Categories
alpha males crackpottery entitled babies hillary clinton men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny scott adams trump

Scott Adams: Trump “won the election” last night by losing the debate

Very presidential
Very presidential

The Pledge Drive continues! If you enjoy this blog, and can afford it, please click on the “donate” button below!  Thanks!

If you thought Chuck Tingle’s version of the Clinton-Trump debate last night was surreal, well, take a look at what Dilbert creator and wannabe master persuader Scott Adams has to say about it.

Unlike some of Trump’s superfans, Adams is willing to admit that, yeah, Hillary kind of won the debate, at least by normal debate standards.

Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner.

But Adams thinks this “victory on the 2D chess board” doesn’t really matter, because in his mind, apparently, Trump is playing some kind of 95th Dimensional mashup of Chess, Cribbage, and Hungry Hungry Hippos, or something. And in this game, Trump is the clear winner.

“Clinton won the debate last night,” Adams explains. “And while she was doing it, Trump won the election.”

tim-and-eric-mind-blown

IS YOUR MIND BLOWN YET

On the off chance that your mind is not, in fact, blown, let’s look at exactly why Adams thinks Trump is the real victor in this game of 95th Dimension Chesscribbippos.

As he sees it, Hillary needed to prove to skeptical Americans (or at least to Dr. Adams) that she’s healthy. And she failed.

Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event.

Huh. This is your takeaway from a debate in which Trump sniffled so much that people started to wonder if he wasn’t hopped up on the cocaine?

Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn’t cough, collapse, or die right on stage. 

But that’s not enough for Adams, who raises the serious medical question: Is Hillary’s smile kind of weird?

Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. … My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.

CLEARLY UNQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT

Trump, by contrast, was the perfect model of health and handsomeness! Well, not entirely.

To be fair, Trump’s physical appearance won’t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him … .

But Trump didn’t WIN THE ELECTION LAST NIGHT just by being somewhat less orange than usual. He showed what a calm, cool, and collected customer he is.

Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

Wait, what?

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy.

MASSIVE WIN

And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals.

You actually think he lost the debate … on purpose?

In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.

As I put it in a tweet to Adams last night (you’ll have to forgive my typo):

Trump definitely looked presidential, not at all like a giant petulant baby who shouldn’t even be in the same city as the nuclear codes.

BLINKING SARCASM.GIF

https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/780607277938147328

https://twitter.com/CCW000/status/780897508310458368

Oh, wait, that last one isn’t Trump. Hard to tell sometimes.

And here’s the latest Pledge Drive capybara, with a friend:

Awwwwwwww
Awwwwwwww

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

509 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

@Roger
You see group think good
Professor say wrong things like
“Racism is bad.”

You mispelled Ugric.
Net says Ugric not Finnish.
/pol/ is not Google.

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

@OoglyBoggles

Confusion must be embraced,
For it never goes away,
And it makes much more sense,
Than the conclusions of my brain.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Roger has now spent what, 3 days trying to give himself an excuse to believe what Trump says even though he knows Trump lies? And he’s trying to use intellectual language while doing it while at the same arguing that Hillary Clinton is less trustworthy because she speaks in a more intellectual way than Trump. Is Roger trying to tell us that he’s full of shit and not to be trusted?

Seriously Roger, what the fuck are you even trying to accomplish? Why are you here? Who are you trying to convince?

JS
JS
4 years ago

OK, so, how is the argument for “your epistemological position is undermining your ethics” proven by any of the points you’re trying to make, Roger? It appears that at least some of those points lead to the conclusion that Roger’s not too worried about being an idiot, and in fact might be one. But you’re not interested in learning anything about what parts might be bad choices, because hopefully there aren’t so many idiots that ignoring rationality will cause problems. That strikes me as an irrational conclusion.

As does “trust your nose” to tell you whether something is harmful or not. Many bad things can kill you, while your nose says “can’t smell anything”.

If you’re just trying to be confusing because the conclusions of your brain make less sense than embracing confusion, I’m not sure you understand what you’re trying to say.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

I feel like your epistemological position is undermining your ethics.

comment image

Well, we’ve already determined that your feelings justify supporting a despotic thin-skinned oligarch to the presidency of the United States, so I’m not surprised that your feelings would lead you to believe that.

I feel like you have a kind of absolutist take on knowledge and action – we have to act under conditions of uncertainty. As new information becomes available we should update our position and possibly change our actions.

Yes, exactly. We operate in an unsure world. As new information becomes available, we update. That’s humility.

You’re not updating. We’ve given you piles of information about Trump, and you didn’t update. You’ve declared your feelings to supersede any evidence that might require one.

It’s like, do I want to eat the old pizza that I found behind the heater, or the yoghurt that’s been out for a couple of weeks. Well, I had a sniff of them, and I found the pizza to be slightly less funky, so I’m going with that.

But what you’re trying to say, is that me trusting my nose is some kind of error of rationality. I don’t see how you can claim that.

I can certainly claim that, because your metaphor is bad.

If you’re faced with two similar choices, and there’s no good way to determine between them, then yeah – go with your instinct. That’s what it’s there for. It’ll help you make a choice when no good evidence is around.

But that’s not this situation. Evidence is stacked high against Trump. It’s not esoteric science nonsense or some airy theoretical proof that he’s terrible; the evidence is massive and it’s all very pedestrian.

Your reasoning is bad. Or, I should say, your reasoning is rationalizing. You’re minimizing the evidence against Trump so that your conclusion aligns with your desires. Don’t!

I would question whether our view of race is inherent rather than social. I mean, sure, we might notice a different appearance, but what that means is surely determined by the culture we live in.

No, you wouldn’t question it, because you’re not curious about it. If you wanted to question it, you’d go do the research and find out instead of figuring out the conclusion that suits you best. Instead, you conjure up “what-if” thoughts to nullify positions you don’t like.

Go read what’s actually been examined on this topic. You say you know statistics, prove it. Either find some holes in the current consensus or admit that you have no basis for disagreement beyond your own subjective feelings.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Personally, I’d love to try a language with no gender in it. Sounds very interesting.

No one proposed this. Adding a word for third-person references that is agnostic to gender is not the same as erasing gender from the language or from anywhere else. Dolt.

And, as for color-blindness – again, sounds great to me. I’m sure this is a very unfashionable and deplorable opinion, but not a big fan of identity politics.

Again? Again, no one proposed this. What I described is the literal opposite of color-blindness. Reading comprehension, what is it.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

It’s like, do I want to eat the old pizza that I found behind the heater, or the yoghurt that’s been out for a couple of weeks. Well, I had a sniff of them, and I found the pizza to be slightly less funky, so I’m going with that.

Now, you guys are telling me – don’t eat that it’s really bad! These professors did xyz experiments on pizzas and found blah blah blah… etc.

Well, that’s interesting information and I’ll bare it in mind, but for the time being I’m going to trust my nose, have a nibble of the pizza, and if I’m violently sick, I won’t eat any more of it.

Oh, honey, you sweet, sweet idiot. May you one day rectify your obtuseness soon.

http://66.media.tumblr.com/13a5b3905e4a3ccffe876074f46164dd/tumblr_nkm5mr82JT1u4sepmo3_r1_500.gif

(I think we need to enact critical thinking classes in elementary school–I need to figure out where my local school board is, sweet lord.)

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

I think Roger is mistaking “something stupid I did that harms only me” with “something stupid I did that harms the entire fucking world” and thinking that those are somehow equivalent degrees of stupid.

There is a big difference between going OOPS and dropping a bottle of ketchup versus going OOPS and dropping a bottle of sarin. That’s why ketchup is available in Kroger and sarin is not. Your stupidity is not in eating bad pizza, dipshit, but in imagining that all mistakes are equal if an equal amount of carelessness went into them.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

@PoM:
Am I right in thinking that that boils down to the “I made a mistake but I had good intentions so it’s all fine” fallacy?

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
4 years ago

@Policy of Madness:

It’s funny how people don’t usually make this argument with respect to race. I don’t hear people (not even white nationalists) say that distinguishing between white people and black people is just too hard, so we need to make “white” a race-neutral word that refers to all races inclusively.

Look up ‘A Person Paper on Purity in Language’ by Douglas Hofstadter. He wrote an entire satirical article based on that, basically using white/black instead of man/woman; in other words, complaining about people trying to make generic words for chairperson when we already had the perfectly good chairwhite which obviously applied equally to both whites and blacks.

Of course, that paper is satire rather than any real attempt to act that way, and satire as it is actually supposed to be done as opposed to what people try to call satire when they get called out on their real beliefs.

Here’s one copy, at least: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

Am I right in thinking that that boils down to the “I made a mistake but I had good intentions so it’s all fine” fallacy?

More like “I made a mistake but it doesn’t effect me so I’m ‘sorry’ I didn’t think it through or listen to anyone because the thing is I only really care if things effect me personally, fuck everyone else” fallacy.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

@EJ

Related. It’s the concept that you need to take greater care in proportion with the degree of harm created when you fuck up. You move more carefully when you’re carrying a Ming dynasty vase or a bottle of sarin than when you’re carrying ketchup, because the consequences of dropping the former are far greater than dropping the latter.

It just boggles me that anyone would compare voting for Trump to eating possibly-bad pizza. One gives you indigestion, and the other possibly blows up the world. ????????????????????????????????

dlouwe
dlouwe
4 years ago

@Nick G

The fallacy here is in the first clause! Although the reals are uncountable, we can only precisely describe a countable (i.e. cardinality ℵ(0)) subset of them – again, as long as we limit ourselves to statements of finite length.

… doi! *smacks forehead* Makes perfect sense as soon as you said that. Thanks!

History Nerd
History Nerd
4 years ago

The word “men” could traditionally refer to a group of people of either sex, but that usage is awkward. What if you have a group that’s mostly women with some men? I’m fine with treating both “he/him/his” and “she/her/hers” as possibly gender neutral.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

Thanks Jack, PoM.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

@Jenora Feuer, oh my gosh, thank you. That essay was awesome.

EDIT – and written by the author of GEB, too! I thought I recognized the tone! Fantastic!

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

Did Roger just admit in his reply to me that he does not understand reality and whatever conclusion he tries to parse from reality makes even less sense to him?

Did he just admit in Four Verse that he has no idea what he’s talking about?

Also as a side note, Roger you lost many points. Your quatrain doesn’t stick to a ABAB rhyme scheme both in lettering and pronunciation. -aced and “ence” aren’t end rhymes. You can’t even choose between 6,7 and 8 syllables per line for Aesop’s sake. Don’t you give me that “it’s freeverse I done it hastily.” You had all the hours to think up and revise a response.

guest
guest
4 years ago

@Scildfreja The companion essay to the ‘person paper’ is ‘The Slippery Slope of Sexism,’ which is pretty enlightening. I think it’s in The Mind’s I (have never been able to find it online, unfortunately).

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

The Mind’s I is here, but that essay isn’t in it unfortunately. Will keep looking

guest
guest
4 years ago

Hahaha I found it!

http://leeclarke.com/courses/intro/readings/Hofstadter_Changes_in_Default-_Words_and_Images.pdf

This answers the question why ‘he’ can’t ever be gender neutral.

guest
guest
4 years ago

Well I kind of found it. The essay I remember had examples from Chinese.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
4 years ago

The ‘Person Paper’ isn’t collected in The Mind’s I, but it is collected in Metamagical Themas, which is the collection of columns Hofstadter did for Scientific American. (Metamagical Themas being an anagram of Mathematical Games, the Martin Gardner column that previous ran in that slot.)

And yes, it is a good piece. The follow-up in Metamagical Themas also goes into some of the discovery process that led to that, including several of the translation issues that came up for Godel, Escher, and Back.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

Lovely, guest, thank you. That sort of semantic-weighting argument is excellent and so true, and very well presented. The little diagrams made me grin :3

guest
guest
4 years ago

Here is more of it in the actual book it’s in (Metamagical Themas, not The Mind’s I):

https://ia801007.us.archive.org/22/items/MetamagicalThemas/Metamagical%20Themas,%20Hofstadter.pdf

But I swear the essay I remember ended with a dumb pun in Chinese. I wonder if my memory is somehow playing tricks on me.

Oh there it is, on page 149.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
4 years ago

Well, guest gave better references than I did. (And how did I miss Bach/Back multiple times while checking it over?)

My uncle gave me a copy of GEB:EGB for my birthday back when it first came out. I need to go re-read it.

skybison
skybison
4 years ago

About Roger’s Pizza metaphor:

What if the scientist is specifically saying “That pizza is contaminated with a deadly poison which is completely odorless, here’s all my research to prove it.” Then it would be irrational to eat it anyway because “I didn’t smell anything.”

If I was in that metaphor I’d throw out the Pizza and the yogurt and buy something else at the store.

Skiriki
Skiriki
4 years ago

At this point, if Trump accuses someone having done X, it is pretty certain he has done it himself first.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/30/donald_trump_s_2000_playboy_softcore_porn_appearance_revealed.html

Ichthyic
Ichthyic
4 years ago

Well, that’s interesting information and I’ll bare it in mind, but for the time being I’m going to trust my nose, have a nibble of the pizza, and if I’m violently sick, I won’t eat any more of it.

so… if someone tells you there’s a cliff ahead, but you don’t actually see it yourself…

I suppose the damage from the fall would learn ya some, right?

this is you, admitting you are really, really stupid.

Skiriki
Skiriki
4 years ago

It doesn’t take that much to kill a human with thallium and even less with polonium. Anyone eating tainted food wouldn’t even realize it and could easily chow down a lethal dose with gusto.

And while the food might appear free of unpleasant smells and tastes, it can still harbor bacteria and their poisonous by-products.

Or perhaps you’d like to have a glass of something sweet? How about a plate of sushi?

Arctic Ape
Arctic Ape
4 years ago

ETA: It’s Ugric not Urgic. And Finnish isn’t Ugric. Jackass

Admittedly, I’ve seen other people intuitively shorten Finno-Ugric into “Ugric” when the proper meanings are not important. And I can totally see how the possibly-other troll mentally counted Finnish as a “Scandinavian” language. It’s all so intuitive and common-sensical it could be almost taught at the Linguistics Department of Trump university.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
4 years ago

The better analogy would be if you were trying to figure out what to feed yourself and other people at a meal and chose the funky pizza from behind the heater because even though you had unspoiled yogurt on hand, you heard yogurt has bacteria in it, which sounds dangerous to you, and you personally don’t like the smell of it.

The Kangaroo
The Kangaroo
4 years ago

“Coach” Dave Daubenmire has a screed on Barbwire saying the same thing.

Tessa
Tessa
4 years ago

It’s interesting. I’ve noticed a theme in Trump supporters, and Roger is no different. I’ve heard many say something along the lines of “I may not agree with the stuff he says, but I like that he’s not afraid to say it.” As if what he actually says is irrelevant. But really, they totally agree with what he says, they just know saying so will make them sound racist and sexist. Even Roger started out in their first post about how they totally weren’t racist or sexist, but then went on about how Trump spoke for the “common man.” And since Trump’s numbers are so low in non-whites, Roger obviously meant “white” when they said that.

Then of course they couldn’t just own up to agreeing, and had to claim it was just a “feeling” or going with their “gut.” So Roger, just own it. It’s OK, we all know. You’re really transparent. So much so I had to adjust my monitor to see your posts.

I could also go on and on and on about your latest attempt to justify your decision (which we also all know you didn’t spontaneously come to after watching the debate) by their speaking style, but it’d just be a wall of text interspersed with a few hand puppets and videos of yogurt. But really, it doesn’t matter because if their styles were switched, you’d still want Trump and you’d be claiming you just like how well spoken he is… because you do agree with what he’s saying. If you can’t just admit it, at least have a bit of self reflection on the fact you’re expending so much effort not admitting it.

Skiriki
Skiriki
4 years ago

but I like that he’s not afraid to say it

Of course, Trump backpedals his sayings so furiously it is like he’s riding an unicycle. At first, he’s so proud that he drove the Birther bus, then all of the sudden he did nothing and it is Clinton’s fault anyway, if he did say anything.

He really is a Schrödinger’s asshole. It’s for reals, until lots of people get angry, then it was a joke.

So… he actually is afraid of consequences and tries to lie his way out of things he has said. He won’t stand by his word. In anything.

Cowardly fuck.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

Trump says:

“You heard what I said about (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal), and all of a sudden you were against it.”

Well, it seems likely to me that Clinton would have heard what Trump said about TPP. And she did change her mind about it.

100% TRUE!

My opinion about Donald Trump’s truthfulness with regard to the preceding may differ slightly from that of other commenters.

Roger can take Trump’s words as literally as he wants (IN ALL CAPS!), with no regard for the actual meaning behind them, but it’s abundantly clear that Trump’s message was this: I came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and then you immediately copied me and came out against it too.

Trump wasn’t saying, You heard me speak about the TPP. Then — in an unrelated development — you immediately came out against it.

Unless, of course, shooting the breeze without trying to make a point during a presidential debate is all part of Trump’s grand strategy. (And if that is his strategy, what is the rationale behind it? Inquiring minds need to know.)

No, I’m going with Trump was trying to make a point about cause and effect.

Given that, I can’t say that Trump’s statement was a lie, because I can’t prove that it was a lie.

Nor can I say that it was true, because I can’t prove that it was true either.

No, I’m going with a third characterization of Trump’s words. Trump’s statement was intended as a stop-the-conversation opinion thrown out there for the world to hear, an accusation that makes it evident — as if we didn’t already know! — that the accuser is an asshole not worth talking to because the assertion can neither be proven to be a lie nor proven to be the truth.

Trump is saying that he knows what was in Hillary’s mind when she made the decision to oppose TPP. Mister Trump, that’s quite a thing to say. I’m gonna need some evidence to back up that statement.

Trump can’t back up his allegation. And of course Hillary can’t prove a negative. No one can.

I’m calling Trump on his shit — there’s no way that this grandiose buffoon’s psychic powers are that strong.

And if I’m wrong, well, I’d love to see some demonstrations of those powers.

Roger
Roger
4 years ago

“Trump’s statement was intended as a stop-the-conversation opinion thrown out there for the world to hear, an accusation that makes it evident — as if we didn’t already know! — that the accuser is an asshole not worth talking to because the assertion can neither be proven to be a lie nor proven to be the truth.”

*Cough* *Cough* – Just like how all trump supporters are motivated by racism?

I think it’s reasonable to make the suggestion. It’s not fair to say it’s (objectively and certainly) a lie or that the act of making the suggestion is morally questionable.
He can throw it out there, we can decide for ourselves on reviewing the evidence how likely it is.

Re: “your epistemological position is undermining your ethics”

I feel like what it comes down to is you guys are saying that people with different priors are objectively wrong (and that your priors are objectively right). That doesn’t strike me as humility (“I know one thing: that I know nothing”).

Further, there is this weird conflation of certainty/proof with action. We don’t do things because we have proven them to be true (and shown that alternatives are false) we do them because they appear to be the better option.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

Are we still talking about the same ONE lie out of the dozens and dozens of lies Trump told during the debate? Yawn.

JM
JM
4 years ago

I hope I’m not late to this realization, but is Scott Adams turning into the boss character from his Dilbert comics? I took a few liberties with this post and MSPaint and…

http://imgur.com/a/GIYvf

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ kat

Given that, I can’t say that Trump’s statement was a lie, because I can’t prove that it was a lie.

We’ve just had a similar albeit minor thing here. It caused a few giggles.

The Daily Mail ran a headline.

“Government bans microbeads after Mail campaign”

The thing is, the statement was literally true. The paper did start a campaign against microbeads and a few days later the government announced a ban.

Now of course not one person believes there was any causative effect here. The government had been investigating microbeads for ages and it was anticipated that the ban was to be announced. Probably why the Mail decided to run the campaign; it was topical and it put them on the right side of history.

So, like the headline, Trump’s statement is literally true in terms of chronology (Hilary changed her stance after he stated his position) but also like the headline, the attempt at implying causation is unwarranted.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

Just to demonstrate how everyone listens to me, I’m going to make the following statement.

I think Roger should post again.

Now just watch as Roger proves how influential I am.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

*Cough* *Cough* – Just like how all trump supporters are motivated by racism?

Nobody has said this.

Trump says a lot of racist things. All of his supporters are at least okay with this, which makes them not racist, but comfortable with racism.

Additionally, about 50% of his supporters hold racist beliefs, which is the usual, albeit imperfect, way we define someone as a racist person.

That is the actual thing that people have said, and your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not anyone else’s.

As a Trump supporter, you are, minimally, okay with racism and sufficiently comfortable being around it that you are fine with supporting a candidate who says racist shit at least every other day. If you are uncomfortable with that being pointed out to you, good. You should be uncomfortable with your comfort level when it comes to racism.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

A few minutes ago, Fox was running a little discussion wrt: Clinton mentioning at the debate that Trump probably pays no taxes. Their angle on this was not whether the accusation is true, but whether Clinton looked too pleased with herself after making this point.

Fair and balanced, y’all! Clearly the newsworthy issue here is Clinton’s facial expression!

Tessa
Tessa
4 years ago

PoM: yeah, I was at BK earlier and they had Fox news on their tv, with the banner asking: do Americans really care if Trump didn’t pay taxes?

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

I made a batch of strawberry jam this spring and ended up with 2 pints plus a cup, so the cup went in the fridge and the 2 pints were canned in sterilized jars. Both pints sealed well and sat in the pantry. When I grabbed the first one the seal was still intact and we ate it with no problem. When that ran out I went to grab the second pint. The button on the top was popped out, which means either the seal broke or some bacteria was growing inside. I couldn’t see or smell anything. But I tossed it anyway because botulism is odorless and invisible. Basically, I used the evidence I had available to assess the risks, and even though some of the evidence I looked for wasn’t there, the level of risk from the evidence I did have was far too great. Trump would be more like if I ignored a layer of mold and a putrid smell in addition to the popped button because I think the stuff underneath all that is probably okay.

@A. Noyd
Your analogy was great.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

PoM: yeah, I was at BK earlier and they had Fox news on their tv, with the banner asking: do Americans really care if Trump didn’t pay taxes?

Isn’t it interesting how Republicans are very, very concerned that the poor don’t pay “their fair share” of income tax, but they shrug a big shrug when it comes to the super-wealthy getting off with little to nothing?

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

I’m going to go ahead and say that Trump supporters are racist and misogynistic. I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore. He’s so overtly racist and misogynist that there’s no way to even delude oneself into thinking otherwise and anyone who is not sufficiently appalled by Trump’s bigotry for it to be a dealbreaker has got to be racist and misogynistic themselves.

Roger may not be using slurs and he have prefaced his first post in this thread with the “I’m not racist and sexist but…” disclaimer that we all know is bullshit. I don’t care. That doesn’t make him not racist and sexist. He clearly agrees with Trump that black people are thugs, Mexicans are rapist job stealers, Muslims are all terrorists etc. He clearly agrees that women go into two categories; fuckable and therefore worthy as a sex object but only a sex object or unfuckable and therefore worthless and disgusting. Nothing about women matters besides looks.

Sorry, Rog. The company you keep says something about you. In your case it says racism and misogyny. You can’t intellectualize your way out of it. Other people here are welcome to try and engage with you on whether or not Politifact is correct with regards to the TPP. I’m not going to do it. It’s not worth my time and it’s a derail from the most important point. Which is that you see white men as the default human and don’t see the rest of us as fully human. Just like your boy Trump. I see you. I see you and what I see is ugly.

LeeshaJoy
LeeshaJoy
4 years ago

Roger, I’m curious: hypothetically, what would it take for you to not vote for Trump in November? What would he, or someone else, have to say or do to change your mind?

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

OT but related to the election and how things are said
If anyone’s been following the #BasementDwellers nonsense, it’s the same thing. Clinton is untrustworthy and [other tone based dogwhistles] by default, so anything she says must be nefarious. Especially if the audio was (*gasp*) leaked

Short version: She said that a lot of ‘millennials’ and/or Bernie supporters are idealistic, stuck in dead end jobs, and living in their parents’ basement. Sounds a little mean, right? Of course, she was being empathetic and understanding. She didn’t blame them for their situation and even said that it’s not cool to shit all over that idealism

But she’s ‘smug’ and ‘articulate’ and whatnot, dontchaknow? So now, anti Hillary types (‘left’ and ‘right’) are using this to confirm their biases and throw around #notall. Even got some Gaters in on it. Lot in common with #Deplorables actually. Funny that…

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

I feel like what it comes down to is you guys are saying that people with different priors are objectively wrong (and that your priors are objectively right). That doesn’t strike me as humility (“I know one thing: that I know nothing”).

comment image

Aww, sweetheart, humility in this case is conceding when you are proved wrong, not conceding just because someone has a different opinion, you silly, silly dude.

You haven’t proved anything, you’re throwing emotions and feelings when what you need is facts to change minds, which you don’t have because there’s no facts to back up your assertions.

You strike me as one of these people who, just because they have an opinion, their opinion should be treated as gospel because free speech and all that shit. Well, I hate to tell you, but no, that’s not how it works. Not all opinions are equal. People do not and will not give you respect just because you opened your mouth and shit came out, and you need to learn that before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

You opinions are shit and aren’t based in reality. Instead of nodding along and thinking what feels good to you is true, think for a moment and try not to just brush aside the holes in your arguments with twisted half-logic.

Use that big ol’ brain I know you have, kiddo. I believe in you.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Hah hah, I just got around to reading the NYT article about Trump’s taxes, and it says that one of Trump’s lawyers threatened “prompt initiation of appropriate legal action” on the NYT for publishing the documents.

Appropriate legal action = no legal action, because the immunity of the press to legal repercussions for printing true and newsworthy items that were obtained legally by them but illegally by someone else is well established. Hilarious that the Trump team’s first reaction is to threaten to SUE SUE SUE despite the total certainty that they would lose the suit.

Hilarious, but also not, because SLAPPs are meant to intimidate more than the target of the suit, but also third party actors that might be tempted to exercise their own rights in a similar fashion. Donald Trump: shitting on the Bill of Rights yet again.