General News Thread

[Kareshy]

Pendantic arguments are what I live by. If you desire otherwise you picked the wrong person.

I don't think I picked you at all. In fact I think you started this argument by replying to my reply to somebody else. So, you know, if it's a thing you'll actually do I'd actually really like you to note in the future that I don't really give a shit what your particular definitions of this and that are and you can keep any pedantry to yourself.

[2Bad]

Pendantic arguments are what I live by. If you desire otherwise you picked the wrong person.

Kay so once again we ask, what is your point in picking this fight?

[RoydGolden]

I think I've thoroughly sabotaged my credibility in this argument already (note to self: research is for more then just making Servant profiles), so I'll just drop this Slate Star Codex article on Trump's alleged "white supremacy" here to see what anybody (namely Whis) thinks about it.

Yes, it was written before the election but the guy still affirms roughly the same viewpoint here in the aftermath. And he's also Jewish, for those who think only minorities have a right to an opinion on these issues.

[Kareshy]

Kay so once again we ask, what is your point in picking this fight?

It might be possible that this was a really convoluted plot to increase the conviction by which I will in the future call Donald Trump a White Supremacist.
Cause that's totally what's happened and I like to think everyone got what they wanted out the conversation.

[Bloble]

Kay so once again we ask, what is your point in picking this fight?

Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

[2Bad]

I think I've thoroughly sabotaged my credibility in this argument already (note to self: research is for more then just making Servant profiles), so I'll just drop this Slate Star Codex article on Trump's alleged "white supremacy" here to see what anybody (namely Whis) thinks about it.

Yes, it was written before the election but the guy still affirms roughly the same viewpoint here in the aftermath. And he's also Jewish, for those who think only minorities have a right to an opinion on these issues.

I read that article months ago (also that was not before the election and in fact is about it, what are you talking about?) and my opinion that he's wrong hasn't changed. Trump is a racist and won "despite of" (because of) his racist rhetoric. Clinton won the majority of the country, and the majority of poor people, the only poor people who she didn't get the majority with were white poor people. That some minorities are incapable recognizing their own interests and sided with him does not change the man himself, it just underlines that we have a lot of idiots going to the ballot box and need shinier objects than Clinton to bring them in.

[RoydGolden]

I read that article months ago (also that was not before the election and in fact is about it, what are you talking about?) and my opinion that he's wrong hasn't changed.

I meant the election result. It was ambiguous though.

[Kareshy]

Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

"There's no point in discussing anything with me because my reason for talking with you is arguing and I will find any reason to continue arguing with you regardless of whether you prove me wrong on a particular point."
Bout right?

[RoydGolden]

I meant the election result. It was ambiguous though.

I have to admit though, If Scott couldn't convince you with his arguments that are far more clear, eloquent and well-researched then mine then I really have not a bat's chance in Hell.

Not really a point continuing this debate any further, though I still maintain that calling Trump a white supremacist muddles far more then it edifies.

[LJ3]

This is gonna be a rough four years.

i think the standing rock stuff is gonna get worse, something about more law enforcement to kick out protestors?

[RoydGolden]

"There's no point in discussing anything with me because my reason for talking with you is arguing and I will find any reason to continue arguing with you regardless of whether you prove me wrong on a particular point."
Bout right?

Arguing for fun strikes me as perfectly acceptable (if you're going to do something, you might as well enjoy it) but being willing to bow out in the face of a strong argument is invaluable. Nobody wants to debate with somebody who they feel is just regurgitating the same talking points ad nauseam regardless of what the other person says, and yes, I'm aware there's probably people here who view me in that exact way.

[Bloble]

"There's no point in discussing anything with me because my reason for talking with you is arguing and I will find any reason to continue arguing with you regardless of whether you prove me wrong on a particular point."
Bout right?

I haven't been proven wrong once.

But yes, debate for debate's sake is about right.

[Neir]

i honestly don't think he's going to last even two years

at the rate he's going the gop is going to cut their losses and install pence since he holds something in his heart for the american public at large BESIDES contempt

[Kareshy]

I haven't been proven wrong once.

But yes, debate for debate's sake is about right.

I'm willing to bet you have, but didn't accept it or moved on to the next topic as soon as possible. Probably with pedantry.

[Ace]

I have to admit though, If Scott couldn't convince you with his arguments that are far more clear, eloquent and well-researched then mine then I really have no chance at all.

Not really a point continuing this debate any further, though I still maintain that calling Trump a white supremacist muddles far more then it edifies.

if we can't call trump a white supremacist who can we call a white supremacist? this is political correctness run amok

[2Bad]

I'm willing to bet you have, but didn't accept it or moved on to the next topic as soon as possible. Probably with pedantry.

That is precisely the case yes.

[RoydGolden]

if we can't call trump a white supremacist who can we call a white supremacist? this is political correctness run amok

How about the people the term 'white supremacist' was explicitly created to describe? The KKK, Spencer and certain branches of the Alt-Right qualify.

Trump, not so much. Though he does show a worrying camaraderie with such people, I'll freely admit.

[Bloble]

I'm willing to bet you have, but didn't accept it or moved on to the next topic as soon as possible. Probably with pedantry.

Oh I've been proved wrong in the past, but tonight not once.

With pedantry.

[Kareshy]

Arguing for fun strikes me as perfectly acceptable (if you're going to do something, you might as well enjoy it) but being willing to bow out in the face of a strong argument is invaluable. Nobody wants to debate with somebody who they feel is just regurgitating the same talking points ad nauseam regardless of what the other person says, and yes, I'm aware there's probably people here who view me in that exact way.

I'm all for a good argument, and arguing can be fun. But it's like the difference between someone who plays football and then someone who only wants to win at a sport. Playing's fun, having to deal with someone who's only in it to win is always a suffering experience for everyone else. Enjoying the argument is one thing, arguing just to argue is asinine.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I've been proved wrong in the past, but tonight not once.

With pedantry.

That reinforced my point pretty strongly.

[Mcjon01]

i honestly don't think he's going to last even two years

at the rate he's going the gop is going to cut their losses and install pence since he holds something in his heart for the american public at large BESIDES contempt

Because that's what the GOP is known for, acting based on personal principles and not walking in lockstep with each other no matter what, come hell or high water.