AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Thanks bud. How quickly you use your "power" to try to bully others into aligning with you.

The point being you can't hold everyone who votes for a candidate responsible for everything about the man. I don't support Trump myself, but your emotional need to feel superior to your ideological adversaries is funny to me, especially when you display the exact same fascist tendencies you accuse others of having.

And nah, Godwin's law is pretty relevant. Everyone hates Nazis, so lets compare the thing I don't like to Nazi's, it's an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.



I do. I'm ironically mocking common usage, not it's academic meaning. It doesn't really bother me if it faux outrages anyone, or if I get a warning.

As for the rest of the post: Trump can do pretty much whatever he wants and there won't be consequences. He's even joked about this. That's what it's like when you're rich, one of the reasons why the US is so screwed up in general.

As for his supporters, I've seen many of them who can't make a single rational argument in favor of Trump. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxGJ67VXGXI this is a fun watch) .. others just think Hillary is worse, and there's reasons to think that, but I personally don't. It seems to be just cognitive dissonance because they want to believe Trump isn't that bad so they can justify voting against Hillary. If the democratic candidate was anyone else, I'd give more credence to the idea that Trump supporters must necessarily have some kind of bigoted tendencies.

Great Handsome Oppressor is not bullying you. He said "Don't do the thing" and you did exactly that because you are arrogant and pedantic. You asked for the consequences so you could publicly wallow in your punishment to prove a point.

You conflate free speech with agreement. Great Handsome Oppressor disagreed with you but he did not ban you or try to make you refrain from expressing your opinion and neither did anyone else. Same with Noffletoff. You jump in and lecture people like you have the moral high ground and then act like a victim when one person disagrees and use the same fallacies you so proudly accuse others of using. You are no better than the people you criticize and I wish you'd get off of your high horse.

Show me where I acted like a victim? If he asked me not to use the word, I'd have respected that, but because he decided to be an asshole about it, I was one back. Again, the "punishment" has bodaciously no meaning to me, it affects my life in no way.

As for the bolded part, please show me where I did this, and I will correct it. I try to make logically sound points, so if you can show me where I haven't I'd like to know so I can fix it.

Ken Bone 2016

I think the parts I quoted speak for themselves.

That's not me playing a victim. I made it very clear I don't care. That's just me pointing out hypocrisy.

Raimu, dude, no need to deliberately agitate people. That makes you an asshole. I agree with you in concept (at least in regards to not becoming just as guilty of dehumanizing/generalizing), but holy motherfuck you came off as a pretentious, arrogant twat after a few posts. I'm getting really tired of having to say variations of this statement to people.

Great Handsome Oppressor and Malum both, I understand that you feel very strongly that Trump is a terrible person in a variety of ways (and I feel you are indeed correct), but you did jump in a bit too aggressively. I know that he essentially attacked an entire major demographic (which you happen to be a part of) that has historically been treated in a horrendous fashion. I get the anger.
But at the same time, it is entirely possible that people who are unaware of certain problems straight up do not have the context to understand those problems yet. Should they have bothered to be more literate on their social climate and candidate? Hell yes, and they are at fault for inadequate preparation in that regard. However, it doesn't work to yell at them that they are just as monstrous as the person they are considering voting for. If they didn't have context, the aggression makes them averse to your argument. If they were being willfully ignorant of a problem or didn't see it as one, then they will disregard your aggressive argument anyway, meaning that they are a waste of your energy. (I'm sure you already know this on an intellectual level, since you're a smart person, but I know that I need reminders about things once I get upset, so I figured I'd try.)

This isn't to say that you should always be polite and softspoken about things that you are passionate about (human rights, honesty, competence at an important office, maintaining logical order and avoiding fallacies), but we should all be aware of how our delivery affects the argument and debate.

The forum as a whole does tend to be what an American would consider quite Liberal/Left (I don't remember if some countries have assigned different terms to the same concept), which is great on the human rights front, possibly debatable on the financial front, and potentially clouding views of what is a reasonable expectation for change. The most passionate people tend to be idealists, which is excellent for driving us to progress in the long term, but also a detriment in that just as they tend to view the positive traits and best case scenarios of their favored options as the most likely/relevant, they do also tend to only consider the negative traits and worst scenarios of the options they've turned away from. Obviously, not everyone does this in every subject, but even if you do vehemently believe that someone is fucking terrible for the office that they are running for, do remember what would actually be effective communication (granted, if civil reason fails, by all means, engage in catharsis and leave, should you feel the need and not mind the reputation).

Should I need to correct/clarify anything, do let me know, as I am massively hangry and probably ineffective at editing.

The problem with Godwins Law is that comparing people to Hitler has long since made the entire argument invalid because its so overused that now it just sounds histronic no matter how apt the comparison is. Bush was Hitler, Reagan was Hitler, Thatcher was Hitler, you have to stop bringing out the boogeyman every time you disagree with someone because people have cried wolf so many times that now that the wolf is actually here, no one will listen. The left screams Hitler, the Right screams communism, EVERY GODDAMN TIME.

My dad once duct taped a cut on my foot and it got infected.

No no noooooo you don't put the duct tape directly on the cut. That's all kinds of shit getting into the adhesive. You take a piece of clean tissue and put THAT on the cut and then duct tape it in place. Also, this had to have happened several years ago. I'd hardly call that current >:c

Oh no how do I forum.

It was like 15 years ago. He genuinely thought it would be a good replacement for a bandage haha.

It's not just that he attacked LGBT+ people. If he had only insulted one marginalized group, then while I would still find that horrible, I might possibly see why people would still vote for him. I'd still think voting for him would be fucking idiotic, but it would at least be slightly understandable, since those voters may not be able to see why it's bad to say those things about that certain group and maybe they could learn. But Trump has attacked Hispanics, Muslims, women, rape victims, POWs, and countless other groups. He's consistently demonstrated that the only people he might look out for are those like himself, hence why I said supporting him at this point demonstrates a disgusting lack of basic human empathy. If you can look at all of the groups he's shown that he would devastate while in office and not say something like, "Yeah, he went too far," then you need help.

(not referring to you in particular with that last sentence, in case that wasn't clear)

Oh, I figured it was an impersonal "you", since I hadn't given any impression that was my opinion, haha. I was just using that as an example that was specific to Great Handsome Oppressor and Malum. Most good people will be angry when they see others being treated unfairly, but they get even angrier when it happens to them too, is all.

And all of the other horrendous stuff he says/does was kind of lumped into the part where people who don't understand the problem are at fault for not bothering to actually research the candidate thoroughly enough and apply that information to social context. The people who don't think it's a problem are at fault for lacking empathy. There is a difference between trying to make sure your own house is in good shape, and actively ignoring when your neighbor's catches fire. Or causing the fire.

I get why people who feel like the current system is failing them might support trump on the basis of "At least it's something different than the shit I'm in now", but I don't think they've actually researched his positions (which haven't exactly been any kind of consistent over the election cycle, save for "the daisies mexicans/muslims/chinese") enough to actually understand the frequently selfish motivation behind them, or the complete lack of comprehension of the logistics of how to even implement a lot of this shit. And even if they did try to research the proposed policies, a lot of people wouldn't understand how to turn the raw information into something coherent and relatable to themselves. I don't mean that to sound like I think the general populace is overwhelmingly stupid, but a rather tragic number of people in the U.S. don't seem to practice literacy beyond what they absolutely need to survive their daily life and read a trashy novel.

Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.

How about that Clinton email case being reopened though?

From what I've heard, the last I think 8 comissions, including one started by Trump, couldn't find shit, so...