Trump supporters: Tell me why the President *isn’t* super-racist.

[Dr. Arch]

Why? You guys cheered the baseball shooter,

LOL, what?

I think Sanchez has officially overdosed on Infowars.

He's off the deep end. He projects some sort of response that never happened and then expects serious responses from people as if they actually engaged in that way to begin with. It's absolute ignorance at its finest. It's equally ironic because he actually wanted the Parkland kids to have been killed by the shooter too.

Enjoy your cult-like mentality, Sanchez.

[Dr. Arch]

Why? You guys cheered the baseball shooter,

LOL, what?

I think Sanchez has officially overdosed on Infowars.

He's off the deep end. He projects some sort of response that never happened and then expects serious responses from people as if they actually engaged in that way to begin with. It's absolute ignorance at its finest. It's equally ironic because he actually wanted the Parkland kids to have been killed by the shooter too.

Enjoy your cult-like mentality, Sanchez.

The false claim about my Parkland post is proof. You're literally responding just as I predicted.

It isn't. You sympathized with the mass shooter, and even went as far as implying they deserved it for how you imagined they treated him. Whether or not you deny that is up to you, not that your connection to reality is all that good.

[Dr. Arch]

Why? You guys cheered the baseball shooter,

LOL, what?

I think Sanchez has officially overdosed on Infowars.

He's off the deep end. He projects some sort of response that never happened and then expects serious responses from people as if they actually engaged in that way to begin with. It's absolute ignorance at its finest. It's equally ironic because he actually wanted the Parkland kids to have been killed by the shooter too.

Enjoy your cult-like mentality, Sanchez.

The false claim about my Parkland post is proof. You're literally responding just as I predicted.

It isn't. You sympathized with the mass shooter, and even went as far as implying they deserved it for how you imagined they treated him. Whether or not you deny that is up to you, not that your connection to reality is all that good.

Go back and actually read it. Find it and quote it if you're so sure. Prove me wrong.

Our search feature is broken, and I'm not about to waste hours searching through thousands of pages to find the right thread to look for a post that you might have even deleted.

Someone should have the post handy. We can wait for them.

[Dr. Arch]

Why? You guys cheered the baseball shooter,

LOL, what?

I think Sanchez has officially overdosed on Infowars.

He's off the deep end. He projects some sort of response that never happened and then expects serious responses from people as if they actually engaged in that way to begin with. It's absolute ignorance at its finest. It's equally ironic because he actually wanted the Parkland kids to have been killed by the shooter too.

Enjoy your cult-like mentality, Sanchez.

The false claim about my Parkland post is proof. You're literally responding just as I predicted.

It isn't. You sympathized with the mass shooter, and even went as far as implying they deserved it for how you imagined they treated him. Whether or not you deny that is up to you, not that your connection to reality is all that good.

Go back and actually read it. Find it and quote it if you're so sure. Prove me wrong.

Our search feature is broken, and I'm not about to waste hours searching through thousands of pages to find the right thread to look for a post that you might have even deleted.

Someone should have the post handy. We can wait for them.

Ok. You're too lazy to dig the post, in which I clearly and openly said they didn't deserve to be shot. In other words, you and Arch are now deliberately lying. Gotcha.

I have better use for my time than to sift through thousands of pages of your dumb ramblings because the search feature is broken.

I remember what I read, and many others in this forum do too. Just quit while you're ahead. It's clear you've been #triggered.

[Dr. Arch]

Why? You guys cheered the baseball shooter,

LOL, what?

I think Sanchez has officially overdosed on Infowars.

He's off the deep end. He projects some sort of response that never happened and then expects serious responses from people as if they actually engaged in that way to begin with. It's absolute ignorance at its finest. It's equally ironic because he actually wanted the Parkland kids to have been killed by the shooter too.

Enjoy your cult-like mentality, Sanchez.

The false claim about my Parkland post is proof. You're literally responding just as I predicted.

It isn't. You sympathized with the mass shooter, and even went as far as implying they deserved it for how you imagined they treated him. Whether or not you deny that is up to you, not that your connection to reality is all that good.

Go back and actually read it. Find it and quote it if you're so sure. Prove me wrong.

Our search feature is broken, and I'm not about to waste hours searching through thousands of pages to find the right thread to look for a post that you might have even deleted.

Someone should have the post handy. We can wait for them.

Ok. You're too lazy to dig the post, in which I clearly and openly said they didn't deserve to be shot. In other words, you and Arch are now deliberately lying. Gotcha.

I have better use for my time than to sift through thousands of pages of your dumb ramblings because the search feature is broken.

I remember what I read, and many others in this forum do too. Just quit while you're ahead. It's clear you've been #triggered.

You're pathetic. Can't stand being beaten in argument? Who are you? BRTD's other sock? Either put up or shut up. I dare you.

LOL. I thought you weren't engaging seriously with us anymore because we're not worth it. You had the chance to put up and fell right through.

I rest my case.

[Dr. Arch]

Why? You guys cheered the baseball shooter,

LOL, what?
I think Sanchez has officially overdosed on Infowars.

He's off the deep end. He projects some sort of response that never happened and then expects serious responses from people as if they actually engaged in that way to begin with. It's absolute ignorance at its finest. It's equally ironic because he actually wanted the Parkland kids to have been killed by the shooter too.

Enjoy your cult-like mentality, Sanchez.

The false claim about my Parkland post is proof. You're literally responding just as I predicted.

It isn't. You sympathized with the mass shooter, and even went as far as implying they deserved it for how you imagined they treated him. Whether or not you deny that is up to you, not that your connection to reality is all that good.

Go back and actually read it. Find it and quote it if you're so sure. Prove me wrong.

Our search feature is broken, and I'm not about to waste hours searching through thousands of pages to find the right thread to look for a post that you might have even deleted.
Someone should have the post handy. We can wait for them.

Ok. You're too lazy to dig the post, in which I clearly and openly said they didn't deserve to be shot. In other words, you and Arch are now deliberately lying. Gotcha.

I have better use for my time than to sift through thousands of pages of your dumb ramblings because the search feature is broken.
I remember what I read, and many others in this forum do too. Just quit while you're ahead. It's clear you've been #triggered.

He said it.
It was something about how the rich, stuck-up, bully-like kids from that area of Florida deserved it (something to that nature).
So many people read it. It was disgusting.
Just let him "play stupid" about it. He is the one with pie on his face.

Go dig up the post. I dare you. Prove me wrong. I remember that post almost well.

Found it with Google. Peenie_weenie's response encapsulates it well:

I'm not apologizing for this.

Ever wonder why these shootings occur? You think Nikolas Cruz decided at four years old that he was going to shoot up a school in fifteen years? People like Nikolas Cruz, who hopefully will hang himself soon enough, endure a lifetime of marginalization from mostly white, mostly wealthy students who live behind the shelter of the walls of their gated communities. That's why this shooting has the Pink-hatter moms so fired up. It wasn't two black kids being slain execution style in the hood forty five minutes east of them this time.

Look at his Instagram posts. They should've seen this a mile away. The kids knew he was the shooter as soon as the shots started. They were joking about it for years beforehand. When you see someone this obviously troubled, you reach out to them. But you guys don't want to reach out to them. You want to make jokes about the emotional trauma they've endured and then want to blame the guns to avoid looking at the culture of nastiness that is prevalent in places like Parkland.

You know? Because you are those kids or worse yet, you're a failed parent they're your kids.

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered.

like... how was high school for you? sounds like it was rough.

Let's just say that he was a frequent visitor inside lockers.

High school was pretty great. I went to a rinky dink little Christian school. Very diverse, very accepting. Everyone got along. Bullying wasn't a real issue - not for me at least. We lived in working class neighborhoods and all got along. Nice try. When are you going to own up to the culture you've perpetuated.

I love how the guy who tries to bully and belittle people on this board all the time is going to blame the victims of gun violence for getting shot because of a "culture of nastiness"

What does that mean you deserve?

[Dr. Arch]

They have zero evidence against me. I hope they never become lawyers. There lack of willingness to dig up the post proves it.

I already dug it up using Google. #ThatReadingComprehension

Also, *their

[Dr. Arch]

They have zero evidence against me. I hope they never become lawyers. There lack of willingness to dig up the post proves it.

I already dug it up using Google. #ThatReadingComprehension

Also, *their

Lol so where did I specifically say they "deserved" it. Bold that part for me. I read my post and saw absolutely nothing to support your claims. Not a single sentence.

I said it was implied, and it is, especially given the context--when the event recently happened, your response was to jump to the shooter's defense, rationalizing his behavior and casting culpability on the victims.

It doesn't have to literally be "I SAID THIS." Almost everyone interpreted it that way in that thread. You can go back and read it for yourself. Whether or not that was not your intention, it is not up to us to help you phrase what you mean.

[Dr. Arch]

They have zero evidence against me. I hope they never become lawyers. There lack of willingness to dig up the post proves it.

I already dug it up using Google. #ThatReadingComprehension

Also, *their

Lol so where did I specifically say they "deserved" it. Bold that part for me. I read my post and saw absolutely nothing to support your claims. Not a single sentence.

I said it was implied, and it is, especially given the context--when the event recently happened, your response was to jump to the shooter's defense, rationalizing his behavior and casting culpability on the victims.

It doesn't have to literally be "I SAID THIS." Almost everyone interpreted it that way in that thread. You can go back and read it for yourself. Whether or not that was not your intention, it is not up to us to help you phrase what you mean.

So, in other words, this has been a swing and a miss on your part.

Nope. That's not at all a swing and miss. Your post is there, with all of its disgusting content intact. There are more of your precious treasures all over that thread.

[Dr. Arch]

They have zero evidence against me. I hope they never become lawyers. There lack of willingness to dig up the post proves it.

I already dug it up using Google. #ThatReadingComprehension

Also, *their

Lol so where did I specifically say they "deserved" it. Bold that part for me. I read my post and saw absolutely nothing to support your claims. Not a single sentence.

I said it was implied, and it is, especially given the context--when the event recently happened, your response was to jump to the shooter's defense, rationalizing his behavior and casting culpability on the victims.

It doesn't have to literally be "I SAID THIS." Almost everyone interpreted it that way in that thread. You can go back and read it for yourself. Whether or not that was not your intention, it is not up to us to help you phrase what you mean.

This feels kind of like a slut shaming in order to trivialize a sexual assault. It was like in college where in intro Psych, they had a laboratory where people had to assign the blame when a woman was sexually assaulted after coming home at night from cheating on her SO at a bar.  Most people blamed the woman and the professor used it as an example of the "moral model" of social order as opposed to an "agency model" or a "medical model". Or something like that.
"If people didn't want to be shot, they shouldn't have made themselves targets so its their fault almost as much as it is Cruz's fault."

Yeah, pretty much. It's a matter of perspective and framing. Of course, he already prefaced in that thread that he wasn't going to apologize for his views, so he has no recourse to backtrack, not that he ever will.

[Dr. Arch]

Are you going to psychologically profile me now Arch, seeing as you're apparently a jack of all trades

 

And I appreciate the compliment, although I'm far from it in my view.

[Dr. Arch]

They have zero evidence against me. I hope they never become lawyers. There lack of willingness to dig up the post proves it.

I already dug it up using Google. #ThatReadingComprehension

Also, *their

Lol so where did I specifically say they "deserved" it. Bold that part for me. I read my post and saw absolutely nothing to support your claims. Not a single sentence.

I said it was implied, and it is, especially given the context--when the event recently happened, your response was to jump to the shooter's defense, rationalizing his behavior and casting culpability on the victims.

It doesn't have to literally be "I SAID THIS." Almost everyone interpreted it that way in that thread. You can go back and read it for yourself. Whether or not that was not your intention, it is not up to us to help you phrase what you mean.

This feels kind of like a slut shaming in order to trivialize a sexual assault. It was like in college where in intro Psych, they had a laboratory where people had to assign the blame when a woman was sexually assaulted after coming home at night from cheating on her SO at a bar.  Most people blamed the woman and the professor used it as an example of the "moral model" of social order as opposed to an "agency model" or a "medical model". Or something like that.
"If people didn't want to be shot, they shouldn't have made themselves targets so its their fault almost as much as it is Cruz's fault."

Yeah, pretty much. It's a matter of perspective and framing. Of course, he already prefaced in that thread that he wasn't going to apologize for his views, so he has no recourse to backtrack, not that he ever will.

Even after the post/evidence has been presented, he still denies it.
Classic Sanchez having a tantrum that 99% of people reading such a post, would come to the same conclusion.

It's a matter of standards of evidence. To convict himself, the standard is far higher than he would have to convict Hillary, for instance. He needs to see a literally, semantically unambiguous, statement to assign any self-culpability.

It's an empty form of argumentation, simply because Pragmatics are more significant than Semantics in context-rich conversations--this is a core understanding in linguistics when performing conversational analysis.

Whenever someone resorts to talking about semantics while ignoring pragmatics, it's usually the case that they have no other way to defend themselves.

[Dr. Arch]

Dude, just give up. You know damn well I didn't say that and you lost the argument.

The fact that you keep rubber banding back to the same talking point without addressing my point above is reason enough to doubt this claim. See how people reacted to your statement in context in that thread, and tell me that everyone else didn't understand it the way you claim you said it.

You want a literal statement? It's not there. The implication clearly is, but that's not enough for you. Nobody is going to change their minds on what you said just because you went full dog whistle. It's the same tactic your precious party uses to campaign on ethnic and racial resentment, while rejecting they ever did.

[Dr. Arch]

You have to remember, the left has a very broad definition of racism. To millions of white Americans, the KKK is racist, segregation was racist, and slavery was racist. In the absence of that, nothing else is racist to millions and millions of people.

LOL

[Dr. Arch]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

It's the same sorry crew that provided the character assasination.  Invisible Obama.  ProudModerate2.  Arch.  They should be spokepeople for GEICO; have them ranting falsehoods about people, while the announcer says, "When you're ProudModerate2, you mischaracterize your opponents and smear their character undeservedly.  It's what you do."  It would be a great ad, worthy of a Super Bowl Timespot.

1) It took me less than five minutes once I looked up how to do it with Google. Nobody was afraid, and I posted it above the moment I found it. For someone coming in with righteous condescension about character assassination, you come off as quite the hypocrite.

2) No. The implication is palpable and real, and that was already addressed in the original thread; you can go read Peenie's posts there.

3) He did not call them out on their "anti-death" positions. He put their culpability as mass shooting victims into question by mis-assigning part of the fault of the disaster on the victims. It is a kind of gas lighting, and I won't legitimize that as a position worth addressing beyond that, when it's clearly not the case.

[Dr. Arch]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

It's the same sorry crew that provided the character assasination.  Invisible Obama.  ProudModerate2.  Arch.  They should be spokepeople for GEICO; have them ranting falsehoods about people, while the announcer says, "When you're ProudModerate2, you mischaracterize your opponents and smear their character undeservedly.  It's what you do."  It would be a great ad, worthy of a Super Bowl Timespot.

1) It took me less than five minutes once I looked up how to do it with Google. Nobody was afraid, and I posted it above the moment I found it. For someone coming in with righteous condescension about character assassination, you come off as quite the hypocrite.

2) No. The implication is palpable and real, and that was already addressed in the original thread; you can go read Peenie's posts there.

3) He did not call them out on their "anti-death" positions. He put their culpability as mass shooting victims into question by mis-assigning part of the fault of the disaster on the victims. It is a kind of gas lighting, and I won't legitimize that as a position worth addressing beyond that, when it's clearly not the case.

Perhaps if you say it enough, others will be driven to strong drink, after enough of which, your viewpoint on this issue might make sense.

I recommend sobriety.

 

[Dr. Arch]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

It's the same sorry crew that provided the character assasination.  Invisible Obama.  ProudModerate2.  Arch.  They should be spokepeople for GEICO; have them ranting falsehoods about people, while the announcer says, "When you're ProudModerate2, you mischaracterize your opponents and smear their character undeservedly.  It's what you do."  It would be a great ad, worthy of a Super Bowl Timespot.

1) It took me less than five minutes once I looked up how to do it with Google. Nobody was afraid, and I posted it above the moment I found it. For someone coming in with righteous condescension about character assassination, you come off as quite the hypocrite.

2) No. The implication is palpable and real, and that was already addressed in the original thread; you can go read Peenie's posts there.

3) He did not call them out on their "anti-death" positions. He put their culpability as mass shooting victims into question by mis-assigning part of the fault of the disaster on the victims. It is a kind of gas lighting, and I won't legitimize that as a position worth addressing beyond that, when it's clearly not the case.

You, Arch, and ProudModerate2, and Invisible Obama, have attached my character repeatedly, over and over again, by calling me various names, by playing the "Everyone I don't like is Hitler!" game, calling me a hypocrite whenever I provide a little pushback, and repeating your points when disproven, never manifesting a spirit of actual discussion, of being willing to see other viewpoints, let alone advocating a coherent viewpoint of your own.  That's fine, too; you get to do that.  But I'm going to push back, and I'm going to call you three out every time you pull your schtick.

And I'm going to ask my friends here to do that as well.  You three are the worst in this way.  Since it's not against the ToS to do so, I'm fine with asking for backup.  But if it doesn't come, I'm willing to stand alone. 

What you three pulled with Sanchez is "low within the rules". 

1) I called you a hypocrite because you acted like one. You didn't care to read the posts above and then proceeded to pat yourself on the back for something that wasn't represented even remotely well.

I don't think I've ever "attached [sic]" your character any other time beyond nominal disagreements, ever. I know you feel cornered, and you want to swing in an arc, but we are all very different posters who agree in this conversation. Did I call you Hitler or anything of that sort? No. Stop. You're making a fool out of yourself.

When I brought out the points about semantics versus pragmatics, it was ignored, and I specifically indicated that Sanchez was rubber banding to avoid addressing anything of substance. In fact, nothing I said was really disproven.

2) And you're defending Sanchez now that he prefaced the conversation saying he didn't owe us "any civility" (note even the mod called him out on this) and that we weren't worth arguing with. He doesn't act in good faith; he doesn't argue in good faith; his politics are not executed in good faith. Yet, you're here crying wolf because you feel attacked because I, rightly so, called you out.

[Dr. Arch]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

It's the same sorry crew that provided the character assasination.  Invisible Obama.  ProudModerate2.  Arch.  They should be spokepeople for GEICO; have them ranting falsehoods about people, while the announcer says, "When you're ProudModerate2, you mischaracterize your opponents and smear their character undeservedly.  It's what you do."  It would be a great ad, worthy of a Super Bowl Timespot.

1) It took me less than five minutes once I looked up how to do it with Google. Nobody was afraid, and I posted it above the moment I found it. For someone coming in with righteous condescension about character assassination, you come off as quite the hypocrite.

2) No. The implication is palpable and real, and that was already addressed in the original thread; you can go read Peenie's posts there.

3) He did not call them out on their "anti-death" positions. He put their culpability as mass shooting victims into question by mis-assigning part of the fault of the disaster on the victims. It is a kind of gas lighting, and I won't legitimize that as a position worth addressing beyond that, when it's clearly not the case.

You, Arch, and ProudModerate2, and Invisible Obama, have attached my character repeatedly, over and over again, by calling me various names, by playing the "Everyone I don't like is Hitler!" game, calling me a hypocrite whenever I provide a little pushback, and repeating your points when disproven, never manifesting a spirit of actual discussion, of being willing to see other viewpoints, let alone advocating a coherent viewpoint of your own.  That's fine, too; you get to do that.  But I'm going to push back, and I'm going to call you three out every time you pull your schtick.

And I'm going to ask my friends here to do that as well.  You three are the worst in this way.  Since it's not against the ToS to do so, I'm fine with asking for backup.  But if it doesn't come, I'm willing to stand alone. 

What you three pulled with Sanchez is "low within the rules". 

1) I called you a hypocrite because you acted like one. You didn't care to read the posts above and then proceeded to pat yourself on the back for something that wasn't represented even remotely well.

I don't think I've ever "attached [sic]" your character any other time beyond nominal disagreements, ever. I know you feel cornered, and you want to swing in an arc, but we are all very different posters who agree in this conversation. Did I call you Hitler or anything of that sort? No. Stop. You're making a fool out of yourself.

When I brought out the points about semantics versus pragmatics, it was ignored, and I specifically indicated that Sanchez was rubber banding to avoid addressing anything of substance. In fact, nothing I said was really disproven.

2) And you're defending Sanchez now that he prefaced the conversation saying he didn't owe us "any civility" (note even the mod called him out on this) and that we weren't worth arguing with. He doesn't act in good faith; he doesn't argue in good faith; his politics are not executed in good faith. Yet, you're here crying wolf because you feel attacked because I, rightly so, called you out.

You, Invisible Obama, ProudModerate2.

As for the mod, I'd like to see where the lack of civility from ProudModerate2 and Invisible Obama has been addressed.  They don't necessarily declare their intentios; they just deliver it.

I've read it all.  You got caught lame.  It happens to the best of folks at times, but it happens to the chronically lame as well.  Which of these you are is your choice, but I'll allow the objective readers of all of this to consider which is which.

Are you sure you read it all? Because we're both quoting different quotes altogether. No slow learning involved because I'm not even talking about whether they should be scrutinized for what they say, which I'm in complete agreement with, but rather the casting culpability on THE VICTIMS of a mass shooting for the mass shooter's actions. We're talking about two different things here, and you haven't even noticed, despite the fact that you "read it all."

By all means, continue the ad hominem attacks without substantiation. You're just burying yourself further.

[Dr. Arch]

F-ck, your country is going down in flames. What a sorry state of things, judging by the values of people like Sanchez and Fuzzy. #thoughtsandprayers

Tell me about it.

[Dr. Arch]

You, Invisible Obama, ProudModerate2.

As for the mod, I'd like to see where the lack of civility from ProudModerate2 and Invisible Obama has been addressed.  They don't necessarily declare their intentios; they just deliver it.

What?
Someone must have pissed in your coffee this morning.
The mods are reading this and laughing at you. Stop making a mockery of yourself.
There is nothing here that is outside of just classic, everyday Atlas discussion.
You are completely off-your-rocker today. Go to bed and say goodnight.

I've always thought of you as passive-aggressive.

Fuzzy, you are totally out of control.
That is why I said that.
You have gone from Dr Jekyll to Godzilla the Monster.
What is wrong with you today?

If you want Dr. Jekyll, I'm still here.  I'm always ready to honestly discuss issues with people, and seek common ground.  I have a reputation for that (I think) and I care (to a point) what folks think of me.  But the folks attacking Sanchez (you, Arch, Invisible Obama) are in the "unreachable" category.  All you three seem to know how to do is throw snark and talking points, and repeat yourselves.  


But Sanchez is right on the point he was making, and I'll second it, and, in this case, I hope others third it and fourth it, because it involves the issue of give and take.  The Parklanders aren't exempt from critical feedback; they entered the political fray, and blowback comes with that.  Senchez didn't wish them ill; neither do I.  Sanchez isn't particularly impressed with them or their argument; neither am I beyond the degree to which I think it's a good thing for teens to be politically aware.

Are you kidding me? I've spent quite some time typing up my points, numbering them for you, bringing up quotes, clarifying what I'm actually talking about, and all you say is that I'm "throwing snark and talking points"?

In the post above, I made CLEAR that what you were talking about I agreed with, but what I was talking about was NOT that, and you ignored it and started saying the same thing again.

You accused me of the Hitler excuse, when I never used it; you brought up anti-Christian talking points, when that's not even the point of the thread or had I made mention of it before then, and you hurled ad hominems left and right (calling me lame, slow, lazy, etc. without any real substantiation), and I still tried to stick to the conversation, only calling you a hypocrite when it was warranted (once).

I'll be frank with you. You are the probably unaware of the type of poster you are. I rarely write this much because my main purpose in this forum is to stay informed, but when I seriously engage, I engage entirely. Just because you type lots of paragraphs all the time doesn't mean that what you're saying makes sense or is even worth reading. That's what you do a fair bit of the time here, almost like a monologue where you try to convince yourself by drawing yourself into logical loops.

You like to think you're smart, yeah? Act like it, and stop flailing around (the anti-Christian rant out of nowhere to 2,868) and projecting (accusing me of what you're actually doing). It's unsightly. You can defend whomever you want, but pick your fights wisely. You found yourself cornered almost immediately after you started defending him, and you lost your composure alongside your ability to make any reasonable points (hence you started defending something else he said that we weren't even talking about (first amendment rights and political discussions at large) and refused to address what's been reiterated to you several times at this point--to no avail.

You said to leave it to others to judge whether your observations are as good as you think they are, and you've seen the responses above. Own it.

[Dr. Arch]

I've owned all I'm going to own.  For me to own it, I'd have to buy it, and for me to buy from you, Invisible Obama, and ProudModerate2 on this subject, I'd be making a bad investment.

So, no, I'm not going to own it.  You and Bush 41 can have your Ownershop Society on this one.

I guess the extra coffee has worn off.  Gotta go to work tomorrow.  Wonder who else has to do the same.

Case in point with that little passive-aggressive statement at the end.

Stay classy. 

[Dr. Arch]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

I believe this as well.

Yet, it's going to take a lot of introspecting and re-framing the message to get it across this way successfully, more so when Republicans will do their best to hinder that discourse. It would take one hell of an orator with the right party organization (and some failures by the opposition) for this to work.

And even then, I'm not sure how effective it'd be en masse, particularly due to the social networking bubbles that have developed over the last several years (a number of studies have been conducted on this). I believe that the only healthy future for this country's culture is going in this direction.

[Dr. Arch]

I'm not saying that literally everyone can be convinced, simply that many people who might be written off as racists might be more willing to hear out the left if they changed their tone. Some of the damage may already be done, but I'm not buying the idea that a high percentage of Americans will be anti-immigrant/against multiculturalism no matter what. I don't think FuzzyBear's response was disingenuous. Saying that many like him are completely incapable of accepting any form of multiculturalism seems to be going a bit far to me, but I suppose I'll let him speak for himself.

To respond to David's post, I'd say that my post was more about attitude than policy, and I'm not saying that the Democratic policies are flawless. I'm definitely not pro-PC, and I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. While the concern about the job opportunities that exist for citizens (if immigration increases) is legitimate, I think the solution is job creation rather than turning more people away at the border. Democrats are right to call BS on Trump's promise to "bring jobs back", but they need to come up with a clear solution for creating new jobs for people in places like Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. Jobs related to clean energy can be part of that solution, but it has to be more than a talking point meant to placate these voters. I'm not trying to argue that multiculturalism is "correct", and anyone who doesn't like it is just wrong, I'm saying that the way in which liberals have talked about it has put off a lot of people who might not be as opposed to the underlying idea as they come across. And I think even the people who have strong concerns about it are not necessarily "racists", and deserve to be heard.

I wasn't saying that Fuzzy (or other posters) were being disingenuous. I think, rather, that they're in denial about what arguments they are and are not willing to accept. My point was that if one accepts the premise of your post, it's essentially cover, shifting the blame from people who accept racist ideas to people who don't accept racist ideas because either they aren't making their arguments well enough or because they're being "smug" and "condescending".

I will agree that you're totally right that the way that some people adopt an air of superiority about the issue is not constructive. But, no matter how many times the fact that immigrants broaden tax revenue bases, don't disproportionately commit crimes, and don't withdraw disproportionately from safety net programs gets brought up, you see blatant mistruths about all of those issues (and others) being parroted by posters over and over again. These aren't arguments; they are cold facts. And yet somehow it's my fault for not making good enough arguments when those on the other side aren't willing to accept facts?

That's why there's no way to move forward in most political conversations today. We can't even agree on what's objectively happening.