Funny events in anti-woke world

[Dalisclock]

The media has sown the division. The media did it, and is still doing it. And you're buying right into it. I'm thinking back to his inaugural address in 2017, where Trump called the Obama's gracious and magnificent, and then said we are all one nation sharing each other's pains and successes and destiny, and the headlines all called the speech dark and divisive. Trump said there that if you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, so the media started a coordinated campaign to get people to hate America more, and conflate patriotism with racism.

Every politician talks like that. The difference is that when someone on the right commits an act of violence, you think it's Republicans' fault, and when someone on the left commits an act of violence, you still think it's Republicans' fault. I don't know I've ever seen a response so lacking in self-awareness as the people who constantly cry about the police being corrupt suddenly becoming avid defenders of the FBI the moment they cause Trump trouble.

Oh yes, we're back to "No, it's not Trumps fault! It's the democrats/media's!" because you've willfully chosen to ignore every fucking shitty thing the man has said and done to pretend he's actually the one being persecuted. Why take responsibility for your own words and actions when someone else can be blamed?

I could list quite a lot of examples of Trump being a vile shit but honestly I think I'd be wasting my time since you're so determined to act as the man's unpaid PR department and nothing in the past decade or three has seeped into your conscientious as a bit sus about the man.

 

[Kwak]

so the media started a coordinated campaign to get people to hate America more, and conflate patriotism with racism.

So you're just embracing the infowars qanon line now?
Got any proof for this commie conspiracy?

 

[Dalisclock]

Some immigrants are rapists and drug addicts, just like any large population, and then he said others are good people. It's funny how when Trump says some immigrants are good people, that somehow really means all immigrants are rapists, and when he says some fine people were protesting but not the neo-nazis, that means neo-nazis are fine people. Do you see the switches being flipped here?

Trump hardly initiated nor perpetuated the suggestion that Hillary should be in prison. Regular people did that. Normal, working class Republicans chanted "lock her up", while Trump for the most part was against the idea, and ultimately he won the election and did nothing to investigate or prosecute the Clintons.

Except you totally didn't seem to notice that a vast majority of that was "Immigrants are awful" and then a brief "But some of them are good" like somehow that last part cancels out the rest. I promise you that if someone said "Republicans are fascists, racist, inbred cattle fuckers. And there are some good ones" or "There are a lot of conservative deplorables" you wouldn't be so forgiving.

As for the hillary thing, he was fucking promoting the "Lock her up!" thing at his rallies. He may not have started it but he did PLENTY to perpetuate.

 

[Dalisclock]

So you're just embracing the infowars qanon line now?
Got any proof for this commie conspiracy?

Something Something THE MEDIA something something.

 

[tstorm823]

So you're just embracing the infowars qanon line now?
Got any proof for this commie conspiracy?

One time the New York Times accidentally posted a headline about Trump calling for racial harmony and national unity, and not only did they change that headline, the editor had to call an emergency staff meeting because all the writers flipped out that it didn't call him racist instead. One of the things he said to calm that anger was that singling out Trump as racist takes away from how the whole nation is racist, and the 1619 project was in the works to really show people how bad America is. Which is how they planned to get at Trump.

Oh yes, we're back to "No, it's not Trumps fault! It's the democrats/media's!" because you've willfully chosen to ignore every fucking shitty thing the man has said and done to pretend he's actually the one being persecuted. Why take responsibility for your own words and actions when someone else can be blamed?

I could list quite a lot of examples of Trump being a vile shit but honestly I think I'd be wasting my time since you're so determined to act as the man's unpaid PR department and nothing in the past decade or three has seeped into your conscientious as a bit sus about the man.

Funny you should point back 3 decades, cause the media has been awful for way longer than Trump has been in politics.

Except you totally didn't seem to notice that a vast majority of that was "Immigrants are awful" and then a brief "But some of them are good" like somehow that last part cancels out the rest. I promise you that if someone said "Republicans are fascists, racist, inbred cattle fuckers. And there are some good ones" or "There are a lot of conservative deplorables" you wouldn't be so forgiving.

I'm not saying it was a good or kind statement. But if we're considering what is going to be divisive, I think the person saying some people illegally crossing the border are rapists is less divisive than the reports that summarize that statement as "immigrants are rapists".

 

[Silvanus]

Some immigrants are rapists and drug addicts, just like any large population, and then he said others are good people. It's funny how when Trump says some immigrants are good people, that somehow really means all immigrants are rapists, and when he says some fine people were protesting but not the neo-nazis, that means neo-nazis are fine people. Do you see the switches being flipped here?

What I see is the ability to completely ignore context, tone, and clear intention, in order to create a transparently false (but convenient) interpretation of what someone says.

When he rants about rapists and drug addict immigrants in a speech specifically about why we must drastically lower immigration, and then adds a throwaway line about how "some" are good people at the end, the intent is very obvious to any listener who isn't being wilfully obtuse: he is saying they present a specific danger. He is not saying they represent those bad and good characteristics just as "any large population" does; the bad clearly, obviously, outweighs the good for him (and for his listener), which is why the danger motivates policy. It is the bad he wants the audience to react to. And so it is the bad he emphasises far, far more, uniquely with certain groups of people.

Trump hardly initiated nor perpetuated the suggestion that Hillary should be in prison. Regular people did that. Normal, working class Republicans chanted "lock her up", while Trump for the most part was against the idea, and ultimately he won the election and did nothing to investigate or prosecute the Clintons.

He wasn't "for the most part against the idea". He gleefully encouraged it and stoked it, smiling beatifically as supporters chanted it. He said he "100% agreed" with it in his own words.

The key word in that imitation is "reporter". The news media suck, and they all deserve far worse mocking than even what Trump gave them. He mocked and insulted reporters, and why wouldn't he, when they were doing everything in their power to make him out as Hitler.

This is an intentional misrepresentation of what he did. The imitation specifically focused on mimicking the speech patterns and physical characteristics of that particular reporter's disability.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Normal, working class Republicans chanted "lock her up", while Trump for the most part was against the idea....

I'm used to your prevarications, but this is an outright lie.


Go to 0:28 in the video, and watch your lie be blown out of the water.

...and ultimately he won the election and did nothing to investigate or prosecute the Clintons.

Well, it's not like he had a history of breaking promises or anything.

Lotta crazy today. Next up, the common sense solution to enforcing anti-trans bathrooms bills: installing DNA scanners on every bathroom and locker room door

But... but Republicans are the party of limited government! ...oh, right. Limited for them. It's everyone else who has to be controlled.

 

[Trunkage]

So you're just embracing the infowars qanon line now?
Got any proof for this commie conspiracy?

Dude, when he says America here, he actually doesn't mean America. He just means conservative

One time the New York Times accidentally posted a headline about Trump calling for racial harmony and national unity, and not only did they change that headline, the editor had to call an emergency staff meeting because all the writers flipped out that it didn't call him racist instead. One of the things he said to calm that anger was that singling out Trump as racist takes away from how the whole nation is racist, and the 1619 project was in the works to really show people how bad America is. Which is how they planned to get at Trump.

HAHAHAHA. Goddam. I need this laugh

Did you know that Trump is actually not America? It's pretty clear that you are not aware

Edit: Sorry, forgot to add the other funny bit. Thinking Trump is a Patriot is some of the wildest claims anyone can make

 

[tstorm823]

He wasn't "for the most part against the idea". He gleefully encouraged it and stoked it, smiling beatifically as supporters chanted it. He said he "100% agreed" with it in his own words.

I'm used to your prevarications, but this is an outright lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/a-brief-history-of-the-lock-her-up-chant-as-it-looks-like-trump-might-not-even-try/

Oh look, he stoked the crowd that one time amid a bunch of "let's just beat her in November", and my claim was "for the most part". It's almost like I was precisely accurate.

This is an intentional misrepresentation of what he did. The imitation specifically focused on mimicking the speech patterns and physical characteristics of that particular reporter's disability.

That particular reporter. Yes. A New York Times reporter, previously a Washington Post reporter, speaking out because his past work supported something the media he belonged to had decided was a lie. In 2001, the media juxtaposed images from the Middle East of people celebrating the September 11th attacks with rumors of Muslim communities in New York and New Jersey having tailgates and roof parties, 15 years later Trump recounted his experience as a consumer of that media, and the people who personally produced that content called him a liar. They are responsible for the history he remembered.

Like, people have no problem acknowledging the role of media deception in manufactured consent for the wars in the Middle East in a vacuum. Now Trump is involved, and we're supposed to pretend he's immune? I don't think so. You put up a tv addict candidate who believed the media claims and the media pretends they're uninvolved? Mock him however you want. Make crude jokes about his mother. He can take the consequences of his actions.

Did you know that Trump is actually not America? It's pretty clear that you are not aware

Edit: Sorry, forgot to add the other funny bit. Thinking Trump is a Patriot is some of the wildest claims anyone can make

Please stop responding to things I didn't say as though I said them. It feels like you have pre-made anti-Trump/Republican comments saved in a text document, and when you respond to me you're just pasting in sentences that are almost related to what I said.

 

[Chimpzy]

Mentlegen, I give you Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and possibly a fervent dad fingerer?

 

[Agema]

There is infinite space available between getting headlines as a peacemaker and getting headlines as a harbinger of war.

There is.

But to apply context, Trump isn't going to back down from his aggressive, inflammatory comment: indeed, lots of the rest of the interview that quotation has been plucked from was his usual intemperate commentary. There is low likelihood that law enforcement is just going to meekly give up and go away (unless externally pressured). With these practical realities, Trump is therefore on the harbinger of war scale.

Next, Trump is not a neutral party giving dispassionate analysis: he's intimately involved and highly motivated by self-preservation and self-interest. Indeed, he's giving an interview for PR, to drum up support, win sympathy, and work against his opponents. Specifically, he's attempting to pressurise law enforcement to minimise or cancel their investigatio by making out any resultant civil disorder will be all their fault. This puts it credibly in the realm of threat.

 

[tstorm823]

There is low likelihood that law enforcement is just going to meekly give up and go away (unless externally pressured).

Would you not describe quietly leaving Trump at large and giving him some of his papers back as "meekly going away" relative to the initially aggressive search? Unless you think it an absolute inevitability that they arrest and imprison Trump, wasn't the whole problem quietly resolving a reasonably likely outcome the whole time?

 

[Silvanus]

Oh look, he stoked the crowd that one time amid a bunch of "let's just beat her in November", and my claim was "for the most part". It's almost like I was precisely accurate.

Jesus... he didn't stoke them "that one time". It was a constant repeated chant at rallies for months upon months-- and every time he stood there grinning, feeding them more lies and attack lines.

That particular reporter.

I've cut the rest because it's utterly irrelevant. I don't give a shit why you (or anyone else) reckon it's justified to criticise this particular reporter.

The basis of the insulting mimicry was not the man's work. The basis of the insulting mimicry was specifically the disability. An individual being worthy of criticism doesn't justify employing bigotry against them; it's still bigotry, it's still denigrating the entire group.

 

[Agema]

Would you not describe quietly leaving Trump at large and giving him some of his papers back as "meekly going away" relative to the initially aggressive search? Unless you think it an absolute inevitability that they arrest and imprison Trump, wasn't the whole problem quietly resolving a reasonably likely outcome the whole time?

It seems to me that law enforcement has carried out a perfectly normal search and seizure. It's "aggressive" only in terms of the absurd hyperbole the Republicans have created for PR to make it seem like a SWAT team busted the door down and handcuffed everyone at gunpoint.

 

[tstorm823]

The basis of the insulting mimicry was specifically the disability.

The basis of the insult was literally quoting the man.

 

[Silvanus]

The basis of the insult was literally quoting the man.

With a very obvious mimicry of the speech and physical characteristics of his disability.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Mentlegen, I give you Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and possibly a fervent dad fingerer?

Fucking hell, that's just projection all the way down

 

[Trunkage]

Please stop responding to things I didn't say as though I said them. It feels like you have pre-made anti-Trump/Republican comments saved in a text document, and when you respond to me you're just pasting in sentences that are almost related to what I said.

Tstorm: so the media started a coordinated campaign to get people to hate America more, and conflate patriotism with racism.
Kwak: So you're just embracing the infowars qanon line now?
Got any proof for this commie conspiracy?
Tstorm: One time the New York Times accidentally posted a headline about Trump calling for racial harmony and national unity, and not only did they change that headline, the editor had to call an emergency staff meeting because all the writers flipped out that it didn't call him racist instead. One of the things he said to calm that anger was that singling out Trump as racist takes away from how the whole nation is racist, and the 1619 project was in the works to really show people how bad America is. Which is how they planned to get at Trump.

Legit pretended that an attack on Trump was an attack on America. Your last quote was isn't even about patriotism. It's just 'Trump getting attacked'

If you didnt mean this, then be WAY more careful with your words

 

[tstorm823]

Legit pretended that an attack on Trump was an attack on America. Your last quote was isn't even about patriotism. It's just 'Trump getting attacked'

No, I didn't. The idea is that the 1619 project is not (mostly) an explicit attack on Trump, it's an attack on all of America. Some of the staffers wanted the Times to explicitly call him racist all the time, and the head honcho said that it's better to say the whole country is racist. If your country is founded purely in racism, then patriotism is racism, which is worse for a nationalist candidate like Trump than just simply calling him specifically racist. That's the idea.

It's not "an attack on Trump is an attack on America". Not at all. It's "an attack on America is bad for Trump, so let's do that instead."

 

[Gordon_4]

Mentlegen, I give you Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and possibly a fervent dad fingerer?

What the merry fuck is any of this, Scott?