Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Sept 21, 2017 23:30:00 GMT -5
I totally disagree with you on this point, because it was a mask, yes of a head but a mask nonetheless. It was missing two things real life decapitated heads have - eyes and a neck. No one has to be dead to hold a mask even holding it like a beheaded head. You and others IMO are so fixated on what it appears to be, you ignore what KG was trying to have it represent - Trump bleeding out of his whatever. Not because he was headless, but just to mock him. They were both dumb enough to think their intentions mattered more than how the image would be seen by others. (Photog and KG)
The mask was an approximation of Trump, it didn't even look much like him to me. The photo-shopped image of Clinton being hit however, was taken from an actual image of Clinton. If a golf ball did hit you hard enough to knock you to the ground, I would expect there would be more damage than a simple bruise. A hard shot to the kidney could hospitalize or kill you, so I don't see it as harmless as you do. YM does vary.
Disagree all you want. All it does is show that you don't understand the difference between knocking someone down and killing someone. And I don't ignore what KG may say that she was trying to represent. What I also do though is, I accept what she succeeded in representing: Donald Trump, beheaded. What she might say she was "trying to" represent is irrelevant considering how clear the message was that she succeeded in getting out. I totally understand the difference between beheading someone and hitting a golf ball into their body. However, to me its immaterial as KG didn't behead Trump, didn't want to behead Trump, nor did she exhort anyone to do so.
And I totally get that now as back then, I am in a minority of people who see KG's posing with the mask as a failed attempt at making her point not 'OMG KG wants to behead the POTUS, WTE!!!!'. The message the majority of you saw or experienced is based on you not on KG. And to be congruent I think both you and GEL should acknowledge if you choose to see that as a beheading by KG based on your own beliefs and headspace it should be OK and as easy to understand and accept that others might see violence to women from what Trump tweeted. You don't need to agree. But to be congruent, IMO, you should accept either both things can be interpreted by the viewer as to what they are or neither can.
QED
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,427
Member is Online
|
Post by andi9899 on Sept 22, 2017 5:28:33 GMT -5
He absolutely advocated violence against women. What do you think hitting them with an object is? Maybe it's just me because I come from a family where men don't hit women. I don't have boys but my nephew knows that if I ever hear about him.putting his hands on a female that I will destroy him. The fact that I'm half his size doesn't matter. And IMO the POTUS should be setting an example not only for men in America, but for everyone. KG is a has been. Not that her behavior was less inappropriate because of that fact, but DT really should be more conscious of his behavior given the office that he occupies. Give me a break. This wasn't "beating his wife" or "raping unknown women" or anything that's actually "violence against women". This was (as I already pointed out) a meme about the point of "knocking over the opposition". It just so happens that in THIS CASE the opposition was a woman. As I said it would have been just as stupid if it were a man in the clip, had a man been Trump's opponent... want to bet that you wouldn't have mislabeled that as "violence against men" though? I'd bet money that you wouldn't have. I'm against violence against anyone regardless of gender. And if you think it's not a big deal, how would you have liked it if instead of HRC, it was your wife or daughter or mother. You'd be singing a different tune then, wouldn't you? If you're ok with violence against anyone particularly a woman, you're a messed up individual that I don't care to know.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 22, 2017 7:53:45 GMT -5
Disagree all you want. All it does is show that you don't understand the difference between knocking someone down and killing someone. And I don't ignore what KG may say that she was trying to represent. What I also do though is, I accept what she succeeded in representing: Donald Trump, beheaded. What she might say she was "trying to" represent is irrelevant considering how clear the message was that she succeeded in getting out. I totally understand the difference between beheading someone and hitting a golf ball into their body. However, to me its immaterial as KG didn't behead Trump, didn't want to behead Trump, nor did she exhort anyone to do so.
And I totally get that now as back then, I am in a minority of people who see KG's posing with the mask as a failed attempt at making her point not 'OMG KG wants to behead the POTUS, WTE!!!!'. The message the majority of you saw or experienced is based on you not on KG. And to be congruent I think both you and GEL should acknowledge if you choose to see that as a beheading by KG based on your own beliefs and headspace it should be OK and as easy to understand and accept that others might see violence to women from what Trump tweeted. You don't need to agree. But to be congruent, IMO, you should accept either both things can be interpreted by the viewer as to what they are or neither can.
QED
President Trump didn't really hit Mrs. Clinton with a golf ball or ask anyone else to do so either. Congruency and all.....
Of course I understand people could have different interpretations. I believe the question of this thread was why people thought one was worse than the other. Opt...people see "violence toward women" in everything. Every single thing. As a survivor of same, I get a little pissy when real violence toward women is getting the same reaction anymore as calling someone a "racist" gets. It's used so much and so inappropriately, it's lost it's true meaning. That shouldn't be ok with you. It isn't with me.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Sept 22, 2017 10:31:09 GMT -5
I totally understand the difference between beheading someone and hitting a golf ball into their body. However, to me its immaterial as KG didn't behead Trump, didn't want to behead Trump, nor did she exhort anyone to do so.
And I totally get that now as back then, I am in a minority of people who see KG's posing with the mask as a failed attempt at making her point not 'OMG KG wants to behead the POTUS, WTE!!!!'. The message the majority of you saw or experienced is based on you not on KG. And to be congruent I think both you and GEL should acknowledge if you choose to see that as a beheading by KG based on your own beliefs and headspace it should be OK and as easy to understand and accept that others might see violence to women from what Trump tweeted. You don't need to agree. But to be congruent, IMO, you should accept either both things can be interpreted by the viewer as to what they are or neither can.
QED
President Trump didn't really hit Mrs. Clinton with a golf ball or ask anyone else to do so either. Congruency and all.....
Of course I understand people could have different interpretations. I believe the question of this thread was why people thought one was worse than the other. Opt...people see "violence toward women" in everything. Every single thing. As a survivor of same, I get a little pissy when real violence toward women is getting the same reaction anymore as calling someone a "racist" gets. It's used so much and so inappropriately, it's lost it's true meaning. That shouldn't be ok with you. It isn't with me.
I think the question of this thread is why there isn't more outrage against Trump's tweet given all the outrage against the KG photo. I don't really want to play which is worse game. But it is notable that the POTUS endorsed a video of him hitting his former opponent via a golf ball. I think Trump loved it because it distracts the Hillary haters from more important things and he loves seeing himself as a man who beats up on people.
MO.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Sept 22, 2017 10:51:20 GMT -5
President Trump didn't really hit Mrs. Clinton with a golf ball or ask anyone else to do so either. Congruency and all.....
Of course I understand people could have different interpretations. I believe the question of this thread was why people thought one was worse than the other. Opt...people see "violence toward women" in everything. Every single thing. As a survivor of same, I get a little pissy when real violence toward women is getting the same reaction anymore as calling someone a "racist" gets. It's used so much and so inappropriately, it's lost it's true meaning. That shouldn't be ok with you. It isn't with me.
I think the question of this thread is why there isn't more outrage against Trump's tweet given all the outrage against the KG photo. I don't really want to play which is worse game. But it is notable that the POTUS endorsed a video of him hitting his former opponent via a golf ball. I think Trump loved it because it distracts the Hillary haters from more important things and he loves seeing himself as a man who beats up on people.
MO.
But I think that answers the question posed in the OP. There isn't more outrage, because a lot of people don't view it as being "as bad" in a relative sense. Objectively it is still horrible, but in comparison, it lacks the shock value of what KG did.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 22, 2017 11:58:38 GMT -5
And if you think it's not a big deal, how would you have liked it if instead of HRC, it was your wife or daughter or mother. I think Richard's point is that the clip is a sleight against Ms. Clinton specifically, not an attack on her gender. I agree that the clip isn't an endorsement of violence. It's tactless, especially for a world leader, but it's not an endorsement of violence. Ms. Griffin's stunt with the severed head is closer since she appears to personally revile Pres. Trump, but it's still a stretch to call it an endorsement of violence. Both could aptly be described as "gestures of profound disrespect".
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,427
Member is Online
|
Post by andi9899 on Sept 22, 2017 12:50:40 GMT -5
And if you think it's not a big deal, how would you have liked it if instead of HRC, it was your wife or daughter or mother. I think Richard's point is that the clip is a sleight against Ms. Clinton specifically, not an attack on her gender. I agree that the clip isn't an endorsement of violence. It's tactless, especially for a world leader, but it's not an endorsement of violence. Ms. Griffin's stunt with the severed head is closer since she appears to personally revile Pres. Trump, but it's still a stretch to call it an endorsement of violence. Both could aptly be described as "gestures of profound disrespect". Both actions are incredibly tactless, disrespectful and flat out uncalled for. Neither is better than the other. To say that it's ok for DT and not KG is insane. To say that one advocates violence and one doesn't is equally insane. That is my point.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 22, 2017 14:28:19 GMT -5
And if you think it's not a big deal, how would you have liked it if instead of HRC, it was your wife or daughter or mother. I think Richard's point is that the clip is a sleight against Ms. Clinton specifically, not an attack on her gender. I agree that the clip isn't an endorsement of violence. It's tactless, especially for a world leader, but it's not an endorsement of violence. Ms. Griffin's stunt with the severed head is closer since she appears to personally revile Pres. Trump, but it's still a stretch to call it an endorsement of violence. Both could aptly be described as "gestures of profound disrespect". Nah, hitting a woman and knocking her down isn't an endorsement of violence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 21:56:47 GMT -5
Give me a break. This wasn't "beating his wife" or "raping unknown women" or anything that's actually "violence against women". This was (as I already pointed out) a meme about the point of "knocking over the opposition". It just so happens that in THIS CASE the opposition was a woman. As I said it would have been just as stupid if it were a man in the clip, had a man been Trump's opponent... want to bet that you wouldn't have mislabeled that as "violence against men" though? I'd bet money that you wouldn't have. I'm against violence against anyone regardless of gender. And if you think it's not a big deal, how would you have liked it if instead of HRC, it was your wife or daughter or mother. You'd be singing a different tune then, wouldn't you? If you're ok with violence against anyone particularly a woman, you're a messed up individual that I don't care to know. If it were my wife, daughter, or mother, we would both likely have had a laugh about it because it wasn't about violence towards women, it was about beating an opponent (and the opponent DID trip, allowing the meme to even exist in the first place, of their own accord)... and none of them (wife, daughters, mother) are fact-and-reality-hating feminists. Also you didn't confirm or deny: Would you have called it "violence against men" if it had been a man that was the opponent that tripped and a meme was made showing getting knocked over by a gold ball? Be honest, we all know that your answer is "no".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 22:03:01 GMT -5
I think Richard's point is that the clip is a sleight against Ms. Clinton specifically, not an attack on her gender. I agree that the clip isn't an endorsement of violence. It's tactless, especially for a world leader, but it's not an endorsement of violence. Ms. Griffin's stunt with the severed head is closer since she appears to personally revile Pres. Trump, but it's still a stretch to call it an endorsement of violence. Both could aptly be described as "gestures of profound disrespect". Both actions are incredibly tactless, disrespectful and flat out uncalled for. Neither is better than the other. To say that it's ok for DT and not KG is insane. To say that one advocates violence and one doesn't is equally insane. That is my point. Who said it was okay? I sure didn't. Just because I can easily see that there is a distinct and definite difference in the level of tackyness and disgustingness doesn't mean I approved of either one. One "advocates" the beheading of an adversary, the other "advocates" knocking them over, but they get back up. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you. Both are variations of "violence", agreed (neither of which is "against women" NOR "against men" though)... but one is on a whole other level of extreme than the other.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 22:09:16 GMT -5
I think Richard's point is that the clip is a sleight against Ms. Clinton specifically, not an attack on her gender. I agree that the clip isn't an endorsement of violence. It's tactless, especially for a world leader, but it's not an endorsement of violence. Ms. Griffin's stunt with the severed head is closer since she appears to personally revile Pres. Trump, but it's still a stretch to call it an endorsement of violence. Both could aptly be described as "gestures of profound disrespect". Nah, hitting a woman and knocking her down isn't an endorsement of violence. Having video of someone ACTUALLY hitting a person and knocking them down, and then posting it with a "ha, ha, bitch got what she deserved" (or something to the effect, gender appropriate for the person knocked down, of course) would be an endorsement of violence (maybe even "against women" then... if it was a woman that got knocked down). Having a video of someone tripping, on their own, and then altering the video to show then getting knocked over by something or pushed over or whatever, is advocating laughing at them. Sense of humor used to be something everyone had. Something has happened to us that we are losing that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 23, 2017 12:16:22 GMT -5
I think Richard's point is that the clip is a sleight against Ms. Clinton specifically, not an attack on her gender. I agree that the clip isn't an endorsement of violence. It's tactless, especially for a world leader, but it's not an endorsement of violence. Ms. Griffin's stunt with the severed head is closer since she appears to personally revile Pres. Trump, but it's still a stretch to call it an endorsement of violence. Both could aptly be described as "gestures of profound disrespect". Nah, hitting a woman and knocking her down isn't an endorsement of violence. Correct. For it to be an endorsement, Pres. Trump would have to reasonably believe somebody might actually knock Ms. Clinton down with a golf ball, which (needless to say) isn't a reasonable thing to believe. Barring this, he'd have to say something to the effect of "I sincerely hope somebody knocks Ms. Clinton down with a golf ball.", which he hasn't done.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 23, 2017 12:22:33 GMT -5
Both actions are incredibly tactless, disrespectful and flat out uncalled for. Neither is better than the other. To say that it's ok for DT and not KG is insane. To say that one advocates violence and one doesn't is equally insane. That is my point. Who said it was okay? I sure didn't. Just because I can easily see that there is a distinct and definite difference in the level of tackyness and disgustingness doesn't mean I approved of either one. One "advocates" the beheading of an adversary, the other "advocates" knocking them over, but they get back up. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you. Both are variations of "violence", agreed (neither of which is "against women" NOR "against men" though)... but one is on a whole other level of extreme than the other. Understood. Violence against women doesn't count if they get back up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 19:50:00 GMT -5
Who said it was okay? I sure didn't. Just because I can easily see that there is a distinct and definite difference in the level of tackyness and disgustingness doesn't mean I approved of either one. One "advocates" the beheading of an adversary, the other "advocates" knocking them over, but they get back up. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you. Both are variations of "violence", agreed (neither of which is "against women" NOR "against men" though)... but one is on a whole other level of extreme than the other. Understood. Violence against women doesn't count if they get back up. Point missed... again (and you are dead wrong as well) Violence against women doesn't count WHEN IT DOESN'T EXIST. There was no "violence against women" in the "Trump/golfball/Clinton-tripping" gif. Get that trough your head. The part you were wrong about is: If there actually IS violence against women (there wasn't in this case, but we are ignoring that for now, to follow your flight of fantasy), it absolutely still counts even if they get back up.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 23, 2017 20:27:08 GMT -5
Okay, dug into the tweets and re-tweets to get the whole story. 1a> This meme-gif wasn't his idea. It's something he found that someone else had created and tweeted 1b> KG's beheaded Donald, was something that she produced and starred in, intentionally. 1c> if you find it and think it's funny, maybe your sense of humor needs help. If you create something immoral then your morality needs help. 2a> This meme-gif wasn't about anyone being dead, it was about knocking someone over, making them fall down 2b> You can't behead someone without killing them, so her picture holding the severed head was meant to show death. 2c> What's worse... knocked over (but living to tell the tale) or dead? 3a> The photoshopped-in golf ball actually hits Hillary in the back, knocking her down, but otherwise causing no harm. 3b> Again, can't have a bodiless head without a corpse somewhere. 3c> Being a corpse is much more implied harm than being knocked over. 4a> if you pay attention, Hillary gets back up at the very end of the gif. 4b> if you know anything about beheadings, you know that the person that's been beheaded never gets up again. 4c> Definite difference in outcome at the end.And last but not least... being hit by a golf ball (especially in the back) is rarely fatal... being beheaded is always fatal. Basically comparing this re-tweet to KG's photo is... comparing apples (from a tree OR from an Apple store near you, the fruit or the device... your choice) to Volkswagens.ETA for the record, the "a" and "b" portions of each point , plus the "last but not least" point, are factual... the "c" portions and the conclusion (last paragraph) are my opinion. "Violence against women doesn't count WHEN IT DOESN'T EXIST!"
Much like a beheading doesn't count when it doesn't exist, Richard. You are aware that it wasn't a real beheading, correct?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 20:43:31 GMT -5
Okay, dug into the tweets and re-tweets to get the whole story. 1a> This meme-gif wasn't his idea. It's something he found that someone else had created and tweeted 1b> KG's beheaded Donald, was something that she produced and starred in, intentionally. 1c> if you find it and think it's funny, maybe your sense of humor needs help. If you create something immoral then your morality needs help. 2a> This meme-gif wasn't about anyone being dead, it was about knocking someone over, making them fall down 2b> You can't behead someone without killing them, so her picture holding the severed head was meant to show death. 2c> What's worse... knocked over (but living to tell the tale) or dead? 3a> The photoshopped-in golf ball actually hits Hillary in the back, knocking her down, but otherwise causing no harm. 3b> Again, can't have a bodiless head without a corpse somewhere. 3c> Being a corpse is much more implied harm than being knocked over. 4a> if you pay attention, Hillary gets back up at the very end of the gif. 4b> if you know anything about beheadings, you know that the person that's been beheaded never gets up again. 4c> Definite difference in outcome at the end.And last but not least... being hit by a golf ball (especially in the back) is rarely fatal... being beheaded is always fatal. Basically comparing this re-tweet to KG's photo is... comparing apples (from a tree OR from an Apple store near you, the fruit or the device... your choice) to Volkswagens.ETA for the record, the "a" and "b" portions of each point , plus the "last but not least" point, are factual... the "c" portions and the conclusion (last paragraph) are my opinion. "Violence against women doesn't count WHEN IT DOESN'T EXIST!"
Much like a beheading doesn't count when it doesn't exist, Richard. You are aware that it wasn't a real beheading, correct?Yes. I'm aware. I never suggested differently. Knocking over an opponent isn't "violence against women". That's the point you seem unable to grasp. Who the opponent is (including their gender) is irrelevant to the point of knocking them over to defeat them in a political contest. Suggesting that the opposing candidate was knocked over by the power of the winning candidate doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fact that the losing candidate was a woman. If you'd come down to Earth from that Feminist Power throne, you might see that.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Sept 23, 2017 20:53:37 GMT -5
PB or my local PB server is not posting my longer posts.
So I'll try the short version. Richard is seeing the KG photo in isolation but refuses to do the same for the reworked Trump hits Hillary with a golf ball video. Hitting someone with a golf ball hard enough to knock them down is violent.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Sept 23, 2017 21:01:18 GMT -5
"Violence against women doesn't count WHEN IT DOESN'T EXIST!"
Much like a beheading doesn't count when it doesn't exist, Richard. You are aware that it wasn't a real beheading, correct?Yes. I'm aware. I never suggested differently. Knocking over an opponent isn't "violence against women". That's the point you seem unable to grasp. Who the opponent is (including their gender) is irrelevant to the point of knocking them over to defeat them in a political contest. Suggesting that the opposing candidate was knocked over by the power of the winning candidate doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fact that the losing candidate was a woman. If you'd come down to Earth from that Feminist Power throne, you might see that. Feminist power throne? How about the revisionist ignore the video and accept my version throne?
The political contest, aka election is over. You should be discussing the video. You could successfully argue that hitting someone with a golf ball in the back is generally less violent than a beheading. (Assuming its not a hard kill shot to the kidney or somewhere fatal.) But you can not successfully argue the strung together video is non violent. After all, in the video version the golf shot is hard enough to knock a woman down. Hillary.
Its a video, not a political contest. If it was a political contest where someone shoved a fellow candidate down to the floor, that would be violent as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 23:26:51 GMT -5
PB or my local PB server is not posting my longer posts.
So I'll try the short version. Richard is seeing the KG photo in isolation but refuses to do the same for the reworked Trump hits Hillary with a golf ball video. Hitting someone with a golf ball hard enough to knock them down is violent.
How so many people can be so wrong is just... well... I don't think there's a proper word for how utterly astounding it is. I'm seeing BOTH OF THEM equally. They are each individual posts/creations. Posts by people that have proven over and over again how tacky they can be. One of which had a hand in the actual production of the item, the other just happened to come across it (bet you can guess which is which). If you want to see the golf ball fakery as "hitting someone with a golf ball hard enough to knock them down is violent", then where do you go for the KG fakery of "KG holding/displaying a bodiless head {in Trump's image, so we all know who she is referring to} covered in blood is..." what? Death by decapitation (which is what that portrays) is magnitudes and magnitudes worse than simply knocking someone over. What word do you use for "magnitudes and magnitudes worse that violent"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 23:33:05 GMT -5
Yes. I'm aware. I never suggested differently. Knocking over an opponent isn't "violence against women". That's the point you seem unable to grasp. Who the opponent is (including their gender) is irrelevant to the point of knocking them over to defeat them in a political contest. Suggesting that the opposing candidate was knocked over by the power of the winning candidate doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fact that the losing candidate was a woman. If you'd come down to Earth from that Feminist Power throne, you might see that. Feminist power throne? How about the revisionist ignore the video and accept my version throne?
The political contest, aka election is over. You should be discussing the video. You could successfully argue that hitting someone with a golf ball in the back is generally less violent than a beheading. (Assuming its not a hard kill shot to the kidney or somewhere fatal.) But you can not successfully argue the strung together video is non violent. After all, in the video version the golf shot is hard enough to knock a woman down. Hillary.
Its a video, not a political contest. If it was a political contest where someone shoved a fellow candidate down to the floor, that would be violent as well.
LOL to the bolded I don't want you to ignore the gif (it's not a video, by the way) though. I want you to pay actual attention to it. See that it existed BEFORE the golf ball impact was added, and see that she gets up, unharmed afterwards. Please, by all means DON'T ignore the video. And I'm the epitome of anti-revisionsist. So to call me a revisionist isn't just stupid... it's insulting. And yes, "Feminist Power Throne". Anytime people get up in arms over an imagined issue (which this definitely is), that's them climbing into their perceived Power Throne. When the imagined issue is feminist in nature, then by default it's the "Feminist Power Throne" that they need to come back down from... or are you saying that "violence against women" isn't a feminist issue... that feminists don't care about that... are you suggesting that only egalitarians (like myself) care about it?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2017 0:03:33 GMT -5
PB or my local PB server is not posting my longer posts.
So I'll try the short version. Richard is seeing the KG photo in isolation but refuses to do the same for the reworked Trump hits Hillary with a golf ball video. Hitting someone with a golf ball hard enough to knock them down is violent.
How so many people can be so wrong is just... well... I don't think there's a proper word for how utterly astounding it is.I'm seeing BOTH OF THEM equally. They are each individual posts/creations. Posts by people that have proven over and over again how tacky they can be. One of which had a hand in the actual production of the item, the other just happened to come across it (bet you can guess which is which). If you want to see the golf ball fakery as "hitting someone with a golf ball hard enough to knock them down is violent", then where do you go for the KG fakery of "KG holding/displaying a bodiless head {in Trump's image, so we all know who she is referring to} covered in blood is..." what? Death by decapitation (which is what that portrays) is magnitudes and magnitudes worse than simply knocking someone over. What word do you use for "magnitudes and magnitudes worse that violent"? Like I told you before, Richard, when everyone around you tells you that you smell, it may be time to invest in some deodorant. We're not all wrong.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2017 1:01:16 GMT -5
That message -- a trollish attempt at humor with overtones of violence against women -- went out to Trump's 38.5 million Twitter followers and turned a Sunday expected to be focused on the President's preparations for the United Nations General Assembly meetings this week into a now-familiar White House circus. The simple fact is this: With every passing day, it becomes more and more clear that Trump not only will never act "presidential" but also seems to revel in taking the very word -- and concept -- and dragging it through the mud. *** Opposing societal norms that are inherently unfair or misguided is one thing. Flouting conventions of good behavior (or, in Trump's case, presidential behavior) is something totally different. Trump seems intent on defining the presidency downward. The question is whether the American people will follow him even further down. www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/trump-golf-ball-clinton/?utm_source=ADA_obamplify14&utm_medium=cpc_rss&utm_campaign=cnn_politics&utm_term=MSN+-+EN-CA+-+Catchall&utm_content=Trump%27s+unpresidential+presidency+keeps+hitting+new+lowsA man wrote that. From his Feminist Power Throne, I suppose....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 1:35:09 GMT -5
How so many people can be so wrong is just... well... I don't think there's a proper word for how utterly astounding it is.I'm seeing BOTH OF THEM equally. They are each individual posts/creations. Posts by people that have proven over and over again how tacky they can be. One of which had a hand in the actual production of the item, the other just happened to come across it (bet you can guess which is which). If you want to see the golf ball fakery as "hitting someone with a golf ball hard enough to knock them down is violent", then where do you go for the KG fakery of "KG holding/displaying a bodiless head {in Trump's image, so we all know who she is referring to} covered in blood is..." what? Death by decapitation (which is what that portrays) is magnitudes and magnitudes worse than simply knocking someone over. What word do you use for "magnitudes and magnitudes worse that violent"? Like I told you before, Richard, when everyone around you tells you that you smell, it may be time to invest in some deodorant. We're not all wrong. And like I told you before, maybe when all but a few are out of step with the music, it only looks like a few are out of step to the common observer... but the music's composer knows who is right and who is wrong. This is one of those cases where the composer would say "the few are in step with the music".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 1:38:52 GMT -5
That message -- a trollish attempt at humor with overtones of violence against women -- went out to Trump's 38.5 million Twitter followers and turned a Sunday expected to be focused on the President's preparations for the United Nations General Assembly meetings this week into a now-familiar White House circus. The simple fact is this: With every passing day, it becomes more and more clear that Trump not only will never act "presidential" but also seems to revel in taking the very word -- and concept -- and dragging it through the mud. *** Opposing societal norms that are inherently unfair or misguided is one thing. Flouting conventions of good behavior (or, in Trump's case, presidential behavior) is something totally different. Trump seems intent on defining the presidency downward. The question is whether the American people will follow him even further down. www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/Trump-golf-ball-clinton/?utm_source=ADA_obamplify14&utm_medium=cpc_rss&utm_campaign=cnn_politics&utm_term=MSN+-+EN-CA+-+Catchall&utm_content=Trump%27s+unpresidential+presidency+keeps+hitting+new+lowsA man wrote that. From his Feminist Power Throne, I suppose.... Who ever said men can't be feminists? I sure as hell didn't. Men can be just as focused on the wrong things as women can be. The inability to see the whole picture isn't limited to just some women... some men have that failing as well (any man that calls himself a feminist, for example... because the whole picture includes both men AND women... equally. egalitarians can see that... feminists {of either gender} can't).
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 24, 2017 8:22:44 GMT -5
Isn't this Hillary falling down "again" someone added the part that looks like a golf ball?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2017 11:44:30 GMT -5
Like I told you before, Richard, when everyone around you tells you that you smell, it may be time to invest in some deodorant. We're not all wrong. And like I told you before, maybe when all but a few are out of step with the music, it only looks like a few are out of step to the common observer... but the music's composer knows who is right and who is wrong. This is one of those cases where the composer would say "the few are in step with the music". I see. You're the all-knowing composer and everyone else is wrong. Just what I expected from you.
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,427
Member is Online
|
Post by andi9899 on Sept 24, 2017 18:25:01 GMT -5
I'm against violence against anyone regardless of gender. And if you think it's not a big deal, how would you have liked it if instead of HRC, it was your wife or daughter or mother. You'd be singing a different tune then, wouldn't you? If you're ok with violence against anyone particularly a woman, you're a messed up individual that I don't care to know. If it were my wife, daughter, or mother, we would both likely have had a laugh about it because it wasn't about violence towards women, it was about beating an opponent (and the opponent DID trip, allowing the meme to even exist in the first place, of their own accord)... and none of them (wife, daughters, mother) are fact-and-reality-hating feminists. Also you didn't confirm or deny: Would you have called it "violence against men" if it had been a man that was the opponent that tripped and a meme was made showing getting knocked over by a gold ball? Be honest, we all know that your answer is "no". I absolutely would call it violence towards men if it were a man in HRC's place. And no, you only think my answer would be no. Ive never said anything about endorsing violence against anyone. As the POTUS, DT should be setting an example for men and women and not resorting to childish tweets and name calling. He is not a good example to anyone.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Sept 24, 2017 19:01:59 GMT -5
Feminist power throne? How about the revisionist ignore the video and accept my version throne?
The political contest, aka election is over. You should be discussing the video. You could successfully argue that hitting someone with a golf ball in the back is generally less violent than a beheading. (Assuming its not a hard kill shot to the kidney or somewhere fatal.) But you can not successfully argue the strung together video is non violent. After all, in the video version the golf shot is hard enough to knock a woman down. Hillary.
Its a video, not a political contest. If it was a political contest where someone shoved a fellow candidate down to the floor, that would be violent as well.
LOL to the bolded I don't want you to ignore the gif (it's not a video, by the way) though. I want you to pay actual attention to it. See that it existed BEFORE the golf ball impact was added, and see that she gets up, unharmed afterwards. Please, by all means DON'T ignore the video. And I'm the epitome of anti-revisionsist. So to call me a revisionist isn't just stupid... it's insulting. And yes, "Feminist Power Throne". Anytime people get up in arms over an imagined issue (which this definitely is), that's them climbing into their perceived Power Throne. When the imagined issue is feminist in nature, then by default it's the "Feminist Power Throne" that they need to come back down from... or are you saying that "violence against women" isn't a feminist issue... that feminists don't care about that... are you suggesting that only egalitarians (like myself) care about it? You are still clinging to looking at the piece parts of the video as determining the meaning of the created video. It doesn't matter what happened in the original video of Hillary. The story the video Trump tweeted was not the true story of Hillary falls and gets up again. The video was put together to tell a story of mighty Trump and his golf swing that knocks Hillary Rodham Clinton to the ground. Yeah it shows a peek of her head but it does not show her fully getting up because that's not the story the video maker wanted to tell - Mighty Trump hits Hillary and she gets up anyway.
nypost.com/2017/09/17/trump-retweets-video-of-golf-ball-hitting-hillary-clinton-in-the-back/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 20:42:28 GMT -5
And like I told you before, maybe when all but a few are out of step with the music, it only looks like a few are out of step to the common observer... but the music's composer knows who is right and who is wrong. This is one of those cases where the composer would say "the few are in step with the music". I see. You're the all-knowing composer and everyone else is wrong. Just what I expected from you. Nope... I'm not the composer, I'm just one of the few that knows the music and knows when and how to be in step with it. Missing the point is what I've recently come to expect from you though. In my example "the music's composer" refers to reality. Not me, not you, just what's actually true. Reality knows what is true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 14:31:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 20:49:09 GMT -5
LOL to the bolded I don't want you to ignore the gif (it's not a video, by the way) though. I want you to pay actual attention to it. See that it existed BEFORE the golf ball impact was added, and see that she gets up, unharmed afterwards. Please, by all means DON'T ignore the video. And I'm the epitome of anti-revisionsist. So to call me a revisionist isn't just stupid... it's insulting. And yes, "Feminist Power Throne". Anytime people get up in arms over an imagined issue (which this definitely is), that's them climbing into their perceived Power Throne. When the imagined issue is feminist in nature, then by default it's the "Feminist Power Throne" that they need to come back down from... or are you saying that "violence against women" isn't a feminist issue... that feminists don't care about that... are you suggesting that only egalitarians (like myself) care about it? You are still clinging to looking at the piece parts of the video as determining the meaning of the created video. It doesn't matter what happened in the original video of Hillary. The story the video Trump tweeted was not the true story of Hillary falls and gets up again. The video was put together to tell a story of mighty Trump and his golf swing that knocks Hillary Rodham Clinton to the ground. Yeah it shows a peek of her head but it does not show her fully getting up because that's not the story the video maker wanted to tell - Mighty Trump hits Hillary and she gets up anyway.
nypost.com/2017/09/17/Trump-retweets-video-of-golf-ball-hitting-hillary-clinton-in-the-back/ I'm taking the presented things as they are presented. KG's was a picture, the golf ball hitting Clinton was a gif. If you take them as less than their entirety, that's your problem, not mine. The point of the gif (again) was "Trump knocks over opponent"... not "Trump killed Hillary". The point of the KG image is "Trump is dead" Again I'll ask: do people have trouble understanding the difference between "knocked over" and "knocked off"?
|
|