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

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

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?

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

Is it truly more tame, or simply not as offensive to you because you agree with much of it?

(05-03-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

(05-03-2019 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually one doesnt need to 'twist those items into victimhood' --- it is many times done for us.

Climate change -- I guess you all missed the rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair that the United States uses 108 per cent of the energy used on a yearly basis and only has 5 per cent of the population' thingy that continuously pops to the surface in the political discussion of the aspect.

Gun control -- I guess you also must have missed the 'moral obligation to challenge a gun lobby callously destroying the lives of ordinary people' stuff. Or, just tune in to anything by David Hogg..... (and in a neat circle this also touches on his whining for a boycott of Laura Ingraham, mind you. The irony....)

Here is a sample re-tweet from him yesterday ---
Cool -- make sure your opponent is castigated as an anti-Semite. No identity politics intended there in the fing slightest.

Protecting public lands -- I guess you all studiously forgot the Dakota Access Pipeline. Anytime there is the barest of threads to inject victimhood, or identity politics into the mix --- the left rolls all-in at the first whiff.

I guess some are so inured to the prevalence of this to simply dismiss it.

As for toll roads -- good god every time there is a toll road the progressives jump into it lock stock and two smoking barrels about the 'unfairness' of tolls to lower income and 'economic racism' issues. Happens with every toll road announced.

So no, I dont have to twist the unfairness into those issues for you. Your fellow progressives do a much, much better job on it in an incessant fashion.

In short - opposing something is indicative of having a victimhood complex. Interesting idea.

It is an ineresting idea. Too bad I never said that. Bummer.

Going down your 'making stuff up of what you think or want to have heard'?

I am providing examples of progressives injecting 'unfairness', 'victimhood', or 'identity politics' into each of the topics that perhaps you think progressives are extremely 'clean' and 'untouched' on.

Progressives do this incessantly. This isnt to say that the injection overcomes the true issues, but for just about every issue the progressives can (and do) inject that triumvirate into it.

Now, back to the original question -- The current candidates do a smashing good job of that 'injection' act. Sometimes it is the entire topic - Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I mean, jeezus h krist, it seems to me the entire Gang of 22 is only seemingly trying to rhetorically out-'unfair' the rest of the 21 in the group.

No - your original comment was how the Dem candidates had no ideas that weren’t BASED on victimhood. Not whether or not progressives inject that into positions.

Both sides do that. I will agree that liberals do that.

Don’t move the goal posts that you set.

How are following *not* based on victimhood:

Quote:Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I will back away from the implication or statement of 'all'. How about a real fing healthy proportion? Does that make you feel better?

There is a big difference between victimhood and fairness.

Would you say that prohibition being repealed was based on victimhood?

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

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

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.

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.

(05-03-2019 10:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

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

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

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 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?

(05-03-2019 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can certainly justify the deplorable comment, flyover comment, etc. But justification doesn't make the use of a demeaning term correct.

Some people need demeaning.

(05-03-2019 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

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.

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?

"flyover" means those states one flys over when traveling nonstop from coast to coast. So in a real sense, it defines the difference between the heartland and the coasts.

(05-03-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

(05-03-2019 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In short - opposing something is indicative of having a victimhood complex. Interesting idea.

It is an ineresting idea. Too bad I never said that. Bummer.

Going down your 'making stuff up of what you think or want to have heard'?

I am providing examples of progressives injecting 'unfairness', 'victimhood', or 'identity politics' into each of the topics that perhaps you think progressives are extremely 'clean' and 'untouched' on.

Progressives do this incessantly. This isnt to say that the injection overcomes the true issues, but for just about every issue the progressives can (and do) inject that triumvirate into it.

Now, back to the original question -- The current candidates do a smashing good job of that 'injection' act. Sometimes it is the entire topic - Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I mean, jeezus h krist, it seems to me the entire Gang of 22 is only seemingly trying to rhetorically out-'unfair' the rest of the 21 in the group.

No - your original comment was how the Dem candidates had no ideas that weren’t BASED on victimhood. Not whether or not progressives inject that into positions.

Both sides do that. I will agree that liberals do that.

Don’t move the goal posts that you set.

How are following *not* based on victimhood:

Quote:Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I will back away from the implication or statement of 'all'. How about a real fing healthy proportion? Does that make you feel better?

There is a big difference between victimhood and fairness.

Would you say that prohibition being repealed was based on victimhood?

They are part and parcel of the same issue. Unfairness requires a victim. A victim requires an act of unfairness.

Quote: Victim noun
1 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
the schools are victims of the social system
: such as one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
a frequent victim of political attacks
b : one that is tricked or duped
a con man's victim

The other alternative definitions tend towards the 'unfortunate happenstance' injury or destruction. But again, the ideal of an unfortunate happenstance also has within it the 'how unfair' implication.

So no, there really isnt such a huge difference between 'victimhood' and 'unfairness'.

As for prohibition being repealed, I am unaware that any of the Gang of 22 entertains any specific position on that.

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

(05-03-2019 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

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.

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.

(05-03-2019 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can certainly justify the deplorable comment, flyover comment, etc. But justification doesn't make the use of a demeaning term correct.

Some people need demeaning.

I do agree that social shaming can be good - see calling out racists, homophobes, etc. in public. Public shaming is what has helped create a society where open racism is not welcome.

Public shaming can go too far, which is also bad.

(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:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

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.

(05-03-2019 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

(05-03-2019 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It is an ineresting idea. Too bad I never said that. Bummer.

Going down your 'making stuff up of what you think or want to have heard'?

I am providing examples of progressives injecting 'unfairness', 'victimhood', or 'identity politics' into each of the topics that perhaps you think progressives are extremely 'clean' and 'untouched' on.

Progressives do this incessantly. This isnt to say that the injection overcomes the true issues, but for just about every issue the progressives can (and do) inject that triumvirate into it.

Now, back to the original question -- The current candidates do a smashing good job of that 'injection' act. Sometimes it is the entire topic - Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I mean, jeezus h krist, it seems to me the entire Gang of 22 is only seemingly trying to rhetorically out-'unfair' the rest of the 21 in the group.

No - your original comment was how the Dem candidates had no ideas that weren’t BASED on victimhood. Not whether or not progressives inject that into positions.

Both sides do that. I will agree that liberals do that.

Don’t move the goal posts that you set.

How are following *not* based on victimhood:

Quote:Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I will back away from the implication or statement of 'all'. How about a real fing healthy proportion? Does that make you feel better?

There is a big difference between victimhood and fairness.

Would you say that prohibition being repealed was based on victimhood?

They are part and parcel of the same issue. Unfairness requires a victim. A victim requires an act of unfairness.

Quote: Victim noun
1 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
the schools are victims of the social system
: such as one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
a frequent victim of political attacks
b : one that is tricked or duped
a con man's victim

The other alternative definitions tend towards the 'unfortunate happenstance' injury or destruction. But again, the ideal of an unfortunate happenstance also has within it the 'how unfair' implication.

So no, there really isnt such a huge difference between 'victimhood' and 'unfairness'.

As for prohibition being repealed, I am unaware that any of the Gang of 22 entertains any specific position on that.

So you're standing on the platform that supporting any stance that is based upon a perceived fairness is based on the idea of victimhood?

If that's the case, both parties are completely formed on victimhood. Gun rights? That's based on victimhood because people feel they are being victimized by regulations. Repealing Obamacare? That's based on victimhood because people feel they are being victimized by needing to be insured or having to pay a tax. Opposing taxes in general? That's based on victimhood because people feel like they are being victimized by forcing to subsidize programs they don't use.

Just admit you overstepped and we can move on from this silly argument.

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

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

(05-03-2019 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 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.

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.

(05-03-2019 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No - your original comment was how the Dem candidates had no ideas that weren’t BASED on victimhood. Not whether or not progressives inject that into positions.

Both sides do that. I will agree that liberals do that.

Don’t move the goal posts that you set.

How are following *not* based on victimhood:

Quote:Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I will back away from the implication or statement of 'all'. How about a real fing healthy proportion? Does that make you feel better?

There is a big difference between victimhood and fairness.

Would you say that prohibition being repealed was based on victimhood?

They are part and parcel of the same issue. Unfairness requires a victim. A victim requires an act of unfairness.

Quote: Victim noun
1 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
the schools are victims of the social system
: such as one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
a frequent victim of political attacks
b : one that is tricked or duped
a con man's victim

The other alternative definitions tend towards the 'unfortunate happenstance' injury or destruction. But again, the ideal of an unfortunate happenstance also has within it the 'how unfair' implication.

So no, there really isnt such a huge difference between 'victimhood' and 'unfairness'.

As for prohibition being repealed, I am unaware that any of the Gang of 22 entertains any specific position on that.

So you're standing on the platform that supporting any stance that is based upon a perceived fairness is based on the idea of victimhood?

If that's the case, both parties are completely formed on victimhood. Gun rights? That's based on victimhood because people feel they are being victimized by regulations. Repealing Obamacare? That's based on victimhood because people feel they are being victimized by needing to be insured or having to pay a tax. Opposing taxes in general? That's based on victimhood because people feel like they are being victimized by forcing to subsidize programs they don't use.

Just admit you overstepped and we can move on from this silly argument.

Not in the slightest. I guess you might be 'color blind' to the absolutely far over-reach that progressives go to contour their electorate. Perhaps that is the reason they feel the need to go to concepts like 'racist', 'homophobic', 'misogynist', 'evil fing rich people' like a junkie is drawn to a Mexican 8-ball.

Your choice to overlook that proclivity. Good for you. On the opposite side of the spectrum, for most of the last 50 years the tune has been 'a rising tide benefits pretty much everything'. It is really only the progressives who have been war chanting about the deep and massive chasms in the bedrock of fairness that underlie this country.

The only dynamic that has changed *has* been Trump. And he has used the concept that the left looks at certain people with utter fing contempt like a champ. Using your sides own speaker's words mind you.

Trump is an Alinsky A+ on defining this as an avenue for the right. The left has been using it for fing 60 years -- and *** **** do they hate it being used on them. Because it force the progressives to see what empty bag of 'ooohhhhhh unfair to blacks' and 'ooooooh unfair to gays' and 'oooooohhh unfair to women' and 'ooooh unfair rich white guys' modern progressives have 'evolved' to be after 60 years of the ****.

*That* is the difference. Bummer.

Neither avenue is particularly attractive. But I find it very interesting that you steadfastly seemingly wish to jam your head in the sand over the practices of the last 50 years. But, you know what lad? Not my problem.

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

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

(05-03-2019 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 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.

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, lots of times the tone and usage matter. Somebody might call you "smart' in a way that is demeaning, or they might mean it as a compliment or just a description.

what term would you prefer I use? "person fighting for justice as he sees it
who thinks I am evil for not agreeing with him' seems incredibly unwieldy.

And calling me "incredibly naive' in a discussion of slurs seems a bit OTL. It sounds to me like a personal attack. I think maybe you are letting this get personal.

If you COULD justify it, that means you CAN. Please do so, or I shall assume you CANNOT. Personally, I wouldnot characterize half of Democrats as deplorable. Maybe half of their ideas.

To help you out, here it is:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Seems to depend a lot on phobias.

As for Beta, he choose to have a nickname. If I choose to run for office using the name "Honest John", I leave myself open to people making jokes, as I did with Beta. I think he is the front runner to balance the ticket with any nominee who is not a white male. He is an empty suit, but a nice smile, a good campaigner, a good fund raiser, and puts texas into play. what's not to like - as the second person on the ticket.

(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:  

(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.

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?

(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?

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.

(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:  

(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?

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.

Well, when I use SJW, I intend for it to be demeaning, and I hope it is taken that way.