*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3160 on: August 04, 2018, 04:44:50 PM »
I find if annoying fox posted images and not actual links.
So now I have to find the time to find these posts to verify them and get context.


Also: Irony of Fox being upset by someone's insulting twitter posts.

What sort of irony are you referring to?

Also, the posts have no context. They're not in response to any specific thing or person, which is why they have no tags and they are not @'d anyone.

Well except the #CancelWhitePeople tag.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3362
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3161 on: August 04, 2018, 06:57:11 PM »
Quote
Sorry, so we should be ok with hypocritical positions? All that I want is for the people who don’t support anything that even has a hint of racism, not to support anything that has a hint of racism. If your position is that free speech is paramount, then fine, but if you think that racial sensitivity is a sacred cow, but not for white people, then you are terrible.

My position is that these are silly troll posts that nobody in their right mind would take seriously and nobody is genuinely offended by.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3162 on: August 04, 2018, 07:01:53 PM »
Quote
Sorry, so we should be ok with hypocritical positions? All that I want is for the people who don’t support anything that even has a hint of racism, not to support anything that has a hint of racism. If your position is that free speech is paramount, then fine, but if you think that racial sensitivity is a sacred cow, but not for white people, then you are terrible.

My position is that these are silly troll posts that nobody in their right mind would take seriously and nobody is genuinely offended by.

Do you think the NYTs is acting with credibility by not firing her while actively opposing this type of behavior when it affects other racial groups?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3163 on: August 04, 2018, 07:54:49 PM »
I find if annoying fox posted images and not actual links.
So now I have to find the time to find these posts to verify them and get context.


Also: Irony of Fox being upset by someone's insulting twitter posts.

What sort of irony are you referring to?

Also, the posts have no context. They're not in response to any specific thing or person, which is why they have no tags and they are not @'d anyone.

Well except the #CancelWhitePeople tag.


Fox painting twitter trolling as negative while praising President "Twitter Troll" Trump.




And yes, those pictures sure don't.  And I'm certain they're authentic pictures and have absolutely no connection to any events or actions.  Just random tweets, yes?


Again, I'd need to see the tweets on twitter as well as check for triggers. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3164 on: August 04, 2018, 08:33:19 PM »
She said she was facing online harassment and was counter-trolling trolls. I am willing to believe that, but it makes the NYT look fairly spineless considering they just fired someone within the last year for exactly the same reason when it pertained to tweets about black people.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3165 on: August 05, 2018, 01:02:59 AM »
She shouldn’t be fired over it. Although others shouldn’t be fired over retarded Twitter posts either.

I find Saddam’s retardation to be reaching peak conflict. But I don’t want him to try to explain why what she said was okay, because that would be mansplaining.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3166 on: August 05, 2018, 01:15:34 AM »
Fox painting twitter trolling as negative while praising President "Twitter Troll" Trump.




And yes, those pictures sure don't.  And I'm certain they're authentic pictures and have absolutely no connection to any events or actions.  Just random tweets, yes?


Again, I'd need to see the tweets on twitter as well as check for triggers.

I've never seen anyone outside of 4chan claim calls for genocide are forms of "trolling". If this woman's tweet history included "gas the kikes, race war now!" would NYT consider that worthy of defending? I don't think so and neither do you.

She shouldn’t be fired over it. Although others shouldn’t be fired over retarded Twitter posts either.

I find Saddam’s retardation to be reaching peak conflict. But I don’t want him to try to explain why what she said was okay, because that would be mansplaining.

NYT fired someone for the same thing only a few months ago, and they also wildly praised the firing of Roseanne from ABC for only a single tweet that insulted a single person. I don't think it's the tweets themselves that annoys anyone, it's the obvious hypocrisy of vilifying one kind of racism and defending another. One minute NYT doesn't tolerate any kind of racism regardless of context, the next, they decide the "it was just a joke!" defense is valid after all, despite the previous two cases I mentioned using exactly the same kind of defense.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 01:17:45 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3167 on: August 05, 2018, 01:17:51 AM »
NYT fired someone for the same thing only a few months ago, and they also wildly praised the firing of Roseanne from ABC for only a single tweet that insulted a single person. I don't think it's the tweets themselves that annoys anyone, it's the obvious hypocrisy of vilifying one kind of racism and defending another.

Oh, I know. But I am not going to change my position over retarded hypocrites.

But I am also not going to just brush it off like Saddam because lol it is just an Asian woman so it is totally like not even the same thing.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3362
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3168 on: August 05, 2018, 03:07:08 AM »
I've never seen anyone outside of 4chan claim calls for genocide are forms of "trolling". If this woman's tweet history included "gas the kikes, race war now!" would NYT consider that worthy of defending? I don't think so and neither do you.

Yes, if she had said something different, then things would be different. As it stands, nothing that she said could seriously be interpreted by any reasonable person as a call for genocide. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I know you're not an idiot. Please stop pretending to be one.

She shouldn’t be fired over it. Although others shouldn’t be fired over retarded Twitter posts either.

I find Saddam’s retardation to be reaching peak conflict. But I don’t want him to try to explain why what she said was okay, because that would be mansplaining.

Oh, I know. But I am not going to change my position over retarded hypocrites.

But I am also not going to just brush it off like Saddam because lol it is just an Asian woman so it is totally like not even the same thing.

I agree with you that she shouldn't be fired, and Quinn Norton shouldn't have been fired either. I don't know where you're getting all this extra material about how I'm retarded but you're not, or how I'm brushing it off but you're not.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3169 on: August 05, 2018, 03:38:53 AM »
Yes, if she had said something different, then things would be different. As it stands, nothing that she said could seriously be interpreted by any reasonable person as a call for genocide. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I know you're not an idiot. Please stop pretending to be one.

Ah yes, because telling someone "your entire race will go extinct soon", the tag #CancelWhitePeople and also claiming that whites should be buried in caves because they're actually goblins is playful banter, and certainly not genocidal. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Saddam.

Also, Junker is responding as if you're brushing it off because that's exactly what you come off as to everyone in this thread except Dave, apparently. Surely that alone would make you contemplate that maybe your response to this is ludicrous.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 03:43:27 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3362
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3170 on: August 05, 2018, 04:24:11 AM »
Ah yes, because telling someone "your entire race will go extinct soon", the tag #CancelWhitePeople and also claiming that whites should be buried in caves because they're actually goblins is playful banter, and certainly not genocidal. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Saddam.

"White people have stopped breeding. You'll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along. [devil emoji]," "#CancelWhitePeople," and "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being fit to live underground like groveling goblins," are not serious threats. They are self-evidently flippant shitposts. You of all people know this very well, and there's nothing more I can say to you if you continue to unconvincingly deny it.

Quote
Also, Junker is responding as if you're brushing it off because that's exactly what you come off as to everyone in this thread except Dave, apparently. Surely that alone would make you contemplate that maybe your response to this is ludicrous.

Of course I'm brushing it off, just like he is. I'm questioning where he's getting the idea that there's some big difference between our positions. My best guess is that he's assuming, presumably along with you and Rama, that I subscribe to some stupid rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me position where minorities are free to spout dumb shit online but white people are severely punished for it because of their privilege, or whatever. And I don't, far from it. I think I've been pretty vocal about my dismay at James Gunn being fired on IRC over the past few days, after all. I didn't weigh in on the whole double-standard thing during my previous posts simply because I don't always have the time throughout the day to write out every thought I have on my mind. I simply commented on what I thought was most relevant to the discussion - the feigned outrage over Jeong's tweets.

Another thing about Norton's firing was that it of course preceded the whole Gunn incident, and so had nothing to do Cernovich and his troll gang. Part of the NYT's support of Jeong was clearly meant to send a message about the limits of online pressure. Which isn't the most altruistic motivation in the world, but it's one I definitely sympathize with. We can't have troll mobs (of any political stripe) "policing" the Internet and the careers of private citizens on partisan grounds.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3171 on: August 05, 2018, 04:46:47 AM »
Fuck that, the entire SJW movement that the NYTs has molded themselves to sell to has been because of online pressure, and now they are taking a stance against the twitter mob? No way, they are simply catering to one twitter mob over another bit making it seem like they are virtuous warriors for the downtrodden and oppressed. It’s pathetic. This is the exact shit that will get Trump reflected in 18 months. GG Americas.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3172 on: August 05, 2018, 08:18:31 AM »
Everything Donald Trump says is self-evidently flippant, and yet somehow when I called it shitposting Saddam took major issue with it. Crazy how nature do that.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3173 on: August 05, 2018, 10:15:49 AM »
I agree with you that she shouldn't be fired, and Quinn Norton shouldn't have been fired either. I don't know where you're getting all this extra material about how I'm retarded but you're not, or how I'm brushing it off but you're not.

Then I would suggest maybe going back and reading your own posts.

I had no idea that strong, manly conservatives were such fragile snowflakes. Maybe they need a safe space, and a soothing lotion for their butts.

My position is that these are silly troll posts that nobody in their right mind would take seriously and nobody is genuinely offended by.

This is literally you acting like a retard and then brushing it off. Maybe try a little more nuance from the beginning if you want to be taken seriously at all. If you don't, that is fine too, but don't pretend to be shocked when people draw conclusions based on your own words.

Where we differ is that while I don't think she should be fired, I am also not going to pretend like "lmao no one can be genuinely offended." Yes, people can be offended and it is pretty easy to see why they might be. I also don't think they were entirely just "silly troll posts," but until that becomes an acceptable line of reasoning for everyone, I am not buying it here.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3362
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3174 on: August 07, 2018, 02:12:59 PM »
This is literally you acting like a retard and then brushing it off. Maybe try a little more nuance from the beginning if you want to be taken seriously at all. If you don't, that is fine too, but don't pretend to be shocked when people draw conclusions based on your own words.

Where we differ is that while I don't think she should be fired, I am also not going to pretend like "lmao no one can be genuinely offended." Yes, people can be offended and it is pretty easy to see why they might be. I also don't think they were entirely just "silly troll posts," but until that becomes an acceptable line of reasoning for everyone, I am not buying it here.

Nice, so I've gotten you to reverse your position on the issue:

NYT fired someone for the same thing only a few months ago, and they also wildly praised the firing of Roseanne from ABC for only a single tweet that insulted a single person. I don't think it's the tweets themselves that annoys anyone, it's the obvious hypocrisy of vilifying one kind of racism and defending another.
Oh, I know. But I am not going to change my position over retarded hypocrites.

I also don't think they were entirely just "silly troll posts," but until that becomes an acceptable line of reasoning for everyone, I am not buying it here.

You're not going to change your position over retarded hypocrites...unless the retarded hypocrite in question is me, apparently. I also enjoy the irony of a man who's so quick to call anyone he disagrees with "retarded" suddenly expressing deep concern over how offensive hypothetical other people might find somebody's posts. The idea that you give a shit how offensive anybody else finds anything is even more unbelievable than Rushy's nonsense about genocide and the "anti-white rhetoric."

Everything Donald Trump says is self-evidently flippant, and yet somehow when I called it shitposting Saddam took major issue with it. Crazy how nature do that.

This is a valid point, and I have in recent months come to reconsider my opinions about the general newsworthiness of a president's remarks, and if the medium used should affect it. There's a recent article from Vox that made me think of this:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17599010/neil-postman-trump-amusing-ourselves

I was originally skeptical of the notion that Trump was smart enough to be deliberately distracting us with his antics. I now realize that his Twitter account and rallies are at least in part giant smokescreens.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3175 on: August 07, 2018, 03:57:22 PM »
Nice, so I've gotten you to reverse your position on the issue...

You're not going to change your position over retarded hypocrites...unless the retarded hypocrite in question is me, apparently. I also enjoy the irony of a man who's so quick to call anyone he disagrees with "retarded" suddenly expressing deep concern over how offensive hypothetical other people might find somebody's posts. The idea that you give a shit how offensive anybody else finds anything is even more unbelievable than Rushy's nonsense about genocide and the "anti-white rhetoric."
You have not gotten me to change my position at all. What you have done is realized how ridiculous you sounded at first and are now trying to backpedal and project that on to me. I have been consistent this entire time. Also, you were not the retarded hypocrite I was referring to. I was actually referring to the "journalists" rushing to her defense, and the NYT's own hypocrisy as well. You are right, though, I should have left retarded out of it when discussing with you as that was unfair, but your initial post was nothing more than trolling. Then, all of the sudden, you act like you want to have an actual, super serious opinion on the matter.

Also, I would suggest looking up what irony means before you use it again, because based on your words here, you don't understand it. Additionally, I don't have "deep concern" about the matter, nor did I imply or claim that. That is just you making up things. I don't care if people are offended, but I can see why they would be. Do you understand the difference? At the end of the day, we agree on what the result should be, you just dismiss the criticisms of people who may actually care by essentially saying "lol no reasonable person can be offended." I am saying that plenty of reasonable people can be offended, even if I don't personally care if they are or not. I don't think she was "just trolling trolls," and that it is an infantile defense many are clinging to to avoid discussion or comparison to other racist things we have seen time and time again.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 04:03:19 PM by junker »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3362
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3176 on: August 07, 2018, 05:44:19 PM »
"I don't care, but I do care because of how offensive it was to reasonable people, and because it wasn't just trolling she was doing. Also, I don't care."

Cool story, bro. ::)
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3177 on: August 07, 2018, 05:55:34 PM »
"I don't care, but I do care because of how offensive it was to reasonable people, and because it wasn't just trolling she was doing. Also, I don't care."

Cool story, bro. ::)

I know I shouldn't bother entertaining you, because you always resort to memes and trolling instead of just admitting you were wrong, but whatever.

Personally, I do not care, it doesn't affect me or bother me. The lady shouldn't be fired over it. I also don't care if people find it offensive, but I do understand why they may find it offensive. I don't think she was just trolling, but again, it doesn't bother me personally. I really don't see how you are struggling so much with the concept. I can talk about subjects and form opinions without being emotionally involved. I know nuance and distinction can be hard for you, so if there is anything about my position you don't understand, just let me know and I will be happy to try to clarify in even more simple terms. Although I imagine you are just going to continue your usual bit, so feel free to carry on. 

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3178 on: August 07, 2018, 10:14:57 PM »
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1026675176807821313.html

Quote
Judge: Look at me when you're talking to me

Govt: I'm sorry Judge, I was

Judge: No you weren't. You were looking down.

Govt: "Because I don't want to get in trouble for some facial expression. I don't want to get yelled at again.."

This is from Manafort's trial, and the prosecutor handling the case honestly acts like a kindergartner. This apparently includes introducing evidence that the Judge repeatedly told him was irrelevant and even crying during the court session. The Trump Effect strikes again.

If Manafort wins his trial because of an incompetent prosecutor, it's going to be major blowback to Mueller, especially considering the trial is about a crime not even committed during the Trump campaign.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 10:18:16 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3179 on: August 08, 2018, 04:01:15 AM »
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1026675176807821313.html

Quote
Judge: Look at me when you're talking to me

Govt: I'm sorry Judge, I was

Judge: No you weren't. You were looking down.

Govt: "Because I don't want to get in trouble for some facial expression. I don't want to get yelled at again.."

This is from Manafort's trial, and the prosecutor handling the case honestly acts like a kindergartner. This apparently includes introducing evidence that the Judge repeatedly told him was irrelevant and even crying during the court session. The Trump Effect strikes again.

If Manafort wins his trial because of an incompetent prosecutor, it's going to be major blowback to Mueller, especially considering the trial is about a crime not even committed during the Trump campaign.


O.o
The fuck?  Is this accurate?  And why the hell did the judge yell at him for a facial expression?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.