Twitter explains why Trump can use site as venue for violence, hate

Announcement comes as social media is under pressure to remove hate-based accounts.

Read the whole story

 

[Kane2207]

Obvious fake - no way has Ol' Bone Spurs has mastered the dark art of coherent sentences and 6th grade grammar.

 

[Kane2207]

"Twitter explains why Trump can use site as venue for violence, hate"

What kind of idiocy is this.

State leaders have threatened violence for all eternity. This is very much different from threatening some fellow citizen with a beating BECAUSE ATTACKING A FOREIGN STATE AFTER AN ATTACK IS FUCKING LEGAL. Beating up your neighbour is not.

A head of state can tell another head of state that they will annihilate them in retaliation for an attack. Now not much is normal about THE WAY Trump communicates this but in essence he isn't saying anything that Obama wouldn't have also said just in a much much more polite manner.

You may not like "violence" but threatening other nuclear armed enemy states with total destruction in case of an attack is pretty much the only way. This is no liberal arts campus where you can go to your feminist ethics committee to complain about North Korea being mean to you.

I was following, considering your position on political posturing at the global level, then I got to your last sentence....

...tossed all of your argument out the window, slapped a 'Cunt : disregard' sticker on you and moved on.

If you weren't such a bellend, you almost had a point :/

 

[Kane2207]

"Twitter explains why Trump can use site as venue for violence, hate"

What kind of idiocy is this.

State leaders have threatened violence for all eternity. This is very much different from threatening some fellow citizen with a beating BECAUSE ATTACKING A FOREIGN STATE AFTER AN ATTACK IS FUCKING LEGAL. Beating up your neighbour is not.

A head of state can tell another head of state that they will annihilate them in retaliation for an attack. Now not much is normal about THE WAY Trump communicates this but in essence he isn't saying anything that Obama wouldn't have also said just in a much much more polite manner.

You may not like "violence" but threatening other nuclear armed enemy states with total destruction in case of an attack is pretty much the only way. This is no liberal arts campus where you can go to your feminist ethics committee to complain about North Korea being mean to you.

I was following, considering your position on political posturing at the global level, then I got to your last sentence....

...tossed all of your argument out the window, slapped a 'Cunt : disregard' sticker on you and moved on.

If you weren't such a bellend, you almost had a point :/

Hit a little too close to home, eh?

lol, no.

Rallying against liberalism, feminism and ethics is pretty much the dumbest fucking argument you can make. That people use 'liberal' as a pejorative is also 'going full potato'.

I don't rally on 'conservatives', 'conservative' concepts (small 'c', important distinction) have some value.

People who think they're 'dropping bombs' by shitting out comments construing that liberalism, feminism and ethics are a bad thing, have no value at all as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kane2207]

Hmm, 71 year old, rich white guy gets up at 3AM to do Twitter frenzy tweets.
He's still doing coke.

reading between the lines of whitehouse behavior, it does seem likely that there's some significant amounts of cocaine in play there ....
xref the Mooch for starters, not to mention the "president"

The live debates had some weird nasal inhaling going on.

 

[Kane2207]

Ooff... I had to get on a PC to pick this to bits.

Saying that I have a point but you will disregard it because you didn't like a cough slightly cough demagogic sentence at the end? ( Yes yes I concur that this was inflammatory )

It's your choice but it's a bit nonsensical no? A point is a point if you like the person making it or not. You can obviously disregard it but that doesn't change the facts. I only mention it because it's the same error people make with Trump. They hate the WAY he does things but disregard WHAT he actually does. Which by and large is not terrible at all.

There was nothing factual about your closing statement, you just rattled off Alt-Right bullet points like you were somehow dropping the mic. You weren't. It just makes you look like a cock.

Context is key. If the topic was feminist outrage re: how Barbie isn't anatomically correct, yeah, I'd agree that that's not really important in the grand scale of things. Spend your time on shit like FGM.

You didn't do this though, you just went straight 'feminism = shit', which it's not. You tried to tar liberalism and ethics in the same manner.

He has a Jewish son in law and Mar a Lago was the first member club I'm the city to allow black people. He clearly is no white supremacist. It's just insane to insinuate that and yet people try it constantly. I mean all the time. Hard to take seriously after a while.

He also has previous lawsuits where he racially profiled potential tenants. Crowds of White Nationalists that enact vehicular homicide are 'fine people', but black men who kneel during the national anthem are 'Sons of Bitches'.

Plus, Mexicans are all rapists and murderers, he dishonoured the son of Khizr and Ghazala Khan then attacked them personally, is pushing for an unconstitutional travel ban, I could go on but can't be bothered.

So, yeah, sure...

- I think trump is correct when he says that the heavy unskilled immigration we currently have is good for business and terrible for unskilled Americans. ( But no he is racist )

What would he know, the Trump tat is made in China. He's not employing immigrants in the US (apart from the cheap Cubans he gets for Mar-a-Lago because, fuck it, why not huh?)

- i think criticizing players for disrespecting the anthem would have been completely normal 10 years ago ( but no he is racist)

Huh? Arguing that they're disrespecting the anthem or flag is like arguing Rosa Parks was protesting public transport.

That's a stupid argument.

- I Think removing a group of people with a suicide attempt rate of 40% from the armed forces is sensible ( but no he is a bigot)

Hmmm, could they be suicidal because they're singled out and not treated as equals? If someone has the courage to stand up, be counted and put their life on the line for their country - fucking let 'em I say. Hats off to them.

These people aren't striving for special treatment, they're striving to simply be considered equal.

- i Think If you want amnesty for dreamers you need Fucking secure borders.( A wall if that is what it takes) . You can't have one without the other otherwise it's just an invitation to ignore laws. ( But no he is a racist)

For a nation of immigrants with a cultural history I could write on a postage stamp (with room to spare), you sure are afraid of immigrants.

- i Think getting expelled for rape allegations without any proof or even proper hearing is terrible ( but no Betsy is a Sexist)

I actually has no response for this because I have no clue what you're referencing, but, I'll take a punt based on your previous pearls of wisdom and assume you're probably on the wrong side of this argument too.

- i live through weekly terror attacks in London that are never done by ginger Irish anymore and think extreme vetting is important. And if it needs to happen reduction of immigration of these countries that import violence. ( but no islamophobe)

You're gonna have to cite some sources there bud because I live 50 miles outside of London, I've lived in the South East for most of my 30+ years. Provide a timeline that shows weekly attacks, I'll wait.

I mean I could go on and on. He is definitely a rube and as diplomatic as a wood block....

Well fuck me, we agree on something!

...But there is a lot to like. He may be one of the first presidents who actually really reduced regulations for example.

Oh, nope, you're back off in Crazyville again :/

Now because he is a terrible diplomat he cannot get anything through congress but that's a different story.

There's a whooooole 'nother discussion about why the GOP are failing soooo spectacularly to govern, but we'll keep that for another day.

But in the end he is on the correct side of a ton of issues.

No.

 

[Kane2207]

nickf[/url]":22utjag9]

- i live through weekly terror attacks in London

Weekly terror attacks? You what?

that are never done by ginger Irish

Oh right. You plonker.

There were 4 terror attacks since March and 7 have been prevented. Add to that a couple wide spread acid attacks ( recently one that got a couple people in a shopping mall I normally frequent. ) And my patience is running out a bit.

- Terrorists rammed into people on TWO bridges I regularly cross killing multiple people
- Terrorists killed people with knives in pubs I sometimes visit ( not the same pub but across the street )
- Criminals spread acid around in a shopping mall I go through every couple weeks.
- There was an explosion wounding multiple people in a metro I will soon take daily ( not yet to be fair )

But terror attacks are part and parcel bla bla bla.

In the end Americans should thank their god for the Atlantic. This is not funny anymore. I am really all for immigration. Hell I AM an immigrant. But something went seriously insane here.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/24/met-polic ... h-6952650/

Presumably you never step outside your front door. Crossing the street is a far more dangerous business than the risk posed by 'weekly terror attacks'.

See, you start with 'Terrorist Attacks' but actually lump any old shit in to further your point:

Criminals spread acid around in a shopping mall I go through every couple weeks.

Not a fucking terrorist attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... n-station/

 

[Kane2207]

itdraugr[/url]":3s87crum]

Kane2207[/url]":3s87crum]

I was following, considering your position on political posturing at the global level, then I got to your last sentence....

...tossed all of your argument out the window, slapped a 'Cunt : disregard' sticker on you and moved on.

If you weren't such a bellend, you almost had a point :/

Hit a little too close to home, eh?

lol, no.

Rallying against liberalism, feminism and ethics is pretty much the dumbest fucking argument you can make. That people use 'liberal' as a pejorative is also 'going full potato'.

I don't rally on 'conservatives', 'conservative' concepts (small 'c', important distinction) have some value.

People who think they're 'dropping bombs' by shitting out comments construing that liberalism, feminism and ethics are a bad thing, have no value at all as far as I'm concerned.

Saying that I have a point but you will disregard it because you didn't like a cough slightly cough demagogic sentence at the end? ( Yes yes I concur that this was inflammatory )

It's your choice but it's a bit nonsensical no? A point is a point if you like the person making it or not. You can obviously disregard it but that doesn't change the facts. I only mention it because it's the same error people make with Trump. They hate the WAY he does things but disregard WHAT he actually does. Which by and large is not terrible at all.

He has a Jewish son in law and Mar a Lago was the first member club I'm the city to allow black people. He clearly is no white supremacist. It's just insane to insinuate that and yet people try it constantly. I mean all the time. Hard to take seriously after a while.

- I think trump is correct when he says that the heavy unskilled immigration we currently have is good for business and terrible for unskilled Americans. ( But no he is racist )
- i think criticizing players for disrespecting the anthem would have been completely normal 10 years ago ( but no he is racist)
- I Think removing a group of people with a suicide attempt rate of 40% from the armed forces is sensible ( but no he is a bigot)
- i Think If you want amnesty for dreamers you need Fucking secure borders.( A wall if that is what it takes) . You can't have one without the other otherwise it's just an invitation to ignore laws. ( But no he is a racist)
- i Think getting expelled for rape allegations without any proof or even proper hearing is terrible ( but no Betsy is a Sexist)
- i live through weekly terror attacks in London that are never done by ginger Irish anymore and think extreme vetting is important. And if it needs to happen reduction of immigration of these countries that import violence. ( but no islamophobe)


I mean I could go on and on. He is definitely a rube and as diplomatic as a wood block. But there is a lot to like. He may be one of the first presidents who actually really reduced regulations for example. Now because he is a terrible diplomat he cannot get anything through congress but that's a different story. But in the end he is on the correct side of a ton of issues.

There's so much wrong here. Every one of your points is a prime example of the fallacy of begging the question. You're taking a base assumption - in these cases, your assumption that Trump is not a bigot/racist/homophobe/etc. - and stating an interpretation of one of his many debacles as if that assumption were true, and then concluding that means your assumption is true.

And it's just bad logic throughout. I mean, not only are you overlooking all of the deregulation done by Carter, Reagan, and Clinton, but you're also assuming that deregulation is a good thing without providing any reason we should believe that in the first place.

The reality is that most of the country is dissatisfied with Trump not just because of who he is but also because of what he does (and fails to do). For fuck's sake, getting the sitting President of the United States of America to denounce neo-Nazis in 2017 shouldn't be akin to pulling teeth.

"For fuck's sake, getting the sitting President of the United States of America to denounce neo-Nazis in 2017 shouldn't be akin to pulling teeth."

He made ONE idiotic comment. " Both sides had good people". Which may have been true because there were a serious number of protesters there that were not neo-Nazis but just didn't want their history to be taken down by Bilderstuermer. However it was a terrible stupid thing to say because a big junk of the protesters actually were white supremacists. But he apologized for this almost immediately siting bad information and disavowed hate groups immediately after.

He is also COMPLETELY right in the fact that BOTH sides suck. Antifa is responsible for far more violence than the white supremacy groups.[/i] You may have inherent sympathy with their cause but we in Germany lived through a lot of red terror (Rote Armee Fraktion ) and I can tell you you need to fight them as much as the right ones. I don't see why he should be pressured into retracting that statement at all. BOTH SIDES DID SUCK. He was completely correct.

Wrong again.

Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.

2% are left leaning (Antifa or similar) in ten years.

https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases ... -in-the-us

Here's a nice little list.

https://www.splcenter.org/20100126/terror-right

Up your game Princess, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.



edit - nested comment fail...

 

[Kane2207]

Kane2207[/url]":1x14pkyl]

nickf[/url]":1x14pkyl]

- i live through weekly terror attacks in London

Weekly terror attacks? You what?

that are never done by ginger Irish

Oh right. You plonker.

There were 4 terror attacks since March and 7 have been prevented. Add to that a couple wide spread acid attacks ( recently one that got a couple people in a shopping mall I normally frequent. ) And my patience is running out a bit.

- Terrorists rammed into people on TWO bridges I regularly cross killing multiple people
- Terrorists killed people with knives in pubs I sometimes visit ( not the same pub but across the street )
- Criminals spread acid around in a shopping mall I go through every couple weeks.
- There was an explosion wounding multiple people in a metro I will soon take daily ( not yet to be fair )

But terror attacks are part and parcel bla bla bla.

In the end Americans should thank their god for the Atlantic. This is not funny anymore. I am really all for immigration. Hell I AM an immigrant. But something went seriously insane here.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/24/met-polic ... h-6952650/

Presumably you never step outside your front door. Crossing the street is a far more dangerous business than the risk posed by 'weekly terror attacks'.

See, you start with 'Terrorist Attacks' but actually lump any old shit in to further your point:

Criminals spread acid around in a shopping mall I go through every couple weeks.

Not a fucking terrorist attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... n-station/

Someone spraying acid around a mall is any old Shit? We had 450 of these this year. Now I do not disagree with the fact that British gangs use them as well now but the habit has been imported from the same violent countries that brought us terror attacks. The met doesn't split crimes up by country of origin but they do not have acid attacks in Japan. Let's say it like that.

Those goalposts - they're moving....

 

[Kane2207]

There were 4 terror attacks since March and 7 have been prevented.

So, just to be clear, in London 4 attacks over 210 or so days is equivalent to "daily"?

Well, yeah - once you lump in gang violence, foiled attempts, and Mrs Johnsons argument with the milkman outside from No. 6 from down the road this morning.

Terrorism! Daily!

I've not left my house for nearly 38 years now - better to be safe eh?

 

[Kane2207]

arstechnica and leftists in general: we like censorship, north korea is a good model to follow.

Notice how all of the right leaning comments get auto-downvoted by a swarm of 30 sjw bots when all surrounding comments have hardly any votes. This site has fallen very far.

Off topic, but again, can you please explain the pejorative 'sjw' here?

'Social Justice Warrior'. Lets consider that for a minute.

Someone who campaigns for a just society. Someone who wants justice equally applied across society?

Explain to me how this is:

1) somehow derogatory
2) how justice is something that shouldn't exist in society

When you actually break it down, you look like a bit of a tit?

 

[Kane2207]

arstechnica and leftists in general: we like censorship, north korea is a good model to follow.

Notice how all of the right leaning comments get auto-downvoted by a swarm of 30 sjw bots when all surrounding comments have hardly any votes. This site has fallen very far.

Notice how people using sjw are uniformed and are being downvoted because they make stupid statements?

Cause yes, it's happening to you too.

Notice how quickly SJWs get vindictive when someone disagrees with them and how they immediately resort to ad-hominem attacks.

Eh? You've not said anything that I can debate and disagree with, just "Waaaaaahhh, people are down voting me".

Need a safe space?

 

[Kane2207]

arstechnica and leftists in general: we like censorship, north korea is a good model to follow.

Notice how all of the right leaning comments get auto-downvoted by a swarm of 30 sjw bots when all surrounding comments have hardly any votes. This site has fallen very far.

Off topic, but again, can you please explain the pejorative 'sjw' here?

'Social Justice Warrior'. Lets consider that for a minute.

Someone who campaigns for a just society. Someone who wants justice equally applied across society?

Explain to me how this is:

1) somehow derogatory
2) how justice is something that shouldn't exist in society

When you actually break it down, you look like a bit of a tit?

It's not a flattering term.

Urban Dictionary[/url]":36iky1ck]
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.

lol, Urban Dictionary - the ultimate authority on the matter.

Couldn't you link to something reputable? Like Breitbart, Infowars, an Alex Jones interview, maybe a few comments from Beelzebub Bannon or some other tool, like Milo?

I broke the term down for you logically, and your counter to logic is Urban Dictionary?

Anyway, whilst there I noticed an incomplete entry - please forward a passport sized photograph of yourself so that I can update this accordingly.

Many thanks.

 

[Kane2207]

arstechnica and leftists in general: we like censorship, north korea is a good model to follow.

Notice how all of the right leaning comments get auto-downvoted by a swarm of 30 sjw bots when all surrounding comments have hardly any votes. This site has fallen very far.

Off topic, but again, can you please explain the pejorative 'sjw' here?

'Social Justice Warrior'. Lets consider that for a minute.

Someone who campaigns for a just society. Someone who wants justice equally applied across society?

Explain to me how this is:

1) somehow derogatory
2) how justice is something that shouldn't exist in society

When you actually break it down, you look like a bit of a tit?

It's not a flattering term.

Urban Dictionary[/url]":rzgag5ck]
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.

lol, Urban Dictionary - the ultimate authority on the matter.

Couldn't you link to something reputable? Like Breitbart, Infowars, an Alex Jones interview, maybe a few comments from Beelzebub Bannon or some other tool, like Milo?

I broke the term down for you logically, and your counter to logic is Urban Dictionary?

Anyway, whilst there I noticed an incomplete entry - please forward a passport sized photograph of yourself so that I can update this accordingly.

Many thanks.

Since SJW is slang i used UD because they are essentially a slang dictionary.

How many debates have you "won" with your ad-homs?

About as many as you have when you initiated ad hominem posts ('sjw' - remember?), bitching about down votes.

I'm not here for the 'winning' though, dissecting arguments and posts posited by right leaning loons, such as yourself, is for my own personal amusement.

 

[Kane2207]

arstechnica and leftists in general: we like censorship, north korea is a good model to follow.

Notice how all of the right leaning comments get auto-downvoted by a swarm of 30 sjw bots when all surrounding comments have hardly any votes. This site has fallen very far.

Off topic, but again, can you please explain the pejorative 'sjw' here?

'Social Justice Warrior'. Lets consider that for a minute.

Someone who campaigns for a just society. Someone who wants justice equally applied across society?

Explain to me how this is:

1) somehow derogatory
2) how justice is something that shouldn't exist in society

When you actually break it down, you look like a bit of a tit?

Yeah and North Korea is actually the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Don't be obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse, it was a straight up question.

I personally find the terms 'sjw', 'liberal', etc, highly amusing. They're slung around with venom but don't actually stand up to even the slightest bit of logical analysis.

Do I want a just society for me and my family? Why yes, I do, actually.

It's almost as dumb as Joao calling me 'Antifa' in TDS threads, like being nonchalant about countering extremism, or even choosing extremism, is a viable option.

The DPRK being a 'democracy' is a droll counter though - are you going to argue that the Nazi party were actually socialists next? We should definitely revisit that one for the thousandth time!

 

[Kane2207]

arstechnica and leftists in general: we like censorship, north korea is a good model to follow.

Notice how all of the right leaning comments get auto-downvoted by a swarm of 30 sjw bots when all surrounding comments have hardly any votes. This site has fallen very far.

Off topic, but again, can you please explain the pejorative 'sjw' here?

'Social Justice Warrior'. Lets consider that for a minute.

Someone who campaigns for a just society. Someone who wants justice equally applied across society?

Explain to me how this is:

1) somehow derogatory
2) how justice is something that shouldn't exist in society

When you actually break it down, you look like a bit of a tit?

Yeah and North Korea is actually the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Don't be obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse, it was a straight up question.

I personally find the terms 'sjw', 'liberal', etc, highly amusing. They're slung around with venom but don't actually stand up to even the slightest bit of logical analysis.

Do I want a just society for me and my family? Why yes, I do, actually.

It's almost as dumb as Joao calling me 'Antifa' in TDS threads, like being nonchalant about countering extremism, or even choosing extremism, is a viable option.

The DPRK being a 'democracy' is a droll counter though - are you going to argue that the Nazi party were actually socialists next? We should definitely revisit that one for the thousandth time!

By your logic they would be. Ergo 'don't be obtuse'. SJWs 'fight' for actual social justice as much as Nazis were actually socialist and NK is actually democratic.

By way of elaboration, SJWs don't fight for social justice, they fight for conformity to their internal dogmas. They might believe what they're fighting for is justice, but only insomuch as Jehovah's Witnesses believe they're saving souls.

Oh I didn't realise you knew every single one personally - how stupid of me, we had the oracle on the matter here all along!

You do realise I'm mocking the fact that it's a very dumb pejorative that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, right?

 

[Kane2207]

Is Donald Trump really it’s most popular user? Justin Bieber has 3 times as many followers.

Has to be taken in context though.

Last time I checked, Bieber wasn't elected President of the US, with a large nuclear arsenal at his disposal.

 

[Kane2207]

The irony of you accusing rabish12 of posting spin is just... wow. That's a lot to take in.

You're focusing on the one incident that you can spin to try defending Trump's racism but you're ignoring his history of racist attitudes and statements. And the really sad part is that you don't even get why you're wrong about the way he's denigrating Mexican immigrants. He characterized all illegal immigrants from Mexico as criminals and rapists. And he framed immigration from Mexico as a problem of that country deliberately sending us their worst people. And when addressing that crowd he hammered on the idea that Mexican immigrants are different from them - note the repetition of "they're not sending you." It's a clear, unambiguous message from Trump to his supporters that identifies them as good people, and ethnically different immigrants as bad people. Unless you endorse that racism and are just so accustomed to it that you don't recognize its evils and just see those attitudes as normal, there is no honest way to say that he wasn't being racist.

Ok, then, give more examples.

MEanwhile, he did not say that all illegal Mexicans are rapists and criminals, to correct you. He qualified his comment. Even if he had, to be racist he would have to say, or imply, that rape and criminality is a Mexican quality, which he also did not say. Rather, that's your prejudiced inference that the facts do not support. And sure, he may have had some of his facts wrong, I don't dispute that, but it's you who are characterising him as racist rather than him characterising Mexicans as criminals.

The fact is that there is no substantiated evidnece that he is racist. And his comments are simply misrepresented by his prejudiced opponents, as above, to make him out to be racist etc.

It's even got to the point where people started calling him a fascist and Hitler. Which is simply absurd.

The fact is that many Mexicans did vote for him. Because they weren't so stupid as to be taken in by media misrepresentation. Same for other minority groups.

^^ Meth - it's one hell ov'a drug, huh?

 

[Kane2207]

But I'm not as dumb as you young folk in being taken in by blatant misrepresentation and spinning every little thing in to racism, misogyny, sexism, etc etc, that is making life in the Anglo-Saxon world a minefield for ordinary people. Your liberties are going up in the smoke of your self-righteousness.

Anglo-Saxon world? You mean England in the 5th century?

Well, shit... I guess you're well qualified to call us "you young folk".

FFS - I was born in East Anglia and at no point in my nearly 40 years have I ever heard anyone refer to people as 'Anglo-Saxon' as a type, subset, or class to define a group from there.

East Anglia is really ground zero if anyone is ever going to identify as Anglo-Saxon. No-one uses that as a term - unless they're in a secondary school history lesson!

 

[Kane2207]

Hey, itsastickup. http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/

Unless I'm mistaken, Fortune has yet to be dismissed as "Fake News."

There's not a single instance given that proves that Trump is racist.

You have to be a moron to believe the headline. Those are not racist quotes in any meaningful sense.

And the historical example, (1979), not only goes back decades, which is desperate fishing about, but is much more likely to be a case of pragmatism on expected sales. That is not meaningfully racist, and in any case, can't be directly imputed to Trump but rather one of his companies.

Here you go - someone compiled a list for you.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... sm-w497876

Now, fuck off?

 

[Kane2207]

But I'm not as dumb as you young folk in being taken in by blatant misrepresentation and spinning every little thing in to racism, misogyny, sexism, etc etc, that is making life in the Anglo-Saxon world a minefield for ordinary people. Your liberties are going up in the smoke of your self-righteousness.

Anglo-Saxon world? You mean England in the 5th century?

Well, shit... I guess you're well qualified to call us "you young folk".

FFS - I was born in East Anglia and at no point in my nearly 40 years have I ever heard anyone refer to people as 'Anglo-Saxon' as a type, subset, or class to define a group from there.

East Anglia is really ground zero if anyone is ever going to identify as Anglo-Saxon. No-one uses that as a term - unless they're in a secondary school history lesson!

Sheesh, you people are young.

Anglo-saxon economics and attitudes characterise the UK and US and is a common way to refer to the difference between them and particularly Europe but also much of the rest of the world.

It has little to do with a people.

But it also packages up liberal democray as manifested in the UK and USA, a liberal democracy that has been dumped with anti-discrimination laws that coerce private behaviour in business and the professions. And is one of the reasons that Trump got power.

Have you skipped some meds?

Is there a village missing you somewhere?

 

[Kane2207]

I didn't see the link (I'm color blind).

You're welcome to continue being a brilliant mental gymnast, but please do not lie about being color blind. Ars' designers did an absolutely fantastic job of creating a high-contrast design with colors that do not become confused under any form of color blindness (most will see the orange links as yellow, some with a rare form will see them as deep pink, and the rarest form will see them as a medium -- 50% exactly -- grey).

You simply failed to see the link because you skimmed, and responded with an uninformed screed instead of actually considering the content of the comment.

Thanks for the presumption. But some color blind people have less capacity for noticing colored clues. I simply did not notice the link.

And presumptuous judgements is really the theme of the new millennial bigots. No understanding of human nature, no magnanimity, denouncing the old, hating them in fact, and hating anyone who disagrees with their opinions. It's really quite the phenomena. They are the purest irony of bigotry.

Us oldies think of you as the Neo-Spoiled. But when you are old, it will all come back on you.

That's true! And it happens in situations where colors are similar, not when they are extremely distinct.

Or did you presumptuously assume that I'm someone who doesn't deal with color blindness on a daily basis?

I stated a fact when I said I simply did not notice the link. And I gave a reason why that could be. And they are not 'extremely' distinct to me, to correct you.

But you seem intent on pursuing this. Are you trying to suggest that I am lying? Any reason why I would be motivated to do that? I did, when it was pointed out to me, address the link's contents.

"You honor, he claimed he didn't see the link because he's color blind"

"20 years"

"But when it was pointed out, he addressed the link's contents"

"WHAT!!!!! 120 years without parole!!!! Never in all my judging......"



Anyway, fancy coming across a color blindness expert. Are you in fact color blind?

I should mention another instance, which I also put down to color blindness. I walked in to my flat one day, a while ago, and made a cup of tea. And one of the girls said "so what do you think?". There was a large bunch of flowers on the table that I simply hadn't noticed.

Whether it's color blindness or not, it seems like a likely cause.

As for the accusation of skimming. I suppose I ought to get double the time. 240 years? What a terrible crime that is.

Oh, c'mon. You've spun some yarns here but trying to make us believe you don't live in your Moms basement, or that you've had genuine interactions with the opposite sex, is just a bridge too far

 

[Kane2207]

I should mention another instance, which I also put down to color blindness. I walked in to my flat one day, a while ago, and made a cup of tea. And one of the girls said "so what do you think?". There was a large bunch of flowers on the table that I simply hadn't noticed.

Oh, c'mon. You've spun some yarns here but trying to make us believe you don't live in your Moms basement, or that you've had genuine interactions with the opposite sex, is just a bridge too far

I'd like to point out that he has to have a mom in order to live in her basement.
Thus, if he is a he, then he has technically had interactions with the opposite sex.

Ha, yes, I was in two minds how to word the snark, "meaningful interactions outside of your mother whilst you're holed up in her basement", or similar, would have been better.

I'm English though, so you'd expect my mastery of the language to be somewhat lacking

 

[Kane2207]

if it's past a certain number of pages, you basically have to threaten someone or post spam for it to even get looked at.

Getting close to the tenth page of comments is when the goddam ponies show up, at which point intellectual discourse is only by accident.

Circling like sharks...