Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Politics version 7.0 more politics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2017, 07:03 PM   #26
TiltedDonkey
adept
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 799
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

It's not dumb.

Let's say I decide right now I'm going to punch the next person who walks down the street in the face. Two minutes from now, a woman walks down the street, and I punch her in the face. Am I being a misogynist?
TiltedDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:08 PM   #27
wil318466
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Trumpland
Posts: 17,475
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

It's not disingenuous in the least bit. There is a specific reason he used that word and a good reason why you defended it.

I don't know how you use the English language but I was taught to use words in the way they were intended to be used. I don't call small furry animals that bark cats, and I don't describe ice cubes as warm, and then say "you know what I meant". This is especially true when discussing politics or law.

We understand each other, or no?
wil318466 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:11 PM   #28
TiltedDonkey
adept
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 799
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
It's not disingenuous in the least bit. There is a specific reason he used that word and a good reason why you defended it.

I don't know how you use the English language but I was taught to use words in the way they were intended to be used. I don't call small furry animals that bark cats, and I don't describe ice cubes as warm, and then say "you know what I meant". This is especially true in political discussions or law.

We understand each other, or no?
It is disingenuous. Whatever you think of his word usage, your pointing it out is standing in as a substitute for an actual argument.

What is the reason you think I have for defending it?
TiltedDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:21 PM   #29
wil318466
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Trumpland
Posts: 17,475
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
It is disingenuous. Whatever you think of his word usage, your pointing it out is standing in as a substitute for an actual argument.

What is the reason you think I have for defending it?
If I have to explain why the word "racist" is politically charged language, then i don't think we should be having a political discussion.

There is absolutely nothing racist about Trump's ban. Nothing. It specifically targets people from certain counties which is absolutely within the president's power. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. Calling it racist is absurd, especially so in light of the vastly different racial groups from those countries. Someone from Somalia and Yemen and Iran and Syria are extremely different. Comically so.
wil318466 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:27 PM   #30
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,197
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
It's not dumb.

Let's say I decide right now I'm going to punch the next person who walks down the street in the face. Two minutes from now, a woman walks down the street, and I punch her in the face. Am I being a misogynist?
Yeah, kind of.

Although I'm sure you see the difference between this and when Wil was talking explicitly about he he would treat women.

Ten posts ago was the time you were supposed to realise you're trying to come up with imaginative ways to explain away how a guy who thinks he should be allowed to molest women when he sees fit is a misogynist.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:32 PM   #31
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,197
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

And, to add, in our case Wil was okay with whoever going in the men's bathroom. It's the women he wanted to accost. So don't give me any more of this **** about how he's got some weird misanthropic equality.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:33 PM   #32
wil318466
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Trumpland
Posts: 17,475
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post

Why do you keep harping on this point? Why can't you accept that people are using "racist" as a synonym for "bigot"? What do you think you accomplish by pointing out this gotcha?
If someone is homophobic and I described them as "racist", would that be correct use of that word?
wil318466 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 08:21 PM   #33
TiltedDonkey
adept
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 799
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
If I have to explain why the word "racist" is politically charged language, then i don't think we should be having a political discussion.
You do not. I asked what you thought my reason was for defending it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
There is absolutely nothing racist about Trump's ban. Nothing. It specifically targets people from certain counties which is absolutely within the president's power. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future.
See this is kind of amazing because you write this as if the fact that it is within the president's power implies it isn't racist, which is ridiculous. Also, the courts seem to disagree that it is within the president's power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
Calling it racist is absurd, especially so in light of the vastly different racial groups from those countries. Someone from Somalia and Yemen and Iran and Syria are extremely different. Comically so.
Yeah, for like the 800th time, it's not racist. It's discriminatory against Muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
Yeah, kind of.
You're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
Although I'm sure you see the difference between this and when Wil was talking explicitly about he he would treat women.
Nope, he was talking about how he would treat people going into a women's bathroom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
Ten posts ago was the time you were supposed to realise you're trying to come up with imaginative ways to explain away how a guy who thinks he should be allowed to molest women when he sees fit is a misogynist.
I realized this in my first post, but I find it entertaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
And, to add, in our case Wil was okay with whoever going in the men's bathroom. It's the women he wanted to accost. So don't give me any more of this **** about how he's got some weird misanthropic equality.
Nah, if his daughter we're in the men's bathroom I think he would care who went in there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
If someone is homophobic and I described them as "racist", would that be correct use of that word?
No.
TiltedDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 08:33 PM   #34
Black Peter
veteran
 
Black Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Pass
Posts: 2,670
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

The reason why the Lefterrorists use the word "racist" for every situation under the sun is because it carries shame value to them. In many parts of the country and world, it's somewhat acceptable to be a misogynist, homophobe or run of the mill bigot. But almost nowhere is it ok to be an open racist. Thus, instead of being honest about the situation, and put real energy into educating about misogynist, homophobic or bigoted attitudes, they focus on winning now. And shaming people publicly has almost always resulted in instantly winning, so of course they're going to keep using that tactic.

So if you hate Muslims, then you're a racist. Because if you were only a misogynist, homophobe or bigot, then you might actually BE a Muslim.
Black Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 08:37 PM   #35
wil318466
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Trumpland
Posts: 17,475
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
See this is kind of amazing because you write this as if the fact that it is within the president's power implies it isn't racist, which is ridiculous. Also, the courts seem to disagree that it is within the president's power.
.
I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racist because it's not targeting a race. That's what the word "racist" means.

And the courts were wrong. It'll be overturned.


Quote:
Yeah, for like the 800th time, it's not racist. It's discriminatory against Muslims.
It absolutely is not. It's discriminatory towards certain people from certain countries. It does not ban Muslims from anywhere outside of those specific countries, which is a judgment call the president, specifically, is allowed to make. If you are a Muslim from Argentina, are you banned? No. Therefore your statement that it is "discriminatory against Muslims" is simply false.

It is not racist, and it does not ban Muslims. It bans certain people from certain countries that are viewed as a risk by the president of the united States, which is well within his power.

I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect in your assessment of this.

Last edited by wil318466; 05-16-2017 at 08:43 PM.
wil318466 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 09:33 PM   #36
TiltedDonkey
adept
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 799
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racist because it's not targeting a race. That's what the word "racist" means.
Yeah dude but when you intermingle the two points it makes it sounds like one implies the other, like if you want to be clear you need to write better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
And the courts were wrong. It'll be overturned.
I mean maybe, but it's pretty LOL for you to declare with confidence that it is within the president's power when so far he has tried and failed to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
It absolutely is not. It's discriminatory towards certain people from certain countries. It does not ban Muslims from anywhere outside of those specific countries, which is a judgment call the president, specifically, is allowed to make. If you are a Muslim from Argentina, are you banned? No. Therefore your statement that it is "discriminatory against Muslims" is simply false.

It is not racist, and it does not ban Muslims. It bans certain people from certain countries that are viewed as a risk by the president of the united States, which is well within his power.

I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect in your assessment of this.
Lol, no, dude, it's super obvious to anyone paying attention that it is just the best implementation of a "Muslim ban" he thought he could get past the courts, and even then he failed because he is an incompetent buffoon surrounded by slightly less incompetent buffoons.
TiltedDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 10:12 PM   #37
5ive
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
5ive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Harvard, in a place like Africa
Posts: 6,156
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Want to see when Ol' Zwarte shows that he doesn't know MLK was a "leftist" or a leftist?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...?highlight=ami



Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Peter View Post
The reason why the N****r-Lovers use the word "racist" for every situation under the sun is because it carries shame value to them. In many parts of the country and world, it's somewhat acceptable to be a misogynist, homophobe or run of the mill bigot. But almost nowhere is it ok to be an open racist. Thus, instead of being honest about the situation, and put real energy into educating about misogynist, homophobic or bigoted attitudes, they focus on winning now. And shaming people publicly has almost always resulted in instantly winning, so of course they're going to keep using that tactic.

So if you hate Muslims, then you're a racist. Because if you were only a misogynist, homophobe or bigot, then you might actually BE a Muslim.
5ive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 10:23 PM   #38
Trolly McTrollson
Under your bridges
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Winesburg, Ohio
Posts: 19,269
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racist because it's not targeting a race. That's what the word "racist" means.

And the courts were wrong. It'll be overturned.




It absolutely is not. It's discriminatory towards certain people from certain countries. It does not ban Muslims from anywhere outside of those specific countries, which is a judgment call the president, specifically, is allowed to make. If you are a Muslim from Argentina, are you banned? No. Therefore your statement that it is "discriminatory against Muslims" is simply false.

It is not racist, and it does not ban Muslims. It bans certain people from certain countries that are viewed as a risk by the president of the united States, which is well within his power.

I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect in your assessment of this.
Why the heck didn't you file an amicus brief with the SCOTUS? Would have really helped out ya boy Trump.
Trolly McTrollson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 11:27 PM   #39
wil318466
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
wil318466's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Trumpland
Posts: 17,475
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
I mean maybe, but it's pretty LOL for you to declare with confidence that it is within the president's power when so far he has tried and failed to do it.
I'm not declaring it's within his power by pulling it out of my ass. I'm saying it's within his power because I looked it up.

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”


Like, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about here? Would you like to bet on the outcome of this when it reaches the supreme Court? Let me know, I'm willing to make a small wager.

Quote:
Lol, no, dude, it's super obvious to anyone paying attention that it is just the best implementation of a "Muslim ban" he thought he could get past the courts, and even then he failed because he is an incompetent buffoon surrounded by slightly less incompetent buffoons.
Lol, absolutely not. This is YOUR view on it, and I think when it gets to the supreme Court I'll be proven correct.
wil318466 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 08:19 AM   #40
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,197
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
Nah, if his daughter we're in the men's bathroom I think he would care who went in there.



No.
Wil said he wouldn't mind if it were his son and a trans person or male went in there. What he wanted to do was police the women's bathroom to his own standards.

Will wasn't talking about assaulting men. He was talking about assaulting women. That's misogyny.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 09:08 AM   #41
mongidig
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,743
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
Yeah, kind of.

Although I'm sure you see the difference between this and when Wil was talking explicitly about he he would treat women.

Ten posts ago was the time you were supposed to realise you're trying to come up with imaginative ways to explain away how a guy who thinks he should be allowed to molest women when he sees fit is a misogynist.
I think you are way off in your mysogynist argument.
mongidig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 09:10 AM   #42
mongidig
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,743
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
Wil said he wouldn't mind if it were his son and a trans person or male went in there. What he wanted to do was police the women's bathroom to his own standards.

Will wasn't talking about assaulting men. He was talking about assaulting women. That's misogyny.
How can assaulting someone with a penis possibly be mysogyinistic?
mongidig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 09:19 AM   #43
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,197
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Maybe read what I've actually said.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 12:12 PM   #44
leavesofliberty
Pooh-Bah
 
leavesofliberty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Without the powers of Deep Blue
Posts: 4,979
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

[ ] - Giving two ****s.
leavesofliberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 03:23 PM   #45
TiltedDonkey
adept
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 799
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
I'm not declaring it's within his power by pulling it out of my ass. I'm saying it's within his power because I looked it up.

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”


Like, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about here? Would you like to bet on the outcome of this when it reaches the supreme Court? Let me know, I'm willing to make a small wager.



Lol, absolutely not. This is YOUR view on it, and I think when it gets to the supreme Court I'll be proven correct.
We should be absolutely clear here; my view is not predicated on whether it is within his power or not. That is clearly debatable.

My view is that "it's super obvious to anyone paying attention that it is just the best implementation of a "Muslim ban" he thought he could get past the courts". This view is absolutely correct no matter what SCOTUS says. The SCOTUS just determines whether he was right about being able to get it past the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
Wil said he wouldn't mind if it were his son and a trans person or male went in there. What he wanted to do was police the women's bathroom to his own standards.

Will wasn't talking about assaulting men. He was talking about assaulting women. That's misogyny.
Nah.

If you want to argue that it is misogyny because he feels the need to protect his daughter but not his son, then I think you'd have a better shot, although I'd still disagree.
TiltedDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 03:25 PM   #46
jalfrezi
Pooh-Bah
 
jalfrezi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: long gone, long long gone
Posts: 5,535
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Can we just agree to call it advocacy of sexual assault?
jalfrezi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 03:36 PM   #47
TiltedDonkey
adept
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 799
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Seems reasonable.
TiltedDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 08:07 PM   #48
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,197
Re: Politics v7.0 Moderation thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey View Post
If you want to argue that it is misogyny because he feels the need to protect his daughter but not his son, then I think you'd have a better shot, although I'd still disagree.
No, it's because he wants to assault women when he sees fit.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2017, 12:32 PM   #49
TiltedDonkey
adept
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 799
Re: Odds & sods thread

Wrong. He wants to assault people entering the women's bathroom when he sees fit, specifically because he fears some of them may not be women.
TiltedDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2017, 01:48 PM   #50
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,197
Re: Odds & sods thread

Right, so assaulting women.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online