear, there is NO context where the president of the United States saying "These aren't people. These are animals." about human beings is acceptable. Some grade A spin, "context doesn't matter." Fine. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM Introvert provided a really good example of this. Introvert appears to be in favor of the president of the United States calling people animals, but doesn't want to say that outright. Instead, he changed the debate from "Is it okay for the President of the United States to call people animals, even if they're criminals such as MS-13?" to what the video refers to as the next argument: "Was the president talking about MS-13?" which is premised on an underlying assumption that if he was, it was okay to call them animals. Once the conversation moved back to the original question, he called that spin. maybe it's not that we are reading different threads but that i'm the only one reading 4) again, the no leg to stand on is not at all in relation to his clarification, and rather the idea of bias in general. when he continues to go on to generalize, no, i think that’s clearly a generalization. i would accept that generalizations don’t help an argument at all but i will not accept that as a direct attack on Introvert. 5) that’s the post i had alluded to. introvert did presume that answer, that happened. and again, that was posted *after* your claim he was being attacked. so even if introvert hadn’t said what he said, it would be odd to use it in support of your claim when it hadn’t yet existed. are you sure you’re reading? these post script snips you continually make to me seem very odd. i’m not triggered and i have read them, i think, quite carefully. i’m afraid maybe you’re not after this third attempt to say introvert had no legs to stand on in his clarification when that is clearly not what is written. please read that post again before making any snide remarks my way. jesus christ dude i never said "no legs to stand on" referred to his clarification. your reading that it was related to his charge of bias is accurate, but your reading that its just "a generalization" and not an attack is far off the mark. he was essentially accused of being a hypocrite. it is an accusation that is as post-fact as the post that started all this, since introvert is not a republican, didnt vote for trump, and by my accounts is one of the more serious, thoughtful posters in the thread. its an attempt to dismiss him from the thread: "sorry you have no purchase here. you are not wanted." regarding this point 5, its very clear that introvert knew that trump referred to some people as "animals" but it is the other side who changed the debate. its not a devious alt right tactic to influence us or threaten us. the other side shifted the goalposts, and then demanded introvert condemn trump or be branded an alt right nut job. the end result of clarifying a simple untruth.
4) with regards to what YOU said, thanks for clarifying. suffices to say your first post consisting of two sentences made this not clear. you might’ve clarified in the three posts since then before attacking me, but so be it. let it not be said i have thin skin
with regards to the stratos post, i guess agree to disagree. i’m reading incredibly clear generalizations. this is supported by his use of ‘all republicans,’ ‘they,’ and other generalizing words. but if you take special offense to that, i would challenge you to consider who exactly needs the safe space.
5) the post you selected calls out introvert for presuming an answer to the question ‘are ms-13 gang members animals.’ and that happened. say what you will. again, it was posted after your initial claim so it’s odd you would use it in support of it, but you do you. though again, if looking to read insults into that which is not there, perhaps reconsider who needs the safe space.
to your edit: sure is. i don’t know if that necessarily precipitates the lovely exchange we’ve enjoyed, or hits any of the marks you’ve been spouting off about, but if that’s what sets you off; im a broken record. find your safe space.
aside from all the nonsense you’ve said, i find it particularly bad manners to associate someone voting trump just because they espouse conservatives viewpoints. that was unfair, and it turns out, inaccurate. but of course that isn’t what started this. though if i’m being honest i still don’t know what did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
