(05-03-2019 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well, when I use SJW, I intend for it to be demeaning, and I hope it is taken that way.

Thank you for making my point.

I can't believe we're arguing over how demeaning terms used by the right are compared to terms used by the left.

Both sides use phrases meant to demean the others. Those on this board trying to justify why those phrases aren't demeaning, or are less demeaning than X, Y, or Z used by the other side, are going down a strange and windy road.

Pretty soon we'll again see posters try and justify "white nationalist" being an OK term because each of the individual components are OK...

I remember when the term "political correctness" was intended to be critical of that theory. But most of the people embracing the theory were too ignorant (or perhaps incredulous) to realize that it was being critiqued.

(05-03-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well, when I use SJW, I intend for it to be demeaning, and I hope it is taken that way.

Thank you for making my point.
I can't believe we're arguing over how demeaning terms used by the right are compared to terms used by the left.
Both sides use phrases meant to demean the others. Those on this board trying to justify why those phrases aren't demeaning, or are less demeaning than X, Y, or Z used by the other side, are going down a strange and windy road.
Pretty soon we'll again see posters try and justify "white nationalist" being an OK term because each of the individual components are OK...

Well, I can't speak for any "side." I can speak only for myself.

If I use that term, I intend for it to be demeaning and derogatory, although more sarcastic than anything, and if you are offended, then good. That means I succeeded.

(05-03-2019 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So what you're saying is that since you find these nicknames and slurs to be justifiable, they're ok?

I can certainly justify the deplorable comment, flyover comment, etc. But justification doesn't make the use of a demeaning term correct.

You justify the deplorable comment? To quote your friend JAAO, wow. But go ahead. this should be interesting.

What i am saying is that some of those are not slurs. What should I call people who fight for social justice if not SJW?

Do I justify it? No. Did you see me justify its use the way you did for my examples?

I clearly said I COULD justify it. So maybe read a little closer next time.

I see no difference in you determining those words are not slurs (even though they are used as such) and someone who would justify the use of the word deplorable. All instances are using terms to demean another group.

You've got to be incredibly naive if you think people using the term SJW are trying to describe, and not demean, someone who is working on social justice issues.

Well, the context between the actual word 'deplorable' and the actual world 'warrior' is quite large. I mean, you are okay with the phrase 'social justice' so that cant be the problem.

If you dont see the absolutely massive difference between the words 'deplorable' (as a noun) on its own and warrior on its own, then I really sympathize with your plight.

Now, if we labeled the 'social justice warrior' (belittling, yes) with the more equivalent 'social justice fuckhead' you might have a point. But if you dont recognize the difference between a belittling nomenclature and one that is an absolute fing slap in the face no matter how you parse it, well...... as I said I sympathize with your plight.

I see no difference in how they are used to demean the people on the other end.

Are you seriously suggesting that just because a word starts out inane, that it can't be used to demean someone of something? Because that appears to be your point by bringing up the dictionary definition of the terms, as opposed to how they're wielded.

But you're right that there definitely are degrees of offense that language can be evaluated on. I never meant to say that all the terms I listed were all on the same plane of offense, just that they're used as derogatory words to describe those on the left.

If it makes you feel better, I will explicitly state that I think, comparatively, that describing someone on the right as deplorable is more bad than describing someone on the left as a SJW. Feel better?

Considering the *best* that "deplorable" can mean is 'utterly beyond contempt', and the *best* that SJW affords is 'following a quixotic social based quest' that might be start.

To be blunt I would hate to be in the shoes to make 'utterly beyond contempt' the equivalent of 'quixotic and possibly foolish quest seeker', but by all means attempt to rationalize that eqivalence. lmfao.

(05-03-2019 11:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You justify the deplorable comment? To quote your friend JAAO, wow. But go ahead. this should be interesting.

What i am saying is that some of those are not slurs. What should I call people who fight for social justice if not SJW?

Do I justify it? No. Did you see me justify its use the way you did for my examples?

I clearly said I COULD justify it. So maybe read a little closer next time.

I see no difference in you determining those words are not slurs (even though they are used as such) and someone who would justify the use of the word deplorable. All instances are using terms to demean another group.

You've got to be incredibly naive if you think people using the term SJW are trying to describe, and not demean, someone who is working on social justice issues.

Well, the context between the actual word 'deplorable' and the actual world 'warrior' is quite large. I mean, you are okay with the phrase 'social justice' so that cant be the problem.

If you dont see the absolutely massive difference between the words 'deplorable' (as a noun) on its own and warrior on its own, then I really sympathize with your plight.

Now, if we labeled the 'social justice warrior' (belittling, yes) with the more equivalent 'social justice fuckhead' you might have a point. But if you dont recognize the difference between a belittling nomenclature and one that is an absolute fing slap in the face no matter how you parse it, well...... as I said I sympathize with your plight.

I see no difference in how they are used to demean the people on the other end.

Are you seriously suggesting that just because a word starts out inane, that it can't be used to demean someone of something? Because that appears to be your point by bringing up the dictionary definition of the terms, as opposed to how they're wielded.

But you're right that there definitely are degrees of offense that language can be evaluated on. I never meant to say that all the terms I listed were all on the same plane of offense, just that they're used as derogatory words to describe those on the left.

If it makes you feel better, I will explicitly state that I think, comparatively, that describing someone on the right as deplorable is more bad than describing someone on the left as a SJW. Feel better?

Considering the *best* that "deplorable" can mean is 'utterly beyond contempt', and the *best* that SJW affords is 'following a quixotic social based quest' that might be start.

To be blunt I would hate to be in the shoes to make 'utterly beyond contempt' the equivalent of 'quixotic and possibly foolish quest seeker', but by all means attempt to rationalize that eqivalence. lmfao.

But we aren't talking about these being used as the best definition of the two...

Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

(05-03-2019 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hack. Coastal elite. Elitist. Hates America. Whiny. Beta. P***y. Cuck. Libtard. Snowflake. SJW.

I’ve seen many of those posted on this board to describe progressives. I’ve never seen anyone on this board actually use flyover in the way you suggest.

First, I will take credit for Beta. I coined the term specifically as a pun on Mr. O'Rourke's nickname, since I think he is the leading candidate for VP. Second place. Beta. Number two.
Get it? I have not used it for any other person and haven't noticed anybody else do it. It pleases me that you think it widespread. Thank you.

SJW. Isn't that the topic here? Eliminating a food purveyor because they don't like the charities they support? But if you consider SJW a pejorative, what phrase or word defines their position?

Snowflake. Who needs safe spaces? Who needs protection from being distressed?

\Coastal elite/elite. Elites think they are better than everyone else. Many of them are on the coasts, thus most of the safe Democratic states. If the shoe fits...

Hates America. Well, I think some do. Kaepernick would not stand for the anthem because the flag was a symbol of an oppressive nation. No Democrat's rose to defend the right's of people like me who were offended by that. I have trouble reconciling Rep. Omar's statements with a love for America. Democrats are defending those. I also have trouble with the choice of some of the left's targets. what is more American than Boy Scouts and church? I was never a Scout, and don't attend church, but my political views get me labeled. But in general, I would say that very few actually hate america - they just want to change it into Sweden or France. .

the rest i agree, they are largely or completely over the line - but I don't see them much here and rarely, if ever, use them myself. I have never heard a local liberal call me a deplorable - just your presidential nominee, a New York elite. I have never heard a local call me one who is afraid of people who "don't look like me, and bitterly clinging to my guns and religion" - that was the POTUS, and one of your most elite members, and one who was elite long before he was POTUS. There is just a general atmosphere of elitism in the Demo party, and the higher you go, the more it becomes apparent.

I don't believe that Kaepernick hates America. Protesting injustice does not equate to hating America. Why would Democrats "rise to defend you because you were offended" by his not standing for the National Anthem? You see yourself as a victim in the Kaepernick saga?

Kaepernick said this is an oppressive country. Makes sense to me that one would hate a country in which one is oppressed. Not you?

I think that's a leap. You can not like things about the a country without "hating" the country.

Quote:I was commenting on all the people who said, and still say, I should not be offended by Kaepernick's characterization of America. Are you one of those people?

You can choose to be offended by whatever you want. He is upset about what he views as systemic racial injustice in this country. Is that offensive to you? Asking Democrats to "rise to defend you over it" is a bit much, IMO.

Silence implies that they think the same. protest says they think differently. I am being attacked by the left because I think america is not an oppressive count country. My right to disagree with Kaep has been attacked. Not a problem - I am used to my right to an opinion being attacked.

I think Kaep is wrong. You don't like it, tough for you. But I grew in a an america in which segregation was the law of the land, and there was real oppression for many minorities. I have watched decades of change. America today is not oppressive. Just my opinion, based on what I have seen and what I see. Feel free to go directly to the "White nationalist" card.

(05-03-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do I justify it? No. Did you see me justify its use the way you did for my examples?

I clearly said I COULD justify it. So maybe read a little closer next time.

I see no difference in you determining those words are not slurs (even though they are used as such) and someone who would justify the use of the word deplorable. All instances are using terms to demean another group.

You've got to be incredibly naive if you think people using the term SJW are trying to describe, and not demean, someone who is working on social justice issues.

Well, the context between the actual word 'deplorable' and the actual world 'warrior' is quite large. I mean, you are okay with the phrase 'social justice' so that cant be the problem.

If you dont see the absolutely massive difference between the words 'deplorable' (as a noun) on its own and warrior on its own, then I really sympathize with your plight.

Now, if we labeled the 'social justice warrior' (belittling, yes) with the more equivalent 'social justice fuckhead' you might have a point. But if you dont recognize the difference between a belittling nomenclature and one that is an absolute fing slap in the face no matter how you parse it, well...... as I said I sympathize with your plight.

I see no difference in how they are used to demean the people on the other end.

Are you seriously suggesting that just because a word starts out inane, that it can't be used to demean someone of something? Because that appears to be your point by bringing up the dictionary definition of the terms, as opposed to how they're wielded.

But you're right that there definitely are degrees of offense that language can be evaluated on. I never meant to say that all the terms I listed were all on the same plane of offense, just that they're used as derogatory words to describe those on the left.

If it makes you feel better, I will explicitly state that I think, comparatively, that describing someone on the right as deplorable is more bad than describing someone on the left as a SJW. Feel better?

Oh, yes. You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

Truth is, I would MUCH rather be called a SJW than a deplorable. MUCH. MUCH. MUCH.

SJW implies a knight in shining armor, riding to the aid of the downtrodden. (maybe Quixotic, tilting at windmills, but still honorable intentions)

Deplorable? I cannot think of a good way that is used.

Yes - that is exactly how it is being used when lobbed at someone on the left by someone on the right.

I guess a gay man being called a fairy should be happy that he was called that and not something worse? What about racial epitaphs that reference animals? Sheesh, what a silly line of thinking.

You are getting more and more irrational. Is it impossible for you to see the truth?

I guess I can now add silly to incredibly naive to your "non-slurs" to me, personally.

Thank you sir, may I have another? How about calling me stupid next?

(05-03-2019 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First, I will take credit for Beta. I coined the term specifically as a pun on Mr. O'Rourke's nickname, since I think he is the leading candidate for VP. Second place. Beta. Number two.
Get it? I have not used it for any other person and haven't noticed anybody else do it. It pleases me that you think it widespread. Thank you.

SJW. Isn't that the topic here? Eliminating a food purveyor because they don't like the charities they support? But if you consider SJW a pejorative, what phrase or word defines their position?

Snowflake. Who needs safe spaces? Who needs protection from being distressed?

\Coastal elite/elite. Elites think they are better than everyone else. Many of them are on the coasts, thus most of the safe Democratic states. If the shoe fits...

Hates America. Well, I think some do. Kaepernick would not stand for the anthem because the flag was a symbol of an oppressive nation. No Democrat's rose to defend the right's of people like me who were offended by that. I have trouble reconciling Rep. Omar's statements with a love for America. Democrats are defending those. I also have trouble with the choice of some of the left's targets. what is more American than Boy Scouts and church? I was never a Scout, and don't attend church, but my political views get me labeled. But in general, I would say that very few actually hate america - they just want to change it into Sweden or France. .

the rest i agree, they are largely or completely over the line - but I don't see them much here and rarely, if ever, use them myself. I have never heard a local liberal call me a deplorable - just your presidential nominee, a New York elite. I have never heard a local call me one who is afraid of people who "don't look like me, and bitterly clinging to my guns and religion" - that was the POTUS, and one of your most elite members, and one who was elite long before he was POTUS. There is just a general atmosphere of elitism in the Demo party, and the higher you go, the more it becomes apparent.

I don't believe that Kaepernick hates America. Protesting injustice does not equate to hating America. Why would Democrats "rise to defend you because you were offended" by his not standing for the National Anthem? You see yourself as a victim in the Kaepernick saga?

Kaepernick said this is an oppressive country. Makes sense to me that one would hate a country in which one is oppressed. Not you?

I think that's a leap. You can not like things about the a country without "hating" the country.

Quote:I was commenting on all the people who said, and still say, I should not be offended by Kaepernick's characterization of America. Are you one of those people?

You can choose to be offended by whatever you want. He is upset about what he views as systemic racial injustice in this country. Is that offensive to you? Asking Democrats to "rise to defend you over it" is a bit much, IMO.

Silence implies that they think the same. protest says they think differently. I am being attacked by the left because I think america is not an oppressive count country. My right to disagree with Kaep has been attacked. Not a problem - I am used to my right to an opinion being attacked.

I think Kaep is wrong. You don't like it, tough for you. But I grew in a an america in which segregation was the law of the land, and there was real oppression for many minorities. I have watched decades of change. America today is not oppressive. Just my opinion, based on what I have seen and what I see. Feel free to go directly to the "White nationalist" card.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion. In no way do I think your viewpoint makes you a white nationalist.

I assume that you are open to the idea that growing up in America might be different for a black male than it would be for one of your family members (assuming here that they are not black males)? Perhaps certain segments of the population sense oppression that you or your family doesn't?

(05-03-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

I guess if you dont see the difference between 'utterly beneath contempt' and 'noisy little fool' then.... you dont. Got it.

(05-03-2019 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  First, I will take credit for Beta. I coined the term specifically as a pun on Mr. O'Rourke's nickname, since I think he is the leading candidate for VP. Second place. Beta. Number two.
Get it? I have not used it for any other person and haven't noticed anybody else do it. It pleases me that you think it widespread. Thank you.

SJW. Isn't that the topic here? Eliminating a food purveyor because they don't like the charities they support? But if you consider SJW a pejorative, what phrase or word defines their position?

Snowflake. Who needs safe spaces? Who needs protection from being distressed?

\Coastal elite/elite. Elites think they are better than everyone else. Many of them are on the coasts, thus most of the safe Democratic states. If the shoe fits...

Hates America. Well, I think some do. Kaepernick would not stand for the anthem because the flag was a symbol of an oppressive nation. No Democrat's rose to defend the right's of people like me who were offended by that. I have trouble reconciling Rep. Omar's statements with a love for America. Democrats are defending those. I also have trouble with the choice of some of the left's targets. what is more American than Boy Scouts and church? I was never a Scout, and don't attend church, but my political views get me labeled. But in general, I would say that very few actually hate america - they just want to change it into Sweden or France. .

the rest i agree, they are largely or completely over the line - but I don't see them much here and rarely, if ever, use them myself. I have never heard a local liberal call me a deplorable - just your presidential nominee, a New York elite. I have never heard a local call me one who is afraid of people who "don't look like me, and bitterly clinging to my guns and religion" - that was the POTUS, and one of your most elite members, and one who was elite long before he was POTUS. There is just a general atmosphere of elitism in the Demo party, and the higher you go, the more it becomes apparent.

I don't believe that Kaepernick hates America. Protesting injustice does not equate to hating America. Why would Democrats "rise to defend you because you were offended" by his not standing for the National Anthem? You see yourself as a victim in the Kaepernick saga?

Kaepernick said this is an oppressive country. Makes sense to me that one would hate a country in which one is oppressed. Not you?

I think that's a leap. You can not like things about the a country without "hating" the country.

Quote:I was commenting on all the people who said, and still say, I should not be offended by Kaepernick's characterization of America. Are you one of those people?

You can choose to be offended by whatever you want. He is upset about what he views as systemic racial injustice in this country. Is that offensive to you? Asking Democrats to "rise to defend you over it" is a bit much, IMO.

Silence implies that they think the same. protest says they think differently. I am being attacked by the left because I think america is not an oppressive count country. My right to disagree with Kaep has been attacked. Not a problem - I am used to my right to an opinion being attacked.

I think Kaep is wrong. You don't like it, tough for you. But I grew in a an america in which segregation was the law of the land, and there was real oppression for many minorities. I have watched decades of change. America today is not oppressive. Just my opinion, based on what I have seen and what I see. Feel free to go directly to the "White nationalist" card.

Remember - you have a right for your opinion to not be attacked or infringed by the government. You do not have a right to not be judged or challenged or respected or... by ordinary citizens.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Your right has not been attacked.

(05-03-2019 12:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

I guess if you dont see the difference between 'utterly beneath contempt' and 'noisy little fool' then.... you dont. Got it.

Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

(05-03-2019 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

I guess if you dont see the difference between 'utterly beneath contempt' and 'noisy little fool' then.... you dont. Got it.

Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

Trust me. I got it. In lad-world there is zero difference between the two. Does that sum it up appropriately?

No diff at all between foolhardy and beneath contempt in that worldview. I find that equivalence rather interesting. And perhaps a little troubling....

(05-03-2019 12:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

I guess if you dont see the difference between 'utterly beneath contempt' and 'noisy little fool' then.... you dont. Got it.

Tanq - just take a step back for a second.

You're literally trying to parse the difference between two different slanderous terms used by the left or right to describe the other.

What is the point of trying to parse this difference?

Trust me. I got it. In lad-world there is zero difference between the two. Does that sum it up appropriately?

No diff at all between foolhardy and beneath contempt in that worldview. I find that equivalence rather interesting. And perhaps a little troubling....

I've already stated that if you want to get into the nitty gritty about which one is worse, I think one is worse. You can go read it.

But you still haven't responded - what is your point of trying to determine which demeaning term is worse?

Because I am not trying to furiously make the two equivalent.

(05-03-2019 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Because I am not trying to furiously make the two equivalent.

That doesn't explain your point.

I'm not "trying to furiously make the two equivalent," as you suggest. I'm trying to make it obvious that the overall best-case definition of a term doesn't mean squat if it's used to demean someone or something - which you tried to do.

My original point when bringing this up was that it's a term that the right tries to use to demean the left. Owl# agrees with that statement.

You see some value in trying to parse this to oblivion - why?

lad -- your 'original point' was that you 'can justify' the use of the word 'deplorable', and then proceeded to make a direct equivalence to the term 'SJW'.

To be blunt -- they might be equivalent as they are both 'meanie poo' words. But to equate 'beneath contempt' to *anything* that you might think SJW means is just pretty fing stupid.

And, if you had bothered to fing read, I had moved off of the 'best case' to a worse case, even though you are still arguing that 'best case' ****.

So yes, your direct equivalence that you 'can justify the use of the word 'deplorable' ' to that of 'SJW' doesnt even pass the fing smell test.

Your attempt to make them equivalent leaves me as gob-smacked as listening to Trump describing his inauguration as the 'largest ever'.

You are the one that is seemingly hell-bent in equating the two. So do you *really* fing think that 'utterly beneath contempt' is *really* equivalent to

Quote:implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction"

Wiki 'SJW'
If so, god fing help us. Good enough now, lad?

(05-03-2019 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad -- your 'original point' was that you 'can justify' the use of the word 'deplorable', and then proceeded to make a direct equivalence to the term 'SJW'.

To be blunt -- they might be equivalent as they are both 'meanie poo' words. But to equate 'beneath contempt' to *anything* that you might think SJW means is just pretty fing stupid.

And, if you had bothered to fing read, I had moved off of the 'best case' to a worse case, even though you are still arguing that 'best case' ****.

So yes, your direct equivalence that you 'can justify the use of the word 'deplorable' ' to that of 'SJW' doesnt even pass the fing smell test.

Your attempt to make them equivalent leaves me as gob-smacked as listening to Trump describing his inauguration as the 'largest ever'.

You are the one that is seemingly hell-bent in equating the two. So do you *really* fing think that 'utterly beneath contempt' is *really* equivalent to

Quote:implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction"

Wiki 'SJW'
If so, god fing help us. Good enough now, lad?

(05-03-2019 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad -- your 'original point' was that you 'can justify' the use of the word 'deplorable', and then proceeded to make a direct equivalence to the term 'SJW'.

To be blunt -- they might be equivalent as they are both 'meanie poo' words. But to equate 'beneath contempt' to *anything* that you might think SJW means is just pretty fing stupid.

And, if you had bothered to fing read, I had moved off of the 'best case' to a worse case, even though you are still arguing that 'best case' ****.

So yes, your direct equivalence that you 'can justify the use of the word 'deplorable' ' to that of 'SJW' doesnt even pass the fing smell test.

Your attempt to make them equivalent leaves me as gob-smacked as listening to Trump describing his inauguration as the 'largest ever'.

You are the one that is seemingly hell-bent in equating the two. So do you *really* fing think that 'utterly beneath contempt' is *really* equivalent to

Quote:implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction"

Wiki 'SJW'
If so, god fing help us. Good enough now, lad?

whatever....... sorry to ruin your fing rhetorical question that now I see it for what it is.

(05-03-2019 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad -- your 'original point' was that you 'can justify' the use of the word 'deplorable', and then proceeded to make a direct equivalence to the term 'SJW'.

To be blunt -- they might be equivalent as they are both 'meanie poo' words. But to equate 'beneath contempt' to *anything* that you might think SJW means is just pretty fing stupid.

And, if you had bothered to fing read, I had moved off of the 'best case' to a worse case, even though you are still arguing that 'best case' ****.

So yes, your direct equivalence that you 'can justify the use of the word 'deplorable' ' to that of 'SJW' doesnt even pass the fing smell test.

Your attempt to make them equivalent leaves me as gob-smacked as listening to Trump describing his inauguration as the 'largest ever'.

You are the one that is seemingly hell-bent in equating the two. So do you *really* fing think that 'utterly beneath contempt' is *really* equivalent to

Quote:implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction"

Wiki 'SJW'
If so, god fing help us. Good enough now, lad?

whatever....... sorry to ruin your fing rhetorical question that now I see it for what it is.

It wasn't rhetorical - you still haven't addressed what your point has been in trying to make the clear distinction that "deplorable" is worse than "SJW."