Straight Dope Message Board

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

*shrug* it's done now, Trump fixed it, so it's not terribly relevant anymore.

There are Dopers who would say that bit of nonsense sarcastically. But no, you're really that silly.

So, what, your great Christian hero just undid the horrors of the Muslim usurper, so never mind what those horrors were? This is dumb. 1

[JRDelirious]

As to your Thread Title question, would this not count? 2

[bobot]

Yes, there was the one about him being full of shit. Perhaps there could be one about his predilection for posting only in forumses that guard against proper vitriolic responses. 3

[Chisquirrel]

Trump fixed things by deporting FEWER criminals, while promoting 17 different kinds of shitty? I'd ask him to "fix" my car, but I have no use for a hole in my driveway. 4

[RitterSport]

I just want to jump in to say that I oppose this pitting. HD has some bad posts, sure, but I think he mostly posts in good faith. Plus, I think he has moderated a lot since he first joined, not that long ago. He's still very conservative, but my impression is that he generally debates fairly, listens and responds to arguments, etc.

This place has few enough thoughtful conservatives and HD is one, or has become one anyway. In my view, he has stuck to his principles but has adjusted well to the generally civil tone of this board.

Reading this again, I wouldn't be surprised if he found this post to be super condescending. I really mean this in a defensive way, not a condescending way. 5

[The Tooth]

He supports torture for money. 6

[Spice Weasel]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

HD has some bad posts, sure, but I think he mostly posts in good faith. Plus, I think he has moderated a lot since he first joined, not that long ago. He's still very conservative, but my impression is that he generally debates fairly, listens and responds to arguments, etc

I agree with this. I feel this way about a lot of conservative posters that people hate. I want people I don't agree with to post here. But that doesn't mean nothing they (he) has said isn't Pitworthy. 7

[Morgenstern]

It's like we need a pit reason to pit Octopus' older brother? Seriously, they are from the same nest. 8

[Bruce Wayne]

Pit fail. Hurricane Ditka is smarter than the OP. 9

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Pit fail. Hurricane Ditka is smarter than the OP.

Talk about damning with faint praise...

Regards,
Shodan 10

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Pit fail. Hurricane Ditka is smarter than the OP.

If he is, it does not show on this board. 11

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Pit fail. Hurricane Ditka is smarter than the OP.

Doubtful. 12

[iiandyiiii]

If there was any doubt if HurricaneDitka's support of Trump was related to possible sympathy for white supremacists and white supremacism:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I think Timothy McVeigh's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Not much doubt any more, ISTM. 13

[Morgenstern]

He definitely posted that for the effect. 14

[Lemur866]

And what would that effect be? 15

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

If there was any doubt if HurricaneDitka's support of Trump was related to possible sympathy for white supremacists and white supremacism:



Not much doubt any more, ISTM.

I hope no one tries to get him to explain this. No good is going to come from that. Best to not feed. 16

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

If there was any doubt if HurricaneDitka's support of Trump was related to possible sympathy for white supremacists and white supremacism:



Not much doubt any more, ISTM.

You have a very strong tendency to to look at things through a racial lens. But you need to appreciate that not everyone else does. 17

[Procrustus]

I think Timothy McVeigh's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Cite

I'm speechless

First, I don't have much sympathy for the guys at Waco. Ruby Ridge was a disaster, but shit happens sometimes. Neither, under any circumstances or any view of the facts, justify OK City Federal Building bombing. 18

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

You have a very strong tendency to to look at things through a racial lens. But you need to appreciate that not everyone else does.

Most people that I've spoken to who have expressed a belief that black people (or Jews, or Mexicans, or some other ethnic/racial/etc. group) are inferior in some way (this is just an example -- I'm not aware of HD saying anything like this directly) don't actually believe they are racist, and are aghast if/when anyone says that anything they've said or done is racist. Sympathizing with/supporting a white supremacist mass murderer is "looking at things through a racial lens", whether one realizes it or not.

It's possible that HD is just trolling, and it's probably even possible that his sympathy for the motives and actions of a white supremacist mass murderer like McVeigh is unrelated to white supremacism, but the latter strikes me as unlikely enough to put into that little basket of things that are not really worth considering without really strong evidence. 19

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

You have a very strong tendency to to look at things through a racial lens. But you need to appreciate that not everyone else does.

Did you just call Andy4eyes a racist? I seriously doubt that is anywhere near the case. 20

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Did you just call Andy4eyes a racist? I seriously doubt that is anywhere near the case.

That's not how I interpreted what he said. I took it as something like "quit making everything about race!" 21

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Sympathizing with/supporting a white supremacist mass murderer is "looking at things through a racial lens", whether one realizes it or not.

He didn't sign on to agree with McVeigh's entire worldview. He was discussing McVeigh's bombing, which AFAICT was primarily motivated by anti-government views and not white supremacism. Which is certainly what HD seemed to be assuming, at any rate, because the Waco incident had nothing to do with White supremacism. 22

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

Cite

I'm speechless

First, I don't have much sympathy for the guys at Waco. Ruby Ridge was a disaster, but shit happens sometimes. Neither, under any circumstances or any view of the facts, justify OK City Federal Building bombing.

Ya know, I've always been okay with HD, but, wow. That really shades my opinion quite a bit. 23

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

He didn't sign on to agree with McVeigh's entire worldview. He was discussing McVeigh's bombing, which AFAICT was primarily motivated by anti-government views and not white supremacism. Which is certainly what HD seemed to be assuming, at any rate, because the Waco incident had nothing to do with White supremacism.

Occam's Razor says the answer is trolling. 24

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

He didn't sign on to agree with McVeigh's entire worldview. He was discussing McVeigh's bombing, which AFAICT was primarily motivated by anti-government views and not white supremacism. Which is certainly what HD seemed to be assuming, at any rate, because the Waco incident had nothing to do with White supremacism.

IMO, ignoring or failing to see open white supremacism is just as much "looking at things through a racial lens" as pointing it out.

But trolling seems just as likely to me, based on various other posts of his that strike me as probable trolling. 25

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

He didn't sign on to agree with McVeigh's entire worldview. He was discussing McVeigh's bombing, which AFAICT was primarily motivated by anti-government views and not white supremacism. Which is certainly what HD seemed to be assuming, at any rate, because the Waco incident had nothing to do with White supremacism.

Aside from that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play? 26

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I hope no one tries to get him to explain this. No good is going to come from that. Best to not feed.

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

He didn't sign on to agree with McVeigh's entire worldview. He was discussing McVeigh's bombing, which AFAICT was primarily motivated by anti-government views and not white supremacism. Which is certainly what HD seemed to be assuming, at any rate, because the Waco incident had nothing to do with White supremacism.

Like I said-- no good is going to come from this. 27

[Lemur866]

I agree that any of our resident right-wingers who want to try defending Tim McVeigh aren't going to have that work out so well for them.

And limiting yourself to defending the defenders of Tim McVeigh? That isn't going to work so well either. Playing defense attorney for admirers of Tim McVeigh is a fool's errand. This isn't a court of law, Tim McVeigh's admirers aren't your clients, you do not have a professional obligation to zealously defend them.

Let the people who admire Tim McVeigh defend themselves. You don't have to do it for them. 28

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don't know that HD is an admirer of TM, having merely said that his actions were not an "entirely unreasonable reaction". But leaving that aside, I've not defended HD - I've simply disputed a racial interpretation of his words.

I realize this may be too nuanced for certain people here, and am not inclined to repeat this over and over again, so I'll probably leave it at this. 29

[iiandyiiii]

If McVeigh had been a large-scale vandal, or hacked into government systems and scrambled thousands of man-hours of work, or similar, then perhaps one could have a reasonable discussion about whether his actions were in any way reasonable. But he was a mass murderer of men, women, and children -- and white supremacism (in particular the Turner Diaries, based on my reading) was fundamental to his ideology. It's both unreasonable to feel that the bombing was in any way reasonable, and it's unreasonable to believe that it didn't have anything to do with white supremacism. IMO.

But I'll put the likelihood that he's trolling as just as high as the likelihood he's a tolerator or sympathizer of white supremacism. 30

[Spice Weasel]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

It's both unreasonable to feel that the bombing was in any way reasonable, and it's unreasonable to believe that it didn't have anything to do with white supremacism. IMO.

I don't see where the latter follows, honestly. It's possible to believe terrorism is an understandable response to Waco without believing in the racist ideologies of the particular terrorist who did it. The opinion is repugnant enough as stated without reading things into it. 31

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Spice Weasel

I don't see where the latter follows, honestly. It's possible to believe terrorism is an understandable response to Waco without believing in the racist ideologies of the particular terrorist who did it. The opinion is repugnant enough as stated without reading things into it.

When I stack on various other positions of the poster in question, it seems less and less likely that sympathy or tolerance for white supremacism isn't a part of it. Possible, but pretty unlikely, ISTM.

Or trolling, which seems just as likely, IMO. 32

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

If McVeigh had been a large-scale vandal, or hacked into government systems and scrambled thousands of man-hours of work, or similar, then perhaps one could have a reasonable discussion about whether his actions were in any way reasonable. But he was a mass murderer of men, women, and children -- and white supremacism (in particular the Turner Diaries, based on my reading) was fundamental to his ideology. It's both unreasonable to feel that the bombing was in any way reasonable, and it's unreasonable to believe that it didn't have anything to do with white supremacism. IMO.

But I'll put the likelihood that he's trolling as just as high as the likelihood he's a tolerator or sympathizer of white supremacism.

I dunno. I see virtually no difference between that statement and "I think Osama Bin Laden's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Iraq."

I disagree with both. While I can see how the events of one led to the other, it is only through irrationality and unreasonable "logic", that one justifies murdering civilians in response to some perceived slight by a government power.

At the same time, while I would disagree entirely with someone who opined in that fashion, I wouldn't think that they agreed with the taliban's goals of creating a caliphate. 33

[nightshadea]

the mc veigh argument reminds me of why a few people I knew opposed desert storm 1 because supposedly Kuwait owed Iraq a large amount of cash and they looked at the invasion like a car repossession... and wondered why we were getting involved in someone else's financial dispute 34

[John Mace]

He also has a tremendous amount of concern regarding Democrats. 35

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Most people that I've spoken to who have expressed a belief that black people (or Jews, or Mexicans, or some other ethnic/racial/etc. group) are inferior in some way (this is just an example -- I'm not aware of HD saying anything like this directly) don't actually believe they are racist, and are aghast if/when anyone says that anything they've said or done is racist. Sympathizing with/supporting a white supremacist mass murderer is "looking at things through a racial lens", whether one realizes it or not.

It's possible that HD is just trolling, and it's probably even possible that his sympathy for the motives and actions of a white supremacist mass murderer like McVeigh is unrelated to white supremacism, but the latter strikes me as unlikely enough to put into that little basket of things that are not really worth considering without really strong evidence.

When people join the US military, which has murdered many millions of innocent non-“whites”, it is hard to take them seriusly when they lament white supremacy.

The US military is basically a white supremacist organization with access to stolen money and deadlier weapons. This point has been made much clearer after 9/11 for the thinking citizenry of the world. Anyone who has joined the military after 9/11 is on average much worse than WWII era German soldiers because most of those guys were conscripted slaves. Today’s military is voluntarily murderous. 36

[WillFarnaby]

“I think people who joined the US military after 9/11 were not entirely unreasonable in their reaction to the events of 9/11.”

Do you agree with this statement Andy? 37

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

“I think people who joined the US military after 9/11 were not entirely unreasonable in their reaction to the events of 9/11.”

Do you agree with this statement Andy?

I agree that that and your post before are false dilemmas. 38

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

I agree that that and your post before are false dilemmas.

No the dilemma in Andy’s head is quite real. 39

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by John Mace

He also has a tremendous amount of concern regarding Democrats.

Nothing stains more conservative pillows with tears, other than maybe their deep, heartfelt concern over gang violence in the South Side of Chicago, triggered every time there's a mass shooting somewhere else. 40

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

When people join the US military, which has murdered many millions of innocent non-“whites”, it is hard to take them seriusly when they lament white supremacy.

The US military is basically a white supremacist organization with access to stolen money and deadlier weapons. This point has been made much clearer after 9/11 for the thinking citizenry of the world. Anyone who has joined the military after 9/11 is on average much worse than WWII era German soldiers because most of those guys were conscripted slaves. Today’s military is voluntarily murderous.

I hadn't noticed you before. 41

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

No the dilemma in Andy’s head is quite real.

piffle.

Go ahead and deny that a lot of the strawman that you are making was changed decades ago by Harry S. Truman.

So you only made yourself to be an ignoramus of history, want to make it worse? Please proceed governor... 42

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I hadn't noticed you before.

Yeah, that was quite a post. I wonder if we're missing an attempt at satire or something. 43

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

No the dilemma in Andy’s head is quite real.

Whatever nonsense/fantasyland stuff you're talking about, it has nothing to do with this thread; if you want to start a new thread about your whackjob nutty views about the world, feel free, but I feel no need to indulge your wackiness in this one. 44

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

Yeah, that was quite a post. I wonder if we're missing an attempt at satire or something.

I'm giving him the benefit for a very short minute here. If he's equating those who serve their country with those who seek to violently destroy it, then things might change quickly here. I'm hoping it's satire. 45

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I'm giving him the benefit for a very short minute here. If he's equating those who serve their country with those who seek to violently destroy it, then things might change quickly here. I'm hoping it's satire.

probably not satire 46

[Spice Weasel]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I hadn't noticed you before.

I thought he was Der Trihs! 47

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I'm giving him the benefit for a very short minute here. If he's equating those who serve their country with those who seek to violently destroy it, then things might change quickly here. I'm hoping it's satire.

It could just be his beef with me. He's been saying hateful things about me personally for a long time on this board. 48

[Sunny Daze]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I hadn't noticed you before.

WillF crawls out specifically to spew his hatred in threads where he can get in random digs at liberals. I believe he's racist and that he has some mighty strange views on the Civil War. I'll have to look for those threads. I might be mis-remembering that bit. 49

[Lemur866]

Will is a hardcore anarchocapitalist who believes that the United States went to hell in 1788 when the fascists overturned the Articles of Confederation, then it went to hell again in 1865 when the fascists won the Civil War, then it went to hell again in 1935 when the fascists implemented the New Deal, then it went to hell again in 1964 when the fascists passed the Civil Rights act. 50