Now this I can agree with. My apologies for calling you out by name earlier, but three pages of news-less pedantry was getting irritating when there's so much substance to discuss and ridicule.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatso
Exceptional troll job by Buster. I can't remember a poster singlehandedly ruining a strong thread so thoroughly. Top-notch work when you think about it.
Especially when some questions directed at the poster go unanswered. Must be a poltician in real life
replace democracy with "western democracies" in my post.
I don't see how that changes anything.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
Exceptional troll job by Buster. I can't remember a poster singlehandedly ruining a strong thread so thoroughly. Top-notch work when you think about it.
Exceptional troll job indeed Fatso. Let's make a big deal out of this. I can't speak for Buster but it looks to me like he thoroughly enjoys all of the criticism. Good job on stroking Busters' ego by declaring him the poster who Fatso cannot remember anyone else ruining a strong thread so thoroughly. And that's coming from an eight year poster!! Nice work Buster!! You are the new gold standard...........sort of.
I don't think you have a problem with hateful speech. It seems to me that Donald Trump just doesn't hate the things that you want him to.
You have always struck me as one of the most hateful posters on the board.
And you have every right to say or think that. I'm no angel. But what is said between two individuals is much different than what is said when arguing a policy that affects the many. Two people can engage in a discussion over mindless crap and have a real good throw down, as it only impacts those two individuals. But when you are speaking of public policy issues that can affect thousands or millions, you have to approach the subject matter differently. Like I'm sure that when you're with your buddies and speaking to issues that are strictly of your opinion, that affect only you, you have a much different demeanor than you would at, say work, where you are representing the interest of others. I would certainly hope you can see the difference?
I will also add that I don't really give a #### about the direct personal attacks (Crooked Hillary, Tiny Hands Trump), as it is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy to discredit your opponent. Where the line is crossed is stoking the fires of hatred or fear of some phantom menace, just to score points. To me that is where responsible free speech should be reigned in and something our culture should strive to eliminate. If you wish to attack an individual, like me for instance, that is fair game in my books. I have the ability to face my accuser and can defend myself and my positions. But if you attack a group of people, who do not have fair representation to answer back to the claims made, that is not fair and should not be cool.
So please, attack me directly on my policy positions if you like, but do not attack an entire group of people who have no voice in the debate at hand. This will also explain why I have a problem with Harris and his comments about Islam, and his public feud with the laundry list of people he has feuds with. But any how, attack away. I will defend your right to do so.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Milo Yiannopoulos. Gay Breitbart writer, Trump supporter, made his name during gamergate, general right-wing troll, anti-feminist. Recently banned from twitter when he wrote an article trashing Ghostbusters and a bunch of his followers started harassing Leslie Jones. Did a campus speaking tour last year aimed at trolling campus social justice activists and generally being an over-the-top clown.
After looking up what "Coincidence Detector" is, basically Psycnet is suggesting that there are some "pro-Milo" people, not clear who, in this thread who are white supremacist anti-semite neo-nazis. I'd be interested in knowing who he's referring to.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Milo is who Buster could end up being if he keeps perfecting his troll game in this thread. Milo is a God-level troll, to the point he's been banned from Twitter now. He's the king of the Alt-Right as well. Good on him for realizing there's always going to be very stupid people from whom you can extract some cash from, he's probably made himself a nice living doing as he do.
Trying to get this trainwreck back on the tracks, it seems to me the Dem strategy going forward, and the strategy of anyone who doesn't want to see Trump win, is to stop with the race element of his campaign. There's so much there to destroy Trump with besides that, and some of it significantly more damaging, that I just don't get why there needs to be a focus on the race stuff.
Go after him being a con man, go after Trump U and every other massive business failure he has, go after the fact had he invested his inheritance in the market and performed at an average level, he'd be much richer than he currently is. Go after his misogyny, go after his mental instability, go after Manafort working for Putin.....just so much to go after that can harm as much or worse than the race stuff. Polls make it clear, he's going to get destroyed in the Hispanic and African American vote. Focus on the other stuff and you can convince everyone but his cultists that he's a loser who would be a disaster for the country.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Trying to get this trainwreck back on the tracks, it seems to me the Dem strategy going forward, and the strategy of anyone who doesn't want to see Drumpf win, is to stop with the race element of his campaign. There's so much there to destroy Drumpf with besides that, and some of it significantly more damaging, that I just don't get why there needs to be a focus on the race stuff.
Yeah, and there's been so much focus on it the past year that it can't possibly still have the shock value it did initially.
Quote:
Go after him being a con man, go after Drumpf U and every other massive business failure he has, go after the fact had he invested his inheritance in the market and performed at an average level, he'd be much richer than he currently is. Go after his misogyny, go after his mental instability, go after Manafort working for Putin.....just so much to go after that can harm as much or worse than the race stuff.
Don't agree with this, though. They seem to be going towards the "this guy is dangerous and might pose a national security threat if he's elected" path, which I've said all along is the right way to deal with him. This stuff is what really matters: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/op...nton.html?_r=0
Convincing everyone he's a bad person is beside the point; that's what you do with otherwise capable candidates if you want to discredit them. The downside risk of a Romney presidency was policies that would have negatively impacted poor people and the environment. The downside risk of a Trump presidency is driving civilization into a gutter. That's the key point here, the prospect of this guy having power is legitimately a threat to peoples' safety.
He will make decisions that will result in dead Americans, to say nothing of dead non-Americans, because every President has to make those decisions. Trump making those decisions is a horror show. Listen to this. Trump simply cannot do this job.
Spoiler!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't there be limits on free speech?
Ever since humans started banding together into communities, whether it be tribes, towns, nations and countries; there is an intrinsic social contract where you don't do things that are detrimental to the good of the community. These contracts have over time, manifested into laws (you don't kill and steal because it goes against the common goals of survival and prosperity, not because Satan will torture you if you do). I think there is a pretty strong argument that some types of speech can have a huge negative impact on societies. At the same time, full censorship is detrimental as well. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.
Democratic societies should aim to be resilient enough to have an immune system against insidious speech...that being said the limit is the 'yelling Fire in a theatre' or direct slander as they deeper impact than offending someone.
Offending someone is not reason enough to limit speech...
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Trump must know why we don't allow Japan to have an army right?
He seems believe that the US has bases all over the world because they are nice guys, don't get any benefit out of it, and were invited to all those places by the host.
Democratic societies should aim to be resilient enough to have an immune system against insidious speech...that being said the limit is the 'yelling Fire in a theatre' or direct slander as they deeper impact than offending someone.
Offending someone is not reason enough to limit speech...
It goes just beyond offending someone though. What happens when offending upsets the social balance and it leads to violence? The thing with democratic societies, is that they also tend to be full of factions and special interests. Whether it's political, religious, racial, economic. The biggest misconception about free democracies is that they will gravitate towards harmony. They survive by appeasement and compromise.
"Freedom of speech" is the afterall the same mechanism that allows a radical Imam to put evil thoughts in the minds of youth. Democracy isn't resilient to those types of dangers.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
It goes just beyond offending someone though. What happens when offending upsets the social balance and it leads to violence? The thing with democratic societies, is that they also tend to be full of factions and special interests. Whether it's political, religious, racial, economic. The biggest misconception about free democracies is that they will gravitate towards harmony. They survive by appeasement and compromise.
"Freedom of speech" is the afterall the same mechanism that allows a radical Imam to put evil thoughts in the minds of youth. Democracy isn't resilient to those types of dangers.
That's the price of Democracy...if you want to give the state the power and mandate to promote social harmony above all else...you have China
I'm not sure harmony is the expected outcome of Democracy...resilience and tolerance maybe.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Last edited by Fozzie_DeBear; 08-06-2016 at 06:36 PM.
