Pit -100 for Hank Williams, Jr.

[cjepson]

@R.P.McMurphy

This is the same type of person that will yell, “Support our President, right or wrong” when his guy is sitting in the Oval Office on his lazy ass trashing the country. Such a patriotic American young Hank is. I wonder if there is some inbreeding involved?

This is such bullshit.

Hank Williams, Jr. isn’t young.

[elucidator]

Whadday mean “inbreeding”? Your cousin isn’t good enough for you, you gotta go fuck a stranger?

[John_Mace]

I think I lost 10 IQ points reading that interview. This is a problem, not having that many points left these days.

[Merijeek]

@elucidator

Frequently so, no doubt, unless that username modestly invokes clarity and simplicity.

eluciwhat? That French?

-Joe

[Merijeek]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Translation: “I don’t know what the hell he was saying, either, but I’m going to defend him because I don’t like Obama.”

Well, clearly. Obama is practically Hitler after all. Dark hair. Gives speeches. Two arms. Two legs.

Seriously, what do you need, a Venn diagram?

-Joe

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@John_Mace

I think I lost 10 IQ points reading that interview. This is a problem, not having that many points left these days.

Actualy, with that last 10 points loss, you’re now in debt.

[John_Mace]

@Capitaine_Zombie

Actualy, with that last 10 points loss, you’re now in debt.

Fortunately, there are many poster here, like you, whose posts I can read, and make up that debt and then some!

[Truman_Burbank]

It’s an analogy, not a direct name-calling comparison, by a guy who doesn’t seem too bright. Getting too het up about it reminds me of the ‘lipstick on a pig’ thing, and seems to miss the point just as deliberately. Recreational outrage distracts us from more important issues, and probably makes intelligent persons from the other side of the political spectrum lower their estimation of us…

[Chessic_Sense]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Whose fault is it that you didn’t hear the part right after it?

I read it. He did, indeed, use Hitler’s name to describe Obama. What did he describe? How Obama gets along with Boehner. I don’t know why this is so hard. But anyway, this isn’t so much about Williams’s idiocy as it is about Trepa’s.

ETA: What, exactly, is meant by this post? Is Toomey like Hitler, or does the poster have another point?

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@Chessic_Sense

Irina Dunn compared women and men to fish and bicycles. The obvious implication is that she thinks women are like fish and men are like bicycles…right?

Not the obvious implication, but a secondary implication, yes.

See, here’s the thing. On the most basic level, an analogy is a direct comparison between the relationship of two things and the relationship of another two things. You’ve mastered this basic level. Congratulations.

However, simply by being in close proximity, as well as being part of some sort of comparison, the other, not-direct relationships floating about are also being subconsciously being compared, just because that’s how people think. If you put two sentences next to each other, the implication is that they’re related. If your story includes a character, the implication is that he’s important. This is basic storytelling stuff. On some lizard-brain level, in an analogy, everything is being compared to everything else, just because they’re so close to each other.

Now, since this applies to every analogy ever, it normally wouldn’t matter, but people freak out the moment Hitler is brought into any sort of comparison because Hitler is basically the Godzilla of metaphors. Anyone invoking Hitler in a political debate is either comparing one side to Hitler or will be mistaken for comparing that side to Hitler, which is why it’s verboten in the first place.

So, either Williams is either astoundingly clueless or he was trying to compare either Boehner or Obama to Hitler. And given his follow-up comments (state of the country, three stooges), it’s fairly obvious that he picked Netanyaho and Hitler’s relationship (even though they never had one) as opposed to, say, ANYTHING ELSE for the secondary implication of comparing Obama to Hitler.

[BubbaDog]

Bubbadog’s half-ass example of why the country isn’t getting any better -

LeftLeaningAsshole: “Hank Williams, Teabaggers, RightLeaners are saying/doing stupid shit which proves that the right is stupid evil meanies – Waaah! Waaah! Waaaah!”

RightLeaningAsshole: “DixieGirl,Liberal, LeftLeaning,Treehuggers are saying/doing stupid shit which proves that the left is stupid, evil meanies – Waaah! Waaaah! Waaaah!”

LeftLeaningAsshole: - “Well you’re an Asshole!”
RightLeaningAsshole: - “No, You’re an asshole!”

Bubbadog: - “I wonder what kind of handicap Hitler shot.”

[Trepa_Mayfield]

Anchor Gretchen Carlson later said to him, “You used the name of one of the most hated people in all of the world to describe, I think, the president.” Williams replied, “Well, that is true. But I’m telling you like it is.”

@Chessic_Sense

I read it. He did, indeed, use Hitler’s name to describe Obama. What did he describe? How Obama gets along with Boehner. I don’t know why this is so hard. But anyway, this isn’t so much about Williams’s idiocy as it is about Trepa’s.

“You used one of the most hated people in all of the world to describe, I think, the president.” Notice, Carlson doesn’t say “The president’s relationship” or “The president’s issues with congress”, just, “The president.” Williams just says, “Well, that is true.” Again, no correction. No ‘Well, the president and Boehner’, no ‘Well, the president in relation to Congress’, none of that. If that’s what Williams meant, then why would he just let that fall flat? Williams clearly thinks that he used Hitler to describe the president. Full stop. Unmodified. Neither party adds nuance to the statement, it just falls flat where it is.

P.S. @Bubbadog: I don’t think this says anything about anyone except Williams. I’m just in an arguin’ mood.

[Troppus]

@Trepa_Mayfield

Not the obvious implication, but a secondary implication, yes.

See, here’s the thing. On the most basic level, an analogy is a direct comparison between the relationship of two things and the relationship of another two things. You’ve mastered this basic level. Congratulations.

However, simply by being in close proximity, as well as being part of some sort of comparison, the other, not-direct relationships floating about are also being subconsciously being compared, just because that’s how people think. If you put two sentences next to each other, the implication is that they’re related. If your story includes a character, the implication is that he’s important. This is basic storytelling stuff. On some lizard-brain level, in an analogy, everything is being compared to everything else, just because they’re so close to each other.

Now, since this applies to every analogy ever, it normally wouldn’t matter, but people freak out the moment Hitler is brought into any sort of comparison because Hitler is basically the Godzilla of metaphors. Anyone invoking Hitler in a political debate is either comparing one side to Hitler or will be mistaken for comparing that side to Hitler, which is why it’s verboten in the first place.

So, either Williams is either astoundingly clueless or he was trying to compare either Boehner or Obama to Hitler. And given his follow-up comments (state of the country, three stooges), it’s fairly obvious that he picked Netanyaho and Hitler’s relationship (even though they never had one) as opposed to, say, ANYTHING ELSE for the secondary implication of comparing Obama to Hitler.

Yeah, this. Not RO, Williams is too dim to behold as a master of conservative rhetoric. No one takes his comments seriously, but ESPN was wise enough to put space between a lucrative corporation and a yahoo who was bound to make matters worse by explaining himself. (And…he did.)

[magellan01]

@Jack_Batty

What’s your point? Is Netanyahu a deaf-mute or something?

If you idly hear the phrase, “He’s worse than Hitler,” do you assume the speaker is saying the subject of their ire is an evil motherfucker of some stripe, or that he doesn’t speak well in public?

You didn’t directly answer my question, but it seems from what you wrote that you do grant that Hitler is sometimes pointed to as an example of a person that has oratorical skills that are extremely high. Good. So, we’ve established that the use of Hitler as a comparison needn’t point to his monstrosity. It can point to, for example:

• his monstrosity
• his considerable oratory skills
• him being someone who absolutely hated Jews

Many of the cites provided, to Coulter and the like, compare Obama and Hitler from an oratorical perspective. The both of them scoring off the charts it staged events in front of large crowds. Williams was pointing to the third item listed above, and even provided someone from the other side of his hate to make it clearer.

[magellan01]

@Trepa_Mayfield

“You used one of the most hated people in all of the world to describe, I think, the president.” Notice, Carlson doesn’t say “The president’s relationship” or “The president’s issues with congress”, just, “The president.” Williams just says, “Well, that is true.” Again, no correction. No ‘Well, the president and Boehner’, no ‘Well, the president in relation to Congress’, none of that. If that’s what Williams meant, then why would he just let that fall flat? Williams clearly thinks that he used Hitler to describe the president. Full stop. Unmodified. Neither party adds nuance to the statement, it just falls flat where it is.

A more likely explanation is that he Williams was defending the point made in his analogy: that he and Boehner are enemies.

[Raygun99]

@magellan01

You didn’t directly answer my question, but it seems from what you wrote that you do grant that Hitler is sometimes pointed to as an example of a person that has oratorical skills that are extremely high. Good. So, we’ve established that the use of Hitler as a comparison needn’t point to his monstrosity. It can point to, for example:

• his monstrosity
• his considerable oratory skills
• him being someone who absolutely hated Jews

Many of the cites provided, to Coulter and the like, compare Obama and Hitler from an oratorical perspective. The both of them scoring off the charts it staged events in front of large crowds. Williams was pointing to the third item listed above, and even provided someone from the other side of his hate to make it clearer.

Which one of those characteristics would inform Hitler’s theoretical relationship with Netanyahu?

[Capitaine_Zombie]

The only result in persisting in trying to establish a conversation with the terminally stupid is loss of a few IQ points. Why bother arguing with Hank Williams defenders?

[magellan01]

@Trepa_Mayfield

Not the obvious implication, but a secondary implication, yes.

See, here’s the thing. On the most basic level, an analogy is a direct comparison between the relationship of two things and the relationship of another two things. You’ve mastered this basic level. Congratulations.

However, simply by being in close proximity, as well as being part of some sort of comparison, the other, not-direct relationships floating about are also being subconsciously being compared, just because that’s how people think. If you put two sentences next to each other, the implication is that they’re related. If your story includes a character, the implication is that he’s important. This is basic storytelling stuff. On some lizard-brain level, in an analogy, everything is being compared to everything else, just because they’re so close to each other.

Now, since this applies to every analogy ever, it normally wouldn’t matter, but people freak out the moment Hitler is brought into any sort of comparison because Hitler is basically the Godzilla of metaphors. Anyone invoking Hitler in a political debate is either comparing one side to Hitler or will be mistaken for comparing that side to Hitler, which is why it’s verboten in the first place.

So, either Williams is either astoundingly clueless or he was trying to compare either Boehner or Obama to Hitler. And given his follow-up comments (state of the country, three stooges), it’s fairly obvious that he picked Netanyaho and Hitler’s relationship (even though they never had one) as opposed to, say, ANYTHING ELSE for the secondary implication of comparing Obama to Hitler.

You claim to know how analogies work, and even go on a bit to suggest that you do. But then you write this. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Another thing you don’t seem to be clear on is the difference between conclusions that necessarily follow and those that may be deduced. Again, you suggest that you do, then go on to insist that your original point is valid. Nope.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@magellan01

Many of the cites provided, to Coulter and the like, compare Obama and Hitler from an oratorical perspective.

That would be useful information if it were true.

[QUOTE=Ann Coulter]
Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read “Mein Kampf​” …

Nearly every page – save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life – is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was … in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
[/QUOTE]

[magellan01]

@Raygun99

Which one of those characteristics would inform Hitler’s theoretical relationship with Netanyahu?

You’re kidding, right. Or are you unaware that Netanyahu is not only a Jew, but the Prime Minister of Israel?