Author Topic: Can we just stop, please?  (Read 3384 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #140 on: June 13, 2018, 11:17:53 AM »
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.

That's fine.  Yes, it is "different."  But for purposes of the point Stadler was trying to make, I don't see it as qualitatively so.  The difference doesn't really appear to have any material distinction in context of what Stadler was saying.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 11:29:24 AM by bosk1 »
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23865
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #141 on: June 13, 2018, 11:58:04 AM »
Whoulda thunk it... two lawyers agreeing with one another on a technicality.  When "qualitatively" and "material" are used in the same consecutive sentences, it's bound to be a lawyer.  :lol

One more retort from EB, and you'll be asking to treat the witness as hostile.   :rollin :rollin
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #142 on: June 13, 2018, 11:58:40 AM »
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.


Although I appreciate the support, it's not like I don't understand what you are saying.   But I disagree.   She's far too smart to not know the hyperbole she engaged in.  That's not "guessing her motivation".    She is clearly a self-avowed elitist.  She's SAID she (while First Lady) felt that she and Bill were "born" to lead this country.    That's not "guessing her motivation".  She has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, almost ad infinitum down on the proposition that she lost because "racists" voted for Trump.  That's not "guessing her motivation".  Many, on the left, have taken the position that it is absolutely preposterous that ANYONE could vote for Trump.   

I'm not arguing what she said.  It's pretty clear, and it's not inconsistent with what you said.  But I'm arguing that it is a one-sided view.  She DID define that "deplorable" was certain things - racist, misogynist, etc. - but failed to define what those are, and that's important because it shows that she wasn't interested in the details, but rather the moral implications of the broad brush.  It was enough to white wash with the label "racist" for all of us to know what was what.   I for one have a real problem - that shouldn't be news to you - in making things "one issue".   I have a problem less with the "deplorable" basket, but with the implication that if you're a racist your vote doesn't count (or counts less).   By saying that, she was very clearly saying that "if you're not a racist, and you're not confused, you SHOULD be voting for ME!"   Well, guess what; I'm neither and I didn't, and I don't need to have my morals questioned, or be shamed for that.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20420
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #143 on: June 13, 2018, 12:05:14 PM »
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.

That's fine.  Yes, it is "different."  But for purposes of the point Stadler was trying to make, I don't see it as qualitatively so.  The difference doesn't really appear to have any material distinction in context of what Stadler was saying.
When Stadler's greater point is "identity politics be bad" and he cites HRC as an example by using her personality to reinterpret her words I'd call it highly material.


Whoulda thunk it... two lawyers agreeing with one another on a technicality.  When "qualitatively" and "material" are used in the same consecutive sentences, it's bound to be a lawyer.  :lol

One more retort from EB, and you'll be asking to treat the witness as hostile.   :rollin :rollin
Hell, I want 2/3 of the posts I make here to be regarded as Fucking Hostile.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20420
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #144 on: June 13, 2018, 12:19:35 PM »
???  I don't see any assuming of motivations rather than what she has actually said.  I think you are seeing something that isn't intended to be there.
Uh uh. Within the context of what she said she was plainly stating that they were deplorable for being racist, homophobic, misogynistic fucksticks. The idea that she was just denouncing people that disagreed with her platform is an assumption based on his opinion of her personality. Stadler is very definitely misstating her position, in opposition to his contempt for identity politics.

Quote from: HRC
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Yeah, I don't see anything qualitatively different in what she said and what Stadler was saying, at least for purposes of his argument.
Then I don't know what to tell you. She was pretty clear on what made them deplorable, and Stadler gives her a different reason, twice.


Although I appreciate the support, it's not like I don't understand what you are saying.   But I disagree.   She's far too smart to not know the hyperbole she engaged in.  That's not "guessing her motivation".    She is clearly a self-avowed elitist.  She's SAID she (while First Lady) felt that she and Bill were "born" to lead this country.    That's not "guessing her motivation".  She has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, almost ad infinitum down on the proposition that she lost because "racists" voted for Trump.  That's not "guessing her motivation".  Many, on the left, have taken the position that it is absolutely preposterous that ANYONE could vote for Trump.   

I'm not arguing what she said.  It's pretty clear, and it's not inconsistent with what you said.  But I'm arguing that it is a one-sided view.  She DID define that "deplorable" was certain things - racist, misogynist, etc. - but failed to define what those are, and that's important because it shows that she wasn't interested in the details, but rather the moral implications of the broad brush.  It was enough to white wash with the label "racist" for all of us to know what was what.   I for one have a real problem - that shouldn't be news to you - in making things "one issue".   I have a problem less with the "deplorable" basket, but with the implication that if you're a racist your vote doesn't count (or counts less).   By saying that, she was very clearly saying that "if you're not a racist, and you're not confused, you SHOULD be voting for ME!"   Well, guess what; I'm neither and I didn't, and I don't need to have my morals questioned, or be shamed for that.
I didn't say you guessed her motivation. I said you assumed her motivation based on her personality, which you continue to do. Something you'd come down on anybody else for doing in big way.

Setting aside the question of how much defining you expect her to do in a 2 minute debate rebuttal, the question I ask is why she has to define them to make the point she made. The fucksticks can define themselves, and those that do will very likely be Trump voters. When I watch her make that comment I don't need to know what she considers a racist or homophobe because the fact is that they exist and will likely be in Trump's basket.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23865
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #145 on: June 13, 2018, 01:42:55 PM »
I guess we can't just stop, please.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #146 on: June 13, 2018, 01:57:34 PM »
Although I appreciate the support, it's not like I don't understand what you are saying.   But I disagree.   She's far too smart to not know the hyperbole she engaged in.  That's not "guessing her motivation".    She is clearly a self-avowed elitist.  She's SAID she (while First Lady) felt that she and Bill were "born" to lead this country.    That's not "guessing her motivation".  She has doubled, tripled, quadrupled, almost ad infinitum down on the proposition that she lost because "racists" voted for Trump.  That's not "guessing her motivation".  Many, on the left, have taken the position that it is absolutely preposterous that ANYONE could vote for Trump.   

I'm not arguing what she said.  It's pretty clear, and it's not inconsistent with what you said.  But I'm arguing that it is a one-sided view.  She DID define that "deplorable" was certain things - racist, misogynist, etc. - but failed to define what those are, and that's important because it shows that she wasn't interested in the details, but rather the moral implications of the broad brush.  It was enough to white wash with the label "racist" for all of us to know what was what.   I for one have a real problem - that shouldn't be news to you - in making things "one issue".   I have a problem less with the "deplorable" basket, but with the implication that if you're a racist your vote doesn't count (or counts less).   By saying that, she was very clearly saying that "if you're not a racist, and you're not confused, you SHOULD be voting for ME!"   Well, guess what; I'm neither and I didn't, and I don't need to have my morals questioned, or be shamed for that.
I didn't say you guessed her motivation. I said you assumed her motivation based on her personality, which you continue to do. Something you'd come down on anybody else for doing in big way.

Setting aside the question of how much defining you expect her to do in a 2 minute debate rebuttal, the question I ask is why she has to define them to make the point she made. The fucksticks can define themselves, and those that do will very likely be Trump voters. When I watch her make that comment I don't need to know what she considers a racist or homophobe because the fact is that they exist and will likely be in Trump's basket.

Help me out, sincerely.  How am I assuming her motivation based on her personality?  I'll give you the point if you said "I'm assuming her motivation  based on evidence that isn't included in her statement", sure, but I think it's a relevant point that almost the entire Democrat platform - a platform I would nominally agree with in large part, mind you - is predicated on MORAL concerns not practical ones, so it's hardly "personal" that I ascribe that to her.   I would - and have - said the same thing about Bernie Sanders.  I actually like Bernie, and admire him in a lot of ways, but the fact remains, the idea that he would absolve students of their debt, unilaterally, is a moral position.  That he bases much of his campaign on the fallacy of income inequality - a moral argument if there ever was one (our economy is NOT a zero sum game) - is a moral position.  The idea that anyone who is for "repeal and replace" necessarily wants to "see people die!".  I am very much for "repeal and replace", precisely because I DON'T want to see ANYONE die that doesn't have to. 

In a very real way, I'm not sure "motivation" even matters, except as validation of the outcome.   It's the outcome that is important.  This is what I'm arguing against, not Hillary Clinton. No, she didn't have to define anything, and on that point you are 100% correct.   But I would argue that the fact that ANY of Trump's voters are potentially "racist" is not a relevant factor for anyone but that person.  I don't see the relevancy of that point EXCEPT to bully people into voting FOR her out of fear of being put in the "basket".   

What am I missing?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 02:15:05 PM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #147 on: June 13, 2018, 01:58:43 PM »
I guess we can't just stop, please.

Can't stop me now! Having a good time, having a ball.   

Offline Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3391
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #148 on: June 13, 2018, 04:00:29 PM »
I guess we can't just stop, please.

Can't stop me now! Having a good time, having a ball.

I was just listening to this about an hour ago because you piqued my interest in Queen recently. Good timing. Good song. :)

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17893
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #149 on: June 13, 2018, 04:19:59 PM »
I guess we can't just stop, please.

Can't stop me now! Having a good time, having a ball.

I was just listening to this about an hour ago because you piqued my interest in Queen recently. Good timing. Good song. :)

One of my favorite and rarely listened to Queen songs.  I need to get that played more often. 

Online sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 817
  • Gender: Male
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #150 on: June 14, 2018, 06:59:46 AM »
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/14/kathy-griffin-calls-out-kevin-hart-for-not-attacking-trump.html

Lolz

Featured quote:
"Some of the dumbest hot takes on race and politics come from white liberals.”

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #151 on: June 14, 2018, 10:39:29 AM »
I swear I'm not joking here; if a genie came out of a bottle right now and said "Three wishes, bro!",

1.  All social media, gone, as if it never happened.
2.  The entire world would realize immediately that "silence" is NOT "consent".   Not everyone who doesn't "Resist!" deserves ridicule and bullying.
3.  I need a minute; it's either $250 billion dollars, or a date with Margot Robbie.  Right now, leaning cash, since I don't know how that second thing would  play out. 


(And lest anyone criticize me for not picking "peace" or "eradication of disease", well the former might largely be covered by 1 and 2, and the latter I could probably kick start with a portion of 3, after I buy a few things (college for my kids, my new BMW M6, a Playstation 4/xBox One X gaming center, and a backyard concert by Kiss)). 

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #152 on: June 14, 2018, 02:06:11 PM »
I'm not gonna lie--kinda disappointed that a date with me wasn't even in the running.  But oh well...
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23865
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #153 on: June 14, 2018, 05:28:28 PM »
I'm not gonna lie--kinda disappointed that a date with me wasn't even in the running.  But oh well...

God, would I love to be a fly on the wall for THAT conversation
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #154 on: June 14, 2018, 06:26:19 PM »
I'm not gonna lie--kinda disappointed that a date with me wasn't even in the running.  But oh well...

God, would I love to be a fly on the wall for THAT conversation

Do you think either of them would be able to get a word in edgewise?   :D

Haha, just a little lawyer joke.  Bosk isn't nearly as wordy as Stadler.  So I'm rooting for Bosk to get to speak first.  Just don't take a breath there Bosk!   :P

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6134
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #155 on: June 14, 2018, 06:29:25 PM »
Dostoevsky isn't nearly as wordy as Stadler.  :-X
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #156 on: June 15, 2018, 08:28:23 AM »
Guys, I'm standing right here.   I can hear you. 

Online sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 817
  • Gender: Male
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #157 on: June 15, 2018, 08:47:32 AM »
Guys, I'm standing right here.   I can hear you.

Come on guys, let's get real... Dave_Manchester is the far and away leader of long posts  :hat

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23865
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #158 on: June 15, 2018, 08:51:27 AM »
Guys, I'm standing right here.   I can hear you.

Come on guys, let's get real... Dave_Manchester is the far and away leader of long posts  :hat

Perhaps, but the quote pyramids and sheer quantity of loquacious posts also give Stads an edge.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #159 on: June 15, 2018, 09:10:07 AM »
You guys say all this like it's a bad thing.  :)

Offline Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3391
Re: Can we just stop, please?
« Reply #160 on: June 15, 2018, 09:36:15 AM »
Dave may be the leader of the long post - but (and I say this with a) great respect and b) an acknowledgment that I lack the mental fortitude to keep up the pace sometimes) Stadler is the king of split-thought (and provocative) sentences, simultaneously 1) humorous and 2) reading like a lawyer's email (bullet points not (always) included).

:)