You just proved my point. Typical lefty? What democrats or liberals do you know personally? Any? How on Earth can you speak about the “typical lefty”? Based on what you see in internet comment section? Do you think I can know what the typical righty is like by reading conservative internet comments? Have you ever had a conversation with a democrat in real life?
But you just know that based on the fact that I tend to identify with the left of the political spectrum that I’m likely less civil than a rabid wolverine? Do you hear how ridiculous you are sounding?
What is it that you think you are accomplishing with this dictionary definition? Can you tell me the time stamp of the video where the attack occurred?
Do you think anyone was attacked in the video? When did the attack occur? Or are you just calling what happened an attack because its a loaded term in this context? I remember some thread where you claimed having perspective was important. Do you think using inflammatory language like attacked is helping or hurting with the perspective of this situation?
And please save the condescension. You are on doorhinge’s side ffs. That combo is not a good look.
Why yes, it is true that when I posted my remark at 1:49 I had not seen the remark that begbert2 posted at 1:52. Brilliant deduction, Sherlock. :rolleyes:
And now that I have seen that (subsequent) remark, I do not endorse it.
I think doorhinge’s point was crystal clear, to anyone who is even minimally-informed about this topic and how it has developed over the last few days. To recap, here’s what he posted:
I’m going to try to be charitable and assume that you really don’t understand what you got wrong. I’ll try to explain it, slowly.
Notice that doorhinge’s post does not specify where / when the “attack” took place? He used the word “attack” twice:
“the racist, yellow dog Democrat, hat-hating mob who chose to attack a teenager who hadn’t done anything wrong”
“The lame stream media-types, the yellow dogs, the Hollyweirdos, and those who are simply haters for the sheer joy of being haters, had a field day attacking a teenager”
He never said the attack happened “in the video”. That was something you imagined / invented all on your own. It seems pretty obvious to me, and I’m a bit surprised it’s not obvious to you, that the “attack” he’s referring to is the online frenzy with threats and denouncements and “strong criticism” (now would be a good time to refer to that definition of “attack” he posted for you), which all occurred after the video was posted online.
What I think is obvious is that you’ve found a way to use your main tactic on this board of finding some simple error that really isn’t the main points being debated and you pick at that as if it means anything, and you are now back to the condescension as if you’ve accomplished anything at all. Doorhinge’s post was a rambling incoherent mess, so gee you got me, I misinterpreted part of his word salad. Congratulations I guess? It doesn’t make his word salad any more comprehensible or factual.
So… who’s the victim, exactly? The guy who was asked not to wear a Trump shirt at the gym, or the gym that got threats of arson after asking the guy not to wear a Trump shirt at the gym?
Let me guess… the guy, right? Shirts outrank arson.
Are you kidding??!? The MAIN POINT of your post was that you didn’t understand what he meant by “attack” and imagined incorrectly that it referred to a physical assault “in the video”. Go back and read your own words:
What, aside from your misunderstanding of the word “attack”, is the “main point” of that post?
The “attack” that doorhinge referred to is literally the main point of this thread (that you’ve been participating in but seem unaware of). The title is literally “Has the media misrepresented the incident with the Covington Cathlic kids?”
We’re not discussing some random sidebar triviality. We’re actually right on topic with this little exchange about the “attack” and you apparently being unaware of it.