Even more problematic stuff

Locked
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:30 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:27 pm
Joe wrote:Must get paid by the word. :coffee:
:hehe:

42 doesn't do irony, nor will he acknowledge that my recasting of his own comments merely reflected their underlying premises and prejudices.

Of course there are underlying premises, but I haven't set forth any "prejudices" in my commentary on this. I'm not prejudiced against anyone here - women, men, whatever. What prejudices do you think I expressed? Of the premises you identified, which ones are wrong, in your view?

My arguments bore little, if any, resemblance to your "recasting" of the arguments. Suggesting that saying Ford or the other women's stories are unproven and unfalsifiable claims doesn't mean all women are liars or delusional, and it doesn't mean that everyone who supports them are liars or deliusional. Also, the fact that many of the supporters of Ford and company were screaming meemies, clawing at the doors of SCOTUS doesn't mean everyone who supported them was that. It means some were.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:56 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:37 pm
I should've guessed someone had beat me to it, and by two years! :lol:
Since the beginning of time, the rich, the powerful, and the megalomaniacal have all built shrines to their own self-importance. Think the pyramids. The Palace of Versailles. Any investment banker’s home in the Hamptons.

But if we’re talking about the apotheosis of opulence—a world where “too much is never enough,” where rivers of marble meet acres of chintz, where crystal chandeliers hang from the ceiling like guillotines, and where taste (bad taste, that is) seems to have been applied with a trowel, we couldn’t help but notice a striking similarity in the decorating palate of two demagogues: Donald Trump, the putative Republican nominee for president of the United States, and the late Saddam Hussein, the former president, prime minister, and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council of the Republic of Iraq.

All of which begs an interesting question: Who influenced whom? Is it a coincidence, or does their preference for strongman politics dictate their prejudices in decorating? Or, perhaps more prosaically, which came first: the gold-plated toilet or the gold-plated bidet
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03 ... in-palaces
LOL - a bigger load of bullshit is hard to imagine.

Look at the comparisons they make. Trump's mansion has a double grand staircase in the front great room from his old house in Greenwich, Connecticut. And, then there is the double spiral grand staircase of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces. They don't look alike at all - they're just super opulent staircases, and the author of the article says they're basically the same - meaning Trump and Hussein are basically the same - two tyrants.

But, of course, here is Candy Spelling's staircase - Hollywood producer family and the Spellings are Hollywood "royalty" -

Image

Oh my gosh! He has a staircase like Trump and Saddam Hussein!!!

Is it that rich people who buy huge mansions tend to have large grand entrances and staircases? Oh, no. It's that Trump and Saddam Hussein have the same personalities. Fucking nutbags.

Oh, and this one is hilarious -- https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03 ... in-palaces

Trump is pictured there at the bottom of a staircase in Trump Tower, not in a fucking house. And that's compared to something in a Saddam Hussein palaces. They look nothing alike.

if you want a prime example of Trump Derangement Syndrome - this Vanity Fair article is a fantastic example. It takes something that is a big nothing, and twists it into a commentary on Donald Trump. Trump, a billionaire, has fancy and opulent mansions - like every other fucking billionaire, and many multi-millionaires. So did Saddam Hussein. See! See! Trump is like Saddam Hussein!

Fucking hell, folks. Fucking hell.

Why didn't the writer compare the "mansions" that British aristocracy live in to the palaces of Saddam Hussein? Are they the same too? LOL. What are we to make of this - British Lords and Ladies have big chandeliers, lots of marble and expensive stonework, and grand staircases! They have big rooms for balls and dances and meetings! So did Saddam Hussein!!

Princess Diana lived at Althorp!

Image

Image

Holy chandeliers! She had big chandeliers! Opulent entranceways! Giant stonework!

Look! A gaudy, opulent grand staircase! Image

My god! Princess Diana was just like Saddam Hussein!
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Sean Hayden » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:10 pm

You're such a snowflake 42. Trump is compared to Saddam because they're both scumbags. His scumbaggery just makes his wealth that much harder to handle. Also, you shouldn't take this to be an attack on Trump only. What is with all these wealthy scumbags?


Another aspect is of course how we treated Saddam. Were you bitching at the media when they showed us how he lived, and suggested he was a monster to enjoy his wealth in the midst of such inequality? Were you saying so what, that's just how rich guys live? :lol:

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:12 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:04 am
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:20 pm
LOL, the other "accusers" tried to get themselves put through that, and they were lying. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ing-rape-/
The source you cite describes one woman who tried to claim that she was a 'Jane Doe' accuser. She was not, according to your source. She lied about being 'Jane Doe,' but that has nothing to do with 'Jane Doe's' accusation. You haven't presented any evidence that the 'Jane Doe' was lying. Since you wrote "accusers" plural, who are the others (aside from the inconsistencies in Blasey Ford's recollections you've made such a meal of here) who you believe have been shown to be lying?
Swetnick as well - she admitted to lying.

And the woman who claimed to be the Jane Doe lied.
Ms. Munro-Leighton was one of the women who piled on with claims of sexual assault by Mr. Kavanaugh in the progressive mob moment of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing. She claimed in an Oct. 3 email to the committee that Mr. Kavanaugh and a friend “sexually assaulted and raped me in his car.” Justice Kavanaugh denied it and Ms. Munro-Leighton conceded on Nov. 1 that she made it all up.

In a letter to the FBI and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Mr. Grassley says that, under questioning from Judiciary staff, Ms. Munro-Leighton conceded she made the false accusations because she “just wanted to get attention.” She said, “I was angry, and I sent it out.” This follows Mr. Grassley’s earlier referral to Justice concerning false statements by Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick and attorney Michael Avenatti.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-kavanaug ... 1541371466
These referrals are important because Democrats say they plan to keep harassing Justice Kavanaugh. They vow to re-open investigations if they win the House or Senate, and they may try to dig up more allegations without evidence. It’s thus important to expose and sanction accusers who lie. False statements to Congress harm nominees and their families, waste committee resources, and further poison American politics.

If the facts in Mr. Grassley’s letter are accurate, Ms. Munro-Leighton should be prosecuted for the damage she has done—and to deter other attention-getters who think they can make false accusations to stoke a political mob in the media and U.S. Senate.
FBI, said a woman by the name of Judy Munro-Leighton took responsibility for authoring an anonymous letter that made allegations that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her. After she was tracked down and interviewed by Senate investigators, the woman recanted and said she was not, in fact. the author and had never met Kavanaugh.

Grassley claims the woman is a left-wing activist and told investigators it was "just a ploy," he wrote in the letter. Her full comments to investigators were not made available and efforts by USA TODAY to reach Munro-Leighton were unsuccessful.

Grassley asked for federal authorities to investigate her on allegations of making false statements and obstruction.

The letter marks at least the fourth request Grassley has made of federal authorities to investigate those involved in the controversial Kavanaugh proceedings, which were extended due to a series of sexual assault allegations surfacing when Kavanaugh was in high school and college.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 863210002/

Believe all women!
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:14 pm

Yeah, those opulent UK palaces were also built by self-entitled autocratic authoritarians - why didn't the author compare Trump to them? Eh?

:tea:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:54 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:10 pm
You're such a snowflake 42. Trump is compared to Saddam because they're both scumbags.
How am I a snowflake? I've not asked for any quarter from anyone. Fuck off.

Also - the article did not compare Trump to Saddam because they're both scumbags. The article was specifically about comparing their decorating and decor preferences, and compared them at that basis - asking if there was some personality quirk that caused them to both have staircases, chandeliers and other opulence.

The point of the article is not to compare two scumbags - it's to argue that their choice in mansion decor is common to their scumbaggery - scumbags have such decor. We just don't know who inspired whom.


Sean Hayden wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:10 pm

His scumbaggery just makes his wealth that much harder to handle. Also, you shouldn't take this to be an attack on Trump only. What is with all these wealthy scumbags?
The article, of course, doesn't take issue with wealthy scumbags in general. It's Trump. Because he's so much like Saddam Hussein. Don't be obtuse about what the article is saying.

Sean Hayden wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:10 pm

Another aspect is of course how we treated Saddam. Were you bitching at the media when they showed us how he lived, and suggested he was a monster to enjoy his wealth in the midst of such inequality? Were you saying so what, that's just how rich guys live? :lol:
I don't recall seeing any media suggest that wealth made him a scumbag. I do recall the point being made that killing hundreds of thousands of people, torturing his citizenry, gassing thousands, invading Kuwait, and thereby stealing the wealth of the entire nation was scumbaggery. Only leftists view wealth qua wealth as justifying some sort of negative inference.

The media did not portray him as a monster for being wealthy when others weren't - he was a monster for creating a force which allowed him to seize dictatorial control over the Iraq Parliament, and in so doing, he hauled off about a 1/2 of the legislators and had them summarily executed as traitors. He sat there with his feet up and a cigar in his mouth as he declared who the traitors were, and had them all shot. He then established his perpetual regime and ruled by fiat, and he enforced his will through torture and corporal punishment, including having the wives of suspects raped right in front of them - political prisons - summary executions - torture - murder - black bag operations where people disappeared into the night, never to be heard of again. It was through those efforts and military action that he committed the theft that caused him to be as wealth as he was.

And, I'm not saying "that's just how right guy's live." Did you even read the Vanity Fair article? It sure doesn't seem so. Please - tell me - what do you think was the theme or main point of the article?

The article states that for time immemorial rich people set up shrines to their own "self-importance." But, they couldn't help notice - outside of what all rich people do -- they couldn't help notice the "striking similarity" between Trump and Hussein's decor. And, they muse - "who influenced whom"? The problem is - there is no "striking similarity" -- there is no heightened similarity between Trump and Hussein's architectural preferences than between Hussein and Princess Diana's former house at Althorp = and many many other people. The show two staircases (and they're copmetely different) - Trump had a common double staircase in the front great room that if you google it, you'll find an endless supply of them - it's a common architectural design. Hussein's was a far more opulent double spiral staircase, bigger and grander and more gaudy. Trump's was a typical mansion staircase.

The article asks -" Is it a coincidence, or does their preference for strongman politics dictate their prejudices in decorating? Or, perhaps more prosaically, which came first: the gold-plated toilet or the gold-plated bidet?"

Does the preference in decor dictate the politics, or does the preference in politics dictate the decorating?

Hardly a stupider question could be asked. I mean, who would write such claptrap?

Oh, well, that's easy "Bruce Feirstein, American screen writer and humorist" --- oh, gee -- "The magazine [Vanity Fair] took delight in trashing Trump. "In modern media terms, Donald Trump was our clickbait," Spy contributing editor Bruce Feirstein recalled in August." https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/media/ ... index.html

The magazine took delight in trashing Trump - used him as "clickbait." Says Bruce Feirstein, author of this idiocy, and if you click on his name on the Vanity Fair link, it takes you to a page of his stories - about half of which (without counting, just scanning) are bash-trump clickbait crap.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:58 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:14 pm
Yeah, those opulent UK palaces were also built by self-entitled autocratic authoritarians - why didn't the author compare Trump to them? Eh?

:tea:
Yes, and the similarity is as striking as comparing them to the mansions of any number of actors, actresses, producers, directors, wealth investors, billionaire CEOs, and the like. The article claims a particularized resemblance between Trump's style and Hussein's style this is "striking" (not the same as the comparison between other rich people and Hussein's style. There is no need to actually back it up, though. It's just a hit piece - Trump has opulent houses - Hussein has opulent houses - therefore, Trump = Hussein. That's the thesis.

That's Trump Derangement Syndrome, if it's really believed. I doubt Feirstein really does. He knows what he's doing. But, folks out there swallow it, and accept it in all seriouslness.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:13 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:12 pm
Swetnick as well - she admitted to lying.
In a television interview she changed the account she gave in a sworn affidavit and Senator Grassley has called for her to be investigated, but you'll have to provide a source for the claim that 'she admitted to lying.'

It's all very well to repeatedly attempt to discredit Kavanaugh's accusers, but it seems you have no problem with the distinct probability that he lied repeatedly in his testimony before the Senate judiciary committee.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Sean Hayden » Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:14 pm

Your narrow reading of the piece is on you 42. It absolutely draws on our portrayal of Saddam's wealth being at odds with that of his people.

Also fuck off yourself with your absurd need to give a history lesson every time you're called out, as though your wordiness lends credibility to your perspective.

You're just a guy who got butthurt over an insult directed at a guy who shits in gold-plated toilets.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:00 pm

Does he actually have gold plated toilets? :o
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Seabass » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:13 pm

No. But the Guggenheim trolled him with one. :hehe:

Trump Asked For A Van Gogh, And Was Offered A Toilet
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:28 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:13 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:12 pm
Swetnick as well - she admitted to lying.
In a television interview she changed the account she gave in a sworn affidavit and Senator Grassley has called for her to be investigated, but you'll have to provide a source for the claim that 'she admitted to lying.'

It's all very well to repeatedly attempt to discredit Kavanaugh's accusers, but it seems you have no problem with the distinct probability that he lied repeatedly in his testimony before the Senate judiciary committee.

When a person signs a sworn affidavit, and then changes the account they swore to, they did not tell the truth. Key parts of her interview with NBC walked back her affidavit, ultimately stating that she had no information on Kavanaugh spiking any punch, or participating in any rapes. He got "a little to handsy", she says, at the party, with other women, not Swetnick.

And, oh, I do have a problem with any lying by either party. However, you need to specify the statements that you're claiming have been shown to be lies. With Swetnick, her factual misstatements are in her affidavit, and she herself walked them back later and changed her story. Kavanaugh did no such thing. So, we are absolutely sure Swetnick did not tell the truth.

The link you cited does not, not even close, show a "distinct probability" that he lied in his testimony. But to see that, you have look past the headline and examine exactly what they are claiming are "lies."

For example, the Guardian says that "former roommates have come forward to say he told bald-faced lies." However, that is not in the least an accurate description. The link in the Guardian article is to a former roommate (for a couple of months) who says he saw Kavanaugh "stumbling drunk" regularly. Kavanaugh never denied being stumbling drunk regularly, and he admitted to drinking to excessive quite a bit in high school and college. What he denied was blacking out. And, Roche has no knowledge of whether Kavanaugh blacked out. Roche claims that Kavanaugh drank enough to black out, but Roche can't possibly know that. He doesn't say that Kavanaugh had told he had blacked out. His allegation of Kavanaugh drinking to black-outs is based on him observing Kavanaugh getting drunk at parties. Kavanaugh says "I didn't black out." Roche says "I think he drank enough to black out." There is neither a lie there, nor a "distinct probability" of a lie. It's "possible" one or the other, or both, are lying. Roche also says that Kavanaugh lied in explaining the meaning of yearbook quotes - however, Roche didn't know Kavanaugh in high school, nor does Roche have personal knowledge of what Kavanaugh and his friends meant by different turns of phrase, and turns of phrase have different meantings, sometimes multiple meanings. Does boof not mean fart? I've heard it used for that - I'm also from the northeast. Does devil's triangle not mean a drinking game ? The term "devi's threeway" can be used as a term to mean a threesome in sex, or a set of three of anything that is difficult or troublesome, like a devil's threeway of problems. A yearbook, any yearbook, in the US - in the 1980s for sure - was filled with innuendo, references, profanity, vulgarity and inside jokes were the rage. We had drinking games that were peculiar to my high school and college that nobody else ever heard of, and sometimes they involved innuendo laden terminology.

So, what's the lie?

At bottom, when a person says one thing on one day, and then reverses themselves on the next day or materially changes the story, then they aren't telling the truth on at least one of those occasions. That's just logic. Where A and B are inconsistent, if A is true, then B cannot be true. If B is true, then A cannot be true. A and B can both be untrue, but A and B cannot both be true. If one or the other, or both, are untrue, then the person making statements A and B must be telling an untruth. That's Swetnick.

We don't have that with Kavanaugh. What we have with Kavanaugh are things like "Kavanaugh says he didn't black out..." -- someone else says that he got stumbling drunk a lot, so it's not credible (to that person) that Kavanaugh did not black out. Both A and B in that scenario can be true or untrue, and they are not inconsistent. Kavanaugh could well have been a heavy drinker at that age, been stumbling drunk a lot, but never blacked out. Also, Kavanaugh and Roche may well have different definitions of "regularly" and "stumbling drunk" and the like. Roche may not have been much of a drinker, and to him, drinking 6 beers might be massively excessive, but to Kavanaugh and his circle, 6 might have been the warm-up. Anyone who went to high school and college has a "lived experience" (most likely) that substantiates that distinction.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:35 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:14 pm
Your narrow reading of the piece is on you 42. It absolutely draws on our portrayal of Saddam's wealth being at odds with that of his people.
I've read it a couple times, and it says nothing of the kind. The point of the article is to compare Trump and Saddam as despots - despots have this kind of decor. It says not a word about all of the wealthy being bad because they live opulently while the commoners live otherwise. If one was going to make that point, why focus on Trump? Why not several rich people to make that point? And why not say in the piece that that's what the piece was about? Do pieces like this typically leave their thesis unstated or implied?

Sean Hayden wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:14 pm

Also fuck off yourself with your absurd need to give a history lesson every time you're called out, as though your wordiness lends credibility to your perspective.

You're just a guy who got butthurt over an insult directed at a guy who shits in gold-plated toilets.
Called out? You're dead wrong here, and your point is stupid. You have no support for your position, other than your own imagination and wishful thinking. And, then you complain to me about my analysis, which actually did provide back-up, logic and reason.

You're just a guy who didn't actually read the article. Either that, our your too intellectually dishonest to take the author at his own words.

There, if you want to play the insult game, Sean, that's fine. Fact is, you're dead wrong, and it's obvious - and it's pathetic that you can't -- even on a point or topic this minor - acknowledge that the author might have been writing a clickbait anti-Trump hit piece, particularly when this self-same author stated, in his own words, that part of what he was doing at the magazine was writing attacks on Donald Trump to use as clickbait. He said it himself - I quoted him - but, you'll probably say he really meant something other than what he said, just like you did with the article itself - to you, it doesn't mean what the author wrote - it means something else entirely.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Sean Hayden » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:11 pm

I can't support the position that Saddam's palaces were consistently contrasted with the plight of his people to demonstrate that he was a monster? There are whole pieces about his grotesque misuse of funds to build monuments to his own greatness. "The grass certainly is greener on the other side of these palace walls than in the dusty dirty streets of Baghdad Bob" <--made up the Bob bit, the rest is a direct quote.


Your analysis was just fluff. Unless you're prepared to defend the idea that Saddam wasn't hated for living lavishly while his country suffered. If you're not prepared to say that, then where does that leave your "analysis"? I still think it's just an attempt to lend your perspective credibility by demonstrating a familiarity with the topic.

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:29 pm

Still sounds like Trump. Corruption everywhere.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests