Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

if the girl was under the age of consent, like 3 of trumps accusers, than you surely did.

Trump has more accusers than both bills. clinton & cosby. At least 20 with a pending court case this year for a new one.

When one of them manages to manifest evidence and convict him, I'll tie the rope if you ask.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
She did not paint half of her detractors, she broadly suggested that half of Trumps supporters were deplorable.

Thats a distinction without a difference. Calling your opposition deplorable will harden their positions and drive independents away.

When people are supporting Donald Trump and continue to do so after he had been recorded bragging about sexual assault, their position is already as hard as diamond.

Lots voted for Trump because he wasn't her.
Again, anyone unsure, this pushes them away. Anyone already likely to vote for Trump will now be more likely to actually show up (something hers didn't do).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Denigrating people worked perfectly fine for Trump though.

Ya it did, because hillary was right.

Foreign opinions are irrelevant.

 Frazzled wrote:
[Lots voted for Trump because he wasn't her.
Again, anyone unsure, this pushes them away. Anyone already likely to vote for Trump will now be more likely to actually show up (something hers didn't do).

Yep. And as delusional as Mr. Sanders may have been, he certainly had more respect than she did. She was betting that all of those people would come running to her once Sanders bent the knee and ducked out of the race.

Ok, may I ask we got off the irrelevant past and back on topic please?

So if calling someone regressive is bad, as asserted earlier, why is it bad? Regressive has been defined in this thread, so why is calling someone by a non insulting term with a clear definition bad.

 redleger wrote:
Ok, may I ask we got off the irrelevant past and back on topic please?

So if calling someone regressive is bad, as asserted earlier, why is it bad? Regressive has been defined in this thread, so why is calling someone by a non insulting term with a clear definition bad.

I'm not sure why calling someone something 'insulting' is bad, if that's exactly what they are. If you are being regressive in your ideas, then you're regressive. If you don't wash yourself and you stink, you're a dirty stinky person. These are insulting things, but have something to substantiate them.

However, 'deplorable' is somewhat subjective and has very little to support it, other than 'you dislike them and want to use a mean name'.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
When people are supporting Donald Trump and continue to do so after he had been recorded bragging about sexual assault, their position is already as hard as diamond.

Careful how you paint things like this.

"Sometimes I shoot dudes, right in the chest"

FYI- I've never killed anyone. So I'm not bragging about a Murder. As far as the Justice System has been able to prove, Mr. Trump has not sexually assaulted anyone. Only one person has made the claim, and when asked to manifest evidence- she shrinks away. She was trying to dog him to get him to settle out of court and it didn't work. It happens quite a bit with rich people in the US- which is why if you talk to extremely wealthy people, they'll generally say that you have someone else in your home when you link up with someone for 'dirty deeds', just to have a witness.

People are scummy.

A recording of someone saying they grab women by the genitals and get away with it because they're rich and famous is not the same as what you posted. There is no other interpretation for what Trump said.

Thats...not how the legal system works.

 redleger wrote:
Ok, may I ask we got off the irrelevant past and back on topic please?

So if calling someone regressive is bad, as asserted earlier, why is it bad? Regressive has been defined in this thread, so why is calling someone by a non insulting term with a clear definition bad.

Why is calling someone deplorable for voting for a man that admitted to sexual assault bad?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is calling someone deplorable for voting for a man that admitted to sexual assault bad?

The same reason saying "Sweden has no real men" is bad, because your rape stats shot through the roof. It's a generalization, it's not accurate, and there's a lot of data that isn't accounted for or proven.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is calling someone deplorable for voting for a man that admitted to sexual assault bad?

The same reason saying "Sweden has no real men" is bad, because your rape stats shot through the roof. It's a generalization, it's not accurate, and there's a lot of data that isn't accounted for or proven.

So pretty much the same situation that claiming that the "regressive left" represents a huge chunk of the American left then?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

So pretty much the same situation that claiming that the "regressive left" represents a huge chunk of the American left then?

A huge chunk? Not at all. It's just a very loud and obnoxious chunk. When you go to a new village, the first person you notice is the village idiot. People who say stupid things are generally the ones to get noticed, people who say reasonable things don't (right or left).

The only fault I hold in the majority of the left is that I think they aren't doing enough to deal with the radical regressives in their ranks. The same can be said of the right and their puritans, but the puritans haven't been praising physical assault of elderly people, wanton destruction, etc. In order for the left to seem like it has itself together, they're going to have to do what Bill Maher has done and call out their own idiots.

To give you an example:

LEFT: "Hey right, you have NAZIS! Look at Spencer!"

RIGHT: "I am right wing, a republican. I think Mr. Spencer is a stupid and disgusting person, but punching people in the face isn't the appropriate response. He does not even represent a significant portion of the right. What do you think about these Antifa kids that are attacking people?"

LEFT: "Well YOU guys have NAZIS! He DESERVED it! These kids are just lashing out, riots are the language of the unheard!"

That's how I see it. The left tends to circle the wagons way too often- even when it comes to violent and sickening people, when the right is more often willing to cold-shoulder or cut ties with their own idiots.

I miss the days where terms with a meaning like racist, fascist, progressist, "left" had a meaning and a definition... people called a person, racist, and no one blink an eye because they where used with actual racist.

Today many political and social terms with scientific definitions have been so over used that have lost his original meaning.

And, Adeptus Doritos, you say that you are more of the right way of thinking but you liked Obama, but not all what he did, etc...

In that case, I would say that you don't have a right-left ideology, you have a ideary. The basic difference its that a ideary its personal, based in rational reflexion and thought about different topics, when a ideology its just picking a set of fixed ideas that aren't yours and defending them.


EDIT: Hmm... you representation of the LEFT and the RIGHT seems accurate but a little unjust. You are comparing here a rational right-winger with the typical ignorant Left-winger. I can put many examples just at the inverse. For our disgrace, ignorant people its more abundant that cultured people. And normally, they are more convinced about their own intelligence and superiority

 Galas wrote:


In that case, I would say that you don't have a right-left ideology, you have a ideary. The basic difference its that a ideary its personal, based in rational reflexion and thought about different topics, when a ideology its just picking a set of fixed ideas that aren't yours and defending them.

You would be correct. I tend to judge each issue individually. Many times the result is that I come out on the side of the right, other times on the left- but it's not about the 'side'- I think the right/left thing is way too tribal, it's a sports team for someone who isn't into sports. Sometimes, it's practically a cult where people just repeat the 'scriptures' or 'chants' that get them shoulder-pats and acceptance in an angry mob. Hell, sometimes I even think the extreme allegiance to left/right is just for bored people who want to be a part of a pissed-off mob of folks.

Me? I hate folks who put ranch on pizza.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

So pretty much the same situation that claiming that the "regressive left" represents a huge chunk of the American left then?

A huge chunk? Not at all. It's just a very loud and obnoxious chunk. When you go to a new village, the first person you notice is the village idiot. People who say stupid things are generally the ones to get noticed, people who say reasonable things don't (right or left).

The only fault I hold in the majority of the left is that I think they aren't doing enough to deal with the radical regressives in their ranks. The same can be said of the right and their puritans, but the puritans haven't been praising physical assault of elderly people, wanton destruction, etc. In order for the left to seem like it has itself together, they're going to have to do what Bill Maher has done and call out their own idiots.

To give you an example:

LEFT: "Hey right, you have NAZIS! Look at Spencer!"

RIGHT: "I am right wing, a republican. I think Mr. Spencer is a stupid and disgusting person, but punching people in the face isn't the appropriate response. He does not even represent a significant portion of the right. What do you think about these Antifa kids that are attacking people?"

LEFT: "Well YOU guys have NAZIS! He DESERVED it! These kids are just lashing out, riots are the language of the unheard!"

That's how I see it. The left tends to circle the wagons way too often- even when it comes to violent and sickening people, when the right is more often willing to cold-shoulder or cut ties with their own idiots.

The right just voted Trump into power. That's one idiot that didn't get cold-shouldered or tie-cutted. Betsy DeVos didn't get tie-cutted. Sean Spicer still has a job. It would seem that the idiots on the right, as it were, are the ones in power whereas the idiots on the left aren't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The right just voted Trump into power. That's one idiot that didn't get cold-shouldered or tie-cutted. Betsy DeVos didn't get tie-cutted. Sean Spicer still has a job. It would seem that the idiots on the right, as it were, are the ones in power whereas the idiots on the left aren't.

Then I think this may be a fine time to explain to you that being 'right wing' is not inherently 'bad' or 'stupid', just because you are left wing. Just because you disagree with someone does not make them stupid. Just because someone says something that comes out wrong, or is in fact misinformed, does not make them 'stupid'.

I'm sorry, this may be your first time hearing someone tell you that 'right wing does not mean bad', but I'm afraid I'm going to be the first. Apologies, if we were in person I would have made my grandmother's tea recipe and set out a selection of cookies.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Just because you disagree with someone does not make them stupid.

These are the people that brought us "alternative facts", "who could have believed healthcare was complicated" and who lie about trivialities like the weather on a certain day. This isn't me disagreeing with them, this is objective facts. You're welcome to pretend this isn't stupid if you want to.

Complaining about how the regressive left shuts down arguments while making strawmen and being condescending in general also doesn't do you any favours.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

These are the people that brought us "alternative facts", "who could have believed healthcare was complicated" and who lie about trivialities like the weather on a certain day. This isn't me disagreeing with them, this is objective facts. You're welcome to pretend this isn't stupid if you want to.

When it comes to 'alternative facts', the left loved throwing the word 'fake news' around until people started doing the same thing to them.

Please tell me more about people lying about trivialities, I'd love to hear about sniper fire in Bosnia or how the MEF that could respond in less than 3 hours would have 'never made it there in time'.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Complaining about how the regressive left shuts down arguments while making strawmen and being condescending in general also doesn't do you any favours.

I don't particularly care if I hurt your feelings.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Complaining about how the regressive left shuts down arguments while making strawmen and being condescending in general also doesn't do you any favours.

I don't particularly care if I hurt your feelings.

I don't either, but the forum rules do.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

These are the people that brought us "alternative facts", "who could have believed healthcare was complicated" and who lie about trivialities like the weather on a certain day. This isn't me disagreeing with them, this is objective facts. You're welcome to pretend this isn't stupid if you want to.

When it comes to 'alternative facts', the left loved throwing the word 'fake news' around until people started doing the same thing to them.

"Citation needed."

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


Please tell me more about people lying about trivialities, I'd love to hear about sniper fire in Bosnia or how the MEF that could respond in less than 3 hours would have 'never made it there in time'.

Lying about such things is dishonest, lying about the amount of people and the weather on your own inauguration is just sad.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't either, but the forum rules do.

I think they were explicit about flaming and insulting. I was condescending, completely. I'm not trying to get into a flame war with you, but I am going to take your ideas to task and criticize them. And I still don't care if I hurt your feelings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Citation needed."

Not as desperately as 'evidence needed' for your claims about Mr. Trump's sexual assault.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Lying about such things is dishonest, lying about the amount of people and the weather on your own inauguration is just sad.

I'm more concerned about someone who lies about war stories than I am about someone who lies about what type of cereal they had in the morning.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't either, but the forum rules do.

I think they were explicit about flaming and insulting. I was condescending, completely. I'm not trying to get into a flame war with you, but I am going to take your ideas to task and criticize them. And I still don't care if I hurt your feelings.

Pretty sure rule #1 is "Be polite". Regardless, you realize you're exhibiting exactly the kind of behaviour that the regressive left is reacting to in the first place? The whole "I don't give two feths about other people"?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Pretty sure rule #1 is "Be polite". Regardless, you realize you're exhibiting exactly the kind of behaviour that the regressive left is reacting to in the first place? The whole "I don't give two feths about other people"?

I don't care about peoples' feelings, and you're assuming that their 'reaction' is something that particularly troubles me. Hurt feelings are not a type of currency to get what you want, and nothing happens if you are offended. When a child throws a tantrum, the parent is not expected to change and indulge the child.

And you're also assuming that the regressives' tantrums aren't amusing to me.

Edit: Bonus- you're talking about the 'regressive left', but you're playing their game: "This person said something I don't like, rather than addressing his argument I'm going to cry 'foul' and enforce some sort of speech laws about being mean to people!"

I like you Adeptus Doritos.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


Edit: Bonus- you're talking about the 'regressive left', but you're playing their game: "This person said something I don't like, rather than addressing his argument I'm going to cry 'foul' and enforce some sort of speech laws about being mean to people!"

What argument? You brought up Clinton's silly lie about snipers in Bosnia and Benghazi (yay, one more square for the bingo) and you're pretending that it's on par with trying to get away with using "alternative truths" as an actual out when called on BS?

Further, I'm pointing out that the argument you're attributing to me wasn't made by me. In other words, you're not just rude, you're a liar.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


I don't care about peoples' feelings, and you're assuming that their 'reaction' is something that particularly troubles me. Hurt feelings are not a type of currency to get what you want, and nothing happens if you are offended. When a child throws a tantrum, the parent is not expected to change and indulge the child.

To go with that analogy, when the child is trying to bully others into submission the adult is supposed to step in and tell the child to stop.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like you Adeptus Doritos.

I like you, too. You can come over to my house and drink the last beer, even poop with the bathroom door open if you want.

But if you touch the last Citrus Cooler Gatorade, I will get the pistol. I have civilized standards in this household.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What argument? You brought up Clinton's silly lie about snipers in Bosnia and Benghazi (yay, one more square for the bingo) and you're pretending that it's on par with trying to get away with using "alternative truths" as an actual out when called on BS?

Yeah, man- it's just plain silly to lie about war. Pardon me, I've kind of been in one a couple of times, so it might strike a chord with me. Especially lies about something that could have saved the lives of other human beings. But that lie about the weather, that's some real problematic stuff right there, let me tell you.

Now I'm being condescending, and thoroughly enjoying it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To go with that analogy, when the child is trying to bully others into submission the adult is supposed to step in and tell the child to stop.

We do, and usually get called some variation of 'bigot' for it. Sometimes you have to embarass the child, because the next step is spanking it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like you Adeptus Doritos.

His avatar needs a big orange dorito dusted fingerprint on it though.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like you Adeptus Doritos.

I like you, too. You can come over to my house and drink the last beer, even poop with the bathroom door open if you want.

But if you touch the last Citrus Cooler Gatorade, I will get the pistol. I have civilized standards in this household.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What argument? You brought up Clinton's silly lie about snipers in Bosnia and Benghazi (yay, one more square for the bingo) and you're pretending that it's on par with trying to get away with using "alternative truths" as an actual out when called on BS?

Yeah, man- it's just plain silly to lie about war. Pardon me, I've kind of been in one a couple of times, so it might strike a chord with me. Especially lies about something that could have saved the lives of other human beings. But that lie about the weather, that's some real problematic stuff right there, let me tell you.

Sorry, I should've been clearer on that: lying about snipers in Bosnia is "silly" in the sense that it's a dumb lie since it's easily discovered, but if people believe the lie it makes sense. It's a "rational" lie in that it actually furthers your cause if it works. Contrast this to Trump lying about the weather at his inauguration, which was even easier to disprove, and didn't bring any sort of benefit whatsoever to Trump beyond soothing his ego if people discovered it. One is the action of a rational human being, the other the action of someone with poor impulse control (and that's putting it generously).

It's not just the weather, it's the continued stream of falsehoods. Cheering Muslims on the streets after 9/11, getting more votes than Clinton, Obama wiretapping Trump, "alternative facts", various ties to Russia. The Trump administration is the proverbial child throwing a tantrum, but instead of taking him to task you seem more concerned with silencing the people you accuse of silencing others.

I'm not touching Benghazi with a 10-mile pole, we've had a metric ton of pages back and forth on that in OT already.

What you're saying, though, is that you got triggered by Clinton's lies because they hurt your feelings. For that matter, if being called a racist or a bigot is so horrible, why don't you grow a thicker skin?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


What you're saying, though, is that you got triggered by Clinton's lies because they hurt your feelings. For that matter, if being called a racist or a bigot is so horrible, why don't you grow a thicker skin?

You're assuming that some random neon-haired loser hurling names at me bothers me. In fact, the way I see it is if certain people are spewing vitriolic insults at me, I'm doing the Lord's work.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like you Adeptus Doritos.

His avatar needs a big orange dorito dusted fingerprint on it though.

Please, I have some class. Don't insult me with such plebian ideas.

Me likey.!

To the falsehoods. You (walrus) can do better then that.
Cheering Muslims on the streets after 9/11,
***It was in Palestine. I saw them that day on TV.

getting more votes than Clinton,
***He did where it counted.

Obama wiretapping Trump,
***Well the Feds have admitted they have been investigating his team, and there have been leaks from intelligence agencies, and Rice was found to have unmasked Trump aids and shipped that out en mass. While legal, its accurate.

I mean, to be fair- I watched the cheering in the streets all over the globe. I know, we were sitting in a room at the airfield where they had the television on CNN.

 Frazzled wrote:
Me likey.!

To the falsehoods. You (walrus) can do better then that.
Cheering Muslims on the streets after 9/11,
***It was in Palestine. I saw them that day on TV.

Which wasn't what Trump said, he said he saw them in Jersey City. Blatantly not true.

 Frazzled wrote:


getting more votes than Clinton,
***He did where it counted.

Which, again, isn't what he said. He said more votes, which isn't true.

 Frazzled wrote:

Obama wiretapping Trump,
***Well the Feds have admitted they have been investigating his team, and there have been leaks from intelligence agencies, and Rice was found to have unmasked Trump aids and shipped that out en mass. While legal, its accurate.

Wiretapping people related to Trump's campaign is not the same as Obama ordering the wiretapping of Trump tower.

I think YOU'RE the one who can do better than that Frazzled.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wiretapping people related to Trump's campaign is not the same as Obama ordering the wiretapping of Trump tower.

I think YOU'RE the one who can do better than that Frazzled.

I like how you're all about weaselwords and technicalities, up until it's time to accuse someone on the right of something. Then it's outright damning and undeniable evidence.