before that lets remember that you are complaining to a poster there that it is indeed very polite, and you are only being an obtuse by ignoring that this is the pit.
IMHO this is like the bullshit that implies that Democrats and liberals approve of terrorists just because they point out that attacking the religion of an opponent is not the right way to approach the terrorist issue. And the ACLU will be much more busy with Trump and his goons.
Overall I do remember that locally in Arizona the efforts of the ACLU helped unmask the abuse of power the clone of Trump, Joe Arpaio, got into. Voters finally got rid of the putz when it finally dawned on most voters that just getting their jollies on arresting minorities and undocumented people was not a good idea when the Arizona taxes were used also to hunt enemies that were not black or brown.
I forgot to add: Do not ever forget that Joe Arpaio and Donald Trump decided to mutually join hips during their runs to their offices.
Trump already knew all what Arpaio was doing and still he did not care. (and most of the media did not hunt Trump for that association while even an innuendo of an association made Obama leave his church and repudiate controversial people) The moral here though is that Trump is indeed the kind of guy that will attempt to follow the desires of putting the undesirables of the right in their places, but more often will also affect negatively a lot of the people that thought that it was a good idea to vote for him.
Why don’t you think it’s serious? I was very careful to list demographics who have already been actually negatively impacted by Trump’s promises or advisors, precisely because of the possibility of dismissal on “identity politics” grounds. Because it’s in the Pit? I can ask on Elections if you like.
Do you think those demographics are happy with Trump? If so, cite?
Or do you think it just doesn’t matter what those kinds of people do or think? Not that you’d say so even if you thought so, of course. Though it would be kind of refreshing…
Except you can’t actually think this would work. “I’m going to be a giant dick to liberals, and that will hurt their feelings, and suddenly they’ll wake up and not be such giant dicks?”
Did your experience of liberals being giant dicks to you teach you empathy, and make you decide not to be a giant dick? No, you say right here that experiencing mean behavior hurt your feelings, and so you decided that the best way to handle it was to try your hardest to hurt other people’s feelings.
But you didn’t do that because you wanted to teach them that hurting people’s feelings is wrong, did you? No, you did it because you don’t like them and want to hurt their feelings, and hurting them–to the extent that unkind words on a message board can really hurt them–is your goal.
Not at all. It’s to demonstrate that unproductive discussion leads to more unproductive discussion and that productive discussion leads to productive discussion. If you look closely you’ll see that I can debate reasonably with the reasonable. But I have no obligation to be cordial to those who respond to points I make politely with ad hominem attacks. Whining about a counter punch is the height of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, who is the real audience? You think the real audience are the unhinged who can’t help their vulgarity and hostility?
This whole “tit for tat” model can’t work the way you want it to work. Yeah, I get the idea. You’re supposedly polite to people who are polite to you, and rude to people who are rude.
Except life, and message board conversations, aren’t iterated prisoner’s dilemmas. When you act all rudely to someone who’s being rude, how are the onlookers supposed to keep track of who started the rudeness first?
The fact is, acting like a giant dick doesn’t help you in any way, regardless of whether Timmy started it first. All it does is make Dad knock both your heads together while bellowing that he doesn’t care who started it, he’s finishing it.
Seriously, this doesn’t work for eight year olds, and it certainly isn’t going to work for ostensible adults.
And so my contention is that, despite your supposed justification of demonstrating that people who act like assholes get treated like assholes, your real motivation is that you just enjoy getting into arguments.
I’ve been watching him dance around stuff (like questions about policies, his probably scam “university,” and other things) for months. His supporters haven’t noticed his dancing because he has all that gold furniture and stuff around him and all his supporters are easily distracted by “The Shiny”
He can’t tell you the specifics of the new pages yet, but they’re going to be the GREATEST web pages and they’ll be YYUUUGGGEE. Actually, its just going to redirect to (at random) either Breitbart, Twitter, or the “about:Russia” tourism page.
Seriously, They’re probably going to gut the ACA without a replacement ready. Do you really think they care about The White House* web site?
*soon to be the Trump House Hotel and Casino for Foreign Dignitaries Who Want to Suck Up and Pay to Play
Exactly. of all the lame excuses for assholish behavior on this board, the lamest is, paraphrased: “That guy’s behavior is wrong and bad, and undermines his argument. But I’m going to behave exactly the same way, and that somehow validates my argument.”
Well, the Doper Tribe always has at least one position open for the Designated Smartass. You know, the guy who can tear some fresh asshole that you can enjoy but still give a tsk-tsk. I would volunteer, but I am but a timid woodland creature, foraging for nuts and berries, with no gift for invective or sarcasm.
Funny. First saw this with the username, and I realized I was wearing my Einstein smoking a pipe T-shirt, the one with colorful universes billowing forth from the smoke. Coincidence? Or maybe a hint of solidarity from Beyond, to an utter mathtard from a genius on Spacebook? Yeah, I’m going with that one, what the heck…
