Jump to content

"A sea of pink-hatted protesters"

Wahrheit

By Wahrheit
in General

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Aerion Brightflame Newbie

Aerion Brightflame

Posted
Posted

Does it matter if it's grandstanding though?

 

Even if change is hard to come by, which it usually is given that the institutions that govern change are often run by the people with the least incentive to advocate for it, and institutuonal change is often hard to achieve, nothing is done by doing nothing. Overly optimistic liberals campaigning for issues they have barely form of resonance with thinking they change the world? Or bitter hardened old cynics who've seen some s***? Which does it matter?

 

Apathy, whilst understandable when you are in a s*** situation living paycheck to paycheck, is the bane of progress and of change. If one is simply resigned to the way things are, one becomes part of the problem. I know it's hypocritical of me, a middle class white guy whose worked maybe 5 days of labour in his life, to talk about s*** as if it is easy, but I truly believe that change is driven by the desire to change things. I will say I make an effort to try and understand where these issues arise from, even if I can't understand what it feels like .

 

It's why I hate the complaint about 'Oh they have no idea how the world works' - That's not the point. They want to change the world, to make it a better place, to push it to better places. Why the f*** do we want to beat that s*** out of people and create another generation of people ground down by insitutions and such? Why isn't the desire to change the world something we should praise, even if it's only fixing things that are minor on the scale of things?

 

Especially in the US, a nation founded by a bunch of people telling the powerful to f*** off, and having a strong enough conviction in those ideals to stand by it inspite of the difficulties around it.

 

Even if it's about s*** that we find despicable, or insane, passion in ones convictions is a trait to be admired, not deflated. Who cares if liberals are pushing for some crazy 'safe space' or outlawing swear words on the ground of being , or the tea party's convictions are about stoning the gays, if they truly believe in the cause it's admirable. And that's what I think this march is, 2.5 million people around the globe, marching for there convictions in an issue.

 

I just hate that idealism is viewed as a negative relative to pragmatism. Pragmatism is certaintly more realistic, but life would be boring if we only ever seek to live in the realms of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aerion Brightflame Newbie

Aerion Brightflame

Posted
Posted

They did, and in acting upon it they were in the wrong because they resorted to genocide to achieve there ideals.

 

But if they had strength in their convictions good for them. It remains an admirable trait regardless of the f***ed up cause it may be for.

 

And yes, I did just say a favourable thing about the Nazi's. Because hilariously even terrible people and regimes can have admirable qualities. Whilst I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, even if you despise the things Hitler did one can admire his skills as an orator say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aerion Brightflame Newbie

Aerion Brightflame

Posted
Posted

Actually no, I'm not letting that one go;

 

Nazis believed in their cause

 

I don't think this is an actual counter argument. I think it's an attempted guilt trip based upon logic fallacy instead, and that is just lazy.

 

Is it trying to say that belief in a cause makes one comparable to the Nazi's and thus similar levels of awful? I hope not, because that's too vague, and too general to be valid. It would imply anyone whose ever belived in a political cause (Which I'd say is applicable to everyone here) is comparable to the Nazi's.

 

Does it talk about why apathy isn't bane to change? Why having a desire to bring about change is a bad thing? Does it gloss over the fact that the initial post even talks about 'Even if it's a cause we find stupid or disgusting conviction is admirable'. I'll take a guess that every 'evil' person or group has had conviction in there belief because people generally don't do sheet knowingly aware that they are wrong.

 

It doesn't explain the issue as to why pragmatism is better than idealism, because the genocide and actions of the Nazi's can arise from both schools of thought.

 

I don't think it addresses anything, or does anything that actually works as an argument. I think it just goes;

Nazi's were bad

Nazi's believed in what they were doing

Ergo believing in what you are doing is bad.

 

Which remains as much a logical fallacy as last time I pointed it out.

 

If that wasn't the point you tried to make, then please elaborate and provide clarity, as you should have done at the start instead of making a low effort generic reponse that I don't feel actually made a meaningful point. I apologise for being direct about this, but those sorts of posts irritate me, and I'd love to see you improve upon them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

...after reading through, i have little intention of diving in headfirst (at least not fully), so to start with, just the tip:

 

 

  • i'm glad they have an opportunity to let the salt out. it's not healthy, for any party, to keep themselves bottled up, and if this let's them go back home feeling fulfilled, then all the better for them. as the only trump supporter among my fiends and family (or at least the only one not scared to admit it), i've seen how badly some people have taken it, and while i enjoyed being a dick about it the first few days, i really do think the people who are this upset about his victory, deserve some time to just let their frustration out, in a unified and (hopefully) nonviolent manner. america's all about freedom of speech and assembly, so this parade, while supporting of a cause that i'm literally laughing in my seat at, deserves it's time to take flight and peter out.

 

  • why exactly is "vowing to go against trump" a main topic at what is claimed to be a women's rally though? and what about that tape got anybody mad? there was literally nothing bad about it, it was basic banter, cringe inducing, but by no means out of the park, i hear and say worse things almost daily about races, genders, and people in general, than anything he said on that tape. 

 

  • onto clinton's tweet; did she think she was speaking for all women? women are not a monolith, and the very fact that this protest is so anti-trump proves as much. women didn't exactly all vote hillary, in other words, the very premise of this anti-trump women's march is excluding women off rip. if they were really about women, then this march would not have the underlying requisite of being against trump. if this march were about women, and soley about women, then it would be open to all women, for all platforms to be discussed. in short, this is an anti trump march, not a women's rights march, (no less popular, but they should at least be honest with the title of the march) trump hates women no more than i do, and as far as i know, i love women,

 

  • winter also made one hell of a good point earlier, though it was relatively overshadowed by... eager dissent, why exactly, was this "women's march" so focused solely on trump? if they're protesting for women's rights, then why exactly were they ignoring the embassies of the places that literally condone the rape and beating of women under religious laws? a women's march if it's truly for all women's rights, and not just Hillary supporters who lost, would be focused not only on perceived threats from one front, but clear and present dangers from other such fronts, such as those of Shari'a law. 

edit: side note, women do have the same rights as men, if not more (and quite a bit more "privileges" as well), and if anybody knows about some right of men that they don't have, please inform me, because the comment:

"John Fischer, a 34-year-old locksmith from Grand Rapids, Mich., drove more than nine hours with his wife, Kara Eagle.

I’m here to support my wife,” said Fischer. “I don’t care who you are, women impact your life, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t have the same rights as men.”"

always confuses me.

 

also this comment:

"Cynthia English, a 61-year-old Jamaican American living in Florida, said she wanted the new president to know that women will be fighting during his presidency to ensure that the country and laws treat them equally. She was with her daughter and marching for her two granddaughters in the hope that no future president feels comfortable making lewd comments about women."

people can make make lewd/ dirty jokes about whomever they damn well please, and be they president or not, if you don't like it, learn to suck it up. like a good woman

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

If you think that this march was just about "being upset about a victory," you don't really understand.

 

P0HTe4k.png

 

 

to start with, i assume you want a further explanation, but it's rather difficult to grasp the meaning when you simply underline words that make perfect sense.

 

basic banter is basic, if it rubs you wrong, hop off the bus, all's fair there.

 

yes, and i say that proudly. you know why? because i'm a dick to everyone. man or woman, i am as brutal to one as i am to the other, i also respect women as much as i disrespect them, because i'm a dick with manners.

 

can you claim i'm wrong? if you're marching for women, are you telling me it makes sense to reject women who disagree with you? the rest of the sentence literally explains the point.

 

oh also, is a male gynocologist more ignorant than his patients on how a vagina works? no. so again, you don't have to be a woman to point out a flaw in what is called a women's march. argue the point, not my gender, now please, explain, because i am oh so stupid, what point in my point do you disagree with, and why do you disagree with it, besides my gender.

 

EDIT: the entire start of the report reads about women upset about Hillary losing to trump, not women's rights, the rest continues in a fashion that makes it appear as if women lack the rights that men have, or are owed privileges due solely to gender, as pointed out in a quote from an above edit. it is not wrong to point this out and ask why this is so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

Do you routinely admit to sexual assault?

[sarcasm]yes[/sarcasm],

 

and neither did trump. he was describing groupie syndrome. you know, the people (male and female) who follow the rich and famous as if money were flowing from their shoes. the people who do anything to be close to celebrities? he did not say he grabbed them by the pussy, he said they would let you if you wanted to (provided you were as rich as trump). metaphors are rather difficult to grasp, but to have one taken so far out of context is rather disappointing. (for example: this thread's a warzone and you readers are in the crossfire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wahrheit Newbie

Wahrheit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

[sarcasm]yes[/sarcasm],

 

and neither did trump. he was describing groupie syndrome. you know, the people (male and female) who follow the rich and famous as if money were flowing from their shoes. the people who do anything to be close to celebrities? he did not say he grabbed them by the pussy, he said they would let you if you wanted to (provided you were as rich as trump). metaphors are rather difficult to grasp, but to have one taken so far out of context is rather disappointing. (for example: this thread's a warzone and you readers are in the crossfire)

So the women who accused him, they're all lying?

Also, you're right that I'm also male, so I screencapped your posts and sent them to a friend. She's getting on a plane, but promised to write a reply on the flight. I'll post it when she lands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

So the women who accused him, they're all lying?

 

Also, you're right that I'm also male, so I screencapped your posts and sent them to a friend. She's getting on a plane, but promised to write a reply on the flight. I'll post it when she lands.

"innocent until proven guilty"

welcome to america.

 

well at least you're consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

That's a principle of criminal law, not a moral end-all be-all. Do you believe women who come to you and tell you they were assaulted?

no, not all of them. do they look like they were? is there reason to believe their accusation? are they in a distressed state of mind? does the story make any sense? with me, evidence makes a case, you can't tell me just anything and expect immediate belief. you gotta give me more than that if you want a yes or no answer.

 

but really, are you here to make a point? or are you here to just throw out slants? because while i do enjoy a good slantfight, i'm in more of a debating mood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...