(07-18-2019 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.
What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

This is so disingenuous, Tanq. I explained to you directly how in no way was I editing or trying to misrepresent Trump's tweet. You nicely accepted my explanation.

And yet you continue to act as if that exchange never happened. You continue to attack your straw man. I'm not going to repeat my explanation. You can go back and read the exchange verbatim.

I do and have read your 'excuse'. It to me is as disingenuous as you whine about here. So be it. Funny how that is, isnt it?

That's interesting. Two nights ago I gave you my explanation and this was your response:

"I now understand our non-congruent posts on the content of the comment; you are correct in your first comments to me is that it doesnt appear racist. Hopefully you can understand why I was making those assumptions given what was in quotes.

I will take you at your word, and accept your comments above."

Now this morning you tell me that you found my explanation disingenuous. Which is it? Seems that you'll flip-flop as needed to create your daily straw man.

Some comments you made subsequent to those you post of mine made me reassess.

My sincere apologies for not putting down every thought process I have in the course of living down for you.

The act of critical thinking in response to newer events foreign to you or something?

I would think that my change of course on my self-assessment of preening might be hint to you that this knuckle dragger has that ability. Perhaps not.

(07-18-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found this summation, and this facet seems utterly unimaginable to our fine friends on the left. I would like your comments on this, as it seems that those on the left are absolutely clueless that this view *just might exist*.

Here is the summation:

Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

But in the race to not even consider this, the kneejerk whiplash event of 'RRRAAAAACCCCIIISSST' is so blindingly tossed to not even consider that this point of view exists, and everything in this fracas is the result of a racial animus (note the lad's breathless recantation of an 'animalistic chant', from an event he probably saw a whole fing 8 or 9 secs of.)

Note the breathless 'how *dare* they complain of our government referred to as Nazi' that accompanies his 'animalistic chant' mantra. I mean, what is so hard to be just sick and fing tired of the OAC gang in that respect? Seriously.

You all exhibit the same view of being sick and fing tired of Trump in an equal charge and manner. I can actually appreciate that and process that. So why the absolute steel shutter view of the pig headed 'animalistic chanters' from your quarters? Again, seriously.

I know the principle of Focault's pendulum, and the summation does a decent job of that for me. Yet for some, even here, Focault's pendulum seems to default to the word 'racist' at the drop of a short bus seat. That is really stunning to me.

Maybe this is our permanent mode now. From the left's standpoint, must be a tough time when the supposed mentally deficient side decides to actually stand up and take their own swings in the opposite direction. The horrors of the mentally deficient actually having the *temerity* to do that.

Has anyone here said “how dare they complain about what AOC, et al have said?” Or have we been criticizing how those people complaining have responded? This like if I was robbed by a black person, and instead of telling a cop, “Arrest that man” I said “Arrest that :insert racial slur here:.” The issue isn’t that I’m telling a cop to arrest a person who robbed me, it is that I am being racist while doing it.

See, the chants weren’t “Vote her out” or “Prove her wrong” or anything else that doesn’t rely on the racist trope of “go back to where you came from.” They instead used a common racist attack of someone who isn’t white to go back where they came from.

And to your question - if I have to pick an absolute answer like the political compass quiz, then yes, Trump’a tweet and the chant were racist. Note that when you watch the video, you can clearly see a lot of people in the crowd not join in that chant. I wonder why they didn’t? Probably because they disagreed with what was being chanted.

So your assessment is that the 9000 or so people are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

As a second question to the lad:

Quote:Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

Still waiting for you.

(07-18-2019 12:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93, and Lad, you are definitely part of the Thought Police, although I think Thought Militia would be a better description. Like Hitler's Brown shirts, you stand ready and willing to attack where you see a need.

One of them asked Tanq where he thought he got the RIGHT to use words like short bus. I think if people who think like that can, they will modify the Constitution to outlaw certain words that, in their minds, have no lawful use. Then we will have Thought Police, for real.

Scary to me that half the nation thinks like that. And THAT half thinks half the other half are racist deplorables, so whatever happens to them is only what they deserve, racist bastards.

Dude... I was being completely tongue-in-cheek when I "granted" Tanq the "right" to use those crummy terms. (Tanq, when I call those words crummy I am referring to their use as it pertains to disabled people, cool?). Did you miss that it was tongue-in-cheek? I'm pretty sure there was no other instance where I questioned his RIGHT to use those words. It's a free country and I believe in the 1st amendment. He can say just about anything he wants and I support his right to do so. He can use terms that disparage disable people to his heart's content.

Dude is a pejorative term. You cannot use language like that because you never know who might take offense.

I do. It is demeaning t call me dude. You whippersnappers do that all the time.

But I didn't even notice the post where you granted the right. It was the one where you asked why he thought he had the right to use those terms.

Hey, if you jump up to confront people on their words, you ARE the Thought Militia. Maybe the Speech Militia.

(07-18-2019 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found this summation, and this facet seems utterly unimaginable to our fine friends on the left. I would like your comments on this, as it seems that those on the left are absolutely clueless that this view *just might exist*.

Here is the summation:

Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

But in the race to not even consider this, the kneejerk whiplash event of 'RRRAAAAACCCCIIISSST' is so blindingly tossed to not even consider that this point of view exists, and everything in this fracas is the result of a racial animus (note the lad's breathless recantation of an 'animalistic chant', from an event he probably saw a whole fing 8 or 9 secs of.)

Note the breathless 'how *dare* they complain of our government referred to as Nazi' that accompanies his 'animalistic chant' mantra. I mean, what is so hard to be just sick and fing tired of the OAC gang in that respect? Seriously.

You all exhibit the same view of being sick and fing tired of Trump in an equal charge and manner. I can actually appreciate that and process that. So why the absolute steel shutter view of the pig headed 'animalistic chanters' from your quarters? Again, seriously.

I know the principle of Focault's pendulum, and the summation does a decent job of that for me. Yet for some, even here, Focault's pendulum seems to default to the word 'racist' at the drop of a short bus seat. That is really stunning to me.

Maybe this is our permanent mode now. From the left's standpoint, must be a tough time when the supposed mentally deficient side decides to actually stand up and take their own swings in the opposite direction. The horrors of the mentally deficient actually having the *temerity* to do that.

Has anyone here said “how dare they complain about what AOC, et al have said?” Or have we been criticizing how those people complaining have responded? This like if I was robbed by a black person, and instead of telling a cop, “Arrest that man” I said “Arrest that :insert racial slur here:.” The issue isn’t that I’m telling a cop to arrest a person who robbed me, it is that I am being racist while doing it.

See, the chants weren’t “Vote her out” or “Prove her wrong” or anything else that doesn’t rely on the racist trope of “go back to where you came from.” They instead used a common racist attack of someone who isn’t white to go back where they came from.

And to your question - if I have to pick an absolute answer like the political compass quiz, then yes, Trump’a tweet and the chant were racist. Note that when you watch the video, you can clearly see a lot of people in the crowd not join in that chant. I wonder why they didn’t? Probably because they disagreed with what was being chanted.

So your assessment is that the 9000 or so people are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

More proof you don’t read the things I write. You wouldn’t have asked if I thought 9,000 people joined the chant if you had.

(07-18-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As a second question to the lad:

Quote:Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

Still waiting for you.

Sorry, traveling for work so responding during stops on the drive.

I don’t see it as unfathomable, but I think it is wrong. Same way as you would think it was wrong if the left only saw two hands at play in politics - those who want to help people and those who want to hurt people, etc. It’s a false choice, but I certainly see that there are people that have that perspective.

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93, and Lad, you are definitely part of the Thought Police, although I think Thought Militia would be a better description. Like Hitler's Brown shirts, you stand ready and willing to attack where you see a need.

One of them asked Tanq where he thought he got the RIGHT to use words like short bus. I think if people who think like that can, they will modify the Constitution to outlaw certain words that, in their minds, have no lawful use. Then we will have Thought Police, for real.

Scary to me that half the nation thinks like that. And THAT half thinks half the other half are racist deplorables, so whatever happens to them is only what they deserve, racist bastards.

Dude... I was being completely tongue-in-cheek when I "granted" Tanq the "right" to use those crummy terms. (Tanq, when I call those words crummy I am referring to their use as it pertains to disabled people, cool?). Did you miss that it was tongue-in-cheek? I'm pretty sure there was no other instance where I questioned his RIGHT to use those words. It's a free country and I believe in the 1st amendment. He can say just about anything he wants and I support his right to do so. He can use terms that disparage disable people to his heart's content.

Dude is a pejorative term. You cannot use language like that because you never know who might take offense.

I do. It is demeaning t call me dude. You whippersnappers do that all the time.

But I didn't even notice the post where you granted the right. It was the one where you asked why he thought he had the right to use those terms.

Hey, if you jump up to confront people on their words, you ARE the Thought Militia. Maybe the Speech Militia.

So Trump and his supporters are the speech militia? Per Tanq, they’re confronting people because they use the word Nazi.

Edit: and what about parents who teach their children not to curse or call people names? Or what about the head of HR, who would definitely fire me for using a racial slur? Or what about the government who would hold me liable for screaming fire in a crowded theater, should someone get hurt?

(07-18-2019 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93, and Lad, you are definitely part of the Thought Police, although I think Thought Militia would be a better description. Like Hitler's Brown shirts, you stand ready and willing to attack where you see a need.

One of them asked Tanq where he thought he got the RIGHT to use words like short bus. I think if people who think like that can, they will modify the Constitution to outlaw certain words that, in their minds, have no lawful use. Then we will have Thought Police, for real.

Scary to me that half the nation thinks like that. And THAT half thinks half the other half are racist deplorables, so whatever happens to them is only what they deserve, racist bastards.

Dude... I was being completely tongue-in-cheek when I "granted" Tanq the "right" to use those crummy terms. (Tanq, when I call those words crummy I am referring to their use as it pertains to disabled people, cool?). Did you miss that it was tongue-in-cheek? I'm pretty sure there was no other instance where I questioned his RIGHT to use those words. It's a free country and I believe in the 1st amendment. He can say just about anything he wants and I support his right to do so. He can use terms that disparage disable people to his heart's content.

Dude is a pejorative term. You cannot use language like that because you never know who might take offense.

I do. It is demeaning t call me dude. You whippersnappers do that all the time.

But I didn't even notice the post where you granted the right. It was the one where you asked why he thought he had the right to use those terms.

Hey, if you jump up to confront people on their words, you ARE the Thought Militia. Maybe the Speech Militia.

So Trump and his supporters are the speech militia? Per Tanq, they’re confronting people because they use the word Nazi.

Edit: and what about parents who teach their children not to curse or call people names? Or what about the head of HR, who would definitely fire me for using a racial slur? Or what about the government who would hold me liable for screaming fire in a crowded theater, should someone get hurt?

As for the head of HR, he has to live in the world your guys created, where a racial slur is firing grounds. Didn't use to be. You guys changed the world. I am sure you are proud, Cowboy. I mean, Dude. I mean, whatever is OK with you.

There is a time and place to yell fire. It is not on the list of proscribed speech unless it is used improperly. I don't think anybody should yell fire on the short bus unless the short bus is on fire. I think people should yell fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire. It is a lesser evil than keeping quiet, or yelling "Combustion is happening!!!"

Yes, parents are also the thought police. I am sure you and 93 will instruct your children in the words that can and cannot be used, and when/if it is OK to use them. That is a proper parental function, preparing children to take a place in society. But it is not right for you and 93 to act in loco parentis for the entire society. THAT is why yall are the Speech Militia. You aren't my daddy.

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found this summation, and this facet seems utterly unimaginable to our fine friends on the left. I would like your comments on this, as it seems that those on the left are absolutely clueless that this view *just might exist*.

Here is the summation:

Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

But in the race to not even consider this, the kneejerk whiplash event of 'RRRAAAAACCCCIIISSST' is so blindingly tossed to not even consider that this point of view exists, and everything in this fracas is the result of a racial animus (note the lad's breathless recantation of an 'animalistic chant', from an event he probably saw a whole fing 8 or 9 secs of.)

Note the breathless 'how *dare* they complain of our government referred to as Nazi' that accompanies his 'animalistic chant' mantra. I mean, what is so hard to be just sick and fing tired of the OAC gang in that respect? Seriously.

You all exhibit the same view of being sick and fing tired of Trump in an equal charge and manner. I can actually appreciate that and process that. So why the absolute steel shutter view of the pig headed 'animalistic chanters' from your quarters? Again, seriously.

I know the principle of Focault's pendulum, and the summation does a decent job of that for me. Yet for some, even here, Focault's pendulum seems to default to the word 'racist' at the drop of a short bus seat. That is really stunning to me.

Maybe this is our permanent mode now. From the left's standpoint, must be a tough time when the supposed mentally deficient side decides to actually stand up and take their own swings in the opposite direction. The horrors of the mentally deficient actually having the *temerity* to do that.

Has anyone here said “how dare they complain about what AOC, et al have said?” Or have we been criticizing how those people complaining have responded? This like if I was robbed by a black person, and instead of telling a cop, “Arrest that man” I said “Arrest that :insert racial slur here:.” The issue isn’t that I’m telling a cop to arrest a person who robbed me, it is that I am being racist while doing it.

See, the chants weren’t “Vote her out” or “Prove her wrong” or anything else that doesn’t rely on the racist trope of “go back to where you came from.” They instead used a common racist attack of someone who isn’t white to go back where they came from.

And to your question - if I have to pick an absolute answer like the political compass quiz, then yes, Trump’a tweet and the chant were racist. Note that when you watch the video, you can clearly see a lot of people in the crowd not join in that chant. I wonder why they didn’t? Probably because they disagreed with what was being chanted.

So your assessment is that the 9000 or so people are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

More proof you don’t read the things I write. You wouldn’t have asked if I thought 9,000 people joined the chant if you had.

I read your answer and it wandered on a specific point, imo, and left me wondering. Notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

It is called having a doubt with a specific point on where you stand and pinning a point down precisely. That is the use here. Again, notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

There was a little point I left off my question, though, to be fair.

So your assessment is that the 9000 (or whatever your heart thinks is the number, for that matter) or so people who chanted are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

Better now? Answerable now? And no you really haven't answered the question son. And with reference to what is typed by you, you said 'the chant [was] racist' (Direct quote mind you). I am not asking about the fing 'chant', I am asking your opinion on the *people who joined the chant*. Very specifically. Kind of a fing nuance there.

So yes, I read it. I read exactly and precisely what you typed. And wish for a clarification of that.

(07-18-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93, and Lad, you are definitely part of the Thought Police, although I think Thought Militia would be a better description. Like Hitler's Brown shirts, you stand ready and willing to attack where you see a need.

One of them asked Tanq where he thought he got the RIGHT to use words like short bus. I think if people who think like that can, they will modify the Constitution to outlaw certain words that, in their minds, have no lawful use. Then we will have Thought Police, for real.

Scary to me that half the nation thinks like that. And THAT half thinks half the other half are racist deplorables, so whatever happens to them is only what they deserve, racist bastards.

Dude... I was being completely tongue-in-cheek when I "granted" Tanq the "right" to use those crummy terms. (Tanq, when I call those words crummy I am referring to their use as it pertains to disabled people, cool?). Did you miss that it was tongue-in-cheek? I'm pretty sure there was no other instance where I questioned his RIGHT to use those words. It's a free country and I believe in the 1st amendment. He can say just about anything he wants and I support his right to do so. He can use terms that disparage disable people to his heart's content.

Dude is a pejorative term. You cannot use language like that because you never know who might take offense.

I do. It is demeaning t call me dude. You whippersnappers do that all the time.

But I didn't even notice the post where you granted the right. It was the one where you asked why he thought he had the right to use those terms.

Hey, if you jump up to confront people on their words, you ARE the Thought Militia. Maybe the Speech Militia.

So Trump and his supporters are the speech militia? Per Tanq, they’re confronting people because they use the word Nazi.

Edit: and what about parents who teach their children not to curse or call people names? Or what about the head of HR, who would definitely fire me for using a racial slur? Or what about the government who would hold me liable for screaming fire in a crowded theater, should someone get hurt?

As for the head of HR, he has to live in the world your guys created, where a racial slur is firing grounds. Didn't use to be. You guys changed the world. I am sure you are proud, Cowboy. I mean, Dude. I mean, whatever is OK with you.

I think it's a net plus, TBH. I have concerns over the "cancel culture" in general but I'm just fine with people losing their jobs over using a racial slur.

Back when I was in high school all my friends used the term "gay" in a pejorative fashion. The term "f*g* was thrown around freely as well. Are these the good-old-days that you pine for? I'm ashamed to have taken part in that and I recognize how hurtful that was for certain individuals in our orbit.

(07-18-2019 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found this summation, and this facet seems utterly unimaginable to our fine friends on the left. I would like your comments on this, as it seems that those on the left are absolutely clueless that this view *just might exist*.

Here is the summation:

Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

But in the race to not even consider this, the kneejerk whiplash event of 'RRRAAAAACCCCIIISSST' is so blindingly tossed to not even consider that this point of view exists, and everything in this fracas is the result of a racial animus (note the lad's breathless recantation of an 'animalistic chant', from an event he probably saw a whole fing 8 or 9 secs of.)

Note the breathless 'how *dare* they complain of our government referred to as Nazi' that accompanies his 'animalistic chant' mantra. I mean, what is so hard to be just sick and fing tired of the OAC gang in that respect? Seriously.

You all exhibit the same view of being sick and fing tired of Trump in an equal charge and manner. I can actually appreciate that and process that. So why the absolute steel shutter view of the pig headed 'animalistic chanters' from your quarters? Again, seriously.

I know the principle of Focault's pendulum, and the summation does a decent job of that for me. Yet for some, even here, Focault's pendulum seems to default to the word 'racist' at the drop of a short bus seat. That is really stunning to me.

Maybe this is our permanent mode now. From the left's standpoint, must be a tough time when the supposed mentally deficient side decides to actually stand up and take their own swings in the opposite direction. The horrors of the mentally deficient actually having the *temerity* to do that.

Has anyone here said “how dare they complain about what AOC, et al have said?” Or have we been criticizing how those people complaining have responded? This like if I was robbed by a black person, and instead of telling a cop, “Arrest that man” I said “Arrest that :insert racial slur here:.” The issue isn’t that I’m telling a cop to arrest a person who robbed me, it is that I am being racist while doing it.

See, the chants weren’t “Vote her out” or “Prove her wrong” or anything else that doesn’t rely on the racist trope of “go back to where you came from.” They instead used a common racist attack of someone who isn’t white to go back where they came from.

And to your question - if I have to pick an absolute answer like the political compass quiz, then yes, Trump’a tweet and the chant were racist. Note that when you watch the video, you can clearly see a lot of people in the crowd not join in that chant. I wonder why they didn’t? Probably because they disagreed with what was being chanted.

So your assessment is that the 9000 or so people are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

More proof you don’t read the things I write. You wouldn’t have asked if I thought 9,000 people joined the chant if you had.

I read your answer and it wandered on a specific point, imo, and left me wondering. Notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

It is called having a doubt with a specific point on where you stand and pinning a point down precisely. That is the use here. Again, notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

There was a little point I left off my question, though, to be fair.

So your assessment is that the 9000 (or whatever your heart thinks is the number, for that matter) or so people who chanted are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

Better now? Answerable now? And no you really haven't answered the question son. And with reference to what is typed by you, you said 'the chant [was] racist' (Direct quote mind you). I am not asking about the fing 'chant', I am asking your opinion on the *people who joined the chant*. Very specifically. Kind of a fing nuance there.

So yes, I read it. I read exactly and precisely what you typed. And wish for a clarification of that.

I do appreciate you trying to narrow down the point if you’re confused, although I clearly said that “a lot” of people in the crowd weren’t chanting. I watched video clips of the rally, and it was clear that a large portion of the supporters didn’t chant.

Again I’ll ask, I wonder why a lot of people didn’t? Thoughts?

And my response is that the people who chanted that are either intentionally racist, ignorant of the racist component that “Send her back” has, or being intentionally inflammatory. Same way as those who chanted “Blood and Soil” in Charlottesville were either white supremacists, or ignorant of the relation to white supremacy.

If people chanting that aren’t racist, and I’m sure some aren’t, they could have chanted many other things to quickly, and easily, get the point across that they disagree with Omar, and as you have argued, should prove that her approach works.

(07-18-2019 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Has anyone here said “how dare they complain about what AOC, et al have said?” Or have we been criticizing how those people complaining have responded? This like if I was robbed by a black person, and instead of telling a cop, “Arrest that man” I said “Arrest that :insert racial slur here:.” The issue isn’t that I’m telling a cop to arrest a person who robbed me, it is that I am being racist while doing it.

See, the chants weren’t “Vote her out” or “Prove her wrong” or anything else that doesn’t rely on the racist trope of “go back to where you came from.” They instead used a common racist attack of someone who isn’t white to go back where they came from.

And to your question - if I have to pick an absolute answer like the political compass quiz, then yes, Trump’a tweet and the chant were racist. Note that when you watch the video, you can clearly see a lot of people in the crowd not join in that chant. I wonder why they didn’t? Probably because they disagreed with what was being chanted.

So your assessment is that the 9000 or so people are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

More proof you don’t read the things I write. You wouldn’t have asked if I thought 9,000 people joined the chant if you had.

I read your answer and it wandered on a specific point, imo, and left me wondering. Notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

It is called having a doubt with a specific point on where you stand and pinning a point down precisely. That is the use here. Again, notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

There was a little point I left off my question, though, to be fair.

So your assessment is that the 9000 (or whatever your heart thinks is the number, for that matter) or so people who chanted are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

Better now? Answerable now? And no you really haven't answered the question son. And with reference to what is typed by you, you said 'the chant [was] racist' (Direct quote mind you). I am not asking about the fing 'chant', I am asking your opinion on the *people who joined the chant*. Very specifically. Kind of a fing nuance there.

So yes, I read it. I read exactly and precisely what you typed. And wish for a clarification of that.

I do appreciate you trying to narrow down the point if you’re confused, although I clearly said that “a lot” of people in the crowd weren’t chanting.

That has zero to do with the question asked. The question asked was those of 'whom were chanting.' I fail to see how this has anything to do with actual question asked. Funny how you were just bitching about 'reading' and such.

Whether 'a lot' werent chanting, or 'a tiny number' werent chanting, or 50, or 100, or 3.1415 means zero in context of the specific question asked. I dont know your fascination with that chew toy. But it definitely in no way is an answer to the very specific question, is it lad? In your own words, please read the question (paraphrase of course, just to make sure their is no other verbal chew toy out there)

Quote:I watched video clips of the rally, and it was clear that a large portion of the supporters didn’t chant.

Again non-responsive.

And a point. I actually watched the entirety of Trump's remarks. A couple of times around the 2:32 and the preceding 10 mins in toto, and the succeeding 10 mins, again in toto. To be clear and precise of some items I was typing, in fact.

The cutaways showed a huge number of people chanting. This is opposed to the snippets that you rely so hugely on.

Funny thing I saw more than quite a few African Americans in the rafters chanting like no tomorrow. Jumping up and down as they yelled. Odd, wouldnt you say?

Maybe that is the difference between snippet watching and not. Maybe not.

Quote:Again I’ll ask, I wonder why a lot of people didn’t? Thoughts?

And once again non-responsive.

Quote:And my response is that the people who chanted that are either intentionally racist, ignorant of the racist component that “Send her back” has, or being intentionally inflammatory. Same way as those who chanted “Blood and Soil” in Charlottesville were either white supremacists, or ignorant of the relation to white supremacy.

Finally, thank god. An answer to the specific question. Holy moses that is like pulling teeth.

Quote:If people chanting that aren’t racist, and I’m sure some aren’t, they could have chanted many other things to quickly, and easily, get the point across that they disagree with Omar, and as you have argued, should prove that her approach works.

Based on your answer, I can see why you defend Hillary's 'deplorables' comment to your dying breath at every opportunity. Thank you for the clarification.

(07-18-2019 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So your assessment is that the 9000 or so people are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

More proof you don’t read the things I write. You wouldn’t have asked if I thought 9,000 people joined the chant if you had.

I read your answer and it wandered on a specific point, imo, and left me wondering. Notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

It is called having a doubt with a specific point on where you stand and pinning a point down precisely. That is the use here. Again, notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

There was a little point I left off my question, though, to be fair.

So your assessment is that the 9000 (or whatever your heart thinks is the number, for that matter) or so people who chanted are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

Better now? Answerable now? And no you really haven't answered the question son. And with reference to what is typed by you, you said 'the chant [was] racist' (Direct quote mind you). I am not asking about the fing 'chant', I am asking your opinion on the *people who joined the chant*. Very specifically. Kind of a fing nuance there.

So yes, I read it. I read exactly and precisely what you typed. And wish for a clarification of that.

I do appreciate you trying to narrow down the point if you’re confused, although I clearly said that “a lot” of people in the crowd weren’t chanting.

That has zero to do with the question asked. The question asked was those of 'whom were chanting.' I fail to see how this has anything to do with actual question asked. Funny how you were just bitching about 'reading' and such.

Whether 'a lot' werent chanting, or 'a tiny number' werent chanting, or 50, or 100, or 3.1415 means zero in context of the specific question asked. I dont know your fascination with that chew toy. But it definitely in no way is an answer to the very specific question, is it lad? In your own words, please read the question (paraphrase of course, just to make sure their is no other verbal chew toy out there)

Quote:I watched video clips of the rally, and it was clear that a large portion of the supporters didn’t chant.

Again non-responsive.

And a point. I actually watched the entirety of Trump's remarks. A couple of times around the 2:32 and the preceding 10 mins in toto, and the succeeding 10 mins, again in toto. To be clear and precise of some items I was typing, in fact.

The cutaways showed a huge number of people chanting. This is opposed to the snippets that you rely so hugely on.

Funny thing I saw more than quite a few African Americans in the rafters chanting like no tomorrow. Jumping up and down as they yelled. Odd, wouldnt you say?

Maybe that is the difference between snippet watching and not. Maybe not.

Quote:Again I’ll ask, I wonder why a lot of people didn’t? Thoughts?

And once again non-responsive.

Quote:And my response is that the people who chanted that are either intentionally racist, ignorant of the racist component that “Send her back” has, or being intentionally inflammatory. Same way as those who chanted “Blood and Soil” in Charlottesville were either white supremacists, or ignorant of the relation to white supremacy.

Finally, thank god. An answer to the specific question. Holy moses that is like pulling teeth.

Quote:If people chanting that aren’t racist, and I’m sure some aren’t, they could have chanted many other things to quickly, and easily, get the point across that they disagree with Omar, and as you have argued, should prove that her approach works.

Based on your answer, I can see why you defend Hillary's 'deplorables' comment to your dying breath at every opportunity. Thank you for the clarification.

So your argument is that people chanting that are...

And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus? Why do you think they stayed silent?

(07-18-2019 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Dude... I was being completely tongue-in-cheek when I "granted" Tanq the "right" to use those crummy terms. (Tanq, when I call those words crummy I am referring to their use as it pertains to disabled people, cool?). Did you miss that it was tongue-in-cheek? I'm pretty sure there was no other instance where I questioned his RIGHT to use those words. It's a free country and I believe in the 1st amendment. He can say just about anything he wants and I support his right to do so. He can use terms that disparage disable people to his heart's content.

Dude is a pejorative term. You cannot use language like that because you never know who might take offense.

I do. It is demeaning t call me dude. You whippersnappers do that all the time.

But I didn't even notice the post where you granted the right. It was the one where you asked why he thought he had the right to use those terms.

Hey, if you jump up to confront people on their words, you ARE the Thought Militia. Maybe the Speech Militia.

So Trump and his supporters are the speech militia? Per Tanq, they’re confronting people because they use the word Nazi.

Edit: and what about parents who teach their children not to curse or call people names? Or what about the head of HR, who would definitely fire me for using a racial slur? Or what about the government who would hold me liable for screaming fire in a crowded theater, should someone get hurt?

As for the head of HR, he has to live in the world your guys created, where a racial slur is firing grounds. Didn't use to be. You guys changed the world. I am sure you are proud, Cowboy. I mean, Dude. I mean, whatever is OK with you.

I think it's a net plus, TBH. I have concerns over the "cancel culture" in general but I'm just fine with people losing their jobs over using a racial slur.

Back when I was in high school all my friends used the term "gay" in a pejorative fashion. The term "f*g* was thrown around freely as well. Are these the good-old-days that you pine for? I'm ashamed to have taken part in that and I recognize how hurtful that was for certain individuals in our orbit.

I am astounded that you were that way, what, 20-30 years or more after I had a gay friend in high school? How regressive were you? I graduated in 1963.

Yeah, Jim was not as comfortable in my country HS full of rednecks as he would be today, but he got by. His "friend" Harlan was one of the more popular guys in school. I guess my country school in 1962-63 was more progressive than your school. And we did it without being coerced.

You used the phrase "good old days". I didn't. Don't make me defend your words, dude sir. Typical left wing tactic.

I am not aware what you mean by f*g*. I guess that is something that exists in your head but not mine.

But back to the hiring/firing thing. Used to be most people were fired for one of two things - criminal activity and incompetence. I think the addition of political correctness is a net minus. TBH. That's how we get to demands for the release of perfectly able administrators in retaliation for things they may have said decades ago.

The idea of firing for criminal activity and incompetence is fairly objective, the latter a little less so.

The funny thing is that 93 just validated the entire ethos of progressivism with his comment there. Perfectly fine with firing for a 'racial slur'.

Funny how a 'racial slur' is a constantly moving target. In fact, it is utterly and completely subjective, to be honest. Not just by individual variance, but by temporal variance. One that was, surprise, surprise, visited by the Supreme Court last year.

The prime example of how leftists wanted to ixnay the trademark Redskins for years; and when it came down to it, the Supreme Court didnt do the 'rule de jour' method that is lapped up like fresh mead by the leftists, they expressly ruled that the ability of the Trademark Office to deny "disparaging" marks was so amazingly vague that they told the Trademark Office to stop. But the core in their is that the progressives fought tooth and nail to impose a 'rule de jour' on that practice.

93 seems perfectly at home at creating a society ruled by 'rule de jour' in the workplace. Rule by vagueness. Yay. A progressive's wet dream.

And somehow they are either blind to that 'vagueness doctrine', or simply dont give a flip.

If bad -- -mob rule prevails. Get the state involved. Get the workplace involved. With a rulebase that can change with the vagaries of what is deigned to be double ungood speak (at that time, at that place). I mean, who the fk should care abut any form of objectivism if the goal is stamping out bad thought.

It almost *always* boils down to a rule de jour over a rule of law system for them. 93 gave us a great case in point of that just there. <clap>

Thank you for that telling insight.

But the entire concept of 'rule de jour'

(07-18-2019 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The idea of firing for criminal activity and incompetence is fairly objective, the latter a little less so.

The funny thing is that 93 just validated the entire ethos of progressivism with his comment there. Perfectly fine with firing for a 'racial slur'.

Funny how a 'racial slur' is a constantly moving target. In fact, it is utterly and completely subjective, to be honest. Not just by individual variance, but by temporal variance. One that was, surprise, surprise, visited by the Supreme Court last year.

The prime example of how leftists wanted to ixnay the trademark Redskins for years; and when it came down to it, the Supreme Court didnt do the 'rule de jour' method that is lapped up like fresh mead by the leftists, they expressly ruled that the ability of the Trademark Office to deny "disparaging" marks was so amazingly vague that they told the Trademark Office to stop. But the core in their is that the progressives fought tooth and nail to impose a 'rule de jour' on that practice.

93 seems perfectly at home at creating a society ruled by 'rule de jour' in the workplace. Rule by vagueness. Yay. A progressive's wet dream.

And somehow they are either blind to that 'vagueness doctrine', or simply dont give a flip.

If bad -- -mob rule prevails. Get the state involved. Get the workplace involved. With a rulebase that can change with the vagaries of what is deigned to be double ungood speak (at that time, at that place). I mean, who the fk should care abut any form of objectivism if the goal is stamping out bad thought.

It almost *always* boils down to a rule de jour over a rule of law system for them. 93 gave us a great case in point of that just there. <clap>

Thank you for that telling insight.

But the entire concept of 'rule de jour'

So you’re against an employer being able to fire an employee over the use of a racial slur?

Interesting observation - just noticed that Tanq relies heavily upon the law in his responses. He talks about what is legal, what the Supreme Court has ruled, etc., regardless of whether or not the legality of an issue is of concern. This is a perfect example - we’re talking about a topic that is more concerned with ethics and morality, as opposed to legality. No one is saying that people should be held criminally liable for these chants, using a racial slur in the work place, etc., yet Tanq is relying on the legal system as a way to push back. But society has decided, mostly, that there are plenty of things that are legal, but not necessarily moral or ethical, and speech really falls in that category.

I think that is often where a lot of these disagreements come from.

(07-18-2019 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But society has decided, mostly, that there are plenty of things that are legal, but not necessarily moral or ethical, and speech really falls in that category.

I think that is often where a lot of these disagreements come from.

That was Justice Scalia's view as well: there are plenty of laws that are "legal" (i.e. Constitutional) but not necessarily good.

The failure to understand the difference is definitely where a lot of disagreements on constitutionality come from.

(07-18-2019 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus?
Why do you think they stayed silent?

I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

(07-18-2019 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The idea of firing for criminal activity and incompetence is fairly objective, the latter a little less so.

The funny thing is that 93 just validated the entire ethos of progressivism with his comment there. Perfectly fine with firing for a 'racial slur'.

Funny how a 'racial slur' is a constantly moving target. In fact, it is utterly and completely subjective, to be honest. Not just by individual variance, but by temporal variance. One that was, surprise, surprise, visited by the Supreme Court last year.

The prime example of how leftists wanted to ixnay the trademark Redskins for years; and when it came down to it, the Supreme Court didnt do the 'rule de jour' method that is lapped up like fresh mead by the leftists, they expressly ruled that the ability of the Trademark Office to deny "disparaging" marks was so amazingly vague that they told the Trademark Office to stop. But the core in their is that the progressives fought tooth and nail to impose a 'rule de jour' on that practice.

93 seems perfectly at home at creating a society ruled by 'rule de jour' in the workplace. Rule by vagueness. Yay. A progressive's wet dream.

And somehow they are either blind to that 'vagueness doctrine', or simply dont give a flip.

If bad -- -mob rule prevails. Get the state involved. Get the workplace involved. With a rulebase that can change with the vagaries of what is deigned to be double ungood speak (at that time, at that place). I mean, who the fk should care abut any form of objectivism if the goal is stamping out bad thought.

It almost *always* boils down to a rule de jour over a rule of law system for them. 93 gave us a great case in point of that just there. <clap>

Thank you for that telling insight.

But the entire concept of 'rule de jour'

So you’re against an employer being able to fire an employee over the use of a racial slur?

I am certainly against him having to.

Most employment is "at will", so I guess you could equally fire them for being democrats or calling the President a traitor.

I would be OK with it if he used the slur toward another employee. As in any personal conflict between employees, it needs to be handled.

I am not sure what I should do if he said something like "that sure is some white people stuff". What do you think? What if he said it to a black man? A white man? An Asian woman?

I am definitely against it if the slur was was far in the past.
WE would have an empty Congress by that standard. 93 would be unhireable, since by his own admission, he used slurs in the past toward gay classmates.

I would fire Rep. Ilhan for her slurs. Hers are heartfelt.