Red Mosquito

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It’s like when AOC said it’s more important to be “morally right” than “factually right” a couple years back. But remember Vance’s claim to fame was from a semi-fictional bestseller, so he gets the power of crafted narratives

Well, yeah, it was definitely the Democrats that invented bald face lying to the public. What was AOC justifying? Did she round up the number of cubic meters of carbon in the atmosphere?

Don’t waste your time feeling like you have to respond to dumb equivocation.

If, when AOC said “there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” she had said it in defense of a message that was actively causing bomb threats to schools and hospitals, Bi_3 (and many, many others in the public, media, and government) would be insisting that she step down, and is not fit for office.

He would not be “whatabout“ quoting Republicans, and you know it. He would want to talk about the issue that’s here in front of him.

So if he doesn’t wanna fucking talk about it now, then just don’t fucking talk to him about it.

McParadigm wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It’s like when AOC said it’s more important to be “morally right” than “factually right” a couple years back. But remember Vance’s claim to fame was from a semi-fictional bestseller, so he gets the power of crafted narratives

Well, yeah, it was definitely the Democrats that invented bald face lying to the public. What was AOC justifying? Did she round up the number of cubic meters of carbon in the atmosphere?

Don’t waste your time feeling like you have to respond to dumb equivocation.

If, when AOC said “there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” she had said it in defense of a message that was actively causing bomb threats to schools and hospitals, Bi_3 (and many, many others in the public, media, and government) would be insisting that she step down, and is not fit for office.

He would not be “whatabout“ quoting Republicans, and you know it. He would want to talk about the issue that’s here in front of him.

So if he doesn’t wanna fucking talk about it now, then just don’t fucking talk to him about it.

Hmmm…. If only there was search feature so we could go back and see:

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 2#p1280172

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It’s like when AOC said it’s more important to be “morally right” than “factually right” a couple years back. But remember Vance’s claim to fame was from a semi-fictional bestseller, so he gets the power of crafted narratives

Well, yeah, it was definitely the Democrats that invented bald face lying to the public. What was AOC justifying? Did she round up the number of cubic meters of carbon in the atmosphere?

Don’t waste your time feeling like you have to respond to dumb equivocation.

If, when AOC said “there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” she had said it in defense of a message that was actively causing bomb threats to schools and hospitals, Bi_3 (and many, many others in the public, media, and government) would be insisting that she step down, and is not fit for office.

He would not be “whatabout“ quoting Republicans, and you know it. He would want to talk about the issue that’s here in front of him.

So if he doesn’t wanna fucking talk about it now, then just don’t fucking talk to him about it.

Hmmm…. If only there was search feature so we could go back and see:

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 2#p1280172

Yes. Exactly. Thank you.

Good clear demonstration that, even when there weren’t bomb threats being produced by her dumb words, your impulse response to AOC saying a thing was to discuss AOC.

And when Republican presidential candidates are justifying and elevating falsehoods, while those falsehoods are producing bomb threats in hospitals and schools….your impulse is still to talk about AOC. To say “what about that time…”

I appreciate the obviousness of the demonstration. It saves me a lot of typing time.

Are you saying that Harris can be President even if AOC is a pretty woman who won an election?

dead cat on the table. boris johnson's one and only move.
i did something genuinely awful and the media about to find out?
look at this big even worse thing over here! (this isnt actually happening and never will but the media will spend a full week talking about it instead of the awful thing i just done!)

this worked for that prick, for years. It still works in british media terms.

and then there's that

Speaking of whataboutism, I'm not terribly inclined to give a shit about pleas from dems about the dangers of messaging, when their own messaging is motivating people to actually try to kill a guy.

Called-in bomb threats? wow, that's terrible! How many bombs did they find?

BurtReynolds wrote:Speaking of whataboutism, I'm not terribly inclined to give a shit about pleas from dems about the dangers of messaging, when their own messaging is motivating people to actually try to kill a guy.

Called-in bomb threats? wow, that's terrible! How many bombs did they find?

werent both guys registered as repbulicans, with this latest even voting for trump last time? i realize its still too early on the second one to know any of the facts but i am pretty sure the first one has been debunked that he was after trump in the sense he googled who had the next rally. he just wanted to go down in history regardless of the candidate he wanted to take out

Peeps wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Speaking of whataboutism, I'm not terribly inclined to give a shit about pleas from dems about the dangers of messaging, when their own messaging is motivating people to actually try to kill a guy.

Called-in bomb threats? wow, that's terrible! How many bombs did they find?

werent both guys registered as repbulicans, with this latest even voting for trump last time? i realize its still too early on the second one to know any of the facts but i am pretty sure the first one has been debunked that he was after trump in the sense he googled who had the next rally. he just wanted to go down in history regardless of the candidate he wanted to take out

I think they were fucking schizos (the first's politics is still somehow a complete mystery, while the second sounds like he was motivated by the most generic media bullshit imaginable. A true boomer extremist.)

For the record, I don't think speech should be limited because somewhere in a country of over 300 million people (and several million illegals), a handful of schizoid freaks might take something the wrong way. Still, it's pretty rich screeching about dangerous rhetoric when at the same time you are also screeching that your political enemies are a threat to all we hold dear. Some people might take that literally.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Peeps wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Speaking of whataboutism, I'm not terribly inclined to give a shit about pleas from dems about the dangers of messaging, when their own messaging is motivating people to actually try to kill a guy.

Called-in bomb threats? wow, that's terrible! How many bombs did they find?

werent both guys registered as repbulicans, with this latest even voting for trump last time? i realize its still too early on the second one to know any of the facts but i am pretty sure the first one has been debunked that he was after trump in the sense he googled who had the next rally. he just wanted to go down in history regardless of the candidate he wanted to take out

I think they were fucking schizos (the first's politics is still somehow a complete mystery, while the second sounds like he was motivated by the most generic media bullshit imaginable. A true boomer extremist.)

For the record, I don't think speech should be limited because somewhere in a country of over 300 million people (and several million illegals), a handful of schizoid freaks might take something the wrong way. Still, it's pretty rich screeching about dangerous rhetoric when at the same time you are also screeching that your political enemies are a threat to all we hold dear. Some people might take that literally.

its unwise to get in a pissing contest about messaging but you dont think telling your supporters to stand back and stand by is a bit different than telling your supporters they want to ban all abortions no matter what?

Is that the comedian, Norm MacDonald?

back from the dead.

B wrote:Is that the comedian, Norm MacDonald?

He was a deeply closeted gay man

BurtReynolds wrote:back from the dead.

He died 5 years after that tweet.

he tied in his battle with cancer

Good news update on the bomb threats caused by the cat eater lie:
To be fair, VOIP location spoofing via foreign owned VPNs is not difficult so the feds could be wrong

i didn't realize until now Norm MacD was from Quebec City

i always envision them as the more genteel french canadians

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It’s like when AOC said it’s more important to be “morally right” than “factually right” a couple years back. But remember Vance’s claim to fame was from a semi-fictional bestseller, so he gets the power of crafted narratives

Well, yeah, it was definitely the Democrats that invented bald face lying to the public. What was AOC justifying? Did she round up the number of cubic meters of carbon in the atmosphere?

Don’t waste your time feeling like you have to respond to dumb equivocation.

If, when AOC said “there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” she had said it in defense of a message that was actively causing bomb threats to schools and hospitals, Bi_3 (and many, many others in the public, media, and government) would be insisting that she step down, and is not fit for office.

He would not be “whatabout“ quoting Republicans, and you know it. He would want to talk about the issue that’s here in front of him.

So if he doesn’t wanna fucking talk about it now, then just don’t fucking talk to him about it.

Hmmm…. If only there was search feature so we could go back and see:

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 2#p1280172

Yes. Exactly. Thank you.

Good clear demonstration that, even when there weren’t bomb threats being produced by her dumb words, your impulse response to AOC saying a thing was to discuss AOC.

And when Republican presidential candidates are justifying and elevating falsehoods, while those falsehoods are producing bomb threats in hospitals and schools….your impulse is still to talk about AOC. To say “what about that time…”

I appreciate the obviousness of the demonstration. It saves me a lot of typing time.

WTF are talking about this time? I literally called out a republican first on the last page (browning) and I don’t want to talk about AOC. She’s a normie dem now and not relevant anymore. But what she said is the same concept as what Vance said: getting the details right is less important than constructing a narrative folks can understand about the issue you want in their minds. That seemed like a good example for trags post on the last page. It’s not whatabouttism , it’s just an example, and I tied to what Vance did in the very next sentence again not to downplay either but to show it’s a common and effective process. Fuck dude, read the post, count to 60 then reply. (Don’t react, respond)

If you look at your post here, it’s the same thing: http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... 1#p2119161

I was agreeing with you.

BurtReynolds wrote:he tied in his battle with cancer

Good reference.