C4L wrote: ↑
1 month ago
It's so ridiculous, next they'll rename it The Black House.
yettee wrote: ↑
1 month ago
A few days ago we were talking about masks, and I gave you actual reasons
why I thought coronavirus was different from a normal flu, and why it was important to take certain measures, for example
Your entire response to me was
You didn't like my comment about masks, OK. I don't really care, but I'm mentioning it to point out that we were discussing a topic, in depth, with "reasons" being explained, and you did to me exactly what Afro did to you. I have no problem making an assertion and trying to defend it, but it often ends in being ignored or insulted here, and so I don't do it often anymore.
I had asked you twice how long the masks and social distancing should go on for, your half-hearted eventual response in your first sentence was "A few months isn't forever" which was incredibly frustrating. My whole point was, if you're saying it's not a big deal to wear a mask and practice social distancing, and I was pointing out that we will now have Coronavirus forever, like the flu and cold, so where does it end? My point was that by your logic if people die by the cold or flu, then we've always been committing murder by walking around without masks.
In a few short words you managed to completely bypass all of these points, so I apologised and said I can't read past this (which I genuinely didn't) and when quoting you I deleted the rest of your response in the hope you'd realise why, are you honestly saying that's the same engagement level as me posting direct rebuttals to several of Afro's points, and his only response being "TLDR"? Do you actually think that's the same thing?
The point is you weren't explaining your "reasons" you were intentionally changing the topic away from a difficult crisis in your logic, Afro however stated points, some of them were fucking insane, I pointed this out and he intentionally belittled me in order to ignore his own insane comments. I said to you that I was sorry, but I can't read any further past this, hoping for the slim chance that you'd realise I quoted your first sentence, and then reflect on what you are actually saying with the logic you're sticking with.
On that topic I've already asked you if you can stand by your Upvotes of Afro's post, in which he brought up reasons that Trump is destroying America such as decreasing life expectancy, do you?
But no, with the masks we went back and forth a few times, and your last response proved I was getting absolutely nowhere and you weren't even trying to consider my point and instead repeating yourself or simply moving off topic.
And what a surprise, the same thing is happening again, as below...
yettee wrote: ↑
1 month ago
So I decided to ask a different kind of question.
Part of the reponse here to anyone not supporting the president has been to criticise who they are. Evil, liars, stupid, snowflakes, Trump derangement syndrome, SJW, Jewish, minority, screeching autistic, moron, communist, funded by Soros, libtard, "deep state", etc. It's a very long list. You did it to me in your response to my question above and called me a "typical fan of identity politics".
But now the criticism of the president, comparing his actions to those of a Nazi (!) is from his own former Secretary of Defense, not a "screeching autistic". And he is also being contradicted by the current Sec of Defense about the potential use of the military, a huge thing. And other top military are speaking against Trump too. This is huge and unprecedented stuff. Here's a FOX link, as I know it's one of the only sources that won't be immediately dismissed as "fake news" here, but it's being covered everywhere, and his full comments are easy to find. Fox is biased to the right, some other news sources are biased to the left, I'd suggest just reading the comments verbatim. But here:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... orge-floyd
"Tensions have exploded in recent days between President Trump and a batch of current and former military officials who are critical – to varying degrees – of how he's handled the unrest in the wake of George Floyd's death in the custody of the Minneapolis Police Department.
The officials, including Trump's current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, his former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and several others, have either implicitly broken with Trump in statements on policy or explicitly denounced his leadership"
Here's another, just released as I was writing this.
"very troubling", "dangerous"
So top current and former military men in the USA, including 4 star generals, are now harshly criticizing Trump in a manner unseen before in the US. The reasons are clearly connected to his actions both in the past week and throughout his presidency. Mattis is making a judgement about the man, it's in his statement. I know you would disagree with the judgement and would defend Trump... hes not divisive, his actions and statements over the past week and presidency have been appropriate, etc. That's fine, I respect your opinion. I myself might not agree with everything they say, Afro says, or what anyone says. However I'm curious about something else. Several former cabinet members and current and former top US military have come out with extraordinarily harsh, unprecedented criticism of a sitting US president. None of those dismissive labels like evil, liar, stupid, snowflakes, SJW, autistic, Jewish, minority, screeching autistic, moron, leftist, communist, funded by Soros, libtard, etc, work here. So I'm curious, when his own handpicked top-level cabinet and 4 star marine generals make statements like Mattis and the others... but in particular this exceptional one from Mattis... when "screeching autistic" doesn't fit, and it sure doesn't fit 4 star generals... how do you explain it or understand it? What's the motivation? Are they for example in the "deep state"? Or...?
Thanks for wasting my time as I did go to the trouble of reading what Mattis wrote from about 4 different sources (I think the original was The Atlantic which I also read and they included the full statement) and I learned, practically nothing. It was 99% rhetoric and vague accusations, exactly what I expected it to be. I'm actually completely baffled here, I pointed out how you are doing nothing but pointing out a General is criticising Trump, and I said whatever, what did he actually have to say? What points did he make that make you concerned?
And all you've done is further pointed out that he and others are criticising Trump, like I just said before, I can give you my theories as to their motivations (deep state or whatever) if I think there are any, but more importantly, if I think what they're saying is significant or there's valid points to refute. Unfortunately again you have not provided any actual specific points, and actually I think you're doing this intentionally now. You're simply repeating that we should be concerned because Mattis is, I'm going to ask one more time, why? What has he specifically said that makes you worried?
This is why I sometimes get frustrated and outright tell you I'm ignoring what you're saying, you divert away from the point, you double down in the oddest of ways, and you frankly don't deserve a reasoned response. It's not that you're defending your assertions so competently, it's that you are blatantly avoiding the topic. In this case (I don't want to repeat myself but I really have to, otherwise you'll keep going off in tangents and posting more pointless news stories) I wanted to know why you just seem to think the fact that a senior figure is criticising Trump is more important than the arguments he's actually making,
and what do you do? Tell me about how even more senior figures are criticising Trump, and therefore I have
to be concerned.
You've again pointed out all their concerns, without telling me specifically what they're concerned about, it's ridiculous.
Like I said before, if we're going to play this game of "status" winning over arguments, then you have to shut up and simply listen to your elected President, and even when he's wrong, he's the fucking President, more important than some General. OK?
The only part of Mattis' statements that was of any substance was about the army removing peaceful protesters near the White House, I actually have an alternative take on what happened there however I won't say it yet because firstly, I have only heard this from hear'say, I have no sources, and secondly, I don't want to distract you further from the point I'm making. If I reply with anything at all about Trump's bible photo op, you'll completely forget about Mattis and focus on more diversions.
This being said, even if that's a valid point, to compare it to Nazi Germany or Hong Kong? That's insane.
You even just post the article and almost like a parody in this context, you simply quote the scary words used "very troubling", "dangerous", what are you proving here? I am specifically asking for some actual reasons, and I said I don't appreciate pointless buzz words, and then you write this?
I do find it hilarious that you have this long list of dismissive labels like stupid, liar, screeching autist etc and how they don't work with relation to Mattis, but you're therefore implying they are actually appropriate for you? What the hell? By the way I can absolutely call James Mattis a stupid evil liar, if he is in fact being a stupid evil liar, you haven't given me reason to think anything about him apart from the fact he vaguely dislikes Trump, has all the typical bland and noble "hot takes" on Trump we've been reading about from (probably recently fired) Liberal journalists:
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us” - I would absolutely love to know how James Mattis can claim Trump is intentionally trying
to divide people. I agree he says divisive things, he has said some incredibly stupid things and they have divided people, anyone can claim Trump is incompetent at unifying people, fine, but how can anyone argue he's doing it intentionally?
Let's even just say it's an opinion that can be strongly backed up by evidence with tweets or things Trump says, this is still an opinion, there is literally no way of factually proving the Presidents internal intentions.
However, it's a fairly short statement at only several paragraphs, if Trump is so unspeakably worrying, should he not have something more factual and obvious to come out with?
If you really want to know I have a lot to say as to why Trump is so openly criticised but I don't want to go there until you tell me something
about why you're so concerned about Mattis or Esper or whoever, criticising Trump, apart from the fact that they are some important army guys. And also I don't want you to now start going way off topic putting words in their mouth or "well the reasons are obvious why they'd be concerned...", and giving me a list of things that you find personally worrying about Trump, which they did not say.
I really want to understand how someone can simply just read another persons (regardless of status) statement saying something or someone is bad or very worrying, dangerous etc, and you just trust that person like you can't think for yourself. You don't seem to approve of me dismissing you as a typical fan of identity politics, but how did you prove this point wrong? By further telling me "lots of important people hate Trump so you need to be worried right! Here's a link to even more of them!" you just proved my point even more.
(I do realise by the way this isn't the typical form the term "identity politics" would take on, but to me it's the same logic)
From my previous post, I want to know specifically what they said which means I should be concerned.
Actually y'know what, on second thought just fuck it don't even bother, it would be meaningless by now anyway as my main point isn't just what Mattis wrote or whether there was any valid reasons in his letter (and as I've now read it all anyway there's even less point of you scrambling together reasons) it was that you blindly just assumed he has to be correct, or at least told me that I should be concerned, just because a senior figure is, without being able to express any actual concerns which is what really changes minds.