Yet more problematic stuff

[Forty Two]

Where have I defended Goodloe Sutton's call for the KKK to ride again or hemp ropes? I didn't. I said exactly as you did, that he's a racist scumbag and should shut his fat mouth. I don't get what your problem is, Joe? I don't think people should buy his paper, and I think the advertisers should pull out and remove his funding, and people should protest his offices, if they're in the area. I defend the right of everyone to stick it to Goodloe Sutton and stop his bullshit, if they can.

It's not disingenuous to say that he didn't exactly call for assassination. His commentary is of the kind we heard about Trump - blowing up the white house - beheading him - etc. Those are all the same kind of bullshit commentary. I don't support any of it, either - so we agree on that.

Where do we disagree, Joe? Is it that you think I shouldn't support Trump because of this? Is that it?

[Joe]

Where have I defended Goodloe Sutton's call for the KKK to ride again or hemp ropes? I didn't. I said exactly as you did, that he's a racist scumbag and should shut his fat mouth. I don't get what your problem is, Joe? I don't think people should buy his paper, and I think the advertisers should pull out and remove his funding, and people should protest his offices, if they're in the area. I defend the right of everyone to stick it to Goodloe Sutton and stop his bullshit, if they can.

It's not disingenuous to say that he didn't exactly call for assassination. His commentary is of the kind we heard about Trump - blowing up the white house - beheading him - etc. Those are all the same kind of bullshit commentary. I don't support any of it, either - so we agree on that.

Where do we disagree, Joe? Is it that you think I shouldn't support Trump because of this? Is that it?

Whatchoo talking bout Forty Two? I don't check in on this thread for a couple of days, and you're taking my name in vain?

I think you meant to respond to trdsf.

[trdsf]

Where have I defended Goodloe Sutton's call for the KKK to ride again or hemp ropes? I didn't. I said exactly as you did, that he's a racist scumbag and should shut his fat mouth. I don't get what your problem is, Joe? I don't think people should buy his paper, and I think the advertisers should pull out and remove his funding, and people should protest his offices, if they're in the area. I defend the right of everyone to stick it to Goodloe Sutton and stop his bullshit, if they can.

It's not disingenuous to say that he didn't exactly call for assassination. His commentary is of the kind we heard about Trump - blowing up the white house - beheading him - etc. Those are all the same kind of bullshit commentary. I don't support any of it, either - so we agree on that.

Where do we disagree, Joe? Is it that you think I shouldn't support Trump because of this? Is that it?

I think you meant that for me.

I never said you defended Sutton. I said you were engaging in whattaboutism. I accept your condemnation of Sutton. I just would like to see it without a "but..." because that is an attempt to mitigate it.

[Forty Two]

No, it's not an attempt to mitigate it. I condemn ANTIFA, for example, because they're a pack of assholes and they should shut their fat mouths, and no it's not right to punch people they think are Nazis and all that - BUT, as long as they refrain from violence, they can spout their bullshit all day long. That's the same BUT I add to Goodloe Sutton. Neither is mitigation.

[trdsf]

No, it's not an attempt to mitigate it. I condemn ANTIFA, for example, because they're a pack of assholes and they should shut their fat mouths, and no it's not right to punch people they think are Nazis and all that - BUT, as long as they refrain from violence, they can spout their bullshit all day long. That's the same BUT I add to Goodloe Sutton. Neither is mitigation.

So, when questioned about 'whataboutism', you immediately respond with more 'whataboutism'. You're determined to put in a "the other side does it too!" — you just did right here, without any need for it whatsoever. That is mitigation. Antifa hasn't one single solitary thing to do with the matter under discussion.

If a fellow Trump supporter fucks up deeply, I am beginning to think you're not emotionally capable of just saying so without reaching for an example — relevant or not — of a Trump opponent fucking up. And that's textbook 'whataboutism', mitigation, and deflection.

[JimC]

trdsf, you have summed up 42's major mode of argument. That is not to say that "what about..." is occasionally a useful corrective, a reminder of fallibility, but it becomes extremely tiresome when constantly overused...

[Animavore]

This is what genuine problematic stuff looks like.





No. Not the bumper sticker. W-Why would you think that?



Fucking Trump-cultists, I swear....

[Animavore]

Oh! It's this guy again.

[Scot Dutchy]

Worked at Foot Locker. Is he proud? What fucking idiots are being produced. Are these the qualifications you need to become a Trump moron?

[Forty Two]

No, it's not an attempt to mitigate it. I condemn ANTIFA, for example, because they're a pack of assholes and they should shut their fat mouths, and no it's not right to punch people they think are Nazis and all that - BUT, as long as they refrain from violence, they can spout their bullshit all day long. That's the same BUT I add to Goodloe Sutton. Neither is mitigation.

So, when questioned about 'whataboutism', you immediately respond with more 'whataboutism'.

No. I immediately explain using an example how I am not "mitigating" anything.

You're determined to put in a "the other side does it too!"

everyone knows the other side does it too. So what? The question was whether I'm "mitigating" it. I wasn't. All loathsome people still have the same right to express their view and spout their bullshit - equally under the law.

— you just did right here, without any need for it whatsoever. That is mitigation. Antifa hasn't one single solitary thing to do with the matter under discussion.

I'm giving an example of someone I find loathsome, and affording them the same consideration I am extending to the loathsome Goodloe Sutton, to the exact same extent. I am demonstrating my consistency here, and demonstrating how I am not "mitigating" anything.

If a fellow Trump supporter fucks up deeply, I am beginning to think you're not emotionally capable of just saying so without reaching for an example — relevant or not — of a Trump opponent fucking up. And that's textbook 'whataboutism', mitigation, and deflection.

How in the world do you get this. I told you my negative opinion of Goodloe Sutton. I have no qualms about saying he's a total dick - a racist scumbag dickhead. What more do you want me to say? Scumbag dickheads - even racist ones - can spew their bullshit. That's freedom of speech. What's wrong with that? How is that "mitigation?"

[Brian Peacock]

I think it was basically saying that Sutton was a racist scumbag dickhead but that Democrats are scumbag dickheads too sometimes.

[JimC]

I'm going to give the syndrome a name: "Forty Two Reflex Whataboutism"

[Svartalf]

Worked at Foot Locker. Is he proud? What fucking idiots are being produced. Are these the qualifications you need to become a Trump moron?

well, one who think the most important part of the body is the foot and not the head is obviously an eejit... so, obviously he qualifies, the rest is just icing on the shit cake

[Cunt]

https://youtu.be/TmNSlF7lcaw?t=3307

Cate has her shit together.

[trdsf]

If a fellow Trump supporter fucks up deeply, I am beginning to think you're not emotionally capable of just saying so without reaching for an example — relevant or not — of a Trump opponent fucking up. And that's textbook 'whataboutism', mitigation, and deflection.

How in the world do you get this. I told you my negative opinion of Goodloe Sutton. I have no qualms about saying he's a total dick - a racist scumbag dickhead. What more do you want me to say? Scumbag dickheads - even racist ones - can spew their bullshit. That's freedom of speech. What's wrong with that? How is that "mitigation?"

I get it from the demonstrated fact that at no point have you avoided taking the opportunity to minimize and deflect when cornered into admitting a Trump supporter has done something fucking stupid. That's why I call it whattaboutism, mitigation and deflection. We wouldn't be here right now if you had left it at, and I quote you directly, "Well, I'll go on record as saying that guy is apparently a stupid, racist asshole, and I wouldn't do business with that paper, or advertise in it, etc." But you also had to go out of your way to first try to minimize it:

[...] It's no wonder that the editorial made international news, and is published all over the place. It's a major newspaper, after all. It's circulation (paid and unpaid) is estimated at 3,000, and it's print only. So, a few hundred people in the "Demopolis, Alabama" area read the article which reads like a grammar school kid wrote it.

Called on that, then you resorted to vast tracts of whattaboutism, deliberately minimized/ignored Sutton's explicit call for lynching (which you have been given the link to three times now), tucked a little condemnation in towards the end, and then threw one more scoop of whattaboutism on top:

Democratic Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal said she hoped Trump was assassinated. Madonna called for the white house to be blown up (she imagined it being blown up). Kathy Griffin held up a severed head of the President, bloody, etc. Acrtess Carole Cooke asked where John Wilkes Boothe is when we need him - suggesting someone should shoot the President. The New York Times published a Trump assassination short story about killing Trump. Actor Peter Fonda suggested that Barron Trump should be kidnapped and harmed. Actor Mickey Rourke wanted "30 seconds in a room with that little Bitch!" and suggested using a bat on him. Larry Whitmore joked about using a pillow to smother Trump. Comedian George Lopez tweeted an image of Vincente Fox holding up the severed head of Donald Trump saying "Make America Great Again." Rock Star Marilyn Manson had Trump decapitated and bloody in his concerts. Rosie O'Donnell tweeted out a game called 'Push Trump off a Clif." Robert DeNiro said he wanted to punch trump in the face. Snoop Dogg fires a gun at Trump. New York's Public Theater did a Julius Caesar version where modern Senators stab Trump to death. Big Sean. Anthony Bourdain. Johnny Depp. Pearl Jam/Eddie Vedder.
[...]
In the same way the above anti-Trumpers say they didn't actually "call for" any action against Trump, that's the same excuse this dipshit in Alabama can use - he said it "seems like the Klan would be welcome..." - that's like saying it seems like a good idea that someone push Trump off a cliff or shoot him.

Yes, the guy is a scumbag racist. Yes, he runs a newspaper, and he can't write, or he does so drunk. But, his "reach" with this stupid paper was a few people in his podunk county. He wasn't online. He didn't Tweet anything. It's funny how CNN, MSNBC, the BBC the Guardian, etc. publish this dipshit's stupid editorial, but they don't say much about other threats of violence. https://www.wibc.com/blogs/chicks-right ... tives-rise
[....]

Called on that, you then made up stuff that I never claimed about you, and then went for whattaboutism again:

Where have I defended Goodloe Sutton's call for the KKK to ride again or hemp ropes?
[...]

His commentary is of the kind we heard about Trump - blowing up the white house - beheading him - etc. Those are all the same kind of bullshit commentary. [....]

And when I pointed out your rampaging whattaboutism, surprise surprise, you responded with even more whattaboutism:

I condemn ANTIFA, for example[....]

Your own words. I didn't write them for you, I didn't force you to post them, and I don't believe I am quoting you unfairly here—every quote has a link back to the original post so everyone can judge for themselves what exactly you said. I don't doubt that you condemn Sutton, but given that you're incapable of doing so without every single time tacking on some sort of deflective commentary does make me wonder about the actual depth of your condemnation.

Or are your posts "fake news" now?

And no one — certainly not me — has questioned Sutton's First Amendment right to say what's on (what there is of) his mind. I don't know why you keep pulling out that canard, other than trying to deflect attention: it's of no relevance.