NAOS
Well-Known Member
Keep going... I’m sure you can find more false equivalences and overly general categories to explain everybody’s actions. You’re certainly verrrrry level-headed, doe.
I’m voting Trump! Who’s with me?!
- Thread starter Miggs
- Start date
If you're concerned by some 'false equivalency' in my posts then you're welcome to actually point one out and we can discuss it. See if you can make an actual argument.
I'll wait.
So far, if I recall, you've made two references to drinking bleach, which is a complete miss...
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You’re a peach. It’s clear that your flailing like a bitch if you don’t think I can put together an argument on the subject of politics. I sincerely hope you aren’t in an irretrievably broken place.
Anyone who would group together the intentions, points argued, and nuances from posters as diverse as Wes, fishonjazz, Red, One Brow, etc. is making one hell of a lot of false equivalences.
.... Let’s cycle back to the irony of you blaming others for not making a clear argument. Are we there again? Ok? Now let’s lol. Thanks.
Sounds a lot like you, at least as much as the posters you used it upon.
1) There are definitely conservatives of all races. However, because of the differences in the way we are treated due to our skin color, out skin color affects everything about out experiences and opinions, including our political opinions. So, it's more complicated than "you have to be white to be a conservative" or "you'd be conservative no matter what your skin color was", neither is true.
2) I have noted that the people who use the term "snowflake" in the manner you quoted are often white people who are offended by notions like "safe spaces", which have no effect on them to begin with, hence easily offended.
First of all, it's "you're." Second of all, I'm not flailing, nor am I a "bitch," which shows your level of maturity and civility.
It would be fair to say that you, Wes, Fishonjazz, and One Brow all more or less agree that you strongly dislike Trump and would like to see him replaced by any Democrat on the ticket. (I don't really know Red.) That perspective has been conveyed for years in the General Discussion board. That's not a false equivalence. That's fair equivalence in this context. If any of you disagree, you're welcome to say so. I used the term "you snowflakes" a bit flippantly, as is the tone of this entire thread.
I'm not blaming others for anything. I'm pointing at you for simply ridiculing without making a coherent statement of your own.
I don't mind other people having other viewpoints or opposing viewpoints. There is often an insinuation on this board that if someone doesn't outright hate President Trump, that person must be some kind of backwater racist or misogynist. I don't agree with that view.
I won't disagree. I think people of similar race do have common political interests in certain situations (especially as we re-examine the state of civil rights), but at the same time, there is incredible variance and diversity within groups of people within the same race. (For example, rarely would it make much sense to generalize about Asians, since Asians are comprised of literally billions of different people in all kinds of situations.) One subtle form of racism is to assume all black people must think the same, or should think the same, or that they should be treated as political capital or as a political quantity by either political party.
There are indeed situations where white people are unaware or unempathetic towards the life experience of other races. I'll own that. The larger, lingering question of how Europeans colonized the west is also a fair, though complicated discussion.
I appreciate your comment here. Constructive and insightful. Respect.
It is a contemptuous and derogatory term. I shouldn't use it to describe anyone, so that's my mistake.
Last edited:
Miggs
Well-Known Member
How dare you?!!! I voted for a Trump!!!!!
Oh, my bad. Sorry.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I just watched this video. My take on it is pretty simple. There was a curefew set in place because of all the crazy rioting, violent destruction and mayhem. The protestors were literally shouting "no peace" at the riot officers and were the first ones to incite violence. Lazy journalism saying they could only find videos of it being bottle water. After that, the protestors get ****ed up.
What did you expect to happen or want to happen? Serious question.
Yeah, peaceful protestors got injured but it's like saying if you're hanging out with people robbing a bank and you're just there as a friend and not stealing anything or you don't have the gun then you should be ignored as a a criminal. I know, a lil extreme but it goes back to the same thing everyone knows. Surround yourself with good people, not people chucking rocks at riot police and chanting threats of no peace at them.
I don't understand what people wanted. Maybe the rioters should have been left alone to destroy the place?
Last thing I will say, I'm against the tear gas and rubber bullets unless you're shooting the guy throwing rocks, glass bottles, and bricks at you then **** that guy. Isn't tear gas banned from wars or why am I think this?
There's only one Democrat on the ticket right now, but I don't see a VP candidate likely to be worse than Trump.
There are also several Republicans I would prefer to Trump (although theocrats like Pence I'm not so fond of).
To me, the real danger of Trump is the self-interest-above-all-else and the veer toward the cult of personality and fascism, more than any individual policy or position.
The time of the curfew had not yet been reached.
The video points out that the Secret Service acted first, trying to push into the group.
Chemical warfare like mustard gas or Sarin is forbidden.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Let’s get into typos. Ok. Done with that.
I’ve made plenty of coherent comments/arguments about the inadequacies of this administration over the years. If you can’t remember them, should I apologize? Should we all reprise our most ornamental and well-thought arguments for you right now?
Also, just because two organisms arrive at the same apparent solution doesn’t make them equivalent in substance. That’s not how biology works at any scale. The gulf between myself and the posters I mentioned is significant. But those significances aren’t likely to matter to anyone who’s ready to discredit any idea the moment he/she finds one person or one example that fails to meet the standards of the over-riding reason that they brought into the discussion. Those kind of people are ready to rediscover the same premises they started out with. Reason jails them.
For example, the way you’ve failed at understanding the breadth and intelligence in the “defund the police” argument. Your pattern on this, from what I can tell, has been unchanged for weeks. Anyone is certain to find people flailing wildly at this issue on social media or in front of some camera; and you, Catchall, certainly have found some. But the real question is What’s the point in engaging with these videos? It’s clear that your efforts are about discrediting rather than understanding. And then you’ll go out and find a video and pull it wildly out of context. Again, why? There is, in fact, a valid and important conversation on this topic happening out there, where people are exploring different solutions for different regional problems. Can you actuallllllly believe that, bro? Or are you too busy thinking that “defund” equals, ultimately, ZERO police coverage?
So what’s the point of explaining to you the significance of differences that you elide? There probably isn’t any reason at all. But you should know that you’re creating false equivalences at an incredible (and pitiful) rate. There you go. The most obvious sign of why there isn’t any point in breaking them all down for you is that you’re flailing like a bitch.