Jump to content
Team Avolition
Sign in to follow this  
revan114

First Presidential Debate is Tonight

Recommended Posts

blind7125    1924

There's a difference between being an asshole and an idiot, you are the latter. Two people have already explained why it isn't feasible to grow your own food.

 

Second, your argument doesn't dismiss anything. A business can deny service to harassing customers, and customers can sue for discrimination. YOU are the one that seems to think people here want businesses to be slave to every asshole walking through the door.

 

Talk about dogmatic dumbasses who take their ideology to the extreme, excluding any nuance.

 

Edit: The incidence rate of harassment by a business may not be high. However, these laws are important for these few cases. Your only argument is "Hurr, it doesn't happen much".

Edited by blind7125
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

There's a difference between being an asshole and an idiot, you are the latter. Two people have already explained why it isn't feasible to grow your own food.

 

You haven't explained a single thing. The two "explanations" provided are as follows:

"you can't make food appear from nowhere though"

"the land goes unused because no one knows how to farm"

 

The first is a claim, not an explanation. The second is not evidence as to why it's not feasible. Something isn't impossible just because somebody doesn't know how to do it. Regardless, running with the napkin math of 50 miles (or more) from a service being "bumfuck nowhere", under the assumption a business with a sparse customer base would willingly forego revenue, even doubling the distance you would need to travel wouldn't suddenly end your life.

 

Second, your argument doesn't dismiss anything. A business can deny service to harassing customers, and customers can sue for discrimination. YOU are the one that seems to think people here want businesses to be slave to every asshole walking through the door.

 

Talk about dogmatic dumbasses who take their ideology to the extreme, excluding any nuance.

 

Edit: The incidence rate of harassment by a business may not be high. However, these laws are important for these few cases. Your only argument is "Hurr, it doesn't happen much".

 

Not even once did I say that such laws being abused is or would be a common occurrence. The incidence rate for customers harassing a business is low. Betting odds are that the rate of businesses harassing customers for stupid reasons would be low (as evidenced by business that are currently able to, but don't). Trying to protect people from getting subtly told to not be somewhere by a business is nigh impossible. You could follow all the laws under the sun and still express that "your kind isn't welcome here". People that want to do it are still doing it.

 

Edit: The incidence rate of harassment by a customer may not be high. However, such laws would be important for those few cases. Your only argument is "Hurr, it's impossible to do anything".

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post
blind7125    1924

You haven't explained a single thing. The two "explanations" provided are as follows:

"you can't make food appear from nowhere though"

"the land goes unused because no one knows how to farm"

 

The first is a claim, not an explanation. The second is not evidence as to why it's not feasible.

 

You are the one taking the first claim to the literal extreme, stop being an autist. As for the second one, yes, it very much is an explanation for why it isn't feasible. Not only do you need a farm, but you need a ranch if you aren't going to forego meat. On top of that, you'll still need equipment, facilities, and the appropriate land. if you can manage this all on your own starting today, from the ground up, only then can you call it feasible. Even if you manage all this on your own, good luck living any sort of life outside this.

 

Is it possible to do all these things? Yes. Is it feasible? No.

 

Something isn't impossible just because somebody doesn't know how to do it. Regardless, running with the napkin math of 50 miles (or more) from a service being "bumfuck nowhere", under the assumption a business with a sparse customer base would willingly forego revenue, even doubling the distance you would need to travel wouldn't suddenly end your life.

Edit: The incidence rate of harassment by a customer may not be high. However, such laws would be important for those few cases. Your only argument is "Hurr, it's impossible to do anything".

 

Great thing you don't live in my hometown, which is relatively populous, possesses few stores, lots of diehard Christians, and no other town of substance for 70 miles (2 hour drive there and back). Denial of service for being gay was actually pretty common there if people knew. You seriously underestimate the power of ideology and belief in certain parts of the country. Not only will those businesses forego revenue, but they'll be a figurative martyr at the same time. Kim Davis was a prime example, and she was an elected official (somebody you'd hope people would wish more impartial than a business) openly breaking the law with presidential candidates supporting it. $500,000 was raised for one bakery to pay for a $135,000 fee in Oregon. Even so, how much revenue do you actually think a business would lose out on? Banning the one or two transgender people coming in every month or so isn't really any damage to your pocket book.

 

50 miles, is certainly a major lifestyle killer. In one drive, you've lost 1-2 hours of your day, you've lost money. Somebody else being a complete douche has cost you unjustified expense. The argument isn't "hurr, it's impossible to do anything", it's "It's much more difficult for me to pursue a lifestyle similar to my neighbor, for absolutely nothing I've done". We bitch about the overuse of terms like "Systemic oppression", but this is one case where it fits aptly.

 

Not even once did I say that such laws being abused is or would be a common occurrence. The incidence rate for customers harassing a business is low. Betting odds are that the rate of businesses harassing customers for stupid reasons would be low (as evidenced by business that are currently able to, but don't). Trying to protect people from getting subtly told to not be somewhere by a business is nigh impossible. You could follow all the laws under the sun and still express that "your kind isn't welcome here". People that want to do it are still doing it.

 

Wow, magnificent strawman we have here. No one ever stated you believe such laws would be abused. Your core issue this entire time has been that "I also don't think that businesses should have to serve people that discriminate or work against them." and no one here disagrees with that. Whether it be a customer harassing a business (i.e I'm being forced to bake a rainbow LGBT cake with my logo on top in icing, by request.) or a business DENYING, allow me to repeat DENYING, service to people based off superficial factors, that's wrong. No one is saying anything about subtle hints either, you are the one building that strawman. They can give all the dirty looks they want while they're still checking me out, and if I can't handle that then I need to grow up. Hell, it's not really even possible to prosecute a case like that, but denying you service on the other hand is easily substantiated. Display a sign saying "I hate niggers" for all I care, just don't have it say "No shirt, shoes, or non-whites, no service".

 

All you have to do is browse the ACLU website to see how very wrong you are, and I'll post a link to at least a few examples. It's pretty ignorant to simply claim that there are businesses/states currently allowed to discriminate, yet it must not be a problem since there isn't an epidemic. With the exception of the out and proud, fearless bigots who don't care much for the existing laws, most businesses don't like lawsuits. For the majority of small businesses, they operate with the understanding that "don't discriminate" is the law of the land making it a perceived gray area. As evidenced by bills like Arizona SB 1062, there are states that don't even bar what the law would be used for, yet bills like these are constantly pushed. These bills wouldn't exist without people who wish to use them regularly. For the majority of people, the cognitive dissonance between risk of insecurity and beliefs tends to cause reservation and hesitation. Beliefs typically aren't going to be employed without at least some level of confidence against the risks. Hell, my grandparents wanted to refuse service to a Christian co-op down the road that accepted homosexual students, but didn't want to get into any trouble. They live in Texas where there's zero repercussions for doing so, but they had no clue. Most racists are not going into neighborhoods and screaming nigger, John McClane almost learned that the hard way.

 

 

 

 

https://thinkprogres...a23#.ohfb7j9b5

 

"Discrimination doesn't happen that much, businesses get harassed too, businesses don't want to lose money (on customers they likely don't see much), and you can drive 50 miles or make your own supplies" isn't really a great argument.

Edited by blind7125

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

You are the one taking the first claim to the literal extreme, stop being an autist. As for the second one, yes, it very much is an explanation for why it isn't feasible. Not only do you need a farm, but you need a ranch if you aren't going to forego meat. On top of that, you'll still need equipment, facilities, and the appropriate land. if you can manage this all on your own starting today, from the ground up, only then can you call it feasible. Even if you manage all this on your own, good luck living any sort of life outside this.

 

Is it possible to do all these things? Yes. Is it feasible? No.

 

An 1100 acre operation would require tractors, a combine, silos, irrigation system, etc. At the point you bring equipment and plant like that in to the equation, you're a full time farmer.

 

My father has 4 acres of high-density stone and pome fruit trees that he started with zero previous knowledge. It's a licensed farm, but mostly a hobby. I could bore you with the details and specifics if you like, but for brevity's sake I'll keep it short and sweet: Joe Schmoe could have enough stone fruit trees fruiting within one year of planting that produce would be wasted, with the only tools needed being a shovel, some shears, and a hose. The time commitment is fairly minimal (I can describe the numbers if you'd like). Fruit trees are exceptionally easy, but many other staples (various beans, starchy tubers, etc.) are still pretty damn easy.

 

Running multiple square miles of commercial farm without it in the family? Near impossible. Running an operation that entirely supports your food needs, bar nothing? Possible, but it's no way to live. Producing enough to significantly mitigate food and travel costs? Anybody capable of living on their own could do this with negligible impact to their wallet or time. I'd recommend it to anyone.

 

Great thing you don't live in my hometown, which is relatively populous, possesses few stores, lots of diehard Christians, and no other town of substance for 70 miles (2 hour drive there and back). Denial of service for being gay was actually pretty common there if people knew. You seriously underestimate the power of ideology and belief in certain parts of the country. Not only will those businesses forego revenue, but they'll be a figurative martyr at the same time. Kim Davis was a prime example, and she was an elected official (somebody you'd hope people would wish more impartial than a business) openly breaking the law with presidential candidates supporting it. $500,000 was raised for one bakery to pay for a $135,000 fee in Oregon. Even so, how much revenue do you actually think a business would lose out on? Banning the one or two transgender people coming in every month or so isn't really any damage to your pocket book.

 

Kim Davis was outright wrong, and so were the people supporting her. The government (or any private business rendering services for the government) has no right to discriminate against race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The second you're working on the taxpayer's dime (which includes the whole gamut of races, religions, and LGBT folk), you're working under the premise that all men are equal under the eyes of the law. That should be guaranteed, regardless of how unsavory some people might find it.

 

The SPLC recognizes an anti-Semite group where I grew up. They don't leave much to the imagination, and by extension aren't very popular/successful by any metric. Businesses might not forego revenue directly from the person or people they discriminate against themselves, but some will loudly and proudly boycott such businesses. Many others will refuse to associate with such businesses. The bakery paid their fee with a surplus. Their public image didn't fare so well.

 

50 miles, is certainly a major lifestyle killer. In one drive, you've lost 1-2 hours of your day, you've lost money. Somebody else being a complete douche has cost you unjustified expense. The argument isn't "hurr, it's impossible to do anything", it's "It's much more difficult for me to pursue a lifestyle similar to my neighbor, for absolutely nothing I've done". We bitch about the overuse of terms like "Systemic oppression", but this is one case where it fits aptly.

 

People will find a way to dislike you. If they can't deny you service at their business, they'll have their buddy who's the zoning administrator come out and tell you that your barn is illegally close to a protected wetland and not grandfathered in, and must subsequently be torn down. From person to person, some things will be unnecessarily hard for reasons out of anybody's control. It is my ideal (although it will probably never be the legal reality) and usual course of action to just say "fuck it", cut the losses incurred from somebody being a douche, and work toward what you're going to be able to make happen. Ensuring equal treatment in the eyes of the law (and a subsequent ability pursue your other options) will result in a better outcome than incurring thousands of dollars in costs in litigation under legislature that inherently handles fringe cases.

 

Wow, magnificent strawman we have here. No one ever stated you believe such laws would be abused. Your core issue this entire time has been that "I also don't think that businesses should have to serve people that discriminate or work against them." and no one here disagrees with that. Whether it be a customer harassing a business (i.e I'm being forced to bake a rainbow LGBT cake with my logo on top in icing, by request.) or a business DENYING, allow me to repeat DENYING, service to people based off superficial factors, that's wrong. No one is saying anything about subtle hints either, you are the one building that strawman. They can give all the dirty looks they want while they're still checking me out, and if I can't handle that then I need to grow up. Hell, it's not really even possible to prosecute a case like that, but denying you service on the other hand is easily substantiated. Display a sign saying "I hate niggers" for all I care, just don't have it say "No shirt, shoes, or non-whites, no service".

 

YOU are the one that seems to think people here want businesses to be slave to every asshole walking through the door.

 

"No x allowed" vs. "x allowed, but we'll see to it that you have a bad time" is going to net you the same end. You will be "coincidentally" under-served to the extent where you would be better off at a different business.

 

All you have to do is browse the ACLU website to see how very wrong you are, and I'll post a link to at least a few examples. It's pretty ignorant to simply claim that there are businesses/states currently allowed to discriminate, yet it must not be a problem since there isn't an epidemic. With the exception of the out and proud, fearless bigots who don't care much for the existing laws, most businesses don't like lawsuits. For the majority of small businesses, they operate with the understanding that "don't discriminate" is the law of the land making it a perceived gray area. As evidenced by bills like Arizona SB 1062, there are states that don't even bar what the law would be used for, yet bills like these are constantly pushed. These bills wouldn't exist without people who wish to use them regularly. For the majority of people, the cognitive dissonance between risk of insecurity and beliefs tends to cause reservation and hesitation. Beliefs typically aren't going to be employed without at least some level of confidence against the risks. Hell, my grandparents wanted to refuse service to a Christian co-op down the road that accepted homosexual students, but didn't want to get into any trouble. They live in Texas where there's zero repercussions for doing so, but they had no clue. Most racists are not going into neighborhoods and screaming nigger, John McClane almost learned that the hard way.

 

 

 

 

https://thinkprogres...a23#.ohfb7j9b5

 

"Discrimination doesn't happen that much, businesses get harassed too, businesses don't want to lose money (on customers they likely don't see much), and you can drive 50 miles or make your own supplies" isn't really a great argument.

 

Most of the services rendered in that link are not even remotely close to essential. Many of those businesses faced backlash or were reprimanded for discrimination on state funds (or tax cuts), and in some of those cases, the freedom of the business played in favor of LGBT people. Victoria's Cake Cottage lost business to a competitor. Ocean Grove lost tax exempt status because what they were doing was against the terms of the tax exemption, not because they were being punished for breaking non-discrimination laws. Gallaudet University is a private institution and had no obligation to suspend anybody for the political views or efforts concerning homosexuals. University of Toledo fired their HR VP for discrimination, but UOT is publicly funded and renders services on the dime of any taxpayer, gays included.

 

Some of these, like the photography example, are just kind of asshole-ish and a situation where a business gets to choose between religious commitment or continuing their job. Yeah, she's a photographer, and a gay marriage ceremony isn't illegal, but why does she have to choose between her belief and her job? I wouldn't ask a Halal butcher for Haram meat.

 

I am aware that businesses unfairly discriminate. They often aren't even reprimanded as specified by the laws we currently have on the books (and the current law is the law, regardless of what anybody thinks it should be). When they are punished, it doesn't even come close to the reaming they take from the public. In a perfect world, everybody would take the money and run, and we wouldn't have to litigate over stupid shit like this. Unfortunately, we have to choose between the two options. I understand your points, but ultimately opt for working toward equal treatment under law, and leaving business choices to people's love of money and the public will to support (or not support) a business. Such a course of action has a track record that is arguably comparable to a system where a customer's rights have preponderance over a business owner's (in terms of protecting customers from discrimination).

 

If I had to sum up what I was trying to say for the Reader's Digest: "Discrimination doesn't happen much because businesses don't want to lose money from lost customers or public backlash. Society and the market are generally more fatal to a discriminatory business than the law. Businesses get harassed, too, and (for better or worse) effective lynch mobs have customers covered. In either of those choices, somebody is going to find a way to fuck you regardless of the law, and somebody will have to choose a suboptimal alternative. Pick your poison."

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post
blind7125    1924

People will find a way to dislike you. If they can't deny you service at their business, they'll have their buddy who's the zoning administrator come out and tell you that your barn is illegally close to a protected wetland and not grandfathered in, and must subsequently be torn down. From person to person, some things will be unnecessarily hard for reasons out of anybody's control. It is my ideal (although it will probably never be the legal reality) and usual course of action to just say "fuck it", cut the losses incurred from somebody being a douche, and work toward what you're going to be able to make happen. Ensuring equal treatment in the eyes of the law (and a subsequent ability pursue your other options) will result in a better outcome than incurring thousands of dollars in costs in litigation under legislature that inherently handles fringe cases.

 

"No x allowed" vs. "x allowed, but we'll see to it that you have a bad time" is going to net you the same end. You will be "coincidentally" under-served to the extent where you would be better off at a different business.

 

"Hurr, these laws aren't useful because people can always find ways to fuck with you." That's pretty... stupid beyond all measure. The idea isn't for everyone to sue, that's the hopefully last option.

 

Also, no, there's a difference between under-served and not served at all. Don't help me in your store, I don't care, I'll be the one laughing at you giving me dirty looks while I check out. The dirty looks are much more appealing than the 2 hour drive you want to suggest instead.

 

 

Most of the services rendered in that link are not even remotely close to essential. Many of those businesses faced backlash or were reprimanded for discrimination on state funds (or tax cuts), and in some of those cases, the freedom of the business played in favor of LGBT people. Victoria's Cake Cottage lost business to a competitor. Ocean Grove lost tax exempt status because what they were doing was against the terms of the tax exemption, not because they were being punished for breaking non-discrimination laws. Gallaudet University is a private institution and had no obligation to suspend anybody for the political views or efforts concerning homosexuals. University of Toledo fired their HR VP for discrimination, but UOT is publicly funded and renders services on the dime of any taxpayer, gays included.

 

Some of these, like the photography example, are just kind of asshole-ish and a situation where a business gets to choose between religious commitment or continuing their job. Yeah, she's a photographer, and a gay marriage ceremony isn't illegal, but why does she have to choose between her belief and her job? I wouldn't ask a Halal butcher for Haram meat.

 

Yes, because mob justice is always better than encouraging order through law. Essential services are the biggest concern, but not the only.

 

False equivalence. Asking a Halal butcher to cut Haram meat is asking the owner to produce something he clearly does not advertise as available. Regardless of what color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion you still aren't getting Haram meat. The photographer on the other hand has advertised a general service applying to all. Performing the same service you offer to others doesn't invalidate your beliefs.

 

but ultimately opt for working toward equal treatment under law, and leaving business choices to people's love of money and the public will to support (or not support) a business.

 

Pick one side of the comma, you can't have both.

 

Discrimination doesn't happen much because businesses don't want to lose money from lost customers or public backlash. Society and the market are generally more fatal to a discriminatory business than the law. Businesses get harassed, too, and (for better or worse) effective lynch mobs have customers covered. In either of those choices, somebody is going to find a way to fuck you regardless of the law, and somebody will have to choose a suboptimal alternative. Pick your poison.

 

Society is generally more fatal to a business because the law often doesn't provide in the areas it's needed most (i.e the ones pushing these religious liberty bills). Then the media gets involved and mob justice comes a flying. Saying businesses get harassed too is pretty meaningless, considering it's been said several times that is wrong as well. You can provide protections for both parties, that's equal treatment under the law...

If a customer comes demanding I make an LGBT cake with my logo plastered over the top, they are then asking me to put my name on something implying support of contradictory beliefs. I would first refuse, and if they continued to pester, the hypothetical laws would allow the business to remove that party.

If a business wants to continue fucking with a customer outside of their premises, then there is a legal avenue there too, it's called criminal harassment.

 

You've still not offered any reason on why this law would be a detriment. I've demonstrated why they could be useful in the small amount of applicable scenarios. Meanwhile, you've either been tossing out excuses (you're gonna get fucked over anyway, and I don't like telling people what to do), or honestly pretty shitty alternatives the customer can take. None of which are actually better than anti-discrimination laws. If anything, you've been demonstrating exactly why protections for both customers and businesses are needed. I'm not responding anymore until you can find a legit reason to discredit anti-discrimination laws in regards to business owners.

 

Edit:

Kim Davis was outright wrong, and so were the people supporting her. The government (or any private business rendering services for the government) has no right to discriminate against race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The second you're working on the taxpayer's dime (which includes the whole gamut of races, religions, and LGBT folk), you're working under the premise that all men are equal under the eyes of the law. That should be guaranteed, regardless of how unsavory some people might find it.

 

You might want to re-read the comment responded to, taking care of the context in which I mention Kim Davis. I didn't bring her up because she's merely an example of discrimination.

Edited by blind7125

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

"Hurr, these laws aren't useful because people can always find ways to fuck with you." That's pretty... stupid beyond all measure. The idea isn't for everyone to sue, that's the hopefully last option.

 

Also, no, there's a difference between under-served and not served at all. Don't help me in your store, I don't care, I'll be the one laughing at you giving me dirty looks while I check out. The dirty looks are much more appealing than the 2 hour drive you want to suggest instead.

 

I didn't say just under-served; I said "coincidentally" under-served to the extent where you would be better off at another business, verbatim. People that irrationally refuse to serve a group will go to irrational lengths to be irrational. Some of these prejudices and worldviews are deep seated. Expedience, quality of services rendered, and the indirect effects have a cost, too, so just because you're getting something doesn't necessarily mean it's necessarily worth paying less for.

 

Yes, because mob justice is always better than encouraging order through law. Essential services are the biggest concern, but not the only.

 

They'll get their official punishment through law, and people will still withdraw their patronage and support. This is a sort of mob justice that we can't do much about.

 

False equivalence. Asking a Halal butcher to cut Haram meat is asking the owner to produce something he clearly does not advertise as available. Regardless of what color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion you still aren't getting Haram meat. The photographer on the other hand has advertised a general service applying to all. Performing the same service you offer to others doesn't invalidate your beliefs.

 

Unadvertised doesn't mean unavailable or incapable. The difference between Haram and Halal meat is often a matter of invoking "Bismillah" upon the slaughtering of the animal. I could reasonably ask him to simply not do so, as it holds no weight to me. Preparing haram food for consumption is forbidden in Islam, and the difference boils down to a religious reservation. A photographer may not explicitly advertise photography for a homosexual wedding/union, but can reasonably do it. Enabling the sin of others is discouraged (in varying levels, depending on denomination) in Christianity, and the difference boils down to a religious reservation.

 

Pick one side of the comma, you can't have both.

 

The two sides of the comma are entirely distinct. Equal treatment under the law means equal access to services rendered by the government or funded with taxpayer money; government job opportunities, assistance, tax breaks, marriage (in the legal sense), treatment in court, contracted government work or services by private business, and so on. There are protected classes, all of which are (on paper) of equal weight and treated the same. There is a line between the government and private business. In the sense of the rights of the business versus that of the consumer, you get in to situations where one man's reasonable request is another man's intentional insubordination to his faith, community, etc.

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

Society is generally more fatal to a business because the law often doesn't provide in the areas it's needed most (i.e the ones pushing these religious liberty bills). Then the media gets involved and mob justice comes a flying. Saying businesses get harassed too is pretty meaningless, considering it's been said several times that is wrong as well. You can provide protections for both parties, that's equal treatment under the law...

If a customer comes demanding I make an LGBT cake with my logo plastered over the top, they are then asking me to put my name on something implying support of contradictory beliefs. I would first refuse, and if they continued to pester, the hypothetical laws would allow the business to remove that party.

If a business wants to continue fucking with a customer outside of their premises, then there is a legal avenue there too, it's called criminal harassment.

 

In the eyes of many, not speaking against something is endorsement. It can be interpreted that making that cake in the first place implies your support. Politicians get railed with stuff like this constantly. As a business owner under a customer-first system, you don't even have a choice.

 

You've still not offered any reason on why this law would be a detriment. I've demonstrated why they could be useful in the small amount of applicable scenarios. Meanwhile, you've either been tossing out excuses (you're gonna get fucked over anyway, and I don't like telling people what to do), or honestly pretty shitty alternatives the customer can take. None of which are actually better than anti-discrimination laws. If anything, you've been demonstrating exactly why protections for both customers and businesses are needed. I'm not responding anymore until you can find a legit reason to discredit anti-discrimination laws in regards to business owners.

 

Two primary concerns are:

1.) You open somebody's character (or the character of their business) to claims of guilt through association or endorsement by virtue of their silence.

2.) You start going down the slippery slope of a protected group getting the upper hand over another on a first blood basis, and then committing that to judicial precedent (and there's some weird shit that gets decided through judicial precedent).

 

Edit:

 

 

You might want to re-read the comment responded to, taking care of the context in which I mention Kim Davis. I didn't bring her up because she's merely an example of discrimination.

 

Any business who attempts to refuse service but can't will be equally made a martyr regardless of whether or not the government or the public did it. In the case of the bakery in Oregon, the government fee of $135,000 gave incentive to raise $500,000 to cover it. Something that could have been corrected by withdrawal of public support from the business resulted in fuel to drum up way more support than it would have naturally gotten.

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Remy    307

Let's try to get back on track, shall we gents?

 

How much does someone want to bet that Hilary's campaign officials had that tape of Donald Trump on retainer for just such an occasion? Such as releasing it a month before the election takes place. Looks like America is fucked anyway, seeing as how the choice literally comes down to a sociopathic, racist, sexist lying sack of dog vomit and a two-faced, corrupt, spineless sack of used condoms (courtesy of Monica Lewinsky).

 

Who's ready for the shit-flinging fest to end all shit-flinging fests coming in November 8?

Edited by Remy

Share this post


Link to post
MasterFux    390

sociopathic, racist, sexist lying sack of dog vomit

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump, but I have yet to see one example of sociopathy, racism, or sexism that wasn't false, exaggerated, or extremely outdated. Glad to see people are thinking critically.

Share this post


Link to post
blind7125    1924

sociopathic, racist, sexist lying sack of dog vomit.

 

Sociopaths, less so than psychopaths though (it's just ASPD now), are typically extremely manipulative. The perception you have is exactly what he wants.

 

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump, but I have yet to see one example of sociopathy, racism, or sexism that wasn't false, exaggerated, or extremely outdated. Glad to see people are thinking critically.

 

I believe you're half right, half wrong. Trump likely is a sociopath, and it's for the exact reasons you've stated. It's in how Trump speaks that his manipulations shine through.

 

There's two ways I see him do this most.

 

As an example, he'll say a version of "These illegal immigrants are coming over here and they're committing rapes and murders. I love the Mexican people, they love me, they really do, but some, not most, are coming over here and doing bad things. We need to build a wall."

What people actually hear is just "These illegal immigrants are coming over here and they're committing rapes and murders. We need to build a wall." The first sentence is blatantly racist, without the quantification of the problem from the sandwiched middle sentence. A sentence riddled with pauses, slightly hubristic, repetive, with the specifics at the end. Leading the sentence with "I love X people", just makes him seem more ignorant in the face of the last sentence, and the disjointed pacing makes you tune out by the time he finally says "Oh, it's only some". Neither side pays attention to the little surface level non-plan he offers at the end, because they're too busy trying to defeat the perceived "evil" other side. This tribalism happens every election and it's dangerous to play on, but Trump has only singed himself a couple times with his supporters so far. Not only is the critical thinking lacking, but Trump is intentionally pushing emotion on both sides until they start talking past one another in rage. One side hears "illegal immigrants are not only takin our jerbs, but some are even criminals!", while the other hears "Illegal immigrants are horrible people and the Mexicans are just using us (also why he makes a big deal about Mexico "killing" us in trade and laughing at us.)

 

The second, is with excellent use of advertorial word repetition. It's seen most when he's talking about other's, usually opponents or supportive "experts", and a little more rarely with his ideas. I forget context, but here's a snippet "I've talked to a number of lawyers *insert clarification, speech mistake, or slight pause*, incredible constitutional lawyers, and these lawyers agree with me on X." In the span of one sentence, he's not only repeated an authority figure supports him three times, but he also made the expert sound more important. It's the same concept you'll see in television commercials, and it works on the unaware.

 

Shit like this is why I love to watch Trump talk. It could all be how he speaks, but there's enough consistent peculiarity that it appears subversive.

Edited by blind7125
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
MasterFux    390

-snip-

Perhaps he is a sociopath, obviously I have no hard evidence to disprove you. However, use of manipulation and persuasive speech does not equal sociopathy. I don't think a lot of sociopaths would be friends with their ex-wives and children. That, and frequently provide aid for communities and charity. Obviously all of this could amount to a sociopath doing what is in the best interests for them and their publicity, but to me it seems a bit of a stretch.

 

To flip this, Hillary seems much more sociopathic to me. Insane-looking exaggerated expressions, cold and calculated manner of speaking, and via Wikileaks, a very clear and self-admitted lack of empathy for the middle class and lower class. She gives me the spooks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×