No, “deliberate” makes perfect sense in context. These are people, according to SA, who have destroyed people’s lives on purpose, knowing full well (or not caring) what destruction they were causing.
The noun in that sentence was what? Oh, adolescents. They were deliberate adolescents.
Um, I’m not getting “intentionally killing people” from that.
Quite apart from your abuse of the word genocide.
Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things “better” = “genocide”, or am I abusing the term in some way I do not see? If you kill millions of people, that’s genocide to me, and that’s exactly what he was accusing lib erals of doing.
Let’s see which makes more sense:
They are a bunch of headstrong adolescents. Ding!
They are a bunch of deliberate adolescents. Bzzzt!
Aren’t you supposed to be some kind of English professor or something?
A wise man once said, “It is possible to argue without the level of venom displayed in this instance. It was completely unnecessary and way over the top.” I agree.
The only problem being is that while an admonishment to dial it down is taken with a nod by normal people, some snowflakes seem to think it impinges on their personal freedoms. And we can’t have that.
I don’t think so. The objectionable hyperbole in the referenced post was incidental to the main point. Der Trihs’s hysterical apocalypticism OTOH, is intrinsic to his POV. So it’s harder to censor the man in that case without censoring the idea, such as it is. And if Der’s given a small, specific order, there’s a decent chance that he would comply: he shows a surprising amount of discipline for someone who posts such unhinged stuff. He’s perfectly agreeable at times.
I raise a glass to those who have ignored this recommendation.
Well, it looks like there is more broad application of this rule than I thought, at least now.
Much as I appreciate the Athena analogy, I don’t think we’re treading on any new ground here. We’re trying to keep the discussions on topic rather than have them get derailed by partisan broadsides. The debates here are supposed to be fun and supposed to be as open as possible, but practically any debate can get wrecked right away by that kind of thing, so we’re trying to keep it from getting out of hand.
I think it’s a great idea. I just hadn’t notice much of an effort to do this in the past. Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but if you guys do more smackdowns of threadshitting like that from both sides, so much the better.
It really gets tiresome to have every damn political thread in GD turned into a contest of who can bash the other side the most.
Agreed–Tom’s modding here is in exactly the same vein and (IMO) spot-on perfect.
For whatever it’s worth, I like this trend in GD.
That’s what I linked to in post #66.
Genocide is more than mass killing. Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. It is the selectivity of the group being targeted and the wholesale approach to wiping out that group that defines genocide.
Killing millions of people is a bad thing, but unless it is systemically aimed at a specific group, it isn’t genocide.
How is it that the three page GD thread on Obama’s new gay marriage position isn’t in Elections? You know the one Marley, you were again the first one to respond to it.
Requests for thread moves should be made by the ‘report this post’ button.
Reported.
I don’t really care what forum it’s in. I wanted the reasoning so I can do my best to follow the rules …that’s why I asked “why”.