Where did I say anything about Trump, or that I give a flying fuck about convincing you of anything? I'm more interested in what Hermit thinks.
Hermit wrote:Those figures prove systematic inequality inflicted on 13% of the US population on account of being black. There's a word for that: racism. You dismiss this as unimportant?
- 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes- $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
$41,692 was the average family income of Black people- $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
$17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people- Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
- Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment
What do the unequal outcomes mean, Cunt?
Of course, but he could just be semi-literate.
The US Senate is not a court of law. You know that. What do you think you're going to achieve by impersonating a Trump bootlicker?
In the world of facts and evidence Trump told the assembled crowd to stop the democratic process of installing the person who just won the presidential election into office. We have the video of the full speech. We have the transcript of the full speech. These are the words with which Trump ended his speech (at the 70:04 mark in the Wall Street Journal's video of the full speech and the 01:12:43 mark of the full transcript of it):
The crowd smashed its way into the capitol and Trump said not a single word between the time he finished his speech and the time the crowd had left the capitol in the evening to stop the violence, and even after the crowd dispersed he did not condemn the violence of the people he told to "help" the "weak Republicans" to stop the democratic process of installing the person who just won the presidential election into office. In fact, the violence was part of the plan all along. On the 19th of December he tweeted: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
Donald Trump: (01:13:19)
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Not at all a court of law. Since they don't have one they can use with evidence, why not use a biased media!L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 4:40 am
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
You believe Faux News and other extreme Right-Wing sources, so am I surprised?Cunt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:27 pmI don't believe you, with your record of fairness and sincerity. Many also believed in the insurrection being led by Trump, no matter how stupid it looks.
Not a fuck Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Don't be so sensitive. It's a description, not a pejorative.
You like to trot that one out even though you're the one who keeps bringing him up. I guess you 'can't even believe' people are bothering to reply to your claims that Jan 6 wasn't a real insurrection because it failed (though we can still call it an attempted insurrection or a failed insurrection can't we?)?
Unlike the acolytes and minions of the former President being critical of one politician or party does not mean that you're automatically looking to suck the pudding of their nominated opponent. It's clearly too simple and simplistic to believe that if you're not for Trump then you must be for Biden - but you do seem to have that one on rinse and repeat don't you?
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Imagine a party. The guests, from all walks of life, are not negligible. They’ve been around: they’ve lived, suffered, own businesses, have real areas of expertise. They’re talking about things that interest them, giving and taking subtle correction. Certain submerged concerns are coming to the surface and — surprise, pleasant surprise — being confirmed and seconded and assuaged by other people who’ve been feeling the same way.
Then a guy walks in with a megaphone. He’s not the smartest person at the party, or the most experienced, or the most articulate. But he’s got that megaphone.
Say he starts talking about how much he loves early mornings in spring. What happens? Well, people turn to listen. It would be hard not to. It’s only polite. And soon, in their small groups, the guests may find themselves talking about early spring mornings. Or, more correctly, about the validity of Megaphone Guy’s ideas about early spring mornings. Some are agreeing with him, some disagreeing — but because he’s so loud, their conversations will begin to react to what he’s saying. As he changes topics, so do they. If he continually uses the phrase “at the end of the day,” they start using it too. If he weaves into his arguments the assumption that the west side of the room is preferable to the east, a slow westward drift will begin.
These responses are predicated not on his intelligence, his unique experience of the world, his powers of contemplation, or his ability with language, but on the volume and omnipresence of his narrating voice.
His main characteristic is his dominance. He crowds the other voices out. His rhetoric becomes the central rhetoric because of its unavoidability.
In time, Megaphone Guy will ruin the party. The guests will stop believing in their value as guests, and come to see their main role as reactors-to-the-Guy. They’ll stop doing what guests are supposed to do: keep the conversation going per their own interests and concerns. They’ll become passive, stop believing in the validity of their own impressions. They may not even notice they’ve started speaking in his diction, that their thoughts are being limned by his. What’s important to him will come to seem important to them.
We’ve said Megaphone Guy isn’t the smartest, or most articulate, or most experienced person at the party — but what if the situation is even worse than this?
Let’s say he hasn’t carefully considered the things he’s saying. He’s basically just blurting things out. And even with the megaphone, he has to shout a little to be heard, which limits the complexity of what he can say. Because he feels he has to be entertaining, he jumps from topic to topic, favoring the conceptual-general (“We’re eating more cheese cubes — and loving it!”), the anxiety-or controversy-provoking (“Wine running out due to shadowy conspiracy?”), the gossipy (“Quickie rumored in south bathroom!”), and the trivial (“Which quadrant of the party room do YOU prefer?”).
We consider speech to be the result of thought (we have a thought, then select a sentence with which to express it), but thought also results from speech (as we grope, in words, toward meaning, we discover what we think). This yammering guy has, by forcibly putting his restricted language into the heads of the guests, affected the quality and coloration of the thoughts going on in there.
He has, in effect, put an intelligence-ceiling on the party.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests
