What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[HVC]

I guess my confusion in this whole kerfuffle lies in the question of why zoupa talking about a whole is virtue signalling but Raz talking about a subsect is not virtue signalling (unvirtue signalling? vice signalling?)

As for acting like assholes, they're both assholes to each other (and often others ), as is their want so neithers hands are clean. In this case though zoupa was only parroting a previous attack so I guess he gets less asshole points. Another question this raises, though, is why zoupa was called out for bullying when he was just parroting Raz but Raz's original comment wasn't called out. Though I suppose that question is more rhetorical.

[Tamas]

HVC is right.

Otherwise, when I was in the US many years ago, the large number of beggars and homeless compared to Europe (one in an elaborate wheelchair as he was supposedly a war vet with some missing limb) was striking.


So either Americans are less capable to keep themselves away from homelessness than Europeans, or there are fewer safeguards helping them avoid homelessness. If you want you can complicate the details with trying to figure out if American has proportionally more drug fiends in the population than Europe but that would not change the conclusion - Americans are either culturally/genetically untermensch, or the social safety net sucks to the level that it's detrimental to the community since they end up having to deal with all these homeless.

[HVC]

Or put another way zoupa is commenting on a whole group (homeless) and you're carving out a subsect (crazy homeless) to say his point on the whole is flawed. That, to me, seems dishonest. There's probably a fancy name  for this tactic in arguments,  but I'm not smart enough to know what it is 

He wasn't commenting on a whole group.  He chose to talk about the homeless that Raz brought up.  I went back and reread his post, and he does not explicitly say he's talking about crazies, but I thought it was clear from his previous posts of the types of homeless he had encountered he was talking about the guys who talk to themselves and jerk off on the park bench.  He later confirmed this was accurate.

If we wasn't explicit how is zoupa then dishonest? Raz changing his tact after the fact doesn't invalidate zoupas point, right? For what it's worth I read Raz original comment as pertaining to all homeless. Additionally didn't this whole start was Trumps war on the homeless? That's doesn't intrinsically deal with only the "bad" homeless, right? I

[DGuller]

I guess my confusion in this whole kerfuffle lies in the question of why zoupa talking about a whole is virtue signalling but Raz talking about a subsect is not virtue signalling (unvirtue signalling? vice signalling?)

As for acting like assholes, they're both assholes to each other (and often others ), as is their want so neithers hands are clean. In this case though zoupa was only parroting a previous attack so I guess he gets less asshole points. Another question this raises, though, is why zoupa was called out for bullying when he was just parroting Raz but Raz's original comment wasn't called out. Though I suppose that question is more rhetorical.

I'll answer the last part, as I was the one who called out Zoupa.  First of all, I did miss the reference to when Raz first said it, but I went back now.  When Raz said it, it didn't seem like an insult then, and it still doesn't seem like now, because Raz replied to an obstinate post by Zoupa.  When someone is making a post that makes no attempt to say anything, it does lead one to wonder what the poster is trying to accomplish.

When Zoupa said it, he replied to a post that made total sense, even it it were a bit tautological (but it was tautological because it replied to a self-answering question).  I was not aware of the context of Raz saying something like this, but I was aware of the general context of Zoupa being generally a belligerent asshole, which I have plenty of recent first-hand experience in.  Therefore it led me to the interpretation than it did.

Would I call Zoupa out if I did remember the context of Raz's post?  No.  Do I feel bad for calling him out?  Also no, because ultimately it was his history of bullying that made that interpretation reasonable.

[DGuller]

If we wasn't explicit how is zoupa then dishonest? Raz changing his tact after the fact doesn't invalidate zoupas point, right? For what it's worth I read Raz original comment as pertaining to all homeless. Additionally didn't this whole start was Trumps war on the homeless? That's doesn't intrinsically deal with only the "bad" homeless, right? I

My point in one of the earlier posts was that all controversial public discourse on homeless, including "Trump's war on homeless", really revolves around the vagrants.  People sleeping in their cars doesn't make homelessness an explosive issue (not to say that it is an okay state of things).  So, no, I don't agree that it intrinsically deals with all people who fit the technical definition of the word "homeless", it only intrinsically deals with common-use definition of the word.

[HVC]

I guess my confusion in this whole kerfuffle lies in the question of why zoupa talking about a whole is virtue signalling but Raz talking about a subsect is not virtue signalling (unvirtue signalling? vice signalling?)

As for acting like assholes, they're both assholes to each other (and often others ), as is their want so neithers hands are clean. In this case though zoupa was only parroting a previous attack so I guess he gets less asshole points. Another question this raises, though, is why zoupa was called out for bullying when he was just parroting Raz but Raz's original comment wasn't called out. Though I suppose that question is more rhetorical.

I'll answer the last part, as I was the one who called out Zoupa.  First of all, I did miss the reference to when Raz first said it, but I went back now.  When Raz said it, it didn't seem like an insult then, and it still doesn't seem like now, because Raz replied to an obstinate post by Zoupa.  When someone is making a post that makes no attempt to say anything, it does lead one to wonder what the poster is trying to accomplish.

When Zoupa said it, he replied to a post that made total sense, even it it were a bit tautological (but it was tautological because it replied to a self-answering question).  I was not aware of the context of Raz saying something like this, but I was aware of the general context of Zoupa being generally a belligerent asshole, which I have plenty of recent first-hand experience in.  Therefore it led me to the interpretation than it did.

Would I call Zoupa out if I did remember the context of Raz's post?  No.  Do I feel bad for calling him out?  Also no, because ultimately it was his history of bullying that made that interpretation reasonable.

Oh, he's been an asshole to me too so has Raz for that matter. And I've acted in kind. It's just that some get more passes here more then others.

[DGuller]

Raz definitely doesn't get more passes than others.  He was the only one in recent memory threatened with a forum ban publicly.

[HVC]

If we wasn't explicit how is zoupa then dishonest? Raz changing his tact after the fact doesn't invalidate zoupas point, right? For what it's worth I read Raz original comment as pertaining to all homeless. Additionally didn't this whole start was Trumps war on the homeless? That's doesn't intrinsically deal with only the "bad" homeless, right? I

My point in one of the earlier posts was that all controversial public discourse on homeless, including "Trump's war on homeless", really revolves around the vagrants.  People sleeping in their cars doesn't make homelessness an explosive issue (not to say that it is an okay state of things).  So, no, I don't agree that it intrinsically deals with all people who fit the technical definition of the word "homeless", it only intrinsically deals with common-use definition of the word.

But would you agree that one could see the term homeless as all encompassing rather then a euphemism for druggies and crazies? And if you do agree could you see zoupas line of argument as honest, if in one's view faulty? Im not 100% sure you said he was dishonest, to be fair, but I don't want to read back . If not please disregard.

[HVC]

Raz definitely doesn't get more passes than others.  He was the only one in recent memory threatened with a forum ban publicly.

That's wasn't for his thoughts, nor even really his actions towards others, but because he was spamming every thread with his new pet obsession. Not applicable I don't think.

[DGuller]

But would you agree that one could see the term homeless as all encompassing rather then a euphemism for druggies and crazies? And if you do agree could you see zoupas line of argument as honest, if in one's view faulty? Im not 100% sure you said he was dishonest, to be fair, but I don't want to read back . If not please disregard.

You can see the term "Semites" encompassing Arabs as well as Jews.  If you're discussing antisemitism, though, if you do use that definition of "Semites", you're muddying the waters to say the least.

[HVC]

But would you agree that one could see the term homeless as all encompassing rather then a euphemism for druggies and crazies? And if you do agree could you see zoupas line of argument as honest, if in one's view faulty? Im not 100% sure you said he was dishonest, to be fair, but I don't want to read back . If not please disregard.

You can see the term "Semites" encompassing Arabs as well as Jews.  If you're discussing antisemitism, though, if you do use that definition of "Semites", you're muddying the waters to say the least.

Antisemite is universally and historically understood to be used in regards to Jews ( except I think by Josq ). That's not the same, I believe, for homeless. I mean homeless shelters are just for the "bad" homeless. Homeless programs are not just available to the "Bad" homeless, and so on.

*edit*

You may see homeless as a euphemism for crazy druggy, which is fair I guess, to each their own, but I don't and based on the trajectory of the argument I would hazard neither does zoupa. I also don't think it's universally understood that way.

[DGuller]

But would you agree that one could see the term homeless as all encompassing rather then a euphemism for druggies and crazies? And if you do agree could you see zoupas line of argument as honest, if in one's view faulty? Im not 100% sure you said he was dishonest, to be fair, but I don't want to read back . If not please disregard.

You can see the term "Semites" encompassing Arabs as well as Jews.  If you're discussing antisemitism, though, if you do use that definition of "Semites", you're muddying the waters to say the least.

Antisemite is universally and historically understood to be used in regards to Jews ( except I think by Josq ). That's not the same, I believe, for homeless. I mean homeless shelters are just for the "bad" homeless. Homeless programs are not just available to the "Bad" homeless, and so on.

My analogy was for "Semite", not "antisemite".  Anyway, the point was that sometimes a word like "Semite" has two meanings (if you include "antisemitism" under that umbrella), and you need to follow the context of the discussion to know which is the locally relevant one.  Sometimes even with good faith that causes confusion until someone halts the proceedings and gets everyone to agree on the definition, but often with good faith it's kind of obvious.  I think with the "homeless" we're in the latter situation.

[Josquius]

But would you agree that one could see the term homeless as all encompassing rather then a euphemism for druggies and crazies? And if you do agree could you see zoupas line of argument as honest, if in one's view faulty? Im not 100% sure you said he was dishonest, to be fair, but I don't want to read back . If not please disregard.

You can see the term "Semites" encompassing Arabs as well as Jews.  If you're discussing antisemitism, though, if you do use that definition of "Semites", you're muddying the waters to say the least.

Antisemite is universally and historically understood to be used in regards to Jews ( except I think by Josq ).

You can see the term "Semites" encompassing Arabs as well as Jews.  If you're discussing antisemitism, though, if you do use that definition of "Semites", you're muddying the waters to say the least.

That's a naff analogy. We're talking about homelessness. Not drug addled crazies who are homeless.
As said this idea that there are deserving and undeserving poor goes right back. It was explicitly called out in 19th century poor laws.  Both are still poor and focussing just on the 'undeserving' ones to make an excuse for why you don't help the deserving ones is an age old trick.

[Norgy]

So, now that I have watched it, Trump's speech to the military brass was rather eerie.

Using cities as training grounds for the military? What is he on about?

Waging war on US cities. The military is ONLY about waging war now.

Imagine one of our ministers of defence or prime ministers doing the same.

Heck, yes, we're sending the special forces to Malmö and Oslo. It'd be political death.
Both cities have serious problems, but thankfully, the military training grounds are mostly in desolate places.

[HVC]

Antisemite is universally and historically understood to be used in regards to Jews ( except I think by Josq ).

The memory of you trying to use that train of thought in the thread that shall not be named had flashed into my mind