Obi the media would love to investigate further. O'Keefe won't let them, which means it immediately goes in the "Well this is bullshit" bin.
You can't always approach someone's complaint as if it legit. It'd be nice but sometimes that's just not reality and treating it as such gives more credence to it than it deserves. But even in this case they did what you're saying you want. But the person who made it said no and so that's the end of it. There's no where else to go without the unedited bits.
And it should be added: Its not OUR fucking fault that this is a thing among the right, nor is it OUR responsibility to change that.
And before you go "I didn't say that", you where heavily implying it.
I wasn't implying shit and I didn't say anything like that. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I hoped it would be understood that my first pair of lines there was my rendition of a certain other poster's argument: that every new bit of data must be evaluated, on its own merits, entirely without regard to past results or trends.
Not by them, of course. But by someone who has the time and attention which every scrap, no matter how unsupported or dubious in origin, deserves.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Obi the media would love to investigate further. O'Keefe won't let them, which means it immediately goes in the "Well this is bullshit" bin.
You can't always approach someone's complaint as if it legit. It'd be nice but sometimes that's just not reality and treating it as such gives more credence to it than it deserves. But even in this case they did what you're saying you want. But the person who made it said no and so that's the end of it. There's no where else to go without the unedited bits.
And it should be added: Its not OUR fucking fault that this is a thing among the right, nor is it OUR responsibility to change that.
And before you go "I didn't say that", you where heavily implying it.
I wasn't implying shit and I didn't say anything like that. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think he's trying to say that I was heavily implying it.
It also seems that you are expecting/asking other people to put in that time and effort, rather than doing it yourself.
It's very easy to commit any amount of resources to a (perceived) problem when they aren't your resources.
nah
I'm just expecting the discussion here to be as free of manipulation as possible. Maybe I hold this place to a higher ideal, but I mean even after I point out that the right feels like the left has done more than just "dress someone up in a duck costume", the go to argument continues to be "if the right has issues with a duck costume" and "a duck costume is not comparable to racial epithets". Its not even necessary to water down the right's issue here. Their issue is that the DNC or Hillary is sending people to incite violence by goading the "crazies". "Goading the crazies" is really all we have to work on here. Now to someone on the right, they are going to imagine that is done in much more effective and villainous ways than a duck costume or any t-shirt. I know, I've talked to them about this. The rational ones are aware that people can get emotional and violent on both sides. The rational ones think its wrong to rile anyone up to violence as well as it is to become violent. I think the rational left would agree.
Knowing this, I think its actually harmful to go "lol, the idiot right is upset about a duck costume" because that's not what it is and all it does is cause the right to think the left doesn't actually care to understand and it causes the left to actually not understand
The correct course of action, imo, is to understand the right's complaints as if the source was correct. Express understanding that it wouldn't be cool if it was happening, then prove the source false. I've personally found that leads to much better outcome in convincing the opposition of the truth.
but what's the point?
the source is well known for complete fabrication. It's like asking to solve an algebra problem with the wrong formula but pretend it's right.
To show you understand them and are listening? So that when you prove the source false, it's coming from a place that you've now opened up to be one of cooperation and togetherness.
I mean just put yourself in their shoes. If you wrongly believed a source and that was coloring your viewpoint, imagine two different people confronting you about it:
Person A: I can't believe you would believe [misrepresented viewpoint]. Also, your source is wrong look at this.
Person B: I can see why if that was true it would upset you. It would upset me, too! But check out why there is no reason to be upset.
Who are you more likely to listen to?
Oftentimes I see the person A approach being taken here in regards to the right. We don't need to misrepresent their viewpoint to be correct. Painting their issue with the paid protestors as "just a guy in a duck costume" lowers the discourse here and doesn't help us understand, change the right's minds, or even create a welcoming place to have whatever counts for balanced discussion here.
How many times have folks in here mentioned that O'Keefe can't be trusted and should be ignored?
How many times have people mentioned non-violent protest and it's uses in political discourse?
You ignore all of them because we aren't listening to the right wings feelings.
Their feelings are that Obama and Hillary are literal demons, personally started ISIL, murdered American citizens at Benghazi, are secretly rigging the election, and pretty much anything else terrible they can think of off the cuff.
That "guy in a duck costume making a bad pun" is being painted as the same as unprotected hate speech is baffling.
It's a guy in a duck costume making a bad pun. Even if we say that every single detail of this conspiracy is true, it's still a guy in a duck costume for the sake of a pun. Not attacking someone's race. Not attacking someone's faith. Not threatening violence against any people or peoples. Advocating the same thing that has been trumpeted from almost all of the media and every single politician who's run against him for nigh on a year, but in a duck costume, so with slightly more gravitas than when Ted Cruz said it. For a pun. About a valid issue, directed towards nobody but the candidate himself.
Considering the effigy of Hillary lynched up over I5 we had last month advocating for her murder, I'll happily take more shadowy backroom deals for harmless puns in our political dialogue, thank you very much.
It also seems that you are expecting/asking other people to put in that time and effort, rather than doing it yourself.
It's very easy to commit any amount of resources to a (perceived) problem when they aren't your resources.
nah
I'm just expecting the discussion here to be as free of manipulation as possible. Maybe I hold this place to a higher ideal, but I mean even after I point out that the right feels like the left has done more than just "dress someone up in a duck costume", the go to argument continues to be "if the right has issues with a duck costume" and "a duck costume is not comparable to racial epithets". Its not even necessary to water down the right's issue here. Their issue is that the DNC or Hillary is sending people to incite violence by goading the "crazies". "Goading the crazies" is really all we have to work on here. Now to someone on the right, they are going to imagine that is done in much more effective and villainous ways than a duck costume or any t-shirt. I know, I've talked to them about this. The rational ones are aware that people can get emotional and violent on both sides. The rational ones think its wrong to rile anyone up to violence as well as it is to become violent. I think the rational left would agree.
Knowing this, I think its actually harmful to go "lol, the idiot right is upset about a duck costume" because that's not what it is and all it does is cause the right to think the left doesn't actually care to understand and it causes the left to actually not understand
The correct course of action, imo, is to understand the right's complaints as if the source was correct. Express understanding that it wouldn't be cool if it was happening, then prove the source false. I've personally found that leads to much better outcome in convincing the opposition of the truth.
but what's the point?
the source is well known for complete fabrication. It's like asking to solve an algebra problem with the wrong formula but pretend it's right.
To show you understand them and are listening? So that when you prove the source false, it's coming from a place that you've now opened up to be one of cooperation and togetherness.
I mean just put yourself in their shoes. If you wrongly believed a source and that was coloring your viewpoint, imagine two different people confronting you about it:
Person A: I can't believe you would believe [misrepresented viewpoint]. Also, your source is wrong look at this.
Person B: I can see why if that was true it would upset you. It would upset me, too! But check out why there is no reason to be upset.
Who are you more likely to listen to?
Oftentimes I see the person A approach being taken here in regards to the right. We don't need to misrepresent their viewpoint to be correct. Painting their issue with the paid protestors as "just a guy in a duck costume" lowers the discourse here and doesn't help us understand, change the right's minds, or even create a welcoming place to have whatever counts for balanced discussion here.
How many times have folks in here mentioned that O'Keefe can't be trusted and should be ignored?
How many times have people mentioned non-violent protest and it's uses in political discourse?
You ignore all of them because we aren't listening to the right wings feelings.
Their feelings are that Obama and Hillary are literal demons, personally started ISIL, murdered American citizens at Benghazi, are secretly rigging the election, and pretty much anything else terrible they can think of off the cuff.
No thanks
There's plenty of rightish leaning folks who plan to ticket split, stay home or vote third party. You are being totally uncharitable.
It also seems that you are expecting/asking other people to put in that time and effort, rather than doing it yourself.
It's very easy to commit any amount of resources to a (perceived) problem when they aren't your resources.
nah
I'm just expecting the discussion here to be as free of manipulation as possible. Maybe I hold this place to a higher ideal, but I mean even after I point out that the right feels like the left has done more than just "dress someone up in a duck costume", the go to argument continues to be "if the right has issues with a duck costume" and "a duck costume is not comparable to racial epithets". Its not even necessary to water down the right's issue here. Their issue is that the DNC or Hillary is sending people to incite violence by goading the "crazies". "Goading the crazies" is really all we have to work on here. Now to someone on the right, they are going to imagine that is done in much more effective and villainous ways than a duck costume or any t-shirt. I know, I've talked to them about this. The rational ones are aware that people can get emotional and violent on both sides. The rational ones think its wrong to rile anyone up to violence as well as it is to become violent. I think the rational left would agree.
Knowing this, I think its actually harmful to go "lol, the idiot right is upset about a duck costume" because that's not what it is and all it does is cause the right to think the left doesn't actually care to understand and it causes the left to actually not understand
The correct course of action, imo, is to understand the right's complaints as if the source was correct. Express understanding that it wouldn't be cool if it was happening, then prove the source false. I've personally found that leads to much better outcome in convincing the opposition of the truth.
but what's the point?
the source is well known for complete fabrication. It's like asking to solve an algebra problem with the wrong formula but pretend it's right.
To show you understand them and are listening? So that when you prove the source false, it's coming from a place that you've now opened up to be one of cooperation and togetherness.
I mean just put yourself in their shoes. If you wrongly believed a source and that was coloring your viewpoint, imagine two different people confronting you about it:
Person A: I can't believe you would believe [misrepresented viewpoint]. Also, your source is wrong look at this.
Person B: I can see why if that was true it would upset you. It would upset me, too! But check out why there is no reason to be upset.
Who are you more likely to listen to?
Oftentimes I see the person A approach being taken here in regards to the right. We don't need to misrepresent their viewpoint to be correct. Painting their issue with the paid protestors as "just a guy in a duck costume" lowers the discourse here and doesn't help us understand, change the right's minds, or even create a welcoming place to have whatever counts for balanced discussion here.
who am I more likely to listen to or who are they more likely to listen to? The first google page on this guy (that isn't his twitter or his personal website) show everything you need to know about him. The fact of the matter is that you could present this information in any way you'd like to and it won't matter because anyone who doesn't believe the dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of reputable sources detailing how and why he makes this crap up, doesn't want to believe it.
Counter-protestors were direct to a politician's events expressly to disrupt and push the opposition to violence. People are literally trying to incite violence in ways specifically designed to get "crazies to bite". There is actual video evidence. We should all be upset.
Expose whoever it is that needs to be exposed here.
Those are all words you have said (typed, whatever) in this conversation. Not in that order of course. But you did type them across multiple posts. Do you feel that your words, hacked up and put into an unflattering order like that, are in any way a reflection of what you're trying to say?
Now consider that James O'Keefe has a lot more footage to work with and is a lot better at editing words than I am.
Of course its not a wholely accurate reflection of what I'm trying to say.
1) I would show the evidence/posts that prove you are wrong and expose you as a manipulator
2) If you repeat your manipulative ways, then I continue to expose it
That's how I would also handle O'Keefe. I see how some people think this is a problematic way to handle it. But to me, I think its best to expose frauds no matter how much effort it takes.
Wait...how would you be able to show full, unedited video of a surreptitiously recorded conversation unless you were also surreptitiously recording it?
I am not being facetious. I honestly am not following this line of thought.
It also seems that you are expecting/asking other people to put in that time and effort, rather than doing it yourself.
It's very easy to commit any amount of resources to a (perceived) problem when they aren't your resources.
nah
I'm just expecting the discussion here to be as free of manipulation as possible. Maybe I hold this place to a higher ideal, but I mean even after I point out that the right feels like the left has done more than just "dress someone up in a duck costume", the go to argument continues to be "if the right has issues with a duck costume" and "a duck costume is not comparable to racial epithets". Its not even necessary to water down the right's issue here. Their issue is that the DNC or Hillary is sending people to incite violence by goading the "crazies". "Goading the crazies" is really all we have to work on here. Now to someone on the right, they are going to imagine that is done in much more effective and villainous ways than a duck costume or any t-shirt. I know, I've talked to them about this. The rational ones are aware that people can get emotional and violent on both sides. The rational ones think its wrong to rile anyone up to violence as well as it is to become violent. I think the rational left would agree.
Knowing this, I think its actually harmful to go "lol, the idiot right is upset about a duck costume" because that's not what it is and all it does is cause the right to think the left doesn't actually care to understand and it causes the left to actually not understand
The correct course of action, imo, is to understand the right's complaints as if the source was correct. Express understanding that it wouldn't be cool if it was happening, then prove the source false. I've personally found that leads to much better outcome in convincing the opposition of the truth.
but what's the point?
the source is well known for complete fabrication. It's like asking to solve an algebra problem with the wrong formula but pretend it's right.
To show you understand them and are listening? So that when you prove the source false, it's coming from a place that you've now opened up to be one of cooperation and togetherness.
I mean just put yourself in their shoes. If you wrongly believed a source and that was coloring your viewpoint, imagine two different people confronting you about it:
Person A: I can't believe you would believe [misrepresented viewpoint]. Also, your source is wrong look at this.
Person B: I can see why if that was true it would upset you. It would upset me, too! But check out why there is no reason to be upset.
Who are you more likely to listen to?
Oftentimes I see the person A approach being taken here in regards to the right. We don't need to misrepresent their viewpoint to be correct. Painting their issue with the paid protestors as "just a guy in a duck costume" lowers the discourse here and doesn't help us understand, change the right's minds, or even create a welcoming place to have whatever counts for balanced discussion here.
Here's the thing - if the very sight of a Planned Parenthood tshirt or a protestor dressed up in a duck costume is enough to incite Trump protestors to violence, this is a massive issue with Trump supporters. Not the protestors.
"But they're going there to 'goad the crazies'!" As @Pony would say, "doesn't matter, brah." Attacking a protester because of their attire or their criticism is not fucking acceptable. And yes, that goes for anyone, no matter where on the political spectrum. If your faction has an issue with using violence against protesters who are doing nothing more than using their right of free speech to show dissent, that is solely on your faction's head. And here's the thing - the right isn't upset about it because it's "inciting violence", it's because the left can easily use civil disobedience techniques to demonstrate how easily Trump supporters resort to violence to settle their disagreements, which winds up looking pretty horrible on the evening news.
So no, we shouldn't care about their complaint, because what it boils down to is "don't make us look bad on national TV".
Hearing the Keepin it 1600 guys talk about the Wikileaks email leak is really fascinating (particularly because Jon Lovett's emails are actually in the leak).
They've jokingly danced around it a couple times on the podcast, but it definitely sounds like all the emails are pretty much real and unaltered. At the same time, having actually worked in that environment they find it hilarious how sinisterly people try to spin what are actually totally innocuous emails.
Like, the worst bits of it seem to be some people just being dicks to each other in standard petty office politics ways. The most interesting thing to me is that they don't seem all that upset about the fact the hacks happened, largely because they feel that once everything's settled down it'll just get the public more used to seeing people being people and what it's actually like inside of a campaign.
Yeah, most of the emails I read were pretty tame to what I've seen in the private sector. Like 17 years in Marketing for the insurance industry and the last 10 as a part of a Forbes 100 company and I've seen some people write brutally scathing shit that would be awful if it ever got public. Like, the kind of stuff that people should be forced to read in public to drive home how awful this stuff sounds out loud.
Like, a person was promoted to VP via crony-ism and created a team where their whole purpose was to steal other teams projects and try to rush them out before them to get all the credit. The emails I got copied on were... both troubling and hilarious.
Hearing the Keepin it 1600 guys talk about the Wikileaks email leak is really fascinating (particularly because Jon Lovett's emails are actually in the leak).
They've jokingly danced around it a couple times on the podcast, but it definitely sounds like all the emails are pretty much real and unaltered. At the same time, having actually worked in that environment they find it hilarious how sinisterly people try to spin what are actually totally innocuous emails.
Yeah, most of the emails I read were pretty tame to what I've seen in the private sector. Like 17 years in Marketing for the insurance industry and the last 10 as a part of a Forbes 100 company and I've seen some people write brutally scathing shit that would be awful if it ever got public. Like, the kind of stuff that people should be forced to read in public to drive home how awful this stuff sounds out loud.
Like, a person was promoted to VP via crony-ism and created a team where their whole purpose was to steal other teams projects and try to rush them out before them to get all the credit. The emails I got copied on were... both troubling and hilarious.
Whenever I was in graduate school there was a memorable incident where some senior administrator (ie, somebody too high up the food chain to get fired for stupidity) listed, in excruciating detail, exactly how crazy a "fucking crazy student" they were dealing with was... and then accidentally forwarded it on the listserv for literally everybody on the university payroll. So, any and all faculty, staff, adjuncts, TAs, grad students, probably even undergrads on scholarship and certain forms of financial aid...
It got even more hilarious when they sent out an absurd, ass-covering email that basically said "WE ARE VERY SORRY FOR THE OFFENSIVE, FERPA-VIOLATING EMAIL THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE."
I'd be more shocked if they found no negative emails or backbiting, infighting or scheming.
These are human beings we're talking about here.
Call me when something turns out to be illegal.
There's no human endeavour that's pure and ethical and the sooner we start accepting that of our politicians the better
Counter-protestors were direct to a politician's events expressly to disrupt and push the opposition to violence. People are literally trying to incite violence in ways specifically designed to get "crazies to bite". There is actual video evidence. We should all be upset.
Expose whoever it is that needs to be exposed here.
Those are all words you have said (typed, whatever) in this conversation. Not in that order of course. But you did type them across multiple posts. Do you feel that your words, hacked up and put into an unflattering order like that, are in any way a reflection of what you're trying to say?
Now consider that James O'Keefe has a lot more footage to work with and is a lot better at editing words than I am.
Of course its not a wholely accurate reflection of what I'm trying to say.
1) I would show the evidence/posts that prove you are wrong and expose you as a manipulator
2) If you repeat your manipulative ways, then I continue to expose it
That's how I would also handle O'Keefe. I see how some people think this is a problematic way to handle it. But to me, I think its best to expose frauds no matter how much effort it takes.
fwiw, I never said O'Keefe was a credible source. In fact, I said the complete opposite, so I'm not sure why you made this post
There's a teapot orbiting around the Sun near Mercury.
Prove me wrong.
The moral?
People waste time and effort providing proof that a lie is a lie. O'keef has been proven to be a constant liar. Therefor, the onus is on him to provide evidence of truth and not us to provide evidence of falseness. You see this all the time with internet trolls that like to post a false assertion and then people in the thread bend themselves into contortions to show why they are wrong with citations and evidence based facts, therefor justifying the troll because he or she didn't give a fuck in the first place and will come back with another false assertion. Because it takes longer and more effort to prove a negative wrong than to make a lie.
At some point, you ignore the troll.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It also seems that you are expecting/asking other people to put in that time and effort, rather than doing it yourself.
It's very easy to commit any amount of resources to a (perceived) problem when they aren't your resources.
nah
I'm just expecting the discussion here to be as free of manipulation as possible. Maybe I hold this place to a higher ideal, but I mean even after I point out that the right feels like the left has done more than just "dress someone up in a duck costume", the go to argument continues to be "if the right has issues with a duck costume" and "a duck costume is not comparable to racial epithets". Its not even necessary to water down the right's issue here. Their issue is that the DNC or Hillary is sending people to incite violence by goading the "crazies". "Goading the crazies" is really all we have to work on here. Now to someone on the right, they are going to imagine that is done in much more effective and villainous ways than a duck costume or any t-shirt. I know, I've talked to them about this. The rational ones are aware that people can get emotional and violent on both sides. The rational ones think its wrong to rile anyone up to violence as well as it is to become violent. I think the rational left would agree.
Knowing this, I think its actually harmful to go "lol, the idiot right is upset about a duck costume" because that's not what it is and all it does is cause the right to think the left doesn't actually care to understand and it causes the left to actually not understand
The correct course of action, imo, is to understand the right's complaints as if the source was correct. Express understanding that it wouldn't be cool if it was happening, then prove the source false. I've personally found that leads to much better outcome in convincing the opposition of the truth.
but what's the point?
the source is well known for complete fabrication. It's like asking to solve an algebra problem with the wrong formula but pretend it's right.
To show you understand them and are listening? So that when you prove the source false, it's coming from a place that you've now opened up to be one of cooperation and togetherness.
I mean just put yourself in their shoes. If you wrongly believed a source and that was coloring your viewpoint, imagine two different people confronting you about it:
Person A: I can't believe you would believe [misrepresented viewpoint]. Also, your source is wrong look at this.
Person B: I can see why if that was true it would upset you. It would upset me, too! But check out why there is no reason to be upset.
Who are you more likely to listen to?
Oftentimes I see the person A approach being taken here in regards to the right. We don't need to misrepresent their viewpoint to be correct. Painting their issue with the paid protestors as "just a guy in a duck costume" lowers the discourse here and doesn't help us understand, change the right's minds, or even create a welcoming place to have whatever counts for balanced discussion here.
How many times have folks in here mentioned that O'Keefe can't be trusted and should be ignored?
How many times have people mentioned non-violent protest and it's uses in political discourse?
You ignore all of them because we aren't listening to the right wings feelings.
Their feelings are that Obama and Hillary are literal demons, personally started ISIL, murdered American citizens at Benghazi, are secretly rigging the election, and pretty much anything else terrible they can think of off the cuff.
No thanks
I have acknowledged and agreed with O'Keefe not being a reputable source. I've even acknowledged that I understand why people think the best thing to do is to just ignore him.
I've acknowledged that non-violent protest has its place, but also pointed out that, imo, literal goading for the purposes and intent of causing violence isn't good.
I haven't ignored it. I've talked about those things while simultaneously saying there are better ways to handle the opposition.
In fact, the rest of your post perfectly represents my problem. You paint the majority of the right's feelings based on the fringe right's crazy. IMO, this prevents actual discourse. The right does that to the left as well and is completely stagnating any ability for them to compromise also.
I mean just a couple posts above this one a poster claimed to know the "real" reason the right is upset about this issue and of course it was something that paints them in the most villanious way imaginable. I've talked to rational people on the right and none of them have said anything of the sort. In fact, like I've already said once, they are upset when Truml supporters resort to violence and are also upset that anyone can think it's OK to go to rallies for the sole purpose of trying to goad people into violence.
It also seems that you are expecting/asking other people to put in that time and effort, rather than doing it yourself.
It's very easy to commit any amount of resources to a (perceived) problem when they aren't your resources.
nah
I'm just expecting the discussion here to be as free of manipulation as possible. Maybe I hold this place to a higher ideal, but I mean even after I point out that the right feels like the left has done more than just "dress someone up in a duck costume", the go to argument continues to be "if the right has issues with a duck costume" and "a duck costume is not comparable to racial epithets". Its not even necessary to water down the right's issue here. Their issue is that the DNC or Hillary is sending people to incite violence by goading the "crazies". "Goading the crazies" is really all we have to work on here. Now to someone on the right, they are going to imagine that is done in much more effective and villainous ways than a duck costume or any t-shirt. I know, I've talked to them about this. The rational ones are aware that people can get emotional and violent on both sides. The rational ones think its wrong to rile anyone up to violence as well as it is to become violent. I think the rational left would agree.
Knowing this, I think its actually harmful to go "lol, the idiot right is upset about a duck costume" because that's not what it is and all it does is cause the right to think the left doesn't actually care to understand and it causes the left to actually not understand
The correct course of action, imo, is to understand the right's complaints as if the source was correct. Express understanding that it wouldn't be cool if it was happening, then prove the source false. I've personally found that leads to much better outcome in convincing the opposition of the truth.
but what's the point?
the source is well known for complete fabrication. It's like asking to solve an algebra problem with the wrong formula but pretend it's right.
To show you understand them and are listening? So that when you prove the source false, it's coming from a place that you've now opened up to be one of cooperation and togetherness.
I mean just put yourself in their shoes. If you wrongly believed a source and that was coloring your viewpoint, imagine two different people confronting you about it:
Person A: I can't believe you would believe [misrepresented viewpoint]. Also, your source is wrong look at this.
Person B: I can see why if that was true it would upset you. It would upset me, too! But check out why there is no reason to be upset.
Who are you more likely to listen to?
Oftentimes I see the person A approach being taken here in regards to the right. We don't need to misrepresent their viewpoint to be correct. Painting their issue with the paid protestors as "just a guy in a duck costume" lowers the discourse here and doesn't help us understand, change the right's minds, or even create a welcoming place to have whatever counts for balanced discussion here.
How many times have folks in here mentioned that O'Keefe can't be trusted and should be ignored?
How many times have people mentioned non-violent protest and it's uses in political discourse?
You ignore all of them because we aren't listening to the right wings feelings.
Their feelings are that Obama and Hillary are literal demons, personally started ISIL, murdered American citizens at Benghazi, are secretly rigging the election, and pretty much anything else terrible they can think of off the cuff.
No thanks
I have acknowledged and agreed with O'Keefe not being a reputable source. I've even acknowledged that I understand why people think the best thing to do is to just ignore him.
I've acknowledged that non-violent protest has its place, but also pointed out that, imo, literal goading for the purposes and intent of causing violence isn't good.
I haven't ignored it. I've talked about those things while simultaneously saying there are better ways to handle the opposition.
In fact, the rest of your post perfectly represents my problem. You paint the majority of the right's feelings based on the fringe right's crazy. IMO, this prevents actual discourse. The right does that to the left as well and is completely stagnating any ability for them to compromise also.
I mean just a couple posts above this one a poster claimed to know the "real" reason the right is upset about this issue and of course it was something that paints them in the most villanious way imaginable. I've talked to rational people on the right and none of them have said anything of the sort. In fact, like I've already said once, they are upset when Truml supporters resort to violence and are also upset that anyone can think it's OK to go to rallies for the sole purpose of trying to goad people into violence.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
Edit: Just to be clear and reiterate, I'm just left of center and have voted Democrat a bit more than Republican iin my lifetime.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
"A necessary evil." Nothing is necessary about voting for the worst parts of a culture given form over a party.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
+5
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
Why do you say that?
Whether through tacit or overt approval, it's absolutely at least 40% of the base. And that's erring on the best possible percentage.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
Why do you say that?
because they made him their nominee?
That doesn't mean that 40% of the Republican base agrees with everything Trump or his staff says.
Or at least it would have been had not Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina-based polling firm, brought it back to life. On Tuesday, PPP released a poll that, in addition to showing Clinton leading Trump in North Carolina for the first time since March, found that fully 41 percent of the state’s likely Trump voters believe the Democratic presidential nominee to be the literal incarnation of Satan. “Do you think Hillary Clinton is the Devil, or not?” read question 21 of PPP’s survey, which 830 hapless denizens of the Tar Heel State dutifully answered.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
Why do you say that?
because they made him their nominee?
That doesn't mean that 40% of the Republican base agrees with everything Trump or his staff says.
well if they're voting for him, that's what they're getting =P
I mean I don't agree with clinton on everything, but I do agree enough that I have no problems voting for her. I can't agree with trump on anything except (hilariously) the upper management of the GoP is garbage.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
Yeah, most of the emails I read were pretty tame to what I've seen in the private sector. Like 17 years in Marketing for the insurance industry and the last 10 as a part of a Forbes 100 company and I've seen some people write brutally scathing shit that would be awful if it ever got public. Like, the kind of stuff that people should be forced to read in public to drive home how awful this stuff sounds out loud.
Like, a person was promoted to VP via crony-ism and created a team where their whole purpose was to steal other teams projects and try to rush them out before them to get all the credit. The emails I got copied on were... both troubling and hilarious.
The biggest issue is they are out of context looks at the sausage being made. For me everything seen so far shows pretty normal and expected material.
+2
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
That can't be real..when your argument is that saying you support your party's presidential nominee is DEFAMATION?!
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
That's it? It's not even as cool as the two giant heads of Bush kissing Lieberman. I was looking for the electric chair Hillary, but found something worse.
Posts
I wasn't implying shit and I didn't say anything like that. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I hoped it would be understood that my first pair of lines there was my rendition of a certain other poster's argument: that every new bit of data must be evaluated, on its own merits, entirely without regard to past results or trends.
Not by them, of course. But by someone who has the time and attention which every scrap, no matter how unsupported or dubious in origin, deserves.
I think he's trying to say that I was heavily implying it.
How many times have folks in here mentioned that O'Keefe can't be trusted and should be ignored?
How many times have people mentioned non-violent protest and it's uses in political discourse?
You ignore all of them because we aren't listening to the right wings feelings.
Their feelings are that Obama and Hillary are literal demons, personally started ISIL, murdered American citizens at Benghazi, are secretly rigging the election, and pretty much anything else terrible they can think of off the cuff.
No thanks
It's a guy in a duck costume making a bad pun. Even if we say that every single detail of this conspiracy is true, it's still a guy in a duck costume for the sake of a pun. Not attacking someone's race. Not attacking someone's faith. Not threatening violence against any people or peoples. Advocating the same thing that has been trumpeted from almost all of the media and every single politician who's run against him for nigh on a year, but in a duck costume, so with slightly more gravitas than when Ted Cruz said it. For a pun. About a valid issue, directed towards nobody but the candidate himself.
Considering the effigy of Hillary lynched up over I5 we had last month advocating for her murder, I'll happily take more shadowy backroom deals for harmless puns in our political dialogue, thank you very much.
There's plenty of rightish leaning folks who plan to ticket split, stay home or vote third party. You are being totally uncharitable.
who am I more likely to listen to or who are they more likely to listen to? The first google page on this guy (that isn't his twitter or his personal website) show everything you need to know about him. The fact of the matter is that you could present this information in any way you'd like to and it won't matter because anyone who doesn't believe the dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of reputable sources detailing how and why he makes this crap up, doesn't want to believe it.
You gotta admit, it's probably at least really cathartic.
Wait...how would you be able to show full, unedited video of a surreptitiously recorded conversation unless you were also surreptitiously recording it?
I am not being facetious. I honestly am not following this line of thought.
Here's the thing - if the very sight of a Planned Parenthood tshirt or a protestor dressed up in a duck costume is enough to incite Trump protestors to violence, this is a massive issue with Trump supporters. Not the protestors.
"But they're going there to 'goad the crazies'!" As @Pony would say, "doesn't matter, brah." Attacking a protester because of their attire or their criticism is not fucking acceptable. And yes, that goes for anyone, no matter where on the political spectrum. If your faction has an issue with using violence against protesters who are doing nothing more than using their right of free speech to show dissent, that is solely on your faction's head. And here's the thing - the right isn't upset about it because it's "inciting violence", it's because the left can easily use civil disobedience techniques to demonstrate how easily Trump supporters resort to violence to settle their disagreements, which winds up looking pretty horrible on the evening news.
So no, we shouldn't care about their complaint, because what it boils down to is "don't make us look bad on national TV".
I'm just so proud right now, you guys. For realsies.
They've jokingly danced around it a couple times on the podcast, but it definitely sounds like all the emails are pretty much real and unaltered. At the same time, having actually worked in that environment they find it hilarious how sinisterly people try to spin what are actually totally innocuous emails.
Like, the worst bits of it seem to be some people just being dicks to each other in standard petty office politics ways. The most interesting thing to me is that they don't seem all that upset about the fact the hacks happened, largely because they feel that once everything's settled down it'll just get the public more used to seeing people being people and what it's actually like inside of a campaign.
Like, a person was promoted to VP via crony-ism and created a team where their whole purpose was to steal other teams projects and try to rush them out before them to get all the credit. The emails I got copied on were... both troubling and hilarious.
It got even more hilarious when they sent out an absurd, ass-covering email that basically said "WE ARE VERY SORRY FOR THE OFFENSIVE, FERPA-VIOLATING EMAIL THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE."
These are human beings we're talking about here.
Call me when something turns out to be illegal.
There's no human endeavour that's pure and ethical and the sooner we start accepting that of our politicians the better
There's a teapot orbiting around the Sun near Mercury.
Prove me wrong.
The moral?
People waste time and effort providing proof that a lie is a lie. O'keef has been proven to be a constant liar. Therefor, the onus is on him to provide evidence of truth and not us to provide evidence of falseness. You see this all the time with internet trolls that like to post a false assertion and then people in the thread bend themselves into contortions to show why they are wrong with citations and evidence based facts, therefor justifying the troll because he or she didn't give a fuck in the first place and will come back with another false assertion. Because it takes longer and more effort to prove a negative wrong than to make a lie.
At some point, you ignore the troll.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I have acknowledged and agreed with O'Keefe not being a reputable source. I've even acknowledged that I understand why people think the best thing to do is to just ignore him.
I've acknowledged that non-violent protest has its place, but also pointed out that, imo, literal goading for the purposes and intent of causing violence isn't good.
I haven't ignored it. I've talked about those things while simultaneously saying there are better ways to handle the opposition.
In fact, the rest of your post perfectly represents my problem. You paint the majority of the right's feelings based on the fringe right's crazy. IMO, this prevents actual discourse. The right does that to the left as well and is completely stagnating any ability for them to compromise also.
I mean just a couple posts above this one a poster claimed to know the "real" reason the right is upset about this issue and of course it was something that paints them in the most villanious way imaginable. I've talked to rational people on the right and none of them have said anything of the sort. In fact, like I've already said once, they are upset when Truml supporters resort to violence and are also upset that anyone can think it's OK to go to rallies for the sole purpose of trying to goad people into violence.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
Edit: Just to be clear and reiterate, I'm just left of center and have voted Democrat a bit more than Republican iin my lifetime.
"A necessary evil." Nothing is necessary about voting for the worst parts of a culture given form over a party.
No it's probably closer to the 40% of the Republican base who think Hillary is literally the devil.
Why do you say that?
because they made him their nominee?
Whether through tacit or overt approval, it's absolutely at least 40% of the base. And that's erring on the best possible percentage.
http://fusion.net/story/334920/hillary-clinton-devil-poll/
That doesn't mean that 40% of the Republican base agrees with everything Trump or his staff says.
well if they're voting for him, that's what they're getting =P
I mean I don't agree with clinton on everything, but I do agree enough that I have no problems voting for her. I can't agree with trump on anything except (hilariously) the upper management of the GoP is garbage.
I dont have time to fully read that poll right now and think of the actual numerical implications of that
But good point and fair enough
Oh also I voted today. Please clap.
The biggest issue is they are out of context looks at the sausage being made. For me everything seen so far shows pretty normal and expected material.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
That's it? It's not even as cool as the two giant heads of Bush kissing Lieberman. I was looking for the electric chair Hillary, but found something worse.