Social The daily "AOC says something stupid on Twitter" thread.

[GrandNewb]

Because we've already had full blown conversations on those subjects. Try to keep up. You can find the discussions on taxes, the GND, Amazon by simply searching the subforum for them. Perhaps you should do that before reaching the miscalculation that no one discussed her actual positions before attacking the criticisms directed at her.

So your point that her critics must be threatened by a young, beautiful, successful woman are any more valid? LOL.

 

[loyalyolayal]

I seldom visit this thread.

AOC?


Attractive?



Too much internet for me.





Off to making fun of Smollett online.

 

[unimackpass]

If it was so easy to switch over to no fossil fuel in one swoop like she demands

Why has it not happened yet

Surely there would be a gradual switch over like when people gradually upgrade their Tv's rather than waking up to a government bill demanding the end of fossil fuel without nuclear power when there is no clear answer

It's about time, we don't have that much time.
Dense conservatives don't realize how fast twelve years can go by.
Act now or die. Remember ww2? We sacrificed.

 

[GrandNewb]

Are you the most uniformed person on the internet?

Perhaps you missed all the non stop liberal media fawning over this bartender.

She gets all the interviews on whichever show, gets in magazines, you name it.

Her idiotic new green deal is treated with kid gloves.

I’m not sure if this sub forum is for you. It’s not a good fit.

Not to mention that AOC, herself, can't stop posting retarded tweets daily! If she kept quiet, and people kept attacking her for saying stupid shit when she hasn't said anything, then it would probably be a fair point that people are attacking her unfairly. But the fact that she keeps saying stupid crap over and over and people love her for it makes her a daily target of criticism.

Also, it's easy to see the bias pan has in every single post he makes. So of course, he's going to claim that there was "serious discourse" over AOC's GND when we all know that AOC hasn't received enough shit about it at all.

 

[panamaican]

Are you the most uniformed person on the internet?

Perhaps you missed all the non stop liberal media fawning over this bartender.

She gets all the interviews on whichever show, gets in magazines, you name it.

Her idiotic new green deal is treated with kid gloves.

I’m not sure if this sub forum is for you. It’s not a good fit.

Yes, I'm quite aware of all the liberal media covering her. For people who claim that the MSM is complete shit, it certainly seems to drive a lot of the things that they want to discuss.

But that's secondary to the point that I actually typed:

If she looked like road pizza but held the same positions, people would still disagree with her but it wouldn't have the same sneering undertones.

Notice that my comment is not that people would support her ideas. People who disagree with her ideas would still disagree with them. My comment is that their tone would be different. Not their disagreement but the tone of the disagreement itself.

I'm not sure my posts are for you. Complexity in an argument seems to cause some struggle.

 

[Gregolian]

I think she could be a gun toting bomb everyone neo-con and I still couldn't stand her cause of how her hands are constantly moving while she talks.

It's a pet peeve of mine and it drives me bonkers.

 

[panamaican]

So your point that her critics must be threatened by a young, beautiful, successful woman are any more valid? LOL.

Actually that was not my position.

Did you read my post or do you just skim through it? - Jay Hovah, God MC.

 

[GrandNewb]

Not gonna engage the troll. Gotta learn to stop arguing with trolls.

 

[panamaican]

Not gonna engage the troll. Gotta learn to stop arguing with trolls.

You mean you call people trolls when your faulty logic and arguments are pointed out? Not a good strategy, it allows you to blame your failings on other people. Instead you should look closely at why you made the mistakes that you made.

Here - you failed to properly account for the context and limitations that I placed in my post. You responded to it as if it was a blanket statement that people were threatened by AOC being attractive. I never said any such thing. What I had said and you hadn't grasped was that it made some people respond more negatively to her than they would have otherwise. I later expounded that they would still disagree with her positions if she as unattractive but they wouldn't demonstrate a sneering undertone.

Unfortunately, you simplified that to "he says people are threatened by her" and here we are. With a lame attempt to transform a poor position analysis by you into a character attack on me.

Here's some assistance. If my post is more than 2 sentences long, you should probably read it twice before you respond. And then once more before you post the reply. Just to make sure that you understood the finer points of the argument.

 

[Andy Capp]

Not gonna engage the troll. Gotta learn to stop arguing with trolls.

I look forward to learning which previously banned poster you are.

 

[basedgodfedor]

I love the idea of paying for people who are un willing to work. what a concept. in my state my democratic governor wants to tax haircuts, laundry, tax services, tires, helmets... so amazing.

 

[xcvbn]

I love how the "The daily "AOC says something stupid on Twitter" thread" has much less "AOC says something stupid on Twitter" and way more "triggered snowflakes say something stupid on Sherdog"

 

[GrandNewb]

All right. Just one last response to illustrate your bullshit.

Here - you failed to properly account for the context and limitations that I placed in my post. You responded to it as if it was a blanket statement that people were threatened by AOC being attractive. I never said any such thing. What I had said and you hadn't grasped was that it made some people respond more negatively to her than they would have otherwise. I later expounded that they would still disagree with her positions if she as unattractive but they wouldn't demonstrate a sneering undertone.

So when someone posts:

She wouldn't even be in the news all the time except that for some reason she triggers right-wingers to no end (I think it's because she's pretty good looking and it bothers the closet homosexuals).

And you respond with:

I agree with this.

You didn't make a blanket statement?

Oh you mean, your lame attempt to hide behind a qualification saying:

I think that something about her being vocal and attractive makes some people immediately respond negatively to her. If she looked like road pizza but held the same positions, people would still disagree with her but it wouldn't have the same sneering undertones.

You mean you had absolutely no intention of insinuating that the people responding to AOC negatively and criticizing her in this thread and others is because she is pretty and instead, your objection to such posts is the severity of the "sneering undertones?" Yeah right. Talk about a being dishonest.

What about all of the "sneering undertones" in criticisms about Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Joe Biden, etc. Oh, it must be because they are all such pretty, young, successful women.

You can try to twist arguments all you want. But the fact is that "sneering undertones" are present in your posts defending AOC and those who agree with you like Hunter Simpson there.

But yeah. You never made any blanket statements when you clearly start off with one. And your lame attempt to qualify it just projects your own sneering undertones as do all of your posts where you insinuate your pseudo-intellectual superiority by telling other posters that they don't know how to read or your "arguments" are too "complex." No, your arguments are invalid and full of logical fallacies. You just try to twist them into making them appear as if they mean something different.

 

[GrandNewb]

I love how the "The daily "AOC says something stupid on Twitter" thread" has much less "AOC says something stupid on Twitter" and way more "triggered snowflakes say something stupid on Sherdog"

Yes, by posters like panamaican. Other posters have actually presented examples of AOC's unintelligent twitter posts. Triggered snowflakes like Hunter Simpson and Panamaican have to rush to her defense by using ad hominem attacks because she clearly can't respond coherently.

 

[xcvbn]

Yes, by posters like panamaican. Other posters have actually presented examples of AOC's unintelligent twitter posts. Triggered snowflakes like Hunter Simpson and Panamaican have to rush to her defense by using ad hominem attacks because she clearly can't respond coherently.

Lmao okay dude okay

You're clearly not the triggered snowflake here

 

[GrandNewb]

Lmao okay dude okay

You're clearly not the triggered snowflake here

LOL. Deflect and project. Great response.

 

[GrandNewb]

Here’s an ad hominem for you:

You’re a little bitch

Are you feeling threatened? You need a little safe space?

 

[panamaican]

All right. Just one last response to illustrate your bullshit.



So when someone posts:



And you respond with:



You didn't make a blanket statement?

No, I didn't make a blanket statement. You'll notice that I immediately followed that statement with multiple paragraphs explaining my position. My "statement" is my entire post and it most certainly was not a blanket statement.

Oh you mean, your lame attempt to hide behind a qualification saying:

People add qualifications specifically to avoid making blanket statements. My post was filled with qualifications for that precise purpose. Think about your position for a moment. You accuse me of a blanket statement by saying that my attempts to avoid making a blanket statement should be ignored.

How does that work? How can I avoid making a blanket statement if I can't use the words normally used to avoid making blanket statements, lol.

You mean you had absolutely no intention of insinuating that the people responding to AOC negatively and criticizing her in this thread and others is because she is pretty and instead, your objection to such posts is the severity of the "sneering undertones?" Yeah right. Talk about a being dishonest.

What about all of the "sneering undertones" in criticisms about Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Joe Biden, etc. Oh, it must be because they are all such pretty, young, successful women.

You can try to twist arguments all you want. But the fact is that "sneering undertones" are present in your posts defending AOC and those who agree with you like Hunter Simpson there.

But yeah. You never made any blanket statements when you clearly start off with one. And your lame attempt to qualify it just projects your own sneering undertones as do all of your posts where you insinuate your pseudo-intellectual superiority by telling other posters that they don't know how to read or your "arguments" are too "complex." No, your arguments are invalid and full of logical fallacies. You just try to twist them into making them appear as if they mean something different.

I love how you accuse me of twisting arguments based on you saying that what I wrote shouldn't be treated as what I wrote.

...something about her being vocal and attractive makes some people immediately respond negatively...

Qualifying statement.

...people would still disagree with her but it wouldn't have the same sneering undertones

Acknowledging that people would still disagree with her positions no matter what she looked like.

Her opinion (her opinion) was that Americans can't handle attractive, smart, and ambitious women.

Repeated to emphasize that it is not my position.

I always thought it had a ring of truth to it.

A ring of truth means that something has an element of truth to it even if the entire position might not be accurate.

Multiple qualifying statements designed to avoid blanket positions. You say they should be ignored. Why don't you just admit the truth. You didn't read my post, you didn't understand what you did read and you immediately jumped to attacking something that I never said.

When you went back and re-read what I typed, you realized you were wrong and then called me a troll to hide your errors.

 

[GrandNewb]

You know what's interesting? All these leftists trolls feel so emboldened to come out of their basements to call me names but only after they see that a mod is willing to back them up. LOL.

 

[GrandNewb]

Blah, blah, blah

Don't you have threads to censor and delete? I mean, only the threads that threaten your "principles," of course.