vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:22 am
The PC never recognise themselves (or don't want to) in the same way that religious nuts always say 'I'm not religious'.
Such as how you don't recognize your crazy-ass self?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:22 am
Very few Americans understand what PC even means.
It probably means different things to different people for different reasons. Do you imagine that only your view is applicable?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:22 am
A few do though, and they are like minuscule oases in the great barren desert of American imbecility.
Oh, tell us more about the FEW CHOSEN ONES, which is a favorite claim on this forum. And the claimant always imagines themselves as one of those chosen few! Funny that no one ever claims to be left out of the chosen few.
It only means 'different things' to morons. Americans 'conservatives' think it means anyone who isn't an American 'conservative'. There's no changing that level of stupid.
Steven Pinker has a pretty good grasp of what PC means
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:44 am
I may attack, but I'm not losing my cool -- I'm enjoying every minute of it. It's like theater. People here inspire my responses.
So in other words you are a shallow phony. I'm glad you agree with what I've been saying all along
Bill Maher pretty much gets it, except that he moronically calls them 'liberals' and makes the infuriating yank mistake of making EVERYTHING about either 'Republican' or 'Democrat'.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:22 am
Very few Americans understand what PC even means.
It probably means different things to different people for different reasons.
It only means 'different things' to morons.
Well, humans have differing opinions about everything whether you like it or not.
So, based on your own PC examples, why do you keep calling me PC? The comment that PC people prefer to be right rather than to be effective is true... and that's very much the opposite of me. I do not conform and I don't follow anything in particular. I examine things individually in order to be most effective in utilizing or responding to them uniquely. This is also the methodology in my job.
It's as if you've come up with one attack that you launch at everyone over and over, regardless of what they say (because you keep seeing everything as the same in your head). It appears to be your own form of PC, whereby you have chosen something that you think "rightly" applies to all... so you apply it and prefer THAT over what is actually true and effective.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:58 am
You don't know all of my views and what I take into account.
Then present what you have taken into account.
Why would I have any interest in spending my energy telling someone who I think is foolish and delusional about all of my considerations and reasoning for anything at all? You've arrogantly and absurdly made claims about what I do or don't consider, when you clearly cannot know such a thing -- so broader truth doesn't seem to have a chance in a discussion with you. I don't see any point in participating in that.
I bet you will be behaving the same with whoever is the next Republican President after Trump.
Wake up, admit you are ill with Trump Derangement Syndrome and save yourself from being a slave to your primal instinct, in this case, the tribalistic instinct.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:44 am
I may attack, but I'm not losing my cool -- I'm enjoying every minute of it. It's like theater. People here inspire my responses.
So in other words you are a shallow phony.
How is that being a shallow phony? Explain please -- don't turn it into something it's not.
Also, please note that when you're saying "in other words...", it is a deceptive and manipulative tactic to insert your own distorted and untruthful crap interpretation. You really need to keep ownership of that, and not try to act as if you're just rephrasing some truth.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:03 am
It is very natural for you, like most, to be infected with the above 'virus'.
Well, I am not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:03 am
Wake up, admit you are ill with Trump Derangement Syndrome and save yourself from being a slave to your primal instinct, in this case, the tribalistic instinct.
You're the one who needs to wake-up from your shallow delusion and stop projecting it onto others.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:03 am
It is very natural for you, like most, to be infected with the above 'virus'.
Well, I am not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:03 am
Wake up, admit you are ill with Trump Derangement Syndrome and save yourself from being a slave to your primal instinct, in this case, the tribalistic instinct.
You're the one who needs to wake-up from your shallow delusion and stop projecting it onto others.
My approach has been very objective and rational.
If you are not delusional due to Trump Derangement Syndrome, you should be presenting an objective and rational Employee Performance Appraisal for Trump as an employee of the US Government instead of making those very emotionally driven Trump bashings which is very bias, i.e. not balanced.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:03 am
It is very natural for you, like most, to be infected with the above 'virus'.
Well, I am not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:03 am
Wake up, admit you are ill with Trump Derangement Syndrome and save yourself from being a slave to your primal instinct, in this case, the tribalistic instinct.
You're the one who needs to wake-up from your shallow delusion and stop projecting it onto others.
Yet you've never specifically said which of his policies you hate so much--just some airy fairy waffle about him not being 'nice'. Just saying.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:39 am
Yet you've never specifically said which of his policies you hate so much--just some airy fairy waffle about him not being 'nice'. Just saying.
Yes, I have Veggie: his environmental protection roll-backs. Now why don't you take responsibility for yourself and all of your crap, and stop saying things that aren't true...hmm?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:39 am
Yet you've never specifically said which of his policies you hate so much--just some airy fairy waffle about him not being 'nice'. Just saying.
Yes, I have Veggie: his environmental protection roll-backs. Now why don't you take responsibility for yourself and all of your crap, and stop saying things that aren't true...hmm?
Spyrith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:45 pm
I'm not American, and don't like Trump. But still, if the guy wins reelection he'll do it because people vote for him. Is it even legitimate to say that 60+ million people are wrong, just because you're in the other camp that doesn't vote for Trump?
Again, I'm not defending him. If I were American I'd vote against him. But I'm asking this based on principle.
I understand your question. Does quantity of people indicate intelligence?
And this here is my question. Can you accurately say that the average Trump voter is less intelligent than the Clinton voter? Given how large the sample size is, (roughly 60+ million each candidate) I think you'd come up at about the same. Sure, Clinton had more college voters, but overall, millions and millions of intelligent, college educated Americans voted for Trump. I don't consider it politically healthy to just label these people as "non-intelligent" just because of their voting preference.
Spyrith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:45 pm
I'm not American, and don't like Trump. But still, if the guy wins reelection he'll do it because people vote for him. Is it even legitimate to say that 60+ million people are wrong, just because you're in the other camp that doesn't vote for Trump?
Again, I'm not defending him. If I were American I'd vote against him. But I'm asking this based on principle.
I understand your question. Does quantity of people indicate intelligence?
And this here is my question. Can you accurately say that the average Trump voter is less intelligent than the Clinton voter? Given how large the sample size is, (roughly 60+ million each candidate) I think you'd come up at about the same. Sure, Clinton had more college voters, but overall, millions and millions of intelligent, college educated Americans voted for Trump. I don't consider it politically healthy to just label these people as "non-intelligent" just because of their voting preference.
Having a passed through a tertiary education system is not necessarily the same as having an education in ethics or even law or politics. Some people who have not been to university have self educated to tertiary standard in ethics, and even I daresay in law or politics.
Intelligence is a vague idea and is usually a subjective evaluation
Spyrith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:45 pm
Is it even legitimate to say that 60+ million people are wrong, just because you're in the other camp that doesn't vote for Trump?
I understand your question. Does quantity of people indicate intelligence?
And this here is my question. Can you accurately say that the average Trump voter is less intelligent than the Clinton voter? Given how large the sample size is, (roughly 60+ million each candidate) I think you'd come up at about the same. Sure, Clinton had more college voters, but overall, millions and millions of intelligent, college educated Americans voted for Trump. I don't consider it politically healthy to just label these people as "non-intelligent" just because of their voting preference.
Okay, even though you didn't answer mine...
No, I'm not saying that the average Trump voter is less intelligent than the Clinton voter. I don't know why Clinton keeps coming up for comparison, as I didn't like/want her either, and all I'm doing is focusing on what a failure Trump is. Can we do that without confusing this with political party? What I'm saying is that people who vote for insanity are being insane or stupid themselves regardless of who the candidate is -- and just because there's a large number of people doing it, doesn't make it appropriate or intelligent. Many people vote as part of a herd, such as strictly based on political party, or how their pastor or church tells them to vote based on a few issues -- even though they could easily/obviously be courted for their voting block, by someone who doesn't represent anything else they stand for.
So, what does it show if they vote for such a person AGAIN?
And the claimant always imagines themselves as one of those chosen few! Funny that no one ever claims to be left out of the chosen few.
