narcimund

I can just see it now ... Someone is being attacked and their life is in danger. You enter the situation and save the person. However, you continue to attack the original attacker and their life is now in danger. Someone else enters the situation and saves the original attacker. However, they continue to attack you and your life is now in danger. Etc... The impulse to brutal revenge is the scourge of humanity. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Your examples all dance beautifully -- very distracting and irrelevant. Yes, there are conceivable ways a black person could use the word nigger in a non-racist way, but that's not analogous. Coulter is not a faggot (presumably) so calling someone else one is clearly in the realm of unkindness. Likewise, the people calling her and Clinton "cunt" are men (presumably) so they can't use the affiliate-group excuse. They can't say, "We're from the same group so we can use the derogatory versions of our group's names in kindness and jest." They just can't do that. Sorry. And why bring up old meanings of words that have changed over decades? That's just plain irrelevant (and I bet you knew that.) "Cunt" was a nasty insult last year and probably will be next year too. In 20 or 100 years if it changes to mean something completely different, go ahead and justify its use with your "faggot" example. For now you're just being disingenuous. And that's why I decided communication with you is impossible which is why I'm writing this post for the audience, not you. First Class Citizen Twice Over

It's hard for me to imagine a situation in which a white person can call a black person a "nigger" without it being sufficient to demonstrate racism. Likewise it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which a man can call a woman a "cunt" without it being sufficient to demonstrate misogyny. Maybe you've got an example in mind. Ann Coulter apparently thinks a straight person calling someone a "faggot" isn't a statement about their sexual orientation so maybe language is more flexible than I give it credit for. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Thanks for the advice. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Where do you people get this information??? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Oh, sure. I wasn't arguing in that direction. But if the knive was what, a little plastic butter knife from the dispenser at the hot dog stand, then it's a little more reasonable to rush the attacker even without a weapon. First Class Citizen Twice Over

What kind of pathetic knife can you use to stab someone 10 (or is it 20???) times and have them come out in "good condition"? First Class Citizen Twice Over

So if calling one woman a "bitch" or "cunt" doesn't indicate misogyny, do you also believe that calling one black man a "nigger" doesn't indicate racism? First Class Citizen Twice Over

So YOU'RE the guy who keeps encouraging the career beggars. Now I know who to blame. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I'm all warm and cuddly that you guys are tracking me so closely. I'm truly loved. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I'd say Henry Watson was an enemy, that day...wouldn't you? Please read what I wrote ONE MORE TIME. CAREFULLY. I made a narrow point. I was commenting on a poster who pathologically creates strawmen arguments and assigns them to some unnamed posters who he continually villainizes. Then points fingers at anyone who mentions how silly this is. As if criticism equals vindication. He's fantasizing that there's a group of posters here on dropzone with some set of outrageous ideals. I think he's doing himself a disservice. Working yourself up into a frenzy about enemies that don't exist is silly and potentially unbalancing. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Keep it up. You're the funniest thing all morning! First Class Citizen Twice Over

You are HILARIOUS! Over and over you keep citing unnamed posters who have outrageous opinions yet so far as I can tell nobody ever says what you predict. You've got an active imagination -- too bad it's focused on imagining enemies that don't exist. First Class Citizen Twice Over

WHOOOOSH!!!! You ESPECIALLY are a hoot. First Class Citizen Twice Over

He seems to be giving this a pass. The "who" in this case, seems to trump the un-PC labels being used. You guys are a HOOT! First Class Citizen Twice Over

Um... no sir I blither blither blither don't blither edumacate me blither blither please ,,, urp First Class Citizen Twice Over

To be fair I wasn't "communicating" with you. I was "mocking" you. But regardless... This seems to be the core of your argument. Distilling it further, you seem to be saying: Humans can either (A) reduce production of greenhouse gasses or (B) adjust to climate change but not both. If you were right that humanity couldn't do both, and there was a significant chance that there was inevitable climate change, then there would be something to discuss. There might be conditions where choosing (A) while forgoing (B) would be the wrong choice. However, there are all sorts of completely nonsensical assumptions in your premise. Primarily that: You believe that reducing greenhouse gas production somehow guarantees humanity will fare WORSE in the oncoming climate shift. You (and a lot of others) are tangling yourselves up in knots to imagine a bizarre, complicated, and completely evidence-free situation in order to avoid a pretty clear conclusion: we all live in a glass house and a bunch of us are throwing rocks. Bad move. First Class Citizen Twice Over

It's fun to watch you two fight against an imaginary adversary The sad part is you seem to be losing. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I love this little quote showing the journalist's short memory: Anyone see Soylent Green? A dumb little sci-fi movie. The primary plot element is that the "Greenhouse Effect" has put the world into permanent heatwave. Everyone's walking around sweating and starving and waiting for a little bit of food made from plankton (with a secret ingredient as well). At the end we discover the ocean plankton is dying too... The movie was made in 1973. Notably, the movie was made from a novella (Make Room! Make Room! published in 1966) which did not include the global warming phenomenon. This might help date the origin of the public consciousness of the idea. First Class Citizen Twice Over

God forbid. Where would the world be without open and proud misogyny? First Class Citizen Twice Over

That's the other side's point. First Class Citizen Twice Over

The bad words get the press but she does something much more insidious and evil than swear. In her regular essays, her paragraphs typically consist of 4 or 5 damning claims about the person she's criticizing starting with something that's likely true and ending with intentionally obvious hyperbole. Something so crazy and obviously untrue that nobody in their right mind would think it was anything other than a joke. After even a light reading you'll walk away knowing the first one is true and also that the last one is not. But what about the three in between? They're carefully crafted to leave you unsure. More than likely the average reader on Coulter's side of the partisan battle will believe them -- and some are probably even true but many are not. She's got an astoundingly powerful lie machine going. Carefully crafted; certainly intentional; probably unstoppable. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Think carefully about the different meanings of the word "you" that you're conflating. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I've read as much of that petition as I can in one sitting. I'm not qualified to judge the quality of its reasoning but on the surface it seems to be written by someone who can sound lawyerly. Just stipulating for a moment that his reasoning is rock-solid however, it's interesting to wonder what the effects might be. Even if a circuit judge were completely convinced of the perfection of every single point and the absolute failure of the government's arguments, would they be willing to rule in the defendant's favor? Like hell! And of course if some renegade judge actually was convinced and ruled according to their conscience, appeals would by guaranteed to overturn him -- whether or not on actual grounds, the pressure would be incredible. This guy could be completely right in every single point but he's still pounding his head against the wall. I admire his quixotic idealism and I'll mourn him when he's sent to prison or dies from an unexpected heart attack. First Class Citizen Twice Over

You're reading an awful lot of meaning and emotion into a bit of capitalization. You're inferring (A) that it's the "maidenness" of the missing part that's important and (B) that capitalization implies desperation rather than simply irritation or exasperation. Sounds to me like they objected to you shortening their name, not necessarily to you omitting a particular part. My friend Philip would be irritated or exasperated if you called him "Phil". He might even capitalize the missing letters in his response. I don't think it's fair to say he's desperate about it however. I also doubt he's got some kind of intense focus on the last two letters of his name. It's just polite to use the whole thing if that's how he likes it. Who called you a right-winger? First Class Citizen Twice Over