They’re Just Insults

People get pissy over the way Trump insults people so freely, but here’s the thing: I would do the same thing in almost every single instance. The only difference is, I might not do it as well. If I’ve never insulted you personally, don’t kid yourself that I wouldn’t. Give me a reason, insult me first, and I’ll hit you back harder than you hit me. Words are the same as fists in that regard; if you take a swing at me, don’t think I’m just going to accept it with a smile. You’re going to get hit too.

If I feel there’s a reason (e.g. if you insult me first) then there won’t be any hesitation or any chance of mistaken notions that I’m somehow a nicer guy than someone like Trump. I’m not. So if you don’t want me to fling insults at you, then go by this rule: don’t fling any at me.

That kind of thing has been almost completely non-existent from the folks who comment on my posts, with one recent exception. In the first post on Criticizing a Caricature, some guy commented with his opinion, challenging mine. I replied, politely and reasonably holding my ground – I might be swayed if someone presents me with new information, or points out an angle I hadn’t seen before, but I don’t change my opinions solely on the basis of someone disagreeing.

Anyways, he apparently didn’t like my reply because in his next comment he decided to tell me that my kind of “faux intellectual garbage” was the reason he walked away from political blogging.

Oh, and that “people like me” disgust him.

So because I demolished the points he tried to raise in his first comment, he decided to replace any actual criticism with that. And given the way I ripped his position to shreds (I was both civil and comprehensive in my reply), it’s inexcusable. I gave him the benefit of the time I took to write out my response, and he came back at me with exactly zero counters to my perspective.

If you want to read it for yourself, look for the comments left by “Elusive Trope”.

What I’m getting at is, I don’t mind insults because two can play at that game, and it’s always good to have a little fun if someone decides to be an asshole. I do mind the absence of an actual fair response though, the absence of reciprocating the amount of thought, facts, and time I put into replying to them. I mind the lack of anything resembling a direct reply to the points I raised and the points of theirs that I countered into oblivion with accurate representation of the facts.

Elusive Trope’s condescending, spiteful remarks aren’t that important and they’re not the point. The point is if you’re a fucking adult, a few insults are well within your ability to handle.

There’s no reason to be a baby about it, or to be a surrogate baby for some public figure or celebrity who got insulted by Donald Trump. And whether you ignore an insult (as a counter insult) or insult someone back directly, you should recognize that there are different ways to handle it, that you don’t hold the moral high ground if you’re preferred way happens to be more passive than mine, more like a welcome mat people can walk all over as they please.

The fucking point, is that his insults don’t defeat my position by themselves. It remains standing. And personally, I like giving people a reason to think twice before they start blindly talking shit at me. I prefer that people mind their manners or, at the very least, apply some accurate information and clear reasoning to their position. Otherwise you’re insults aren’t going to mean shit, and someone like me is going to outwit, out-troll, and ridicule you. Kind of like I did to the Trope.

The insulting part of it might have gone unnoticed by me if he seemed to have a good reason for it, for wanting to insult me, but sadly, it was another case of criticizing a caricature. First a caricature of Trump, then of me, (deliberately?) taking what I said the wrong way and making a number of assumptions, both about me and about the subject of the post and discussions.

It wasn’t like he went on a long tirade either (that’s why I described it as being “mild”) but it’s still rude and a complete cop out. It’s not my fault he couldn’t come up with any angle, any reasoning, to counter my perspective. That’s on him. I’m not going to bother wasting any more time talking about him though. This is about insults, and about people being babies about them.

Look at the way I talk about this guy, the way I responded to him. I’m not complaining, I’m just topping off the mildly insulting response I gave in return with a (hopefully embarrassing) mention as an example of the kind of person who deserves to be insulted. See the thing is, insults are a-okay in my book, just not as a substitute for direct or factually based criticisms.

They can be thrown into the mix, blended into a good intellectual challenge as part of a package deal, and I’m fine with that. I’ll return the favor though, and if there’s no intellectual effort to go along with the insults directed at me, then I’ll insult back in whatever way I see fit. Usually I include clear reasoning for my opinion anyways (insulting someone doesn’t exclude my ability to do that), but once blind, unjustified insults against me are in play all bets are off.

The Takeaway

If you’re going to insult someone, don’t bitch when they insult you back.

That, and ultimately, they’re just insults. If you don’t like playing in the mud then don’t, but I don’t think people need to make them out to be more than they are either. That’s making mountains out of mole hills and it’s a total waste of time imo. If someone hurts your feelings, get over it.

 

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “They’re Just Insults

  1. I both agree and disagree – I agree with your point that if you’re going to insult someone, you need to be able to handle it when someone comes back swinging. Not everyone will, but you shouldn’t start something if you can’t handle it.
    However, when it comes to Trump, I disagree completely. He’s running for President, and in almost every speech he’s insulting someone. He’s not a talk show host. He’s meant to be preparing for the possibility of leading the US. The insults he frequently delivers are not in retaliation, and they go above and beyond any normal political debate. If he was a talk show host, I’d probably think his comments were rude, but whatever. Some people like watching that. However, as a nominee for President? I find that completely unacceptable. Would you really want someone like that running a country? Someone who deals with sexist, racist, and ableist insults? That, to me, makes him incredibly unfit, and incredibly unacceptable. I can’t imagine anyone who views that as the way to talk to and treat people as an acceptable leader for any country.
    But yeah – in a personal sense, if you’re going to throw insults, you can’t be surprised and act like a victim if the person retaliates in kind.

    Like

    • He mainly insults people who have insulted him first, and in addition to that, there *are* times when an insult is grounded in reasonable criticism. In other words, on the surface it might appear to just be an insult, but if you know anything about it there’s actual reasoning behind it, a solid basis in reality. Example: Crooked Hillary is an insulting moniker, and if you want you can pretend it’s just a mean thing to say, but it’s not. It’s derived from the unethical behavior, proven lies, and likely corruption she’s been involved in for the past three decades or so. So it’s not just an insult, it’s an indictment of her character on the basis of very real faults and very real actions.

      And in point of fact, they *are* usually in retaliation.

      “Someone who deals with sexist, racist, and ableist insults?”

      None of his insults are really sexist or racist. So that’s not a factor for me.

      “But yeah – in a personal sense, if you’re going to throw insults, you can’t be surprised and act like a victim if the person retaliates in kind.”

      If that’s how you feel, than I can’t understand in what way you could possibly feel differently. The only difference between me and Trump in this respect is he’s standing on a larger stage with a bigger audience. He’s still in the right for standing up for himself though and if you ask me, it’s high time we had someone who has the spine to do that. If he can do it for himself so consistently and so successfully, despite incoming (and often baseless) criticism from all sides, I think he’ll handle standing up for our country as President quite well too. Which is something we *need* in a President.

      My opinion anyways.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Because I think there’s a very big difference. A lot of the people he does insult are general, wide, sweeping insults. Just because they don’t affect you, doesn’t mean they don’t affect others. You can’t say it’s not that sexist, than say in the next breath that it doesn’t affect you so if doesn’t really matter (which is essentially what you said when you stated ‘that’s not a factor for me’).

        Yeah, I do. Because a President should be more than that. I’m not an American, but like with the rest of the world, most people are embarrassed by Trump. Most people in Australia believe that if Trump is elected as President, that will say everything about the US – and not in a positive way.

        But sure – if you’re an American, and you like someone who spends more time insulting people than actually sticking his mind to policies that don’t include mass hysteria and building a wall, along with racism and extreme policies that are very reminiscent of Hitler, sure.

        I really think Trump would be the worst President America needs. On the bright side, North Korea supports Trump … so I think that says everything in itself, too.

        Like

      • That’s not what I stated at all. I said it’s not a factor for me *because* they’re not sexist insults. They’re just insults, and if you’re vicariously offended by it on behalf of someone else, then my response to you is the same as it is to them: get over it, they’re just insults, and what’s more, if it’s coming from Trump you probably earned it. Elizabeth Warren is a great example. She goes on twitter and does nothing but make a bunch of non-specific, rude, and entirely baseless insults, and then Trump gets crap from critics for insulting her back, even though she did it first, and even though his insults are centered around her actual track record as a senator and her (likely fraudulent) claims of being Native American, which she used for personal gains and still hasn’t proven to this day.

        “Because a President should be more than that.”

        Lots of people would argue our current President should be more than he is, but hey, what can you do.

        “Most people in Australia believe that if Trump is elected as President, that will say everything about the US – and not in a positive way.”

        Obama’s the one that cares what other countries think of us, not me. I think it’s more important for a President to put America and Americans first, to act, make trade deals, policy decisions, etc. that our in our own best interests, and if the world doesn’t like that, tough shit. They can bad mouth us if they want to, but if the country overall ends up being better off, do you really think I (or many other Americans are going to care what Australians think of us?

        “But sure – if you’re an American, and you like someone who spends more time insulting people than actually sticking his mind to policies…”

        There’s your problem right there, you (incorrectly) assume he spends more time insulting than he does on putting together and presenting policies. That’s a big part of what I was getting at in the post: doing one doesn’t exclude doing the other, and in his case he seems quite able to do both at once. The insults fly, sure, but so do the policy ideas, and the issues are something he focuses on and addresses daily.

        “…that don’t include mass hysteria and building a wall, along with racism and extreme policies that are very reminiscent of Hitler, sure.”

        Mass hysteria has nothing to do with any of it, building a wall is a sensible thing to do, and anyone who compares Trump to Hitler doesn’t know shit about World War II or the Third Reich and is insulting the millions of people that Hitler’s regime murdered and tortured. There are almost zero true parallels between Trump and Hitler, and anyone who knows anything about modern world history should damn well know that.

        “On the bright side, North Korea supports Trump … so I think that says everything in itself, too.”

        Yeah, it’s so horrible that he said he would talk to the N. Korean leader, cause you know, you don’t want a line of communication with a hostile foreign country, and you don’t want an avenue towards easing tensions when they get high. Escalation and periodic grandstanding is way better. //endsarcasm

        Like

      • A wall has proven not to work, and I don’t know what else you’d call what Trump is doing.

        As your views have become more clear to me, I have decided that talking to you is a waste of both of our time.

        And thirdly: Bachelor of History Degree. Do you know what I studied, intensively, for two years? WWII. Hitler. The Holocaust. Mein Kampf. he Third Reich.

        Do you know what I’ve been studying, post degree, for six years since?

        Same thing. In fact, this year, as a teacher, we attended a lecture from the Sydney Jewish Museum Institute, which also discussed Hitler’s rise to power.

        I’m pretty willing to guarantee I know far more about Hitler, his rise to power, the Holocaust, his speeches, why he earned power, his successes and fails, his downfall, EVERYTHING, than you do.

        It’s not insulting, because it’s being realistic. Hitler didn’t come into power by saying, “Hey, let’s kill the people responsible!” He started his regime by inciting fear. Similar to what Trump is doing. His rise to power was a ‘us’ vs ‘them’ … similar to what Trump is doing. It wasn’t well into his reign, after so much propaganda had been spread about ‘undesirables’ that he started killing certain people.

        If you asked anyone that comes from a family who was involved in the Holocaust, they’d say it’s an insult to ignore the parallels.

        Yes, because a dictator is always easy to communicate with. It’s not like dictators ever betray allies (*cough* Hitler with Russia, or *cough* Stalin with everyone) or only do what serves their country (*cough* every dictator ever …)

        Like

      • We’ve never had a wall, so it hasn’t bee “proven not to work”. And in point of fact, countries that *do* have walls say they work very well. Ask Israel. Hell, ask Mexico how that wall on *their* southern border is working for them (which we helped them pay for btw, and don’t ask me why, I have no idea why American tax payer money went to that).

        “As your views have become more clear to me, I have decided that talking to you is a waste of both of our time.”

        If that’s how you feel you have no business on my site and yes, you are wasting your time. Let’s be clear though; it has nothing to do with my views and everything to do with yours, and with your intolerance for other views than your own. You’ll notice I’ve never censored you, despite our strong disagreements, despite the time it sometimes takes me to address your comments, and that in addition to that I also almost without fail have replied to you and replied civilly and reasonably.

        In summary, if you’re wasting your time it has nothing to do with my views and everything to do with yours.

        “And thirdly: Bachelor of History Degree. Do you know what I studied, intensively, for two years? WWII. Hitler. The Holocaust. Mein Kampf. he Third Reich. ”

        Like I said then, you should damn well know better. When I said anyone who knows anything about WWII should know better, it wasn’t a ploy I put out there in the hopes that no one would call me on it, it was meant to be taken exactly as I said it. If you know your history, you should be ashamed of yourself for the comparison.

        “I’m pretty willing to guarantee I know far more about Hitler, his rise to power, the Holocaust, his speeches, why he earned power, his successes and fails, his downfall, EVERYTHING, than you do.”

        Oh the arrogance… sure, because I disagree, I must know so much less than the great and knowledgeable Carla. I mean, that’s your logic, right? Right?

        “If you asked anyone that comes from a family who was involved in the Holocaust, they’d say it’s an insult to ignore the parallels.”

        If you asked anyone that comes from a family who was involved in the holocaust, they’d say it’s an insult to them, to the suffering they went through, to the persecution they were subjected to, to the amount of torture and inhuman treatment and executions they endured, to say Trump is anything like the Nazi’s that put them through all of that. Trump is so unlike Hitler, it’s an insult to those very people to compare Trump (who people dislike because of attitude, personality, or any other number of asinine reasons) to Hitler, who was responsible for the *real* discrimination, murder, torture, etc. of *millions*. Think about that.

        See, unfortunately for you I know plenty about Hitler’s rise, including the violence that was involved, the people he commanded as leader of the Nazi party, before he had even risen to a position of real or elected power, which he used violently (along with corrupt officials helping him out) to seize power, and which he replaced with a more personally loyal force after attaining his first real gov. position. Trump has done none of those things, commands no such force, and does not advocate for any discrimination whatsoever.

        Do the victims of the Holocaust a favor and don’t demean or downplay the struggles and brutalities they went through, because that’s exactly what you’re doing when you compare Trump to Hitler.

        “Yes, because a dictator is always easy to communicate with. It’s not like dictators ever betray allies (*cough* Hitler with Russia, or *cough* Stalin with everyone) or only do what serves their country (*cough* every dictator ever …)”

        Yeah, I guess countries don’t have to deal with each other at all, e can just comfortably ignore each other and everything will be fine and dandy… oh wait, no, nevermind, I don’t think it works like that 😉 .

        Like

      • It’s not arrogance. It’s a fact. Not that I know more, but that Trump’s speeches, his actions, are very reminiscent of Hitler’s.
        And yeah, as someone who listened to a lecture recently about a Holocaust survivor, he’d disagree. He would say that this is exactly how it started in Germany. Because that’s what he said. And he isn’t the only survivor saying the same thing: that this is how it started.

        Do I think Trump will become the next Hitler? Not necessarily. A possibility, of course, but death camps and genocide has happened since Hitler, so it’d be beyond naive to think it couldn’t happen.

        What my degree has taught me, and my extensive study since, is that history often recreates itself. There are similarities, whether you like it or not.

        Trump doesn’t discriminate? Doesn’t use force?

        Yeah … that speech about deporting Muslims, that wasn’t about discriminating anyone. Nothing like Hitler. He never discriminated against anyone, right?

        That speech about having Muslims be identified by wearing some special badge? That’s not at all what Jewish people were forced to do. And not discrimination, either.

        That speech about how Mexicans are all rapists and criminals? Definitely not discrimination.

        People didn’t take Hitler seriously in the beginning. In fact, he was actually imprisoned for his beliefs. People didn’t take Trump seriously in the beginning … now they are.

        Trump has stated in an interview he’s a fan of Hitler, and Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Kind of doesn’t seem like a well-rounded man, does he?

        What about the people he’s had violently removed from his talks? For no reason? Because they were black? Or Muslim?

        Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again”. Hitler used to say something … what was it about the Fatherland? Something about … making it great again?

        What about, during his interview, that instead of directly attacking terrorists, we should bomb their families? That’s not violent at all. Or a war crime …

        Or all the times it’s been proven that he has lied? Literally proven that he has lied?

        On top of which, his policies change regularly. Even I know how frequently he’s changed his mind during this election campaign, and I’m an Australian.

        And don’t worry, I’ve already unfollowed you, so don’t stress about that. At the moment, I’m only responding because you are. So I guess we’re both lucky in that respect.

        But hey, don’t want to take my word for it? Think I’m just some crazy liberal who has some crazy ideas?

        How about you done some light reading (from documents that also reference Holocaust survivor’s opinions, as well – who would agree with stance I’ve delivered).

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-compared-to-adolf-hitler-after-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-comments-a6767941.html

        http://www.thewrap.com/are-hitler-trump-comparisons-fair-a-holocaust-survivor-tells-his-son/

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/donald-trump-rhetoric-adolf-hitler-anti-trump-campaign

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12038640/Who-said-it-Donald-Trump-or-Adolf-Hitler.html

        http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/9-times-Donald-Trump-has-been-compared-to-Hitler-447358

        Like

      • “And yeah, as someone who listened to a lecture recently about a Holocaust survivor, he’d disagree. He would say that this is exactly how it started in Germany. Because that’s what he said.”

        I can’t help it if he’s an idiot, or if he forget the dire economic straits Germany was in, which is arguably a big reason why such a power hungry, violent fascist rose to power. People were burning fucking money to stay warm instead of spending it at one point (economic fallout from WWI, right?) because their currency was so devalued. You can draw a b.s. parallel between Germany and the U.S. if you think starving hordes of people and an altogether broken nation (broken by the first world war) are in any way similar to the relatively mild discontent among Americans with government these days, but that’s one hell of a stretch. See what I’m saying about those comparison’s being bullshit? America today is pretty bad off relative to where it’s been before and where it could be again, in terms of economics, trade deals, and respect throughout the world, but we are not coming off of a war that ended with a loss and punitive, impossible war reperations like Germany was. And Donald Trump is not leading a violent mob of 500,000 people to advance his agenda through violence. He’s also not suggesting we do anything to illegal immigrants beyond civilly, humanely deporting them to their countries of origin, and with his proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration until such time as we’ve revamped our vetting system, he’s not suggesting we do anything beyond temporarily stopping the flow of immigration of a certain class of foreigners while we work on revamping our immigration vetting processes. That’s no where near being in the same vein (or the same universe) as what Hitler did, and if there were moves in that direction, there are a plethora of routes to obstruct his efforts or, if need be, to remove him from office via impeachment. So in short, Donald Trump is nothing like Hitler, and what’s more, even if he spontaneously transformed into someone like that after being sworn in, he wouldn’t be able to move forward with any sort of agenda even remotely like that of the Nazi’s. This is America for fuck’s sake; Germany had a different form of government than we have, they had precedent in their history for dictators and our country began as a declaration of independence from that form of government. Bottom line, Hitler comparisons are bullshit.

        I got sick of them being made to Obama, and I get sick of them being made with Trump. They’re just total, completely overblown bullshit.

        “A possibility, of course, but death camps and genocide has happened since Hitler, so it’d be beyond naive to think it couldn’t happen.”

        Sure, in other countries. The only real genocide to speak of in our country was probably our treatment of Native Americans, and you know, people act like deportation is going to be like the trail of tears but here’s a newsflash: this is the age of the internet (meaning we couldn’t get away with mistreatment even if, for some reason, we wanted to) and we have plenty of resources to provide the necessary human comforts, not to mention speedy transportation (buses, planes, etc.), to those being deported. Bottom line, that kind of thing is not going to be happening in the modern era. Acting like it is, especially on the basis of what Trump has said (all of which has been reasonable, if you pay attention to the full statements, the full context, the entire policies put forward, etc.) is ridiculous, and it’s fear mongering.

        “Trump doesn’t discriminate? Doesn’t use force?
        Yeah … that speech about deporting Muslims, that wasn’t about discriminating anyone. ”

        He never gave a speech about deporting Muslims. He has said that we should stop letting in Syrian refugees and send back the ones we’ve taken in, but has also said we should build safe zones (food, water, amenities, military protection) in or near Syria. Sounds fine to me.

        But yeah, as for Muslims in general, he never gave any such speech. Know what you’re talking about before you try to talk down to me about what he has or hasn’t said. I either know exactly what he said, can refresh my memory, or can find out with the click of a button if you happen to come across some rare sound byte I haven’t yet heard already. Allow me to continue to prove it…

        “That speech about having Muslims be identified by wearing some special badge? That’s not at all what Jewish people were forced to do.”

        That’s false too, he never said Muslims should have to wear special badges. It was injected into a line of questioning by a reporter, and he didn’t answer in the affirmative. That’s the same as the claim that he wanted to make a database to track all Muslims. He never said that, a reporter came up with the idea and asked him about it; his answer, repeated numerous times afterwards because of what a shitstorm the misquote cause, was no, he didn’t want to do that. American Muslims have zero to worry about, at least if we’re talking about the actual words he’s said and the actual policies he’s put forward.

        “That speech about how Mexicans are all rapists and criminals? Definitely not discrimination.”

        As I recall, he addressed illegal immigrants from Mexico specifically because they represent such a large chunk of the massive population of illegal immigrants we have here, and because he was talking about the role the Mexican government may well have been playing for years in exacerbating the problem. As for his statements that illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists, here’s a nice little bit of information for you: a) the crime stats back his claims up and b) in the very same sentence in which that little sound byte was cherry picked from, he also clearly said “and some, I assume, are good people, but they need to come in *legally*”.

        “Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again”. Hitler used to say something … what was it about the Fatherland? Something about … making it great again?”

        So I guess Reagan was like Hitler too then? Cause that’s where it originally came from. He brought one of Reagan’s slogans back and made it a centerpiece of his campaign. So, nice try, but that’s another epic fail. I’m not keeping score, but if I were… I’m pretty sure I’d be winning so far. And onwards we go…

        “What about, during his interview, that instead of directly attacking terrorists, we should bomb their families? That’s not violent at all. Or a war crime …”

        He didn’t say we should bomb them. Again, I’m amazed that someone who thinks they’re so informed, at just how incorrect most of your assertions are. He did say we should go after their families, and did say that (when able and when merited, which was meant to go without saying but that he spelled out not long after making the initial statement) we should kill them. It’s one of his iffier positions, one of the few I’m not entirely a fan of, but he qualified & explained it, which you (for some reason) chose to ignore.

        “Or all the times it’s been proven that he has lied? Literally proven that he has lied?”

        If you go by Politico’s measurement, sure, and they also boosted the % of how much he lies by focusing on the things he’s said where he fudged the facts (mostly hyperbole, slightly inaccurate but not untrue, e.g. the (now substantiated) claim that a number of Muslims in New York itself cheered when 9/11 happened, they said he lied about it and I bet he infalted the numbers, but it’s a fucking *fact* that there was a significant enough number of people celebrating to have generated police reports and news reports, many of which he cited as evidence when media pundits and political rivals said he was lying about it) and conveniently omitting a great many other statements he had (or has) made that are perfectly true.

        It’s a slanted narrative, and even if you can actually point out some specific lies (which I doubt, but which also wouldn’t matter unless you could rattle off a minimum of 10 off the top of your head, ’cause that should be easy if he’s such a serial liar, and he’s not), the fact still remains that Hillary Clinton is by far the worst. He exaggerates sometimes, and even says as much if asked, but she has been caught dozens of times throughout the last 3 decades in lie after lie after lie. She claimed the e-mail server she set up had precedent with past Secretaries of State, that’s a lie. I can’t remember if I explained it to you or someone else recently so I’ll just restate it to be safe: Powell had a private e-mail address, which is also a no-no, but which isn’t the same as having a private server or a completely separate flow of information outside of the State Department, and he only used it about 10 times. There’s zero precedent for her server. She also deleted 30,000 before turning any of them over, so who knows what the content of those were. And how about the oh so famous Bosnia sniper fire? There’s footage of her going around, shaking hands, meeting the people that came out tog greet her, etc. Or how about Benghazi? Sidestepping whatever you or anyone else thinks about her role or any responsibility she might or might not have had with the whole incident, she lied to the families about it. Why the hell would she do that?

        See, you call Trump a liar, but the worst he’s guilty of is the occasional lie (and I’m not sure about that ’cause I can’t think of any off the top of my head) and occasional exaggeration, and when he does the latter it has invariably had a basis in accurate facts. Including with his comments about rapists and murderers.

        “On top of which, his policies change regularly. Even I know how frequently he’s changed his mind during this election campaign, and I’m an Australian.”

        No they don’t and no he hasn’t. In fact I was just watching a show where the right wingers on Fox were whining about how he doesn’t seem to be changing gears (bastardizing his positions to better pander for the general election). They’re getting pissy over his consistency.

        “Think I’m just some crazy liberal who has some crazy ideas?”

        This sentence right here, I think, fully illustrates what a dumb ass you are. Because I disagree with you I must think you’re a crazy liberal? Because I disagree with you you think I buy into the bullshit two party system, think I have some kind of loyalty to conservatism or to Republicans? You’re barking up the wrong tree hun. I have no loyalty to a party or to some bullshit dogmatic ideology, not left or right. I believe in American values, some of which are (or were) threaded into Democrat ideals and principles, some of which are (or were at one time) threaded into Republican ideals and principles, and all of which are largely bastardized and warped by each parties respective dogma’s.

        I mean hell, how many other assumptions are you making about me? Think I’m a christian too? You’d be wrong.

        “How about you done some light reading (from documents that also reference Holocaust survivor’s opinions, as well – who would agree with stance I’ve delivered). ”

        This does nothing to prove your point. You proved me wrong that some (fairly silly, perhaps senial) holocaust survivors have actually made that ridiculous comparison. You didn’t prove that it was a decent or valid comparison to make, and I’m not going to go through their respective spins on it and take on the work of arguing with all of them too. It’s a nice trick, adding other people’s words into an argument you’re losing, trying to get the other side of the discussion caught up in battling and debating with 5 or 6 other additional people, but I’m not about to waste my time. I don’t need to argue with a bunch of people who aren’t even in on this conversation, especially not when I’ve already completely dismantled your own position and assertions point by tedious point.

        I realize you probably won’t follow me now that you’ve unfollowed and that’s fine; I’m hardly the only blog to read on the net, and I’m not about to devote this much time to battling someone so close minded and intolerant (not to mention mistaken and incorrect in so many different respects), but I’m still going to make this suggestion: don’t pretend like you have any moral high ground. You came to *my* site and elected to argue with me. What the hell did you expect, for me to back off my position on Trump just because you don’t agree? I can listen and I can respond, but I don’t have to end up agreeing with you any more than you have to end the conversation in agreement with me. I don’t expect that from you and you shouldn’t expect that from other people. That’s not how dialogue works, it doesn’t always end in agreement or consensus. If you’re response to that reality is going to continue to be to take your ball and go home when you can’t berate, bully, or otherwise persuade someone with a different opinion to see things your way, you’re not going to have many worthwhile discussions or dialogues on anything of importance as you go through life. Might want to think about that.

        In any case, have a nice life 😉 .

        Like

      • I haven’t tried to berate or bully you, in any way. I haven’t said anything offensive. I don’t expect you to change your belief system for me; however, your views are vastly different to mind. They are so vastly different that I don’t see the point in following you. If it was one or two things? It wouldn’t bother me. I don’t expect to agree with everyone, and I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with me. However, I find your views to be incredibly offensive. I don’t see the point in following someone if that’s how I feel.

        I’m not mistaken. I’m not wrong. I provided you with several, credible sources. I can provide more if you’d really like. I can even provide video evidence where he has actually stated these things, if you don’t trust written publications for some reason.

        Deportation of innocent people shouldn’t be allowed, but I can also see, for numerous reasons, that that’s another point we’re not going to agree on.

        To be honest, I didn’t come on here to start an “argument”. I simply expressed that whilst I agreed with your post overall, I didn’t think a President nominee should behave that way. You disagreed, and I explained why. You then called me arrogant when I stated that there are similarities and why I believed so (and that it came from numerous studies and extensive education) and you dismissed it. I’ve given you information from multiple sources, and you choose to ignore it. I’m more than happy to find video evidence where this has occurred, but it seems doing so means that I’m somehow ‘bullying’ you.

        Personally, when I find that I can’t find any way to agree with most of your views, many of which I find offensive, I don’t see the point. It’ll either mean that we’ll start hurling insults and debate frequently, or I can just simply unfollow you and it’s not a burden to either of us. For me, I don’t see any point in trying to give you information when you seemed to ignore everything I gave you before. I don’t see the point.

        I don’t see how that is ‘berating or bullying’ you or anyone else. I think that’s coming to a reasonable and mature conclusion: we have vastly different views, so why go through that trouble when nothing is served? You have provided me with no insight, no extra information, and nothing to think on. What you’ve said is what I’ve heard from any Trump supporter. Had you provided an actual opinion as to why you believe it’s okay for a President to hurl insults and belittle people; make racists comments, support the KKK, make sexist comments, and change his policies on a regular basis that was more than “I think this” and “he’s not like that, that’s a lie”, I’d be more open. But you haven’t. And because he has done all those things, the only way you’re going to be able to source that information is from something that has come from Trump’s party/supporters … so not really reliable.

        Also, why is it that I’m the “bully” who is “berating” you? You’re stating that I can’t bully or berate you into sharing my opinion; yet you yourself have done no differently. You haven’t considered any of the information I’ve given you, or argued in any respectful manner. In fact, you continuously copy my words, as if you think I’m so incapable I can’t remember what I said, which is either condescending or just plain rude.

        I know exactly how to have a conversation. Having a conversation means an exchange of information. I gave you articles that supported my point of view, which kind of changes my opinion more to something that is based on fact. You haven’t returned the favour, in any context. You’ve just said I’m wrong and Trump is doing nothing wrong – all of his policies are acceptable. It’s fine if you have that opinion and don’t wish to change it, but that’s hardly me ‘bullying’ or ‘berating’ you, is it?

        You say that if I can’t ‘win’ a conversation, I don’t know how to converse, and then I won’t be able to get through life.

        Tell me: how are you any different?

        In my conversations, I’m perfectly supportive of people if they can support their information with facts, even if it’s not an opinion I agree with.

        I think the only person who’s done any ‘bullying’ or ‘berating’ is you – you’ve insulted me multiple times (on a minor level, granted, so I take no offense), and are now telling me I’m incapable of conversation because I won’t conform to your opinion … which is just contradictory and hypercritical.

        You might want to think about that. In any case, have a nice life.

        Like

      • You had the right idea with your last post ’cause we’re just going to have to agree to disagree, and don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about the barrage of non-stop response I get when you happen to disagree with me (trying to overwhelm someone with “evidence” especially when it’s not evidence, just a misinformed opinion, which I consider to be attempts to bully and berate me into conceding), but you always seem compelled to keep going, even when I’ve made it clear that I’ve considered your points and subsequently dismissed them (with clearly explained reasoning on why I’ve dismissed them). I suppose I could have taken a more timid approach, but if you want to write about how horrible Trump is and you want to express an alternative stance to mine over and over again, *my site* isn’t the place for it. Discussion is fine to a point, but that’s what *your* site is for. I, quite frankly, don’t need to be bothered with it every time you get offended, especially since you seem to be so easily and unreasonably offended (e.g. “innocent” illegal immigrants, even though by cutting the legal immigration line and being here they’re already *breaking the law* and continue to break other laws simply as a means of comfortably existing here as an undocumented, illegal immigrant. Innocent my ass.)

        If you think by “bullying” I mean rough language or an abrasive manner, then sure I probably fit that. Not what I meant though, and not something I was really complaining of, except for the context and the inaccuracies you incorporated into your responses. Using inaccurate info to try to prove your right and I’m wrong (and your compulsion to keep responding to me seems to indicate that as a probable motivating factor or you’d have moved on by now) is even worse in my book. I can handle it just fine, but I think it’s in poor taste.

        “and are now telling me I’m incapable of conversation because I won’t conform to your opinion … ”

        I said you were incapable of civil conversation because you seem incapable of letting a disagreement go without getting the last word in. I don’t recall if you quite managed it in our other exchanges, but you clearly feel the need to have the last say and that’s fine to a point, but again, this is my site, not yours. I prefer to focus on posting, not on endless contentious discussions that ultimately go nowhere with both sides convinced they have good reasoning for their positions.

        In any case, it’s not really contradictory at all, but that was a nice attempt at herding me into an admission of being in the wrong somehow. Another fail, but still…

        “You say that if I can’t ‘win’ a conversation, I don’t know how to converse, and then I won’t be able to get through life.”

        Not really what I said. Maybe you ought to go back and re-read. Unless I made more spelling errors than I thought, it should be pretty clear that your inability to agree to disagree without continuing on (even in a losing position, if we *actually* want to look at it as winning and losing, although I was just being a sarcastic dick when I said that particular bit, I don’t, in all seriousness, necessarily care about “winning” a shoving match of opinions) and trying to drive your point home, despite that I’m *clearly* confident in my outlook and in the underlying reality and reasoning it’s based on.

        I’m mostly saying you’re incapable though, because you’re the one who elected to jump into it with me, and are now consequently saying “oh, we’ll just never agree so I’m going to mozy off”. You had to get another dig in, when if you’d really only been uninterested via radical differences of opinion, I don’t see any reason you’d need to announce to me that you’re unfollowing me. Except to try and get the last word in, and maybe to press my buttons. That, in a nutshell, is why I say you’re pretty incapable of worthwhile conversation.

        “I know exactly how to have a conversation. Having a conversation means an exchange of information. I gave you articles that supported my point of view, which kind of changes my opinion more to something that is based on fact. You haven’t returned the favour, in any context.”

        First, spamming me with links is not a good way to have a conversation. You can’t articulate your opinions or explain the reasoning without those crutches? I mean you can emphasize them, but if they don’t contain actual facts (and most of your articles don’t, at least not facts pertaining to the discussions; e.g. the rape victim account has nothing to do with what we were talking about before, we were talking about prevalence of rape, how common it is (or isn’t), whether that kind of behavior is actually socially acceptable at all these days, and whether or not modern feminism is justified in its claims. The account of the victim drives home the horror of the crime, the damage it does, but the problem is, that part of what we were talking about was never up for dispute. We were in agreement that it’s horrible, that it’s traumatizing to the victims, and you somehow thought that would prove your point. You did the same thing in this exchange; the only point, which I conceded, was that survivors had in fact made the comparison. That in and of itself doesn’t justify it though, and none of what you wrote in your own actual comment did anything to validate it. You can look up footage of Trump saying those things if you want, in fact I’d encourage it, I’ve already watched it though, in context, and kept up with all of those in real time too so I remember the timing, the follow up explanations (which, if we’re talking youtube, will mean you’d have to string several videos together and plot out a chronological timeline, and if you did that you’d find out I was right). You can cherry pick a clip here or a clip there and make it seem as though he said those things, but that’s a distorted representation of the whole of what he’s said on any one of those points.

        I explained to you what he actually said and if you feel inclined to (which I doubt) you’re free to look up all those videos, interviews in their *entirety*, and are also free to string together all the different progressions of each controversy in chronological order if you like. You don’t need to post them here though; like I said, I’ve already seen them. I wasn’t talking out of my ass in that point by point refutation, I was relaying what he said.

        Which brings me to my next point: I haven’t returned the favor? That’s true, and yet, I didn’t start a blog to write a bunch of research papers, have no intention of compiling and listing a bunch of sources (if I were a journalist maybe I would, but I’m a blogger and a commentator, not a professional journalist). And if you insist on arguing with me the burden of proof is on you. If anyone wants to fact check what I say, they’re free to. In fact I wish you would; not so you can come back here and tell me about it either, as you seem to like to do, but for your own benefit. Nowhere do I say take my word for anything.

        That does not mean I feel like wasting my time bickering about it though. Fact check it, make up your own mind, and assume I already (at least kind of) know what I’m talking about if I know enough about it and have thought it over enough for it to end up in a post. At least when it comes to serious subjects and serious claims, which, you should also note, isn’t necessarily even my preference or usual focus. I prefer focusing on art, on playing around with fiction, on free writing streams of thought. On playing around with words and on heavily emphasizing the importance of enjoyment, pleasure, etc.

        That said, if I say something related to politics, you can bet I’ve got a bit too much of an ego to just blindly say shit without knowing anything about what I’m talking about. I don’t think I should need to spell that out, but I’m just not quite sure that you’re grasping it.

        “In fact, you continuously copy my words, as if you think I’m so incapable I can’t remember what I said, which is either condescending or just plain rude.”

        That’s part old habit (message boards, forums) and partly so I can clearly show which specific parts of your comment I’m replying to, genius. lol you think that’s condescending or rude? Okay then. You’re free to feel that way.

        “we have vastly different views, so why go through that trouble when nothing is served?”

        Good question I guess, considering. So tell me, why do you keep coming back then? In your own words, we have vastly different views, so why do you repeatedly, continuously keep coming back and going through it? I have no idea why.

        “Had you provided an actual opinion as to why you believe it’s okay for a President to hurl insults and belittle people”

        Um… yeah, that’s pretty much what the initial post was all about. Did you even read it? If you didn’t get why I think it’s okay (to stand up for yourself, which is mostly what he does when he’s insulting someone) I have to wonder… did you even read it before commenting? I thought you had, but… apparently not?

        “make racists comments, support the KKK, make sexist comments, and change his policies on a regular basis that was more than “I think this” and “he’s not like that, that’s a lie”, I’d be more open. But you haven’t. And because he has done all those things, the only way you’re going to be able to source that information is from something that has come from Trump’s party/supporters … so not really reliable. ”

        He hasn’t made any racist or sexist comments (some of the people he’s insulted happen to be women, so that’s probably what you’re thinking of, but insulting a woman doesn’t make you sexist) and I know you damn well can’t come up with any specific examples. You could have and already should have, but you haven’t. Convenient for you though, eh? Here again, you made the bullshit claim, so burden of proof (if you feel the need) is again entirely on you. I already know for a fact though that any example you try to use is very likely to be one I’ve come across already, and it gets tedious explaining to people that just because you can interpret a statement to be racist or sexist, doesn’t mean that it was. If you have to interpret it to get to that conclusion, you’re putting words and meanings into the mouth of the person who said it, in essence, making shit up. Honestly though, you’d be better off not bothering. I can explain to you how just about any example you come up with isn’t any of the above of what you said it is, but this shit gets tiresome and you supposedly think it’s a waste of time to chat, even though you keep coming back to chat more.

        Oh and that part about him supporting the KKK, yet another example of you being totally full of shit. I couldn’t even begin to count the number of times he disavowed the stupid little endorsements those white supremacist douche bags threw his way. He never once accepted their support, was badgered about it (and disavowed repeatedly) constantly over the span of a few months early on, and has never given them any support either. So… now I guess you’re just outright lying. I think that’s strike one, cause if that’s the route you’re going to go, you’re (in effect) just trolling and *that* is most definitely a waste of my time.

        As for the way I respond and my lack of spamming you with links the same way you do to me, if I can directly and specifically respond to a claim that’s a distortion of what he did or said in a given example with a clear accounting of what he actually said, and accounting that’s not even reliant on the claims you make (e.g. I volunteered information about the KKK bullshit to clarify that would not have been prompted or informed by your claim that he supports them) I think the information is pretty clearly more than “he’s not like that, that’s a lie”. And fuck, if it isn’t inaccurate (which is what I said about most of your claims, that they’re inaccurate) then you were free to prove the accuracy. I say “were” rather than “are” cause I’m over this. At this point replying to you is a drag and I just would rather not bother. You’ve succeeded in bringing me around to your way of thinking in that particular respect. So by all means, if you think it’s a waste of time to discuss, prove it and mozy off.

        I get the feeling you won’t, ’cause you can’t seem to help yourself from getting the last say, but who knows, maybe you’ll prove me wrong. Btw, I returned the favor of unfollowing 😉 . I don’t want to be unfair, after all.

        Like

    • Just so we’re on the same page, Huffington Post is a horribly biased source of information, especially when it comes to Trump, who they’ve *proclaimed* a bias against. They refuse to cover him in any other category but “entertainment” because they don’t like him & don’t take him seriously.

      In the first paragraph there’s already a baseless stab at him about failing to disavow the KKK & Duke, deliberately omitting the fact that on a Friday, he was asked if he would disavow Duke. Then on Saturday when asked again, he hesitated and fumbled around with his answer. So if you’re aware of the whole context to that particular controversy, I think it’s pretty clear he never actually failed to disavow Dule or the KKK. The previous day he had already disavowed both. Not for the first time either, or the last, because for a while reporters would ask him about a few different statements and shows of support from Duke and a couple others. He was answering that same question repeatedly for a pretty long stint pretty early on in the race.

      As for the lawsuits, I’m fairly certain the Justice Department lost at least one of those. And as for the second I don’t remember and don’t feel like looking into it again atm, but there’s also this to consider: people get sued for things they’re not guilty of by folks looking to make a fast buck. That kind of thing isn’t unheard of, and what’s more, we’re talking about a guy who’s had a career spanning roughly forty years; if he’s just had only those two lawsuits over such a thing in all that time, chances are high her probably doesn’t do that sort of thing. Despite the Huffington Posts assertions.

      As for O’Donnell’s claims of what Trump said about Casino employees in Atlanta, all I have to go by that is some guys words. It’s called hearsay (and is unproven). Further, it’s inconsistent with what employees at most other places and other buildings of his haven’t had any such experience as what one or two people have tried to claim they observed.

      And I notice Huffington Post leaves out that in 1990 Trump opened a club, I think it was in Florida but wherever it was, and despite being pressured by other club owners in the area not to, he insisted on allowing African Americans and Jews to go there and have memberships with the club. The other clubs didn’t allow that, and didn’t want him to allow it either.

      As to failures to disavow the KKK and other hate groups, I think I already went over most of that, but as to the rest I would say white supremacists, KKK and other hate groups, are always going to pick one one of the white candidates. That doesn’t mean that the candidate they try to latch themselves to is racist or that he believes in anything they do, it just means they’re racists and they’re always going to want and pick a white candidates. That doesn’t mean anything about the candidate him (or herself).

      Fun fact though: The current head of the KKK, the Grand Dragon, had endorsed Hillary Clinton last I heard. I don’t recall her being asked to disavow it either, but I guess most news outlets weren’t interested in asking. *shrugs* So in addition to all the stuff I already covered, there’s a double standard in play.

      Concerning the birther nonsense, I might be mistaken but I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton started that one, and tbh I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump took that up as a political favor; he was still on friendlier terms with the Clinton’s at the time.

      The criticism of the way he forms sentences if, frankly, horse shit. He didn’t create a set of terms or a lens of demographics or ethnicities. Politicians did that (and do that) and he’s just using their own vocabulary when addressing the questions they throw at him, or the criticisms. Not sure what’s racist about that; hell, it wouldn’t really surprise me if he makes a point of using them the way he does to mock the way politicians generally look at voters through those lens’. And he isn’t “praising groups he previously slandered” he’s praising groups the journalists asking questions (or the pundits, anchors, etc.) are asserting he slandered. You ought to look back at his exact statements yourself, in context, as a whole, with what he’s responding to or addressing in any given instance, to see whether or not he actually slandered any of those groups. In most (or all) cases, he hasn’t.

      The taco bowl pic wasn’t racist either. It was a Mexican holiday, and the food was Mexican themed. What’s the problem with celebrating a holiday along with the rest of the country?

      He also didn’t “trash native Americans”. I don’t consider that trashing at all, and his statements of the group were statements on what he thought of the group. There wasn’t anything negative said about Native Americans whatsoever.

      The ads he took out in the paper and the call for harsh punishment for the rape and murder of a women who was beaten and raped in Central Park were simply a passionate response to a horrible crime that happened in his city. He wanted something done about it. I can relate to that. As for the wrongful conviction, not sure how that’s Trump’s fault. Blame the investigators, the prosecutor, and so on. He wasn’t involved in investigating, he didn’t question suspects or try the case, nor did he decide their sentencing.

      If you have a problem with what happened in the legal process, take it up with the people who were involved in it.

      They use one example of a protester being “beaten up” to assert a pattern of instigating violence is also ridiculous. That was an isolated incident, and there’s only one other example in which an old man sucker punched a protester who was being escorted out. That too was an isolated incident (I count two, and Trump’s probably done a few hundred rallies by now, so maybe that gives you some perspective). There is no pattern. In fact the only pattern of violence has taken place outside the rallies, with protesters illegally attacking rally goers, spitting on them, throwing eggs, bottles, etc. vandalizing cars, and so on. That’s not Trump’s fault. People have a right to peaceful assembly and protest. They do not have a right to violent suppression of the rally goers right to peaceful assembly at a political rally, or to violent attempts at suppressing Trump’s right to speak or rally goers rights to hear what he has to say.

      As for his “steroetyping” of Jews… what, is that supposed to mean he’s anti-Semetic? lol if that’s what it’s supposed to mean (or rather, what I’m supposed to niterpret it as), that’s a fail. Anyone who takes it in a bad way needs to lighten the fuck up. His son in law is jewish too, btw.

      So yeah, that article is filled to the brim with mischaracterizations of Trump and of events throughout his career. I don’t believe the facts bear out HuffPo’s side of things.

      As for the BBC article, the first assertion is an outright lie. It says “Trump repeatedly claimed that on 11 September, 2001, there were thousands of Arab-Americans celebrating in New Jersey after two planes flew into the Twin Towers. He says such public demonstrations ‘tell you something’ about Muslims living in the US. However, there are no media reports to back up the claim.”

      Pay special attention to the last sentence “however, there are no media reports to back up that claim.” That right there is a lie. When he made the claim and was initially called a liar, he cited specific sources, not just media reports of celebrations occurring, but of police reports. He may have exaggerated the magnitude of the celebrations, but they did happen and there is evidence to support that it did.

      In fact the reporter he allegedly mocked for having a disability was being mocked for this exact reason: the guy wrote a report corroborating Trump’s claim, and was trying to walk it back when Trump refereed to it specifically to prove that he wasn’t lying, and that there were in fact reports of it happening.

      The 2nd one, surveillance of mosques, misleads the reader about what he said on this, and on the other thing references. He specified that by surveillance of mosques, there are a certain number of mosques in the U.S. that have known terrorist ties. somewhere around a hundred or so throughout the U.S., overall, and he was saying that those are a perfect example of what he would want survailed. Places with known terrorist ties that we’re aware of, but that we’re currently doing nothing about, for the most part not even watching them. Oh, and the other thing is, they included a statement that he supposedly “walked back comments about a Muslim database”. He never walked back any such comments, because he never made them in the first place. A reporter came up with the what if of “would you consider making a database to track all Muslims?” towards the end of a Q & A session that took place right after a rally. He didn’t say yes, and the next day he spelled it out and said he would do no such thing, had no interest.

      The rest is pretty accurate until #13, which isn’t inaccurate exactly, but doesn’t explain that Trump has a logical reasoning and evidence to support the claim the the 5.1% employment rate is b.s.: if someone stops looking for work, if they give up, they no longer count as unemployed. If they did, that 5.1% would be a lot higher, and they *should* count, because they *are* unemployed.

      #23 deserves a little more context, but it’s not inaccurate. It leaves out the fact that Trump’s intention/desire isn’t for either of those countries to get nukes, he’s just saying we provide them with protection, military aid, etc. and should be able to negotiate an agreement that’s fair to us, or else we walk away and leave them to fend for themselves. That’s not the goal, in fact it’s the opposite of what he’s said he would want (which is, to come to a more mutually beneficial agreement with them).

      The BBC article overall had a lot of skewed information at the beginning, the first few numbers on the list, but it also including a number of perfectly true, accurate facts.

      All of that amounts to this though: take those articles with a grain of salt, and check on their claims. Virtually the entire Huffington Post article is a slew of inaccuracies, and BBC has a number of patently false assertions.

      Short version: if you read those articles and you fact check the claims within them for yourself, it *should* be crystal clear that he’s not a racist.

      Thanks for posting the links though 😉 .

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s