Author Topic: Trump, The Reality Show  (Read 95071 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #50 on: March 14, 2016, 12:22:58 PM »
Blackface and oblique references are not "incitement to violence".

As Jason noted, I was referring to the banning of the KKK statements, which are most certainly an incitement to violence. The banning of wearing blackface is a bit more controversial and I would even say I'm against it, but it's all about context. If the manner in which it was done was to scare or intimidate others then I would say that kind of act should be banned. But there is also an historical tradition of wearing blackface for performance purposes that is in no way demeaning or aggressive towards others, and this should definitely be ok. However in the case of something like wearing blackface it could be difficult to make a rule allowing one while banning the other and so in this case I could see a case for banning it purely to prevent the aggressive version of it even though its other use should theoretically be protected. But again, if the use of blackface in that context was going on concurrently with an active KKK presence I could see how the two would be seen as correlated to each other and how sporting blackface could be seen as a direct threat.

Quote
On top of that, you are making a slippery argument... "duh" to banning some instances of speech, whereas today you have Trump saying he'll pay legal fees for violent followers of his who rough up protestors and this is somehow fine. In essence, you are making a value judgement on speech - which is exactly what college students are accused of doing now. It doesn't mean, as Jason implies, that free speech is "dead" or whatever other hyperbolic claim you want to make. It means that a group exists that has placed (God forbid) some other value above unrestricted speech.

I agree with your sentiment (that unlimited freedom to say anything isn't desirable for the common good) but disagree in the specifics of your example here. Trump's position was that he doesn't like the practice of 'protesters', which he says are really disruptors (and this is often an accurate description), and that he sympathizes with people who lose their cool when goaded by those people. In specific, Trump said of the man who struck such a protester that he got carried away and that he does not at all condone violence. You can call BS on Trump's comments, but in themselves they are totally consistent; being against violence, disliking the disruptors, and feeling sympathy for a guy who lost his cool and did something bad when goaded. If anything there is something humane about the sentiment that "the guy got carried away and did something wrong but I want to help him", which is a contrast from the usual treatment of 'wrongdoers' in the media who are vilified without qualification. Note again that while violence is bad, the intent using rhetoric to squash 'protesters' of this type is to prevent them interfering with the right for Trump and his supporters to meet in peace and speak. I'm sure some people who appear to protest Trump do so in good conscience and others are trying to disrupt the event, so obviously I mean this only in regards the ones who would like to use their presence to interfere with the meeting as planned. Trump removing disruptors from his rallies isn't a clear case of preventing speech at all; indeed, taking steps to ensure that a planned meeting can proceed without interference is itself the protection of speech and free association. I'm reminded of the Sanders rally with huge attendance where fake members of BLM showed up and cowed him into walking off the stage and cancelling the rally. That just isn't acceptable, and I don't blame Trump for taking steps to prevent such things. Since I'm not physically present at his events I can't tell you whether he's really doing this or whether he's escorting out peaceful, nice people who just disagree with him. But I have little doubt that there are the types of protesters Trump refers to, and I wouldn't want to tolerate them either.


Quote
Quote
I would also note that whatever it is that's happening now, the magnitude of it seems to be greater than it was then.

We tend to think our problems are worse than they were in history - but is this really true? How would you find out? Your 2008 recession example is fine and dandy because we have economic data and can objectively say this one was worse than usual. But do you have such data besides anecdote that there is really a more severe problem than usual in this arena? Or is it just a 'feeling'? Perhaps social media has simply made us more aware of things that always existed.

This is your best point, as it's more central to the issue. The old adage that every generation thinks things are going downhill does tend to be true, but this fact shouldn't be taken to mean that things never actually do go downhill! It just means people aren't great at judging when this is really the case and when it's just false memory or lack of perspective talking. In the case of the recession it's obvious the 2008 one is the worst since the Depression, and as you say the metrics to determine this are fairly simple. So what kind of metric could we use for speech on campuses? I admit I'm at a loss to come up with a concrete one, and so again you're right that personal perception might have to suffice right now as far as evidence goes.

I would agree to a compromise on this topic, though, which would be that I happen to think what Jason is describing regarding free speech on campus is actually a symptom of general polarization in culture and politics. It's people being divided and conquered so they fight each other rather than those who really abuse them. I think protesting outrageous things has happened for a long time, including police brutality, the Vietnam war, harsh drug laws, and so forth. Because of the current polarization it's become normal to think of simple opposition to one's political views as being an evil outrage, and where supporters of 'the other side' are seen as the enemy rather than as good people who disagree. In this light the protester mentality might not have changed (that truly evil and inhuman things should be opposed and protested), but what has changed is that they now count under this heading speech on any topic in opposition to their causes du jour. Basically the new normal is that it's evil to disagree, and so the logic follows that such dissent must be opposed. In this sense the lower value of freedom of speech seems to me a symptom rather than a cause, the cause being an increasing tendency towards vilifying and even hating people who disagree with you. We could argue that this type of phenomenon has surely existed in the past, and current pop culture tends to assign that past to the Jim Crow era, and to evangelicals and other radical Christians who employ hatred to maintain their base. But what seems to be on the rise is left-wing people (what used to be the hippy free-love crowd) who speak in these same terms and use the same vilifying moral epithets to describe the evil people who speak about evil ideas (like being pro-life, or *gasp* anti-misandry).

In short: Josh, you're entirely right. The desire to restrict speech isn't the core issue, since that desire always follows from identifying a type of speech as being dangerous, subversive, or truly evil. What has changed is which sorts of things are now considered to fall under those categories, and to me that's the real danger; that dissent will become synonymous with evil. This quagmire has been with us for a long time on the abortion issue, but now many other issues have become just as divisive and intractable. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2016, 12:29:19 PM »
THey way Sanders got upset when his rally was disrupted?

Oh wait. He let the protestors have the stage and effectively acknowledged that they had more need of the platform to speak at the time than he did.

This is complete horse manure. He left because he knew dealing with them was a lose-lose. If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members), and if he had them escorted out the news would read that he bans oppressed people from his rallies. He did the only logical thing he could have, which was to give in and admit the disruption was a success. So kudos to Bernie, he used good tactical judgement and refused to be made to look like a bad guy. Instead he got sympathy from having been unjustly treated. But to say that he gave them the stage because he felt they needed it more - just no. That is complete propaganda.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2016, 12:59:13 PM »
Quote
If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members)
Are you saying that Sanders knew that at the time?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2016, 01:10:54 PM »
Quote
If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members)
Are you saying that Sanders knew that at the time?

Did I say he did? My parenthesis was added for detail but not to explain Sanders' motivation for leaving.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2016, 01:14:39 PM »
Quote
If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members)
Are you saying that Sanders knew that at the time?

He didn't have to. The optics of arguing with black people about whether their "Lives Matter" is already radioactive. It's utter futility to reason with people about nuance when they have positioned themselves as the ultimate victim through their own slogan. Sanders' judgement was correct - there is no choice but to admit that they played the ultimate card.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #55 on: March 14, 2016, 01:19:37 PM »
That's more or less my point.  Whether it was calculated or not for good or bad reasons, Sanders did the right thing, the only thing.  Some people don't do the only thing, but something else.  I've actually seen videos of Cruz engaging with people at small events who challenge him, as well as Hillary and even Bill recently.  Trump says he can't hear what the protesters are saying, which may be true, but he doesn't do small gatherings where they might get a chance to be heard.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2016, 01:35:02 PM »
Whether it was calculated or not for good or bad reasons, Sanders did the right thing, the only thing.  Some people don't do the only thing, but something else.

I just want clarify this because it sounds like you're trying to connect Bernie's behavior to that of Trump on some moral ground, like decency or something. Sanders didn't walk away from that rally do to 'the right thing', which colloquially means the moral thing. He did it because he was snookered and made the best choice he could. I don't even know that refusing to stand up to bullies in order to generate political capital is the 'right thing' in a moral sense, but it was the smart thing and I'm happy he did it since it also had the virtue of being civil. But you almost make it sound like it's morally correct to give in to disruptors or activists and let them speak at your rallies, and I don't at all agree with this sentiment. A private function is not a public forum for peanut gallery comments, nor is it a place for people to come and disrupt the function. The fake BLM people who disrupted Bernie were despicable, and while I agree with Bernie's choice to walk away from them I'm not at all happy with the result of that scenario; i.e. that such tactics can be successful. That is simply godawful, and I hope you're not suggesting that it's somehow morally good to have the terms of your own rally dictated to by a disruptive faction.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2016, 02:19:07 PM »
I think it was a moral choice in this situation as well as the good tactical choice.

I disagree with Al that it was "THE" thing to do.  I think it's what another Jewish leader 2000 years ago that I'm quite fond of would have done under the circumstances, but I don't think that there's a moral obligation to do what he did.  Is that perhaps what you're getting at, Fenring?  If you're saying that goodness morality and ethics should not compel a speaker to give up his podium to some loud snake oil salesman (see Ibsen's play entitled "Enemy of the People") then I agree.  But I do feel that what Sanders did showed moral conviction as well as good tactical sense.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #58 on: March 14, 2016, 02:31:12 PM »
Quote
The fake BLM people who disrupted
You're suggesting that they didn't support the principles behind BLM? That they were out to use the label to spread ideas contrary to the commonality of message that defines the movement?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #59 on: March 14, 2016, 02:34:55 PM »
Quote
The fake BLM people who disrupted
You're suggesting that they didn't support the principles behind BLM? That they were out to use the label to spread ideas contrary to the commonality of message that defines the movement?

Ask BLM what BLM meant when they said the disruptors were phonies.  Do you question the right of BLM to speak for itself?

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #60 on: March 14, 2016, 02:39:44 PM »
Quote
The fake BLM people who disrupted
You're suggesting that they didn't support the principles behind BLM? That they were out to use the label to spread ideas contrary to the commonality of message that defines the movement?

Ask BLM what BLM meant when they said the disruptors were phonies.  Do you question the right of BLM to speak for itself?

Which group of people that identify with the BLM movement are you talking about? A movement is an abstract concept, it can't exactly speak for itself.

Are you saying that a particular local group organized under the auspices of the BLM movement said that they weren't members of that particular group?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #61 on: March 14, 2016, 02:46:10 PM »
I imagine any black person has more right than that Asian woman in blackface that was making most of the threats, and that kept screaming "stop asking questions" when they offered the microphone but asked how long they were going to take.

Quite the hypocrisy, saying over and over again that Bernie was "welcome to Seattle" while preventing him from speaking, and refusing to let him speak.  And that "four and a half minutes of enforced silence" was straight out of a cult brainwashing 101 handbook.

Most importantly, they took up all that time and had nothing at all to say.  It was nothing but naked exercise of control over other human beings.  Bullying for the sake of bullying.  Where's the *censored*ing message?  There was no message other than a boot on the people's heads.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 02:50:28 PM by Pete at Home »

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #62 on: March 14, 2016, 02:56:02 PM »
It was poorly planned for sure, especially since they expected to be kicked out and have that be the leading point for a more coherent conversation. Shows taht you should always be ready to be more successful than you planned to be as well as failure.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #63 on: March 14, 2016, 02:58:54 PM »
It was poorly planned for sure, especially since they expected to be kicked out and have that be the leading point for a more coherent conversation.

I don't believe that you even believe that crap, Pyr.  What evidence do you have that these guys wanted a "  coherent conversation?"  They came planning to shut Bernie's event down.

In short, they are Hillary's clack.  Once Bernie gave them the mike, their whole purpose shifted to baiting the crowd so that Bernie wouldn't be able to speak at his own rally.

I really fear what's going to be their payoff if Hillary wins.  I guess we'll have bastards like this storming into our churches with this kind of shut down red guard tactics.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #64 on: March 14, 2016, 03:14:08 PM »
Quote
What evidence do you have that these guys wanted a "  coherent conversation?"  They came planning to shut Bernie's event down.
Their own words, afterwards, when they admitted that they had no idea what to do once their plan to get booted off went wrong.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #65 on: March 14, 2016, 03:17:05 PM »
Quote
What evidence do you have that these guys wanted a "  coherent conversation?"  They came planning to shut Bernie's event down.
Their own words, afterwards, when they admitted that they had no idea what to do once their plan to get booted off went wrong.

That admits in itself that they came to shut the event down.  Because they had the numbers to shut it down when they were booted off.

Do these losers have names?  Where were they interviewed?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #66 on: March 14, 2016, 03:23:18 PM »
Here's what the group said for itself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter_us_55c68f14e4b0923c12bd197e

Quote
A statement apparently from the group of protesters addressed the event:

"Today BLM Seattle, with the support of other Black organizers and non-Black allies and accomplices, held Bernie Sanders publicly accountable for his lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement."

If they said differently, they lied, just like they lie about the circumstances and numbers.  They publicly bragged about punishing sanders by shutting his event down.  They lied to him when they said that if he "listened" to them that they'd let him speak.  They dance on the coffins of the dead, and have nothing to say; it's just a game of control.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #67 on: March 14, 2016, 03:44:07 PM »
Here's the face of the big fat liar herself, Marissa Johnson:

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/files/2015/08/blmjohnson.jpg

First she asked to be listened to, saying he could speak afterwards.

Second, she demanded to speak, saying she'd give the mike to Bernie afterwards

Then she goaded the crowd with the four and a half minutes of silence.

Finally, having had all her demands met, she still refused to give Bernie the mike, saying that she was "holding him accountable" for not supporting BLM.

In short, she's a big fat lying Johnson.  And I bet she's drawing a check from Hillary's campaign.

Sanders marched with Martin Luther King.  This Johnson's never faced anything serious.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #68 on: March 14, 2016, 03:46:44 PM »
I disagree with Al that it was "THE" thing to do.  I think it's what another Jewish leader 2000 years ago that I'm quite fond of would have done under the circumstances, but I don't think that there's a moral obligation to do what he did.  Is that perhaps what you're getting at, Fenring?  If you're saying that goodness morality and ethics should not compel a speaker to give up his podium to some loud snake oil salesman (see Ibsen's play entitled "Enemy of the People") then I agree.  But I do feel that what Sanders did showed moral conviction as well as good tactical sense.

I think any decent person will have a moral component involved in all of their acts. In its essence acting decently and being honest is inherently moral even if those acts are also advantageous or convenient. In this sense I do think his walking off was moral, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't think he walked off out of moral conviction, as in "I'd like to stay but I'll be a better person if I leave." I think he didn't want to stay, for the reasons mentioned above. He knew it would be a mistake. There are many ways within the bounds of morality to deal with a given situation, and his decision to leave or to stay could both have been done morally or immorally. He could have stayed and been dignified about it, and he could have left and started ranting about them to the papers. So the mere decision to leave, to me, says little about morality and more about good decision-making. Since I do think he's a morally solid person I have no doubt this general approach to life can be said to apply to all kinds of things he does, but I don't see that as applying in any specific way to his walking off here. Al was trying, you see, to show how Bernie treated the fake BLM people morally while Trump treats protesters immorally, and my main point was to express that I think this is a false comparison.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #69 on: March 14, 2016, 04:03:45 PM »
After watching the video, i sadly agree with you.  It was obvious that Marissa Johnson was a soulless attention whore, and that thuggish asian in blackface by her, refusing even to let them gracefully explain to the crown before turning the mike over ... It was obviously nothing about actual black lives.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #70 on: March 14, 2016, 04:08:13 PM »
I can't find the specific interview, and I may even be crossing it with something else I've heard but here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqdNF-BHTw&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

Keep in mind, that this action not only resulted in Sanders publishing a more robust civil rights policy and actually taking racial issues more seriously, but Clinton agreeing to sit and meet with BLM advocates and directly listen to their concerns, so it seems that she got her message across pretty well, as well as driving a much longer more coherent conversation afterwards.

I mean even in your attempts here to attack her because she actually spoke up and made you have to pay attention to her instead of remaining conveniently ignorable and waiting for her betters to tell her when she was allowed to talk, you're contributing to the success of the action and the lasting impact that it's had on the amount of attention and work the issue is getting.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #71 on: March 14, 2016, 04:13:02 PM »
After watching the video, i sadly agree with you.  It was obvious that Marissa Johnson was a soulless attention whore, and that thuggish asian in blackface by her, refusing even to let them gracefully explain to the crown before turning the mike over ... It was obviously nothing about actual black lives.

OKay, seriously. can you cut the personal smears? You bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? Your apparent compulsion to vomit up that kind of garbage really gets tiresome, especially since it involves a lot of begging the question and well poisoning.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #72 on: March 14, 2016, 04:18:22 PM »
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 04:21:55 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #73 on: March 14, 2016, 04:20:23 PM »
"ou bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? "

Like you are doing with me?  you owe me that courtesy, as part of your agreement on Ornery. Johnson is not an Ornery member, so she's free game.  And you were the one who raised the skank's credibility when you asked us to take her word for her intent.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #74 on: March 14, 2016, 04:23:00 PM »
"ou bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? "

Like you are doing with me?
Like I'm always careful to never do.
Quote
  you owe me that courtesy, as part of your agreement on Ornery. Johnson is not an Ornery member, so she's free game.  And you were the one who raised the skank's credibility when you asked us to take her word for her intent.

She's a human being. That alone demands courtesy.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #75 on: March 14, 2016, 04:30:03 PM »
"
I mean even in your attempts here to attack her because she actually spoke up and made you have to pay attention to her "

Check it out!  Pyr goes pro-rape.  So much for his respect for consent.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #76 on: March 14, 2016, 04:32:08 PM »
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.

Oh yeah...I had momentarily forgotten that these people were Palin supporters. Heh, yeah, I'm sure they were really invested in their social cause. /s

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #77 on: March 14, 2016, 04:38:53 PM »
"ou bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? "

Like you are doing with me?
Like I'm always careful to never do.
Quote
  you owe me that courtesy, as part of your agreement on Ornery. Johnson is not an Ornery member, so she's free game.  And you were the one who raised the skank's credibility when you asked us to take her word for her intent.

She's a human being. That alone demands courtesy.

I show more to her than she showed to Bernie.  And more than you show to me when you lie about what i say and make hateful speculations about how i feel.

I am angry that even after getting her platform and running out of things to say, she still refused to let Bernie speak as she had promised.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2016, 05:00:40 PM »
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.

Oh yeah...I had momentarily forgotten that these people were Palin supporters. Heh, yeah, I'm sure they were really invested in their social cause. /s

Loved how she tears up when discussing the matter of her own self-importance.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2016, 05:05:36 PM »
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.

Oh yeah...I had momentarily forgotten that these people were Palin supporters. Heh, yeah, I'm sure they were really invested in their social cause. /s
Cause who a kid supports because of her parents when she's 16 is something that never changes? MEans taht tehy hold the same views 8 year later and must be what they'll believe for their entire life?

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #80 on: March 14, 2016, 05:12:00 PM »
I show more to her than she showed to Bernie.
And? That's not a good justification regardless of accuracy.


Quote
  And more than you show to me when you lie about what i say and make hateful speculations about how i feel.
I don't have to speculate about what you're actively doing. You're heaping insults on someone who spoke out and brought a significant amount of attention to an important political issue. You're being critical about the fact taht they didn't do it in a way that you approve of to the point that you're paying no attention to the message, but focusing completely on your disapproval of the delivery.

Quote
I am angry that even after getting her platform and running out of things to say, she still refused to let Bernie speak as she had promised.
Being angry is fine. That's still not a good excuse for personal insults.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2016, 05:22:52 PM »
You are in no position to lecture on courtesy, and you seem to wield talk of courtesy in the same way that Marissa Johnson used a dead black kid: a spectre to silence other voices.

What you said about my motives was dishonest, because you had already admitted that she basically got up and said nothing.  Font use dishonest motive projection and then lecture on courtesty.

If you gave a *censored* about blm, you should be glad i blame her terrorist antics on Marissa and her thuggish asian in blackface, rather than attributing it to BLM. what's the deal? You know this Palinist skank?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2016, 05:42:57 PM »
"I don't have to speculate about what you're actively doing. You're heaping insults on someone who spoke out and brought a significant amount of attention to an important political issu"

That's a lie.  She didnt bring any attention to BLM's message. She just insulted the people of Seattle, talked about indian history, then lied and bullied them into silence. She used the same tactics the early Nazis used against Jews and Socialists in the late 1920s. Steal a platform, bully them back, and hurl racist insults. No surprise her little clubs are known for antisemitism

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #83 on: March 14, 2016, 05:50:37 PM »
You are in no position to lecture on courtesy, and you seem to wield talk of courtesy in the same way that Marissa Johnson used a dead black kid: a spectre to silence other voices.
Ah, like you're silenced? And because showing a bit of basic respect for others is being "silenced". Because freedom of speech means that no one is ever allowed to call out out when you're rude or behaving badly rather than an acknowledgement that people can and will do so if the find cause to do so.

Quote
What you said about my motives was dishonest, because you had already admitted that she basically got up and said nothing.  Font use dishonest motive projection and then lecture on courtesty.
I said nothing at all about your motives. I don't know why you choose to attack her because she spoke out, but the fact is she spoke out and you're here insulting her for it, where you wouldn't even know she exists, never mind be attacking her if she hadn't.

Quote
If you gave a *censored* about blm, you should be glad i blame her terrorist antics on Marissa and her thuggish asian in blackface, rather than attributing it to BLM. what's the deal? You know this Palinist skank?
Because slinging insults and false accusations shows that you have any idea of what you're talking about? That you've made any real effort to understand what happened and the impact it had on the race and the conversation? I should be happy that you're engaging in name calling that only serves to derail and distract from substantive issues and instead focus what people who act in ways that displease or even anger you should expect as their punishment?

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #84 on: March 14, 2016, 05:53:08 PM »
That's a lie.  She didnt bring any attention to BLM's message.
That's funny, people were talking about it for along afterwards. Are still talking about it. Sanders changed the amount of attention he gave to civil rights as a result. Clinton went out of her way to sit down and meet directly with BLM activists as a result.

You wouldn't be talking about this if she didn't bring attention to the matter. She just didn't do it in a way that you, as her _obvious_ superior, approved of.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #85 on: March 14, 2016, 06:27:27 PM »
"You wouldn't be talking about this if she didn't bring attention to the matter. "

That's a lie.  I have no idea if she brought attention to the matter.  Based on the obvious falsehoods you've said here, the fact that you claim she did means nothing to me.  When I heard about the incident for the first time on this thread, I was approving at first, until I saw the video of what the skank actually did.

So please quit being a motive projecting ass.  You aren't going to convince me of anything on a thread where you've demonized me like that.

"as her _obvious_ superior, approved of."

Don't project your authority worship psychosis onto me, Pyr.  She's a liar.  She said she'd let him speak after she had her say.  She didn't.  It's clear even from what you said she said, that she never had any intent to let him speak.  So you are lying when you claim that I'm resentful of her speaking.  There's no way you could honestly get that from I said.  I'm angry that AFTER she got her "message" out, she still didn't let him speak, out of pure malice against him. 

Yes, my criticism of her is personal, because she's the person who did this crap.  That's no excuse for you to lie about me or what I said, or to claim that I believe things that you know I don't believe.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #86 on: March 14, 2016, 07:03:33 PM »
Quote
  I have no idea if she brought attention to the matter.  Based on the obvious falsehoods you've said here, the fact that you claim she did means nothing to me.  When I heard about the incident for the first time on this thread, I was approving at first, until I saw the video of what the skank actually did.
On what  basis do you effectively assert that you'd have been criticizing this incident if this incident never happened?

She literally had to do this for you to have any chance of knowing that it had happened, never mind throwing insults at her for having done it.

Quote
So you are lying when you claim that I'm resentful of her speaking.
I didn't say anything about resent. I said that you were talking about what she did and slinging insults at her for doing it. And making it very clear that you do not approve of it and feel justified in insulting her because you disapprove.

Quote
Don't project your authority worship psychosis onto me
And yet you're the one angry here in response to people that didn't behave the way you wanted them to, not me.  You keep accusing me of authority worship, but it's you that insult and attack people who don't meet your standards.

Quote
I'm angry that AFTER she got her "message" out, she still didn't let him speak, out of pure malice against him.
Please cite the explicit quote where she puts forth that explanation. It seems to me that he never spoke at that because he left before she was done speaking. Though you've certainly directly asserted an itemized list of when you declared her done and thus should have handed the stage back.

Quote
Yes, my criticism of her is personal, because she's the person who did this crap.
That again, is a poor excuse for the kind of demeaning and insulting name calling you're employing.

Quote
  That's no excuse for you to lie about me or what I said, or to claim that I believe things that you know I don't believe.
Something that I haven't done, no matter how much you try to manufacture accusations.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #87 on: March 14, 2016, 07:19:51 PM »
"On what  basis do you effectively assert that you'd have been criticizing this incident if this incident never happened?:

Please stop playing stupid.  The incident of her interrupting Sanders would have gotten publicity as it had before.  My criticism only occurred to her failing to keep her false promise of turning the stage back to Sanders when she'd had her say.


"throwing insults at her for having done it."

Get off my leg.  Everything she said about black lives matter could have been summed up in 15 seconds.  I criticize her only for lying, and she did lie. 

"I said that you were talking about what she did and slinging insults at her for doing it. And making it very clear that you do not approve of it and feel justified in insulting her because you disapprove."

Now you are obfuscating to cover your earlier lie.  Now you obfuscate with "what she did" and "it" rather than your earlier lie that I was attacking her for how she delivered her message.  Cut the crap, Pyr.  I criticized her for failing to deliver on her promise to turn the stage back to sanders WHEN SHE RAN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY.  And you even admitted above that she had nothing to say when she got the mike.  For you to turn around now and pretend that I'm "poisoning the well."

Don't be an ass.  I'm not killing the messenger for her message.  Here the messenger forgot her *censored*ing message and held the stage by force, saying nothing and insulting people.  I criticized what she did, and in response, you've lied about me and made stupid insulting motive inferences. You say you didn't need to.  Then stop doing it.  Back off.  If you hadn't done that, we might have had a civil conversation, but I won't listen to you about civility on a thread where you've pulled something like that.

You say she made a positive difference.  I don't believe you, because you have zero credibility with me after how you've misrepresented me.

You don't dispute that she lied, and yet you cry like a baby when I call her a liar.  Grow up.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #88 on: March 14, 2016, 07:25:50 PM »
Quote
The incident of her interrupting Sanders would have gotten publicity as it had before.  My criticism only occurred to her failing to keep her false promise of turning the stage back to Sanders when she'd had her say.
If it never happened, how would it have gotten publicity? Are you saying people would have made it up if she hadn't done it?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #89 on: March 14, 2016, 07:27:51 PM »
" You keep accusing me of authority worship, but it's you that insult and attack people who don't meet your standards."

Could someone translate Pyrian to English?  I'm having a hard time separating his grammatical errors from his authority-sucking logic errors.

"And making it very clear that you do not approve of it and feel justified in insulting her because you disapprove."

I showed what she said, and I showed what she did, and I inferred that she lied and kept people sitting while she said nothing, based on the expectation that she would eventually give up the stage.  Which she didn't until Sanders left. Then she bragged about "holding him to account."  I disapprove of lying and fraud.  Fraud means manipulating people to do what you want based on a lie.  If you think the only the only thing wrong with lying and fraud is that Pete disapproves of it, then it's a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything that has to do with right or wrong.  Anyone that doesn't recognize the basic wrongness of fraud and extortion is a basic waste of space in any discussion group like this.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #90 on: March 14, 2016, 07:38:21 PM »
Quote
I criticized her for failing to deliver on her promise to turn the stage back to sanders WHEN SHE RAN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY.
By which point Sanders was gone.

Quote
And you even admitted above that she had nothing to say when she got the mike.
No, I said that I'd heard an interview where they said taht they hadn't planned _what_ to say. The fact that she winged it and didn't come across as coherently as she could have in the moment doesn't mean she might have if she has a rehearsed piece to deliver doesn't mean that she had nothing to say, just that she wasn't fully ready to say it.

Quote
Here the messenger forgot her *censored*ing message and held the stage by force, saying nothing and insulting people. I criticized what she did, and in response, you've lied about me and made stupid insulting motive inferences.

Okay, so despite all your protestations, you are, in fact, attacking what she did. Even right after you just said that I was being somehow misleading for saying that. HE choice of when to give the stage back was part of how she delivered her message, as is how she talked about the event afterwards in the conversation that happened about it and because of it. You can't cast them as separate things.

Quote
You don't dispute that she lied
I never agreed that she lied. I, in fact, did not address that because we never really found out if she was going to hand it back because Sanders was gone (and, for that matter, on his way to another microphone waiting for him to speak into it) by the time she actually finished. So he was still heard despite anything she did, and she was heard because he chose to let her speak instead of having her removed as he could have (and the Clinton campaign had managed to quietly do a few times over already at that point)

Quote
You say she made a positive difference.  I don't believe you, because you have zero credibility with me after how you've misrepresented me.
How convenient. Glad to give you an easy excuse so you didn't have to dig any deeper to find a reason to go on not paying attention to the actual impact.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #91 on: March 14, 2016, 07:46:56 PM »
Quote
I showed what she said, and I showed what she did,
Thus conveniently ignoring conversation that followed it and the wider message taht both Sanders' and Clinton's got and reacted to.

Quote
and I inferred that she lied and kept people sitting while she said nothing, based on the expectation that she would eventually give up the stage.
Which she did.

Quote
Which she didn't until Sanders left.
Thus making it impossible to tell if she would have given hem back the stage if he'd stayed.

Quote
Then she bragged about "holding him to account."
Because that is what happened, and his campaign very clearly and quickly reacted to having its blindspot exposed.

Quote
  I disapprove of lying and fraud.  Fraud means manipulating people to do what you want based on a lie.
Sure. Not controversial.

Quote
  If you think the only the only thing wrong with lying and fraud is that Pete disapproves of it, then it's a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything that has to do with right or wrong.
Reverse that. I object to calling something fraud and lying _because_ it's something that Pete disagrees with, and then selectively recasting the event and resorting to name calling to back the accusation.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #92 on: March 14, 2016, 08:07:43 PM »
Pyr, you are gaslighting the conversation again.  Not smart, given that I was one of the few left on Ornery that actually listens to you. 

"[Pyr snips bits of what I said out of context to pretend I said other than I did]
 impossible to tell if she would have given hem back the stage if he'd stayed."


You're being dishonest about what the skank did.  She stopped talking and started doing that four and a half minutes of silence bit.  You can't force that on a crowd, especially a crowed you've been insulting and lying about.  She called them white supremacists and then expected them to go silent for her?  She was dancing on the dead kid's grave.  You don't ask for silence by insulting the crowd you expect to go silent.  At that point it became obvious that she had no intent to give the mike back.  So  when you pretend that her intent wasn't primarily to shut Sanders' speech down, I lose respect for you to the point I don't trust anything you say.  Because it's obvious from what she said there, what she did, and her tweet afterwards, that her intent was to shut him down, to punish him for not giving more support for BLM.  So she's a liar and a fraudster, for pretending that she'd give the mike back, and holding the crowd there under false pretenses.  I didn't make up those facts or the meaning of lying or fraud, and when you pretend that's just my own standard, you come off as a sellout like her.

Back in Martin Luther King's day, it was all about the message, not the man.  less than 40% of white Americans approve of MLK during his time, but most got the message at Selma and things began to change fast.  Today, skanks like this are all about themselves.  You blather about the message but all you are doing is defending the protesters.  MLK was willing to endure beatings and prison to get his message out.  You bleat on about the unfairness of me saying mean words that you even admitted may be true.  Well grow up.  If the message is important, then articulating it, actually getting people to understand and contemplate what you are saying, would be more important than getting them to like you or to kiss your ass.  You blather about her supposed success in getting people to talk about "the message" but you can't even articulate what that message is.

Let me tell you a bit more about this dumb ass slag that you lionize.  She busted up a Seattle meeting that was promoting the use of body cams on cops.  You know the sort that would PREVENT the very sort of police violence that this dumb slag supposedly opposes, right?  Do you know what she said about it?  That she had no interest in watching her oppressor's "home movies." 

She's a "let them eat cake" skank.  I defy you to show me ONE single viable proposal that Marissa Johnson has brought to the discussion, that's more useful to reducing unnecessary police violence (or limit that to police violence against blacks if we pretend that only the subset of black lives actually matter) than body cams on cops.

Wanna bet Pyr is going to dodge that last challenge re body cams and come back with more personal attacks on me wrapped in sanctimonious jibberjabber?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 08:11:17 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #93 on: March 14, 2016, 08:14:11 PM »
"You say she made a positive difference.  I don't believe you, because you have zero credibility with me after how you've misrepresented me.


How convenient. "

Not convenient at all, since I come here to talk with people I respect, and you make it impossible for me to respect you.  You've lost one more chance of persuading me to your point of view.  Try again on some other topic, but on this one, you've shown yourself too dishonest to have a meaningful conversation.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #94 on: March 15, 2016, 07:26:09 AM »
How nice that you lose respect for Pyrtolin because he fails to fall in line with your suppositions and speculations, despite you beating him over the head time after time.  Shame on him.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #95 on: March 15, 2016, 08:15:41 AM »
Political speech is actually intended to be the most protected from of speech we have, and deliberately disrupting a political rally to the point that you prevent it from occurring should be condemned by all parties. 

How bizarre! Free speech means free from government interference, not "you get to say whatever you want at all times with no interference". When the Klan holds their events, it is perfectly healthy to drown out their hateful words in a non-violent manner. It is abhorrent to think that they should be completely unfettered in their attempt to promulgate hateful ideals.

Does Trump rise to that level? Obviously not. But he is advocating anger and violence, talking about how he'd like to punch people. I don't understand people who want to punch people unless they were first assaulted. The entire idea that you would smack somebody in the mouth because of what they said is alien to me. And for it to be a man looking to be president? Mind-boggling.

No idea if Drake is a millenial, but regardless, this is typical of their political culture.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #96 on: March 15, 2016, 10:49:03 AM »
How nice that you lose respect for Pyrtolin because he fails to fall in line with your suppositions and speculations, despite you beating him over the head time after time.  Shame on him.

No..  My respect for Pyr felll because he lied about what i said and then speculated about what i thought.  Just as you did in that last response.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #97 on: March 15, 2016, 12:46:15 PM »
No idea if Drake is a millenial, but regardless, this is typical of their political culture.

Not sure exactly what you're referring to. I am GenX, FWIW.


Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #98 on: March 15, 2016, 01:22:53 PM »
Rallies and protests are nice, but the real show starts July 18 in Cleveland.

Read about the probable result of a contested convention.

Now that's going to be a hellava show.  ;D

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« Reply #99 on: March 15, 2016, 01:30:37 PM »
Keep in mind, that this action not only resulted in Sanders publishing a more robust civil rights policy and actually taking racial issues more seriously, but Clinton agreeing to sit and meet with BLM advocates and directly listen to their concerns, so it seems that she got her message across pretty well, as well as driving a much longer more coherent conversation afterwards.

This is your standard ends justify the means argument, and for a liberal I'm always surprised at how often you employ it. It's typically a right-wing tool of analysis. Further, you assert that she created grounds for a better conversation about the topic, but I've never read one single thing corroborating this claim; it seems entirely to be made of smoke. When Clinton met with BLM members it was arranged and mutually agreed upon. They didn't storm her rally, and they had real questions for her rather than the mere intent to disrupt. You know the difference between an activist and a disruptor? The activist has hope of success and always has their cause in mind on the off-chance that today will be a day of success. A disruptor doesn't have any hope of success because their mission statement is fulfilled by their mere presence. For a person to successfully disrupt an event and then have nothing to say demonstrated that this was not an activist deep in the cause they were supporting. Such a person would have plenty to say on a moment's notice. It's not like activist speech is canned or scripted; they know their topic. This lady didn't, and was no activist but rather a mercenary. A wolf in sheep's clothing. I remember back during Occupy there'd be people accosted by a camera crew and extemporaneously spell out detailed problems with Wall Street and what they wanted changed. They were passionate about it. And these weren't designated spokespeople or experts - some of them were barely teenagers and they knew their stuff. But this lady who disrupted Sanders didn't have anything to say, wasn't versed in her material, and had no real cause to put forward. She was there to harass Sanders and that's exactly what she did. Because she was there under the false banner of BLM Sanders knew the game was up.

This disruptor didn't bring attention to her cause, she brought shame to it. Countless people who witnessed this were disgusted. You can rely on the fact that Sanders supporters came out of this upset rather than impressed with her so-called cause. It received attention all right - negative attention. Luckily for the BLM she wasn't actually part of it, which meant her shameful act reflected only on her and not on BLM. Or at least I hope that's the case, because she may inadvertently have poisoned part of the public consciousness against BLM too. Some people probably never heard the update that she wasn't BLM, so they'd blame BLM for the disruption. Others may have read the update but it was too late for them; the negative association was already made and couldn't be unmade.