Jump to content
SkylabPatel

Election advice

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

@Selene Gregoire thanks for the out-of-the-blue mansplaining.

I'm very confused by your need to be aggressively pedantic. Carry on.

Probably because I've done neither. I was making a point that you apparently don't get. 

Now that you've made a personal attack on me, I'm dropping it. It's not worth being insulted over.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

ETA: Yeah, that kind of torqued me off. What makes you think I do not know the difference between stupid and ignorant? Hm? What have I said that would indicate I don't? That I said it was both stupid and ignorant? It is both. That I didn't stand up and applaud your original correction as incredible insight? Back off.

Consider it done. Permanently.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

No, none of those things. It’s because he doesn’t deal in facts. The source of an article should always be considered.

This is why political discussions are banned.

Actually, he relies primarily on facts, and he usually provides the sources to, you know, credible research.  For instance,

AOC:  "ZOMG, TRUMP IS PUTTING CHILDREN IN CAGES AND MAKING THEM DRINK FROM TOILETS!!!"  (holds up picture of kids in cage)

Shapiro:  "Actually, that picture is from 2015, when Obama was putting kids in "cages".  Here's a link.  Why didn't you and the media go ballistic about it back then?  Oh, and they are not drinking from toilets.  The water fountain is on top of the commode in an all-in-one unit, which saves plumbing."

Rachel Maddow:  "Wow, that just happened, Shapiro is such a misogynistic racist".

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Probably because I've done neither. I was making a point that you apparently don't get. 

Now that you've made a personal attack on me, I'm dropping it. It's not worth being insulted over.

>>>I was making a point that you apparently don't get. <<< several times, in a very mansplaining, pedantic, aggressive way. That.

As I said in my ETA to the comment: You have been coming at me, for some unknown reason, because you think I don't "get" the difference between stupid and ignorant. I have given no indication that I do not, and you are being insulting to my intelligence. These lectures are out of the blue, and also rather strange since I specifically addressed just those differences in a short conversation with Beth, in this very thread. Details. I will pit my understanding, vocabulary and IQ against anyone in this Forum. Don't let the usual lighthearted quipping fool you otherwise.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

You seem to have ignored the part where he routinely offers to debate people who are not "unprepared college kids" - and they decline because they know they will lose.  He routinely has people from the other side of the aisle on his show to debate, and they do so civilly and rationally.

Guy, I didn’t ignore a thing. Why would a US congresswoman “debate” anyone outside of the house floor? When do members of Congress ever debate people?

He also routinely gets “shredded”. my favorite is where he turned into a big baby on BBC news calling Andrew Neil a leftist. Ummm Andrew Neil is definitely a conservative. He’s got a lot of greatest hits of getting “shredded” himself.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Guy, I didn’t ignore a thing. Why would a US congresswoman “debate” anyone outside of the house floor? When do members of Congress ever debate people?

He also routinely gets “shredded”. my favorite is where he turned into a big baby on BBC news calling Andrew Neil a leftist. Ummm Andrew Neil is definitely a conservative. He’s got a lot of greatest hits of getting “shredded” himself.

 

Ahh so because she's in the Congress defending her positions against mere mortals is beneath her.  Got it.  Of course, Ted Cruz, a Senator (a much more prestigious offer than Representative) offered to debate Alyssa Milano, so maybe it's just AOC after all?

Oh, and you may want to watch the clip again.  He didn't call Neil a "leftist", he questioned whether he was an objective journalist or an opinion journalist.  And, he admitted he got "destroyed" because he wasn't prepared.  And he apologized. 

Curious, would it be OK for me to start a post to you with "Girl" or "Lady" or some such?  Asking for a friend, because he thinks it would be denounced as sexist.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Ahh so because she's in the Congress defending her positions against mere mortals is beneath her.  Got it.  Of course, Ted Cruz, a Senator (a much more prestigious offer than Representative) offered to debate Alyssa Milano, so maybe it's just AOC after all?

Oh, and you may want to watch the clip again.  He didn't call Neil a "leftist", he questioned whether he was an objective journalist or an opinion journalist.  And, he admitted he got "destroyed" because he wasn't prepared.  And he apologized. 

Curious, would it be OK for me to start a post to you with "Girl" or "Lady" or some such?  Asking for a friend, because he thinks it would be denounced as sexist.

 

414B0151-C8BE-4359-AD17-DAF6D35C168C.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

>>>I was making a point that you apparently don't get. <<< several times, in a very mansplaining, pedantic, aggressive way. That.

As I said in my ETA to the comment: You have been coming at me, for some unknown reason, because you think I don't "get" the difference between stupid and ignorant. I have given no indication that I do not, and you are being insulting to my intelligence. These lectures are out of the blue, and also rather strange since I specifically addressed just those differences in a short conversation with Beth, in this very thread. Details. I will pit my understanding, vocabulary and IQ against anyone in this Forum. Don't let the usual lighthearted quipping fool you otherwise.

I posted twice, not several times. Then you went off on me and accused me of things I haven't done. I haven't targeted you as you're trying to imply. I can't see Beth's posts. 

Other than to say the above, you'll get no further dispute from me. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I posted twice, not several times. Then you went off on me and accused me of things I haven't done. I haven't targeted you as you're trying to imply. I can't see Beth's posts. 

Other than to say the above, you'll get no further dispute from me. 

Whatever, dude. At least you didn't mansplain the difference between twice and several, so again, thank you? Didn't you say above that you were going to back off, permanently? Like that was some kind of threat? It isn't a threat. I really don't care. Mute me, along with apparently Beth. Some people, apparently you are in that group, cannot admit to being wrong, even when it is right in front of you. I have explained exactly what was mansplaining, aggressive and pedantic. You have not addressed any of that, other to say you were making a point that apparently I did not get. (Which just solidifies what I was saying.) I'm not implying anything; you called me out, with quotes, specifically targeting me.

So is this the actual no further dispute from you? Because it wasn't the previous flounce that you were permanently backing off. Or maybe it will be like the several other threads where I've read how you are LEAVING, the thread, the Forum, the world? And so everyone comes in and says, "Noooo! Don't go!" Yeah, no. Do whatever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

I have my opinions on the election, but why are we discussing it on the forum? I seems totally off topic relative to SL.

How is this topic relative (or relevant) to SL?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Actually, he relies primarily on facts, and he usually provides the sources to, you know, credible research.

Only if it suits him. He likes to overlook details in the same way others do, when it does not suit his narrative.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 hours since I put my cross in a box and the sky hasn't fallen in, even got money out the hole in the wall. I didn't vote for Boris. I didn't not vote for Boris. I voted for a local gal who done good in my locality. It'll all work out in the end no doubt, and the price of beer will go up next budget day. Its business as usual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

How is this topic relative (or relevant) to SL?

Only relevance is one must have 500 posts to have a custom signature label. It is mind numbingly boring, but those are the rules. I would be thrilled if the rules did not encourage spam posting, but they do.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

How is this topic relative (or relevant) to SL?

 

Shhh! Shhhh! It’s arbitrarily enforced!!! Shhh!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, janetosilio said:

Shhh! Shhhh! It’s arbitrarily enforced!!! Shhh!

Yes, but I can't help myself from pointing out the hypocrisy when people get all uppity about a rule when they frequently break the same rule...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

I didn't say I don't ever peek. 

To be fair, I at one point had you hidden as well, but I peeked so often I just unhid you. 😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beth Macbain said:

Yes, but I can't help myself from pointing out the hypocrisy when people get all uppity about a rule when they frequently break the same rule...

I know, but it’s kind of a thing here.

Besides....fun little games posts are fun and don’t upset anyone...so breaking the rules for that is ok for right, because it’s harmless fun...right? Right!?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Okay, so apparently we don't all think Nazis are bad.

RANT MODE!!!! I'm offended by the stereotype that Nazis are bad. This is just stupidly ignorant over-generalization. Think of the children!  :::thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers:::

 

Godwins-Law-and-Kitler-a-hybrid-image-macro-combining-the-Hitler-Kitty-internet.png

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

I know, but it’s kind of a thing here.

Besides....fun little games posts are fun and don’t upset anyone...so breaking the rules for that is ok for right, because it’s harmless fun...right? Right!?

Oh, I don't want them taken down! I want them to continue, along with technically OT threads like this because they're harmless fun as well. At least to me they are! 😝

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...