In a Basket of Deplorables

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So? What's your point? They're just as bad as us?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The same reasoning is used to justify indiscriminate violence, aggression, bullying, vandalism, and coercion against people who support a particular candidate, whether they identify as deplorable or not. Dismissing that says a lot.

You keep saying that it is this reasoning that people use to justify and dismiss these actions but that happens very little around here. Most people here condemn violence.

I may be one of the the odd ones that says good, have at it, but I don't need any justification.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dismissing that given a choice to identify with hard-working American or racists, et. al. many chose racists?

Seems pretty fundamental and clear.

PS I see you dropped slander from the list ... Lol

Doesn't sound clear to me, at least in your writing (I wonder how many times you've erroneously used "et al" in this thread alone).

As I stated, the same fallacious beliefs are used to justify indiscriminate violence and denial of human rights.

"Lol"

a reply to: daskakik

You keep saying that it is this reasoning that people use to justify and dismiss these actions but that happens very little around here. Most people here condemn violence.

I may be one of the the odd ones that says good, have at it, but I don't need any justification.

I'm not talking about ATS users. I'm talking about the people committing violence. I don't care what you do, so have at.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The only ones you can talk to around here are ATS members. Those committing violence don't care about your logic and don't need to justify things to you either.

You sure do seem to care when I post something.

a reply to: daskakik

The only ones you can talk to around here are ATS members. Those committing violence don't care about your logic and don't need to justify things to you either.

You sure do seem to care when I post something.

I care deeply when you post something. Thanks for reminding me.

I don't understand your point.

Seems relevant to this topic

Good thread! I didn't get through it all yet, but I wanted to add my thoughts.

First, I would argue that the amount of sexists, racists, etc. are abut the same on both sides of the aisle. Some of those may be white racists or male sexists, some may be racists of colors or sexists women, etc.

As has been mentioned, I have seen deplorable people like Mateens dad, man haters and pedophiles like Lena Dunham, white people haters and racial hucksters like Al Sharpton all support Hillary, and in fact she praises these endorsements. If Trump praised a person who was as openly racially biased as Sharpton against blacks, it would be all you would hear about.

Lets just be honest that there are crappy people voting for all of the candidates.

The other thing is this is another example of the moral lefts hypocrisy. The left shouts and screams any time someone labels anyone they like, but love grouping everyone against them and name calling. Does this not at least prove that the left is full of it when they talk about unifying the country. Its not just Hillary, I have seen tons of lefties in the media defend her comments.

I am not saying the right is any less divisive than the left, but it is the left that tries to claim the moral high ground and be great unifiers, while claiming half of the people that don't agree with them are irredeemable. I am so sick of thsi hypocrisy.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah ... Triggered you with the slander observation eh?

LOL

Yes you made a wildly generic statement that means nothing in response to a very specific observation that does.

If the only thing you can critique is the use of et. al. noting a well known contextual list there ... Well let's say I had come to expect more from you than matronly peevishness, e.g. being triggered.

As to calls for violence, you'll find those, literally, in Trump speeches ... so you can add hypocritically peevish as well.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah ... Triggered you with the slander observation eh?

LOL

Flatter yourself if need be. Maintaining your fantasies and projections is my pleasure.

Yes you made a wildly generic statement that means nothing in response to a very specific observation that does.

If the only thing you can critique is the use of et. al. noting a well known contextual list there ... Well let's say I had come to expect more from you than matronly peevishness, e.g. being triggered.

As to calls for violence, you'll find those, literally, in Trump speeches ... so you can add hypocritically peevish as well.

Your specific observation lacked any reality, and was born from the same place as your other fantasies.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Heheh. I always know when you get nasty and personal you've seen your error.

You conflated a very specific statement of mine, that Clinton literally described two groups in this speech that had you and the other TJWs all aflutter ...into a feeble argument that false dichotomy is used somewhere sometime to do something bad ...

It really is in this case a straight forward either/or and many Trump supporters chose unwisely apparently not understanding the logic of "or"

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was responding to the statement "I'm not sure what the hubbub is about on this issue, really. " I gave you an answer. Simple—well I hope for some people, "et al".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I was responding to the statement "I'm not sure what the hubbub is about on this issue, really. " I gave you an answer. Simple.

You provided vague meaningless drivel. Show us where this comment of Clintons has caused violence then.

You can back up your claim right?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You provided vague meaningless drivel. Show us where this comment of Clintons has caused violence then.

You can back up your claim right?

Speaking of drivel, show me where I said this comment caused violence.

I'll save you the effort. I never said her comment caused violence. I said the reasoning and belief justifies violence.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So what are you complaining about here??!

Belief, not words are the danger?

So this thread about Clintons words is spurious!

Shame.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So what are you complaining about here??!

Belief, not words are the danger?

So this thread about Clintons words is spurious!

Shame.

I'm not complaining, for one. It reads like you are the one complaining.

Two, this thread isn't only about Clinton's words, but also of the guilt by association fallacy, the violence against Trump supporters, and the deplorable actions of those who engage in it.

Once again, dealing in nothing but falsities.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Guilt by association? You mean more words that have no power in and of themselves?

Again note the "violence against Trump supporters" that you can tie to these words of Clinton? which you have told us time and again have no power to cause action ... That it is always the beliefs of the actors that are the cause ... Then perhaps you won't appear to be perpetuating one big hypocritical diatribe that you yourself disagree with.

Are you saying that Clintons words MADE people act?

Prove it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don't understand your point.

Those carrying out violence against trump supporter's don't care how logical your ideas seem to you and unless they read ATS will never come across them.

So, you are talking to ATS users about those committing violent acts but also saying that those ATS users are being dismissive when that may not be the case.

Then again, maybe some are because it fits the definition and talking about why others choose to be violent isn't worthy of discussion.

a reply to: UnBreakable

LOL ... the DonaldBot?

Sounds about right.