Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

And then that reporter happens to ask a serious softball question, which gets chosen for an answer.

If a campaign wanted a softball question asked they could definitely get it ("no questions asked" if you will).  Reporters love doing meaningless favors.  But unless the campaign has a headline making answer to the question, what's the point?

[Max™]

I did read that all in my announcer voice for the missus though, with zero explanation, and she chuckled, so well done.

You have a very special woman there.

Thanks mainiac, thainiac... wait, whaddaya mean special?

[smjjames]

And then that reporter happens to ask a serious softball question, which gets chosen for an answer.

If a campaign wanted a softball question asked they could definitely get it ("no questions asked" if you will).  Reporters love doing meaningless favors.  But unless the campaign has a headline making answer to the question, what's the point?

I'm guessing here that it was to make a point and contrast against Trump's refusal that he will absolutely concede. They don't have to make the headline here, Trump already did that for them.

[Rolepgeek]

Folly is expressing the view of an entitled douche.  He thinks that the rich and powerful man should have people flock to his defense while the woman should be questioned even though there are countless corroborating statements that yeah, Trump does treat women exactly that way.  It's a horrible, horrible double standard.

So I'm going to stand up for egalitarianism just a tiny bit and say.  No Folly, that shit aint cool.  It's deplorable.

Thank you. That's all I was asking for.

@Folly: That's what the court cases will decide. Courts still require evidence, and with sexual assault stuff gets complicated, especially with things as fleeting as sexual harassment (what? kissing out of nowhere someone leaves very little physical evidence), but that's not a reason to hope that Trump wins the suit in and of itself. Women are always accused of lying whenever they come forward about sexual assault to actual courts (colleges are different matters). That's the first and best defense a lawyer in that situation can come up with, because it's the one most likely to be true if the defendant is in fact innocent. But in this situation, when 10+ different women have come forward about it, and he has personally admitted to doing things that could be considered sexual harassment on video, (even if he wasn't doing it for sexual reasons, which he might have been anyway) saying that you hope he wins specifically so that victims of sexual assault lose credibility (and for the record, that is the scenario you are hoping for, indirectly; if false accusers lose power, so do actual victims, that's what makes things like these so difficult to balance).

And I say that as someone who has been falsely accused of sexual assault.

[mainiac]

They don't have to make the headline here,

What good does it do them to make a point if nobody is going to here it?

Thank you. That's all I was asking for.

I'm glad you like it but I'm not entirely clear about what you like.

[smjjames]

They don't have to make the headline here,

What good does it do them to make a point if nobody is going to here it?

*shrug* Making use of every opportunity?

I wouldn't know the reasoning behind why they did that. Or they just wanted to start getting that answer out at the earliest opportunity, which seems to be the main thing here. Seemed like he went, 'hey, I have an idea'

[Rolepgeek]

Thank you. That's all I was asking for.

I'm glad you like it but I'm not entirely clear about what you like.

You chastised him for his actions. That's all I was saying. You didn't insult him, you called him out on his shit, that time. You didn't say 'Folly is an entitled douche', you said 'Folly is expressing the view of an entitled douche'. There is a difference. Thank you.

[mainiac]

Very well.

[Rolan7]

They don't have to make the headline here,

What good does it do them to make a point if nobody is going to here it?

Well obviously a lot of people heard it, it was post-debate coverage.
I guess it wasn't exceptional...  Just "Hey remember this horrible thing he just said?"  "Yeah that was horrible"

[PTTG??]

And they're off! Tonight's salt races are sponsored by Mishbond, the only male deodorant guaranteed to work exactly 50% of the time. _{^{(MSH LLC is not responsible for macro-scale quantum effects caused by the use of Mishbond)}}

In the cherry corner, we have maniac. Economic major and establishment liberal, maniac supports smacking down the intolerant in the streets and on the net to achieve egalitarian society. He has more salt races on record than any other Bay Watcher, and is famed for his aggressive stance towards all comers.

In the grape corner, we have Flying Dice. Yam aficionado and countercultural independent, Flying Dice supports having bigots and malcontents immune to the power of the state and cultural ostracism in order to achieve an egalitarian society. Well known for opposing all sedentary political rhetoric, and has tussled with maniac before.

It's a beautiful evening here in Daytona Beach as we bear witness to another dance with the devil. Will one of the racers expose a critical flaw in the beliefs of the other? Will the entire thing fizzle out as sleep claims the audience? Will we see the heart-stopping appearance of the Toad Above? Anything can happen, and the stakes have never been higher.

[This program dedicated to the loss of King Shitlord OrangeWizard, cut down in his saltine years of plenty.]

Spoiler: Did someone say Saltrice? (click to show/hide)

[UXLZ]

Why did OrangeWizard get banned? I can't remember them really doing all that much...

[mainiac]

Media conspiracy.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Top keksquare. Previous use of -ist language. I am still bothered by the last comment in my thread.

[Cheeetar]

Why did OrangeWizard get banned? I can't remember them really doing all that much...

To clarify, no, you can't call people f***** on our forum, and you can't put n***** in your URL.  If you've got a problem with that, you can leave.  If you have a problem with me using *, you can leave too.

[SirQuiamus]

This is exactly what's fueling the feedback loop between the alt-right and regressive left, each is busy labeling each other (and anyone who dares to disagree with them) as being basically Hitler, rather than addressing harmful ideas or opinions. It's a tactic designed to shut down dissent and otherize people, to create clear divisions between the Good People (i.e. "us") and the Bad People (i.e. "them") rather than eliminating genuinely harmful behaviors.

And yet, here you are. Labeling people on both extremes of the political spectrum as Uncivil Enemies of Reason and Free Speech (i.e. Bad People) while emphasizing your own status as an Independent Champion of Liberty Who Don't Need No Political Identity (i.e. one of the Good People). The Prongs are bad, only the Bend is good! All hail the Great Horseshoe!

That's the thing, you weren't. Saying "[person] is deplorable" is explicitly different from "[person's] opinion/argument/perspective is deplorable". The first is attacking the person, the second is attacking the idea. The former is not only more hateful and polarizing but also less productive. If your goal is to convince someone (or observers) that their belief is unethical or whatever, lambasting them for being a bad person doesn't do anything but put their back up against a wall-it certainly doesn't make them more likely to change their mind.

Yes, but I think everyone agrees that there are some limits to separating an opinion from the person expressing it. Let's say, for example, that there's a guy with a habit of telling absolutely everyone---very calmly and politely---that he wishes them to die in the most horrifying way imaginable. One might argue that merely wishing for the death of everyone in the world does not make him a deplorable person---merely a person with some pretty deplorable thoughts in his head. But then again, if he decides to share his deplorable thoughts with the world, wilfully and persistently, what does that make him?