Democrats Move to Ensure No More AOCs

kookbreaker said:
This is not only pathetic but massively dissapointing.

I don't often agree (politically) with theprestige and Zigg but I did see them, along with Brainster, as the more thoughtful conservative posters on this board. Granted, when you have one-line bots, full Kool-Aid swallowing Trumpians, and posters more concerned with hating the entire board than making their point its not a hard field to stand out it. Nontheless, I would read their posts and sometimes they would have a point without doing any disingenuous gameplaying. I wouldn't necessarily agree with their points, but they were at least honestly and thoughtfully made.

I have notice their quality of posting has gone downhill of late, but hey, everyone has bad seasons. Not a sign of an issue.

But today? This thread? Wow. This is nothing more than gameplaying, technicalities, dodgerolls and dishonest debating that is absolutely unworthy of the people who were once at least able to make me think about my position. Now they are just playing for internet points and pathetic pwnage.

I'm done here. I hope one or two of these grows a sense of shame and actually realizes what they are defending, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
"This is America'
 
theprestige said:
Obviously people can and do say things that are wrong all the time. It's wrong to say that Omar should abdicate her responsibility to her constituents in order to solve problems in some other country. But one can certainly say this. More to my point: One can say this without it being a racist thing to say.
Click to expand...

Following your example, one could call all Republicans kiddie fiddlers without claiming that they are pedophiles.

Where do you draw the line?
 
kookbreaker said:
This is not only pathetic but massively dissapointing.

I don't often agree (politically) with theprestige and Zigg but I did see them, along with Brainster, as the more thoughtful conservative posters on this board. Granted, when you have one-line bots, full Kool-Aid swallowing Trumpians, and posters more concerned with hating the entire board than making their point its not a hard field to stand out it. Nontheless, I would read their posts and sometimes they would have a point without doing any disingenuous gameplaying. I wouldn't necessarily agree with their points, but they were at least honestly and thoughtfully made.

I have notice their quality of posting has gone downhill of late, but hey, everyone has bad seasons. Not a sign of an issue.

But today? This thread? Wow. This is nothing more than gameplaying, technicalities, dodgerolls and dishonest debating that is absolutely unworthy of the people who were once at least able to make me think about my position. Now they are just playing for internet points and pathetic pwnage.

I'm done here. I hope one or two of these grows a sense of shame and actually realizes what they are defending, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

This has been my perspective as well. Since 2016 it has been happening more and more to the point that the only one still worth engaging is Brainster.
 
theprestige said:
Even Joe is backing away from the claim that it's "according to Hoyle" racism.
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. Again debate honestly before you start making your pleas for a "civil debate."

I used the "not technically" modifier (very clearly) in reference to a hypothetical reference to a person from France (using your example) as something that would be bigoted, but not technically racism.

I made it clear beyond clear that

A) the distinction was merely a meaningless bit of semantic correctness that affected no overall point and

B) that Trump's statement to the four Congresswomen were clearly and beyond unequivocally racist.

I have "walked back" from nothing and you know it very well.

I will now be the 3rd poster minimum to state how disheartening it is to see one of the very few conservative posters that I at least traditionally extended the courtesy of respecting their argumentatives to rapidly descending into everything short of full on trolling.

I will have a "civil debate" with you as soon as you show you are willing or capable of one. I would very much like to see that day again. More and more I doubt I will.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I did no such thing. Again debate honestly before you start making your pleas for a "civil debate."

I refer to a hypothetical reference to a person from France (using your example) as something that would be bigoted, but not technically racism.

I made it clear beyond clear that

A) the distinction was merely a meaningless bit of semantic correctness that affected no overall point and

B) that Trump's statement to the four Congresswomen were clearly and beyond unequivocally racist.

I have "walked back" from nothing and you know it very well.

I will now be the 3rd poster minimum to state how disheartening it is to see one of the very few conservative posters that I at least traditionally extended the courtesy of respecting their argumentatives to rapidly descending into everything short of full on trolling.

I will have a "civil debate" with you as soon as you show you are willing or capable of one. I would very much like to see that day again. More and more I doubt I will.
Click to expand...

Would you call this sort of thing deplorable shenanigans?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I will have a "civil debate" with you as soon as you show you are willing or capable of one. I would very much like to see that day again. More and more I doubt I will.
Click to expand...

Nothing theprestige said here was uncivil. You find his argument beyond the pale, but that isn't what "civil debate" means. One can have an uncivil debate about trivial differences well within any bounds of acceptability. It isn't "uncivil debate" which you are unwilling to have. Rather, you want some positions to be simply taboo.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nothing theprestige said here was uncivil. You find his argument beyond the pale, but that isn't what "civil debate" means. One can have an uncivil debate about trivial differences well within any bounds of acceptability. It isn't "civil debate" which you are unwilling to have. Rather, you want some positions to be simply taboo.
Click to expand...

If you believe civility can be completely divorced from honesty, that is both disheartening and oddly clarifying.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If you believe civility can be completely divorced from honesty, that is both disheartening and oddly clarifying.
Click to expand...

If theprestige makes an incorrect claim about your position, you correct him, and he persists in portraying your position incorrectly, that's grounds for claiming dishonesty. But otherwise, people deserve the benefit of the doubt that they made an honest mistake. For example, I will give you the benefit of the doubt about being mistaken about my own position honesty.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
All this benefit of the doubt has never been afforded to any Democrat, at least as far as I am aware off.
Click to expand...

When I debate with a Democrat here, I try to do so. Forum rules explicitly demand a different standard of treatment for fellow members than for nonmembers.
 
Ziggurat said:
If theprestige makes an incorrect claim about your position, you correct him, and he persists in portraying your position incorrectly, that's grounds for claiming dishonesty. But otherwise, people deserve the benefit of the doubt that they made an honest mistake. For example, I will give you the benefit of the doubt about being mistaken about my own position honesty.
Click to expand...

Why the **** do conservatives always require each incident to be taken completely and entirely in it's own context? That's not how it works. There is a body of work to each and every poster, politician, and person. The benefit of the doubt has sailed so long ago that it's about to come back around on the horizon.
 
plague311 said:
Why the **** do conservatives always require each incident to be taken completely and entirely in it's own context? That's not how it works. There is a body of work to each and every poster, politician, and person. The benefit of the doubt has sailed so long ago that it's about to come back around on the horizon.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about body of work, there are many, many posters here guilty of far worse incivility on a regular basis than theprestige. This isn't about incivility. It's an attempt to create a taboo about what positions are allowed to even be voiced. And the old formula of "I used to respect Republicans but now they've gone too far" is something I've been experiencing of this forum since the early days of GW Bush. Just like every previous Republican president gets reformed in retrospect in order to malign the current one. If you've never noticed it play out before, you might get tricked, but it's all a sham.
 
You got that wrong, Zig: past Republican Presidents don't get reformed. It just becomes apparent how much the party moves to the right every time it gets into power.
That doesn't make the old ones better, it just illustrates how much worse the new ones are.

Trump is clearly the most unsuitable person to ever hold a higher office, let alone the Presidency. Even if Bush got more Americans killed.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Following your example, one could call all Republicans kiddie fiddlers without claiming that they are pedophiles.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that follows. Those two terms are pretty synonymous.

On the other hand, "we don't want you here if you hate us so much" is very much *not* synonymous with "we don't want you here if you're brown".

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
Between things that are synonymous and things that are not, for starters.
 
theprestige said:
Between things that are synonymous and things that are not, for starters.
Click to expand...

I am talking about when racists words and racist actions are allowed to be considered racists.
It seems by your requirements that this can never happen as long as one person disagrees.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I did no such thing. Again debate honestly before you start making your pleas for a "civil debate."

I used the "not technically" modifier (very clearly) in reference to a hypothetical reference to a person from France (using your example) as something that would be bigoted, but not technically racism.

I made it clear beyond clear that

A) the distinction was merely a meaningless bit of semantic correctness that affected no overall point and

B) that Trump's statement to the four Congresswomen were clearly and beyond unequivocally racist.

I have "walked back" from nothing and you know it very well.

I will now be the 3rd poster minimum to state how disheartening it is to see one of the very few conservative posters that I at least traditionally extended the courtesy of respecting their argumentatives to rapidly descending into everything short of full on trolling.

I will have a "civil debate" with you as soon as you show you are willing or capable of one. I would very much like to see that day again. More and more I doubt I will.
Click to expand...
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. Based on this correction, here is my honest and civil understanding of your argument:

If you tell a French-American to go back to their country of origin if they hate America so much, that is not racist. But if you say the exact same thing to a Somali-American, it's racism.

Is this the correct understanding of your argument?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You got that wrong, Zig: past Republican Presidents don't get reformed. It just becomes apparent how much the party moves to the right every time it gets into power.
That doesn't make the old ones better, it just illustrates how much worse the new ones are.
Click to expand...

That's the claim, but it's pretty weak. What's the most right-wing thing Trump has done? Probably his stance on immigration. Yet he's not that far to the right of where Bill Clinton was on the issue. The party that has moved dramatically is the Democrats, to the left. And AOC is a prime example of that. Democrats used to have to at least pretend to oppose illegal immigration.

Trump is clearly the most unsuitable person to ever hold a higher office, let alone the Presidency. Even if Bush got more Americans killed.
Click to expand...

The qualities which supposedly make Trump uniquely unsuited don't really have much to do with how right wing he is. And I remember how Reagan was going to get us all killed in a nuclear war with the Soviets. I also remember Paul Krugman saying the stock market would never recover from Trump's election. I don't think most people on the left have even the slightest clue about how to evaluate Trump objectively.
 
The question I really have is, have any of these women actually said they hate America? Can you not be critical of something and still not hate it? Isn't that the literal definition of false dichotomy? You either like everything about it, and never naysay it or you have to pack up your **** and get the **** out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom