Donald the Unready - some light relief
ConversazioniHistory: On learning from and writing history
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1dajashby
Christine says: this guy is just so clever!
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/07/donaeld-the-unready-tweets-as-if-trump-is-a-...
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/07/donaeld-the-unready-tweets-as-if-trump-is-a-...
2Cecrow
Let's be playful: if Trump created an anonymous LT account and posted like he does on Twitter, would the President of the United States get himself blocked?
3JerryMmm
nah, not bad enough. It's because he's potus that his tweets are so extraordinary. If he wasn't, they wouldn't be nearly as crazy.
4LolaWalser
>2 Cecrow:
Actually, this can be answered less hypothetically than you might think. LT's rules are idiosyncratic and reflect the attitudes of its private owner.
Going by past example, Trump's vocal misogyny, xenophobia, racism, attacks on the media etc. would be completely protected. He'd get a platform here without problems.
But guess who would not be protected? Anyone who referred to Trump as a misogynist, racist, xenophobe etc. Those people could and probably would get flagged.
In fact, here on LT Trump could go well beyond what he has said and done in public so far. He could, for example, freely and without consequences call certain people freaks unworthy of living; or "sluts" and "putrid cunts"--the latter as long as he took the precaution of translating the slurs into some "obscure" language. He could openly viciously sneer at the transgender and the disabled. He could compare gay people marrying to marriage of inanimate objects without being called a homophobe, wish annihilation or conversion on Jews without being called an antisemite, defend the "right" of religious businesses to discriminate against gay or black customers without being called a bigot.
As for his contempt of women and women's rights, Trump could express it in a million ways and find agreement not just among the clientele, but from the top man, who thinks anti-feminism is a decent ideological choice.
There have been quite a few discussions about this oddity in the past, in the Pro & Con group as far as I recall, but also referenced elsewhere many times. As for actual debates where the examples above occurred (and that's only the presumably small fraction that I've personally seen--I'm quick to red-x threads that try my patience too much), they are even more numerous.
TL; DR version--nope, Trump would be fine here, just fine. His critics, not so much.
Actually, this can be answered less hypothetically than you might think. LT's rules are idiosyncratic and reflect the attitudes of its private owner.
Going by past example, Trump's vocal misogyny, xenophobia, racism, attacks on the media etc. would be completely protected. He'd get a platform here without problems.
But guess who would not be protected? Anyone who referred to Trump as a misogynist, racist, xenophobe etc. Those people could and probably would get flagged.
In fact, here on LT Trump could go well beyond what he has said and done in public so far. He could, for example, freely and without consequences call certain people freaks unworthy of living; or "sluts" and "putrid cunts"--the latter as long as he took the precaution of translating the slurs into some "obscure" language. He could openly viciously sneer at the transgender and the disabled. He could compare gay people marrying to marriage of inanimate objects without being called a homophobe, wish annihilation or conversion on Jews without being called an antisemite, defend the "right" of religious businesses to discriminate against gay or black customers without being called a bigot.
As for his contempt of women and women's rights, Trump could express it in a million ways and find agreement not just among the clientele, but from the top man, who thinks anti-feminism is a decent ideological choice.
There have been quite a few discussions about this oddity in the past, in the Pro & Con group as far as I recall, but also referenced elsewhere many times. As for actual debates where the examples above occurred (and that's only the presumably small fraction that I've personally seen--I'm quick to red-x threads that try my patience too much), they are even more numerous.
TL; DR version--nope, Trump would be fine here, just fine. His critics, not so much.
5southernbooklady
>4 LolaWalser: Anyone who referred to Trump as a misogynist, racist, xenophobe etc. Those people could and probably would get flagged.
Meaning, if Trump was posting, yes? I think I've referred to Trump in these terms on multiple occasions without being flagged.
Meaning, if Trump was posting, yes? I think I've referred to Trump in these terms on multiple occasions without being flagged.
7southernbooklady
I actually don't think Trump would last very long on these forums without getting flagged into oblivion unless a handler was monitoring his account. Off the cuff he likes to make personal attacks, since he typically takes everything extremely personally.
8LolaWalser
That's supposing a change in his rhetoric, which I see no reason to do. Might as well speculate when and if he's going to have a heart attack.
I'm going by the way he behaves in public NOW, and how TPTB on LT interpret the TOS. Trump's ass is supersafe as far as LT is concerned. Anyone calling LT-member-Trump a misogynist, racist etc., is not.
I'm going by the way he behaves in public NOW, and how TPTB on LT interpret the TOS. Trump's ass is supersafe as far as LT is concerned. Anyone calling LT-member-Trump a misogynist, racist etc., is not.
11LolaWalser
>9 dajashby:
Oh, it was funny! :)
The Twittering One has launched what looks to be a whole new genre of spoofs:
http://maketrumptweetseightagain.com/
Oh, it was funny! :)
The Twittering One has launched what looks to be a whole new genre of spoofs:
http://maketrumptweetseightagain.com/
12dajashby
>10 lilithcat:
Derrick almost fell off his chair when he got to "hwicce leaks"! He's up on his Anglo Saxon history of course, but even an ignoramus like me has to laugh. Satire is not dead, it's just undergoing reinvention.
Derrick almost fell off his chair when he got to "hwicce leaks"! He's up on his Anglo Saxon history of course, but even an ignoramus like me has to laugh. Satire is not dead, it's just undergoing reinvention.
14Crypto-Willobie
>4 LolaWalser:
Couldn't we say "Your statement is racist (xenophobic, sexist, etc)"?
Branding the statement not the person?
Couldn't we say "Your statement is racist (xenophobic, sexist, etc)"?
Branding the statement not the person?
15LolaWalser
>14 Crypto-Willobie:
Oh, sure--if you're lucky enough to be dealing with a single statement. And when it's not a matter of a single statement, but a whole history and system of such statements and behaviours? When someone has demonstrated systematically, for many years, in dozens or hundreds of conversations that they approve and promote certain views? We are not robots. We have memories and make connections between things. If someone at some point told you they don't think gays deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, and transgender people aren't people at all but freaks unworthy of living, do you then completely expunge the memory of that the next time when they call for banning all Muslims, deporting Mexicans, criminalising abortion and so on? Or do you, willy-nilly, form a picture of that person's opinions and attitudes?
That, however, isn't the crux of the problem. This is: that pointing out that someone is a homophobe or a racist or an antisemite etc.--based on their own words and deeds--has been equated with racist, homophobic, misogynistic etc. slurs, with calling someone faggot, cunt, kike etc.
That is what the right everywhere in the media and the internet wants to do and is doing. They play the victims while persecuting other people. (My "favourite" example on LT: "good" Christians up in arms over the idea that someone could call the baker and the photographer who refused to serve gay customers "bigots". The whole debate turned into protestations of persecution of those people who actually, factually discriminated against someone.)
This was happening long before Trump won, and caused enough mischief, but now the danger is critical. Trump's assault on the media, on facts, on reality itself intensifies and consecrates these rightwing rapes of language, all the while feeding on them.
This is the time to call racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophoobes, fascists of all stripe out. Anyone "making statements" of a racist, misogynistic, homophobic nature deserves and should expect to be called racist, misogynist, homophobe as a matter of fact.
Oh, sure--if you're lucky enough to be dealing with a single statement. And when it's not a matter of a single statement, but a whole history and system of such statements and behaviours? When someone has demonstrated systematically, for many years, in dozens or hundreds of conversations that they approve and promote certain views? We are not robots. We have memories and make connections between things. If someone at some point told you they don't think gays deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, and transgender people aren't people at all but freaks unworthy of living, do you then completely expunge the memory of that the next time when they call for banning all Muslims, deporting Mexicans, criminalising abortion and so on? Or do you, willy-nilly, form a picture of that person's opinions and attitudes?
That, however, isn't the crux of the problem. This is: that pointing out that someone is a homophobe or a racist or an antisemite etc.--based on their own words and deeds--has been equated with racist, homophobic, misogynistic etc. slurs, with calling someone faggot, cunt, kike etc.
That is what the right everywhere in the media and the internet wants to do and is doing. They play the victims while persecuting other people. (My "favourite" example on LT: "good" Christians up in arms over the idea that someone could call the baker and the photographer who refused to serve gay customers "bigots". The whole debate turned into protestations of persecution of those people who actually, factually discriminated against someone.)
This was happening long before Trump won, and caused enough mischief, but now the danger is critical. Trump's assault on the media, on facts, on reality itself intensifies and consecrates these rightwing rapes of language, all the while feeding on them.
This is the time to call racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophoobes, fascists of all stripe out. Anyone "making statements" of a racist, misogynistic, homophobic nature deserves and should expect to be called racist, misogynist, homophobe as a matter of fact.
16Muscogulus
> 15
This is why I don't spend time at Pro & Con. There are too many online forums already devoted to discussions that are carried out much in the manner of spring rams butting heads, again and again, with no effect except a gradual loss of cognitive ability in both head butters.
In general, I've found that LT groups host exceptionally civil and well informed discussions, leavened with wit. While I've occasionally been stung to outrage, I've never felt that the discussion had become hopeless.
I would strongly prefer that the indignant flame warring and label pasting of Pro & Con be confined to that group.
This is why I don't spend time at Pro & Con. There are too many online forums already devoted to discussions that are carried out much in the manner of spring rams butting heads, again and again, with no effect except a gradual loss of cognitive ability in both head butters.
In general, I've found that LT groups host exceptionally civil and well informed discussions, leavened with wit. While I've occasionally been stung to outrage, I've never felt that the discussion had become hopeless.
I would strongly prefer that the indignant flame warring and label pasting of Pro & Con be confined to that group.
18dajashby
>15 LolaWalser:
(My "favourite" example on LT: "good" Christians up in arms over the idea that someone could call the baker and the photographer who refused to serve gay customers "bigots". The whole debate turned into protestations of persecution of those people who actually, factually discriminated against someone.)
That whole debate is absurd. I would have thought that such people could more actually be called "potential bankrupts", gifting custom to their commercial competitors. Weddings are notoriously opportunities to charge outrageously, and any so-called business person who lets religious conviction get in the way of turning a buck won't be in business long. No good deed goes unpunished, eh?
(My "favourite" example on LT: "good" Christians up in arms over the idea that someone could call the baker and the photographer who refused to serve gay customers "bigots". The whole debate turned into protestations of persecution of those people who actually, factually discriminated against someone.)
That whole debate is absurd. I would have thought that such people could more actually be called "potential bankrupts", gifting custom to their commercial competitors. Weddings are notoriously opportunities to charge outrageously, and any so-called business person who lets religious conviction get in the way of turning a buck won't be in business long. No good deed goes unpunished, eh?
19Cecrow
>18 dajashby:, exactly, this is the Jackie Robinson story. Hire any black man to your baseball team who can really play, and you'll be a step ahead of everyone else who's limiting their pool.
It only backfires when you have a whole surrounding society with the same perspective as the bigot, determining to support his business and boycott the more liberally-minded one. But no better way to start changing its mind.
It only backfires when you have a whole surrounding society with the same perspective as the bigot, determining to support his business and boycott the more liberally-minded one. But no better way to start changing its mind.
20LolaWalser
>18 dajashby:, >19 Cecrow:
Points taken, of course, but bear in mind that the US has tons of very small communities where adopting such policies even by just a few businesses could have serious repercussions on people's lives. And, of course, single instances are part of a larger movement to suppress certain people's rights.
Anyway, sorry, I didn't mean to derail the thread with discussion of specific examples, just wanted to illustrate the curiosities of TOS application and how it might affect the putative presence here of the Orange One! :)
Points taken, of course, but bear in mind that the US has tons of very small communities where adopting such policies even by just a few businesses could have serious repercussions on people's lives. And, of course, single instances are part of a larger movement to suppress certain people's rights.
Anyway, sorry, I didn't mean to derail the thread with discussion of specific examples, just wanted to illustrate the curiosities of TOS application and how it might affect the putative presence here of the Orange One! :)
