Liam Neeson and the progressive hypocrisy his example reveals

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Saelune:

CrazyGirl17:
I don't get what the big deal is. Yes, what he wanted to do was awful, but he didn't actually go through with it. And does regret it to this day. And haven't we all done things in the past we regret?

Unfortunately, people these days are so willing to jump on a person for anything...

People aren't jumping on him. People are jumping on people who they think are jumping on him. Until people go to his house with pitchforks, people defending him are the ones blowing things out of proportion.

And for the record, I do not support anyone who goes to his house with pitchforks, unless they are there to help him bail hay.

Oh, okay then. Thanks for the clarification. I'm honestly not sure how to describe where I stand on the matter to be honest.

CrazyGirl17:

Saelune:

CrazyGirl17:
I don't get what the big deal is. Yes, what he wanted to do was awful, but he didn't actually go through with it. And does regret it to this day. And haven't we all done things in the past we regret?

Unfortunately, people these days are so willing to jump on a person for anything...

People aren't jumping on him. People are jumping on people who they think are jumping on him. Until people go to his house with pitchforks, people defending him are the ones blowing things out of proportion.

And for the record, I do not support anyone who goes to his house with pitchforks, unless they are there to help him bail hay.

Oh, okay then. Thanks for the clarification. I'm honestly not sure how to describe where I stand on the matter to be honest.

I do not think we differ in ideology that much, so you probably think similar to me, that yeah, he should be forgiven and not run out of Hollywood, but ya know, it was still messed up, but forgiveness is good for those who seek it.

I find a lot of the people defending him just want to not face repercussions if they do something shitty, while ignoring the part of seeking forgiveness. There is a difference between doing something bad in the past, and doing something bad in the past and feeling bad about it now.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I guess he didn't say "sorry", but he seems legitimately ashamed and sorry for it.

He is ashamed in the sense that he is vaguely aware that what he did was wrong, but I think he utterly failed to communicate that he understood why it was wrong, and thus it didn't sound sincere.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I'm not trying to excuse him, I just can't turn off the part of my brain that wonders how different I would be with his rough upbringing. Or even if I'd grown up in the times of openly racist-cartoons and in a basically exclusively white area. It's relevant to me and how I feel about it. There is a clear advantage in being a millennial from a cosmopolitan area, both in terms of being given the best opportunity to have interactions with people who are different to you (can be a very good way to dispel silly notions) and in terms of having been given a better understanding of what to say from the messaging I received.

So, I'm only barely a millennial and I'm from an (almost) exclusively white area where people were really racist. Furthermore, the only black person I knew growing up was a total shit to me. I absolutely know what it's like to have unconscious biases from growing up in that kind of environment.

No human being on this planet has perfect politics, and none us were born with perfect politics. I think most white people, certainly, who are criticising Neeson can think back to a time when they thought, said or did something shitty, maybe not that shitty, but shitty nonetheless. I don't think there are many people out there who are genuinely unaware that a person can be racist and then, through experience, grow out of it.

The problems, I think, are:

* People who know you (and that includes people who know you as a celebrity) don't necessarily want to hear really detailed accounts about how you used to hate people like them. Like, they didn't sign up to do the work of assisting in your journey out of racism while also being victims of racism, and it's an awkward position to put someone in.
* If you're going to claim you've grown out of racism, then you need to show that in the way you talk about it. Making excuses for yourself which are still kind of racist in implication doesn't really cut it.
* If you're a celebrity and you do something wrong, some people are always going to try to assume the best of you and defend you because they think they like you personally and have a parasocial relationship with you through your work and public persona, therefore people will be inclined to believe that what you did wasn't that bad (this thread is a good example). Unless you outright come out and say "I was a racist", people will barefacedly deny that what you did was racist, and it contributes to a very hostile environment for people trying to talk about racism who then face issues being believed because apparently trying to carry out a racist murder isn't really racist.

Batou667:
I'd have to disagree with you there. He clearly wasn't bragging. He wasn't taking pride in having these thoughts. Quite the opposite - he was admitting that real life, ad-hoc acts of revenge are unglamorous, destructive things, very different to the "dad power fantasy" movie he has become synonymous with.

Again, he's literally talking about and promoting one of his "dad power fantasy" movies when he made these comments. He didn't call a special press release to publicly confess about his personal battle with racism, he's talking about his character and how he understands his characters motivations.

Also, if you've ever thought very hard about revenge movies, you will have picked up that there's often a degree of ambivalence inherent to revenge movies about the concept of revenge itself. The first two Death Wish movies are some of the most overt glamorisations of revenge and violence in the genre, and yet they are also deeply nihilistic movies about a man whose need for revenge consumes him and alienates him from any kind of normal life. All revenge movies have a certain "guilty pleasure" vibe to them, they are still fundamentally designed to be pleasurable to watch.

Batou667:
I would also question whether feeling a desire for revenge is exclusively masculine. Wasn't Thelma and Louise supposedly an empowering movie for women?

Thelma and Louise isn't a movie about revenge though. It's a road movie. Neither character is motivated by a desire for revenge, but by a desire for freedom and to escape from their lives (which they ultimately succeed in doing, in quite an ultimate sense).

There are a bunch of revenge movies with female leads, of course, but they're.. how shall we put this.. they're not exactly created for a female audience..

Batou667:
So I don't get this mutually exclusive thinking that concludes that Neeson could be a good friend or he could be seeking revenge, but not both.

Neeson lied to his friend so he could go out and kill someone to defend her "honour" without her knowledge or approval.

I think that says everything you need to know about the level on which his concern for this person actually operated.

Batou667:
That would have been FINE?!

He's promoting a revenge movie.

Trust me, it would have been fine.

You know, why are people getting angered, even a small minority of human beings, over something he thought about but didn't go through with when we have people like Chris Brown who battered a young woman, or the amount of hate speech the replacement for the "Gay Frogs" guy will spew out?

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Saelune:
I see people mad at people mad at Liam Neeson. I haven't seen a lot of people mad at Liam Neeson.

Also here is the thing, you're mad at people expressing their opinion, because you think people should be allowed to freely express their opinions. Just saying.

Has anyone assaulted Liam Neeson?

And the whole point of Liam telling that story was to show how he's changed and evolved. He literally said it was terrible to think of killing a 'black bastard' and it scared him and his thought was 'What the fuck are you thinking?!'
Anyone mad at him doesn't really understand the point of the story. Its not that he's currently racists, its that as a young man he had a significant emotional breakdown, when to a racists dark place, and then crawled his way back, and he's disgusted that his mind could go that far.

Me: 'I forgive him, but wont forget what he did'
Everyone arguing with me: 'How dare you be so mean to Liam Neeson!'

I know, I was agreeing with you. He fully admits it was fucked up, says its fucked up, was disgusted with himself and acknowledges he's spent decades working to improve himself. Good for you Liam, understanding this shit part of your personality and working to improve it. It was still fucking bullshit you went that dark, but at least you realized before it was too late

saint of m:
You know, why are people getting angered, even a small minority of human beings, over something he thought about but didn't go through with when we have people like Chris Brown who battered a young woman, or the amount of hate speech the replacement for the "Gay Frogs" guy will spew out?

He didn't just think about it, he took a weapon out into the streets and went around looking for a fight. That's action. Thats *intent*.

He's just lucky the universe didn't provide him a murder victim or else he would be in prison right now.

Just imagine if one black guy had walked in front of him and said something rude. That's all it would have taken for this story to be much much darker.

evilthecat:

Batou667:
That would have been FINE?!

He's promoting a revenge movie.

Trust me, it would have been fine.

This is the part that kind of bugs me. He's suggesting he's learned from his past actions, has realised how stupid his mindset was back then...and yet he continues making movies like this which glorify that kind of "Yeah go take revenge and be a man!" thinking

CrazyGirl17:
I don't get what the big deal is. Yes, what he wanted to do was awful, but he didn't actually go through with it. And does regret it to this day. And haven't we all done things in the past we regret?

Unfortunately, people these days are so willing to jump on a person for anything...

The only reason this is a story in the first place is because a bunch of people started screaming bout SJWs to throw themselves on a grenade that hadn't been thrown and might not have been thrown. Most of the controversy derives from this blind defense that's part of the usual "triggers the libs" narrative.

Neeson did receive some frankly mild criticism about this. And honestly, i have trouble getting the reactiomn to it. Yes, his response was racist. No, nobody so far as I know went beyond that point. This shouldn't even be controversial. The man confessed tis, seeking forgiveness, so he was ostensibly stipulating to this.

The controversy largely exists because of drama queen topics like this, with the pearl clutching about the hypocrisy of progressives based on...well, based on nothing. We're told what progressives believe, against the protests of progressives, and told that the overreaction to Neeson (an overreaction which was predominantly or exclusively not from progressives) is an indicator of hypocrisy. It exists as a cudgel to beat down the left at the hands of a man who was supposedly seeking forgiveness.

It's almost...no, not almost, exactly...like this entire thing isn't about Neeson at all. He's a prop to push extant beliefs and agendas.

A more explicit case came up recently. A first-time author was accused of racial insensitivity and appropriation. There is a debate as to whether or not she shold have published the book, but she basically said "sorry you feel that way, I'll cancel the release." Nobody forced her, nobody censored her except herself, but people have gone on the attack over the fact that the book was voluntarily pulled. She explicitly wished to not be defended, but they're ": defending" her anyway, because it's not about her.

A woman listened to critics, and despite her intents for the book (she's Chinese American, IIRC, and wanted to address modern human trafficking), she looked at complaints and didn't want to release her book. That would have been the end of it if the culture warriors hadn't decided to use her as a point to score in their war on the left.

Similarly, Neeson did a bad thing he admits is bad and people are upset because some people also said it was bad and that's bad. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if people didn't take issue with the notion that some people thojught the bad thoughts Neeson admitted were bad were bad.

I say "ostensibly" because Liam did go on talk TV to insist he was totes not a racist. I'll even agree with him there, but this was a racist act. People don't like hearing thaty because it hurts their feels because they don't like being told when they do something racist, either. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Neeson's detractors have done racist things, too. So have I. So have most people. We'd be better as a society if we could actually own up when we do stupid things, rather than try and deny that we are, in total, stupid.

Sadly, we live in a society that would rather debate whether marching in the streets shouting "Jews will not replace is" is actually a bad thing.

Something Amyss:

The controversy largely exists because of drama queen topics like this, with the pearl clutching about the hypocrisy of progressives based on...well, based on nothing.

The fundamental problem is also that there are always a tranche of any movement who are screaming loons rather extreme, and in the age of the internet and social media where everyone has a voice, these people can be very good at making themselves known.

But how many of them are there? Is a major thing, or another flash-in-the-pan short term scandal? We can't let the debate be run by the screaming loons.

The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Mothro:
The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Everyone says stupid things. Celebrities have the unfortunate position of having cameras and microphones around for most of their lives. And we hold them on pedestals that no once can fulfill

trunkage:

Mothro:
The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Everyone says stupid things. Celebrities have the unfortunate position of having cameras and microphones around for most of their lives. And we hold them on pedestals that no once can fulfill

Do you make racist remarks often?

Mothro:
The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Because sometimes if you say enough stupid things, you get to be President.

Something Amyss:
The controversy largely exists because of drama queen topics like this, with the pearl clutching about the hypocrisy of progressives based on...well, based on nothing.

A nice set of paragraphs full of projection, but to clarify, the main hypocrisy I was referring to in the OP was my observed disparity in how men are told they should open up and talk about emotions and mental health issues, contrasted with the waiting bear trap that is the progressive led Outrage Culture. And although everyone has been happy to limit this to a discussion about Liam Neeson, I was asking what message does this send to the other 3.5 billion males on the planet; ones who aren't Hollywood actors with the safety net of millions in the bank account? This talk of dialogue seems disingenuous; do you want our input or would you prefer our compliance?

But I suppose it does feed into a broader point about the limiting rather than liberating nature of this Outrage Culture. If you went back in time to the 60s and told people; in the future we will have magic typewriters that allow you to publish your ideas to the world, for free and instantly, they might have imagined that the 21st Century would be one of the most liberal, democratic and intellectually diverse eras history has ever seen. What a shame that so many people are instead using that potential to become self appointed enforcers of the prevailing status quo, shutting down thoughts before they can happen and adding their wretched little voices to the mob when it comes to punishing transgressions. This isn't how it should be.

And in the most utterly Orwellian twist, the majority believes they are marginalised, those beyond reproach are the most sensitive, and the ones administering the figurative lynchings truly think they're the victims. I hadn't heard that story about the aspiring writer who was harangued into abandoning her work - likely hundreds of hours of very personal labour - but I don't disbelieve it for a second. That's exactly the kind of society we are becoming. The tyrants don't need to burn "subversive" or "unclean" books any more, they get euthanised by public demand before ink has met paper. Wrongthink meets Pre-Crime meets the Bonfire of the Vanities.

I despair.

Batou667:

Something Amyss:
The controversy largely exists because of drama queen topics like this, with the pearl clutching about the hypocrisy of progressives based on...well, based on nothing.

A nice set of paragraphs full of projection, but to clarify, the main hypocrisy I was referring to in the OP was my observed disparity in how men are told they should open up and talk about emotions and mental health issues, contrasted with the waiting bear trap that is the progressive led Outrage Culture. And although everyone has been happy to limit this to a discussion about Liam Neeson, I was asking what message does this send to the other 3.5 billion males on the planet; ones who aren't Hollywood actors with the safety net of millions in the bank account? This talk of dialogue seems disingenuous; do you want our input or would you prefer our compliance?

But I suppose it does feed into a broader point about the limiting rather than liberating nature of this Outrage Culture. If you went back in time to the 60s and told people; in the future we will have magic typewriters that allow you to publish your ideas to the world, for free and instantly, they might have imagined that the 21st Century would be one of the most liberal, democratic and intellectually diverse eras history has ever seen. What a shame that so many people are instead using that potential to become self appointed enforcers of the prevailing status quo, shutting down thoughts before they can happen and adding their wretched little voices to the mob when it comes to punishing transgressions. This isn't how it should be.

And in the most utterly Orwellian twist, the majority believes they are marginalised, those beyond reproach are the most sensitive, and the ones administering the figurative lynchings truly think they're the victims. I hadn't heard that story about the aspiring writer who was harangued into abandoning her work - likely hundreds of hours of very personal labour - but I don't disbelieve it for a second. That's exactly the kind of society we are becoming. The tyrants don't need to burn "subversive" or "unclean" books any more, they get euthanised by public demand before ink has met paper. Wrongthink meets Pre-Crime meets the Bonfire of the Vanities.

I despair.

If you believe equality is Orwellian, that says a lot about you.

'Im outraged at all the outrage'

Batou667:

Something Amyss:
The controversy largely exists because of drama queen topics like this, with the pearl clutching about the hypocrisy of progressives based on...well, based on nothing.

A nice set of paragraphs full of projection, but to clarify, the main hypocrisy I was referring to in the OP was my observed disparity in how men are told they should open up and talk about emotions and mental health issues, contrasted with the waiting bear trap that is the progressive led Outrage Culture. And although everyone has been happy to limit this to a discussion about Liam Neeson, I was asking what message does this send to the other 3.5 billion males on the planet; ones who aren't Hollywood actors with the safety net of millions in the bank account? This talk of dialogue seems disingenuous; do you want our input or would you prefer our compliance?

But I suppose it does feed into a broader point about the limiting rather than liberating nature of this Outrage Culture. If you went back in time to the 60s and told people; in the future we will have magic typewriters that allow you to publish your ideas to the world, for free and instantly, they might have imagined that the 21st Century would be one of the most liberal, democratic and intellectually diverse eras history has ever seen. What a shame that so many people are instead using that potential to become self appointed enforcers of the prevailing status quo, shutting down thoughts before they can happen and adding their wretched little voices to the mob when it comes to punishing transgressions. This isn't how it should be.

And in the most utterly Orwellian twist, the majority believes they are marginalised, those beyond reproach are the most sensitive, and the ones administering the figurative lynchings truly think they're the victims. I hadn't heard that story about the aspiring writer who was harangued into abandoning her work - likely hundreds of hours of very personal labour - but I don't disbelieve it for a second. That's exactly the kind of society we are becoming. The tyrants don't need to burn "subversive" or "unclean" books any more, they get euthanised by public demand before ink has met paper. Wrongthink meets Pre-Crime meets the Bonfire of the Vanities.

I despair.

Spare us the hyperbole. Louis C.K. is back at work no problem. So are countless other caused men. Pretty shitty unpersoning right there. If we are Orwellian, it's as run by the government in the Brazil movie.

Also there's a difference between mental health problems and wanting and actively trying to kill someone. Besides. This guy is going to bounce back no problem.

evilthecat:

Batou667:
That would have been FINE?!

He's promoting a revenge movie.

Trust me, it would have been fine.

Oh, you meant from a PR angle. For a horrible moment I thought you meant legally/morally.

erttheking:

Spare us the hyperbole.

I enjoy the hyperbole. If the Left are allowed to engage in it then, dammit, so am I.

Don't confuse a bit of a rhetorical flourish here and there for insincerity though. I'm deadly serious in the majority of my posts.

Saelune:

Mothro:
The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Because sometimes if you say enough stupid things, you get to be President.

Not always though:

Hillary Clinton once said that "women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers and sons in combat."

Batou667:

Don't confuse a bit of a rhetorical flourish here and there for insincerity though. I'm deadly serious in the majority of my posts.

You say that as if that is a defense.

Mothro:

Saelune:

Mothro:
The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Because sometimes if you say enough stupid things, you get to be President.

Not always though:

Hillary Clinton once said that "women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers and sons in combat."

If you were to hold Trump to the same standards you hold Hillary, you would despise him.

Saelune:

Mothro:

Saelune:
Because sometimes if you say enough stupid things, you get to be President.

Not always though:

Hillary Clinton once said that "women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers and sons in combat."

If you were to hold Trump to the same standards you hold Hillary, you would despise him.

I am just sayin', the loser in the Presidential race also said stupid stuff.

erttheking:
Spare us the hyperbole. Louis C.K. is back at work no problem.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Dude is suddenly about as funny as Dennis Miller. That's a pretty big problem!

Mothro:

Saelune:

Mothro:

Not always though:

Hillary Clinton once said that "women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers and sons in combat."

If you were to hold Trump to the same standards you hold Hillary, you would despise him.

I am just sayin', the loser in the Presidential race also said stupid stuff.

You are saying that the woman who got more votes but did not become President said something that is not really that stupid and is certainly far less stupid than the literally countless stupid horrible terrible shit Trump has said is more worth your criticism than the alternative.

That is what you are saying, and I am just pointing it out.

Saelune:

Mothro:

Saelune:
If you were to hold Trump to the same standards you hold Hillary, you would despise him.

I am just sayin', the loser in the Presidential race also said stupid stuff.

You are saying that the woman who did not become President said something that is not really that stupid

Tell me how her saying that those who DIDN'T die are the primary victims of war, isn't stupid?

Mothro:

Saelune:

Mothro:

I am just sayin', the loser in the Presidential race also said stupid stuff.

You are saying that the woman who did not become President said something that is not really that stupid

Tell me how her saying that those who DIDN'T die are the primary victims of war, isn't stupid?

This is a strawman. You are trying to divert away from the fair and more abundant criticism of Trump by focusing on this one comment from a person who is not the President so you can gloss over all the horrible things Trump has, had, and continues to do.

Saelune:

Mothro:

Saelune:
You are saying that the woman who did not become President said something that is not really that stupid

Tell me how her saying that those who DIDN'T die are the primary victims of war, isn't stupid?

This is a strawman. You are trying to divert away from the fair and more abundant criticism of Trump by focusing on this one comment from a person who is not the President so you can gloss over all the horrible things Trump has, had, and continues to do.

In truth, it was you who brought up Trump. I never wanted to talk about either Hillary or Trump. I am no Trump defender like you seem to think I am but you wanted to bring him into this topic because he became the President so Hillary becomes fair game to counter your silly ass point.

You did say that her comment wasn't that stupid so could you please explain that to me?

Mothro:

Saelune:

Mothro:

Tell me how her saying that those who DIDN'T die are the primary victims of war, isn't stupid?

This is a strawman. You are trying to divert away from the fair and more abundant criticism of Trump by focusing on this one comment from a person who is not the President so you can gloss over all the horrible things Trump has, had, and continues to do.

In truth, it was you who brought up Trump. I never wanted to talk about either Hillary or Trump. I am no Trump defender like you seem to think I am but you wanted to bring him into this topic because he became the President so Hillary becomes fair game to counter your silly ass point.

You did say that her comment wasn't that stupid so could you please explain that to me?

For someone who claims to not be a Trump defender, you sure seem hellbent on defending him.

I am not going to answer your strawman, because that is what it is. And if I answer it you will take it as validation of your criticism of Hillary and defense of Trump.

Trump is ruining this country and this world and you are too obsessed with criticizing one of the few people who actually tried to stop him.

Saelune:

Mothro:

Saelune:
This is a strawman. You are trying to divert away from the fair and more abundant criticism of Trump by focusing on this one comment from a person who is not the President so you can gloss over all the horrible things Trump has, had, and continues to do.

In truth, it was you who brought up Trump. I never wanted to talk about either Hillary or Trump. I am no Trump defender like you seem to think I am but you wanted to bring him into this topic because he became the President so Hillary becomes fair game to counter your silly ass point.

You did say that her comment wasn't that stupid so could you please explain that to me?

For someone who claims to not be a Trump defender, you sure seem hellbent on defending him.

I am not going to answer your strawman, because that is what it is. And if I answer it you will take it as validation of your criticism of Hillary and defense of Trump.

Trump is ruining this country and this world and you are too obsessed with criticizing one of the few people who actually tried to stop him.

Now you have made two statements that you can't back up:

1) Hillary's war statement isn't stupid, you say.

2) I am hellbent on defending Trump, you say.

Will you please back these comments up?

Mothro:

Saelune:

Mothro:

In truth, it was you who brought up Trump. I never wanted to talk about either Hillary or Trump. I am no Trump defender like you seem to think I am but you wanted to bring him into this topic because he became the President so Hillary becomes fair game to counter your silly ass point.

You did say that her comment wasn't that stupid so could you please explain that to me?

For someone who claims to not be a Trump defender, you sure seem hellbent on defending him.

I am not going to answer your strawman, because that is what it is. And if I answer it you will take it as validation of your criticism of Hillary and defense of Trump.

Trump is ruining this country and this world and you are too obsessed with criticizing one of the few people who actually tried to stop him.

Now you have made two statements that you can't back up:

1) Hillary's war statement isn't stupid, you say.

2) I am hellbent on defending Trump, you say.

Will you please back these comments up?

Like I said, I wont fall for your strawman. And this post answers number 2 because you keep insisting on this, because you want to defend Trump. If you didn't want to defend Trump, you wouldn't be so adamant about me falling for your strawman.

Saelune:

Mothro:

Saelune:
For someone who claims to not be a Trump defender, you sure seem hellbent on defending him.

I am not going to answer your strawman, because that is what it is. And if I answer it you will take it as validation of your criticism of Hillary and defense of Trump.

Trump is ruining this country and this world and you are too obsessed with criticizing one of the few people who actually tried to stop him.

Now you have made two statements that you can't back up:

1) Hillary's war statement isn't stupid, you say.

2) I am hellbent on defending Trump, you say.

Will you please back these comments up?

Like I said, I wont fall for your strawman. And this post answers number 2 because you keep insisting on this, because you want to defend Trump. If you didn't want to defend Trump, you wouldn't be so adamant about me falling for your strawman.

LOL, wow. You are so partisan that you see demons that aren't there. Carry on...

Mothro:

Saelune:

Mothro:

Now you have made two statements that you can't back up:

1) Hillary's war statement isn't stupid, you say.

2) I am hellbent on defending Trump, you say.

Will you please back these comments up?

Like I said, I wont fall for your strawman. And this post answers number 2 because you keep insisting on this, because you want to defend Trump. If you didn't want to defend Trump, you wouldn't be so adamant about me falling for your strawman.

LOL, wow. You are so partisan that you see demons that aren't there. Carry on...

Pot calling kettle black.

Mothro:

Saelune:

Mothro:
The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Because sometimes if you say enough stupid things, you get to be President.

Not always though:

Hillary Clinton once said that "women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers and sons in combat."

To get near Trump level of stupidity, she would had needed to call men worthless and good only for cannon fodder. No comparison.

Saelune:

Mothro:

Saelune:
You are saying that the woman who did not become President said something that is not really that stupid

Tell me how her saying that those who DIDN'T die are the primary victims of war, isn't stupid?

This is a strawman. You are trying to divert away from the fair and more abundant criticism of Trump by focusing on this one comment from a person who is not the President so you can gloss over all the horrible things Trump has, had, and continues to do.

That's not a straw man. He's quoting you directly and asking you to explain why you said what you said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You don't have to answer, of course. But it's not a straw man.

Mothro:

trunkage:

Mothro:
The real question is, why do celebrities keep saying stupid things?

Everyone says stupid things. Celebrities have the unfortunate position of having cameras and microphones around for most of their lives. And we hold them on pedestals that no once can fulfill

Do you make racist remarks often?

I dont believe I say racist things but of course, that's exactly what a racist would say. I do say stupid things

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here