?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
20 November 2016 @ 07:08 am
“That’s your education talking.”  
On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

Thanx to andrewducker
Tags:
 
 
 
Elenbarathi: Abandon hopeelenbarathi on November 21st, 2016 09:22 am (UTC)
"the huge numbers of people in your own country who twice took a chance on a black President"

What does that mean? How exactly were they "taking a chance" on Obama because he was black? Why does the color of his skin make him any more of a 'chance' than any other Presidential candidate?

Here iz me, eagerly awaiting your logical and non-racist explanation of that statement. Have at it; this should be most enlightening.

The fact that Trump's supporters are racist, sexist homophobes has been extremely well demonstrated already. The fact that they're too dumb to know what's good for them will be thoroughly demonstrated over the next four years. Have you heard about the planned cuts to Medicare? Wow, that was quick, wasn't it?

It's the blue states that support the red states, and we're pretty damn tired of doing it, while having our votes count for less. As for "Fuck the millions of refugees" - hello, isn't that Trump's line? Big admirer of Putin that he is - after all, it was the Russian hackers that 'won' the election for him.
Young Geoffreyed_rex on November 24th, 2016 06:47 am (UTC)
Enjoy your righteous posturing while you can
What does that mean? How exactly were they "taking a chance" on Obama because he was black?

It means that you (the collective you, who have a priori judged every Trump vote a racist/sexist/homophobic vote and nothing more nor less) need to explain just how it is those racist/sexist/homophobes twice voted for a black man for president.

In other words, your presumptions that Clinton's loss can only be because of the prejudices of the sub-human proles of Middle American is every bit as bigoted as your claims about them.

And frankly, thank you for illustrating my point. I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to disprove your vapid attacks on my character or convictions.

But do go on trying to win over hearts and minds with ad hominem and blanket condemnation of whole groups of people based on the votes of 25% of them. When Trump's brownshirts finally do come after your white (yes, I presume) liberal ass, this Canuck will be ruefully noting that you got what was coming to you. My sympathies will lie, though, which those who went first, who you thrilled to think you were aiding as allies.
Johnjohnpalmer on November 30th, 2016 04:02 pm (UTC)
Re: Enjoy your righteous posturing while you can
It's interesting you mention the ad hominem fallacy because your first response in this thread sounded precisely like that: that all Hillary Clinton supporters were sure that all of Trump's supporters were bigoted, seemingly based upon how they didn't care about wars in the middle east, refugees, and the use of assassination (except, you know, with added collateral damage).

BTW: it's more proper to refer to "insults" - in my experience "ad hominem" is one of the most overused expressions in arguments and usually used incorrectly. If I say "you damn fool, that's not the meaning of 'ad hominem'" I haven't engaged in the ad hominem fallacy. I've merely insulted you. Now technically, "ad hominem" does mean "at the man/person" - and an insult is an attack on the person. But the fallacy only arises when an *argument* is challenged based upon the characteristics of a person.

So if I said "you misused 'ad hominem', why should we listen to anything you say?" I have engaged in the ad hominem fallacy. Your arguments are right or wrong on their own - not based upon whether you know the history of a frequently misused expression. It's also not always an insult. "Of course you oppose the death penalty; you're (Catholic; or deeply compassionate; or, had a friend/family member facing the death penalty)" - the point is the dismissal of the argument, based upon the characteristics of the person making it.)

Finally: once a person is evil enough, it's quite natural to ask what kind of person will support that person with great power and huge responsibilities. Thinking of "all Trump supporters" as bigots is idiocy. Thinking they're all *okay* with bigotry, serial sexual assault, and the use of law enforcement to punish a person one dislikes - okay enough to put such a person in the highest executive office in the land - is a bit more defensible.

It's still factually incorrect, though. A great many Trump supporters don't think about those things and don't care.
Young Geoffreyed_rex on December 1st, 2016 09:26 pm (UTC)
Re: Enjoy your righteous posturing while you can
What's really interesting is that you didn't bother to actually quote anything I actually said. If you had, you might have noticed that I was replying to xiphias who described themself as a member of the "coastal elites". My response was to people like them, and not a blanket condemnation of "all Hillary Clinton supporters".

Finally: once a person is evil enough, it's quite natural to ask what kind of person will support that person with great power and huge responsibilities. Thinking of "all Trump supporters" as bigots is idiocy. Thinking they're all *okay* with bigotry, serial sexual assault, and the use of law enforcement to punish a person one dislikes - okay enough to put such a person in the highest executive office in the land - is a bit more defensible.

You could make the argument, but I still think it's an idiotic one. Unless you would also accept the argument that all Hillary supporters *okay* with wars of aggression and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of brown peolple who pose no threat to the USA whatsoever.

It's still factually incorrect, though. A great many Trump supporters don't think about those things and don't care.

Ah. A great many Clinton supporters don't think about those things and don't care. Got it. Kind of like they don't think or care about "those" people that xiphias thinks "...us coastal elites are [and should be] keeping ... down."
Johnjohnpalmer on December 10th, 2016 06:11 pm (UTC)
Re: Enjoy your righteous posturing while you can
What's really interesting is that you didn't bother to actually quote anything I actually said. If you had, you might have noticed that I was replying to xiphias who described themself as a member of the "coastal elites". My response was to people like them, and not a blanket condemnation of "all Hillary Clinton supporters".

I might have noticed something if you'd written clearly about your beef. But you didn't. And I've gotten too old to listen to whiners who complain about how they're are SO MISUNDERSTOOD when they refuse to engage in productive dialogue.

Technically, that happened at the age of 13-15 - somewhere in that age range, farting is no longer hilarious social commentary. Alas, I did listen to them for years after that - such a waste!



You could make the argument, but I still think it's an idiotic one. Unless you would also accept the argument that all Hillary supporters *okay* with wars of aggression and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of brown peolple who pose no threat to the USA whatsoever.


See? Quoting someone can still mean the point goes *WHOOSH* over your head. And it's made clear by the quote. Which is kinda doubly ironic.