Without wading too deep into this; don't those huge tents on the Mall make it physically impossible for there to be the same number of people or more on the Mall as in 2009?
Printable View
Without wading too deep into this; don't those huge tents on the Mall make it physically impossible for there to be the same number of people or more on the Mall as in 2009?
I don't particularly care to be honest, but the gloating is equally sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which in the US is pretty much equated with communism right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
While I agree it's not particularly important,the press secretary flat out lying on his first day is important (and worrying).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As opposed to a recent democratic exercise were hundreds of millions in the US were able to cast a vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Let's just abolish democracy in favour of who can get the most people to march. Then we can have perpetual left-wing governments forever ...
Agreed, he should have just ignored them. The snowflakes will melt away on their own before the spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Cute how you keep calling them snowflakes. Does it make you a snowflake journalist to point out the administration is flat out lying about easily verifiable facts on their first day? That's the whole point of the press in a democracy.
You say he should have ignored them - it's not the journalists who started claiming lies. If they claim verifiable untruths you think the press should just not ask questions? And if they do the press secretary should just ignore them?
If they didn't want questions like this they shouldn't have claimed it was more crowded and use simply wrong numbers to back it up to begin with. It's not the press's fault that they did that, and I'm curious how you think it's these "snowflakes" fault. And interesting to see you "agree" the press secretary shouldn't lie by simply ignoring the questions. I'd propose not to start lying, so you also don't have to defend said lies :rolleyes:
Well, Rand has lately done his best to imitate Comical Ali, so it's not surprising that he's using idioms particularly well-liked with the far-right.
Because it is a brilliant word that sums up in a single word how these "precious" people behave. Which is why it's become a universal word and was named in the Financial Times as "Year in a Word" for last year, or the Collins Dictionary called it one of their "words of the year".Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
No, I never had a bad word to say about the journalists.Quote:
Does it make you a snowflake journalist to point out the administration is flat out lying about easily verifiable facts on their first day?
He should have ignored the numbers, the protesters, the rallies. He should have risen above it. He should have NOT LIED! I never suggested he should defend lies, I never suggested he should lie in the first place. Quite the opposite. There was no need to get into a pissing contest on who got the most numbers out as it is meaningless, it is votes that decide democracies not turnout at rallies. The silent majority who get on with their lives and trudge along to the ballot box to cast a secret ballot are infinitely more important than the snowflakes who attend rallies only to disappear afterwards.Quote:
You say he should have ignored them - it's not the journalists who started claiming lies. If they claim verifiable untruths you think the press should just not ask questions? And if they do the press secretary should just ignore them?
If they didn't want questions like this they shouldn't have claimed it was more crowded and use simply wrong numbers to back it up to begin with. It's not the press's fault that they did that, and I'm curious how you think it's these "snowflakes" fault. And interesting to see you "agree" the press secretary shouldn't lie by simply ignoring the questions. I'd propose not to start lying, so you also don't have to defend said lies :rolleyes:
Had he just ignored the numbers there would have been NO lie in the first place. Simple.
First time I've heard the Financial Times of the Dictionary as far-right. Its particularly well-liked by the right as behaving like snowflakes is particularly well-liked by the far-left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
130 million ballots were cast, most of them not for Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Your lack of insight is showing once again. Underwhelming but also unsurprising.Quote:
Because it is a brilliant word that sums up in a single word how these "precious" people behave.
Nah. On this matter, you're full of shit, unless you believe the views and the support of the governed are unimportant to the health of a democracy, which would admittedly be in keeping with your character.Quote:
it is votes that decide democracies not turnout at rallies. The silent majority who get on with their lives and trudge along to the ballot box to cast a secret ballot are infinitely more important than the snowflakes who attend rallies only to disappear afterwards.
These protests are not only legal but ~100% legitimate. They drive home the point that one of the most contentious elections in a modern western democracy, in modern memory, was determined in a way that a majority of voters have opposed for decades, leading to the victory--contrary to the popular vote and entirely in line with the goals of one of the greatest adversaries of western democracy--of a man who is not simply despicable but outright dangerous--in a global perspective--in his policy positions and in his approach to leadership.
Additionally, they reaffirm the strength of support for minority rights and gender equality in a very visible way, in the face of widespread and concerted opposition. Finally, they help mobilize and organize more citizens to actively work towards enabling social change. Hundreds of thousands of people in DC and millions of people all over the US, representing tens of millions of people, have marched for these reasons. So fuck off with your snowflake bullshit.
I am of course unsurprised to see this side of you revealing itself ever more frequently in these discussions. This is how people like you function. Had you been born in another era, you would have opposed abolitionism, supported segregation, opposed women's suffrage and firmly supported Churchill's callous killing of darkies. Today, this strain of cowardice finds other somewhat cleaner expressions, but, make no mistake--you're as wrong about this as you would have been in your opposition to MLK in a past life.
Hmmh. You are probably talking about this: https://www.ft.com/content/65708d48-...a-2b93a6856354Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You should have read that one a bit more thoroughly. Because it actually attacks your attitude you display here.*Yes, Rand.*The article talks about you. Because you're doing the very thing, right here.
Moron.
Can you summarise that? I don't have a FT subscription.
Funny. I just read it without*a subscription. Now it's behind a paywall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Basically, it says that the use of the word "snowflake" is*usually by done people who try to smear groups of*other people. All in all,*the article's author didn't think very highly of people who use the term.
I also see the term used regularly by*the far-right.
Jesus. The video of the interview the article is about is actually painful to watch.
http://time.com/4642689/kellyanne-co.../?xid=tcoshare
"Alternate facts". If they try to spin things any harder*you might just be able to use them as a helicopter engine.
Not particularly - communism is pretty much only used as hyperbole or historically. Sure they are linked but there is a pretty big difference from people who deliberately use hyperbole to the absurd degree. Each side has them - on one side you had "Obama is a Muslim Commie who is going to take away all of our guns" when in reality it was "Obama is someone who is over protective of anti-Islamic sentiment, is a socialist and wants to put judges on the bench who will have a different opinion on the 2nd amendment than the current view the SC has on it." On the left you have people calling Trump's speech 'Hitlarian' as absurd extreme. The difference between the folks on the right who go to extremes is that they don't tend to have prime time news anchor positions like Matthews does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_SnowflakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Is actually a pretty down the middle review of the term. Much of societies ills is the absurd belief that has been pushed on the latest generation that they are 'special.' If everyone is one particularly thing (pick your adjective, special, unique, beautiful, talented, important) than that one particular thing is no longer important. It is only through comparison that adjectives actually have value. With an entire generation being taught that they are somehow unique and singularly important you have a mess of absurd expectations that lead to emotional instability and concern over being 'triggered' by speech on a campus.
It's an insult, a derogatory term. Yes I was using it in a derogatory manner did you think I was trying to be flattering? Jesus Christ ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Well excuse me, but in response to an article about journalists asking the Trump administration a question and you start about snowflakes, it is logical to assume you mean either the journalists or the Trump administration, and you clearly did not mean the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
"Risen above it"? Look, it's not like journalists were hounding him why there were more people at Obama's inauguration (which frankly is meaningless anyway - plus hardly surprising considering the turnout), they, on their own, without any need for it whatsoever, started claiming it would be the biggest inauguration ever, and that there were more people. It was not just a lie, it was an unneeded lie. They could have not brought it up to begin with. The administration started talking about it, no wonder journalists have questions about needless lies like that. So yeah, if I then read you posting he should just have ignored "them", are you surprised I assume you mean he should have ignored the journalists? Plus, if his administration makes the claim to begin with, he can't ignore it or "rise above" it - or do you propose the POTUS should be fine lying about anything as long as they then rise above it and ignore the issue? I doubt that's what you meant. It's like you're pivoting this into a story where the "snowflakes" use the turnout as an important point, and the administration foolishly reacted - it was the administration who made this into a story, not your "snowflakes" or whatever. Yes, I'm sure you can find some leftie sites or news agencies that would call it actual news (maybe Aimless too, I admit I have not read his post fully yet) - but it was a non story until the administration started (already before the event) claiming it was the biggest ever. And yes, that is a story.Quote:
He should have ignored the numbers, the protesters, the rallies. He should have risen above it. He should have NOT LIED! I never suggested he should defend lies, I never suggested he should lie in the first place. Quite the opposite. There was no need to get into a pissing contest on who got the most numbers out as it is meaningless, it is votes that decide democracies not turnout at rallies. The silent majority who get on with their lives and trudge along to the ballot box to cast a secret ballot are infinitely more important than the snowflakes who attend rallies only to disappear afterwards.
Had he just ignored the numbers there would have been NO lie in the first place. Simple.
A well known fact that was well known and reported on the day after election day and was not changed by yesterday's protests one little bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Please don't tell me you're so precious that you're getting offended by the term snowflake which is designed to ridicule those so precious that they take offence at the slightest thing. Irony isn't really dead is it?Quote:
Your lack of insight is showing once again. Underwhelming but also unsurprising.
I don't I just think there are many more productive and sensible ways to express your views. Like at the ballot box or campaigning before the ballot etc. Protesting after a ballot but before any decisions are taken is absurd and stupid.Quote:
Nah. On this matter, you're full of shit, unless you believe the views and the support of the governed are unimportant to the health of a democracy, which would admittedly be in keeping with your character.
he's bad that's why I opposed him until the election. It's too late now.Quote:
These protests are not only legal but ~100% legitimate. They drive home the point that one of the most contentious elections in a modern western democracy, in modern memory, was determined in a way that a majority of voters have opposed for decades, leading to the victory--contrary to the popular vote and entirely in line with the goals of one of the greatest adversaries of western democracy--of a man who is not simply despicable but outright dangerous--in a global perspective--in his policy positions and in his approach to leadership.
No it did not. Firstly it was a meaningless morass of a variety of different protests rather than being concentrated specifically on eg women's rights etcQuote:
Additionally, they reaffirm the strength of support for minority rights and gender equality in a very visible way, in the face of widespread and concerted opposition.
Secondly if that's all the support that there is for minority rights etc then it's a derisory turnout.
Had these ignorant mappers had the ingenious idea of campaigning before the election maybe now Hillary would be President. Then again maybe if Hillary had bothered to campaign she would be President too ...Quote:
Finally, they help mobilize and organize more citizens to actively work towards enabling social change. Hundreds of thousands of people in DC and millions of people all over the US, representing tens of millions of people, have marched for these reasons. So fuck off with your snowflake bullshit.
Bullfuckingshit.Quote:
I am of course unsurprised to see this side of you revealing itself ever more frequently in these discussions. This is how people like you function. Had you been born in another era, you would have opposed abolitionism, supported segregation, opposed women's suffrage and firmly supported Churchill's callous killing of darkies. Today, this strain of cowardice finds other somewhat cleaner expressions, but, make no mistake--you're as wrong about this as you would have been in your opposition to MLK in a past life.
I must have missed the part were MLK famously took part in a march with lots of other unrelated people marching for a variety of differing reasons but primarily to protest an election result he didn't like.
Maybe instead of casting ignorant aspersions or making out like everyone who doesn't bow down to noisy protesters is against minority rights you should look at minority rights issues that have come up in all our time here. I've always come on the side of liberty. I've long backed eg Gay Marriage and other modern issues before they were popular or the law. So your claim is a lie.
I clearly wasn't talking about journalists either. Why would journalists melt away by the spring? Journalists are a constant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I was talking about the protests and rallies that were getting spoken about.
If he'd risen above the numbers game then none of what you find objectionable wouldn't have happened. I agree that lying to journalists is a big deal.Quote:
"Risen above it"? Look, it's not like journalists were hounding him why there were more people at Obama's inauguration (which frankly is meaningless anyway - plus hardly surprising considering the turnout), they, on their own, without any need for it whatsoever, started claiming it would be the biggest inauguration ever, and that there were more people. It was not just a lie, it was an unneeded lie. They could have not brought it up to begin with. The administration started talking about it, no wonder journalists have questions about needless lies like that. So yeah, if I then read you posting he should just have ignored "them", are you surprised I assume you mean he should have ignored the journalists? Plus, if his administration makes the claim to begin with, he can't ignore it or "rise above" it - or do you propose the POTUS should be fine lying about anything as long as they then rise above it and ignore the issue? I doubt that's what you meant. It's like you're pivoting this into a story where the "snowflakes" use the turnout as an important point, and the administration foolishly reacted - it was the administration who made this into a story, not your "snowflakes" or whatever. Yes, I'm sure you can find some leftie sites or news agencies that would call it actual news (maybe Aimless too, I admit I have not read his post fully yet) - but it was a non story until the administration started (already before the event) claiming it was the biggest ever. And yes, that is a story.
So what's your point? You asked who cares, I answered that very many people do, you replied with some bullshit about hundreds of millions of people being able to vote in an election that saw 130 million ballots cast. So what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
*shrug* You're just demonstrating the depth and breadth of your ignorance. It's not offensive so much as it is stupid and vicariously embarrassing. Given the pansy whining that pours from your keyboard whenever your burgeoning alt-right tendencies or your bottomless ignorance of the EU are brought up I don't believe it's wise of you to take this approach to criticising others.Quote:
Please don't tell me you're so precious that you're getting offended by the term snowflake which is designed to ridicule those so precious that they take offence at the slightest thing. Irony isn't really dead is it?
Why?Quote:
I don't I just think there are many more productive and sensible ways to express your views. Like at the ballot box or campaigning before the ballot etc. Protesting after a ballot but before any decisions are taken is absurd and stupid.
Why is it absurd?
Why is it stupid?
Why?Quote:
he's bad that's why I opposed him until the election. It's too late now.
Why is it too late now?
Do you believe that democracy can only be done on election day?
You may not have realized this--perhaps you've been living under a rock with your brain shut off for the past few decades of your life?--but most of these issues are interlinked just as the opposition to--or disregard for--minority and womens' rights are interlinked, a fact that has been amply demonstrated most recently during the election campaign.Quote:
No it did not. Firstly it was a meaningless morass of a variety of different protests rather than being concentrated specifically on eg women's rights etc
Do you believe that the people that end up attending a massive protest are the only ones who support minority rights and, if so, are you some kind of halfwit? Serious questions.Quote:
Secondly if that's all the support that there is for minority rights etc then it's a derisory turnout.
Bullshit on both counts. Is that some sort of fancy neo-alt-right-light kool-aid you've been drinking?Quote:
Had these ignorant mappers had the ingenious idea of campaigning before the election maybe now Hillary would be President. Then again maybe if Hillary had bothered to campaign she would be President too ...
Nah. Just as you're doing now, and for similar reasons, you'd have derided and opposed the precious snowflakes who fought--loudly, messily--for suffrage, against segregation, against slavery and for equal treatment. You'd have considered the protests to be stupid or at least unseemly, if not harmful. You'd have questioned the legitimacy of opposing the democratically expressed will of society through such illegitimate protests. Your support for gay marriage is irrelevant because its time had already nearly arrived by the time you were old enough to have a considered opinion.Quote:
I must have missed the part were MLK famously took part in a march with lots of other unrelated people marching for a variety of differing reasons but primarily to protest an election result he didn't like.
Maybe instead of casting ignorant aspersions or making out like everyone who doesn't bow down to noisy protesters is against minority rights you should look at minority rights issues that have come up in all our time here. I've always come on the side of liberty. I've long backed eg Gay Marriage and other modern issues before they were popular or the law. So your claim is a lie.
It's amazing how quickly your views on the importance of this kind of behavior turns around when it's done by your ideological colleagues. You weren't saying things like this when it was the Tea Party marching and rallying. Then you were afraid of militias and domestic terrorism, and seeing the possibility of right-wing assassination when a lone crazy shot a Dem Representative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well yes. Governance is defined as the exercise of sovereignty, in a democracy sovereignty is held by the people, and it is exercised in the act of voting (to determine representatives and then through the actions of those representatives also often determined by acts of voting). Protests and rallies, inspiring as you might find them (provided they agree with you, threatening as you might find them if they don't) are not sovereign actions. There's no governance component anywhere. Neither the acts of speaking nor assembling are acts of democracy. They happen with and without any trace of democracy in the governing system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Never a good sign when you start acting like GGT, Aimless.Quote:
You may not have realized this--perhaps you've been living under a rock with your brain shut off for the past few decades of your life?--but most of these issues are interlinked just as the opposition to--or disregard for--minority and womens' rights are interlinked, a fact that has been amply demonstrated most recently during the election campaign.
I was? I'd like to see those posts, it would be enlightening to see if and how my views on this have changed in the past eight years, blink of an eye really. I don't recall what the protests were specifically about so you'll have to jog my memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Of course you'll have to agree with me that the Tea Party people are much more likely to form armed militias than your typical mob of liberal leftie snowflakes. You'll have to agree with me on that Fuzzy because it would be absurd to believe anything else.
My point is that voting trumps temper tantrum marches when the election doesn't go your way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I have never whined that I can think of. Even when you post outright lies about me I just call it out, I don't whine.Quote:
*shrug* You're just demonstrating the depth and breadth of your ignorance. It's not offensive so much as it is stupid and vicariously embarrassing. Given the pansy whining that pours from your keyboard whenever your burgeoning alt-right tendencies or your bottomless ignorance of the EU are brought up I don't believe it's wise of you to take this approach to criticising others.
Same question six ways basically. Democratic elections are done on election day yes.Quote:
Why?
Why is it absurd?
Why is it stupid?
Why?
Why is it too late now?
Do you believe that democracy can only be done on election day?
Not really.Quote:
You may not have realized this--perhaps you've been living under a rock with your brain shut off for the past few decades of your life?--but most of these issues are interlinked just as the opposition to--or disregard for--minority and womens' rights are interlinked, a fact that has been amply demonstrated most recently during the election campaign.
No I clearly don't, as I support minority rights but wouldn't attend one of those things. You mistakenly claimed that this demonstrates support - that is what I take issue with, support is mostly silent and unless there's a specific protest underway for something specific (see: suffragettes, MLK etc) then these mass demonstrations demonstrate nothing other than who has nothing better to do that day and wants to protest.Quote:
Do you believe that the people that end up attending a massive protest are the only ones who support minority rights and, if so, are you some kind of halfwit? Serious questions.
You don't think it's possible to have swung the states she lost with some campaigning. Interesting idea.Quote:
Bullshit on both counts. Is that some sort of fancy neo-alt-right-light kool-aid you've been drinking?
No because they were fighting FOR something and not just AGAINST an election result. One is relevant, the other is puerile.Quote:
Nah. Just as you're doing now, and for similar reasons, you'd have derided and opposed the precious snowflakes who fought--loudly, messily--for suffrage, against segregation, against slavery and for equal treatment. You'd have considered the protests to be stupid or at least unseemly, if not harmful. You'd have questioned the legitimacy of opposing the democratically expressed will of society through such illegitimate protests. Your support for gay marriage is irrelevant because its time had already nearly arrived by the time you were old enough to have a considered opinion.
As for the idea its time had nearly arrived that's interesting when it took over two decades from when I became interested in politics to when it became legalised.
Define armed. It'd think professional agitators within a mob of snowflakes would be the most likely to cause violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Go digging, we spent years and several dozen threads (or more) talking about the Tea Party, I'm not sifting through all of it (and GGT's posts) again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I don't agree with anything of the sort. Why would it be absurd to think something else? Empiricism certainly isn't on the side of your belief, since neither side has had a march turn into an armed militia.Quote:
Of course you'll have to agree with me that the Tea Party people are much more likely to form armed militias than your typical mob of liberal leftie snowflakes. You'll have to agree with me on that Fuzzy because it would be absurd to believe anything else.
*shrug* I did and couldn't find the posts you were remembering or Dreadmembering so absent evidence I have to decide whether or not to just take your word for it or dismiss your claim as being unfounded. Let's just say I take your word for it and that my views have developed over the past 5-8 years without fussing about the particulars of the different movements.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Okay then let's just pretend they're equally likely to form armed militias.Quote:
I don't agree with anything of the sort. Why would it be absurd to think something else? Empiricism certainly isn't on the side of your belief, since neither side has had a march turn into an armed militia.
Alt-right memes notwithstanding, a more interesting definition would be the definition of "militia" rather than the definition of "armed". In the context of militias we typically think of firearms rather thanQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/...-bear-arms.jpg
Of course maybe your mind works differently.
Is someone carrying and willing to use a Molotov Cocktail armed in your eyes?
Given all the incredibly stupid shit Republicans and the right in general have gotten themselves worked up about over the years, up to and including believing that people saying 'happy holidays' instead of 'happy christmas' represented some kind of vast anti-christian conspiracy, I don't think it's really in any position to accuse anyone of being "easily offended snowflakes".
The words "beam", "eye" and "cast out of thine own" spring to mind.
Considering I couldn't give less of a monkey's arse if someone says Happy Holidays and think that Christians can be pretentious snowflakes who can go fudge themselves if they think there's a conspiracy involved ... I think I'm pretty safe at being consistent here.
Sure, just not particularly well compared to someone carrying a good gun. Any "Militia" that relies exclusively on molotov cocktails is probably better termed an "unfortunate mistake" than a "militia".Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't see why you're hung up on the term militia. Violence does not just come from militias in the 21st century.